[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 90 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7797-S7815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE EXPORT RELIEF ACT OF 1998
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 2 o'clock having arrived, the
clerk will report S. 2282.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2282) to amend the Arms Export Control Act, and
for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized for 1
hour under the previous agreement.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Agriculture
Export Relief Act. First, I thank the members of the sanctions task
force for their critical contributions to this bill. The staff has met
several times, and I think the concerns which were raised in each
meeting have been incorporated in this legislation.
Before I describe the bill, I would like to mention a few Members for
their unique role in bringing this bill to the floor and energizing all
of the interest that has developed around this particular issue.
Senator Roberts of Kansas deserves special recognition for his
leadership in resolving this pressing issue. It was two bills first
introduced by Senator Roberts--one dealing with the specific issue of
lost markets for U.S. farmers and another more important bill dealing
with the broader issue of ensuring that the executive branch has the
flexibility it needs to conduct foreign policy in south Asia--that
provided the initial impetus for today's action on this important
legislation.
Senator Roberts quickly recognized the need to provide additional
flexibility in dealing with the troublesome relationship between India
and Pakistan. His legislation to provide that flexibility prompted the
majority leader to create the sanctions task force 2 weeks ago. And
today, in the task force's action, the U.S. Senate is preparing to act
on the legislation originally sponsored by Senator Roberts.
I am very pleased to associate myself with the work of the Senator
from Kansas. While his efforts to protect and defend America's farmers
and ranchers are widely appreciated, I am particularly pleased to
recognize his strong leadership in the area of U.S. foreign policy and
in protecting the national security interests of the American people.
I also want to take a moment to recognize the work of Senator Conrad
Burns, Senator Chuck Hagel, and Senator Lugar. Each have been vocal,
effective advocates for their agriculture communities' interests, which
I am convinced is why the Senate is acting so quickly today. And, in
addition to that, Senator Grams of Minnesota and Senator Allard of
Colorado have been particularly active and involved in this issue.
Let me outline briefly what I think this bill accomplishes, since we
operated on a tight deadline and there may be some Members who have not
had a chance to review the details. Frankly, it is short and it is
simple.
As many Members know, current law imposes sanctions on nations which
transfer nuclear technology or detonate a nuclear weapon. The law
exempts from these sanctions intelligence activities and humanitarian
assistance. This legislation adds one additional category. We have
permanently exempted financing and credits extended by the Department
of Agriculture to support the sales of agricultural commodities. We
have also clarified that current law exemptions on commercial financing
extend not only to agricultural commodities but also to fertilizer.
The reasoning behind this exemption is simple: Sanctions are supposed
to squeeze the targeted country, not the American farmer or producer.
Cutting off our sales will not alter or reverse the decision to
detonate. Cutting off American export financing will not change any
government's judgment or, for that matter, change its behavior about
its nuclear program. There is no leverage in curtailing or cutting off
our sales; there is only loss of income for our farmers, our ranchers,
our producers.
As we discuss this bill, the U.S. agriculture community faces the
possibility of not being able to bid on a tender of 350,000 tons of
wheat recently proffered by the Pakistani Government. At a time when
Asian markets and sales are depressed, this tender is unusually
important. Whether the Pakistanis buy U.S. wheat, Canadian wheat, or
some other country's wheat isn't going to make a difference on a dinner
table in Islamabad--but it sure will in Topeka. We should not sacrifice
the American farmer in our effort to put the nuclear genie back in the
bottle.
This bill is a good first step. But I would like to let my colleagues
know it is not as far as most of the members of the task force wanted
us to go. I think many shared the view that we should exempt from the
sanctions law all official export promotion support to all American
businesses, especially in view of the enormous pressure many are under
because of the Asian meltdown. In the search for substitute markets, it
would have made a real difference to allow the Export-Import Bank and
OPIC support for a wide range of businesses from aircraft to home
computers. However, given Senator Feinstein's and Senator Glenn's
objections, we were not able to proceed with export support.
We also could not proceed with language which would give the
President a margin of flexibility to facilitate a reduction of tensions
in the region. We did not plan to offer a permanent waiver or
suspension of sanctions. We were simply going to give the President
authority to waive any restrictions until March 1 if doing so would
produce some progress.
I think many of us are concerned about the possibility of additional
tests, the prospect of deployment of nuclear weapons, and the transfer
of fissile material to third parties. I am convinced that there was
some merit in providing the President a short period of time to waive a
restriction on economic assistance if he could produce meaningful
results in enhancing our security interests.
Again, objections on the other side of the aisle have prevented us
from offering that option today. We may not have reached as far as most
of the members of the task force wanted, but we have taken a first,
constructive step in defining when sanctions are and when sanctions are
not in American interests and changing the law to better reflect those
interests. This bill will advance and protect American economic
security interests.
I have been pleased by the cooperative spirit which has characterized
this first round in the task force's efforts and the fact that we had a
very tough deadline set by the leadership which we were able to meet a
week early. We would not have been able to move so quickly without
Senator Biden's active and thoughtful effort. I thank him for that. We
have had a lot of explaining to do, and my colleague has taken on that
challenge with expertise and enthusiasm.
