Order Code IB10061
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Exempting Food and Agriculture Products
from U.S. Economic Sanctions:
Status and Implementation
Updated June 27, 2003
Remy Jurenas
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
1999-2001 Changes in U.S. Policy Allowing Agricultural Sales to Sanctioned Countries
Debate on Agricultural and Food Exports in U.S. Economic Sanctions Policy
Provisions Enacted in 2000 to Exempt Food and Medical Products from U.S. Economic
Sanctions
Overview of TSRA
Extension of Food and Medical Exemption to Cuba
Codification of Food/Medical Exemption
Export Licensing Requirement
Payment and Financing Terms of Exempted Sales
Prohibition on U.S. Government Assistance for Export Sales
Definition of Products Covered by Exemption
Congressional Role in Future Sanctions on Exempted Products
Sales to Cuba under TSRA’s Policy
Sales Activity to Date
Developments in the 107th and 108th Congresses
107th Congress
Cuba-Specific Bills and Provisions
Bills Dealing with Other Sanctioned Countries
Proposed Changes to Overall Food Sanctions’ Exemption Policy
Amendments to TSRA in Anti-Terrorism Legislation
108th Congress
LEGISLATION
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING CRS PRODUCTS:
CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Trade, Cuba Sanctions
CRS Report RL30806, Cuba: Issues for Congress
CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Trade, Economic Sanctions


IB10061
06-27-03
Exempting Food and Agriculture Products from U.S. Economic
Sanctions: Status and Implementation
SUMMARY
Falling agricultural exports and declining
and food products from December 2001
commodity prices led farm groups and agri-
through April 2003.
business firms to urge the 106th Congress to
pass legislation exempting foods and agricul-
The interim rules issued to implement
tural commodities from U.S. economic sanc-
TSRA by the Department of Commerce’s
tions against certain countries. In completing
Bureau of Export Administration allow for the
action on the FY2001 agriculture appropria-
commercial sale of eligible agricultural prod-
tions bill, Congress codified the lifting of
ucts to Cuba without an export license if other
unilateral sanctions on commercial sales of
federal agencies do not object within 11 days.
food, agricultural commodities, medicine, and
Related regulations issued by the Department
medical products to Iran, Libya, North Korea,
of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control
and Sudan, and extended this policy to apply
still require an export license for agricultural
to Cuba (Title IX of H.R. 5426, as enacted by
product sales to Iran, Libya, and Sudan.
P.L. 106-387; Trade Sanctions Reform and
Export Enhancement Act of 2000, or TSRA).
Congressional opponents of TSRA’s
Other provisions place financing and licensing
prohibitions on the private U.S. financing of
conditions on sales to these countries. Those
agricultural sales, public financing of eligible
that apply to Cuba, though, are permanent and
exports, and tourist travel to Cuba introduced
more restrictive. TSRA also gives Congress
bills and amendments in the 107th Congress to
the authority in the future to veto a President’s
repeal these provisions. Conferees on the
proposal to impose a sanction on the sale of
farm bill dropped a Senate provision (opposed
agricultural or medical products.
by the Bush Administration) to repeal the
private financing prohibition. The House-
Codifying the food and medical sales
passed Treasury appropriations bill for
exemption for Cuba generated controversy
FY2003 included one such amendment (sec-
and delayed passage of the agriculture spend-
tion 646 of H.R. 5120), but it was dropped in
ing bill. Exemption proponents argued that
the omnibus appropriations bill (H.J.Res. 2)
prohibiting sales to Cuba harmed the U.S.
both chambers approved in January 2003.
agricultural sector, and that opening up lim-
The Bush Administration has signaled that
ited trade would be one way to pursue a "con-
while sales will be allowed under TSRA, its
structive engagement" policy. Opponents
policy is not to change any aspect of the em-
countered an exemption would undercut a
bargo until political and economic reforms
U.S. policy designed to pressure the Castro
occur in Cuba.
government to make political and economic
reforms. Though top Cuban officials initially
Congressional opponents of these restric-
stated that no purchases would be made with
tions have stated their intent to pursue similar
TSRA’s conditions in place, food stock losses
initiatives in the 108th Congress. H.R. 187,
resulting from the devastation caused by a
H.R. 188, H.R. 1698, and S. 403 reflect some
hurricane and an apparent shift in Cuban
of these proposals.
strategy have led to $210 million in cash
purchases by Cuba of U.S. farm commodities
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10061
06-27-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The U.S.-Cuba Trade and Business Council reported in its newsletter in early June 2003
that the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control had denied a request
by a firm to hold its second farm products and agribusiness fair in Havana in January 2004.
OFAC in its letter stated the license would not be granted “based on foreign policy guidance
from the Department of State.”
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
1999-2001 Changes in U.S. Policy Allowing Agricultural
Sales to Sanctioned Countries
The Clinton Administration on April 28, 1999, announced it would lift prohibitions on
U.S. commercial sales of most agricultural commodities and food products to three countries
-- Iran, Libya, and Sudan. Moreover, it indicated that it would not include these products in
announcing future sanctions on other countries. The Administration's decision reflected its
view that food should not be used as a foreign policy tool and officials’ acknowledgment that
U.S. sanctions policy had hurt the U.S. farm economy. On July 27, 1999, the U.S.
Department of Treasury issued country-specific export licensing regulations to exempt
commercial sales of food and medical products by U.S. companies that meet specified
conditions and safeguards to Iran, Libya, and Sudan. Licenses are issued by the Treasury’s
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Regulations issued June 19, 2000, to implement
a White House decision announced in September 1999 now permit sales of agricultural
products to North Korea without an export license. Licensed agricultural sales to Cuba under
a policy announced in May 1999 were restricted only to private and non-governmental
entities (but were broadened under a statutory change that went into effect in July 2001).
Since the Clinton Administration’s policy went into effect, Treasury has approved
licenses that have resulted in U.S. sales of corn to Iran, durum wheat to Libya, and hard red
winter wheat to Sudan. Also, President Clinton, in issuing executive orders in 1999 to
impose U.S. economic sanctions on Serbia and the Taliban in Afghanistan, specifically
exempted commercial sales of food and medical products from prohibitions imposed on all
U.S. exports to these destinations.
The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX of H.R.
5426, as enacted by P.L. 106-387 on October 28, 2000; referred to below as TSRA) codified
the lifting of U.S. sanctions on commercial sales of food, agricultural commodities, and
medical products to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan, and extended this policy to apply
to Cuba. Such sales are subject to export licensing procedures laid out in regulations. In a
significant policy move, this Act also gives Congress veto power over a President’s proposal
to impose a unilateral agricultural or medical sanction in the future. Separately, P.L. 107-56
(enacted October 26, 2001) explicitly made Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan subject
to TSRA’s export licensing requirements, and added other clarifications to the law.
CRS-1

