PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 21, 2001
No Safe Haven in Cuba Act - Expresses congressional findings that on May 2, 1973, Joanne Chesimard and two companions opened fire on two New Jersey State Troopers, killing Trooper Werner Foerster; that Ms. Chesimard was found guilty of first-degree murder; that she escaped from the reformatory and fled to Cuba; and that approximately 90 other individuals have fled to Cuba after indictment for or conviction of serious offenses.Amends the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 to require that, in order to determine that a democratically elected government exists in Cuba, the government prove its respect for the democratic rule of law by ceasing to provide a safe harbor to individuals who have been legally indicted or convicted of serious offenses, including Joanne Chesimard and all others who have fled from the United States to Cuba for the sole purpose of avoiding prosecution or confinement for serious criminal offenses committed in the United States.
People & committees
Rep. Rothman, Steven R. [D-NJ-9] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
Referred to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 19, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2292 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2292 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2292 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2292 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.