Mr. President, I do not see Senator Biden here yet. There are a
variety of Senators on this side of the aisle who have been heavily
involved in this, many of whom I see on the floor today. Senator Craig
has been very, very active and concerned about this issue, and I
believe he was first on the floor. I would be happy to yield to Senator
Craig 5 minutes.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President let me thank my colleague and chairman,
Senator McConnell, for working so closely with so many of us to bring
S. 2282 to the floor. It is important that we act now and that we act
decisively to send a very clear message to our producers and to our
markets, both nationally and around the world, that we recognize,
although sometimes the action of Government does not appear to, that
the American economy and American farmers live in a global economy, and
that we have to be a good deal more sensitive to our actions as it
relates to that and the impact that those actions can have on our
producers. Cutting ourselves off through unilateral sanctions seldom
benefits us as a nation and almost always hurts the producer. In this
instance today, we are
[[Page S7798]]
speaking of that producer being the American farmer.
Many of us have recognized that for a long time and have tried to say
in a clear way through different pieces of legislation that food should
never be used as a tool of foreign policy. But we stumble into that on
a regular basis. As a result of that, we damage significantly the
producer, because in the business of trade, one of the things that
American agriculture has been able to establish over the years is two
very important items. First of all, they are able to let the world know
they can deliver a quality product. The world knows that and
appreciates it. But it is also important that the world knows we are a
reliable supplier. We search and we allow our producers to find markets
and work to build those markets, only to be snuffed out by a piece of
legislation that may or may not have impact upon another nation. That
is exactly what has happened in this instance and why it is so
important we act today and in a timely way.
Food should never be used as a tool of foreign policy for all the
reasons that have been spoken to by myself and Senator McConnell and I
am sure will be referenced here today. It is poor policy to require the
farmer to bear the burden of a faulty foreign policy or undeterminable
goals, faulty goals.
In the bill we passed a year and a half ago, a new farm bill, we made
a variety of promises to American agriculture producers. We promised,
as we eliminated most price supports and ushered in a greater freedom
to produce, that we would help open up world markets and that we would
assure their openness and access to those markets, and that would
become an important part of the marketplace. We promised less
government intervention, and we promised to improve risk management
options. The tragedy is, while we promised it, the action that was
necessary to be taken under the Arms Export Control Act was a denial of
that promise.
Today, we are here on the floor reinstating that promise very
clearly. I hope the task force that Senator McConnell and others are
involved in, while they have looked at this and while Senator Roberts
has been a leader in helping us focus on this issue, that we go well
beyond this in this future, that we examine all of the things we are
doing in the area of sanctions to see whether they really make sense or
not. Maybe they would have in a world economy if we were the sole
provider, if we had something nobody else had, if we had something that
everybody else needed; maybe then we could force policy that was
otherwise unpopular with some. That is not the case, certainly not the
case with agricultural commodities. We must be a supplier of quality,
and we must be a reliable supplier. Government needs to stay out of the
way, only to help facilitate access to those markets, not in any way to
deter them.
This amendment today moves us again to deal with this issue in a
forthright manner. I think it will go a long way toward sending the
right signal to our markets. I thank Senator McConnell and others who
have been involved.
He mentioned a good number who have been involved with us on a
regular basis over the last several months, both Democrat and
Republican, in focusing on this issue. I am happy to have played some
role in it but, most importantly, to help get this to the floor on a
timely basis so we can impact markets and production and price in this
country. I am convinced this action today will do so.
I yield back any remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join my
colleagues, Senator Biden, Senator Roberts, and numerous other sponsors
of this amendment, in moving forward this important piece of
legislation today.
I ask unanimous consent Senator Kerrey be added as a cosponsor as
well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is imperative that we preserve
Pakistan as an export market for our wheat. Washington State wheat
growers need this bill. Our wheat prices right now are beneath the cost
of production. Our growers and the rural communities they support are,
frankly, losing the shirts off their backs.
There are now 3,500 wheat farms in eastern Washington; that is 3,500
wheat families. These families are the backbone of our rural economy.
In Douglas, Lincoln, and Adams Counties, in Ritzville and Garfield, our
growers need export markets like Pakistan so they can keep going. Every
day we are losing family farms, and it is imperative that we do
something about it.
This bill doesn't just affect farmers, it affects our truckers, it
affects our ports, it affects our barge operators, and all of their
families as well.
Given the evolving market forces in south Asia, it is really critical
that we pass this bill today to give wheat growers in Washington State,
the Northwest, and the Nation the chance to compete with other
suppliers who are just waiting to take our customers.
No one condones the actions of either Pakistan or India earlier this
year. The proliferation of nuclear weapons must not be allowed. The
Arms Export Control Act of 1994, passed overwhelmingly by Congress, and
requires that sanctions be imposed on these nations.
But the original act excluded food and humanitarian assistance.
Unfortunately, the export credit guarantee programs of USDA essential
to sale of food to poorer nations like Pakistan were not excluded.
Last month, during committee consideration of the Agriculture
appropriations bill, I passed an amendment to explicitly exclude these
export credit guarantees, most notably the GSM-102 program, from the
sanctions.
Unfortunately, because of recent developments here on the floor, this
amendment on agriculture will not be enacted into law soon enough to
prevent the loss of this important export market.
Pakistan recently announced that they will tender for 350,000 metric
tons of white wheat on July 15 for an August shipment. Without access
to the GSM-102 credit guarantees, United States wheat producers will
not sell a single kernel of wheat to Pakistan.
In recent years, Washington state wheat producers, in fact, Pacific
Northwest growers, have sold more than one-third of their wheat to
Pakistan. Washington state and other Pacific Northwest states produce
almost exclusively white wheat, making Pakistan out number one export
market.
Washington wheat needs this export market. This is a $300 million
market for Washington wheat.