IB10061
06-27-03
During the 2000 Presidential campaign, George W. Bush stated that food and medical
exports should be exempt from unilateral economic sanctions. In one response published in
Farm Journal, he indicated that “if sanctions are used, they should be directed at the
offending government, not at innocent populations.” A Bush spokesman on October 18,
2000, following passage of the agriculture spending bill, stated that his candidate opposed
“changing the sanctions against Cuba until Fidel Castro or the Cuban government allow free
elections, free speech and freedom for political prisoners.” This position has been reaffirmed
in subsequent statements made by President Bush and by top Administration officials in
appearances before congressional committees.
Debate on Agricultural and Food Exports in U.S.
Economic Sanctions Policy
Farm organizations, agricultural commodity associations, and agribusiness firms have
favored changing U.S. policy to exempt export sales of agricultural commodities, food
products, and agricultural inputs from the broad economic sanctions currently imposed on
targeted countries. They argued that prohibitions only hurt U.S. farmers and business,
undermine this country's reputation as a “reliable supplier,” and do not change targeted
countries' behavior. In recent years, these groups joined with firms in the pharmaceutical and
manufacturing sectors to call for a comprehensive review of the economic impact of these
sanctions and for limits on the executive branch's use of sanctions to restrict trade.
Opposition to exempting sales of agricultural commodities and food products from U.S.
sanctions policy has been somewhat more diffuse. Opponents argued that current law gives
the President sufficient flexibility to permit food to be shipped for humanitarian reasons, and
that U.S. foodstuffs, if sold, could be misused by foreign governments or not made available
to those in need. Some objected to the loosening of trade restrictions with certain countries,
such as Cuba. Coming largely from the foreign policy and defense community, they viewed
sanctions as a "legitimate and effective" policy tool, and drew little distinction between
prohibiting sales of food and prohibiting exports of all other products.
Provisions Enacted in 2000 to Exempt Food and Medical
Products from U.S. Economic Sanctions
Overview of TSRA. The most significant policy change made by the Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 exempts commercial sales of agricultural and
medical products to Cuba from the longstanding U.S. trade embargo on that country. At the
same time, TSRA made permanent a prohibition on Cuba’s access to U.S. private and other
public financing to purchase exempted products. Though press coverage suggested that the
debate was solely over a Cuba-specific measure, this Act codified an exemption for sales of
agricultural and medical products in the conduct of U.S. sanctions policy with respect to a
number of countries and the terms under which this exemption operates. It further codified
Clinton Administration policy (based on existing law) that prohibited making available U.S.
government credits, credit guarantees, and other financial assistance to facilitate agricultural
and medical product sales to certain sanctioned countries. Also, TSRA made changes to the
food and medical products exemption-from-sanctions policy exercised administratively by
CRS-2

IB10061
06-27-03
the Executive Branch since mid-1999. This Act (1) broadens the exemption to allow sales
of non-food agricultural commodities and fertilizers, and (2) streamlines the process U.S.
exporters follow to obtain licenses to sell exempted products to sanctioned countries.
The enacted exemption does not apply to Iraq, which is subject to a multilateral
sanctions regime to which the United States subscribes and which the United Nations
implements. Other TSRA provisions require the President to secure future congressional
approval before he can impose for foreign policy or national security reasons a restriction or
prohibition on the sale of agricultural and medical products, and limit the duration of any
such approved sanction to not more than two years unless Congress approves an extension.
Status of Implementation. TSRA provisions with respect to countries currently
subject to U.S. unilateral sanctions took effect on February 25, 2001. However, interagency
differences between the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Export Administration (BXA)
and Treasury’s OFAC over how to interpret these provisions were not resolved until these
were elevated for consideration and resolution by the White House’s National Security
Council. Both agencies issued their interim rules to reflect TSRA’s statutory changes on
July 12, 2001; these took effect on July 26.
Extension of Food and Medical Exemption to Cuba. TSRA allows licensed
commercial sales of agricultural and medical products to Cuba. This policy change reflects
the new law’s requirement that the President “terminate any unilateral agricultural sanction
or unilateral medical sanction” 120 days after enactment. This provision effectively
supersedes statutory provisions in the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996
(P.L. 104-114). That law codified the-then regulatory prohibitions on all U.S. export/import
and other transactions under the comprehensive U.S. embargo imposed on Cuba beginning
in the early 1960s. Under this embargo, commercial sales of U.S.-origin agricultural
products (and medical products at times) to Cuba generally were prohibited. Separately, the
Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 allowed some commercial sales of U.S. medical products to
Cuba, but under tight conditions.
Though the Clinton Administration announced sanctions policy changes in 1999 and
in 2000 to allow sales of agricultural and medical products to Iran, Libya, Sudan, and North
Korea, it did not have legal authority to do the same with respect to Cuba. This explains why
most of the congressional debate leading up to TSRA’s passage revolved around whether this
same exemption should be statutorily extended to apply also to Cuba. As House debate and
a compromise unfolded in early summer 2000, those opposed to this opening in trade with
Cuba succeeded in adding a number of Cuba-specific provisions.
Under TSRA, agricultural and medical sales to Cuba will be subject to various
conditions and restrictions that are similar to those already in effect on similar product sales
to the other sanctioned countries. U.S. exporters will be subject to an export licensing
process before any product can be shipped. Further, a permanent prohibition is in place
against the use of any U.S. government export program or financing provided by U.S. private
banks or state and local governments to facilitate licensed sales.
Debate on Proposed Regulations Governing Sales to Cuba. Members of the
House who led the drive to exempt food and medical products from sanctions asserted that
the draft regulations proposed by BXA and OFAC in early 2001 did not fully repeal the
CRS-3

