Recognizing in advance that I have a fairly limited understanding of "legal stuff," it is my understanding that the so-called "U.S. embargo" against Cuba never forbid the sale of food and medicines to the island by U.S. companies.
If that is the case, then, sugar --even that made from beets rather than cane-- would be allowable to be sold to the island, subject to the usual "embargo" terms of cash only, etc.
So then, why would Baucus, or anyone else, need new legislature to do what is already allowable by law?
Inquiring minds... want to know!
Once thing seems particularly evident: This man Baucus doesn't care a fig for anything beyond the economics of this situation. The Cubans in the island... can remain in hell, for all he cares.
Can anyone add some more background information here?
Julio

Julio..

In February, the Treasury Dept. at the behest of the Bush Administration, made clear that Cuba must make cash payments *before* shipment.

Before that, era un relajo...the law said Cuba had to pay cash up front, but it was being ignored...payments were made months after delivery.

Baucus had a cow about this, hence the law and his threat to not confirm any administration appointments that go up in front of the Agriculture Committee.

His goal, btw, be able to sell to Cuba not just on credit but with federal goverment credit guarantees. His Montana farmer constituency would get their $$$ from the Feds, the US taxpayer would be on the hook and cover it when Cuba didn't pay.

Baucus is a Dem, and Montana is a VERY Republican state. I'd be surprised if he doesn't have a serious challenge getting reelected, thank God.

Gotta wonder how a dem would get in in a state like Montana in the first place - he must've faced very sad (or no) competition.

In part because he's had his hand in state politics since time immemorial (I'll give him credit for being the leading architect of Montana's 1972 state constitution, which compared to most of its modern contempraries is actually a pretty brilliant document), and in part the same way Daschle did next door: the Dems still ran the Senate at the time, and he ran as a conservative Dem who could use that fact to deliver more federal pork for the state.

That's no longer (as much) the case anymore, of course; moreover, Baucus is nowhere near the politician Daschle was, and John Thune STILL managed to beat him. I have to figure that Baucus's days are numbered, though 30 years of incumbency is a big advantage and the GOP will have to come up with a good candidate to beat him. The fact that he's up for reelection in '08 will hurt him, since it means he'll so many of his constituents to split their ticket while voting for whoever is the GOP presidential candidate.