Joint Panel Agrees on Legislation to Relax Trade Embargo on Cuba

House and Senate negotiators on Thursday reached agreement on legislation to allow the sale of food and medicine to Cuba, moving to relax a trade embargo central to U.S. policy toward the communist regime of Fidel Castro for nearly four decades.

Proponents hailed the measure, which now goes to the House and Senate for final approval, as a sea change in the U.S. approach to Cuba. But in a significant concession to a stubborn faction of anti-Cuban lawmakers, the measure would restrict financing of food sales to cash-strapped Cuba and tighten limits on U.S. travel there.

Many lawmakers who support broader trade with Cuba complained that those restrictions made the measure a sham that would set U.S.-Cuban relations back rather than advance them.

Although the immediate practical effect of the law may be limited, proponents said it marked a watershed for Congress to open the door to trade with Cuba.

“That’s a major, huge, historic victory to even open the door to Cuba,” said Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), a leading advocate of relaxing the trade embargo.

The government of Cuba, however, denounced the legislation, saying the financing and travel restrictions turned it into a “public relations maneuver” that would raise rather than lower barriers between the island and the United States.

“If this legislative project is approved under these discriminatory and humiliating conditions, Cuba will not carry out any commercial transaction with the United States,” a statement from the Cuban Foreign Ministry in Havana said.

But Rep. George R. Nethercutt Jr. (R-Wash.), another leader of the drive to relax the embargo, dismissed the Cuban threat as rhetorical bluster.

“That’s all politics,” Nethercutt said. “They are going to buy products from us because it’s a better product.”

The measure represents a compromise between powerful U.S. economic interests--particularly agricultural businesses looking for new export markets--and the ideological passion of conservative Republicans and others dedicated to opposing the Castro regime.

Although the measure does not go as far as many farm-state lawmakers wanted--and despite the continuing strong opposition to it among the anti-Castro faction--Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) voiced confidence that the measure would pass. That’s because it will be put to a vote as part of an appropriations bill for agriculture programs, a bill very hard for farm-state lawmakers to oppose in an election year.

The overall appropriations bill is likely to be voted on next week.

The White House had no immediate comment on the Cuban trade proposal. President Clinton has endorsed the concept of allowing food and medicine sales to Cuba, but he may object to wording in the compromise that would limit presidential power to impose economic sanctions in the future.

On another front, a White House spokesman expressed “serious concerns” about an unrelated measure in the agriculture bill intended to cut prescription drug prices. The provision would allow pharmacists and drug wholesalers to import U.S.-made drugs that are sold more cheaply abroad.

Although Clinton and members of both parties support the concept, Democrats denounced the GOP version adopted Thursday, saying it was riddled with loopholes that would make it difficult for most U.S. consumers to actually obtain cheaper drugs from overseas.

At issue in the Cuban trade debate is an amendment that would allow food and medicine to be sold to Cuba and four other nations that are now subject to U.S. trade sanctions: Iran, Libya, North Korea and Sudan.

The emotional center of the debate was Cuba. Although limited commerce has been allowed--certain licensed sales of medicine, for example--the U.S. cut off almost all trade with the island in 1962 in hopes of pressuring Castro into social and political reform.

Defenders of the embargo--including powerful Republican leaders such as House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Florida Republicans vehemently opposed to the Cuban regime--argue that Castro should not be rewarded with the benefits of U.S. trade.

But Congress has come under increasing pressure to allow food exports to Cuba from farm interests and others who have argued that the embargo is an outmoded relic of the Cold War. The pressure is particularly strong in the farm belt in this election year--as became clear in Thursday’s deliberations when Sen. Conrad R. Burns (R--Mont.) twice voted with Democrats on efforts to lift proposed travel and financing restrictions.

Solid majorities of both the House and Senate have voted this year to allow food and medicine sales to Cuba without restriction. But the anti-Castro lawmakers maneuvered to win concessions as negotiators worked to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the agriculture spending bill.

As approved by the House-Senate conference committee, the compromise would continue the existing ban on imports from Cuba. Exports of food and medicine would be subject to special financing restrictions: U.S. banks and other institutions would be prohibited from extending credit or otherwise financing sales to Cuba. However, the compromise would allow banks in other countries to finance sales and would allow U.S. institutions to facilitate foreign financing.

The most heated dispute centered on the compromise’s provisions to tighten travel restrictions. Currently, U.S. regulations--but not the law itself--prohibit travel to Cuba for most Americans, with exceptions for educators, researchers and some others. House Republicans insisted on a measure writing current rules into law--a key concession to Florida Republicans.