IB10061
06-27-03
agricultural and medical sanctions in place with respect to Cuba. They challenged the Bush
Administration’s reported decision to retain restrictions on the sale of medicine to Cuba,
arguing it would be contrary to their understanding of Section 903 of TSRA, which requires
the President to terminate all medical product sanctions. In a letter to Treasury, these
Members of Congress “strongly recommend[ed] that sales of medicine be permitted under
the [Act’s] liberalized framework” and emphasized the need to accommodate transactions
related to permitted exports in the final regulations. The latter refers to their request that the
new regulations include a waiver of the current legal restriction that prohibits any ship that
docks in a Cuban port from entering a U.S. port for 6 months. Opponents of sales to Cuba,
though, urged Administration officials to take a restrictive approach towards Cuba in
finalizing the regulations.
Cuba-Related Regulations Issued. BXA’s interim rules continue pre-2001 policy
that requires medical product exports to Cuba be licensed, establish an expedited process for
handling agricultural product sales to Cuba, and waive the restriction on the direct shipment
of eligible products now permitted to be sold to Cuba.
Codification of Food/Medical Exemption. TSRA enacts as U.S. policy the
principle that commercial sales of food, other agricultural products, medicine, and other
medical products shall not be used as a tool to conduct foreign policy or to address national
security objectives (see Definition of Products Covered by Exemption). This law stipulates
that this principle apply to all countries now subject to U.S. unilateral sanctions; and require
that a President in the future justify to Congress why sales of these products to a sanctioned
country or foreign entity should be limited, and obtain congressional approval before taking
such action. Limits on agricultural sales are defined to be “any prohibition, restriction, or
condition on carrying out...any commercial export sale of agricultural commodities” or on
using any USDA program authorized under 4 specified statutes or any U.S. government
export financing (“including credits or credit guarantees”) to facilitate such sales. For
medical product sales, such limits are defined to be “any prohibition, restriction, or condition
on exports of, or the provision of assistance consisting of, medicine or a medical device.”
In immediate and practical terms, TSRA: (1) codified earlier Clinton Administration
decisions to allow agricultural and medical product sales to four countries (Iran, Libya, North
Korea, and Sudan) and (2) amended the laws and related regulations authorizing the U.S.
embargo on Cuba to allow commercial sales of agricultural and medical products.
Exceptions to Exemption. TSRA provides four exceptions to this general principle.
These are when the United States acts against a foreign country or entity to impose a sanction
that includes these products pursuant to: (1) its involvement in a multilateral sanctions
regime or a mandatory decision of the United Nations Security Council; (2) a declaration of
war, or specific statutory authorization for the use, or the imminent or actual involvement in
hostilities, of U.S. armed forces; and (3) its export control to prevent potential military use
under the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Act, or other authority.
President Bush tapped this exception authority in issuing Executive Order 13224 (September
23, 2001) to prohibit transactions with designated terrorists and their supporters. Section 4
states the determination that TSRA shall not affect the imposition or continuation of any
unilateral agricultural or medical sanction on any individual or entity “determined to be
subject to this order because imminent involvement of [U.S.] Armed Forces ... in hostilities
is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”
CRS-4

IB10061
06-27-03
Export Licensing Requirement. Under TSRA’s exemption, exports of agricultural
and medical products to governments and other entities in sanctioned countries are allowed
only under an approved export license. Section 906(a)(1) requires that this export licensing
requirement apply to sales to those countries that the Secretary of State (exercising authority
under three cited statutes) has determined “have repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism.” In practice, this means that sales of eligible products to
governments of countries currently so designated (Cuba, Iran, Libya, and Sudan), or to any
other entity in each of these countries, must be licensed before any shipment can be made.
Though the Secretary of State has determined that the governments of North Korea and Syria
also are sponsors of international terrorism, Section 906(a)(2) explicitly states that the license
requirement does not apply to sales to these two countries. The Secretary has discretion to
drop this licensing requirement for Iran, Libya, and Sudan if the determination is made that
its government no longer supports international terrorism.1 No such discretion is permitted
for Cuba, meaning this licensing requirement is made permanent for eligible sales to Cuba.
Relevant provisions in the Act seek to streamline and simplify the type of license an
exporter must obtain to sell permitted products to sanctioned countries. These address
concerns expressed by U.S. agricultural exporters that the Treasury regulations governing the
licensing of agricultural sales to Iran, Libya, and Sudan have been cumbersome and time
consuming. Differences between the pre-2001 licensing rules and the relevant enacted
provisions that modify the earlier rules are described below.
Previous Licensing Rules. For countries covered by the Clinton Administration’s
1999 food and medical exemption policy (Iran, Libya and Sudan), the Department of
Treasury’s OFAC issued two types of export licenses - general and specific. The type
required, and the relevant conditions and procedures that apply to each, depended on the
nature of the product the exporter wanted to sell, the end user of the proposed sale, the details
of the terms of a sales contract, the date of contract performance, and on how the sale would
be paid for (see Payment and Financing Terms of Exempted Sales for important related
conditions). A general license authorizes certain transactions without the need for an
exporter to file an application providing all the details of each individual transaction. A
specific license is issued on a case-by-case basis to an individual or company allowing an
activity or transaction to take place.
OFAC’s food exemption regulations set up two different procedures for obtaining
licenses, depending on the product to be sold. The conditions that an exporter must meet
varied according to which procedure is followed. An expedited licensing process applied to
prospective sales of specified bulk agricultural commodities. A “specific license” authorized
an exporter to enter into “executory contracts” (i.e., respond to requests for bids, enter into
binding contracts, and perform against contract terms), and covered transactions over a
specified time period. Certain conditions had to be met to obtain this license. For sales of
all other food products, medicines and medical equipment, OFAC used a two-step licensing
procedure to review each contract on a case-by-case basis. First, an exporter had to obtain
a “general license” to enter into an executory contract that made performance contingent
upon prior approval by OFAC, disclose all parties with an interest in the sale, and lay out all
terms of the sale. Second, the exporter had to apply for a “specific license” permitting
1 In practice, the State Department under these statutes has never changed, or reversed, a “sponsor
of international terrorism” determination made with respect to a foreign government.
CRS-5

