[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 87 (Monday, July 10, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S6344]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          REFORMING UNILATERAL SANCTIONS ON FOOD AND MEDICINE

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to address recent 
developments in the effort to reform our sanctions policy towards food 
and medicine.
  Let me recall a bit of recent history. Late last year, the Senate 
passed legislation to end the use of food and medicine as a weapon of 
foreign policy. We passed it by a substantial margin--70 to 28--as an 
amendment to the FY 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill.
  We have both moral and commercial concerns. It is just wrong to 
inflict suffering on innocent people by withholding food and medicine 
because we oppose the policies of their government. This goes against 
the core values of our nation.
  Commercially, the reform legislation would open markets to American 
producers, especially American farmers. They have been struggling 
through a long and terrible crisis brought on by low prices and bad 
weather. Opening new foreign markets would especially help our family 
farms.
  The sanctions reform amendment ran into stiff opposition from House 
members in conference. Their main objection was that the bill would 
allow food and medicine sales to Cuba. Unfortunately, they prevailed, 
and the amendment was struck from the conference report.
  That was last year. What about this year? We've had two important 
developments.
  On the Senate side, the Agriculture Committee included sanctions 
reform in the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill, which was 
reported out in May. It is the section of the bill entitled the ``Food 
and Medicine for the World Act.'' I would like to acknowledge the work 
of my colleagues on this important legislation, especially Senators 
Dodd, Dorgan, Roberts, Ashcroft and Hagel.
  It is very similar to the amendment the Senate passed last year. I 
would note that it contains a new provision which weakens the sanctions 
reform effort. This provision requires one-year licenses for sales of 
food or medicine to governments on the State Department's terrorism 
list. Currently this list covers seven countries, Iran, Iraq, Libya, 
Syria, Sudan, North Korea and Cuba. I believe that this provision is an 
unnecessary restriction on our agricultural exporters.
  But I am much more concerned about recent developments on the House 
side.
  In late June, House members struck a deal to accommodate the same 
small group which fights against sanctions reform every year. Those 
members now have one main target: Cuba.
  This recent House deal is billed as a move to lift unilateral 
sanctions on food and medicine. In fact, it does just the opposite. Let 
me explain.
  First, it would outlaw all finance and insurance of food sales to 
Cuba, even sales to private groups. This would essentially prohibit all 
U.S. exports. In today's world, nobody trades without some sort of 
finance. It takes at least a letter of credit. What is the alternative? 
Only to ride along on the cargo ship to exchange your wheat for cash in 
Havana harbor. Everybody requires some sort of commercial insurance. In 
fact, the House agreement is so broadly written that it might even make 
third-country finance illegal. This is very bad legislation.
  Second, the House agreement would impose even stricter licensing 
requirements than are in effect today on sales of food and medicine. 
These new restrictions would apply not just to Cuba, but also to Iran, 
Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria and North Korea.
  Third, it would make it harder for U.S. exporters to travel to Cuba 
to explore the market.
  Fourth, it would prohibit any food assistance, such as Food for 
Peace, to Cuba, as well as to Iran.
  Accepting these provisions would be a major setback for the Senate.
  The House agreement goes beyond sanctions for food and medicine. It 
includes provisions on travel to Cuba, an entirely unrelated issue. It 
would remove all flexibility from the current travel regulations in two 
ways. First, it would make them statutory. They could only be changed 
in the future by new legislation. Second, it would deny the Treasury 
Department any discretion in issuing travel licenses.
  I understand that the current House plan is to strip this bad 
legislation from their version of the FY 2001 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill, and then bring it up in conference. We must not 
let a small group of House members prevail again this year. I firmly 
oppose the House agreement, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. We 
should work to ensure passage of the Food and Medicine for the World 
Act.
  Last year, the Senate took action that was correct and sound. We 
should continue to press forward.

                          ____________________