By Nick Anderson, Times Staff Writer. Los Angeles Times. Friday, July 28, 2000
WASHINGTON--Ratcheting up the stakes in a legislative tug of war over Cuba policy, the Republican congressional leadership Thursday summarily scrapped key provisions in a spending bill that aimed to ease a decades-old embargo on sales of food and medicine and travel to the island nation.
The leadership's announcement on the House floor, one week after the provisions were approved by wide bipartisan margins, drew howls from leading Democrats and muted protests from some rank-and-file Republicans.
Afterward, a narrow majority of the House gave the revised spending bill--minus the embargo-easing language--a significant push forward with a 214-210 vote to approve terms of debate. Final action, though, was put off until September as the House rushed to finish its work before heading
into a recess for the national party conventions.
The fierce parliamentary maneuvering Thursday underscored that the fate of efforts to relax the trade embargo first imposed against the Communist nation in 1960 remains unsettled despite an accord on the issue reached by key House Republicans a month ago.
At issue was whether changes to the U.S. trade policy with Cuba would ultimately become law this year and, if so, how extensive they would be.
Outraged proponents of easing the embargo warned the GOP leadership that it could not stall much longer. "This is not the end of this issue," said Rep. Jose E. Serrano (D-N.Y.). "Your time is running out. You can't continue to ignore the Constitution, you can't continue to
ignore the will of the people, and you can't continue to ignore your own members."
Top Republicans in the House and Senate, siding with influential Cuban American interests, have vigorously opposed any changes to the embargo, arguing that trading with the regime of Fidel Castro would amount to a tacit endorsement of communist oppression in Cuba.
But many Republicans, led by farm-state representatives, have banded with Democrats to argue that isolating Cuba no longer makes sense at a time when Congress and the Clinton administration are moving to liberalize trade policy with many nations, including China, the world's largest
communist country.
This coalition is so large that House Republican leaders reluctantly agreed June 27 to endorse a compromise package that would allow direct U.S. sales of food and medicine to Cuba and four other pariah nations--though with certain restrictions that could tightly limit the amount of actual
exports to Cuba. In addition, the compromise further cemented a ban on U.S. tourist travel to Cuba. So far, the package has not come to a vote, although House GOP leaders say they remain committed to passing the package this year as part of a separate agriculture spending bill.
But actions in the House and Senate since the June 27 endorsement indicate that the leaders might have a tough time holding to the compromise, as sentiment in both houses of Congress coalesces around a more liberal posture toward Cuba. Last week, the Senate approved its own agriculture
spending bill that contained broad language to allow exports of food and medicine to Cuba and the other four countries--Iran, Libya, North Korea and Sudan--with minimal regulation. Senators are also threatening attempts to block the tourism ban.
Also last week, the House took two precedent-setting votes on Cuba trade policy in connection with legislation funding the Treasury Department and other government operations. One measure, approved on a 301-116 vote, would block enforcement of the embargo on sales of food and medicine in
the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. Another, approved 232-186, would, likewise, block enforcement of the tourist travel ban.
Those two amendments were the measures that the leadership axed Thursday as it brought forward a revised spending bill.
But Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), the House majority whip and a staunch critic of Castro, insisted that advocates of easing the embargo still had a strong hand. "You won the Cuba issue," DeLay said in a speech on the floor of the House. "I was absolutely opposed to it. . . . You
won; you've got the leverage now to go negotiate" a final agreement. DeLay added: "That is very significant."
But on Capitol Hill, what is said and what gets done often are two different things. So advocates of easing the Cuba embargo vented their frustration Thursday. Rep. Marshall "Mark" Sanford (R-S.C.), who engineered the surprising vote last week to block enforcement of the travel
ban, said he was disappointed that his party's leaders were trying to "circumvent the majority will of the House."
Democrats were more blunt. Rep. David R. Obey of Wisconsin, top Democrat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, said the GOP leadership had decided to "unilaterally and arrogantly reverse a decision" made by the full House. "They're going to throw it in the ashcan
because it doesn't meet their political objectives," Obey said.
Farm lobbyists vowed to redouble efforts to end trade sanctions against Cuba and the four other nations. Combined, they offer a market for agricultural exports worth about $6 billion a year.
"There's significant pressure to expand the deal that was agreed to" June 27, said Audrae Erickson, a trade specialist for the American Farm Bureau Federation. "The question is, what will actually be accomplished?"
Copyright 2000 Los Angeles Times |