Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel
August 25, 2020
and Remittances
Mark P. Sullivan
Restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba have constituted a key and often contentious
Specialist in Latin
component in U.S. efforts to isolate Cuba’s communist government since the early 1960s. Such
American Affairs
restrictions are largely part of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), the overall

embargo regulations administered by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC), as well as certain parts of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR),

administered by the Department of Commerce. Various Administrations have eased and
tightened these restrictions over the years as U.S. policy toward Cuba has changed.
The Obama Administration eased restrictions on travel and remittances significantly. In 2009, the Administration lifted all
restrictions on family travel and remittances. In 2011, the Administration eased restrictions on other types of travel, including
travel related to religious, educational, and people-to-people exchanges, and allowed any U.S. person to send remittances to
individuals in Cuba. As part of President Obama’s major shift in U.S. policy toward Cuba in December 2014, which moved
the U.S. approach away from a sanctions-based policy toward one of engagement, the Administration took actions that
considerably eased restrictions on nonfamily travel and remittances. In 2015 and 2016, OFAC amended the embargo
regulations five times to implement the new policy. It initially authorized travel by general license for all 12 categories o f
travel set forth in the CACR, eliminated traveler per diem limits , increased the amount of nonfamily remittances, and
permitted other types of remittances. OFAC subsequently removed dollar limits for donative remittances to Cuban nationals;
authorized people-to-people educational travel for individuals; and removed value limits for the importation of Cuban
products, including alcohol and tobacco products, by U.S. travelers as accompanied baggage for personal use. The
Department of Commerce amended the EAR, issuing license exceptions authorizing temporary sojourn passenger vessels to
Cuba, and cruise ship travel to Cuba from the United States began in 2016. The Administration also negotiated a bilateral
arrangement to permit regularly scheduled air flights to Cuba that began in 2016.
In contrast, the Trump Administration has increased restrictions on travel and remittances significantly. Most categories of
permissible travel in the CACR have provisions prohibiting direct transactions with entities on a list (maintained by the Sta te
Department since 2017) of restricted Cuban entities affiliated with the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services; such
entities include hotels, tourist agencies, marinas, and stores. The Administration initially prohibited people-to-people
educational for individuals in 2017 and then in 2019 prohibited such travel for groups, as well. Since 2019, the
Administration has terminated cruise ship travel to Cuba and prohibited air travel to Cuban cities other than Havana. In 2019,
OFAC capped family remittances to any one Cuban national to $1,000 per quarter, prohibited remittances to close family
members of prohibited Cuban government officials and members of the Cuban Communist Party, and eliminated the
authorization for donative remittances to Cuban nationals.
Legislative Initiatives
In the 116th Congress, three bills have been introduced that would lift all restrictions on travel to Cuba. Identical bills H.R.
3960 (McGovern) and S. 2303 (Leahy), the Freedom for Americans to Travel to Cuba Act of 2019, would prohibit most
restrictions on travel to or from Cuba by U.S. citizens and legal residents or any transactions incident to such travel. H.R.
2404 (Rush), the United States-Cuba Relations Normalization Act, would lift most economic sanctions on Cuba, including
restrictions on travel and remittances.
This report examines developments in U.S. policy restricting travel and remittances to Cuba, particularly changes under the
Obama and Trump Administrations, current permissible travel to Cuba and current policy on remittances, and debate on
lifting the travel restrictions. Appendix provides a history of legislative action related to the restrictions on travel and
remittances to Cuba from 1999 through 2018.
For further information on Cuba from CRS, see CRS In Focus IF10045, Cuba: U.S. Policy Overview, and CRS Report
R45657, Cuba: U.S. Policy in the 116th Congress.

Congressional Research Service

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Introduction
Since the United States imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Cuba in the early
1960s, there have been numerous policy changes to restrictions on travel and remittances to
Cuba.1 In 1963, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
issued the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), prohibiting most financial transactions
unless otherwise authorized; the CACR (found at 31 C.F.R. Part 515) have been amended many
times over years to reflect changes in policy toward Cuba, including restrictions on travel and
remittances. The CACR also require that al exports to Cuba be licensed by the Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, under the provisions of the Export Administration
Act, as amended. The Bureau of Industry and Security administers the Export Administration
Regulation (EAR, found at 15 C.F.R. Sections 730-774), which includes provisions regulating the
temporary sojourns of aircraft and vessels to Cuba.
The CACR do not ban travel itself but place restrictions on any financial transactions related to
travel to Cuba. Accordingly, from 1963 to 1977, travel to Cuba was effectively banned under the
CACR because of such restrictions. In 1977, the Carter Administration made changes to the
regulations that essential y lifted the restrictions on travel-related transactions. In 1982, the
Reagan Administration made changes to the CACR that once again restricted travel to Cuba but
al owed for travel-related transactions by certain categories of travelers. In June 1984, the
Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in the case of Regan v. Wald, rejected a chal enge to the
regulations limiting travel to Cuba and asserted the executive branch’s right to impose travel
restrictions for national security reasons.
Under the Clinton Administration, there were several changes to the CACR, with some at first
tightening the restrictions and others later loosening the restrictions. In October 2000, Congress
prohibited travel to Cuba solely for tourist activities when it enacted the Trade Sanctions Reform
and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA; P.L. 106-387, Title IX). A provision in the law,
Section 910(b), prohibits travel-related transaction for tourist activities, defined as any activity
not expressly authorized in the 12 categories of travel in the CACR. The provision essential y
circumscribes the executive branch’s authority to issue licenses for activities beyond the broad
categories of travel al owed and would have to be amended, superseded by new legislation, or
repealed to expand categories of travel to Cuba or lift travel restrictions altogether.
The George W. Bush Administration tightened the travel regulations significantly, with additional
restrictions on family visits, educational travel, and travel for those involved in amateur and
semiprofessional international sports federation competitions. In addition, the categories of fully
hosted travel and people-to-people educational exchanges were eliminated as permissible travel
to Cuba. The Bush Administration also cracked down on those traveling to Cuba il egal y, further
restricted religious travel by changing licensing guidelines for such travel, and suspended the
licenses of several travel service providers in Florida for license violations.
The Obama Administration significantly eased restrictions on travel and remittances. Congress
initial y took legislative action in March 2009 to ease restrictions on family travel and on travel
related to U.S. agricultural and medical sales to Cuba (P.L. 111-8, §§620 and 621 of Division D).

1 President John F. Kennedy proclaimed an embargo on trade between the United States and Cuba in February 1962,
citing Section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which authorizes the President “ to establish and maintain a
total embargo upon all trade between the United States and Cuba.” (27 Federal Register 1085, February 7, 1962.) T he
authority for the embargo was later expanded in March 1962 to include the T rading with the Enemy Act (27 Federal
Register 2765-2766, March 24, 1962).
Congressional Research Service
1

link to page 5 link to page 11 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

In April 2009, the Obama Administration went further and lifted al restrictions on family travel
and family remittances. In 2011, the Obama Administration further eased travel related to
religious, journalistic, and educational activities, including people-to-people travel exchanges;
al owed U.S. international airports to become eligible for licensed charter flights to and from
Cuba; and issued new general licenses to send remittances to any Cuban national (with certain
limitations) and to religious organizations in Cuba.2 As part of President Obama’s policy shift of
engagement with Cuba announced in December 2014, the Administration took further actions to
ease restrictions on travel and remittances in 2015 and 2016. These actions included authorizing
travel by general license for al 12 categories of travel to Cuba set forth in the CACR; eliminating
traveler per diem limits; authorizing people-to-people educational travel for individuals;
removing dollar limits on nonfamily or donative remittances; and providing a general license for
remittances for humanitarian projects, support to the Cuban people, and the development of
private businesses. Both cruise ship travel and regularly scheduled flights to Cuba began in 2016.
(For details, see “Obama Administration Policy,” below.)
The Trump Administration has taken significant actions to restrict travel to Cuba and has
tightened restrictions on remittances to Cuba. In 2017, the State Department issued a list of
restricted Cuban entities affiliated with the Cuban military, intel igence, or security services with
which direct financial transaction would disproportionately benefit such services at the expense of
the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba. The list has been updated several times and now
includes more than 220 entities. Most categories of permissible travel in the CACR have
provisions prohibiting direct transactions with these entities. The Administration initial y
eliminated people-to-people educational travel for individuals in 2017 and then in 2019
eliminated it for group travel. Since 2019, the Administration has eliminated cruise ship travel to
Cuba and restricted air travel to regularly scheduled and public charter flights to Havana. The
Administration increased restrictions on remittances in 2017 by expanding the definition of
prohibited Cuban government officials; remittances are prohibited to such officials. In 2019, the
Administration restricted remittances in several ways: prohibiting remittances to close family
members of prohibited Cuban government officials and Cuban communist party officials; capping
family remittances to any one Cuban national to $1,000 per quarter; and eliminating the category
of donative remittances to Cuban nationals. (For details, see “Trump Administration Policy,”
below.)
Obama Administration Policy
Easing of Restrictions in 2009
The tightening of family travel restrictions in 2004 became an issue during the 2008 presidential
campaign, with candidate Barack Obama pledging to lift restrictions for family travel and
remittances to Cuba. With the election of Obama, the 111th Congress moved to ease family travel
restrictions in March 2009 by approving two provisions that eased sanctions on travel to Cuba in
FY2009 omnibus appropriations legislation (P.L. 111-8). Unlike the Bush Administration, the
Obama Administration did not threaten to veto such legislation easing Cuba sanctions. This
marked the first congressional action easing Cuba sanctions in almost a decade.

2 A general license provides the authority to engage in a transaction without the need to apply to the T reasury
Department for permission. In contrast, a specific license is a wr itten document issued by the T reasury Department to a
person or entity authorizing a particular transaction in response to a written license application.
Congressional Research Service
2

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

In the first provision, as implemented by the Treasury Department, family travel was again
al owed once every 12 months under a general license to visit a close relative for an unlimited
length of stay, and the limit for daily expenditure al owed by family travelers became the same as
for other authorized travelers to Cuba (the State Department maximum per diem rate for Havana).
The definition of “close relative” was expanded to mean any individual related to the traveler by
blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more than three generations removed from that person.
The second provision in the omnibus measure required a general license for travel related to the
marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods to Cuba. The Treasury Department’s Office
of Foreign Assets Control ultimately issued regulations implementing this omnibus provision on
September 3, 2009. The regulations required a written report at least 14 days before departure
identifying both the traveler and the producer or distributor and describing the purpose and scope
of such travel. Another written report was required within 14 days of return from Cuba describing
the activities conducted, the persons met, and the expenses incurred. The regulations also required
that such travelers under this provision be regularly employed by a producer or distributor of the
agricultural commodities or medical products or an entity duly appointed to represent such a
producer or distributor.
Going even further, the Obama Administration announced several significant measures to ease
U.S. sanctions on Cuba in April 2009. Fulfil ing a campaign pledge, President Obama announced
that al restrictions on family travel and on remittances to family members in Cuba would be
lifted. This significantly superseded the action taken by Congress in March that had essential y
reverted family travel restrictions to as they had been before they w ere tightened in 2004. Under
the new policy announced by the Administration in April, there were no limitations on the
frequency or duration of family visits (which would stil be covered under a general license), and
the 44-pound limitation on accompanied baggage was removed. Family travelers were al owed to
spend the same as al owed for other travelers, up to the State Department’s maximum per diem
rate for Havana. With regard to family remittances, the previous limitation of no more than $300
per quarter was removed with no restriction on the amount or frequency of the remittances.
Authorized travelers were again authorized to carry up to $3,000 in remittances.3 Regulations for
the above policy changes were issued by the Treasury and Commerce Departments on September
3, 2009.
Easing of Restrictions in 2011
On January 14, 2011, the Obama Administration announced a series of policy changes further
easing restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba that had been rumored in the second half of
2010. The changes were designed to make it easier to engage in educational, religious, and other
types of people-to-people travel and al ow al Americans to send remittances to Cuba. The
changes were similar to policy that was in place from 1999 under the Clinton Administration
through mid-2004 under the Bush Administration. President Obama directed the Secretaries of
State, Treasury, and Homeland Security to amend regulations and policies “in order to continue
efforts to reach out to the Cuban people in support of their desire to freely determine their
country’s future.”4 The Administration maintained that the policy changes would increase people-
to-people contact, help strengthen Cuban civil society, and make Cuban people less dependent on
the Cuban state.5 The changes occurred at the same time that the Cuban government began laying

3 White House, “Fact Sheet: Reaching Out to the Cuban People,” April 13, 2009.
4 White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Reaching Out to the Cuban People,” January 14, 2011, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/14/reaching-out-cuban-people.
5 Mary Beth Sheridan, “Obama Loosens T ravel Restrictions to Cuba,” Washington Post, January 15, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
3

link to page 22 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

off thousands of state workers and increasing private enterprise through an expansion of the
authorized categories for self-employment.
The measures (1) increased purposeful travel to Cuba related to religious, educational, and
journalistic activities (general licenses were authorized for certain types of educational and
religious travel; people-to-people travel exchanges were authorized via a specific license); (2)
al owed any U.S. person to send remittances (up to $500 per quarter) to nonfamily members in
Cuba and made it easier for religious institutions to send remittances for religious activities
(general licenses are now authorized for both); and (3) al owed al U.S. international airports to
apply to provide services to licensed charter flights to and from Cuba. In most respects, these new
measures appeared to be similar to policies that were undertaken by the Clinton Administration in
1999 but subsequently curtailed by the Bush Administration in 2003 and 2004.
An exception was the expansion of airports to service licensed flights to and from Cuba. The
Clinton Administration had expanded airports eligible to service licensed charter flights beyond
that of Miami International Airport to international airports in Los Angeles and New York (JFK)
in 1999, but the January 2011 policy change al owed al U.S. international airports to apply to
provide services for chartered flights to and from Cuba under certain conditions.
By early July 2011, OFAC confirmed that it had approved the first licenses for U.S. people-to-
people organizations to bring U.S. visitors to Cuba, and the first such trips began in August 2011.6
On July 25, 2011, however, prior to the trips beginning, OFAC issued an advisory maintaining
that misstatements in the media had suggested that U.S. policy al owed for virtual y unrestricted
group travel to Cuba, and reaffirmed that travel conducted by people-to-people travel groups
licensed for travel to Cuba must “certify that al participants wil have a full-time schedule of
educational exchange activities that wil result in meaningful interaction between the travelers
and individuals in Cuba.” The advisory stated that authorized activities by people-to-people
groups are not “tourist activities,” and pointed out that the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 prohibits OFAC from licensing transactions for tourist activities.7
In the first session of the 112th Congress, there were several attempts aimed at rolling back the
Obama Administration’s actions easing restrictions on travel and remittances, including a
provision originating in the House Appropriation Committee’s version of the FY2012 Financial
Services and General Government appropriations measure, H.R. 2434. The White House had
threatened to veto the bil if it contained the provision and stood firm when congressional leaders
were considering including the provision in a “megabus” FY2012 appropriations bil , H.R. 2055.
Ultimately congressional leaders agreed not to include the provision in the appropriations
measure (P.L. 112-74). (See Appendix, below.)
Developments in 2012 and 2013
In 2012, some Members of Congress expressed concerns about people-to-people travel that
appeared to be focusing on tourist activities rather than on purposeful travel. In response, the
Treasury Department issued an announcement in March 2012 warning about misleading
advertising regarding some people-to-people trips that could lead to OFAC investigating the

