ECONOMIC SANCTIONS: LEGISLATION IN THE 106TH CONGRESS
CRS Report for Congress
Economic Sanctions:
th
Legislation in the 106 Congress
Updated December 15, 2000
Dianne E. Rennack
Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress
ABSTRACT
The 106th Congress considered more than 150 legislative proposals to impose new foreign
policy or national security sanctions, modify or terminate existing sanctions regimes, make
some aspects of U.S. trade exempt from the application of sanctions, or reform how Congress
and the Executive Branch use sanctions in furtherance of national security or foreign policy.
Of the initiatives that drew the greatest attention – sanctions policy reform and food and
medical export exemptions – only the latter was enacted.
This report tracks legislation relating to the use of economic sanctions in pursuit of foreign
policy or national security objectives. Separate sections are given to the areas of greatest
activity: sanctions imposed against India and Pakistan; exemptions of food and medicine
exports; and sanctions reform. A separate table is included listing sanctions measures that
were introduced but received no consideration, including measures pertaining to export
controls, nonproliferation, drug certifications, and the sanctions regimes leveled, or proposed
to be leveled, against Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Serbia and Montenegro, and other countries.
Economic Sanctions:
Legislation in the 106th Congress
Summary
Economic sanctions are coercive measures imposed by one country, or coalition
of countries, against another country, its government or individual entities therein, to
bring about a change in behavior or policies. Economic sanctions regimes typically
include a range of measures such as trade embargoes; restrictions on exports or
imports; denial of foreign assistance, loans and investments; control of foreign assets
held in the United States; or the restriction of economic transactions that involve U.S.
citizens or businesses.
As one part of the foreign policy tool kit, economic sanctions are often used in
conjunction with diplomatic, political, cultural, or military options. The 106th
Congress considered more than 150 legislative proposals that would have imposed
new foreign policy or national security sanctions, modified or terminated existing
sanctions regimes, made some aspects of U.S. trade exempt from the application of
such sanctions, or reformed how Congress and the Executive Branch use sanctions
in furtherance of foreign policy or national security.
Contents
Background ................................................ 1
Issues Involved in the Recent Sanctions Debate.....................1
Legislation ................................................. 3
Sanctions Reform........................................3
Exemption of Food and Medicine from Sanctions................6
Sanctions Relief or Reimposition for India and Pakistan...........9
Legislative Proposals Targeting a Specific Country or Activity.....11
Bills Not Considered by 106th Congress Beyond Introduction......17
List of Tables
Table 1. Sanctions Reform Bills....................................4
Table 2. Food and Medicine Exemption Bills..........................6
Table 3. India and Pakistan Sanctions Bills...........................10
Table 4. Bills Targeting Specific Country or Activity...................13
Table 5. Bills Not Considered by 106th Congress Beyond Introduction......19
Economic Sanctions:
th
Legislation in the 106 Congress
Background
The current congressional debate on the use of economic sanctions in foreign
policy has its roots in Cold War legislation, anti-apartheid legislation of the 1980s, and
U.S. reaction to Iraq’s aggression toward Kuwait in 1990. It has not been unusual
for Congress to scrutinize the executive branch’s choice to use sanctions over other
foreign policy tools, particularly in instances where the United States has acted
unilaterally or in instances where the President has invoked statutory authority to
curtail economic transactions but has not sought wider counsel or support from
Congress. In some cases Congress takes a position in contrast to the Administration.
To address relations with apartheid South Africa, for example, Congress enacted,
over the President’s veto, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 to impose
a range of economic restrictions against that country’s government. In other
instances, as in the recent case of Burma, Congress takes the lead in pressing for or
even requiring the imposition of sanctions. In yet other instances, such as Iraq’s
invasion of Kuwait, though sanctions are imposed by the Administration, Congress
supports the Administration’s decision to use other means (in the case of Iraq, military
force), and expresses that support with votes.
Issues Involved in the Recent Sanctions Debate
Most recently, understanding when and how sanctions work, and understanding
what toll their use might exact, have become central issues in congressional1
discussions on foreign policy options. Many analysts consider India’s and Pakistan’s
testing of nuclear detonation devices in the spring of 1998, and the subsequent
imposition of economic sanctions by the United States and other significant trading
partners, to be a critical turning point in the sanctions debate. The United States
imposed sanctions, in part, because of inflexibility in the law; the President had little
choice. Though the statute requires that the sanctions be imposed evenly, the nature
of the extensive bilateral relationships between the United States and Pakistan, and
between the United States and India, resulted in the sanctions being
disproportionately punitive toward Pakistan. What captured Congress’ attention,
above all else, was the substantial impact the sanctions would have on American
wheat growers if Congress did not pass alleviating legislation.
At about the same time, but on a different front, that Congress was mulling over
the domestic impact of the nonproliferation sanctions, news reports circulated that
1 See also Economic Sanctions To Achieve U.S. Foreign Policy Goals: Discussion and Guide
to Current Law, CRS Report 97-949, by Dianne E. Rennack and Robert D. Shuey.
sanctions against Iraq were having a devastating impact on that country’s civilian
population. These sanctions have been in place since 1990, when Iraq invaded its
neighbor, Kuwait. The multilateral sanctions have been maintained amidst concerns
that Iraq is pursuing the manufacture and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction.
In this context, Congress took a new look at the practice of restricting, for
foreign policy or national security reasons, another country’s access to U.S. markets,
U.S. producers, and especially U.S.-produced food and medical exports. Only two
months after the sanctions were imposed against India and Pakistan for detonating
nuclear devices, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, a bill to allow
U.S. government financing for wheat sales to Pakistan. A few months later, most of
the sanctions pertaining to nonmilitary assistance and nonmilitary transactions were
waived. Altering sanctions policy to allow U.S. farmers to sell wheat to Pakistan, and
maintaining sanctions against Iraq amidst reports about the deterioration of the health
of that country’s civilian population, in turn, invigorated a larger discussion on the use
of food and medicine in foreign policy.
Members of Congress introduced several legislative proposals in the 106th
Congress to exclude agricultural commodities, medicine, and related goods from
sanctions regimes. On April 28, 1999, the President announced that the United States
would exempt commercial sales of agricultural commodities and medicine from future
unilateral sanctions imposed by the executive branch.2 The President directed the
Secretary of the Treasury to issue new regulations that would allow commercial food
and medical exports to Libya, Iran, and Sudan, three states previously severely
restricted from such transactions because they are on the State Department’s list of
countries that support acts of international terrorism. Congress passed, and the
President signed into law, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act
of 2000 (title IX of H.R. 5426, enacted by reference in P.L. 106-387) on October 28,
Unlike the statute that required the President to impose sanctions on India and
Pakistan, most laws give the President and his Administration discretionary authority
to impose sanctions, either pursuant to declaring a national emergency and then
invoking powers vested in his office in the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act, or by exercising authority stated in various other laws. In other instances
Congress might take the lead, either by conferring new Presidential authority to
impose sanctions or by requiring sanctions to be imposed unless the President
determines and certifies that certain conditions have been met. The President’s use
of executive orders, directives, determinations, or proclamations to legislate, in effect,
without concurrence or a stamp of approval from Congress, led some Members of
Congress to conclude that the Clinton Administration had overstepped its
2 “Humanitarian Exemptions from Sanctions,” Statement by the Press Secretary, the White
House, April 28, 1999; “Economic Sanctions,” Press Briefing by Stuart E. Eizenstat, Under
Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs, and Richard Newcomb,
Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury Department; and Secretary
Eizenstat’s testimony before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
May 11, 1999; Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, 31 CFR Parts
Constitutional bounds. Spurred on by executive actions that had more to do with
treaties than sanctions,3 Members of Congress introduced legislation to curtail the
President’s authority to issue such orders, and to cancel current executive orders
unless explicitly required by law.