IB10061
06-27-03
performance of the executory contract before the sale can be completed. OFAC issued these
regulations under the authority of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (as extended) that
requires a “validated license” to export any good to a country determined to be a sponsor of
international terrorism.
For Cuba, Commerce’s BXA administers different licensing rules applicable to
shipments of eligible food and agricultural commodities, farm inputs, and medical products.
Though various statutes and regulations prohibit most exports of U.S. origin to Cuba, there
are some exceptions. Three exceptions until July 26, 2001 allowed for the donation and sale
of food and agricultural products only to individuals, eligible non-governmental entities, and
private businesses. First, regulations allow U.S. individuals to ship gift parcels of food,
seeds, veterinary medicines and supplies, among other specified items, to individuals in Cuba
without a license. Eligible U.S. charitable organizations with an established record in
delivering humanitarian donations may also export food without license to non-government
entities in Cuba. Second, BXA regulations require a specific export license to ship donated
food (among five other permitted categories) for humanitarian purposes to eligible
beneficiaries in Cuba. Third, President Clinton announced on January 5, 1999, that U.S.
policy will now allow "the sale of food and agricultural inputs to independent
non-governmental entities, including religious groups and Cuba's emerging private sector."
BXA's final rule issued on May 13, 1999, authorizes specific export licenses for each sale
of permitted products to these recipients in Cuba and spells the procedures permitted to
transport such exports. Regulations specifically prohibit financing for such sales. The
underlying rationale for these limited exceptions as set out in statute or regulation is to ensure
that the Cuban government, operating through its import entities, does not receive any
financial benefit from agricultural or medical products that it imports directly from the
United States or from a U.S. firm operating in a third country.
TSRA’s Changes to Licensing Rules. Section 906(a) of TSRA allows sales of
exempted agricultural and medical products to sanctioned countries on terms that are less
restrictive than under previous policy (see above). The law stipulates that such exports “shall
only be made pursuant to one-year licenses ... for contracts entered into during the one-year
period of the license and shipped within the 12-month period beginning on the date of the
signing of the contract” and that “such one-year licenses shall be no more restrictive than
license exceptions administered by the Department of Commerce or general licenses
administered by the Department of Treasury.” The wording’s intent appears to require BXA
and OFAC to consider license applications on a streamlined and less conditioned basis rather
than on the present case-by-case and highly regulated basis. In other words, the aim is to
move away from a complex and time consuming process that may require an exporter to
walk through a multiple step process to seek approval for the several transactions involved
in completing one sale. The new law removes executive branch discretion in determining
the time period that applies to transactions covered by an export license, by placing a defined
time parameter on the period during which an approved license covers eligible product
transactions. One related provision is intended to ensure that other licensing conditions and
procedures cover multiple types of transactions (e.g., an exporter submits one application
providing the information required for all of the sales transactions covered by a license).
Another requires that regulations must ensure procedures that will deny licenses for exports
to any entity, or “end user,” within an affected country that promotes international terrorism.
CRS-6

IB10061
06-27-03
Debate over Proposed Licensing Regulations. BXA and OFAC had in early
2001 drafted licensing rules to implement the new law’s exemption. These, reportedly,
differed in some key respects. BXA proposed for the countries under its jurisdiction (Cuba,
North Korea, and Syria) an “arrangement” to allow companies during a one-year period to
export eligible products without the need to secure an individual license for each shipment.
BXA reportedly would grant a “license exception” if a company agrees to monitor sales of
eligible products using a prescribed set of parameters. Under this exception, sales would still
be subject to a government audit. OFAC proposed for all affected countries (Cuba, Iran,
Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria) a case-by-case licensing system that includes end use
verification. Its proposal was similar to rules already in effect for Iran, Libya, and Sudan.
This two-step licensing process would involve first approving a license to allow an exporter
to enter into negotiations to make sales, and then issuing another license to cover actual
shipments. The reported differences in these draft regulations reflected conflicting views on
how to interpret TSRA’s provisions as well as language that some observers suggested was
unclear and contradictory. As these differences became known during February 2001,
Members of Congress and key interest groups weighed in with their views.
Regulations Published. BXA’s rule allows for the sale of eligible agricultural
products to Cuba without an export license (subject, though, to a review of a written
contract) if other federal agencies do not object within 11 days. In other words, BXA will
administer a licensing exception with respect to only those products that are covered by the
regulation’s definitions of agricultural and medical products. OFAC’s rule requires an
exporter to obtain a one-year export license for sales of agricultural and medical sales to Iran,
Libya and Sudan. If a reviewing agency objects within 11 days, the license application is
denied; if a “concern” is raised, OFAC has 30 more days to review the license request. Some
agricultural exporters have since expressed concern that the requirement to have OFAC
check each time that the end user (e.g., buyer) in the latter three countries is not involved in
promoting international terrorism slows down the licensing process. They have urged that
OFAC change its rules to reflect the more flexible licensing system implemented under
Clinton’s 1999 executive order.
Payment and Financing Terms of Exempted Sales. U.S. policy seeks to ensure
that sanctioned countries do not receive any financial benefit from permitted, or licensed,
transactions. It also prohibits such countries from accessing bank accounts and other assets
that their governments, or organizations or firms in these countries, hold in the United States.
The new law does not change current policy, meaning that U.S. banks cannot offer trade
financing to facilitate export sales of exempted products to such countries. With respect to
Cuba, TSRA codifies two of the three types of financial transactions that OFAC regulations
permit to facilitate licensed food and medical product sales to Iran, Libya, and Sudan. Other
provisions prohibit U.S. government support of such sales to all sanctioned countries (see
Prohibition on U.S. Government Assistance for Export Sales).
Current Prohibition and Restrictions. OFAC regulations specifically prohibit
U.S. banks from extending financing to countries subject to U.S. unilateral economic
sanctions. This policy is reflected in the current payment and financing rules that apply to
licensed sales of agricultural and medical products to Iran, Libya, and Sudan under Clinton
Administration policy, and to Cuba under embargo regulations. With respect to the first
three countries, OFAC regulations allow only for payment of cash in advance to be made to
the U.S. seller for a sanctioned country’s purchase of exempted products. The two permitted
CRS-7