6 Peter Orsi, “U.S. Licensing T ravel Operators to Start Up Legal Cuba T rips, T reasury Department Says,” Associated
Press, July 1, 2011; Mimi Whitefield, “ People-to-People Tours to Cuba T ake Off T hursday,” Miam i Herald, August
10, 2011; and Jeff Franks, “Purposeful Cuba T rips Resume,” Chicago Tribune, August 18, 2011. Also see the
following online resource: Organizations Sponsoring People-to-People Travel to Cuba, Latin America Working Group
Education Fund, at http://www.lawg.org/storage/documents/people2people.pdf.
7 U.S. Department of the T reasury, OFAC, “Cuba T ravel Advisory,” July 25, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
4

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

organization conducting the trips. The announcement maintained that licenses could be revoked
and that organizations may be issued a civil penalty up to $65,000 per violation.8 OFAC followed
up this announcement in May 2012 by revising its people-to-people license guidelines. The
revised guidelines reflected similar language to the March announcement and also required an
organization applying for a people-to-people license to describe how the travel “would enhance
contact with the Cuban people, and/or support civil society in Cuba, and/or promote the Cuban
people’s independence from Cuban authorities.”9
In June 7, 2012, congressional testimony, then-Assistant Secretary of State for Western
Hemisphere Affairs Roberta Jacobson set forth a clear-cut description of U.S. policy toward Cuba
in which she expressed strong U.S. support for democracy and human rights activists in Cuba and
defended the Obama’s Administration policy on travel and remittances. The Assistant Secretary
asserted that “the Obama Administration’s priority is to empower Cubans to freely determine
their own future.” She maintained that “the most effective tool we have for doing that is building
connections between the Cuban and American people, in order to give Cubans the support and
tools they need to move forward independent of their government.” The Assistant Secretary
maintained that “the Administration’s travel, remittance and people-to-people policies are helping
Cubans by providing alternative sources of information, taking advantage of emerging
opportunities for self-employment and private property, and strengthening civil society.”10
In September 2012, various press reports cited a slowdown in the Treasury Department’s
approval or reapproval of licenses for people-to-people travel since the agency had issued new
guidelines in May (described above). Companies conducting such programs complained that the
delay in the licenses was forcing them to cancel trips and even to lay off staff.11 By early October
2012, however, companies conducting the people-to-people travel maintained that they were once
again receiving license approvals.
In April 2013, some Members of Congress strongly criticized singers Beyoncé Knowles-Carter
and her husband Shawn Carter, better known as Jay-Z, for traveling to Cuba. Members were
concerned that the trip, as described in the press, was primarily for tourism, which would be
contrary to U.S. law and regulations. The Treasury Department stated that the two singers were
participating in an authorized people-to-people exchange trip organized by a group licensed by
OFAC to conduct such trips (pursuant to 31 C.F.R. 515.565(b)(2) of the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations). (In August 2014, the Treasury Department’s Office of the Inspector General issued
a report concluding that no U.S. sanctions were violated and that OFAC’s decision not to pursue a
formal investigation was reasonable.)12

8 U.S. Department of the T reasury, OFAC, “Advertising Educational Exchange T ravel to Cuba for People -to-People
Contact,” March 9, 2012, at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/cuba_ppl_notice.aspx.
9 U.S. Department of the T reasury, OFAC, “Comprehensive Guidelines for License Applications to Engage in T ravel -
Related T ransactions Involving Cuba,” Revised May 10, 2012.
10 T estimony of Roberta S. Jacobson, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Global Narcotics, at a hearing en titled
“T he Path to Freedom: Countering Repression and Strengthening Civil Society,” June 7, 2012.
11 Damien Cave, “Licensing Rules Slow T ours to Cuba,” New York Times, September 16, 2012; Paul Haven, “U.S.
T ravel Outfits Say Rules for Legal T ravel to Cuba Getting T ighter,” Associated Press, September 13, 2012.
12 U.S. Department of the T reasury, Office of Inspector General, “ T errorist Financing/Money Laundering: Review of
T ravel to Cuba by Shawn Carter and Beyoncé Knowles-Carter,” Memorandum Report OIG-CA-14-014, August 20,
2014.
Congressional Research Service
5

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Easing of Restrictions in 2015 and 2016
Just after the adjournment of the 113th Congress in December 2014, President Obama announced
a major shift in U.S. policy toward Cuba, moving away from a sanctions-based policy toward one
of engagement and a normalization of relations. The policy shift included changes in U.S.
restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba, which were implemented by the Treasury
Department’s OFAC as amendments to the CACR that went into effect on January 16, 2015.13
Changes to the Travel Restrictions. With regard to travel, the changes included authorization
for general licenses for the 12 existing categories of travel to Cuba set forth in the CACR related
to the following activities: (1) family visits; (2) official business of the U.S. government, foreign
governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations; (3) journalistic activity; (4)
professional research and professional meetings; (5) educational activities; (6) religious activities;
(7) public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions; (8)
support for the Cuban people; (9) humanitarian projects; (10) activities of private foundations or
research or educational institutes; (11) exportation, importation, or transmission of information or
information materials; and (12) certain export transactions that may be considered for
authorization under existing regulations and guidelines.
Before the policy change, travelers under several of these categories had to apply for a specific
license from the Treasury Department before traveling. Under the new regulations, both travel
agents and airlines were able to provide services for travel to Cuba without the need to obtain a
specific license. Under the January 2015 changes to the CACR, travelers also were authorized to
bring back up to $400 worth of goods from Cuba as accompanied baggage for personal use, with
no more than $100 worth of tobacco products and alcohol combined (as noted below, these value
limits were subsequently removed altogether in October 2016).
OFAC issued four additional rounds of regulatory changes to the CACR in September 2015 and
January, March, and October 2016 that further eased the travel restrictions. Among the changes
are the following:
 September 2015. OFAC amended the regulations to al ow close relatives to visit
or accompany authorized travelers to Cuba for additional activities. The January
2015 changes had permitted close relatives to visit a person located in Cuba on
official government business or there for certain educational activities. The
September 2015 changes authorized close relatives to visit or accompany
authorized travelers for additional educational activities, journalistic activity,
professional research, religious activities, activities related to humanitarian
projects, and activities of private foundations or certain research or educational
institutes. The changes also al owed al authorized travelers to open and maintain
bank accounts in Cuba to access funds for authorized transactions. Transportation
by vessel of authorized travelers between the United States and Cuba was also
authorized by general license, and certain related lodging aboard vessels used for
such travel was authorized (related to ferry and cruise ship travel). At the same
time, the Commerce Department amended the EAR, issuing license exceptions
authorizing temporary sojourns for cargo and passenger vessels to Cuba.14

13 U.S. Department of the T reasury, “Treasury and Commerce Announce Regulatory Amendments to the Cuba
Sanctions,” January 15, 2016.
14 U.S. Department of the T reasury, “Treasury and Commerce Announce Further Amendments to the Cuba San ctions
Regulations,” September 18, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
6

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

 January 2016. OFAC amended the CACR to authorize travel-related
transactions related to professional media or artistic productions of information
or informational materials for exportation, importation, or transmission. These
activities included the filming or production of media programs, the recording of
music, and the creation of artworks in Cuba. OFAC also amended the regulations
to al ow travel for the organization of professional meetings and public
performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and
exhibitions. Previously, the general license was only for attending or participating
in such events. OFAC also removed requirements that U.S. profits from public
performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and
exhibitions be donated to an independent nongovernmental organization (NGO)
in Cuba or a U.S.-based charity. Travel for humanitarian projects was also
expanded to include disaster preparedness and response.15
 March 2016. OFAC amended the CACR to al ow individuals to travel to Cuba
for individual people-to-people educational travel. Previously, such educational
travel required trips to take place under the auspices of an organization that
conducted such travel and required travelers to be accompanied by a
representative of the sponsoring organization. According to the Treasury
Department, the change is intended to make such travel to Cuba more accessible
and less expensive for U.S. citizens and wil increase opportunities for direct
engagement between Cubans and Americans.16
 October 2016. OFAC amended the CACR, removing the value limit for Cuban
products that U.S. travelers to Cuba (as wel as U.S. travelers to third countries)
can import into the United States as accompanied luggage for personal use.
Normal limits on duty and tax exemption apply.17
As part of the change in bilateral relations, U.S. and Cuban officials signed a bilateral
arrangement in February 2016 to permit regularly scheduled air flights to Cuba, and by August
2016 the first flights began. Cruise ship service to Cuba from the United States also began in May
2016.18
Changes to the Regulations on Remittances. With the Obama Administration’s change in Cuba
policy, OFAC significantly eased restrictions on remittances to Cuba. In January 2015, OFAC
increased the amount of money that could be sent by any U.S. person to nonfamily members in
Cuba (referred to as remittances to a Cuban national) to $2,000 per quarter (up from the previous
limit of $500 per quarter). Authorized travelers were permitted to carry up to $10,000 in
remittances to Cuba, up from the previous limit of $3,000. In September 2015, however, OFAC
amended the regulations that lifted the dollar limits altogether on nonfamily remittances (now
referring to them as “donative remittances to Cuban nationals”) and on amounts that licensed
travelers may carry to Cuba.

15 U.S. Department of the T reasury, “Treasury and Commerce Announce Further Amendments to the Cuba Sanctions
Regulations,” January 26, 2016.
16 U.S. Department of the T reasury, “Treasury and Commerce Announce Significant Amendments to the Cuba
Sanctions Regulations Ahead of President Obama’s Historic T rip to Cuba,” March 15, 2016.
17 U.S. Department of the T reasury, “Treasury and Commerce Announce Further Amendments to Cuba Sanctions
Regulations,” October 14, 2016.
18 For more details, see “U.S. T ravel to Cuba” in CRS Report R41617, Cuba: Issues for the 112th Congress, by Mark
P. Sullivan.
Congressional Research Service
7

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

In addition, the CACR were amended in January 2015 to authorize by general license remittances
to individuals and independent NGOs in Cuba without limit for humanitarian projects; activities
of recognized human rights organizations, independent organizations designed to promote a rapid
peaceful transition to democracy, and individuals and NGOs that promote independent activity to
strengthen civil society; and the development of private businesses, including smal farms.
Under the Obama Administration, OFAC also amended the CACR in October 2016 to more
narrowly define the terms “prohibited officials of the Government of Cuba” and “prohibited
members of the Cuban Communist Party.” The definition of these terms was significant because
of the prohibition in the CACR against providing remittances to these individuals.
Prior to the October 2016 change (and since 2004), prohibited government officials included al
ministers and vice ministers; members of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers;
members and employees of the National Assembly of People’s Power; members of any provincial
assembly; local sector chiefs of the Committees of the Defense for the Revolution; director
generals and subdirector generals of al ministries and state agencies; employees of the Ministry
of the Interior and Ministry of Defense; secretaries and first secretaries of the Confederation of
Labor of Cuba and its component unions; chief editors, editors, and deputy editors of Cuban
state-run media organizations and programs, including newspapers, television, and radio; and
members and employees of the Supreme Court. With the October 2016 change, prohibited
government officials were defined as including members of the Council of Ministers and flag
officers of the Revolutionary Armed Forces.
Similarly, prior to the October 2016 CACR change (and since 2004), the definition of members of
the Cuban Communist Party included members of the Politburo, the Central Committee,
department heads and employees of the Central Committee, and secretaries and first secretaries of
the provincial central committees. With the October 2016 change, the definition of the term was
narrowed to include members of the Politburo.
Trump Administration Policy
In contrast to the Obama Administration’s actions, the Trump Administration has tightened
restrictions on travel to and from Cuba and on the transfer of private remittances to Cuba.
Tightening of Travel Restrictions
The Trump Administration made two significant changes to the CACR’s travel provisions.
 Restricting Financial Transactions with Certain Cuban Entities. In
November 2017, OFAC added a new section (31 C.F.R. 515.209) to the CACR
setting forth restrictions, with some exceptions, on direct financial transactions
with any person that the Secretary of State has identified as an entity or subentity
under the control of, or acting for or on behalf of, the Cuban military,
intel igence, or security services or personnel, and with which direct financial
transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or personnel at the
expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba. The State Department
issued a list of restricted Cuban entities and subentities in November 2017, which
has been updated several times, most recently in June 2020. The list currently
includes more than 220 Cuban companies and businesses, including 111 hotels, 2
Congressional Research Service
8