The issues summarized above — the advisability of sanctions against India and
Pakistan, the punitive use of restrictions on food and medicine, presidential flexibility
to impose, waive, and terminate sanctions, and the broader question of presidential
authority versus congressional authority — figured prominently in several legislative
proposals put before the 106th Congress. Recent decisions by the Administration to
change how food and medicine are used in sanctions regimes; changes in U.S.
relations toward North Korea, Iran, Iraq, China, and Cuba; and concerns over recent
vexing developments in the governance of Russia, Yugoslavia, Nigeria, Indonesia,
Colombia, and Pakistan all resulted in new debate over the use and efficacy of
economic sanctions as a foreign policy or national security tool.
Legislation
The 106th Congress considered more than 150 legislative proposals that were
relevant to the sanctions debate.4 Most received no attention beyond referral to
committee. Bills discussed below in any detail, however, were been taken up either
in committee — for oversight or for mark-up — or on the floor.
Sanctions Reform. Several bills designed to overhaul the entire process that the
legislative and executive branches employ when considering the use of economic
sanctions in national security and foreign policy were introduced in the first session
of the 106th Congress. H.R. 1244 — Enhancement of Trade, Security, and Human
Rights Through Sanctions Reform Act — or its counterpart in the Senate, S. 757 —
3 Executive orders implementing domestic policies are more plentiful and have been at the
center of this debate. The President’s issuance of Executive Order 13107 on December 10,
1998 (63 FR 68991), however, rankled some Members of Congress. E.O. 13107 established
an Interagency Working Group on Human Rights Treaties and stated that: “It shall be the
policy and practice of the Government of the United States...fully to respect and implement
its obligations under the international human rights treaties to which it is a party...” (§ 1) The
prefatory text to the Order, however, referred to “other relevant treaties concerned with the
protection and promotion of human rights to which the United States is now or may become
a party in the future...” (emphasis added). Some perceived this to be an attempt to implement
human rights treaties without benefit of the Senate’s advice and consent.
4 Still other legislative proposals could have had some indirect impact on the way sanctions
are used in furtherance of foreign policy or national security goals. The Justice for the
Victims of Terrorism Act, for example – introduced as H.R. 3382, H.R. 3485, and S. 1796,
finally enacted as sec. 2002 of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of
2000, P.L. 106-386 (H.R. 3244) – strengthens the government’s authority to facilitate an
individual’s right to collect frozen assets of a sanctioned country in settlement of a crime of
terrorism. Specifically, sec. 2002 requires the Secretary of the Treasury to resolve particular
claims against Cuban and Iranian assets, reaffirms the President’s authority to manage such
use of frozen assets, and states a sense of the Congress that “the President should not
normalize relations between the United States and Iran until the claims subrogated have been
dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States.”
Sanctions Policy Reform Act — if enacted, would have changed the way the United
States uses sanctions in national security and foreign policy. The bills sought to
require the Administration to provide a detailed justification before imposing
sanctions through extensive reporting, collection of public opinion, and cost/gain
analysis. Because current legislation cannot bind future sessions of Congress in how
they conduct their business, the bills provided nonbinding guidelines to Congress
similar to those made mandatory on the Administration.
Table 1. Sanctions Reform Bills
H.R. / S.Title / IntentMost Recent Action
H.R. 1244Enhancement of Trade, Security, and HumanMar. 24, 1999: referred to Ways and
Rights Through Sanctions Reform ActMeans, and International Relations
Committees.
S. 757Sanctions Reform Policy ActMar. 25, 1999: referred to Foreign
Relations Committee.
H.R. 2655Separation of Powers Restoration ActOct. 27, 1999: hearing before Rules’
Subcommittee on Legislative and
Budget Process.
Oct. 28, 1999: hearing before
Judiciary’s Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law.
H.R. 3131Presidential Order Limitation Act of 1999Oct. 27, 1999: hearing before Rules’
Subcommittee on Subcommittee on
Legislative and Budget Process.
Oct. 28, 1999: hearing before
Judiciary’s Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law.
State Department officials objected to the sanctions reform proposals in recent
congressional hearings5 because of the (1) lack of parity in how the law would apply
to the legislative and executive branches; (2) loss of flexibility in the President’s
authority to impose or terminate sanctions; and (3) lack of a broad authority to
suspend or terminate the application of sanctions when the President deems it to be
in the United States’ national interest. Some Members of Congress challenged the
5 The 106th Congress conducted seven hearings on sanctions. Some focused on exempting
agricultural commodities from sanctions regimes; all provided a wealth of insight and
anecdote on the impact and effectiveness of the current use of sanctions in foreign policy.
Hearings include: Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Hearing on S.
566 (Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act of 1999), May 11, 1999; Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations (Full Committee), “U.S. Agriculture Sanctions Policy for the 21st Century,”
May 11, 1999; Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (Full Committee), “Role of Sanctions
in U.S. National Security Policy,” July 1, 1999; Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (Full
Committee), “Role of Sanctions in U.S. National Security Policy,” July 21, 1999; House
Committee on Ways and Means. Subcommittee on Trade, “The Use and Effect of Unilateral
Trade Sanctions,” May 27, 1999; House Committee on Agriculture (Full Committee),
“Economic Sanctions and the Effect on U.S. Agriculture,” June 9, 1999; and House
Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Tax, Finance, and Exports, “Do Unilateral
Economic Trade Sanctions Unfairly Penalize Small Business?” June 24, 1999.
sanctions reform proposals on the basis that definitions are too broad and reporting
requirements are too narrow. Not everyone was in agreement, for example, on what
constitutes a “sanction.” S. 757 and H.R. 1244 both considered restrictions on6
foreign assistance a sanction; not all Members of Congress share that view. Both S.
757 and H.R. 1244 required that the executive branch analyze, after a sanction has
been in place for some time, whether that application has been successful in achieving
U.S. foreign policy or national security objectives, the extent to which the sanction
has harmed humanitarian interests, or what impact there may have been on other U.S.
national security and foreign policy interests, including the U.S. economy. Some
contended that the reporting requirements in the two proposals were skewed toward
agricultural interests and did not take into consideration other economic sectors.
Some contended that the bills should have required a report on the cost of not
imposing sanctions in instances where behavior justifies doing so, i.e., where a
country has engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In
congressional testimony, State Department officials asserted that there was no agreed-
to means to assess such markers.
Efforts to curtail the President’s use of executive orders, proclamations, and
directives, emerging late in the 106th Congress, could have had implications for the
executive branch’s use of sanctions in U.S. foreign policy. Two bills sought to clarify,
and perhaps curtail, terms under which the President may issue executive orders that
have the weight of law.7 Because executive orders are often used to establish that a
national emergency exists vis-a-vis another country’s objectionable behavior (thus
justifying the imposition of economic sanctions), curtailment of the President’s
authority to employ such executive orders could minimize the use of sanctions in U.S.
foreign policy. H.R. 2655 — Separation of Powers Restoration Act — and H.R.
3131 — Presidential Order Limitation Act of 1999 — stated the President’s powers
as set forth in the Constitution; reiterated the importance of the separation of powers
among the three branches of government, emphasizing that all legislative powers
reside with the Congress; and recalled that the separation of powers doctrine seeks
to “preclude the exercise of arbitrary power.”8 H.R. 2655 terminated all authority
extended throughout the executive branch pursuant to the declaration of a national
emergency, terminated the President’s (or anyone else’s in the executive branch)
authority to declare a national emergency, and placed that authority solely with the
6 See, for example, Senator Jesse Helms’ article critiquing some aspects of the current debate:
“What Sanctions Epidemic? U.S. Business’ Curious Crusade,” Foreign Affairs, Jan./Feb.
7 A third bill, S. 1795 — Executive Orders Limitation Act of 1999 — would have limited the
President’s authority to issue executive orders unless explicitly allowed under statute or the
Constitution. In most instances where sanctions are triggered, the underlying statutes, the
National Emergencies Act and International Emergency Economic Powers Act, explicitly
authorize the President to use executive orders to state policy. S. 1795 was introduced on
October 26, 1999, and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. Four other bills
were introduced to nullify the application of Executive Order 13107 (see footnote 3): H.R. 62,
H.R. 63, H.R. 662, and H.R. 663. Each measure was referred to the Committee on
International Relations; none received further consideration.
