By Eric Pianin and Karen DeYoung. Washington Post Staff Writers. The Washington Post. Wednesday, June 21, 2000; Page A01
House Republican leaders said yesterday that they are willing to drop their opposition to the sale of food and medicine to Cuba, clearing the way for the first major relaxation of economic sanctions against the communist island in four decades.
The decision marks a dramatic shift in policy toward Cuba, fueled largely by farm-state Republicans frustrated over the loss of billions of dollars in agricultural sales and by churches and humanitarian groups that contend the sanctions hurt innocent people while failing to undermine President
Fidel Castro.
Negotiators reported making progress last night over the language of a provision allowing U.S. exports of food and medicine to Cuba and four other countries: Iran, Sudan, Libya and North Korea. House GOP leaders agreed in principle to accept the change after it became clear that they would
likely lose to Democrats and farm-state Republicans in a showdown vote.
"It was a good meeting," House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said after the 90-minute session. "The general attitude is everybody is trying to work out a deal that allows everyone to hold the essentials of their position."
The Senate Foreign Relations and Appropriations committees had already endorsed the policy shift. Until yesterday, however, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) had vigorously opposed it and sought to strip anti-sanctions language from an agriculture
spending bill.
Now those leaders are signaling a willingness to allow food and medicine sales to Cuba, but they want to deny U.S. credit guarantees to Castro's cash-strapped government and continue a ban on U.S. imports of Cuban goods. Hastert said yesterday that GOP leaders were trying to work out a
compromise that would placate Cuban American lawmakers who have vehemently opposed any change.
"We're trying to find an agreement, [and] we're about there," Hastert said.
An aide to DeLay said the whip still strongly favors the embargo on Cuba but would likely go along with a compromise acceptable to Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the leading congressional spokespeople for the Cuban American community. Diaz-Balart and
Ros-Lehtinen said that their chief concern was getting ironclad assurances that Castro's regime would not qualify for any credits or loans to purchase U.S. goods.
Participants in last night's meeting agreed that finding a way to provide that assurance was the only remaining sticking point in the talks.
The Clinton administration--which anti-Castro activists have long accused of having a secret agenda to normalize relations with Cuba--has taken no public position in the sanctions debate. A senior official said yesterday that the administration is more concerned about the restrictions the
measure would place on the president.
Under the House and Senate versions, the president would lose the power to impose unilateral sanctions without congressional approval. "Our concern with the legislation as drafted is that it unnecessarily restricts presidential prerogative across the board," the official said. "We're
not against it because of Cuba."
Proposals to loosen or even to end the 40-year-old embargo against Cuba have been perennials in Congress, particularly since the disintegration of the Soviet Union. But until recently, such measures quickly withered under fierce opposition from the far right and the Miami-based Cuban American
community.
Lately, however, traditional sanctions opponents have been joined by business interests alarmed that international competitors have been racking up major sales to countries under unilateral U.S. sanctions. American farmers, weaned from federal subsidies and told to seek their fortune in the
world market, began adding their voices in strength.
Last year, the Senate voted 70 to 28 for a measure sponsored by Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.) to lift all unilateral U.S. sanctions on food and medicine sales, but House leaders refused to consider the measure and it died in conference. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a similar
Ashcroft measure this year.
Also this year, Rep. George R. Nethercutt (R-Wash.), joined by nearly 100 other House members from both parties, demanded that the leadership allow a vote on sanctions. But after proponents succeeded in attaching the measure to the agriculture spending bill, the leadership kept it off the House
floor, leading to an impasse.
A major new element in this year's Cuba equation is the Elian Gonzalez case. According to opinion polls, resentment at what were seen as heavy-handed tactics in Miami to keep the 6-year-old shipwreck survivor from returning to Cuba led a majority of Americans to question sanctions as the
cornerstone of U.S. policy toward the island.
The sanctions, first imposed by the Eisenhower administration, prohibit any monetary transactions with Cuba. In 1992 and 1996, Congress strengthened the embargo and codified it as law, limiting the president's ability to alter it. Changes made by the administration last year allow limited sales
to private enterprises, but because the state runs most of the Cuban economy, those exceptions resulted in only $63,000 of U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba last year.
The anti-sanctions legislation applies only to food and medicine sales. Because it prohibits the use of any U.S. government or commercial credit, as well as the kind of barter arrangements that the island employs with other countries, the ability of Cuba's cash-strapped government to purchase
U.S. goods would be limited.
According to a report released last week by the Stern Group, an international trade advisory firm, U.S. food and medical exports to Cuba could amount to $400 million under the proposed cash-only liberalization. "In a scenario of unrestricted trade," the report said, "the aggregate
of food and medical exports could amount to $1.6 billion with 20,000 associated U.S. jobs."
Meanwhile yesterday, the Senate rejected, by a 59 to 41 vote largely along party lines, the establishment of a bipartisan commission to evaluate overall U.S. policy toward Cuba and to consider changes. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), the measure's sponsor, said it is time to study how U.S.
policy can encourage a "soft landing" for Cuba once the 73-year-old Castro is out of power.
Opponents said that Castro is a "tyrant" who has abused his people and done nothing to merit a policy review, and that the measure could tie the hands of President Clinton's successor. Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) originally co-sponsored the measure, which was introduced as an amendment
to a military spending bill. But while Warner said yesterday that he is "philosophically attuned" to the measure, he said he will not vote for it because he fears it could "become an impediment" to the defense bill.
© 2000 The Washington Post Company |