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

tourist agencies, 5 marinas, and 10 stores in Old Havana.19 Most categories of
permissible travel (discussed below), with the exception of travel for official
government business, journalistic activities, humanitarian projects, and export
transactions, have provisions prohibiting direct financial transactions with
entities on the State Department’s restricted list.
 People-to-People Educational Travel. With regard to people-to-people
educational travel, OFAC amended the CACR in November 2017 to eliminate
such travel for individuals but stil al owed such travel in groups. In June 2019,
OFAC further amended the CACR to remove the authorization altogether for
people-to-people educational travel (31 C.F.R. 515.565(b)).
Travel Advisory. Another Trump Administration policy affecting U.S. travel to Cuba that was in
place for a year was the State Department’s travel advisory for visiting the country. In September
2007, the State Department issued a Cuba travel warning for U.S. citizens as part of the U.S.
response to the unexplained injuries of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Cuba and their families.20
The warning advised U.S. citizens to avoid travel to Cuba because of the risk of being subject to
injury, since some of the incidents occurred at hotels frequented by U.S. citizens. In January
2018, the State Department revamped its travel advisory system to include four advisory levels:
Level 1, exercise normal precautions; Level 2, exercise increased caution; Level 3, reconsider
travel; and Level 4, do not travel. At the time, the advisory for Cuba was set at Level 3,
recommending that travelers should reconsider travel to Cuba. In August 2018, however, the State
Department eased its travel advisory for Cuba to Level 2, exercise increased caution, with a
spokesman maintaining that the agency “undertook a thorough review of the risks to private U.S.
citizens in Cuba and decided a Level 2 travel advisory was appropriate.”21 Travel agencies and
organizations sponsoring travel to Cuba lauded the State Department’s easing of the travel
advisory in August 2018.
More recently, with the onset of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the State
Department issued a global health travel advisory for al international travel on March 31, 2020,
which set the travel advisory for al countries, including Cuba, to Level 4, do not travel. On
August 6, 2020, the State Department replaced its global health travel advisory for COVID-19
with country-specific country travel advisories and issued a Level 4 advisory for Cuba.22
According to the State Department travel advisory, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention issued a Level 3 Travel Health Notice for Cuba, indicating that COVID-19 risk is high
and recommending that travelers avoid al nonessential international travel to Cuba.23

19 U.S. Department of State, “List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated with Cuba Effective June 12,
2020,” at https://www.state.gov/cuba-sanctions/cuba-restricted-list/list-of-restricted-entities-and-subentities-associated-
with-cuba-effective-june-12-2020/.
20 According to the State Department, symptoms included “ear complaints, hearing loss, dizziness, headache, fatigue,
cognitive issues, and difficult y sleeping.” See U.S. Department of State, Remarks by Secretary of State Rex W.
T illerson, “Actions T aken in Response to Attacks on U.S. Government Personnel in Cuba,” September 29, 2017. For
more background on the issue, see “ U.S. Response to Health Injuries of U.S. Personnel in Havana,” in CRS Report
R45657, Cuba: U.S. Policy in the 116th Congress.
21 Courtney McBride, “U.S. Eases Security Warning for T ravel to Cuba; T rump Administration’s T ougher Policy
Remains in Place, But Assessment of Dangers Reduced,” Wall Street Journal Online, August 23, 2018.
22 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, “Cuba T ravel Advisory,” August 6, 2020, at
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/cuba-travel-advisory.html.
23 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “COVID-19 in Cuba,” August 6, 2020, at https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/
notices/warning/coronavirus-cuba.
Congressional Research Service
9

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Prohibition of Cruise Ships and Flight Limitations. The Trump Administration has taken
actions to reduce transportation from the United States to Cuba. In June 2019, the Department of
Commerce (whose Bureau of Industry and Security regulates temporary sojourns to Cuba of both
vessels and aircraft) amended the EAR to
general y prohibit passenger and recreational
Statistics on U.S. Travel to Cuba
vessels, including cruise ships, sailboats,
According to Cuban government statistics, the number
yachts, fishing boats, and other similar
of Americans traveling to Cuba increased from 92,325
vessels, from sailing to Cuba.
in 2014 to 637,907 in 2018. This figure is in addition to
24 The
thousands of Cuban Americans who visit family in Cuba
prohibition on cruise ships, in particular, had a
each year. In 2018, 600,306 Cubans living outside the
significant effect on fledging private business
country visited Cuba, the majority from the United
that had sprung up catering to cruise ship
States. This brought the total number of U.S. travelers
passengers.25
to Cuba in 2018 to over 1.2 mil ion. Overal , the Cuban
government reports that there were 4.7 mil ion
Since 2019, the Administration has taken
international visitors to Cuba in 2018.a
multiple actions to restrict air travel to Cuba.
The number of Americans traveling to Cuba began to
In June 2019, the Department of Commerce
fal significantly beginning in 2019, as the Trump
prohibited private and corporate aircraft
Administration eliminated people-to-people travel,
prohibited cruise ship travel to Cuba, and restricted
ineligible for a license exception to fly to
flights to Cuba. In 2019, the number of U.S. visitors
Cuba.26 In December 2019, the Department of traveling to Cuba declined by almost 22% to 498,067
Transportation, at the request of the
travelers, although the Cubans visiting from abroad
Department of State, suspended commercial
increased by almost 4% to 623,972 travelers. In the first
flights by U.S. carriers between the United
two months of 2020, before the imposition of travel
restrictions because of the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S.
States and Cuban cities other than Havana;
travel to Cuba declined by 64% and travel by Cubans
this prohibition was extended to public charter
living abroad declined by almost 4% compared to the
flights (to cities other than Havana) in January
same period in 2019.b
2020, which were subsequently capped to
Notes:
3,600 round-trip flights for the year beginning
a. República de Cuba, Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas e
June 1, 2020.27 In August 2020, the
Información (ONEI), Anuario Estadístico de Cuba 2018,
Capítulo 15: Turismo, Edición 2019.
Department of Transportation, at the request
b. ONEI, Turismo, Llegadas de visitants internacionales,
of the Department of State, suspended private
December 2019 and February 2020.
charter flights to Cuba, effective October 13,
2020, to al Cuban cities, including Havana.28

24 U.S. Department of Commerce, “Restricting the T emporary Sojourn of Aircraft and Vessels to Cuba,” 84 Federal
Register 25986-25989, June 5, 2019.
25 Mimi Whitefield, “U.S. Cruise Ships Brought a Boom to Cuba. Now, Some Small Businesses Are Struggling,”
Miam i Herald, December 20, 2019.
26 Ibid.
27 U.S. Department of T ransportation, “Notice (Suspending U.S.-Cuba Scheduled Services via Non-Havana Points,”
October 25, 2019, Dockets DOT -OST -2016-0021, DOT -OST -2016-0226, DOT -OST -1998-20; U.S. Department of
T ransportation, and “Final Order, U.S.-Havana Public Charter Authorizations, Docket DOT -OST -2020-0011, May 28,
2020; U.S. Department of State, “United States Restricts Scheduled Air Service to Cuba,” media note, October 25,
2019; and U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, “ United States Further Restricts Air T ravel
to Cuba,” press statement, January 10, 2020.
28 U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, “Suspension of Private Charter Flights between the
United States and Cuba,” press statement, August 13, 2020; and U.S. Department of T ransportation, “Order,
Suspension of U.S.-Cuba Charter Authorizations, Docket DOT -OST -2020-0129,” August 13, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
10

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Tightening of Restrictions on Remittances
The Trump Administration has tightened restrictions on remittances to Cuba through amendments
to the CACR.
In November 2017, OFAC changed the definition of Cuban government officials to what it had
been before the Obama changed it in October 2016. The change was significant, because the
CACR prohibits sending remittances to such government officials. Instead of being limited to
“members of the Council of Ministers and flag officers of the Revolutionary Armed Forces,” the
definition of prohibited Cuban government officials was expanded to include al ministers and
vice ministers; members of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers; members and
employees of the National Assembly of People’s Power; members of any provincial assembly;
local sector chiefs of the Committees of the Defense for the Revolution; director generals and
subdirector generals of al ministries and state agencies; employees of the Ministry of the Interior
and Ministry of Defense; secretaries and first secretaries of the Confederation of Labor of Cuba
and its component unions; chief editors, editors, and deputy editors of Cuban state-run media
organizations and programs, including newspapers, television, and radio; and members and
employees of the Supreme Court.29
In September 2019, OFAC made several amendments to the CACR further restricting remittances
to Cuba. First, OFAC capped family remittances to any one Cuban national to $1,000 per quarter;
such family remittances had not been capped since 2009. Second, in a new provision, OFAC
prohibited sending remittances to close family members of prohibited officials of the Cuban
government or close family members of prohibited members of the Cuban Communist Party.
Third, OFAC eliminated the category of donative remittances that had been established in 2015
but authorized remittances to support the operation of economic activity in the non-state sector by
self-employed individuals.30
In June 2020, the State Department added the Cuban financial services company FINCIMEX to
its list of restricted entities, raising concerns that remittances to Cuba could be jeopardized given
that Western Union, the major financial services company used for transmitting remittances to
Cuba, has partnered with FINCIMEX since 2016.31 Nevertheless, remittances via Western Union
have continued. (In 2017, President Trump’s national security presidential memorandum on Cuba
noted that regulatory changes related to Cuba restricted list would not prohibit transactions
related “to sending, processing, or receiving authorized remittances.”32) In late July 2020,
however, press reports indicated that the placement of FINCIMEX on the Cuba restricted list
resulted in a French bank, Crédit Mutual, terminating its services to FINCIMEX as wel as to
other companies that work with FINCIMEX; this reportedly led two Florida-based companies
that had recently began processing U.S.-dollar dominated remittances to Cuba to cancel such
services.33

29 U.S. Department of the T reasury, “Treasury, Commerce, and State Implement Changes to the Cuba Sanctions
Rules,” fact sheet, November 8, 2017.
30 U.S. Department of the T reasury, “Treasury Issues Changes to Strengthen Cuba Sanctions Rules,” fact sheet,
September 6, 2019.
31 U.S. Department of State, “List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated with Cuba Effective June 12,
2020,” at https://www.state.gov/cuba-sanctions/cuba-restricted-list/list-of-restricted-entities-and-subentities-associated-
with-cuba-effective-june-12-2020/; and Nora Gámez T orres, “ Remittances to Cuba Could Be in Peril after New
Announcement by the T rump Administration,”
32 82 Federal Register 488875-48878 October 20, 2017.
33 Nora Gámez T orres and Mario J. Pentón, “Dollar Remittances to Cuba Are in Limbo Af ter French Bank Drops
Congressional Research Service
11

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Current Permissible Travel to Cuba
At present, 12 categories of travel set forth in the CACR are authorized under a general license,
which means that there is no need to obtain special permission from OFAC. The travel
regulations can be found at 31 C.F.R. 515.560, which references other sections of the CACR for
travel-related transaction licensing criteria. In addition, for each of the 12 categories of travel set
forth in the CACR, specific licenses may be issued by OFAC for persons engaging in activities
related to the specific category that do not qualify for the general license set forth for each
category. Applications for specific licenses are reviewed and granted by OFAC on a case-by-case
basis. Applicants for specific licenses have to wait for OFAC to issue the license prior to
engaging in travel-related transactions. Those individuals traveling to Cuba under either a general
or specific license are responsible for keeping records of their Cuba-related transactions for at
least five years.
Prior to the Obama Administration’s policy changes in January 2015, the 12 permissible
categories of travel to Cuba set forth in the CACR were authorized by a mix of general and
specific licenses, with some authorized only by specific license.
OFAC maintains on its website a document of frequently asked questions on the Cuba sanctions
program that provides information on the travel restrictions, including the various categories of
travel. This document, along with the travel regulations themselves, provides guidance for
potential travelers to Cuba.34
As set forth in the CACR, the 12 categories of U.S. travel to Cuba authorized by general license,
and for which specific licenses may be issued, are the following:
 Family Visits. Persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and
persons traveling with them who share a common dwel ing as a family visiting a
close relative who is a national of Cuba or a person ordinarily resident in Cuba,
or visiting a close relative in Cuba or accompanying a close relative traveling to
Cuba pursuant to authorizations for such travel as official government business,
journalistic activity, professional research, certain educational activities, religious
activities, humanitarian projects, or activities of private foundations or research
or educational institutes (31 C.F.R. 515.561(a)). A close relative is defined as any
individual related to the traveler by blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more
than three generations removed from the traveler or from a common ancestor
with the traveler (31 C.F.R. 515.339).
 Official Government Business. Employees, contractors, or grantees of the U.S.
government, any foreign government, or any intergovernmental organization of
which the United States is a member or holds observer status, who are on official
business (31 C.F.R. 515.562).
 Journalistic Activities. A person involved in journalistic activities and is at least
one of the following: regularly employed as a journalist by a news reporting
organization; regularly employed as supporting broadcast or technical personnel;
a freelance journalist with a record of previous journalistic experience working

Cuban Accounts,” Miami Herald, July 30, 2020; and “French Bank Ends Remittances Service to Cuba,” Economist
Intelligence Unit, August 12, 2020.
34 U.S. Department of the T reasury, OFAC, “ Frequently Asked Questions on Changes to the Cuba Sanctions Program
as of September 6, 2019,” at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/
cuba_faqs_new.pdf. Also see OFAC, Archive of Cuba-related FAQs, September 6, 2019, at https://www.treasury.gov/
resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/archived_cuba_faqs_09062019.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

on a freelance journalistic project; or broadcast or technical personnel with a
record of previous broadcast or technical experience who are supporting a
freelance journalist working on a freelance project (31 C.F.R. 515.563).
 Professional Research and Professional Meetings. Professional research,
provided that the purpose of the research directly relates to the traveler’s
profession, professional background, or area of expertise, including area of
graduate-level full-time study; the traveler does not engage in recreational travel,
tourist travel, travel in pursuit of a hobby, or research for personal satisfaction
only; and the traveler’s schedule does not include free time or recreation in
excess of that consistent with a full-time schedule of professional research (31
C.F.R. 515.564).