8 Section 2(a)(2) of H.R. 2655, quoting Justice Brandeis in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S.
Congress. H.R. 3131 required most executive orders to be reported to Congress
before they enter into effect, to give Congress an opportunity to review and take
action to block, or support, the implementation of the order.9
Exemption of Food and Medicine from Sanctions.10 In recent years, the
United States had restricted the availability of U.S. agricultural commodities to a few
states: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Sudan. On April 28, 1999, the
Clinton Administration changed this policy by selectively allowing commercial sales
of food to Iran, Libya, and Sudan, while affirming that the remaining restricted
countries were receiving agricultural commodities by other U.S.-supported11
humanitarian means.
Table 2. Food and Medicine Exemption Bills
H.R. / S.Title / IntentMost Recent Action
H.R. 17 Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act of 1999June 15, 1999: approved by the House
(See also S. 315)by voice vote; Sept. 21, 1999: placed
on Senate Legislative Calendar.
H.R. 4461Trade Sanctions Reform and ExportOctober 28, 2000: signed into law,
Enhancement Act of 2000 (title IX inP.L. 106-387.
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, FY2001)
H.R. 5426(H.R. 5426 enacted by reference in H.R.
4461)
H.R. 4811Foreign Operations, Export Financing, andNovember 6, 2000: signed into law,
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2001P.L. 106-429.
H.R. 5526(H.R. 5526 enacted by reference in H.R.
4811)
H.R. 4871Treasury and General GovernmentJuly 20, 2000: House passed, 216 -
Appropriations Act, 2001[Cuba travel, sec.202; July 24, 2000: Senate begins
652; Cuba food and medicine, sec. 653]consideration.
[Cuba language dropped.]]
9 “The Impact of Executive Orders on the Legislative Process: Executive Lawmaking?”
Hearing before House Committee on Rules, Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process,
October 27, 1999; and “Executive Orders,” Hearing before House Committee on the
Judiciary, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, October 28, 1999.
10 For a fuller discussion, see Economic Sanctions and U.S. Agricultural Exports, CRS
Report RL30108, by Remy Jurenas; and Exempting Food and Agriculture Products from
U.S. Economic Sanctions: Current Issues and Proposals, CRS Issue Brief IB10061, by
Remy Jurenas.
11 “Humanitarian Exemptions from Sanctions,” Statement by the Press Secretary, the White
House, April 28, 1999; “Economic Sanctions,” Press Briefing by Stuart E. Eizenstat, Under
Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs, and Richard Newcomb,
Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury Department; and Secretary
Eizenstat’s testimony before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
May 11, 1999; Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, 31 CFR Parts
S. 566Agricultural Trade Freedom ActSep. 13, 1999: placed on Senate
Legislative Calendar.
S. 1771Food and Medicine for the World ActOct. 25, 1999: placed on Senate
[See H.R. 4461]Legislative Calendar.
S. 2382Trade Sanctions Reform and ExportApril 7, 2000: placed on Senate
Enhancement Act of 2000 (subtitle C of title ILegislative Calendar; April 11, 2000;
of the Technical Assistance, Trade Promotion,referred to Committee on Banking.
and Anti-Corruption Act of 2000)
S. 2536Food and Medicine for the World Act (title IVJuly 18, 2000: Senate incorporated text
of division B of the Agriculture, Ruralinto H.R. 4461 (see above).
Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
FY2001)
For the past several sessions of Congress, Members have introduced legislative
proposals to change this policy by statute to exempt agricultural commodities, food,
medicine, and medical supplies from sanctions regimes imposed for foreign policy
reasons. The 106th Congress succeeded in enacting such a change with passage of the
Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (title IX in the
agriculture appropriations measure, signed into law on October 28, 2000, as P.L. 106-
The Trade Sanctions Reform Act requires that Congress give its approval before
any unilateral sanction is imposed to restrict agricultural or medical exports to a
sanctioned country. It also requires the President to terminate most current unilateral
economic sanctions that restrict the availability of food or medicine. Disallowing
sanctions to include export of food and medicine affects U.S. foreign policy toward
only a few countries: Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, and Sudan (all of which, by no
coincidence, are designated by the Secretary of State as supporters of international
terrorism, pursuant to sec. 6(j) of the Export Administration Act).13 Some
restrictions apply to the terrorist-designated states, including a requirement for one-
year export licenses for any export of food or medicine (except in the cases of Syria,
which was not heretofore restricted, or North Korea, to reflect newly warming
bilateral relations). The Act also prohibits the use of U.S. assistance of any sort from
being made available to Cuba to finance any exports, commercial or humanitarian, and
prohibits the use of U.S. assistance of any sort from being made available for
commercial exporting to Iran, Libya, North Korea, or Sudan. Exporting to Cuba is
further restricted to allow only advance cash sales or third country institutional
financing. The authority of the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department
12 H.R. 4461 enacts H.R. 5426, as introduced on October 6, 2000, by reference. The text of
the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act contained in the latter bill.
13 Sales of food, agricultural commodities, and medicine to Iraq, also designated as a
supporter of international terrorism, are further constrained by U.N. resolutions prohibiting
such transactions other than through U.N.-monitored programs. If/When United Nations
sanctions are lifted, the terms of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act
of 2000 would apply to Iraq. Syria is designated as a supporter of international terrorism but
has not been denied access to agriculture or medicine in spite of that designation.
of the Treasury to grant licenses for U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba is curtailed to
include only those travelers that fit the explicit terms listed in the Cuban Assets
Control Regime; previously the Office had the authority to grant licenses to travelers14
on a case-by-case basis. The law also reaffirms the ban on importing goods or
services from Cuba.
Under the Trade Sanctions Reform Act, the President retains the authority to
impose sanctions that restrict the export of food and medicine in instances where (1)
the United States has declared war against the targeted country; (2) Congress has
authorized the use of the U.S. Armed Forces, or the President has invoked such
existing authority, against the targeted country; (3) U.S. Armed Forces are engaged
in hostilities; or (4) U.S. Armed Forces are threatened by hostilities. The executive
branch may continue to restrict exports of food and medicine if the export also meets
standards stated elsewhere in law, for example, if the good to be exported is
otherwise restricted as a control-listed item under the Export Administration Act of
Arms Export Control Act.
The 106th Congress had before it several other bills that would have changed
other aspects of restricting the export of agricultural commodities in the course of15
imposing sanctions. Several strategies were pursued in legislative proposals to:
require the President to report on any future embargo of any selective agricultural
commodity (i.e., restricting wheat sales); exempt only agricultural commodities from
sanctions applications; require the President to report on the use of food as a foreign
policy weapon; or single out Cuba for a food and medicine exemption. Of these, the
Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act of 1999 (H.R. 17) and the Agricultural Trade
Freedom Act (S. 566) received substantial congressional attention, but were not
enacted.
One other effort in Congress focused on Iraq, which was not specifically
addressed by the Administration’s announcement of April 1999. S. 2522/H.R. 4811
– the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations
Act, 2001, signed into law on November 6, 2000, as P.L. 106-426 – includes section
14 Travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens is already significantly curtailed by the Cuban Assets
Control Regulations (CACR) issued by the Department of the Treasury (see 31 CFR 515.560
and sections referred to therein). In 1996, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed into
law, the LIBERTAD Act (popularly referred to as the Helms-Burton Act; P.L. 104-114; 22
U.S.C. 6021 et seq.), wherein sec. 102(h) codified all of the CACR (31 CFR part 515),
including the travel restrictions, in permanent law. Any changes to sections of the CACR,
then, would seem to require an act of Congress. Since 1996, the President has made some
changes in the CACR, but has contended that the new language is in keeping with the intent
of the Helms-Burton Act. Congress has not challenged these changes.