If we do not enact this legislation by July 15, we will lose not only
the ability to bid on this tender, but potentially the entire Pakistan
market, as other nations step in to fill the void.
That is why we are bringing this amendment as a stand-alone piece of
legislation this afternoon.
If we do not pass this bill and preserve this important wheat market,
the United States reputation as a reliable supplier of high quality
wheat will be weakened and our competitive advantage in the global
marketplace undermined.
That is why this Congress must act now.
Mr. President, I have a number of items that I ask unanimous consent
to have printed in the Record: A letter from Sandy Berger, Assistant to
the President for National Security Affairs, in support of my
amendment; remarks of the President in a radio statement on wheat
exports in support of the legislation; a statement by the Secretary of
Agriculture, Dan Glickman, in support of the legislation; a letter from
the National Association of Wheat Growers in support of this
legislation; and a letter from the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture in support of this legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The White House,
Washington, DC., June 11, 1998.
Hon. Patty Murray,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murray: Thank you for your leadership in
addressing the question of Agriculture Department export
credit programs that may be affected by the imposition of
sanctions on Pakistan and India under section 102 of the Arms
Export Control Act. As you know, in implementing the
sanctions we are endeavoring, whenever possible, to minimize
the humanitarian impact on the people of India and Pakistan.
[[Page S7799]]
With this purpose in mind, the Administration supports the
legislative language in the bill, introduced today by you and
Senator Roberts, which would amend the Arms Export Control
Act to create an exception for ``credit, credit guarantees,
or other financial assistance provided by the Department of
Agriculture for the purchase or other provision of food or
other agricultural commodities.'' We further support your
efforts to move such legislative language as expeditiously as
possible.
Sincerely,
Samuel R. Berger,
Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs.
____
The White House,
Office of the Press Secretary,
June 11, 1998.
For Immediate Release:
Remarks of the President in a Radio Statement on Wheat Exports
``Today, I announced my support for Senator Murray's
legislation to ensure that American farmers can continue to
export wheat to Pakistan and India under the Department of
Agriculture's export credit program.
In implementing sanctions against India and Pakistan, we
are trying, wherever possible, to minimize the humanitarian
impact on the people of those countries. We have long
believed that food should not be used as a weapon to
influence other nations.
Farmers in the United States provide a significant
percentage of Pakistan's wheat imports. Cutting off that
supply would only hurt the citizens of Pakistan and American
farmers without furthering our important goals of
nonproliferation of atomic weapons. We hope this amendment is
passed as quickly as possible.''
____
Continuing Agricultural Export Credits to India and Pakistan
[From Radio Address of Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, June 12,
1998]
When India and Pakistan recently conducted underground
tests of their nuclear weapons, they crossed a line with the
United States that requires a firm, no-nonsense response.
This Administration has imposed tough sanctions that we
support and that are required by law.
But the law also has called into question the fate of U.S.
agricultural export credits. Export credits promote the sale
of U.S. farm products to buyers in countries facing economic
difficulties. These credits, which come at no cost to U.S.
taxpayers, have enabled our farmers and ranchers to sell
several billion dollars worth of food and fiber around the
world. Without these credits, our exports would decline, as
would our farm income, and areas in Asia and other parts of
the world would be more unstable because economically
troubled countries would have a harder time buying food.
While India makes only nominal use of these export credit
programs, Pakistan is another story. They are the third
largest market for U.S. wheat, and the top market for white
wheat. Last year, Pakistan purchased 81 million bushels of
U.S. wheat, almost all through export credit guarantees. And,
so far this year, these credits have made possible $162
million in U.S. wheat sales to buyers in Pakistan.
Unfortunately, as Congress wrote the arms control act,
these sales may soon be in jeopardy. By law, this
Administration could be forced to suspend these credits.
For humanitarian reasons, we should not use food as a
weapon to influence other nations. From an economic
perspective, it's important to show that the U.S. is
committed to being a reliable supplier of agricultural
products. And, for all practical purposes, the ones who will
be punished most by this action would be U.S. wheat farmers
who already have been beaten up by low prices.
This Administration will resist any action that would lead
to a de facto grain embargo, and I do not believe the arms
control act was written with that end in mind. We need to act
quickly to protect these export credits. Fortunately,
legislation now before the Congress--authored by Senator
Patty Murray, of Washington, and Senator Pat Roberts, of
Kansas--would do just that. This Administration strongly
supports this bill which would separate agricultural trade
from American's non-proliferation efforts.
For our world to be stable and secure in the next century,
we need strong international arms control efforts, but we
also need a strong agricultural trading system that is
capable of getting enough food to people around the world.
Both are essential ingredients to peace and stability, and
neither should be sacrificed to the other.
____
National Association of
Wheat Growers
Washington, DC, June 11, 1998.
Hon. Patty Murray,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murray: We are writing in strong support of
the ``India-Pakistan Agricultural Credit Sanction Exemption
Bill''. It is our understanding that this bill will provide a
narrow exemption for food and food credit programs from any
possible sanctions resulting from Section 102(b) of the Arms
Export Control Act against the nations of India and Pakistan.
Further, this limited exemption is consistent with the
existing statutory exemption for commercial agricultural
loans.
Pakistan is the third largest wheat export market for the
United States. In 1997-98, Pakistan imported 2.2 million
metric tons. Wheat is the major staple of the Pakistani diet
and inadequate inventories could cause social unrest. In
1997, wheat shortages led to the collapse of the political
system. Such unrest could lead to the ouster of the current
government or worse, a military strike at India. We see food
as a means to protect the political stability of Pakistan.