Professional meetings and conferences, to attend or organize, provided that the
purpose is not the promotion of tourism in Cuba. For attending such a meeting or
conference, the purpose directly relates to the traveler’s profession, professional
background, or area of expertise, including area of graduate-level full-time study.
For organizing such a meeting or conference on behalf of an entity, either the
traveler’s profession must be related to the organization of such meeting or
conference, or the traveler must be an employee or contractor of an entity that is
organizing the meeting or conference. The traveler cannot engage in recreational
travel, tourist travel, or travel in pursuit of a hobby. The traveler’s schedule
cannot include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full-time
schedule of attendance at, or organization of, professional meetings or
conferences (31 C.F.R. 515.564).
 Educational Activities. Accredited U.S. undergraduate or graduate degree-
granting academic institutions, their students, and full-time permanent employees
are authorized to engage in transactions directly incident to (1) participation in a
structured educational program in Cuba as part of a course offered at a U.S.
institution, provided the program includes a full term and not fewer than 10
weeks of study in Cuba; (2) noncommercial academic research in Cuba
specifical y related to Cuba for the purpose of obtaining a graduate degree; (3)
participation in a formal course of study at a Cuban academic institution,
provided the formal course of study in Cuba wil be accepted for credit toward
the student’s graduate or undergraduate degree and provided that the course of
study is no shorter than 10 weeks in duration; (4) teaching at a Cuban academic
institution, provided that the individual is regularly employed in a teaching
capacity by a U.S. institution, and provided that the teaching activities are related
to an academic program at the Cuban institution and provided that the duration of
the teaching wil be no shorter than 10 weeks; (5) sponsorship of a Cuban scholar
to teach or engage in other scholarly activity at the sponsoring U.S. academic
institution; and (6) the organization of, and preparation for, the activities
described above by a full-time permanent employee of the U.S. institution (31
C.F.R. 515.565(a)(1)).

To the extent not authorized above, U.S. academic institutions and their faculty,
staff, and students are authorized to engage in transactions directly incident to the
following activities, provided these authorizations take place under the auspices
of an organization that is subject to U.S. jurisdiction and that al such travelers be
accompanied by an employee, paid consultant, or other representative of the
Congressional Research Service
13

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

sponsoring organization: (1) participation in a structured educational program in
Cuba as part of a course offered for credit by a U.S. graduate or undergraduate
degree-granting academic institution that is sponsoring the program; (2)
noncommercial academic research in Cuba specifical y related to Cuba and for
the purpose of obtaining an undergraduate or graduate degree; (3) participation in
a formal course of study at a Cuban academic institution that wil be accepted for
credit toward the student’s graduate or undergraduate degree; (4) teaching at a
Cuban academic institution related to an academic program at the Cuban
institution, provided the individual is regularly employed by a U.S. or other non-
Cuban academic institution; (5) sponsorship of a Cuban scholar to teach or
engage in other scholarly activity at the sponsoring U.S. academic institution; (6)
educational exchanges sponsored by Cuban or U.S. secondary schools involving
student participation in a formal course of study or in a structured educational
program offered by a secondary school or other academic institution and led by a
teacher or other secondary school official; (7) sponsorship or cosponsorship of
noncommercial academic seminars, conferences, symposia, and workshops
related to Cuba or global issues involving Cuba and attendance at such events by
faculty, staff, and students of a participating U.S. academic institution; (8)
establishment of academic exchanges and joint noncommercial academic
research projects with universities or academic institutions in Cuba; (9) provision
of standardized testing services to Cuban nationals; (10) provision of internet-
based courses, provided that the course content is at the undergraduate level or
below; (11) the organization of, and preparation for, activities described above,
by an employee, paid consultant, agent, or other representative of the U.S.
sponsoring organization; and (12) the facilitation by a U.S. organization, or by a
staff member of that organization, of licensed educational activities in Cuba on
behalf of U.S. academic institutions or secondary schools with certain provisions
for the U.S. organization (31 C.F.R. 515.565(a)(2)).
 Religious Activities. Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, including religious
organizations located in the United States and members and staff of such
organizations engaged in a full-time program of religious activities (31 C.F.R.
515.566).
 Public Performances, Clinics, Workshops, Athletic and Other Competitions,
and Exhibitions. Participation in amateur and semiprofessional international
sports federation competitions, provided that the athletic competition is held
under the auspices of the international sports federation for the relevant sport; the
U.S. participants are selected by the U.S. federation for the relevant sport; and
the competition is open for attendance, and in relevant situations, participation by
the Cuban public.

Participation in, or organization of, public performances, clinics, workshops,
other athletic or nonathletic competitions, or exhibitions in Cuba, provided that
the event is open for attendance, and in relevant situations, participation, by the
Cuban public. (31 C.F.R. 515.567).
 Support for the Cuban People. Those traveling for activities in support of the
Cuban people, provided that the activities are of recognized human rights
organizations; independent organizations designed to promote a rapid, peaceful
transition to democracy; or individuals and nongovernmental organizations that
Congressional Research Service
14

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba (31
C.F.R. 515.574).
 Humanitarian Projects. Those involved in the following humanitarian projects
in Cuba that are designed to directly benefit the Cuban people: medical and
health-related projects; construction projects intended to benefit legitimately
independent civil society groups; disaster preparedness, relief, and response;
historical preservation; environmental projects; projects involving formal or
nonformal educational training, within Cuba or off-island, on entrepreneurship
and business, civil education, journalism, advocacy and organizing, adult literacy,
or vocational skil s; community-based grassroots projects; projects suitable to the
development of smal -scale private enterprise; projects that are related to
agricultural and rural development that promote independent activity;
microfinancing projects; and projects to meet basic human needs (31 C.F.R.
515.575).
 Activities of Private Foundations or Research or Educational Institutes.
Those involved in activities by private foundations or research or education
institutes with an established interest in international relations to collect
information related to Cuba for noncommercial purposes (31 C.F.R. 515.576).
 Exportation, Importation, or Transmission of Information or Informational
Materials. Those involved in the exportation, importation, or transmission of
informational materials, as defined (in 31 C.F.R. 515.332) as publications, films,
posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes,
compact disks, CD-ROMs, artworks, news wire feeds, and other informational
and informational articles. Those involved in professional media or artistic
productions of information or informational materials for exportation,
importation, or transmission, including the filming or production of media
programs (such as movies and television programs), the recording of music, and
the creation of artworks in Cuba, provided that the traveler is regularly employed
in or has demonstrated professional experience in a field relevant to such
professional media or artistic productions (31 C.F.R. 515.545).
 Export Transactions. Those involved in activities directly incident to the
conduct of market research, commercial marketing, sales or contract negotiation,
accompanied delivery, instal ation, leasing, servicing, or repair in Cuba of items
consistent with the export or re-export licensing policy of the Department of
Commerce (31 C.F.R. 515.533 and 31 C.F.R. 515.559).
Current Policy on Remittances
U.S. restrictions on remittances to Cuba have been regulated by the CACR and, just like
restrictions on travel, have changed over time. The State Department estimates that remittances to
Cuba from the United States amounted to some $3.5 bil ion in 2017.35
Among the CACR’s current provisions on remittances are the following:
 Family Remittances. Persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who
are 18 years of age or older are authorized to send remittances to close relatives
in Cuba (31 C.F.R. 515.570(a)). The remitter’s total family remittances to any

35 U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Relations with Cuba,” fact sheet, November 22, 2019.
Congressional Research Service
15

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

one Cuban national may not exceed $1,000 in any consecutive three-month
period. As with the travel-related transactions, a close relative is defined as any
individual related to the remitter by blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more
than three generations removed from the remitter or from a common ancestor
with the remitter (31 C.F.R. 515.339). The recipient of the remittances cannot be
a prohibited official of the Cuban government (defined in 31 C.F.R. 515.337), a
prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party (defined in 31 C.F.R.
515.338), or a close relative of a prohibited official of the Cuban government or
of a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist party.
 Remittances to Religious Organizations. Persons subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States are authorized to send remittances to religious organizations in
Cuba in support of religious activities (31 C.F.R. 515.570(c)).
 Remittances to U.S. Students in Cuba. Remittances are authorized to send to
close relatives in Cuba who are students involved in licensed educational
activities (31 C.F.R. 515.570(d)).
 Emigration-Related Remittances. Two one-time $1,000 emigration-related
remittances are authorized (31 C.F.R. 515.570(e)).
 Remittances to Certain Individuals and Independent Nongovernmental
Organizations in Cuba. Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction may send
remittances to certain individuals and independent nongovernmental entities in
Cuba, including prodemocracy groups and civil society groups, and to members
of such organizations to support humanitarian projects designed to directly
benefit the Cuban people; activities of recognized human rights organizations,
independent organizations designed to promote a rapid, peaceful transition to
democracy, and individuals and NGOs that promote independent activity
intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba; and the development of private
businesses and economic activity in the non-state sector by self-employed
individuals (31 C.F.R. 515.570(g)). Self-employed individuals means an owner of
a smal private business or a sole proprietorship, including restaurants
(paladares), taxis, and bed-and-breakfasts (casas particulares); an independent
contractor or consultant; a smal farmer who owns his or her own land; or a smal
usufruct farmer who cultivates state-owned land to sel products on the open
market (31 C.F.R. 515.340).
 Carrying of Remittances to Cuba. Authorized travelers to Cuba may carry
authorized remittances to Cuba (31 C.F.R. 515.560(c)(4)), and no limit is
indicated. Emigration-related remittances may not be carried to Cuba unless a
U.S. immigration visa has been issued for the recipient and the licensed traveler
can produce certain information regarding the recipient.
Debate on Travel Restrictions
There have been divergent views in Congress over the years regarding U.S. restric tions on travel
to Cuba. As noted, Congress approved legislation in 2000, the Trade Sanctions Reform and
Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA; P.L. 106-387, Title IX), with a provision prohibiting
travel to Cuba for tourist activities. In 2009, Congress enacted an omnibus appropriations
measure (P.L. 111-8) with two provisions easing restrictions on family travel to Cuba and on
travel for the marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods to Cuba. Numerous other
legislative initiatives, including provisions in appropriations measures, have been introduced over
Congressional Research Service
16

link to page 22 link to page 21 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

the years to further ease or lift restrictions on travel to Cuba, while other initiatives were
introduced to tighten restrictions on travel to Cuba; none of these measures were enacted. (For
details on legislative action from 1999 to 2018, see Appendix.) In the 116th Congress, two bil s
have been introduced that would lift al restrictions on travel and one bil would lift al restrictions
on travel and remittances. (See “Legislative Initiatives in the 116th Congress,” below.)
Arguments for Lifting the Travel Restrictions. Those who argue in favor of lifting travel
restrictions altogether contend that the restrictions hinder U.S. efforts to influence political and
economic conditions in Cuba. They maintain that the best way to realize change in Cuba is to lift
restrictions, al owing a flood of U.S. citizens to travel and engage in conversations with average
Cubans. They point to the influence of person-to-person contact in Russia and Eastern European
nations, which they argue ultimately helped lead to the fal of communism in the Soviet bloc.
They maintain that restricting travel by ordinary Americans prevents interaction and information
exchanges with ordinary Cubans, exchanges that can help break down the Cuban government’s
tight control and manipulation of news.
Another argument made by those who want to lift al travel restrictions is that the restrictions
abridge the rights of ordinary Americans to travel. They contend that such restrictions subvert the
first amendment right of free speech and maintain that the U.S. government should not limit the
categories of travelers who can visit Cuba or subject them to record keeping.
Those in favor of lifting the travel restrictions also argue that U.S. citizens can travel to other
communist or authoritarian governments around the world, such as the People’s Republic of
China, Vietnam, and Iran. They point out that Americans could travel to the Soviet Union before
its breakup. In addition, they point to widespread public support for unrestricted travel by al
Americans.36
Final y, some supporters of lifting the travel restrictions argue that the U.S. economy would
benefit from increased demand for air and cruise travel, which reportedly would expand U.S.
economic output, and from increased U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba. The U.S. International
Trade Commission (USITC) produced a study in 2007 (updated in 2009) examining the effects of
lifting U.S. restrictions on travel to Cuba and restrictions on U.S. government financing for
agricultural exports to Cuba on the level of U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba. The USITC 2009
update found that the U.S. share of Cuba’s agricultural imports would have increased
significantly absent the financing and travel restrictions.37 The USITC completed another study in
March 2016 on the effects of U.S. restrictions on trade with and travel to Cuba, whic h maintained
that the ban on U.S. tourist travel to Cuba has limited Cuban demand for U.S.-sourced food
products. Easing restrictions on tourist travel, according to the report, would increase demand for
high-value food products from the United States and for other high-quality U.S. products and
established brands.38
Arguments for Maintaining the Travel Restrictions. Those favoring the continuation of
restrictions on travel to Cuba point out that there are already significant provisions in U.S. law

36 For example, a February 2014 poll by the Atlantic Council found that 61% of respondents nationwide (and 67% of
respondents in Florida) supported removing all restrictions on travel to Cuba. See Atlantic Council, Adrienne Arsht
Latin American Center, US-Cuba, A New Public Survey Supports Policy Change, February 11, 2014, at
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/publications/reports/us-cuba-a-new-public-survey-supports-policy-change.
37 USIT C, U.S. Agricultural Sales to Cuba: Certain Economic Effects of U.S. Restrictions, USIT C Publication 3932,
July 2007, at http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub3932.pdf; USIT C, U.S. Agricultural Sales to Cuba: Certain
Econom ic Effects of U.S. Restrictions, An Update, Office of Industries Working Paper, by Jonathan R. Coleman, no.
ID-22, June 2009, at http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/ID-22.pdf.
38 USIT C, Overview of Cuban Imports of Goods and Services and Effects of U.S. Restrictions, USIT C Publication
4597, March 2016, at https://www.usitc.gov/sites/default/files/publications/332/pub4597_0.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
17

link to page 22 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

permitting Americans to travel there for legitimate reasons that support the Cuban people and not
the Cuban government. They point out that thousands of Americans travel to Cuba legal y under
the various provisions of the Cuban embargo regulations, and that now Cuban Americans may
visit close relatives without restrictions. Other categories of travel al owed include students,
journalists, researchers, artists, musicians, and athletes.
Another argument made for maintaining restrictions on travel to Cuba is that lifting them entirely
would open the floodgates to American tourist travel that would support the Cuban government
by providing it with mil ions in tourist receipts. Advocates of restricting travel oppose any
loosening that could prolong the regime by propping the regime up with increased income. In
contrast to those supporting tourist travel, they believe that continued travel restrictions wil help
influence Cuba’s policy. Lifting travel restrictions, they argue, would eliminate the U.S. leverage
on Cuba to enact further reforms and to improve the human rights situation.
Those favoring the maintenance of travel restrictions argue that the reality of the human rights
situation dispels the notion that American tourists would be engaging in exchanges with ordinary
Cubans. They maintain that the thousands of European, Canadian, and other tourists who travel to
Cuba each year largely stay in tourist hotels and have no discernible effect on the human rights
situation in Cuba.
Legislative Initiatives in the 116th Congress
In the 116th Congress, three bil s have been introduced that would lift restrictions on travel to
Cuba. Identical bil s H.R. 3960 (McGovern) and S. 2303 (Leahy), the Freedom for Americans to
Travel to Cuba Act of 2019, would prohibit most restrictions on travel to or from Cuba by U.S.
citizens and legal residents or any transactions incident to such travel. H.R. 2404 (Rush), the
United States-Cuba Relations Normalization Act, would lift most economic sanctions on Cuba,
including restrictions on travel and remittances.
For background on legislative action and initiatives related to the travel restrictions from the 106th
through the 115th Congress (1999-2018), see Appendix. For more comprehensive information on
legislative initiatives on Cuba in the 116th Congress, see CRS Report R45657, Cuba: U.S. Policy
in the 116th Congress.