IB10061
06-27-03
trade financing, or credit, terms are (1) sales on open account2 with certain limitations, and
(2) financing by third country banks that are neither an overseas office of a U.S. bank nor
entities of the governments of these three countries.3 U.S. banks are permitted to advise or
confirm letters of credit4 issued by third country banks, but are prohibited from providing any
trade financing. An exporter must obtain a general license from OFAC for each of these
payment or credit terms. OFAC also will consider an application from U.S. banks for a
specific license to participate in financing sales on a case-by-case basis, where such financing
arrangements would not undermine overall compliance with U.S. sanctions.
Prohibition on U.S. Financing of Agricultural Sales to Cuba. Section 908(b)
of TSRA prohibits the financing of agricultural sales “to Cuba or any person in Cuba” by
U.S. banks, any state or local government, the federal government, or any other U.S. private
person or entity. This prohibition effectively codifies a provision in the Cuban embargo
regulations (31 CFR 515.533(f)) that does not allow trade financing for the commercial sale
of food or agricultural commodities to non-governmental entities in Cuba that BXA is
authorized to license under a 1999 policy change. TSRA language stipulates that licensed
sales can occur only on a cash-in-advance basis, or if financed by a third country bank. In
codifying this financing prohibition, the Executive Branch no longer has discretion to revise
the financing rules should it determine the nature of the U.S.-Cuban relationship is changing.
In practical terms, this financing policy treats Cuba no different than other sanctioned
countries under pre-2001 regulations with respect to licensed sales.
Prohibition on U.S. Private Financing of Licensed Exports to Other
Countries. Though the issue of prohibiting any U.S. private financing of agricultural
exports to Cuba received much attention during the legislative debate, none of TSRA’s
provisions require any change in OFAC regulations that prohibit U.S. private financing of
agricultural and medical product sales to Iran, Libya and Sudan. With respect to these three
countries, OFAC will continue to implement its current policy prohibiting U.S. private
financing of licensed sales. Though some thought that TSRA would allow these three
countries to take advantage of U.S. private financing despite the statutory prohibition
imposed on Cuba, no provision in the Act explicitly addressed this issue in a way that would
require a change to be made to existing regulations. Members supportive of the financing
exemption argued that since Congress did not place in the law any restrictions on commercial
financing for these three countries, new administrative regulations should not include
2 Sales on open account refers to a transaction in which goods are released to a buyer prior to
payment, or a promise of payment. Because the exporter bears all the risk of non-payment by the
buyer, this type of transaction requires a high level of established trust between both parties. An
exporter, however, may view sales on these terms as providing entry to a potential market that
outweighs such risk. Such terms allow a buyer to delay payment until the imported products have
been examined.
3 An example of third country financing would be a French bank providing trade finance for a U.S.
exporter’s sale of wheat to Iran. This bank must not be an affiliate of a U.S. bank nor of any Iranian
state financial institution.
4 A letter of credit (L/C) is used when the importer/buyer’s ability to pay is uncertain, or when the
exporter/seller needs it to obtain financing. A L/C gives the buyer the financial backing of an issuing
bank, which makes payment within a specified time period to the seller via the seller’s bank upon
presentation of certain documents (e.g., those that reflect the carrying out of a sales contract’s terms).
CRS-8

IB10061
06-27-03
restrictions that run counter to the congressional intent to eliminate sanctions on those tools
(e.g., credit) that can facilitate eligible commercial sales. OFAC’s reported view was that
since the thrust of U.S. policy is to restrict currency flows to sanctioned countries, it would
be burdensome to set up a mechanism to allow for the financing of agricultural and medical
product sales, and thus better not to permit it.
Prohibition on U.S. Government Assistance for Export Sales. Section 908(a)
of TSRA prohibits making available any U.S. government assistance (including foreign aid,
credit or guarantees, and export assistance) “for exports to Cuba or for commercial exports
to Iran, Libya, North Korea, or Sudan.” Wording grants the President authority to waive this
prohibition for humanitarian reasons, or if he determines it is in the national interest to do
so with respect to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan. This waiver authority does not
extend to Cuba. Statutory wording further differentiates among the 5 above-cited countries
by applying this prohibition on all exports (and not just commercial exports) to Cuba.
Clarifying language also stipulates that this U.S. government assistance prohibition does not
“alter, modify, or otherwise affect” certain provisions of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act of 1996 that authorize the President “to furnish assistance and provide other
support for individuals and independent nongovernmental organizations to support
democracy-building efforts for Cuba” and that require the President to “take all necessary
steps to ensure that no funds or other assistance is provided to the Cuban Government.”
In the regulations issued, the Bush Administration chose not to exercise Presidential
waiver authority on this issue. Although some Members of Congress since mid-1999 have
urged that credit guarantees be made available to facilitate agricultural sales to Iran, U.S.
policy (reaffirmed by TSRA) is not to extend any government assistance in support of
permitted commercial sales to a sanctioned country listed as a sponsor of international
terrorism. This position is primarily based on the statutory prohibition found in Section
620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371), which TSRA reaffirms.
Definition of Products Covered by Exemption. Compared to OFAC’s 1999
policy, TSRA broadens the types of agricultural products covered by the enacted exemption
(Sections 775 and 902(1)). Such products are defined to include “any agricultural
commodity, food, feed, fiber, or livestock,” and any derived product. Livestock is defined
to include “cattle, sheep, goats, swine, poultry (including egg-producing poultry), equine
animals used for food or in the production of food, fish used for food, ... other animals
designated” by the Secretary of Agriculture, and insects. Conferees on October 5, 2000,
accepted an amendment that added “fertilizer” and “organic fertilizer” to the definition of an
agricultural commodity. Exports of these inputs are allowed, unless subject to export control
under other specified statutes. Section 902(4) and (5) defines medicine and medical devices
referring to terms used in statutes administered by the Food and Drug Administration.
Treasury regulations followed to implement the Clinton Administration’s 1999 policy
governing sales to Iran, Libya, and Sudan listed the bulk agricultural commodities and some
food products eligible to be licensed. OFAC’s list encompassed most of the products
covered by the 2000-enacted definition, but did not allow for sales of non-food commodities
like cotton (a fiber), tobacco, and wood products. Treasury’s stated rationale for excluding
these non-food commodities was that they could be used for military purposes. OFAC’s
regulations did not detail the other food products nor specify any medical product that could
be sold, and thus required an exporter to apply for a license to ascertain whether a product
CRS-9