Indian is subject to the same sanctions as a result of its
nuclear tests, however, it does not participate in the USDA
export credit guarantee program nor is it currently a major
importer of U.S. wheat. Nevertheless the narrow exemption
expressed in the ``India-Pakistan Agricultural Credit
Sanction Exemption Bill'' should be applied equally.
Thank you for your leadership in advancing the view that
food should not be used as a weapon of foreign policy. We
would also like to express our appreciation for your brave
effort to reverse the tide of unilateral economic sanctions.
Currently, eleven percent of the world wheat market is off
limits to U.S. producers due to the imposition of unilateral
economic sanctions. The addition of Pakistan and India to the
sanctions list would further disadvantage U.S. wheat farmers
and drive down already low wheat prices. It is our experience
that most sanctions serve no one but our competitors and do
little, if anything, to improve the behavior of the offending
government. We pledge to work with you and the bill's co-
sponsors to reform our unilateral sanctions policy and exempt
food and other humanitarian assistance from the U.S.
sanctions arsenal.
Sincerely,
Bill Flory,
President.
____
National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture,
Washington, DC, June 11, 1998.
Hon. Patty Murray,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murray: On behalf of the nation's
commissioners, secretaries and directors of the state
departments of agriculture, I am writing to express our
strong support for your amendments to exempt certain
Department of Agriculture programs from sanctions under the
Arms Export Control Act. Prohibitions against U.S.
agricultural exports will only serve to hurt U.S. farmers.
As you know, the GSM-102 credit program is extremely
important to U.S. agricultural exporters. It serves as a
safety net for reluctant exporters by guaranteeing financing
for the sale of U.S. agricultural commodities to certain
foreign markets. The recently imposed sanctions against
Pakistan do not exempt such programs as the GSM-102 program,
virtually cutting off that market to U.S. agricultural
products. Many of our nation's farmers rely upon Pakistan as
a market for their products under the GSM-102 program.
Given the recent crisis in Asia, which has had a
substantial impact on U.S. agricultural exports, now is not
the time to cut off another key market for U.S. farm
products. Senator Murray, we appreciate your efforts on
behalf of U.S. agriculture. NASDA does not believe that
foreign policy should serve to ban the export of U.S.
agricultural products.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Kirchhoff,
Executive Vice President and CEO.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, agriculture is in crisis. The bottom has
fallen out of the agriculture economy. Many of our growers are on the
verge of bankruptcy. In fact, many have already gone over the edge.
We are losing family farms and we are losing the rural way of life.
Many in this chamber argue that trade is the answer. Trade is
important, critically important. Pacific Northwest agriculture depends
upon vigorous trade promotion.
I am a strong proponent of trade. But trade is not enough.
The 1996 farm bill took away the safety net for our growers. The old
farm bill needed to be changed. And Freedom to Farm made some important
changes. But it went too far and now growers are suffering.
While a market-based approach creates freedoms and opportunities in a
competitive global market, some semblance of a safety net is necessary
to ensure our growers survive the ups and downs of a volatile market.
Congress needs to take action to protect agriculture and preserve rural
communities before it is too late.
And this bill is an important step. Maintaining our export markets is
essential to our long-term success. I urge the Senate to approve this
legislation.
I retain the balance of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Montana.
Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Kentucky. I also want to thank the
[[Page S7800]]
Senator in a couple of other areas, because responding to what we have
in the Northwest is, in my regard, an emergency.
Let's back up a little bit and talk about what has happened to farm
export, and especially to the Northwest. Last January, we sat down with
officials, including the Prime Minister of Australia, and talked about
what has been commonly referred to as the Asian flu, the financial
crisis in the Pacific rim--the complete, or almost complete collapse of
financial conditions in four countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand
and South Korea. And then we talked a little bit about the financial
situation that Japan finds herself in, not being able to ride to the
rescue of her neighbors in the rim. At that time, there was a consensus
that maybe those countries that found themselves in financial
difficulty would not impact the GDP of Australia, and little was
regarded here in this country. I thought at the time that you cannot
let the economies in four major importing countries of agricultural
products cave in and it not affect this country. Sadly, I was correct.
So our exports to that part of the world have gone to zero. Now we
come along with sanctions. Let me tell you a little bit about
sanctions. I have never been convinced that sanctions on food really
work. I will tell you in an instant that if we unilaterally sanction a
country on American agricultural exports, here is what happens: That
country is still capable of buying a supply from somebody else in the
world. But the market knows of these sanctions; therefore, the rest of
the world maybe puts 1 or 2 cents a bushel on wheat. Now, 1 or 2 cents
doesn't sound like a lot for a bushel of wheat that weighs 60 pounds.
That is in a short ton anyway. But when you are buying 300,000 metric
tons, it is a lot of money. Even to a farmer, it is the difference
between making the land payment this year and not making the land
payment--that 2 cents a bushel.
Once that sale is made to the country that we have had sanctions on,
then the country that did the selling pours the rest of their crop on
the world market. So what do we do and what do our farmers do? They
compete at a lower level. That is not right. It hasn't worked, as far
as denying the country that had the sanctions on it. It didn't deny
them of food supply for the people who live there. But it has denied
our farmers entry into the marketplace, a place to compete.
To give you an idea, in the last 4 years the United States has
imposed 61 unilateral economic sanctions on 35 countries containing 40
percent of the world's population. Now, what does that country do when
that sanction is placed? It retaliates: I am not going to buy American
products at any price. I am not going to do that.