Congressional Research Service
18

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Appendix. Legislative Action from the 106th to the
115th Congress, 1999-2018
Legislative Initiatives in the 106th Congress, 1999-2000
The only action completed by the 106th Congress relating to Cuba travel involved a tightening of
travel restrictions. The final version of the FY2001 agriculture appropriations measure (P.L. 106-
387, Title IX, Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000) included a
provision that restricts travel to Cuba to those categories of nontourist travel already al owed by
the Treasury Department regulations. Section 910 of the law provides that neither general nor
specific licenses for travel to Cuba can be provided for activities that do not fit into the 12
categories expressly authorized in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, Section 515.560 (a) of
Title 31, C.F.R., paragraphs (1) through (12)).
As noted in the law, the Secretary of the Treasury may not authorize travel-related transactions
“for travel to, from, or within Cuba for tourist activities,” which are defined as any activity that is
not expressly authorized in the 12 categories of the regulations. The provision prevents the
Administration from loosening the travel restrictions to al ow tourist travel. This, in effect,
strengthens restrictions on travel to Cuba and somewhat circumscribes the authority of OFAC to
issue specific travel licenses on a case-by-case basis. Regulations implementing the provision of
the law were issued by OFAC on July 12, 2001.
In other legislative action, the Senate considered the issue of travel to Cuba in June 30, 1999,
floor action on the FY2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations bil , S. 1234. An amendment was
introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd that would have terminated regulations or prohibitions
on travel to Cuba and on transactions related to such travel in most instances.39 The Senate
defeated the amendment by tabling it in a 55-43 vote on June 30, 1999. On November 10, 1999,
Senator Dodd introduced identical language as S. 1919, the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of
2000, but no action was taken on the bil .
The House took up the issue of travel to Cuba when it considered H.R. 4871, the Treasury
Department appropriations bil , on July 20, 2000. A Sanford amendment was approved (232-186)
to prohibit funds in the bil from being used to administer or enforce the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations with respect to any travel or travel-related transaction. Subsequently, the language of
the amendment was dropped from a new version of the FY2001 Treasury Department
appropriations bil , H.R. 4985, introduced on July 26. H.R. 4985 was appended to the conference
report on the legislative branch appropriations bil —H.R. 4516, H.Rept. 106-796—in an attempt
to bypass Senate debate on its version of the Treasury appropriations bil , S. 2900. The Senate
initial y rejected this conference report on September 20, 2000, by a vote of 28-69, but later
agreed to the report, 58-37, on October 12. The House had agreed to the conference report earlier,
on September 14, 2000, by a vote of 212-209.

39 T he Dodd amendment allowed for travel restrictions to be imposed if the United States is at war with Cuba, if armed
hostilities are in progress, or when threats to physical safety or public health exist. Under current law, the Secretary of
State has the same authority to rest rict travel (22 U.S.C. 211a).
Congressional Research Service
19

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Legislative Initiatives in the 107th Congress, 2001-200240
In the 107th Congress, although various measures were introduced that would have eliminated or
eased restrictions on travel to Cuba and the House voted in both the first and second sessions to
prohibit spending to administer the travel regulations, no legislative action was completed by the
end of the second session.
First Session Action
During July 25, 2001, floor action on H.R. 2590, the FY2002 Treasury Department
appropriations bil , the House approved an amendment that would prohibit spending for
administering Treasury Department regulations restricting travel to Cuba. H.Amdt. 241, offered
by Representative Flake (which amended H.Amdt. 240 offered by Representative Smith), would
prohibit funding to administer the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (administered by OFAC)
with respect to any travel or travel-related transaction. The amendment was approved by a vote of
240 to 186, compared to a vote of 232-186 for a similar amendment in last year’s Treasury
Department appropriations bil .
The Senate version of H.R. 2590, approved September 19, 2001, did not include any provision
regarding U.S. restrictions on travel to Cuba, and the House provision was not included in the
House-Senate conference on the bil (H.Rept. 107-253). During Senate floor debate, Senator
Byron Dorgan noted that he had intended to offer an amendment on the issue, but that he decided
not to because he did not want to slow passage of the bil . He indicated that he would support the
House provision during conference, but ultimately the House-Senate conference report on the bil
did not include the Cuba provision. In light of changed congressional priorities in the aftermath of
the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, conference negotiators reportedly did not
want to slow passage of the bil with any controversial provisions. The Bush Administration had
threatened to veto the Treasury bil if it included the Cuba travel provision.
Second Session Action
The Cuba travel issue received further consideration in the second session of the 107th Congress.
A bipartisan House Cuba working group of 40 Representatives vowed as one of its goals to work
for a lifting of travel restrictions. On February 11, 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee’s
Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government held a hearing on the issue, featuring
Administration and outside witnesses.
The travel issue was part of debate during consideration of the FY2003 Treasury Department
appropriations bil (H.R. 5120 and S. 2740). Secretary of State Colin Powel and Secretary of the
Treasury Paul O’Neil said they would recommend that the President veto legislation that
includes a loosening of restrictions on travel to Cuba (or a weakening of restrictions on private
financing for U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba).41 The White House also stated that President
Bush would veto such legislation.42
In July 23, 2002, floor action on H.R. 5120, the House approved three Cuba sanctions
amendments, including one on the easing of travel restrictions offered by Representative Jeff

40 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 107th Congress, see CRS Report RL30806, Cuba: Issues
for the 107th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan and Maureen T aft -Morales.
41 U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File, “Bush Administration Opposes
Legislative Efforts to Amend Cuba Policy,” July 16, 2002.
42 White House, press briefing by Ari Fleischer, July 24, 2002.
Congressional Research Service
20

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Flake (the two other amendments would have eased restrictions on remittances and U.S.
agricultural sales). The House approved the Flake travel amendment (H.Amdt. 552), by a vote of
262-167, which provided that no funds could be used to administer or enforce the Treasury
Department regulations with respect to travel to Cuba. The Flake amendment would not prevent
the issuance of general or specific licenses for travel to Cuba. Some observers raised the question
of whether the effect of this amendment would be limited since the underlying embargo
regulations restricting travel would remain unchanged; enforcement action against violations of
the relevant embargo regulations could potential y take place in future years when the Treasury
Department appropriations measure did not include the funding limitations on enforcing the travel
restrictions.43
During consideration of H.R. 5120, the House also rejected two Cuba amendments. A Rangel
amendment (H.Amdt. 555), rejected by a vote of 204-226, would have prevented any funds in the
bil from being used to implement, administer, or enforce the overal economic embargo of Cuba,
which includes travel. A Goss amendment (H.Amdt. 551), rejected by a vote of 182-247, would
have provided that any limitation on the use of funds to administer or enforce regulations
restricting travel to Cuba or travel-related transactions would only apply after the President
certified to Congress that certain conditions were met regarding biological weapons and
terrorism.44 The rule for the bil ’s consideration, H.Res. 488 (H.Rept. 107-585), had provided that
the Goss amendment would not be subject to amendment.
The House subsequently passed H.R. 5120 on July 24, 2002, by a vote of 308-121, with the three
Cuba amendments, including the Flake Cuba travel amendment.
The Senate version of the Treasury Department appropriations measure, S. 2740, as reported by
the Senate Committee on Appropriations on July 17, 2002 (S.Rept. 107-212), included a
provision, in Section 516, that was similar, although not identical, to the Flake amendment
described above. It provided that no funds may be used to enforce the Treasury Department
regulations with respect to any travel or travel-related transactions and would not prevent OFAC
from issuing general and specific licenses for travel to Cuba. In addition, Section 124 of the
Senate bil stipulated that no Treasury Department funds for “Departmental Offices, Salaries, and
Expenses” may be used by OFAC until OFAC has certain procedures in place to expedite license
applications for travel to Cuba.
Congress did not complete action on the FY2003 Treasury Department appropriations measure
before the end of the 107th Congress, so action was deferred until the 108th Congress.
Additional Legislative Initiatives in the 107th Congress
Several other initiatives were introduced in the 107th Congress that would have eased U.S.
restrictions on travel to Cuba, but no action was taken on these measures.
 H.R. 5022 (Flake), introduced June 26, 2002, would have lifted al restrictions on
travel to Cuba.
 Several broad bil s would have lifted al sanctions on trade, financial
transactions, and travel to Cuba: H.R. 174 (Serrano), the Cuban Reconciliation
Act, introduced January 3, 2001, and identical bil s S. 400 (Baucus) and H.R. 798

43 “House Approves Limits on T reasury Enforcement of Cuba Embargo,” Inside U.S. Trade, July 26, 2002.
44 For further information on the issues of biological weapons and terrorism as they relate to Cuba, see CRS Report
RL30806, Cuba: Issues for the 107th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan and Maureen T aft -Morales.
Congressional Research Service
21

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

(Rangel), the Free Trade with Cuba Act, introduced February 27 and 28, 2001,
respectively.
 S. 1017 (Dodd) and H.R. 2138 (Serrano), the Bridges to the Cuban People Act of
2001, introduced June 12, 2001, would, among other provisions, have removed
al restrictions on travel to Cuba by U.S. nationals or lawful permanent resident
aliens.
 Several bil s would, among other provisions, have repealed the travel restrictions
imposed in the 106th Congress by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-387, Title IX, Section 910). These include
identical bil s S. 402 (Baucus) and H.R. 797 (Rangel), the Cuban Humanitarian
Trade Act of 2001, introduced February 27 and 28, 2001; S. 171 (Dorgan),
introduced January 24, 2001; and S. 239 (Hagel), the Cuba Food and Medicine
Access Act of 2001, introduced February 1, 2001.
Legislative Initiatives in the 108th Congress, 2003-200445
In the 108th Congress, several FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations bil s had provisions that would
have eased Cuba travel restrictions in various ways, but ultimately these provisions were not
included in final appropriations measures. The George W. Bush Administration had threatened to
veto legislation if it contained provisions weakening Cuba sanctions. In addition, several bil s in
the 108th Congress were introduced that specifical y would have lifted or eased restrictions on
travel to Cuba, but no action was taken on these measures.
First Session Action
Since action on FY2003 Treasury Department appropriations was not completed before the end of
the 107th Congress, the 108th Congress faced early action on it and other unfinished FY2003
appropriations measures. The final version of the FY2003 omnibus appropriations measure,
H.J.Res. 2 (P.L. 108-7), which included Treasury Department appropriations, did not include
provisions affecting restrictions on travel to Cuba. The White House had threatened to veto the
measure if it contained provisions weakening the embargo. While the Senate version did not
include the Senate Appropriations Committee provision from the 107th Congress that would have
eased travel restrictions by prohibiting any funding for enforcing the Cuba travel regulations, it
did include a provision (contained in Division J, Section 124) that would have expedited action
on travel applications for travel by OFAC within 90 days of receipt. Ultimately, however, the
Senate provision was dropped in the conference report (H.Rept. 108-10) on the omnibus measure.
Both the House and Senate versions of the FY2004 Transportation-Treasury appropriations bil ,
H.R. 2989, had nearly identical provisions that would have prevented funds from being used to
administer or enforce restrictions on travel or travel-related transactions. But the provisions were
dropped in the conference report to the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-199
(H.R. 2673, H.Rept. 108-401, filed November 25, 2003), which incorporated seven regular
appropriations acts, including Transportation-Treasury appropriations. The conference also
dropped two Cuba provisions from the House version of H.R. 2989 that would have eased
restrictions on remittances and on people-to-people educational exchanges. The White House
again threatened to veto any legislation that would weaken economic sanctions against Cuba.