15 In the first session, the Senate adopted language to limit the President’s authority to include
food and medicine in sanctions when it passed S. 1233 and incorporated that bill as an
amendment into H.R. 1906, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000. The sanctions exemption
language was dropped in conference, however, over a debate on how the new language would
apply to terrorist states and, in particular, to Cuba. H.R. 1906 was signed as P.L. 106-78 on
October 22, 1999, without the sanctions exemption.
for Iraq, of which at least $12 million “should be made available for food, medicine,
and other humanitarian assistance (including related administrative, communications,
logistical, and transportation costs) to be provided to the Iraqi people inside Iraq...”16
H.R. 17 required the President to report to Congress on any selective embargo
of an agricultural commodity, provided Congress with a procedure for approving or
disapproving the President’s actions, and set a two-year termination date for the
embargo. H.R. 17 was approved by the House on June 15, 1999, and sent to the
Senate, where it was placed on the legislative calendar on September 21, 1999. And
finally, S. 566 amended current law to exempt agricultural commodities from the
current and future application of unilateral economic sanctions. S. 566 was reported
out of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on September 13, 1999,
and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. Neither was enacted.
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations reported out a foreign assistance
authorization bill, S. 2382, on April 7, 2000, that included the “Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000,” which closely resembled last
session’s “Food and Medicine for the World Act.” The bill was placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar on the same day, but was later referred to the Committee on
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, where it stalled for reasons unrelated to
sanctions.
Sanctions Relief or Reimposition for India and Pakistan. In the spring of
1998, India and Pakistan each detonated nuclear explosive devices. U.S. law required
the President to impose sanctions against each country for engaging in the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.17 The two countries were denied most
U.S. foreign, military, or financial assistance, access to U.S. government funds,
support in international financial institutions, and normal trade status for
technologically sensitive items. The 105th Congress, however, enacted two measures
to provide Pakistan and India some relief from these sanctions for one year.18
16 As originally considered in the Senate, this section stated that funds had to be used for food,
medicine, and other humanitarian assistance. Changing “shall” to “should” in the final version
of the bill resulted in this clause becoming nonbinding.
17 Section 102(b) of the Arms Export Control Act (P.L. 90-629; 22 U.S.C. 2799aa-1(b)).
18 For fuller discussion, see India-Pakistan Nuclear Tests and U.S. Response, by Barbara L.
LePoer, et al., CRS Report 98-570, updated November 24, 1998; and Nuclear Sanctions:
Section 102(b) of the Arms Export Control Act and Its Application to India and Pakistan,
by Jeanne Grimmett, CRS Report 98-486, updated December 9, 1999.
Table 3. India and Pakistan Sanctions Bills
H.R. / S.Title / IntentMost Recent Action
H.R. 973Security Assistance Act of 1999 (authorizes theJun. 15, 1999: passed House by voice
waiver of sanctions against India and Pakistanvote. June 16, 1999: received in the
for one year)Senate, referred to Committee on
Foreign Relations.
H.R. 2561Department of Defense Appropriations Act,Oct. 25, 1999: signed into law, P.L.
2000 (Title IX authorizes the waiver of106-79.
sanctions applied for nuclear testing)
H.R. 2415American Embassy Security Act of 1999 (sameJuly 21, 1999: passed House by voice
language as H.R. 973 in House version; novote. Aug. 3, 1999: passed Senate,
sanction language in Senate version)amended. Senate appoints conferees,
awaiting similar House action.
Oct. 11, 2000: Conferees replace
language with Senate’s Bankruptcy
Reform Act, which is pocket vetoed by
President on Dec. 19, 2000.
To continue the relief from sanctions against India and Pakistan for an indefiniteth
period of time, the 106 Congress passed a provision in H.R. 2561 — Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2000. Title IX of that Act grants the President the
authority to waive sanctions applied against India and Pakistan affecting nonmilitary
programs, foreign assistance, commercial financing, and Export-Import Bank
financing. H.R. 2561 also authorizes the President to waive the application of section
620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (the Pressler amendment, which
prohibits Pakistan from receiving U.S. military assistance), and to waive the
restrictions on military assistance imposed after the nuclear detonation tests for both
India and Pakistan, if he finds doing so is in the national security interests of the
United States. H.R. 2561 was signed by the President into law as P.L. 106-79 on
October 25, 1999. The President exercised the authority provided him in the new law
on October 27th, when he issued a determination stating a continuation of various
foreign assistance, commercial relations, and agricultural commodity support
programs for India and Pakistan.19
19 Presidential Determination No. 2000-4, October 27, 1999, stated:
“(1) with respect to India, insofar as such sanctions would otherwise apply to activities of the
Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade and
Development Agency; assistance under the `International Military Education and Training’
program; the making of any loan or the providing of any credit to the Government of India by
any U.S. bank; assistance to the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund, the Rhinoceros and Tiger
Conservation Fund, and the Indo-American Environmental Leadership program; and any
credit, credit guarantee, or other financial assistance provided by the Department of
Agriculture to support the purchase of food or other agricultural commodity; and
“(2) with respect to Pakistan, insofar as such sanctions would otherwise apply to any credit,
credit guarantee, or other financial assistance provided by the Department of Agriculture to
support the purchase of food or other agricultural commodity; and the making of any loan or
the providing of any credit to the Government of Pakistan by any U.S. bank.”
Some concern was raised early in the 2nd session, however, that the President had
not exercised the waiver authority fully, particularly in terms of supporting renewed
interest toward India in the international financial institutions. While the President has
the authority to resume foreign military financing programs and clear the way for
international financial institutions loans to re-engage with India, he has not acted on
this authority.20
In the aftermath of Pakistan’s military coup d’etat of October 12, 1999, some
Members of Congress expressed an intent to place into law some restriction on
assisting Pakistan. The annual foreign operations appropriations bill generally
prohibits making foreign assistance available to any country “whose duly elected head21
of government is deposed by military coup or decree”. The President determined
that this restriction is applicable to Pakistan. Foreign assistance could be made
available again only after the President determines that a democratically elected
government has taken office there. The Foreign Operations Export Financing and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, however, made an exception to this
requirement to provide Pakistan funding for basic education programs for Pakistan,
notwithstanding any other statutory restrictions on that country receiving U.S. foreign
assistance (P.L. 106-429; sec. 597). Four other bills introduced in the 106th Congress
could have provided a means to override the waiver authority stated in the Defense
Appropriations Act, in effect to keep sanctions in place because of the coup. None
was enacted.22
Legislative Proposals Targeting a Specific Country or Activity. Congress
could use annual foreign assistance authorization and biennial foreign relations
20 To restore these two means of financial support to India without waiting for a Presidential
determination, Senator Brownback introduced an amendment to the foreign operations
appropriations bill (S. 2522) under consideration in the Senate. The amendment would have
restored foreign military financing programs to India notwithstanding any other provision of
law, and would have made the restrictions on IFI support for India not applicable for the
upcoming fiscal year. The amendment was withdrawn (S.Amdt. 3493, introduced and
withdrawn on June 20, 2000).
21 Section 508 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2000, in P.L. 106-113, and in previous annual appropriations acts since
FY1986.
22 H.R. 973 — Security Assistance Act of 1999 — and H.R. 2415 — American Embassy
Security Act — carried authority for the President to waive the sanctions against India and
Pakistan only for one year, instead of the indefinite period provided in the new law. The text
of H.R. 2415 reached conference, where it was struck out and replaced with the Senate’s text
of the Bankruptcy Reform Act, wholly unrelated to sanctions or embassy security. The new
language was pocket vetoed by the President on December 19, 2000. A third measure, H.R.
3095, referred to the Committee on International Relations on October 18, 1999, but not
further considered, struck out reference to waiving the Pressler amendment for Pakistan from
the Defense Appropriations Act. A fourth measure, H.R. 3330 — United States Support for
a Democratic Pakistan Act of 1999 — prohibited the President from lifting any of the
sanctions against Pakistan, including the Pressler amendment, until the President certifies that
that country has a democratically elected government, unless he finds it in the national security
interest of the United States to do so. H.R. 3330 was referred to the Committees on
International Relations and Banking and Finance on November 10, 1999.
authorization acts to shape foreign policy. Passage of the foreign relations
authorization bill over the past few years, however, has been erratic and Congress has
not approved a comprehensive foreign assistance measure since 1985. In the absence
of such authorizations, Congress has relied on the annual foreign operations
appropriations bill to present its views and policy prescriptions to the Administration.