So, in essence, we have denied our grain producers access to that
market to even be considered to compete. I realize that we are talking
about food here. I realize that to some folks that is not very
important--until it comes suppertime. But to a farmer who only gets one
or two paychecks a year, that is how he makes his payment on his
operation, his fertilizer, his machinery, his land payment. It
contributes to his schools, his community, his church. But under the
conditions right now, they cannot do this.
So I ask my colleagues to strongly support this amendment. Yes, I
know there are far-reaching implications of sanctions and, yes, there
are folks who really understand that maybe national security may be at
stake.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the Senator from Montana an additional
minute.
Mr. BURNS. Thank you. Mr. President, you tell me where they have
worked when it comes to the supply of food. That is the very basic of
all of our necessities every day. The Senator from Idaho is exactly
right. We have developed export markets by using two methods--it is
quality, it is quantity, and it is reliability. We are a reliable
customer, and to deny our producers--and you can go all over the world.
Our producers compete on an individual basis. We don't pool our wheat
like Canada. We don't sell wheat on the international market by a
decision made by Government. We do it by individual producers who want
to sell their crop at a given time. Given the proper tools of risk
management, they could take advantage of the international market.
I urge support of this amendment. I thank my friend from Kentucky for
championing it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from
Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before I begin, I want to express my
appreciation to the Senator from Delaware, who spent about 2\1/2\ hours
with a group of us this morning, working to make sure that this
legislation got to the floor today. I also want to thank our colleague
from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, who was equally helpful in our effort
to make sure that this bipartisan legislative effort didn't blow up at
the last minute. I want to assure my colleagues that it was very close
to going by the boards this morning.
Mr. President, the wheat farmers of the Pacific Northwest are 6 days
away from a disaster. On July 15, Pakistan is going to initiate a
process to purchase 350,000 metric tons of white wheat for August 1 to
20 shipment. Without access to the Government credit guarantees that we
are talking about here, U.S. producers are not going to sell a kernel
of wheat to Pakistan. The USDA estimates that Pakistan is going to
import just under a million metric tons this year. Now, our prices are
at a low. This year's crop is going to be one of the best ever. But the
fact is, farmers across this country are staring an economic train
wreck in the eye. We have a storage and transportation bottleneck with
the imminent wheat harvest. We have a fair amount of the old crop still
in the bins. We are facing the prospect of storing a great deal of
wheat on the ground this year. Making a sale to Pakistan in the key
August shipping period would be an enormous help in dealing with these
logistical challenges. A sale might mean the difference between two or
three turns of a river barge fleet versus only one turn in August.
Let me touch briefly on what it means to just one county, Umatilla,
which I am very pleased that my colleague, Senator Smith, who has
worked so effectively with all of us on a bipartisan basis, calls home,
and wheat growers there produce nearly one-third of all the wheat
produced in our State. The economy of that county depends on both the
direct sales of wheat and on all of the related jobs through suppliers,
equipment, fertilizers, warehousing, shipping, and all of the economic
base of our regional economy.
The fact is, Mr. President, and colleagues, unilateral sanctions
simply do not work. They end up inflicting harm on U.S. producers and
shippers. They don't target those specific leaders who are engaged in
the most reprehensible activity. They hand market share to our
competitors and then put the typical citizen in these countries in a
position where they will not be able to secure the humanitarian help
they need to survive. Each of these outcomes is not, obviously, a
growth of U.S. foreign policy.
I am of the view that we do a lot of things well in our country. But
I think what we do best is we grow things, and, at a critical time when
we are seeing the United States in a position to play this leadership
role in the global economy, it would be a tragedy to make the mistake
of not passing this legislation, which, as far as I can tell, has kept
about 15 Members of the U.S. Senate on the floor simply to speak for
how important this legislation is.
We are, in the Pacific Northwest, 6 days away from a disaster. So it
is critical now at the 11th hour that this legislation pass.
I am pleased to have been a part of this bipartisan group that has
worked on this legislation over the last few weeks.
Again, I want to express my thanks to Senator McConnell of Kentucky,
and Senator Biden, for their patience through that 2\1/2\-hour exercise
this morning that had Sandy Berger of the White House and others
involved, because had not Senator McConnell and Senator Biden been so
patient this morning, we might not have this bipartisan legislation on
the floor this afternoon, and our wheat farmers would not have had the
help they need.
[[Page S7801]]
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, thank you.
I wish to first congratulate the bipartisan leadership in this body,
the leadership of our two leaders, Senator Lott and Senator Daschle,
for addressing this issue and addressing the more encompassing issue of
sanctions in total.
I want to also thank my friends and colleagues, Senators Biden and
McConnell, for their active leadership on this issue.
This is a strong first step. We need a comprehensive trade package, a
comprehensive package we will talk about and address. Yes, sanctions;
sanction reviews--a number of my colleagues and I have worked on this
issue for the last year. We have legislation pending. Senator Lugar has
been a leader in this area. We need to address the IMF issue as a
Congress. We will be addressing MFN status with China and fast track.
But a complete package.
This is a strong first step. This is the beginning of the larger
debate that this Congress will have and must have about the role of the
United States in the world and how we intend to engage the world, and
trade is a very important part of that.
Our relationships with other nations must not be held captive to one
issue. But our relationships with other nations are complicated. They
include trade, of course, commerce. They include U.S. interests abroad,
national defense, and human rights. But we must not allow one dynamic
of our relationship with all our other nations on this globe to be held
captive to just one issue.