IB10061
06-27-03
could be sold. Concern about the use of fertilizer and agri-chemicals for military purposes
was reflected also in OFAC regulations, which did not allow sales of these items (including
insecticides and pesticides) as agricultural products to sanctioned countries.
Definitions in TSRA Regulations. Both BXA and OFAC agreed upon common
definitions for agricultural and medical products in implementing their respective new export
licensing exceptions and requirements. Based on the statutory language, the rules spell out
that agricultural commodities include food commodities, feed, fish, shellfish and fish
products; beer, wine, and spirits; soft drinks; livestock; fiber, including cotton, wool, and
other fibers; tobacco and tobacco products; wood and wood products, including lumber and
utility poles; seeds for food; reproductive materials such as fertilized eggs, embryos and
semen; vitamins and minerals; food additives and supplements; and bottled drinking water.
This definition also includes fertilizers and organic fertilizers, but excludes furniture made
from wood; clothing manufactured from plant or animal materials; agricultural equipment
(whether hand tools or motorized equipment); pesticides, insecticides, or herbicides; and
cosmetics (unless derived entirely from plant materials). Both agencies require sales of 3
products to meet stringent export control rules: fertilizer, western red cedar, and live horses.
Congressional Role in Future Sanctions on Exempted Products. TSRA,
in effect, gives Congress veto power over a President’s proposal to impose a unilateral
agricultural or medical sanction in the future. Section 903(a) requires a President to first
secure congressional approval before he can restrict or prohibit the sale of agricultural and
medical products on a targeted country for foreign policy or national security reasons. It
requires the President report to Congress not later than 60 days before he plans to impose a
sanction, describing the proposed sanction and the activities by the foreign country or entity
that justify the sanction. Section 904 specifies that the requirement for the President to report
to Congress on a proposed sanction does not apply when the United States is at war or
involved militarily against a target country, when the sanctioned product is controlled under
specified export control laws or could be used to facilitate the development or production of
a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon, or when it is imposed as part of a multilateral
sanctions regime or a mandatory decision of the United Nations Security Council. Section
905 provides that any unilateral agricultural or medical sanction approved by Congress
(described above) automatically ends not later than 2 years after it goes into effect. The
President may request that Congress extend the sanction for another 2 years.
Sales to Cuba under TSRA’s Policy
While sales to Iran, Libya, and Sudan under the Clinton Administration’s 1999
exemption policy have been small relative to their total agricultural imports, U.S. farmers,
commodity groups, and agribusiness eyed Cuba as a promising market. Calling for a
broadening of U.S. policy to also exempt food from sanctions in Cuba, they argued that U.S.
agriculture had lost out to foreign competitors in making sales to a sizable, nearby market.
Cuban agricultural imports have averaged about $750 million annually in recent years.
Leading commodities imported were wheat, rice, lentils, flour, and corn. Food and
agricultural imports represented 18% of total Cuban merchandise imports, and have declined
as a share of total imports since the early 1990s. Top suppliers were France, Argentina,
Canada, Spain, and China, which accounted for some two-thirds of Cuba’s food imports.
CRS-10

IB10061
06-27-03
In addition, Cuba’s tourism industry reportedly imports an additional $100 to $250 million
in food products to cover the needs of visiting tourists.
U.S. agricultural interests argued that exempting agricultural exports from the U.S.
embargo on Cuba would result in an opening that yields substantial sales. Various studies
projected annual sales could range from $100 million to over $1 billion, depending on the
time frame looked at and the extent of liberalization that occurred in U.S-Cuban trade. These
interests also held that such a policy change will give U.S. exporters (particularly of rice and
wheat) a competitive edge if Cuba takes advantage of its proximity to buy from its nearest
supplier in order to save the cost of transporting commodities and food from its current
suppliers (France, Canada, Argentina) located much farther away. Cuba reportedly could
save up to $100 million in transportation costs if officials decided to buy primarily from U.S.
agricultural exporters.
Expectations in 2000 of large immediate U.S. sales to the island were viewed as
unrealistic, according to other analysts. One analysis projected that first-year sales taking
into account the financing prohibition could be in the $25-$50 million range. Analysts
pointed to Cuba's limited financial resources, its reliance on barter and credit transactions to
finance agricultural imports, its denial of access to U.S. government programs and to all
public and private financing, and the possible application of other restrictive rules under
current embargo regulations that could hamper such sales. They also suggested that it was
uncertain that Cuba would purchase from the United States, pointing out there may be
pressure to maintain trade ties with some of its "socialist partners" supplying such key
commodities as rice, as well as resistance to relying on just one single supplier.
Some also observed in late 2000 that the Cuban government may not be prepared for
or interested in taking advantage of this possible U.S. trade opening. Top Cuban officials,
including Castro himself, initially rejected the enacted measure. They strongly criticized its
financing, travel, and other prohibitions as "unworkable" and "insulting," viewing it as a
tightening rather than an easing of the embargo, and stated that Cuba will not buy any U.S.
product with such conditions in place. Some observers viewed such talk as political rhetoric
and speculated that pragmatists in the Cuban government seeking to save scarce resources
may in time influence a softening in the leadership's views.
Sales Activity to Date. Notwithstanding this position, the Cuban government on
November 13, 2001, signaled interest in buying U.S. agricultural commodities to quickly
rebuild food reserves damaged or lost due to the devastation caused by Hurricane Michelle.
This move followed an earlier U.S. government offer of humanitarian assistance, to which
Cuba responded on November 8 with a request that the United States temporarily suspend
TSRA’s licensing requirements to purchase foodstuffs and allow Cuban vessels to transport
them from U.S. ports. The State Department agreed only to speed up the licensing process,
and noted some problems might arise if Cuban ships were used.
Negotiations between several U.S. agribusiness firms and Alimport, Cuba’s food import
agency, in late November and early December 2001 led to the signing of contracts to sell
U.S. wheat, corn, soybeans, soymeal, soyoil, poultry, and rice and other food products valued
at $35 million. The first shipment of corn and poultry arrived in Havana on December 13,
2001. U.S. farm groups, agribusiness firms, and anti-embargo groups hailed these sales
under the new sanctions policy, and hoped they would lead to additional sales and represent
CRS-11

