The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“REFORMING UNILATERAL SANCTIONS ON FOOD AND MEDICINE” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S6344 on July 10, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
____________________