The 106th Congress passed no foreign assistance authorization in its first session. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106-113), however,
includes the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2000, and the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, each of which
contains sanctions-related language.
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations reported out a foreign assistance
authorization bill, S. 2382, on April 7, 2000, that included changes in current law and
new language related to sanctions in the areas of narcotics control, population
planning, emerging democracy in Serbia (similar to S. 720, the Serbia
Democratization Act, passed by the Senate in the first session), commercial
transactions with Russia related to space cooperation (because of Russia’s
involvement with Iran), other foreign assistance to Russia, terrorism, and extradition.
The bill was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on the day the Committee
reported it, but was later referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs, where it stalled for reasons unrelated to sanctions.
The President signed H.R. 4811, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2001, into law on November 6, 2000, as P.L.
106-429.23 The annual foreign assistance appropriations measure has become an
accepted means of enacting sanctions-related legislation in absence of a foreign
assistance authorization bill. The Act restricts the availability of foreign aid to Russia,
Indonesia, Guatemala, China, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria,
independent states of the former Soviet Union, Colombia, Haiti, Liberia, Pakistan,
Serbia (and Yugoslavia), Congo, the Palestinian Authority, Peru, Ethiopia, Eritrea,
Zimbabwe, and Cambodia. The Act restricts foreign assistance to countries or
programs engaged in objectionable behavior, such as coercive family planning,
military coups, debt arrearage, terrorism, noncompliance with U.N. resolutions that
impose sanctions, or sheltering indicted war criminals. The Act also allows funding
for basic education programs for Pakistan, notwithstanding any other statutory
restrictions on that country receiving U.S. foreign assistance (sec. 597).
23 H.R. 4811 enacts H.R. 5526, as introduced on October 24, 2000, by reference. The text
of the foreign assistance appropriations for 2001 is contained in the latter bill.
Table 4. Bills Targeting Specific Country or Activity24
H.R. / S.Title / IntentMost Recent Action
H.R. 434Trade and Development Act of 2000May 18, 2000: signed into law as
(granting Albania and Kyrgyzstan normalP.L. 106-200.
trading relations (NTR))
H.R. 1064Serbia Democratization Act of 2000Sept. 25, 2000: House passed, voice
(See also S. 720, H.R. 1373)vote.
Sept. 26: received in Senate.
H.R. 1477Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act ofJuly 19, 1999: House passed,
1999 (See also S. 834)383 - 1.
Nov. 3, 1999: placed on Senate
Legislative Calendar.
H.R. 1883Iran Nonproliferation Act of 1999Mar. 14, 2000: signed into law as
P.L. 106-178.
H.R. 3164Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActDec. 3, 1999: signed into law as Title
VIII of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000 (P.L. 106-120).
H.R. 3194 Consolidated Appropriations Act forNov. 29, 1999: signed into law, P.L.
FY2000 106-113.
includes Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2000 (H.R. 3422);
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 2000
(H.R. 3427)
H.R. 3244Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 1999Oct.28, 2000: signed into law, P.L.
(See also H.R. 1238, H.R. 1356, H.R. 3154,106-386, division A.
S. 600, S. 1842, S. 2414, S. 2449)
H.R. 3822Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000Mar. 22, 2000: House passed , 382 -
(See also S. 2182)38, 1 present.
H.R. 3886International Counter-Money Laundering Act ofJuly 11, 2000: Committee on Banking
2000reported; placed on House Legislative
Calendar.
H.R. 4022Russian Anti-Ship Missile NonproliferationOct. 3, 2000: House passed by voice
Act of 2000vote.
(See also S. 2687)Oct. 4, 2000: received in Senate.
24 Not included in this discussion are bills or resolutions that approach but stop short of
actually imposing sanctions. P.L. 106-186 (S.J. Res. 43), for example, states the sense of the
Congress that implies that the United States would “review and modify” U.S. “political,
economic, and military relations with Peru” in light of irregularities in that country’s recent
presidential elections. No sanction is imposed, but the stage is set. In other circumstances,
sanctions enacted into law might be preceded by legislation that establishes thresholds of
expected behavior that, if not reached, might be sanctionable. The Workers’ Rights Principles
for U.S. Businesses in China Act (S. 2574), for example, would have required U.S. businesses
engaged in China to register with the State Department and “indicate whether such company
agrees to implement the principles” of fair labor practices. No sanction is imposed, but a
behavioral standard is established, which could lead to the imposition of sanctions in a later
enactment.
H.R. / S.Title / IntentMost Recent Action
H.R. 4118Russian-American Trust and Cooperation ActJuly 19, 2000: House passed, 275 -
of 2000146.
(See also S. 2748)July 20, 2000: Referred to Committee
on Foreign Relations.
H.R. 4444Approve permanent normal trade relationsOct. 10, 2000: signed into law, P.L.
status for China (See also S. 2277)106-286.
H.R. 4811Foreign Operations, Export Financing, andNov. 6, 2000: signed into law, P.L.
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2001106-429.
(Iraq food and medicine: sec. 575)
H.R. 5526(H.R. 5526 enacted by reference in H.R.
4811)
H.R. 4868Miscellaneous Trade and TechnicalNov. 1, 2000: signed into law, P.L.
Corrections Act of 2000 (exempts gum106-476.
arabic from sanctions imposed against
Sudan; extends Permanent Normal Trade
Relations status to Georgia (title III))
H.R. 4919Defense and Security Assistance Act of 2000Oct. 6, 2000: signed into law, P.L.
(amends certain nonproliferation laws106-280.
pertaining to sanctions) (See also S. 2901)
H.R. 5239Extended authority of ExportNov. 13, 2000: signed into law, P.L.
Administration Act of 1979 to September106-508.
2001
(was introduced as Export Administration
Modification and Clarification Act of 2000,
to increase penalties for sanctions violations;
original intent omitted in conference)
H.R. 5272Peace Through Negotiations Act of 2000Sept. 27, 2000: House passed, 385 - 27
(nonrecognition of Palestinian state)(4 present).
(See also S. 2938)Sept. 28, 2000: Placed on Senate
Legislative Calendar.
H.J.Res.Disapprove normal trade relations status forJuly 27, 1999: House failed to pass,
57China (See also S.J.Res. 27)170 - 260, 1 Present.
July 20,19 99: Senate rejected motion
to discharge Committee on Finance,
12-87 (S.J.Res. 27).
H.J.Res.Disapprove waiver of Jackson-VanikAug. 3, 1999: House failed to pass, 130
58application for Vietnam (See also S.J.Res. 28)- 297.
July 20, 1999: Senate rejected motion
to discharge Committee on Finance,
5-94 (S.J.Res 28).
H.J.Res.Disapproval of waiver of sec. 402(c) of TradeJuly 26, 2000: House failed to pass, 91
99Act for Vietnam- 332.
H.J.Res.Disapproval of waiver of sec. 402(c) of TradeJuly 18, 2000: House failed to pass,
103Act for China147 -281.
S. 720Serbia Democratization Act of 1999Nov. 4, 1999: Senate passed by
(See also H.R. 1373; pending SFRC proposalUnanimous Consent.
on foreign assistance authorization)Nov. 5, 1999: House held at desk.
(See also S. 2382, title V)
(See also H.R. 1064, H.R. 1373)
H.R. / S.Title / IntentMost Recent Action
S. 1109Bear Protection Act of 1999Oct. 7, 2000: Senate passed by
(See also H.R. 2166)Unanimous Consent.
Oct. 25, 2000: House returned to
Senate, with H.Res. 645, noting that
bill contravenes the House’s
Constitutional authority to initiate
revenue raising legislation.