History has shown, Mr. President, that trade and commerce engagement
in reaching out does more to change attitudes and alter behavior than
any one thing. Why? It improves diets; it improves standards of living;
it opens society; it exposes people who have lived under totalitarian
rule, who have had limited exposure to freedom, to liberty, to economic
freedom, products, choice, consumerism. That is what trade does. Not
one among us believes that just trade alone is all we need. But it is
an important, integral part of our relationships around the world.
We live in a very dynamic time. The light of change today in the
world is unprecedented in modern history, and maybe all of history.
That change is spherical. It is moving. It touches every life in every
way. Food, fiber, housing, and trade are common denominators of mutual
interests of all the peoples of the world.
We must not isolate ourselves. Unilateral sanctions isolate those who
impose unilateral sanctions. We need dynamic policies for dynamic
times. The world is not static.
This is a good beginning. This is a significant beginning. Our
leadership in this body has seized the moment at a critical time as we
have witnessed our President in China for 9 days dealing with many of
these issues. We know we have far to go in all dynamics with respect to
our relationships with China, Pakistan, with India, all nations. But
trade and commerce will play a vital role in building those
relationships, enhancing the freedoms and liberties of people
throughout the globe. We in the United States must play a full, dynamic
leadership role in that process.
Mr. President, I am very proud to join my friends and colleagues who
have worked on this diligently, who will continue to provide
leadership, not just to this body but to the country, to the world, and
to our farmers and our ranchers, our producers, and our citizens. We
are all interconnected. We do live in a global village underpinned by a
global economy.
I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this very important
amendment. Again, I say to my colleagues that this is an engagement we
must all be part of.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. President, I have not spoken. I am not going to take much time
because Senators whose States which have very, very important interests
in passage of this bill should be given time.
I would like to begin by thanking Senator Murray. She has been the
spearhead of this effort. I, quite frankly, wish we had done something
broader. The Senator from Kentucky and I thought we had worked out
something more along the lines that my friend from Nebraska was just
talking about, a broader approach to dealing with not just merely
agriculture, which is obviously very important, but I just say to my
colleagues, hopefully the Senator from Kentucky and I will be back on
the floor in the not-too-distant future with a proposal for a more
rational policy relating to sanctions generally, not just as they
relate to Pakistan and not just as they relate to agriculture.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Senator from Kentucky in
presenting this legislation.
As our colleagues know, just before the Fourth of July recess, the
majority and minority leaders formed a bipartisan Task Force on
Sanctions Policy. The Senator from Kentucky was named the chairman, the
Senator from Delaware the co-chairman.
The task force was given two tasks; first, to make recommendations to
the Senate leadership, by July 15, related to the existing sanctions
against India and Pakistan. And second, to make recommendations, by
September 1, on sanctions policy generally.
These are tight deadlines, but with the support of the leadership,
the chairman and I are determined to try to meet them.
The situation with regard to Pakistan and India is our first
challenge.
Two months ago, the security situation in South Asia changed, and
changed utterly, to borrow a phrase from Yeats. The explosion of
nuclear devices, first by India, then by Pakistan, brought two nations
into the so-called club of countries which acknowledge that the possess
nuclear weapons.
The testing by both countries was promptly--and properly--condemned
by the United States and the international community. But the United
States went further than most countries, because under the Glenn
amendment, enacted in 1994, the President was required to impose
sanctions on both governments.
The sanctions imposed by the Glenn amendment are as severe as they
are sweeping.
They require the termination of all assistance under the Foreign
Assistance Act--with certain exceptions such as narcotics assistance
and humanitarian aid--the termination of all military sales and
financing, the termination of all licenses for the exports of items on
the U.S. Munitions List, and the termination of all credits or credit
guarantees provided by the U.S. government.
Additionally, the law requires the United States to oppose the
extension of loans by international financial institutions like the
World Bank, and requires the U.S. government to prohibit private U.S.
banks from making loans or credits for the purpose of purchasing food
or other agricultural commodities.
The Glenn amendment provides little flexibility. Once imposed, there
is no authority for the President to waive the law. His hands are
completely tied.
I voted for the Glenn amendment in 1994, which was part of the State
Department Authorization Act that year. But when viewed in the context
of Pakistan's and India's decision to test, I have to conclude that
while our approach worked for many years, it is no longer working. It
didn't stop them from testing, and the lack of flexibility in the law
provides little incentive for India and Pakistan to take positive steps
now.
All this is not to suggest that sanctions should never be applied. I
have voted for many sanctions laws in the past, and even authored a
few. In this instance, sanctions were clearly appropriate, both as a
strong condemnation of the governments in Delhi and Islamabad and to
deter other countries which might seek a nuclear weapon.
What I am second-guessing is the decision of Congress not to provide
more flexibility to the President.
I am a strong defender of congressional power, and I believe Congress
is
[[Page S7802]]
well within its constitutional authority to impose sanctions for
foreign policy reasons. But the President is charged with the conduct
of diplomacy. And any statute which provides little or no discretion
for the President necessarily interferes with his ability to perform
that task.
The task in this case is already difficult enough: the President
faces the considerable challenge of convincing the two governments to
constrain their nuclear weapons programs and avoid further escalation
of tensions in the region. The inflexibility in the Glenn amendment
deprives the President of tools that he might use to advance these
objectives.
In imposing sanctions, we must also pause before applying sanctions
unilaterally.