45 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 108th Congress, see CRS Report RL31740, Cuba: Issues
for the 108th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan.
Congressional Research Service
22

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

The House provisions had been approved during September 9, 2003, House floor consideration of
the H.R. 2989: H.Amdt. 375 (Flake), approved by a vote of 227-188, would have prevented funds
from enforcing travel restrictions (§745 of the House version); H.Amdt. 377 (Delahunt),
approved by a vote of 222-196, would have prevented funds from enforcing restrictions on
remittances (§746); and H.Amdt. 382 (Davis), approved by a vote of 246-173, would have
prohibited funds from being used to eliminate the travel category of people-to-people educational
exchanges (§749).
During Senate floor consideration of H.R. 2989 on October 23, 2003, the Senate approved by
voice vote S.Amdt. 1900 (Dorgan), nearly identical to the Flake amendment noted above that
would have prevented funds from being used to administer or enforce restrictions on travel or
travel-related transactions (§643 of the Senate version). A motion to table the Dorgan amendment
was defeated by a vote of 59-36. The Senate approved the bil by a vote of 91-3. The only
difference between the Senate and House language was that the Dorgan amendment, as amended
by S.Amdt. 1901 (Craig), provided that the section would take effect one day after enactment of
the bil .
In other action, the conference on the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-199
(H.R. 2673), also dropped a provision in the Senate version of the FY2004 agriculture
appropriations bil that would have al owed travel to Cuba under a general license for travel
related to the sale of agricultural and medical goods. On July 17, 2003, the Senate Appropriations
Committee approved its version of the FY2004 agriculture appropriations bil , S. 1427, that
included a provision (§760) al owing travel to Cuba under a general license (which does not
require applying to the Treasury Department) for travel related to the commercial sale of
agricultural and medical goods. The Senate included this provision when it approved H.R. 2673
on November 6, 2003. The House-passed version of the bil , H.R. 2673, had no such provision. In
early June 2003, the Treasury Department rejected an application for a specific license to travel to
Cuba for organizers of a second U.S. food and agribusiness fair in Havana.46 The first such trade
fair, held in September 2002, featured some 288 exhibitors from more than 30 states and resulted
in mil ions in U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba.47
Second Session Action
Several FY2005 appropriations measures had provisions that would have eased Cuba sanctions,
but these were dropped in the FY2005 omnibus appropriations measure (H.R. 4818, H.Rept. 108-
792).
The House-passed version of the FY2005 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bil , H.R.
4754, approved July 8, 2004 (397-18), included a provision (§801) that would have prohibited
funds from being used to implement, administer, or enforce recent amendments to the Cuba
embargo regulations that tightened restrictions on gift parcels and baggage taken by individuals
for travel to Cuba. The provision was added by a Flake amendment, H.Amdt. 647, approved by a
vote of 221-194 on July 7, 2004. The Senate version of the bil , S. 2809, as reported out of
committee, did not include such a provision.
Both the House-approved version of the FY2005 Transportation/Treasury appropriations bil ,
H.R. 5025, and the Senate Appropriations Committee version of the bil , S. 2806, had provisions
that would have eased Cuba sanctions in various ways. In its statement of policy on H.R. 5025,

46 Nancy San Martin, “U.S. Pulls Plug on Cuba Expo,” Miami Herald, June 18, 2003.
47 Nancy San Martin, “U.S. Official Dampens T rade-Show Enthusiasm with T alks of Cuban Credit,” Miami Herald,
September 29, 2002.
Congressional Research Service
23

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

the Administration indicated that the President would veto the measure if it contained provisions
weakening Cuba sanctions.
The House-passed version of H.R. 5025 had three provisions that would have eased Cuba
sanctions. During floor consideration on September 21, 2004, by a vote of 225-174, the House
approved a Davis (of Florida) amendment (H.Amdt. 769), which provided that no funds could be
used to administer, implement, or enforce the Bush Administration’s June 2004 tightening of
restrictions on visiting relatives in Cuba. On September 22, 2004, the House approved two
additional Cuba amendments by voice vote, a Waters amendment (H.Amdt. 770) that would have
prohibited funds from being used to implement any sanction imposed on private commercial sales
of agricultural commodities or medicine or medical supplies to Cuba and a Lee amendment
(H.Amdt. 771) that would have prohibited funds from being used to implement, administer, or
enforce the Bush Administration’s June 2004 tightening of restrictions on travel for educational
activities. The House also rejected a Rangel amendment (H.Amdt. 772) on September 22, 2004,
by a vote of 225-188 that would have more broadly prohibited funds from being used to
implement, administer, or enforce the economic embargo of Cuba. During September 15, 2004,
House floor consideration of H.R. 5025, Representative Jeff Flake announced his intention not to
offer an amendment, as he had for the past three years, which would have prohibited funds from
being used to administer or enforce restrictions on travel or travel-related transactions.
The Senate version of the FY2005 Transportation/Treasury appropriations bil , S. 2806, as
reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 108-342) on September 15, 2004,
had a provision (§222) that would have prohibited funds from administering or enforcing
restrictions on Cuba travel or travel-related transactions. That provision, which was proposed by
Senator Byron Dorgan, was unanimously approved by the Subcommittee on Transportation,
Treasury, and General Government on September 9, 2004.
The Senate version of the FY2005 Agriculture Appropriation bil , S. 2803, as reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 108-340), had a provision (§776) that would have
directed the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations al owing for travel to Cuba under
a “general license” when it was related to the commercial sale of agricultural and medical
products. The House-passed version of the bil , H.R. 4766, had no such provision. In its statement
of policy on the bil , the Administration stated that the President would veto the measure if it
contained a provision weakening Cuba sanctions.
Additional Initiatives in the 108th Congress
Among other initiatives introduced in the 108th Congress, but not acted upon, two bil s would
specifical y have lifted restrictions on travel to Cuba: S. 950 (Enzi), introduced April 30, 2003,
and H.R. 2071 (Flake), introduced May 13, 2003. H.R. 3422 (Serrano), introduced October 30,
2003, would, among other provisions, have lifted restrictions on travel to Cuba. Three broad
legislative initiatives were introduced that would have lifted al Cuba embargo restrictions,
including those on travel: H.R. 188 (Serrano), introduced January 7, 2003, S. 403 (Baucus),
introduced February 13, 2003, and H.R. 1698 (Paul), introduced April 9, 2003. Another initiative,
S. 2449 (Baucus)/H.R. 4457 (Otter), introduced respectively on May 19 and 20, 2004, would
have required yearly congressional approval for the renewal of trade and travel restrictions with
respect to Cuba. Final y, H.R. 4678 (Davis of Florida), introduced June 24, 2004, in the aftermath
of the President’s tightening of Cuba sanctions, would have barred certain additional restrictions
on travel and remittances to Cuba.
Congressional Research Service
24

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Legislative Initiatives in the 109th Congress, 2005-2006
In the 109th Congress, several amendments to FY2006 and FY2007 appropriations bil s that
would have eased Cuba travel restrictions in various ways and restrictions on sending gift parcels
to Cuba were defeated. Several bil s were introduced that would have lifted or eased restrictions
on travel and the provision of remittances to Cuba, but no action was taken on these measures.
First Session Action
On June 30, 2005, the House rejected three amendments easing Cuba sanctions to H.R. 3058, the
FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, Judiciary, District of
Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. The amendments failed during House
floor consideration: H.Amdt. 420 (Davis) on family travel, by a vote of 208-211; H.Amdt. 422
(Lee) on educational travel, by a vote of 187-233; and H.Amdt. 424 (Rangel) on the overal
embargo, by a vote of 169-250. An additional amendment on religious travel, H.Amdt. 421
(Flake), was withdrawn, and an amendment on family travel by members of the U.S. military,
H.Amdt. 419 (Flake), was ruled out of order for constituting legislation in an appropriations bil .
The introduction of H.Amdt. 419 was prompted by the case of a U.S. military member who
served in Iraq, Sergeant Carlos Lazo, who was prohibited from visiting his two sons in Cuba
because he last visited there in 2003.
During June 29, 2005, Senate consideration of H.R. 2361, the FY2006 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, the Senate rejected (60-35; a two-thirds majority vote was
required) a motion to suspend the rules with respect to S.Amdt. 1059 (Dorgan), which would
have al owed travel to Cuba under a general license for the purpose of visiting a member of the
person’s immediate family for humanitarian reasons. The amendment was then ruled out of order.
Its introduction had also been prompted by the case of Sergeant Carlos Lazo, who wanted to visit
his sons in Cuba, one of whom was gravely sick.
On June 15, 2005, the House rejected (210-216) H.Amdt. 270 (Flake) to H.R. 2862, the FY2006
Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The amendment
would have prohibited the use of funds to implement, administer, or enforce June 2004 tightened
restrictions on sending gift parcels to Cuba. H.Amdt. 269 (McDermott), which would have
prohibited the use of funds in the bil to prosecute any individual for travel to Cuba, was offered
but subsequently withdrawn.
During April 6, 2005, Senate floor consideration of the FY2006 and FY2007 Foreign Affairs
Authorization Act, S. 600, the Senate considered S.Amdt. 281 (Baucus) and a second-degree
amendment, S.Amdt. 282 (Craig) that would have facilitated the sale of U.S. agricultural products
to Cuba. The language of the amendments consisted of the provisions of S. 328 (Craig), the
Agricultural Export Facilitation Act of 2005, which included a provision for a general license for
travel transactions related to the marketing and sale of agricultural products, as opposed to the
then requirement of a specific license for such travel transactions. Neither action on the
amendments nor on S. 600 was completed.
Second Session Action
On June 14, 2006, the House rejected two amendments to the FY2007 Transportation/Treasury
appropriation bil , H.R. 5576, which would have eased Cuba travel restrictions. H.Amdt. 1050
(Rangel), rejected by a vote of 183-245, would have prohibited funds from being used to
implement the overal economic embargo of Cuba. H.Amdt. 1051 (Lee), rejected by a vote of
187-236, would have prohibited funds from being used to implement the Administration’s June
Congressional Research Service
25

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

2004 tightening of restrictions on educational travel to Cuba. An additional Cuba amendment,
H.Amdt. 1032 (Flake), would have prohibited the use of funds to amend regulations relating to
travel for religious activities in Cuba; it was withdrawn from consideration.
In other action, on June 22, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the
FY2007 Agriculture appropriations bil , H.R. 5384 (S.Rept. 109-266), which contained a
provision (§755) liberalizing travel to Cuba related to the sale of agricultural and medical goods.
The provision would have provided for such travel under a general license, instead of under a
specific license as then required, issued on a case-by-case basis by the Treasury Department.
Final action on the appropriations measure was not completed by the end of the 109th Congress.
Similar Senate provisions in FY2004 and FY2005 agricultural appropriations bil s were stripped
out of the final enacted measures.
Additional Initiatives in the 109th Congress
A number of other legislative initiatives were introduced in the 109th Congress that would have
eased restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba. Two bil s—S. 894 (Enzi) and H.R. 1814
(Flake)—would have specifical y lifted overal restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 2617 (Davis)
would have prohibited any additional restrictions on per diem al owances, family visits to Cuba,
remittances, and accompanied baggage beyond those that were in effect on June 15, 2004. H.R.
3064 (Lee) would have prohibited the use of funds available to the Department of the Treasury to
implement regulations from June 2004 that tightened restrictions on travel to Cuba for
educational activities. H.Con.Res. 206 (Serrano), introduced in the aftermath of Hurricane Dennis
that struck Cuba in July 2005 (causing 16 deaths and significant damage), would have expressed
the sense of Congress that the President should temporarily suspend restrictions on remittances,
gift parcels, and family travel to Cuba to al ow Cuban Americans to assist their relatives.
Two bills—H.R. 208 (Serrano) and H.R. 579 (Paul)—would have lifted the overal embargo on
trade and financial transactions with Cuba, including restrictions on travel and remittances to
Cuba.
Final y, two identical bil s dealing with easing restrictions on exporting agricultural commodities
to Cuba—H.R. 719 (Moran of Kansas) and S. 328 (Craig)—included provisions that would have
provided for a general license for travel transactions related to the marketing and sale of
agricultural products, as opposed to the then requirement of a specific license for such travel
transactions.
Legislative Initiatives in the 110th Congress, 2007-2008
In the 110th Congress, several House and Senate committee versions of appropriations bil s had
provisions that would have eased restrictions on travel to Cuba in various ways, but none of these
provisions were included in final enacted legislation. Numerous other bil s were introduced that
would have eased restrictions on travel and remittance in various ways, but no action was taken
on these measures.
First Session Action
In the first session of the 110th Congress, two Senate Appropriations Committee-reported versions
of appropriations bil s had provisions that would have eased restrictions on travel to Cuba for the
marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods, but ultimately these provisions were not
included in the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161). The Senate version of
the FY2008 Financial Services and General Government appropriations bil , reported July 19,
Congressional Research Service
26

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

2007, H.R. 2829, had a provision in Section 620 that would eased such travel restrictions, while
the Senate version of the FY2008 Agriculture appropriations bil , S. 1859, reported July 24, 2007,
had such a provision in Section 741.
Second Session Action
In the second session, several versions of House and Senate appropriations bil s had provisions
easing Cuba travel restrictions and other Cuba sanctions, but none of these were included in the
FY2009 continuing resolution. The House Appropriations Committee approved its version of the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bil for FY2009 on June 25, 2008,
which contained provisions in Title VI that would have eased restrictions on the sale of U.S.
agricultural exports to Cuba and on family travel to Cuba. The committee ultimately introduced
and reported the bil , H.R. 7323, on December 10, 2008 (H.Rept. 110-920). With regard to family
travel, Section 622 would have al owed for such travel once a year (instead of the then restriction
of once every three years), while Section 623 would have expanded such travel by a person to
visit an aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or first cousin (instead of the then restriction limiting such
travel to visit a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or sibling).
On July 14, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bil , S. 3260 (S.Rept. 110-417),
which included provisions easing restrictions on family travel and on travel to Cuba relating to
the commercial sale of agricultural and medical goods. With regard to family travel, Section 620
would have provided that no funds could be used to administer, implement, or enforce the
Administration’s June 2004 tightening of restrictions related to travel to visit relatives in Cuba.
With regard to travel for agricultural or medical sales, Section 619 would have al owed for a
general license for such travel instead of a specific license that requires permission from the
Treasury Department.
On July 21, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009
Agriculture Appropriations bil , S. 3289 (S.Rept. 110-426), with a provision in Section 737 that
would have eased restrictions on travel to Cuba for the sale of agricultural and medical goods.
The provision would have al owed for a general license for such travel instead of a specific
license that requires permission from the Treasury Department. The measure had been approved
by the committee on July 17, 2008.
Additional Initiatives in the 110th Congress
A number of other initiatives introduced in the 110th Congress would have eased Cuba travel
restrictions. H.R. 654 (Rangel), S. 721 (Enzi), and Section 254 of S. 554 (Dorgan) would prohibit
the President from regulating or prohibiting travel to Cuba or any of the transactions incident to
travel. Two bil s that would lift overal economic sanctions—H.R. 217 (Serrano) and H.R. 624
(Rangel)—would also lift travel restrictions. H.R. 177 (Lee) would ease restrictions on
educational travel to Cuba. H.R. 757 (Delahunt) would lift restrictions on family travel and the
provision of remittances for family members in Cuba. H.R. 1026 (Moran, Jerry), which would
facilitate the sale of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba, includes a provision that would provide
for general license authority for travel-related transactions for people involved in agricultural
sales and marketing activities or in the transportation of such sales. H.R. 2819 (Rangel) and S.
1673 (Baucus), which would ease restrictions on U.S. agricultural and medical exports to Cuba,
would also lift restrictions on travel to Cuba. The Senate Committee on Finance held a hearing on
S. 1673 on December 11, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
27