IB10061
06-27-03
a symbolic beginning of a changing relationship, respectively. Though top Cuban officials
initially stated these cash purchases were a one time event, this stance changed in the
following months. Another $95 million in additional sales occurred in spring and early
summer 2002, with deliveries scheduled through September. Alimport at a September 2001
trade fair in Havana signed contracts with U.S. firms worth about $92 million to purchase
food products and accompanying services for delivery through April 2003.
Developments in the 107th and 108th Congresses
107th Congress
Members introduced several bills and amendments in 2001 and 2002 to revise U.S.
policy on how food products are handled in sanctions regimes. Most sought to repeal the
export financing and travel prohibitions imposed on Cuba by TSRA; conferees dropped one
such provision included in the Senate’s 2002 farm bill. Some members indicated they would
use the FY2003 agriculture and treasury appropriations bills as vehicles to repeal these
prohibitions. However, the passage of successive FY2003 continuing resolutions to fund
government operations led many observers to conclude that the 107th Congress will not
address or debate these issues. The Bush Administration continued to reiterate that any bills
with provisions that relax the Cuban trade embargo will be vetoed. Another measure focused
on the U.S. role in the multilateral sanctions regime imposed on Iraq. Two other bills
revisited the broader issue of the parameters and process to be followed to exempt
agricultural sales in U.S. sanctions policy. Bush Administration’s efforts to amend TSRA
in light of the September 11th terrorist attacks were reflected in compromise language
included in anti-terrorism legislation.
Cuba-Specific Bills and Provisions. Proposals varied in approach and in scope.
H.R. 173 and Section 335 of S. 1731 (the Senate Agriculture Committee’s farm bill) simply
would have repealed the prohibition on private U.S. financing of agricultural sales to Cuba.
Seven measures (Section 2(h) of H.R. 174; H.R. 797/S. 402; Section 3(f) of H.R. 798/S. 400;
Titles I and II of H.R. 2138/S. 1017; Section 1(f) of H.R. 2662; S. 171; and S. 239) were
broader in their coverage, proposing to drop 3 provisions in TSRA. These are (1) the
requirement that eligible exports to Cuba be licensed in advance, (2) the prohibitions on U.S.
government assistance/financing of food and medical product sales and on private financing
of agricultural sales to Cuba, and (3) the prohibition on tourist travel to Cuba. Some bills
would have repealed specific provisions; S. 239 broadly stated that irrespective of TSRA,
“the prohibition or restriction on trade or financial transactions with Cuba shall not apply”
to the export of agricultural and medical products, or to travel related to the sale or delivery
of these products, to Cuba. Additional language found only in H.R. 797/ S. 402; H.R. 798/S.
400; and S. 239 effectively would have repealed the current restriction that ships entering
Cuba cannot enter a U.S. port for 6 months. This would allow such vessels to transport U.S.
agricultural and medical shipments to Cuba. Some bills would have retained restrictions or
prohibitions on agricultural/medical product exports to Cuba to meet broader export control
and national security objectives. In most of these bills, the referenced provisions were part
of broader legislative efforts to modify or terminate some or all aspects of the U.S. embargo
on Cuba. Among other recommendations offered to change U.S. policy toward Cuba, the
bipartisan House Cuba Working Group on May 15, 2002, proposed (1) allowing the private
CRS-12

IB10061
06-27-03
financing of U.S. agricultural and medical exports, and (2) repealing the statutory ban on any
ship that visits Cuba from calling on an American port for 180 days.
Debate on Farm Bill Provision. The Bush Administration “strongly opposed” the
Senate-passed farm bill provision (Section 355 of S. 1731) that would have repealed the
prohibition on private U.S. financing of U.S. sales of agricultural commodities to Cuba. The
Administration based its stance on its view that Cuba continues to deny basic civil rights to
its citizens and rejects global efforts to combat terrorism. Reflecting this perspective,
Senator Smith during floor debate offered an amendment to require the President to certify
to Congress that Cuba’s government is not involved in supporting acts of international
terrorism before the Cuba-specific prohibition is repealed. A second-degree amendment
offered by Senator Torricelli to also require Presidential certification that all convicted felons
living in Cuba have been returned to the United States before the prohibition is removed fell
when the Senate on December 18, 2001 tabled the Smith amendment (61-33). The Senate
provision was a contentious issue in the farm bill conference held to resolve differences with
the House measure, which did not contain a comparable provision. With reports surfacing
that the House leadership would make the final decision on this matter, Representative
Dooley (one conferee from the House Agriculture Committee) on April 17, 2002, offered a
motion to instruct House conferees to accept the Senate position. Following debate on the
motion on April 18, the House on a roll call vote of 273-143 agreed to this motion to instruct
(non-binding on conferees) on April 23. In final action, Senate conferees receded to the
House position, meaning the prohibition remains in effect.
Amendment to FY2003 Treasury Appropriations Bill. Representative Jerry
Moran on July 23, 2002, proposed an indirect approach to relax the prohibitions and
stipulations on private commercial agricultural and medical product sales to Cuba. His
amendment (Section 646 to H.R. 5120, FY2003 Treasury Appropriations), accepted by voice
vote, would have effectively cut off funding for one year to Treasury’s OFAC for
administering only those tasks involving the private financing prohibition and current
shipping restrictions, among other Cuban embargo regulations that apply to agricultural and
medical product sales. It would not apply to TSRA’s licensing requirements that cover
agricultural sales to Cuba, because they are administered by Commerce’s BXA, which is not
funded by the Treasury appropriations bill. Final action on this measure did not occur before
Congress adjourned. In the 108th Congress, House and Senate leadership dropped last year’s
OFAC provision in H.J.Res. 2, the omnibus spending bill that also funds Treasury operations
in FY2003, in sending this measure to the floor for action in January 2003.
Administration’s Position. President Bush on May 20, 2002, in a major Cuba
policy speech reiterated his opposition to any repeal of the prohibition on private financing
of agricultural sales, stating it “would just be a foreign aid program in disguise, which would
benefit the current regime.” Bush stated he would veto legislation that relaxes the embargo
in any way until the Cuban government introduced a series of specified reforms. Secretary
of State Powell and Treasury Secretary O’Neill followed up in a July 11, 2002, letter to
House appropriators to state they would recommend a presidential veto of any bill that eased
restrictions on trade and travel to Cuba.
Bills Dealing with Other Sanctioned Countries. One measure seeking to amend
TSRA was broader in the range of countries to be covered. S. 171 would have repealed the
TSRA’s prohibition on U.S. government assistance and financing of sales not just with
CRS-13

