[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 14611]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       ILSA EXTENSION ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                     HON. GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 24, 2001

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned by public reports I 
read of continuing Iranian efforts to develop ballistic missiles and by 
the apparent coordination between Iran and other regional 
proliferators. I am equally troubled by the lack of contrition shown by 
Libya's leadership for their role in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. 
The sponsors of this bill argue that this measure will significantly 
advance efforts to constrain Iranian proliferation and will force 
Libya's government to demonstrate greater remorse for their previous 
sponsorship of terrorism.
  These claims may well be true. But I am concerned by efforts to force 
through this bill under suspension procedures without opportunity for 
open debate and amendment.
  The 106th Congress made very clear its support for substantially 
revising U.S. sanctions policy by adopting the Trade Sanctions Reform 
and Export Enhancement Act. This bill was signed into law by the 
President last year and lifted all unilateral sanctions on food and 
medicine, and significantly restricted the future application of such 
sanctions. The regulations governing the sale of food and medicine to 
formerly sanctioned states, including Iran and Libya, will be effective 
next week, and sales will be able to go forward.
  I would like to believe that last year marked a significant 
philosophical shift in how the United States deals with sanctions 
policy. Generally, most Members agree that unilateral sanctions tend to 
have very little effect on targeted states, while they do hurt American 
interests. Unilateral sanctions also have a way of hardening opposition 
to the United States within the targeted country, and allow repressive 
governments to maintain a siege mentality that generally benefits the 
oppressors more than the oppressed. And the perception of hostility 
that accompanies such sanctions has a way of marginalizing reformist 
elements within the countries we seek to improve.
  At the same time, unilateral sanctions have a way of greatly 
complicating our trading relationships with our allies. 
Extraterritorial sanctions, such as would be applied under this 
measure, are even more antagonizing to our most prominent trade 
partners.
  Certainly, the House should, and regularly does, go on record with 
concerns about terrorism and proliferation. It is our responsibility to 
promote policies that change these reprehensible regimes. But I am 
concerned when this body debates sanctions policy with no opportunity 
for amendment on the floor. Sanctions go to the heart of our foreign 
policy, and are important enough to be deliberated in the open, during 
regular hours, with full participation by Members. Regretfully, this 
was not the case with H.R. 1954.

                          ____________________