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Legislative Initiatives in the Aftermath of 2008 Hurricanes
In the aftermath of the Hurricanes Gustav and Ike that struck Cuba in late August and early
September 2008, several legislative initiatives were introduced that would have temporarily eased
U.S. embargo restrictions in several areas, including restrictions on family travel, remittances, the
provision of gift parcels, and the sale of relief supplies to Cuba. On September 15, 2008, Senator
Dodd offered S.Amdt. 5581 to the Department of Defense authorization bil (S. 3001) that would
have, for a 180-day period, al owed unrestricted family travel; eased restrictions on remittances
by removing the limit and al owing any American to send remittances to Cuba; expanded the list
of al owable items that may be included in gift parcels; and al owed 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 bil .
In the House, two legislative initiatives were introduced in the aftermath of the hurricanes that
would have temporarily eased restrictions in various ways. 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, al owed unrestricted family travel; eased restrictions on
remittances by removing the limit and al owing any American to send remittances to Cuba; and
expanded the list of al owable items that may be included in gift parcels.
Legislative Initiatives in the 111th Congress, 2009-2010
The 111th Congress took action in March 2009 to ease restrictions on family travel and travel for
the marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods. The eased family travel restrictions
were superseded by the Obama Administration’s April 2009 action to al ow unlimited family
travel and remittances. At the same time, the Administration also eased restrictions for travel for
telecommunications-related sales and for attendance at professional meetings related to
commercial telecommunications. Numerous other bil s introduced in the 111th Congress would
have lifted or eased restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba, but these restrictions were not
considered. One House initiative, H.R. 4645 (Peterson), would have lifted al restrictions on
travel to Cuba and also would have eased restrictions on the payment mechanisms for U.S.
agricultural exports to Cuba. The House Agriculture Committee approved the measure, but no
further action was taken on the bil .
First Session Action
On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
(P.L. 111-8), with two provisions easing restrictions on travel to Cuba.48 The provisions were
identical to provisions that had been included in the Senate Appropriations Committee version of
the FY2009 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bil in the 110th
Congress, S. 3260.
In the enacted bil , Section 620 of Division D, Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2009, amended the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of
2000 (TSRA) 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,

48 A third Cuba provision in the law prohibited funding to administer, implement, or enforce certain requirements for
U.S. agricultural exporters using the “payment of cash in advance” payment mechanism for selling their goo ds to Cuba.
Congressional Research Service
28

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

meaning that there would be no requirement to obtain special permission from OFAC. Such travel
had required a specific license from OFAC, issued on a case-by-case basis. OFAC issued
regulations implementing this provision on September 3, 2009.
Section 621 of Division D prohibited funds from being used to administer, implement, or enforce
family travel restrictions that were imposed by the Bush Administration in June 2004. OFAC
implemented this provision by reinstating a general license for family travel as it existed prior to
the Bush Administration’s tightening of restrictions in June 2004. As implemented by the
Treasury Department, travel was al owed once every 12 months to visit a close relative for an
unlimited length of stay, and the limit for daily expenditure al owed by family travelers became
the same as for other authorized travelers to Cuba (the State Department maximum per diem rate
for Havana). The new general license also expanded the definition of “close relative” to mean any
individual related to the traveler by blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more than three
generations removed from that person. This provision was superseded by the Obama
Administration’s further liberalization of family travel to Cuba announced in April 2009.
The joint explanatory statement to P.L. 111-8 also required the Department of the Treasury to
prepare a report within 90 days on the steps that it is taking to assess OFAC’s al ocation 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
was directed to provide detailed information on OFAC’s Cuba-related licensing on its
enforcement of the Cuba embargo.
On November 19, 2009, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing on U.S.
restrictions on travel to Cuba entitled “Is It Time to Lift the Ban on Travel to Cuba?” that featured
former U.S. government officials and other private witnesses.
Second Session Action
In the second session, the only legislative action related to Cuba travel restrictions occurred in the
House Committee on Agriculture, and no subsequent action was taken. On March 11, 2010, the
committee held a hearing to review U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba. At the hearing, there was
discussion of recently introduced H.R. 4645 (Peterson), a measure that would remove restrictions
on travel to Cuba and also remove some restrictions regarding payments for U.S. agricultural
exports to Cuba. On June 30, 2010, the committee reported out H.R. 4645 by a vote of 25-20
(H.Rept. 111-653). The bil would have lifted al restrictions on travel to Cuba. It also included
two provisions easing restrictions on the payment mechanisms for U.S. agricultural exports to
Cuba. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs was scheduled to hold a markup of the bil on
September 29, 2010, but postponed its consideration, and in the aftermath of the 2011 U.S.
legislative elections, no further action was taken. An identical companion bil in the Senate, S.
3112 (Klobuchar), was introduced March 15, 2010, and referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
On April 29, 2010, the House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Trade, held a
hearing on U.S.-Cuba policy that examined whether relaxing current Cuba travel and trade
restrictions would advance U.S. economic objectives, as wel as U.S. political and human rights
goals in Cuba.
Additional Initiatives in the 111th Congress
Several other legislative initiatives were introduced in the 111th Congress that would have eased
restrictions on travel to Cuba, but no action was taken on these measures. H.R. 874 (Delahunt)/S.
428 (Dorgan) and H.R. 1528 (Rangel) would have prohibited restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R.
Congressional Research Service
29

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

188 (Serrano), H.R. 1530 (Rangel), and H.R. 2272 (Rush) would have lifted the overal embargo
on trade and financial transactions with Cuba, including travel restrictions. H.R. 1531 (Rangel)/S.
1089 (Baucus) would have facilitated the export of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba and also
would have prohibited restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 332 (Lee) would have eased
restrictions on educational travel by providing 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. S. 774
(Dorgan), H.R. 1918 (Flake), and S. 1517 (Murkowski) would have amended the Trade Sanctions
Reform and Economic Enhancement Act of 2000 to require the Secretary of the Treasury to
authorize travel to Cuba under a general license in connection to hydrocarbon exploration and
extraction activities. In contrast, H.Con.Res. 132 (Tiahrt) would have cal ed for the fulfil ment of
certain democratic conditions before the United States increases trade and tourism to Cuba.
Legislative Initiatives in the 112th Congress, 2011-2012
There were several attempts in the first session of the 112th Congress aimed at rolling back the
Obama Administration’s actions easing restrictions on travel and remittances, but none of these
were approved. Several legislative initiatives were also introduced that would have further eased
or lifted such restrictions altogether, but no action was taken on these measures.
FAA Reauthorization
During consideration of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bil , S. 223, in
February 2011, an amendment was submitted, but never considered, S.Amdt. 61 (Rubio), that
would have prohibited an expansion of flights to locations in countries that are designated state
sponsors of terrorism (which, at the time, included Cuba).
FY2012 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
The House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2012 Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations bil , H.R. 2434, on July 7, 2011, with a provision in Section
901 that would have rolled back the Obama Administration’s actions easing restrictions on family
travel and on remittances overal . (The Senate Appropriations Committee version of the measure,
S. 1573, did not contain a similar provision.) The House provision had been offered as an
amendment by Representative Mario Diaz-Balart that was agreed to by voice vote during the
committee’s June 24, 2011, markup of the measure. The provision would have repealed
amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations made since January 19, 2009, regarding
family travel (31 C.F.R. 515.561), carrying remittances (31 C.F.R. 515.560(c)(4)(i)), and sending
remittances to Cuba (31 C.F.R. 515.570). According to the provision, such regulations would be
restored and carried out as in effect on January 19, 2009, notwithstanding any guidelines,
opinions, letters, presidential directives, or agency practices relating to such regulations that are
issued or carried out after such date.
If the provision were to be enacted, family travel would have been limited to once every three
years for a period of up to 14 days and would have required a specific license from the Treasury
Department; licensed travelers would have been al owed to carry just $300 in remittances
compared to the $3,000 currently al owed; family remittances would have been limited to $300
per quarter; nonfamily remittances restored by the Obama Administration, up to $500 per quarter,
would not have been al owed; and the general license for remittances to religious organizations
would have been eliminated, with such remittances permitted via specific license.
Congressional Research Service
30

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

The White House’s Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2434, issued July 13, 2011, stated
that the Administration opposed Section 901 because it would reverse the President’s policy on
family travel and remittances, and that the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto if
the bil contained the provision. According to the statement, Section 901 “would undo the
President’s efforts to increase contact between divided Cuban families, undermine the
enhancement of the Cuban people’s economic independence and support for private sector
activity in Cuba that come from increased remittances from family members, and therefore isolate
the Cuban people and make them more dependent on Cuban authorities.”49
A second Cuba amendment agreed to by voice vote during the markup of H.R. 2434 was offered
by Representative Jeff Flake. The amendment made changes to the committee report to the bill
(H.Rept. 112-136) and would have required a report from OFAC on the current number of
pending applications seeking specific licenses related to educational exchanges not involving
academic study pursuant to a degree program under the auspices of an organization that sponsors
and organizes such programs to promote people-to-people contact. The report also would have
required information on the number of these licenses that OFAC has approved to date, its plan for
getting through the current queue of license applications, and its plan for expeditiously reviewing
those applications in the future.
In November 2011, an attempt to include the Senate version of the Financial Services
appropriations measure, S. 1573, in a “minibus” with two other full-year appropriations measures
and a short-term continuing resolution failed in part because of disagreement over a Cuba
provision that would have al owed direct transfers from a Cuban financial institution to a U.S.
financial institution to pay for U.S. agricultural and medical exports to Cuba. (For background on
that provision, see CRS Report R41617, Cuba: Issues for the 112th Congress.)
In December 2011, a legislative battle ensued over the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2012,
H.R. 2055, a “megabus” bil that combined nine full-year appropriations measures, including the
Financial Services and General Government bil . At issue was the potential inclusion of two Cuba
provisions that had been in the House Appropriations Committee-approved version of the
Financial Services bil , H.R. 2434: one described above that would roll back to January 2009 the
Obama Administration’s actions easing restrictions on family travel and on remittances; and the
second a provision that would continue to clarify, for the third fiscal year in a row, the definition
of “payment of cash in advance” for U.S. agricultural and medical exports to Cuba so that the
payment was due upon delivery in Cuba as opposed to being due before the goods left U.S. ports.
(The text of the two Cuba provisions was also included in Division C, Sections 632 and 634, of
H.R. 3671, a new “megabus” bil introduced by House Republicans on December 14, 2011.)
Ultimately, congressional leaders agreed to not include the two Cuba provisions in H.R. 2055
(H.Rept. 112-331), and the measure was approved by the House and Senate, respectively, on
December 16 and 17, 2011, and signed into law on December 23, 2011 (P.L. 112-74). The White
House reportedly had exerted strong pressure not to include the Cuba provision that would have
rolled back the Administration’s easing of restrictions on travel and remittances. Dropping the
second provision on the definition of “payment of cash in advance” for U.S. agricultural and
medical products appears to have been a political tradeoff made to compensate for the travel
rollback provision being dropped.

