House Committee Advances Haiti, Cuba Sanctions Bills
The House Foreign Affairs Committee this week advanced two sanctions bills, including one that could lead to new human rights sanctions against Haiti and another that would prevent the administration from removing sanctions against Cuba until it meets certain requirements.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Committee members widely supported the Haiti Criminal Collusion Transparency Act of 2023, which would require the State Department to sanction Haitian gang leaders and the “political and economic elites that support their activities.” The bill “is a welcome step in shining a light on the criminal activity in Haiti, and to sanction those who are engaged in it,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, committee chair. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate (see 2302140049), and lawmakers had introduced a version of the bill last year (see 2210190015).
The committee also advanced the Fighting Oppression until the Reign of Castro Ends Act, 25-20, despite opposition from some Democrats, who questioned whether Cuba deserves to be on the State Department’s state sponsors of terrorism list. The bill, which has also been introduced in the Senate (see 2303170027), would prevent the State Department from removing Cuba from the list until it certifies the country is respecting human rights and has met other requirements.
Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., said the State Department’s most recent report to Congress on state sponsors of terrorism shows that Cuba “simply does not meet the definition” of a terrorism sponsor. “There are many other tools in our foreign policy toolkit to demonstrate our disapproval, including assistance cut off, travel restrictions, trade controls and financial sanctions,” said Meeks, the committee’s top Democrat. “We do not need to impose an inaccurate terror designation to signal our disapproval.”
Under the bill, the administration could remove Cuba from the list only after certifying it has met certain conditions under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, one of which requires Cuba to transition into a democracy. Democrats said requiring Cuba to become a democracy before it can be taken off the terrorism list -- which imposes certain trade and financial restrictions -- is unfair and would require the U.S. to apply the same logic to other countries.
“This bill does not say that Cuba stays on the list until it stops supporting international terrorism,” said Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif. “It says that Cuba stays on the list until it becomes a liberal democracy. That is bad anti-terrorism policy writ large.”
Rep. Maria Salazar, R-Fla., said she “pressed” Secretary of State Antony Blinken during a recent hearing on “whether Cuba had reached the high bar that it takes to be taken off that list, and he admitted clearly that it has not.” Salazar, who introduced the bill in January, said “I'm assuming that the secretary of state is in full support of keeping Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.” The State Department didn’t comment.