All signs are pointing to an accommodation of the standoff over Cuba policy that jeopardized a few key votes on the $410 billion 2009 spending bill (and trapped a couple of science nominations in limbo).
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is reported to be working with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) to assuage his concerns that elements of the spending bill would excessively relax the trade embargo against Cuba. But interestingly enough, another senator with identical concerns over the Cuba language, Bill Nelson (D-FL), was prepared to vote for the spending bill last night*, his spokesman told me.
The key for Nelson was not removing the Cuba provisions at issue, but rather “making sure they don’t have unintended consequences,” Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin said.
The apparent disconnect between Nelson’s and Menendez’s positions notwithstanding, here’s the skinny on what specifically alarmed the senators.
The spending bill contains language that would allow Cuban-Americans to visit relatives on the isolated island once a year — as opposed to once every three years, under current law. But as the AP explains, George W. Bush actually changed the law from once-a-year to once-every-three-years in 2004 (as he was fighting for re-election, naturally), so this provision wasn’t really the crux of the controversy.
The spending bill also contains language that expands the licensing ability for those selling food and drugs in Cuba, adding the option of a “general license” for the marketing of such items. In addition, the requirement that cash be paid in advance for shipment of goods from Cuba is slated to be slightly relaxed.
It was this latter provision that attracted skepticism from Nelson, who wanted to ensure that no cash from Cuba-based transactions could end up in the pocket of the government. His concerns were satisfied before last night’s vote, however … which raises the question of why Menendez’s apparently weren’t.
* Late Update: To clarify, Nelson’s support for the bill remains contingent on the White House providing assurances that the spending bill ultimately won’t expand trade or commerce with Cuba — the “consequences” referred to above.