49 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R.
2434—Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012, July 13, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
31

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

FY2012 Foreign Relations Authorization Act
In other congressional action, on July 21, 2011, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs marked
up H.R. 2583 (H.Rept. 112-223), the FY2012 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, with a
provision (§1126 of the reported bil ) that would have required the President to fully enforce al
U.S. regulations on travel to Cuba as in effect on January 19, 2009, and impose the corresponding
penalties against individuals determined to be in violation of such regulations. The provision was
added by an amendment offered by Representative David Rivera, approved 36-6, that had the
intent of reinstating tighter travel restrictions as they existed under the Bush Administration in
January 2009.
Amendments to the Cuban Adjustment Act
Two additional measures introduced in August 2011 would have amended the Cuban Adjustment
Act of 1966 (CAA, P.L. 89-732) in order to curb travel to Cuba by Cubans who had recently
immigrated to the United States. Introduced on August 1, 2011, H.R. 2771 (Rivera) would have
amended the CAA to increase to five years the period during which a Cuban national must be
physical y present in the United States in order to qualify for adjustment of status to that of a
permanent resident. The legislation also would have provided that an alien would be ineligible for
adjustment to permanent resident status if the alien returned to Cuba after admission or parole
into the United States before becoming a U.S. citizen. A subsequent version, H.R. 2831 (Rivera),
introduced August 30, 2011, just contained the provision maintaining that an alien from Cuba
would be ineligible for adjustment to permanent resident status under the CAA if he or she
returned to Cuba before becoming a U.S. citizen. The House Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on Immigration on Policy Enforcement, held a hearing on H.R. 2831 on May 31,
2012.
Initiatives to Ease Restrictions on Travel and Remittances
In contrast to measures aimed at rolling back the Obama Administration’s polices easing travel
and remittances to Cuba, several measures would have eased or lifted travel restrictions
altogether. H.R. 1886 (Rangel) would have prohibited restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 1888
(Rangel), in addition to removing some restrictions on the export of U.S. agricultural products to
Cuba, would also have prohibited Cuba travel restrictions. Two initiatives that would have lifted
the overal embargo on trade and restrictions on financial transaction with Cuba, H.R. 255
(Serrano) and H.R. 1887 (Rangel), would also have lifted restrictions on travel and remittances to
Cuba. H.R. 380 (Lee) would have provided that no funds made available to the Department of the
Treasury could be used to implement, administer, or enforce regulations to require specific
licenses for travel-related transactions directly related to educational activities in Cuba.
Legislative Initiatives in the 113th Congress, 2013-2014
In the 113th Congress, appropriations measures had provisions that would have tightened and
eased Cuba travel restrictions, but none of these provisions were included in final action.
Additional measures were introduced that would have lifted travel restrictions, but no action was
taken on these measures.
First Session
In the first session of the 113th Congress, the House and Senate versions of the FY2014 Financial
Services and General Government appropriations measure, H.R. 2786 and S. 1371, as reported by
Congressional Research Service
32

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

the Appropriations Committees in July 2013, had different provisions regarding U.S. policy
regarding travel to Cuba. The House version would have tightened restrictions on travel by
prohibiting funding for any additional authorization of people-to-people exchanges during the
fiscal year, while the Senate version would have eased restrictions on travel by authorizing a new
general license for professional travel related to disaster prevention, emergency preparedness, and
natural resource protection. Ultimately, however, neither of these provisions was included in the
FY2014 omnibus appropriations measure, H.R. 3547 (P.L. 113-76), signed into law January 17,
2014.
As reported out of the House Appropriations Committee on July 23, 2013, H.R. 2786 (H.Rept.
113-172) had a provision in Section 124 that would have prohibited FY2014 funding used “to
approve, license, facilitate, authorize, or otherwise al ow” travel-related or other transactions
related to nonacademic educational exchanges (i.e., people-to-people travel) to Cuba set forth in
31 C.F.R. 515.565(b)(2) of the CACR. The committee report to the House bil contended that this
category of travel violates the prohibition on travel related to tourist activities set forth in the
Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-387, Title IX). The
report also maintained that the stated purpose of people-to-people travel—to promote the Cuban
people’s independence from Cuban authorities—“cannot be accomplished through itineraries that
mainly feature interactions with representatives of a dictatorship that actively oppresses the
Cuban people, nor can it be accomplished through itineraries that do not require meetings with
pro-democracy activists or independent members of Cuban civil society.”
The House bil had a second Cuba provision in Section 125 that would have required a Treasury
Department report within 90 days of the bil ’s enactment with information for each fiscal year
since FY2007 on the number of travelers visiting close relatives in Cuba, the average duration of
these trips, the average amount of U.S. dollars spent per family traveler (including amount of
remittances carried to Cuba), the number of return trips per year, and the total sum of U.S. dollars
spent collectively by family travelers for each fiscal year.
As reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 25, 2013, S. 1371 (S.Rept. 113-
80) had a provision in Section 628 that would have provided for a new general license for travel-
related transactions for full-time professional research; attendance at professional meetings if the
sponsoring organization was a U.S. organization; and the organization and management of
professional meetings and conferences in Cuba if the sponsoring organization was a U.S.
professional organization—if the travel was related to disaster prevention; emergency
preparedness; and natural resource protection, including for fisheries, coral reefs, and migratory
species. This provision would have expanded the general licenses available for professional
research and meetings in Cuba that al ow full-time professionals to conduct professional research
in their areas (with certain conditions), attend professional meetings or conferences in Cuba
organized by an international professional organization, and attend professional meetings for
commercial telecommunications transactions (31 C.F.R. 515.564).
Second Session
In the second session of the 113th Congress, the House-passed version of the FY2015 Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations Act, H.R. 5016 (H.Rept. 113-508), had a
provision that would have prohibited the use of any funds in the act to approve, license, facilitate,
authorize, or otherwise al ow people-to-people travel. The measure also had a provision that
would have required the Administration to prepare a report with specific information on family
travel to Cuba since FY2007. A draft Senate bil (not introduced, but released by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations in July 2014) did not include any provisions on Cuba sanctions.
Congressional Research Service
33

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

H.R. 5016 was approved by the House July 16, 2014, by a vote of 228 to 195. Section 126 of the
bil would have prevented any funds in the act from being used “to approve, license, facilitate,
authorize or otherwise al ow” people-to-people travel. Section 127 would have required a joint
report from the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Homeland Security with
information for each fiscal year since FY2007 on the number of travelers visiting close relatives
in Cuba; the average duration of these trips; the average amount of U.S. dollars spent per family
traveler (including amount of remittances carried to Cuba); the number of return trips per year;
and the total sum of U.S. dollars spent collectively by family travelers for each fiscal year. As
noted above, similar provisions had appeared in the House Appropriations Committee-reported
FY2014 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, H.R. 2786, but
ultimately were not included in the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76).
The House Committee on Appropriations report to H.R. 5016 (H.Rept. 113-508) contended that
the people-to-people category of travel “contravenes the explicit prohibition against tourist
activities as provided in section 910(b) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement
Act of 2000 (TSRA),” (22 U.S.C. 7209(b)). The report also maintained that the stated purpose of
people-to-people travel—to promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities—
“cannot be accomplished through itineraries that mainly feature interactions with representatives
of a dictatorship that actively oppresses the Cuban people, nor can it be accomplished through
itineraries that do not require meetings with pro-democracy activists or independent members of
Cuban civil society.”
Ultimately Congress did not complete action on H.R. 5016, and the FY2015 omnibus
appropriations measure approved in December 2014 (P.L. 113-235) did not include the Cuba-
related travel provisions in H.R. 5016.
Additional Legislation Introduced in the 113th Congress
In addition to the appropriations measured discussed above, several other initiatives were
introduced in the 113th Congress that would lifted al travel restrictions, but no action was taken
on these measures: H.R. 871 (Rangel) would have lifted travel restrictions; H.R. 873 (Rangel)
would have lifted travel restrictions and restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports; and H.R. 214
(Serrano), H.R. 872 (Rangel), and H.R. 1917 (Rush) would have lifted the overal embargo,
including travel restrictions.
Legislative Initiatives in the 114th Congress, 2015-2016
Several legislative initiatives introduced in the 114th Congress would have lifted remaining
restrictions on travel and remittances, but no action was taken on these measures. Three bil s
would have lifted the overal embargo, including restrictions on travel and remittances: H.R. 274
(Rush), H.R. 403 (Rangel), and H.R. 735 (Serrano). One bil , H.R. 635 (Rangel), would have
facilitated the export of U.S. agricultural and medical exports to Cuba and lifted travel
restrictions. Three bil s would have focused solely on prohibiting restrictions on travel to Cuba:
H.R. 634 (Rangel), H.R. 664 (Sanford), and S. 299 (Flake). S. 2990 (Collins) would have
permitted the provision of services to foreign air carriers en route to or from Cuba. (OFAC issued
a license in July 2016 to Bangor International Airport to provide services to such flights.)
In contrast, other initiatives would have slowed down easing of travel restrictions or restricted
regular scheduled air travel with Cuba. No action was taken on these measures. Two bil s, S. 1388
(Vitter) and H.R. 2466 (Rooney), would have required the President to submit a plan for resolving
al outstanding claims relating to property confiscated by the government of Cuba before taking
action to ease restrictions on travel to or trade with Cuba. Two similar bil s, H.R. 5728 (Katko)
Congressional Research Service
34

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

and S. 3289 (Rubio), would have prohibited scheduled passenger air transportation between the
United States and Cuba until a study was completed regarding Cuba’s airport security and until
agreements had been reached with Cuba al owing the U.S. Federal Air Marshal Service to
conduct missions on regularly scheduled flights and providing Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) inspectors access to al areas of last-point-of-departure airports in Cuba for
security assessments. (As noted above, Cuba and the United States reached an agreement in late
September 2016 that wil al ow Federal Air Marshals on board regularly scheduled flights to and
from Cuba.)
Efforts to ease and tighten travel restrictions played out in the FY2016 appropriations process, but
ultimately no such provisions were included in the FY2016 omnibus appropriations measure (P.L.
114-113). The Senate Appropriations Committee-approved version of the FY2016 Financial
Services appropriation bil , S. 1910, had a provision that would have lifted restrictions on travel
to Cuba. In contrast, House-passed H.R. 2577, the FY2016 House Transportation, Housing, and
Urban Development appropriations bil , had two Cuba provisions that would have affected the
Administration’s efforts to increase travel to and from Cuba by impeding the establishment of
regularly scheduled air service and passenger ferry service. In addition, the House Appropriations
Committee-approved FY2016 Financial Services appropriations bil , H.R. 2995, had a broader
provision that would have prevented people-to-people educational travel.
In the FY2017 appropriations process, the House and Senate versions of the Financial Services
appropriations measure had contrasting provisions on travel, but the 114th Congress did not
complete action on FY2017 appropriations. In the House Financial Services appropriations bil ,
H.R. 5485 (H.Rept. 114-624), as approved by the House on July 7, 2016, Section 132 would have
prohibited funding that licenses, facilitates, or otherwise al ows people-to-people travel. The
measure would have had a significant impact on the expansion of U.S. travel to Cuba that has
occurred in recent years, including the recently begun cruise ship travel to Cuba. Another
provision in the House bil , Section 134, would have prohibited funding to approve, license,
facilitate, authorize, or otherwise al ow any financial transaction with an entity controlled, in
whole or in part, by the Cuban military or intel igence service or any officer or immediate family
member thereof. This provision could have had a significant effect on U.S. travel to Cuba because
the Cuban military has an important role in hotel and other travel services in the country.
In the Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of the FY2017 Financial Services
appropriations measure, S. 3067 (S.Rept. 114-280), Section 635 would have prohibited funding in
the act or in any act to implement any law, regulation, or policy that restricts travel to Cuba. The
provision would have effectively lifted al restrictions on travel to Cuba. Another provision in the
Senate bil , Section 637, would have prohibited funds in the act or in any act from being used to
implement any law, regulation, or policy that prohibits the provision of technical services
otherwise permitted under an international air transportation agreement in the United States for an
aircraft of a foreign carrier that is en route to or from Cuba based on the restrictions set forth in
the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. (As noted above, OFAC issued a license in July 2016 to
Bangor International Airport to provide services to such flights.)
Congress did not approve a full-year FY2017 appropriations measure until May 2017, when it
enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31), which did not include any of
the contrasting provisions that had been in the House and Senate versions of the Financial
Services appropriations measure discussed above.
Congressional Research Service
35

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Legislative Initiatives in the 115th Congress (2017-2018)
In the 115th Congress, six bil s would have lifted restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 351
(Sanford), the Freedom to Travel Act of 2017, would have focused solely on travel by lifting
current restrictions on travel and prohibiting the President from regulating, directly or indirectly,
travel to Cuba or any transaction incident to such travel. S. 1287 (Flake), the Freedom for
Americans to Travel Act of 2017, would have prohibited the President from restricting travel to
Cuba or any transactions incident to travel to Cuba. H.R. 572 (Serrano), the Promoting American
Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of 2017, would have eased certain restrictions on
agricultural and medical exports to Cuba and would have lifted restrictions on travel and
prohibited restrictions on travel if such travel would be lawful in the United States. Three bil s
would have lifted the embargo on Cuba by removing provisions of law restricting trade and other
financial transactions with Cuba, including restrictions on travel, and would have prohibited
restrictions on travel if such travel would be lawful in the United States: H.R. 574 (Serrano), the
Cuba Reconciliation Act; H.R. 2966 (Rush), the United States-Cuba Normalization Act of 2017;
and S. 1699 (Wyden), the United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2017. (Both H.R. 2966 and S. 1699
also would have prohibited restrictions on U.S. remittances to Cuba.)
The 115th Congress also took legislative action related to concerns about Cuba’s airport security.
Congress completed action on the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, signed into law October 6,
2018, as P.L. 115-254 (H.R. 302), which included a provision in Section 1957 requiring the TSA
to provide Congress a briefing on certain aspects of security measures at airports in Cuba that
have air service to the United States. (The language of the provision is similar, although not
identical, to a provision in H.R. 3328 [Katko], the Cuban Airport Security Act of 2017, approved
by the House in October 2017.)50 P.L. 115-254 also required the TSA Administrator to (1) direct
al public charters to provide updated flight data to more reliably track the public charter
operations of air carriers between the United States and Cuba and (2) develop and implement a
mechanism that corroborates and validates flight schedule data to more reliably track the public
charter operations of air carriers between the United States and Cuba.51

Author Information

Mark P. Sullivan

Specialist in Latin American Affairs

50 H.R. 3328 also would have prohibited a U.S. air carrier from employing a Cuban national in Cuba unless the carrier
had publicly disclosed the full text of the formal agreement between the air carrier and the Em presa Cubana de
Aeropuertos y Servicios Aeronauticos or any other entity associated with the Cuban government. T he bill would also,
to the extent practicable, have prohibit ed U.S. air carriers from hiring Cuban nationals if they had been recruited, hired,
or trained by entities that are owned, operated, or controlled in whole or in part by Cuba’s Council of State, Council of
Ministers, Communist Party, Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, Ministry o f Foreign Affairs, or Ministry of
the Interior. An identical bill, S. 2023 (Rubio), was introduced in the Senate in October 2017.
51 T his requirement relating to public air charters to and from Cuba stems from a recommendation made by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a July 2018 report examining T SA’s assessments of Cuban aviation
security. See GAO, Aviation Security, Actions Needed to Better Identify and Track U.S. -Bound Public Charter
Operations from Cuba, GAO-18-526, July 2018.
Congressional Research Service
36

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
RL31139 · VERSION 88 · UPDATED
37