S. 1453Sudan Peace ActNov. 19, 1999: Senate passed by
(See also H.R. 2906)Unanimous Consent.
Oct. 24, 2000: House passed by voice
vote, amended.
S. 1568Suspend assistance to IndonesiaSep 27, 1999: placed on Senate
(See also H.R. 2809, H.R. 2838)Legislative Calendar.
S. 1712Export Administration Reauthorization Act ofMar. 8, 2000: brought to Senate floor;
1999 (see, however, H.R. 5239)returned to Senate Legislative
Calendar.
S. 1842Comprehensive Antitrafficking in Persons ActFeb. 22, 2000: hearings before Foreign
of 1999 Relations’ Subcommittee on Near
(See also H.R. 3244, enacted as P.L. 106-386;Eastern and South Asian Affairs.
H.R. 1238, H.R. 1356, H.R. 3154, S. 600)
S. 1982Clarification of Foreign Narcotics KingpinNov. 19, 1999: read twice, placed on
Designation ActSenate Legislative Calendar.
S. 2277Approve permanent normal trade relation statusMay 25, 2000: placed on Senate
for China (See also H.R. 4444)Legislative Calendar.
S. 2382Technical Assistance, Trade Promotion, andApr. 7, 2000: placed on Senate
Anti-Corruption Act of 2000Legislative Calendar;
(Serbia, Russia, Iran. Narcotics, populationApr. 11, 2000: referred to Committee
planning, terrorism, food and medicineon Banking.
exemption)
S. 2522Foreign Operations, Export Financing, andJune 22, 2000: advanced to 3rd reading,
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 200195 - 4.
(See instead H.R. 4811)July 18, 2000: amended H.R. 4811, in
form of substitute.
S. 2621Continue prohibition of military cooperationSept. 28, 2000: placed on Senate
with the armed forces of IndonesiaLegislative Calendar.
S. 2645China Nonproliferation ActJune 6, 200: read 2nd time, placed on
(See also H.R. 4829, H.R. 4836)Senate Legislative Calendar.
S. 2677Zimbabwe Democracy Act of 2000June 23, 2000: passed Senate by UC.
June 26, 2000: referred to HIRC,
Banking
S. 2752Accountability to Congress for NuclearJune 20, 2000: read 2nd time, placed on
Transfers to North Korea Act of 2000Senate Legislative Calendar.
S. 2801Prohibits funding for moving China’s Embassy June 28, 2000: read 2nd time, placed on
until Xinhua News Agency makes certainSenate Legislative Calendar.
divestitures
S. 2901Security Assistance Act of 2000 (amends someSept. 7, 2000: Senate incorporated S.
current nonproliferation sanctions law)2901 into H.R. 4919 as an amendment,
(See instead H.R. 4919)then passed that measure by
Unanimous Consent.
H.R. / S.Title / IntentMost Recent Action
S. 3021Exempting Mexico from drug certificationSept. 8, 2000: placed on Senate
(See also H.R. 5155)Legislative Calendar.
The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2000,25 enacted into law on November 29, 1999 as part of the
consolidated appropriations bill at the end of the 1st session, similarly restricts
individual countries and specific objectionable behavior.
The Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001,26 in Title I, limits the use of U.S.
contributions to the United Nations Development Program when those funds might
be directed toward certain programs in Burma and China, and similarly restricts U.S.
participation in U.N. Fund for Population programs in China. Title VIII, addressing
miscellaneous foreign relations issues, includes a version of the North Korea Threat
Reduction Act of 1999 (subtitle B). Arms control measures in Title XI prohibit
making assistance available to those engaged in chemical or biological weapons
production (§ 1132); and clarify terms stated in the Arms Export Control Act relating
to the Missile Technology Control Regime (§§ 1136, 1137). An “International Arms
Sales Code of Conduct Act,” incorporated as Subtitle F of Title XII, requires the
President to enter into multilateral negotiations to establish “an international regime
to promote global transparency with respect to arms transfers, including participation
by countries in the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms, and to limit, restrict, or
prohibit arms transfers to countries that do not observe certain fundamental values of
human liberty, peace, and international stability.” The Act also makes technical
amendments to current law pertaining to sanctions, particularly the Arms Export
Control Act.
H.R. 3164 — Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act — enacted as Title
VIII of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106-120),
authorizes the Administration to expand the policy currently targeting Colombia’s
drug cartel to all identifiable drug traffickers, on a worldwide basis, and apply
sanctions against them. Sanctions include freezing assets, prohibiting U.S. persons
from completing transactions with the drug trafficker, and denying entry into the
United States for those individuals.27
25 Earlier versions of this Act were contained in H.R. 2606 and S. 1234, which passed the
Congress as H.R. 2606 only to be vetoed by the President for reasons unrelated to sanctions;
H.R. 3196, and H.R. 3422, before being incorporated into H.R. 3194.
26 Earlier versions of this Act were contained in S. 886, which was incorporated into the
House-passed H.R. 2415, reconfigured as H.R. 3427, and finally enacted by reference in H.R.
3194. See also H.R. 1211, which was reported out of the Committee on International
Relations on April 29, 1999 (H.Rept. 106-122), and placed on the House calendar, but
received no further consideration.
27 On June 1, 2000, the President made his first determination of foreign drug kingpins whose
assets are frozen and for whom trade and transactions with U.S. entities are prohibited. In a
letter to Congress of the same date, President Clinton named 12 foreign persons subject to the
limitations stated in the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Act.
H.R. 1883 — Iran Nonproliferation Act of 1999 — enacted as P.L. 106-178,
requires the President to file a report with Congress identifying every foreign person
for whom there is credible information that he or she has transferred goods, services,
or technology to Iran that would enhance or further that country’s programs to
develop weapons of mass destruction. The measure requires that the President
impose sanctions against any named individual, including denial of participation in
U.S. government procurement contracts, denial of U.S. government arms sales, denial
of access to defense articles, defense services, design and construction services, and
denial of licenses to receive dual-use goods and technology.28
H.R. 3244 – Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 1999 – enacted as division29
A of P.L. 106-386, expands the annual human rights report required by the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 to include information on a country’s patterns of trafficking
in persons, which could in turn trigger a cutoff of foreign assistance to that country.
The Act authorizes the President to cut off foreign assistance, cultural and educational
exchanges, and U.S. support in international financial institutions to traffickers. The
President is also authorized to exercise the authorities stated in the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (i.e., prohibiting trade and transactions, freezing
assets) against traffickers. Immigration law is also amended to deny visas or entry
into the United States to traffickers or beneficiaries of trafficking, and criminal
prosecution statutes in the United States Code are amended to strengthen the
prosecution and punishment of traffickers. The Act also includes, in section 2002, the
Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act,30 which strengthens the government’s authority
to facilitate an individual’s right to collect frozen assets of a sanctioned country in
legal settlement of a crime of terrorism. Specifically, sec. 2002 requires the Secretary
of the Treasury to resolve certain claims against Cuban and Iranian assets, reaffirms
the President’s authority to manage such use of frozen assets, and states a sense of
the Congress that “the President should not normalize relations between the United
States and Iran until the claims subrogated have been dealt with to the satisfaction of
the United States.”
And finally, H.R. 4444, granting the People’s Republic of China permanent
normal trade relations (PNTR), was forwarded to the White House for the President’s
signature on September 19, 2000, and signed into law on October 10, 2000, after
efforts to encumber the granting of PNTR for issues of human rights and proliferation
failed.
Bills Not Considered by 106th Congress Beyond Introduction. The followingth
chart lists bills with sanctions implications that were not considered in the 106
28 H.R. 1883 refers to the President’s authority as stated in Executive Order 12938 of
November 14, 1994; 59 F.R. 59099; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note. See, in particular, § 4, Sanctions
Against Foreign Persons.
29 See Trafficking in Women and Children: the U.S. and International Response, by Francis
Miko, et al., CRS Report RL30545.
30 Introduced in an earlier form in S. 1796 and H.R. 3382 and H.R. 3484.
Congress beyond introduction..31 The chart is organized to correspond to the above
discussion, with the exception of legislation relating to Cuba, which appears following
the country- or issue-specific bills.