The weight of the historical evidence suggests that we are more
likely to advance our objectives if we can gain the cooperation of our
major allies. Moreover, unilateral sanctions may impose a greater cost
on our economic interests than they do on the targeted country.
In the case of India and Pakistan, we are therefore faced with two
questions: should we reconsider some of the unilateral sanctions set
forth in the Glenn amendment?
And should we give the President some flexibility in order to advance
his diplomatic objectives in the region?
I answer both questions in the affirmative and, I believe, so does
the chairman.
However, the bill we are now considering is limited only to removing
one unilateral sanction:
The bill before us would provide a permanent exemption under the
Glenn amendment for U.S. government credits to support the purchase of
food or other agriculture commodities.
This provision is identical to the provision sponsored by Senators
Murray and Gorton which was added to the Agriculture appropriations
bill during its consideration by the Committee on Appropriations.
The exemption for Commodity Credit Corporation--or CCC credits--is
consistent with the approach of the Glenn amendment, which permits
loans by private banks for the purchase of food and other agricultural
commodities.
This matter is of some urgency, because there is an important sale
offer to be made by Pakistan in the coming days.
Wheat farmers in the Pacific Northwest provide a significant portion
of Parkistan's wheat market, and they rightly fear that they could lose
that market if the CCC credits are not available.
I have long believed that we should not force U.S. farmers to bear
the burden of foreign policy sanctions, so I am pleased to support this
measure.
But I remain hopeful that in the coming weeks, we can devise a means
to provide the President flexibility with the remaining sanctions now
in place against india and Pakistan.
I do not mean to suggest that we should repeal these sanctions.
At this stage, just a few weeks after the nuclear tests in the
region, and with the President's diplomatic efforts still at an early
stage, it is premature to contemplate a complete repeal or blanket
waiver of the provisions in the Glenn amendment.
But we should attempt, before we adjourn for the year, to give the
President some latitude in order to assist his efforts to negotiate
with the two countries.
We should not underestimate the enormity of the task before the
President.
Helping to construct a new security framework in South Asia may take
considerable time, given the complexity of the situation and the deep-
seated antagonism between the countries of the region. I hope that our
colleagues will give the administration the support that it needs in
the months ahead.
In closing, I would like to thank the chairman of the task force,
Senator McConnell, for his gracious acceptance of the job and for
helping point us in this direction. I would also like to thank the
majority and minority leaders for their confidence in selecting us to
lead the task force, and for their support for this initial
legislation.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, with the permission of my friend, may I yield now,
even though it will be two Democrats in a row, to my friend from North
Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware. I am
pleased to speak in support of this legislation. I will ask unanimous
consent to be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was pleased to be a cosponsor of this
particular proposal when it was offered by Senator Murray in the Senate
Appropriations Committee. I know that Senator Murray offered it on
behalf of herself and Senator Roberts from Kansas, and I was pleased
then to cosponsor it. It is the right thing to do. I must say, however,
it is inching along in the right direction. This is not taking giant
steps today. It is inching along in the right direction.
The question of sanctions, especially sanctions in international
trade that say to the American farmer, you bear the entire cost of
sanctions that we impose for foreign policy reasons; we are upset with
Cuba so let's cut Cuba off so they can't get any grain. We are upset
with Iran, Iraq, Libya, let's cut them off so they can't buy grain--10
percent of the world's wheat market is off limits to American farmers
because, for foreign policy purposes, this country has decided that is
what ought to be done. I fundamentally disagree with that.
Hubert Humphrey used to say send them anything they can't shoot back.
Translated, he meant we ought not cut off food shipments around the
world. I don't think we ought to cut off food shipments. All that does
is hurt the poor people and hungry people around the world. But the
fact is we do have sanctions in place, and I think in addition to a
piece of legislation today that says with respect to the sanctions now
dealing with Pakistan and India, that it will not include GSM credits,
which therefore would then facilitate the flow of grain from the
Northwest in this case. That is a step in the right direction, albeit a
small one.
We don't ship grain to Pakistan. They are going to make these
purchases largely from the Northwest. But farmers are farmers, and the
wheat market is the wheat market.
The fact is the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, described very
well the crisis that exists in farm country today. Wheat farmers in
this country have seen wheat prices on the international marketplace,
on the national markets collapse, just drop to the cellar.
In my State, we not only have just rock-bottom wheat prices, we have
the worst crop disease in a full century. It is called fusarium head
blight. We call it scab. It has devastated the crops. So a farmer takes
all the risks. They plant the seed, hope it will grow, hope insects
don't come, hope it doesn't get destroyed by hail, hope it doesn't rain
too much, hope it rains enough. Finally, all of those things are OK.
They hope they raise a crop, and when they raise a crop they hope it
isn't devastated by disease. They take the grain to the elevator in
their 2-ton truck and discover they get $2 a bushel less than it cost
them to raise it. And they go out of business hand over fist. We have
so many auction sales right now they are calling auctioneers out of
retirement to handle them.
We have a huge problem. We have to deal with the underlying farm
bill. I know some people think it is working just fine. Gee, this is
just great. It is not just great. It is not working just fine. We are
pulling the rug out from family farmers in price support and calling it
freedom to farm. It is like taking the minimum wage to a dollar an hour
and calling it freedom to work. It doesn't make any sense.
We need to deal with the underlying problem. We need to deal with the
larger trade problems. We can't get wheat to China. Japan isn't buying
enough beef. We have had a flood of unfairly subsidized imports come in
in durum and spring wheat and barley from Canada. We have a whole range
of problems.
