A bill presented by Representative Rick Crawford (R-Arkansas) could favor the export of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba.
Crawford proposes to include a bill which he plans to present to Congress, a two percent user fee on agricultural products sold to the island that would be used to compensate those who have certified claims of properties confiscated by the Cuban government in the early years of the Revolution.
“That is an essential part of the legislation,” Crawford commented to El Nuevo Herald. “Every transaction will have a two percent excise fee that would be collected and administered to certified claimants through the Treasury Department.”
According to the publication, more than 6,000 certified claims from U.S. companies and citizens are currently worth about eight billion dollars. However, thousands of Cuban-American claims are not certified which, at least for the time being, are not included in the bill.
The bill defended by Crawford, which would have the backing of Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, proposes to remove restrictions on the financing of exports of food, dairy products and other agricultural products to Cuba. Under current policy, it is legal to export these products but they can only be paid in cash and it is not possible to offer credits to Cuban institutions.
The Arkansas representative said he had considered the position of his Cuban-American colleagues in Congress, the main opponents of bilateral rapprochement. “We are trying to do something that is meaningful not only for the American farmers but also to Cuban Americans, too. We think we have arrived at a very elegant solution for both problems,” Crawford affirmed.
“To my knowledge this approach has never been attempted. Our friends in Florida will be interested in this because it does provide a significant policy change,” he added.
However, a spokeswoman for Republican Congressman Mario Díaz-Balart said that at the negotiating table, on his end “there is no deal yet.”
The Cuba Agricultural Exports Act could be an advance of the position that the Trump administration ultimately adopts after the Cuba policy review currently underway is completed in the coming weeks. Crawford said he is also working in coordination with the White House and that the bill will come to light as part of a package of measures that will come following the conclusion of the review.
In 2016, Crawford withdrew an amendment to lift the restrictions on financing agricultural exports to Cuba from the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill. On that occasion he got a commitment that the House Committee on Agriculture will give floor time to a bill with similar language – and that Cuban American representatives would sit down and negotiate.
In January, Crawford introduced a new bill, with 39 co-sponsors. But the bill still didn’t include the two percent fee, although it does prohibit investments in agriculture if a Cuban company is tied to the government, the island’s armed forces or the Ministry of the Interior.
Cuba imports some two billion dollars in agricultural products every year, which represents a market of great possibilities for U.S. farmers. The elimination of commercial restrictions in this sector could significantly increase its exports and create new jobs in the entire country, according to the promoters of a greater exchange with the island.
The topic of claims of properties confiscated by the Cuban government has been one of the thorniest points in the Cuba-U.S. talks since the reestablishment of diplomatic relations. This opens a question about Havana’s position if Crawford’s bill were approved in Congress.
NOT JUST FOR AGRICULTURE
A bill to remove the restrictions that prevent U.S. farmers from freely exporting their products to Cuba, not just limited to agriculture, was proposed this Saturday in Congress.
Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) and Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) led the bipartisan coalition that presented the 2017 Freedom to Export to Cuba Act.
The bill annuls the key regulations of the legislation in force that bans U.S. citizens from doing business in Cuba. However, it does not remove parts of the act that deal with the issue of human rights or the claims for properties confiscated by the Cuban government.
When presenting the project, Mike Enzi said that the strategy to isolate Cuba applied by the U.S. administrations in the last 50 years “hasn’t been very successful” and pointed out that this legislation would provide “new opportunities for businesses” for farmers and ranchers of his country.
Meanwhile, Klobuchar commented that for “far too long, U.S.-Cuba policy has been defined by the conflicts of the past instead of the realities of today and the possibilities for the future.”
A few days ago another bill was presented, backed by 55 senators, which seeks to free tourist trips to Cuba for U.S. citizens. In addition it is to eliminate the obstacles in travel-related banking transactions.
Both legal instruments have been defended before the close of the U.S. review of the Cuba policy by the government of Donald Trump. Although there hasn’t been a definite pronouncement, a representative of the Department of State said that there could be “important differences” with respect to the rapprochement promoted by President Obama.
However, the bills presented in recent days “are sending a clear signal to President Trump and his administration that the participation in Cuba is in the best interest of the U.S. and Cuban people,” pointed our James Williams, president of the Engage Cuba coalition. According to him this level of bipartisanism in Congress is astonishing.
The 2017 Freedom to Export to Cuba Act would create new economic opportunities for U.S. companies and farmers by facilitating exports to the island, while it would allow Cubans a greater access to U.S. productions.