31 Committee names, in some cases, are truncated or abbreviated. HIRC refers to the House
Committee on International Relations, SFRC to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
and WM refers to House Committee on Ways and Means.
Table 5. Bills Not Considered by 106th Congress Beyond Introduction
Sanctions Reform
H.R. / S.Title / IntentReferred to Committee
H.R. 3406Require annual report on effects of impositionNov 16, 1999: HIRC, WM, Banking
of U.S. unilateral economic sanctions
S. 927Sanctions Rationalization Act of 1999Apr. 29, 1999: SFRC
S. 1161Economic Sanctions Reform Act of 1999May 27, 1999: SFRC
Food and Medicine Exemption32
H.R. / S.Title / IntentReferred to Committee
H.R. 212Freedom to Market ActJan. 6, 1999: HIRC, Agriculture
H.R. 230Cuban Humanitarian Trade Act of 1999Jan. 6, 1999: HIRC, WM
H.R. 817United States Agricultural Trade Act of 1999Feb. 24, 1999: WM, HIRC, Agriculture
H.R. 1299Restore Agricultural Productivity Act of 1999Mar. 29, 1999: Agriculture
H.R. 2743Farm and Ranch Emergency Assistance Act ofAug. 5, 1999: Agriculture, Budget,
1999 HIRC
H.R. 2843Emergency Assistance for Farmers andSep. 13, 1999: Agriculture, Budget,
Ranchers Act of 1999HIRC
H.R. 2906Sudan Peace ActSept. 21, 1999: HIRC, WM
(See also S. 1453)
H.R. 2993 Food and Medicines Sanctions Removal Act ofOct. 1, 1999: HIRC, Rules
1999
H.R. 3140Food and Medicine for the World ActOct. 25, 1999: HIRC, Rules,
Agriculture
H.R. 3825Humanitarian Exports Leading to Peace Act ofMar. 2, 2000: HIRC
2000 (food and medicine for Iraq)
S. 101United States Agricultural Trade Act of 1999Jan. 19, 1999: Finance
S. 315Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act of 1999Jan. 27, 1999: Agriculture
(See also H.R. 17)
S. 327Food and Medicine Sanctions Relief Act ofJan. 28, 1999: SFRC
1999
S. 425Food and Medicine for the World ActFeb. 11, 1999: SFRC
32 See also legislative proposals pertaining to Cuba.
Sanctions Relief or Reimposition for India and Pakistan
H.R. / S.Title / IntentReferred to Committee
H.R. 1570Incentives for Nuclear Nonproliferation in IndiaApr. 27, 1999: HIRC, Banking
and China Act of 1999
H.R. 1784Terminate sanctions against India and PakistanMay 12, 1999: HIRC, Banking
H.R. 3095Restrict military assistance to PakistanOct. 18, 1999: HIRC
H.R. 3330Condition sanctions relief to Pakistan onNov. 11, 1999: HIRC, Banking
restoration of democratic rule
S. 634Suspend sanctions against India and PakistanMar. 16, 1999: SFRC
Sanctions Targeting Specific Country or Activity
H.R. / S.Title / IntentReferred to Committee
H.R. 281Satellite exports to ChinaJan. 6, 1999: HIRC
H.R. 618Gulf War Veterans’ Iraqi Claims Protection ActFeb. 8, 1999: HIRC
of 1999
H.R. 899Pan Am Flight 103 Witness to Justice ActMar. 2, 1999: HIRC
(U.S.-based Libyan assets)
H.R. 1054United Nations Voting Accountability ActMar. 10, 1999: HIRC
(restricting foreign aid)
H.R. 1063 International Military Training TransparencyMar. 10, 1999: HIRC
and Accountability Act
H.R. 1238 International Trafficking of Women andMar. 23, 1999: HIRC, Judiciary
Children Victim Protection Act of 1999
(See also H.R. 3244, enacted as P.L. 106-386;
H.R. 1356, H.R. 3154, S. 600, and S. 1842)
H.R. 1356Freedom From Sexual Trafficking Act of 1999Mar 25, 1999: HIRC, Judiciary,
(See also H.R. 3244, enacted as P.L. 106-386;Banking
H.R. 1238, H.R. 3154, S. 600, S. 1842)
H.R. 1373Serbia Democratization Act of 1999Apr. 12, 1999: HIRC, Banking, WM,
(See also S. 720, H.R. 1064)Judiciary, Transportation
H.R. 1508Russian ships and surveillance against U.S.Apr. 21, 1999: Perm. Select
military Intelligence
H.R. 1567Transcaucasus Peace, Stability, and DemocracyApr. 27, 1999: HIRC
Act (eliminating the restrictions on assistance
to Azerbaijan)
H.R. 1581 Bar imports of certain fursApr. 27, 1999: Commerce, WM,
HIRC, Judiciary
H.R. 1737Reconstruction assistance to YugoslaviaMay 6, 1999: HIRC
H.R. 1808Gum arabic exemption from Sudan sanctionsMay 13, 1999: WM
H.R. 1813High speed computers to Hong KongMay 13, 1999: HIRC
H.R. / S.Title / IntentReferred to Committee
H.R. 1835 North Korea Threat Reduction Act of 1999May 18, 1999: HIRC
(See also S. 1352) (See, however, Foreign
Relations Auth. Act, Title VIII, subtitle B, as
incorporated into Consolidated Appropriations
Act (H.R. 3194)
H.R. 1962Post-Shipment Verification Act of 1999May 26, 1999: HIRC, Armed Services
(relating to high-performance computer
exports)
H.R. 2166Bear Protection Act of 1999June 10, 1999: Resources, HIRC (Sept.
(See also S. 1109)21, markup), WM
H.R. 2187Deny foreign assistance to most of YugoslaviaJune 14, 1999: HIRC
H.R. 2244U.S.-Panama Security Act of 1999June 16, 1999: HIRC, Banking, Armed
Services, Perm. Select Intelligence
H.R. 2269Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers Act ofJune 17, 1999: HIRC, Armed Services
1999 (See, however, Foreign Relations Auth.