IB10061
06-27-03
respect to Cuba, but also with respect to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan. Focusing on
just one country, H.R. 742 stipulated that U.S. restrictions and prohibitions imposed under
the Iraq Sanctions Act of 1990 or other laws could not apply with respect to the export of
food, agricultural commodities, and medical products, or to travel related to their sale or
delivery, to Iraq. Other provisions were intended to allow for the free flow of humanitarian
aid to Iraq without the threat of prosecution by waiving the requirement that exports be
licensed in advance. Exporters would be required to notify the Department of Commerce of
such shipments. (For background on U.S. and U.N. sanctions policy toward Iraq, see CRS
Report RL30472, Iraq: Oil-For-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade.)
Proposed Changes to Overall Food Sanctions’ Exemption Policy. Three
measures address broad U.S. policy on the issue of exempting agricultural exports from
export control or sanctions regimes. Title IV of S. 149, as introduced, proposed to exempt
agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical supplies from export controls imposed for
foreign policy reasons. Language specified that this exemption would not apply to any such
items subject to national security export controls imposed under Title II of this bill or listed
on the U.S. Munitions List, nor to their export to a country against which an embargo is in
effect under the Trading With the Enemy Act (Cuba and North Korea). During Senate
Banking Committee markup on March 22, 2001, all of Title IV was deleted. Concerned the
Executive Branch might exercise the bill’s broad authorities in ways that undercut TSRA’s
intent to exempt food and medical products from unilateral sanctions, Senator Roberts
succeeded in including language in a manager’s amendment that addressed this issue.
Section 603 (as adopted by the Senate in early September 2001) stated that S. 149 does not
authorize export controls on food for national security purposes. It also stated that such
controls cannot be used to restrict food exports for foreign policy reasons, unless Congress
in advance approves such action following TSRA’s provisions, and explicitly stated that
nothing in S. 149 authorizes the exercise of authority to restrict agricultural and medical
product exports contrary to any TSRA provision.
Amendments to TSRA in Anti-Terrorism Legislation. The package of anti-
terrorism measures (P.L. 107-56; H.R. 3162) signed into law on October 26, 2001 amended
some TSRA provisions. The compromise struck between the Bush Administration and key
Senators modified one circumstance under which TSRA’s food/medical exemption would
not apply, codified that agricultural and medical product sales to the Taliban-controlled area
of Afghanistan are subject to TSRA’s export licensing requirements that now apply to Cuba
and to governments of other countries determined to be sponsors of international terrorism,
and expressly allows eligible export sales to be made also to any other entity in Syria or
North Korea without the need for an exporter to secure a license. Other provisions stated that
no TSRA provision limits the application of criminal or civil penalties on those who
unlawfully engage in the export of agricultural and medical products to designated foreign
organizations, groups, persons, or entities, nor affects the statutory prohibitions against
providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.
108th Congress
Three measures to amend TSRA’s Cuba-applicable provisions have been introduced to
date. H.R. 187 would repeal TSRA’s prohibition on the use of private financing for
agricultural and medical product exports to Cuba. H.R. 188 and S. 403 are broader in scope,
CRS-14

IB10061
06-27-03
repealing the private financing prohibition, ban on travel, and licensing requirement
provisions, among numerous provisions intended to end the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba.
Other members have indicated they plan to introduce later this year related bills, or offer
amendments, to amend TSRA to: (1) allow farm machinery sales to Cuba on a cash-only
basis, and (2) repeal U.S. travel restrictions (viewed by U.S. agricultural groups among
others as a way for Cuba to generate dollar earnings to purchase U.S. food products). For
background on legislative efforts to amend TSRA’s restrictions on travel to Cuba, see Cuba
Sanctions in the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Trade.
These proposed changes reflect some of the recommendations made by those seeking
a change in U.S. policy toward Cuba. The Cuba Policy Advisory Group of the Center for
National Policy on January 23, 2003, issued recommendations for steps the United States
should initiate immediately as part of beginning a “negotiated normalization” process with
the Cuban government. These include, among others: streamlining or eliminating U.S.
export licensing and reporting requirements, shipping restrictions, and other bureaucratic
regulations to make it easier to sell food, medicine, and medical products to Cuba; expanding
the types of products that may be sold to include agricultural equipment and supplies; and
permitting private (but not public) financing for commercial transactions (e.g., food sales)
now allowed on a cash-only basis. The House Cuba Working Group on March 10, 2003,
reiterated its interest in expanding two-way trade with Cuba and ending the travel ban – its
top priority. Members of the Group also are reportedly considering statutory changes to
allow Cuba: (1) to use U.S. dollars to complete cash purchases of U.S. food purchases
(rather than incur currency exchange fees to pay U.S. exporters), and (2) to address the
additional costs Cuba incurs as exports wait to be unloaded from ships until U.S. firms
actually receive payment from the Cuban buyer.

LEGISLATION
H.R. 187 (Serrano)
Amends the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 to allow for
the financing of agricultural sales to Cuba. Introduced January 7, 2003; referred to the
Committee on Financial Services, and to the Committees on International Relations, and
Agriculture, for a period to be determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
those provisions that fall within each committee’s jurisdiction. Referred to Financial
Services’ Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology
Subcommittee.
H.R. 188 / S. 403 (Serrano / Baucus)
Cuba Reconciliation Act / United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2003. To lift the trade
embargo on Cuba, and for other purposes. These similar measures include: (1) Section 2(h)
of H.R. 188 – introduced January 7, 2003, which amends TSRA’s Cuba-specific provisions;
referred to Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committees on Ways
and Means, Energy and Commerce, the Judiciary, Financial Services, Government Reform,
and Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of those provisions that fall within each committee’s jurisdiction. Referred to
the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee February 20; referred to the Energy and
CRS-15

IB10061
06-27-03
Commerce’s Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee February 26; referred to
the Financial Services’ Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology
Subcommittee February 27; and (2) Section 3(f) of S. 405 – introduced February 13, 2003,
which similarly amends TSRA’s Cuba-specific provisions; referred to Committee on
Finance.
H.R. 1698 (Paul)
To lift the trade embargo on Cuba, and for other purposes. Section 1(f) repeals TSRA
provisions that apply to Cuba. Introduced April 9, 2003; referred to the Committee on
International Relations, and also to the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and
Commerce, the Judiciary, Financial Services, Government Reform, and Agriculture, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of those
provisions that fall within each committee’s jurisdiction.
CRS-16