Opponents of President Obama’s decision to normalize relations with Cuba are bracing for the administration to unveil new details of its plans to ease sanctions on the island nation as early as Thursday.
Those keeping a close watch on the situation expect the U.S. Commerce and Treasury Departments to circulate a draft of the new regulations on Thursday, lifting several sanctions against the island nation, then publish the regulations in the Federal Registry on Friday.
Capitol Hill was caught off guard by the administration’s swift action on the issue, and one GOP source told the Washington Examiner that the move suggests that the administration was planning its executive action easing relations with Cuba well before Dec. 17.
The White House declined to comment on the matter.
Earlier Tuesday two top opponents of Obama’s efforts to normalize relations with Cuba, Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a Cuban-American himself, and Dan Coats, R-Ind., sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew asking for detailed information about how Obama plans to implement the president’s new approach.
In the letter, obtained by the Washington Examiner, Rubio and Coats expressed deep concern about several aspects of Obama’s new approach to Cuba, especially those related to “unilaterally easing U.S. sanctions.”
The pair said Obama’s Cuba executive action violates the letter and spirit of several U.S. laws and “increases the moral and financial risk to the American taxpayer and financial system of doing business through Cuba’s government-controlled financial system.”
The letter specifically asks about Obama’s assertion on Dec. 17 that U.S. institutions will be permitted to open “correspondent accounts” at Cuban financial institutions “to facilitate the processing of authorized transactions.”
Rubio and Coats then point out that the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act explicitly prohibits U.S. assistance and financing to Cuba and provides no presidential waiver. Another law, they noted, prohibits any financing of transactions involving confiscated property belonging to U.S. nationals.
Referring to “stark differences between the letter of the law and the administration’s announcement,” Rubio and Coats asked Lew several specific questions, including what legal authority the administration has to establish “correspondent accounts” in Cuba and allow travelers to Cuba to use U.S. credit and debit cards.
They also want to know the answer to several other questions, including what legal authority the administration plans to cite for travel beyond non-academic limitations set up in 2000.
In addition, they asked how the U.S. will enforce and protect Cuban-Americans that U.S. courts have determined are owed money by the Cuban government and how the executive action will impact that legal action and outstanding judgments.
When it comes to U.S. investment in Cuban telecommunications services, Rubio and Coats asked what legal authority the administration has to allow it, citing the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, which they argue includes a direct prohibition on such investment.
“The fact that the administration has been unable to answer these and many other questions almost a month after the president’s announcement, raises serious concerns about the process which preceded it,” they argued. “We thus would like to know whether the Treasury Department was even consulted regarding these significant policy changes regarding Cuba, and if so, on what date.”