Act, Title XII, subtitle F, incorporated into
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act
(H.R. 3194))
H.R. 2381Protection of United States Troops fromJune 29, 1999: HIRC
Foreign Prosecution Act of 1999
H.R. 2616Encryption for the National Interest ActJuly 27, 1999: Judiciary, HIRC, Govt
Reform
H.R. 2809Suspend foreign assistance to IndonesiaSep. 8, 1999: HIRC, Banking
(See also H.R. 2838, S. 1568)
H.R. 2822Oppose international financial institution votesSep. 9, 1999: Banking
for Indonesia
H.R. 2838Suspend foreign assistance to IndonesiaSep. 9, 1999: HIRC, Banking
(See also H.R. 2809, S. 1568)
H.R. 2895Restrict foreign assistance to IndonesiaSep. 21, 1999: HIRC, Banking
H.R. 2969Ecosystem and Indigenous Peoples ProtectionSep. 29, 1999: Banking
Act (World Bank)
H.R. 3027Russian Economic Restoration and Justice ActOct. 5, 1999: Banking, HIRC
of 1999 (IMF)
H.R. 3154Comprehensive Antitrafficking in Persons ActOct. 27, 1999: HIRC, Judiciary,
of 1999Banking
(See also H.R. 3244, enacted as P.L. 106-386;
H.R. 1238, H.R. 1356, S. 600, S. 1842)
H.R. 3157Restrict foreign assistance to IndonesiaOct. 27, 1999: Banking, HIRC
H.R. 3825Humanitarian Exports Leading to Peace Act ofMar. 2, 2000: HIRC
2000 (food and medicine for Iraq)
H.R. 4053United States-Southeastern EuropeMar. 22, 2000: HIRC
Democratization and Burdensharing Act of
2000
H.R. 4072Dubai Investments/United Arab EmiratesMar. 23, 2000: HIRC
(UAE) Debt Repayment Act of 2000
H.R. / S.Title / IntentReferred to Committee
H.R. 4102Votes in international financial institutionsMar. 28, 2000: HIRC
against loans to countries restricting oil
production
H.R. 4211Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2000Apr. 6, 2000: HIRC
(prohibits the restricting of foreign assistance
on free speech grounds)
H.R. 4233Limits foreign military financing to EgyptApr. 11, 2000: HIRC
H.R. 4319East Timor Repatriation and Security Act ofApr. 13, 2000: HIRC, HASC
2000 (See also H.R. 4357)
H.R. 4357East Timor Repatriation and Security Act ofMay 2, 2000: HIRC, HASC
2000 (See also H.R. 4319)
H.R. 4509Delay approval of normal trade relation statusMay 19, 2000: WM
for China pending WTO accession
H.R. 4602Property Protection Act of 2000 (expropriationJune 8, 2000: HIRC, B
in Nicaragua)
H.R. 4732International Energy Fair Pricing Act of 2000June 23, 2000: HIRC, B
(OPEC)
H.R. 4782Normal trade relations with GeorgiaJune 29, 2000: WM
(See, however, H.R. 4868; see also S. 2141)
H.R. 4829China Nonproliferation ActJuly 12, 2000: IR
(See also H.R. 4836, S. 2645)
H.R. 4836China Nonproliferation ActJuly 12, 2000: HIRC
(See also H.R. 4829, S. 2645)
H.R. 4860North Korea Nonproliferation Act of 2000July 13, 2000: HIRC
H.R. 5006Iran: religious persecution, internationalJuly 27, 2000: HIRC, WM
terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction
(See also S. 2947)
H.R. 5147Consumer Access to a Responsible AccountingSept. 12, 2000: WM
of Trade Act of 2000 (diamonds imported from
countries afflicted with in Africa)
H.R. 5155Exempting Mexico from drug certificationSept. 12, 2000: HIRC
(See also S. 3021)
H.R. 5522Sanctions in response to Palestinian AuthorityOct. 19, 2000: HIRC
unilaterally declaring existence of Palestinian
state
H.R. 5534Uniform Trade Sanctions Act (prohibiting stateOct. 24, 2000: HIRC
and local sanctions)
H.R. 5564Conflict Diamonds Elimination Act of 2000Oct. 26, 2000: WM
H.R. 5603Burma: prohibit importation of textile, apparelOct. 30, 2000: WM
from Burma (See also S. 3246)
H.J.Res.Drug certification and MexicoMar. 2, 1999: HIRC
35
H.J.Res.Drug certification and MexicoMar. 24, 1999: HIRC, Banking
43
H.R. / S.Title / IntentReferred to Committee
S. 5Drug-Free Century ActJan. 19, 1999: Judiciary
S. 89People’s Republic of China Policy Act of 1999Jan. 19, 1999: SFRC
S. 226Nigerian Democracy and Civil SocietyJan. 19, 1999: SFRC
Empowerment Act of 1999
S. 281Indentured labor and child laborJan. 21, 1999: Finance
S. 373Forced and Indentured Child Labor PreventionFeb. 4, 1999: Govt Affairs
Act
S. 554Drug certification proceduresMar. 5, 1999: SFRC
S. 565Drug traffickers posing an unusual andMar. 8, 1999: Banking
extraordinary threat to the United States
S. 596Exempt some countries from annual drugMar. 11, 1999: SFRC
certification procedures
S. 600International Trafficking of Women andMar. 11, 1999: SFRC
Children Victim Protection Act of 1999
(See also H.R. 3244, enacted as P.L. 106-386;
H.R. 1238, H.R. 1356, H.R. 3154, S. 600, S.
1842)
S. 834Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act ofApr. 20, 1999: SFRC
1999 (See also H.R. 1477)
S. 1171Assets of drug traffickersMay 27, 1999: Banking
S. 1271Drug certification proceduresJune 23, 1999: SFRC
S. 1352 North Korea Threat Reduction Act of 1999July 13, 1999: SFRC
(See also H.R. 1835) (See, however, Foreign
Relations Auth. Act, Title VIII, subtitle B, in
P.L. 106-113)
S. 1551Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1999Aug. 5, 1999: Finance
S. 2141Normal trade relation status with GeorgiaMar. 2, 2000: Finance
(See H.R. 4868, H.R. 4782)
S. 2182Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000Mar. 3, 2000: SFRC
(See also H.R. 3822)
S. 2414Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000Apr. 12, 2000: SFRC
(See H.R. 3244)
S. 2449Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000Apr. 13, 2000: SFRC
(See H.R. 3244)
S. 2548Make normal trade relation status with ChinaMay 11, 2000: Finance
contingent on bilateral agreement on
enforcement
S. 2687Russian Anti-Ship Missile NonproliferationJune 8, 2000: SFRC
Act of 2000
(See also H.R. 4022)
S. 2748Russian-American Trust and Cooperation ActJune 16, 2000: SFRC
of 2000
(See also H.R. 4118)
H.R. / S.Title / IntentReferred to Committee
S. 2938Prohibit assistant to Palestinian Authority ifJuly 26, 2000: SFRC
independent statehood is declared
(See also H.R. 5272, S. 3007, S. 3280)
S. 2947Iran: religious freedom, internationalJuly 27, 2000: Finance
terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction
(See also H.R. 5006)
S. 3007Unilateral Palestinian Statehood DisapprovalSept. 6, 2000: SFRC
Act of 2000
(See H.R. 5272, S. 2938, S. 3280)
S. 3202Dangerous Biological Agent and Toxin ControlOct. 12, 2000: Judiciary
Act of 2000
S. 3246Burma: prohibit importation of textiles, apparelOct. 26, 2000: Finance
from Burma (See also H.R. 5603)
S. 3250Peace Through Negotiations Act of 2000Oct. 26, 2000: SFRC
(sanctions if Palestine Authority unilaterally
declares existence of Palestinian state)
S. 3280Denial of assistance to Palestinian AuthorityDec. 15, 2000: SFRC
(See H.R. 5272, S. 2938, S. 3007)
Cuba-Specific Sanctions or Relief from Sanctions
H.R. / S.Title / IntentReferred to Committee
H.R. 181LIBERTAD Enforcement ActJan. 6, 1999: HIRC
H.R. 229Free Trade With Cuba ActJan. 6, 1999: HIRC, WM, Commerce,
Govt Reform
H.R. 230Cuban Humanitarian Trade Act of 1999Jan. 6, 1999: HIRC, WM
H.R. 256Cuba Reconciliation ActJan. 6, 1999: HIRC
H.R. 257Cash remittances to CubaJan. 6, 1999: HIRC
H.R. 258News bureau exchanges with CubaJan. 6, 1999: HIRC
H.R. 259Travel between the United States and CubaJan. 6, 1999: HIRC
H.R. 262Baseball and CubaJan. 6, 1999: HIRC, Judiciary
H.R. 1181Lift the embargoMar. 18, 1999: HIRC, WM,
Commerce, Govt Reform
H.R. 1644Cuban Food and Medicine Security Act of 1999Apr. 29, 1999: HIRC, Agriculture
(See also S. 926)
H.R. 2422Cuban Drug-Trafficking Act of 1999July 1, 1999: HIRC
H.R. 3329No Safe Harbor in Cuba ActNov. 10, 1999: HIRC
H.R. 4471Travel Between the United States and CubaMay 16, 2000: HIRC
H.R. 4856United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2000July 13, 2000: WM
(See also S. 2896)
S. 926Cuban Food and Medicine Security Act of 1999Apr. 29, 1999: SFRC
(See also H.R. 1644)
H.R. / S.Title / IntentReferred to Committee
S. 1829Castro Bailout Prohibition Act of 1999Oct. 29, 1999: SFRC
S. 1919Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2000Nov. 10, 1999: SFRC
S. 2617Trade Normalization with Cuba ActMay 24, 2000: Finance
S. 2896United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2000July 20, 2000: Finance
(See also H.R. 4856)