Working On Restoring Cuban Trade

Working On Restoring Cuban Trade. I’m Greg Martin with today’s Line On Agriculture.

Chances of restoring traditional farm trading rules with Cuba may have improved - as the House and Senate work on spending bills that fund the Treasury Department. The House has now passed its financial agency spending bill - and USA Rice Lobbyist Reece Langley says the Senate is working on its version - with identical Cuba language.

LANGLEY: Language that regarding Cuba that says that the Office of Foreign Asset Control within the Treasury Department must define payment of cash in advance to mean before the goods that are being exported are turned over or title transferred to the importers in Cuba essentially taking back that definition to pre-2005…

When the Bush administration redefined payment in advance to mean before Cuba-bound farm goods leave U.S. shores. Langley says House and Senate passage of the same bill with the same Cuba language would be a first on Cuba trade reform since the Bush restrictions - and would likely get a presidential signature.

LANGLEY: That’s the first time we would have seen this type of language make it all the way through the appropriations process and to the President’s desk. I don’t think this is an issue that we would see resistance from the White House on as you said, they’ve already been willing to lessen some of the other regulatory burdens that are in place and I think this would go along with that same approach.

The Bush change in traditional trading rules forced Cuba to use complicated transactions to buy U.S. goods - making purchases more expensive. Without the restrictions - the American Farm Bureau estimates Cuba could be up to a billion-dollar a year market for U.S. ag products. Langley still thinks that some anti-Castro Senators could still slow the effort - as New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez did on an earlier reform move this year. But Langley adds:

LANGLEY: But given the language that this bill is in and the fact that it is identical in both the House and the Senate versions, I think is going to be difficult for them to be able to remove or alter this language and I think we will ultimately see it enacted.

That’s today’s Line On Agriculture. I’m Greg Martin on the Northwest Ag Information Network.