This bill deals with one small issue that is urgent and must be dealt
with now. It deals with, in GSM, credit issues that will allow us to
ship wheat to Pakistan and India. I support that. But we have a lot
more to do. We ought to decide as a Congress right now that
[[Page S7803]]
sanctions will not include food shipments, period. Let's get that 10
percent of the world wheat market back for American farmers.
Second, we ought to decide if there are those who insist that
sanctions include food shipments from American farmers to overseas
markets, then farmers ought to be reimbursed for the cost and the loss.
Why should farmers be told, here is our new foreign policy and you pay
the price. You bear the cost. Why should farmers be sent that bill and
told to pay up. If it is our belief that the best foreign policy is to
shut off food shipments through sanctions to some part of the world,
why not as a part of our foreign policy through the State Department or
part of our defense policy through the Defense Department, why not
reimburse family farmers who are told now they bear the entire cost of
those sanctions.
So I stand today to say again I appreciate this legislation. Senator
Murray and Senator Roberts initiated it, at least on the Senate side,
and I was pleased the day that Senator Murray introduced it on behalf
of her and Senator Roberts. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. It is the
right thing to do right now. But there is much, much, much more to do
if we are going to address in a real and significant way the farm
crisis.
This is as tough as I have ever seen it in rural America. I am not
going to go further talking about the farm problem and the trade
problem because they are abiding and tough and difficult, and we must
get about the business of dealing with it. And I expect that in the
coming couple of weeks we are going to have a big discussion. I know
some people don't have farmers in their areas; they don't have to deal
with farm problems every day. I think it is an opportunity to deal with
farm problems. Family farmers are the roots of our society. Family
values originate on the family farm and they nurture small towns and
big cities in this country and always have.
I am pleased to represent a State of family farmers, and I think it
is interesting to see people who wouldn't know a razorback hog from a
pickup truck tell us here in Washington, DC, all about the theory of
family farming. The fact is family farmers don't live on theory. They
risk everything they have to try to raise a crop and hope when they
have raised a crop to be able to sell it to make a decent living. Today
the sad answer is this economy doesn't produce that because we have a
whole series of problems, one of which, a small one, is addressed by
this bill, and that is the potential cutoff of a foreign market for
western wheat. This bill addresses it, and I am pleased to be a
cosponsor. But I hope in the coming weeks we will do much, much, much
more to address the crisis faced by family farmers.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. President, first let me pay a sincere thanks to Senator McConnell
and Senator Biden, and both Republican and Democratic leaders, and to
all of my colleagues who have addressed this most important issue for
their help and support. I do really appreciate the opportunity to speak
in behalf of what I consider to be a truly emergency agriculture export
relief bill.
If we move, if we pass this bill, our U.S. wheat producers may, and I
emphasize may, be able to sell Pakistan almost 14 million bushels of
wheat. Now, that means about $40 million in the pockets of American
wheat farmers instead of $40 million in the pockets of our competitors,
not to mention the poor people in Pakistan who are suffering from
malnutrition and hunger in regards to a very needed commodity.
The deadline for the wheat tender or sale is July 15. That is next
week. That is why this is an emergency. That is why the decks are
cleared. That is why this legislation is hotlined. Now, if the Congress
delays, in this body or in the House, it will be a $40 million delay at
the expense of U.S. agriculture. This bill simply exempts the GSM
export credit program from the mandated sanctions now imposed upon
Pakistan.
Let's take a look at a list of the positive things that will happen
when and if the GSM credits are made available.
First, armed with the credits and facing desperate, desperate
economic straits, Pakistan may well buy the wheat from these United
States as opposed to our competitors.
Second, as a result of sale, the wheat market will gain strength, as
will price recovery, especially in the northwestern part of the United
States.
Third, lost U.S. market share due to the sanctions hopefully will be
regained, but most important the passage of this legislation will send
an immediate strong signal to the world trade community that the U.S.
will compete aggressively, aggressively for export markets, and that
the Congress is taking steps, finally taking steps, as the Senator from
Nebraska has indicated, to correct the current drift in our trade
policy. And, yes, it has great implications in regard to farm program
policy. I am not going to go into that as of this afternoon, but it
does have great implication.
Mr. President, Pakistan is expected to tender for wheat again in a
few months, not just next week. So, with our export credit program
freed from sanction chains, why, U.S. producers may win that sale as
well. I might add again, time is of the essence. Our harvest is just
concluded or is in the process of concluding. Now is the time when our
U.S. wheat is the most competitive. If we don't sell the wheat now, the
advantage will fall to our competitors.
I am pleased this legislation basically encompasses the legislation
that Senator Gorton, Senator Murray, myself, and others introduced when
we first heard of the sanctions some weeks ago. I also note the
presence of the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture
Committee. He has a very comprehensive sanctions reform bill that looks
ahead. I see Senator Hagel is still on the floor, and Senator Biden. I
have joined them in introducing a bill to take a look back in regard to
the 115 sanctions that we have now imposed on 75 percent of the world's
population. And we have other bills as well. So, I am very pleased to
take part in that effort.
That is the good news. But I feel compelled to warn my colleagues,
however, that I believe there is some bad news, with potentially more
to come. This bill as originally proposed by the bipartisan task force
on sanctions, ably led by Senators McConnell and Biden, took one
important step for agriculture, and I think a bigger step towards
meaningful sanctions reform as it pertains to our national security and
our foreign and our trade policy. It represented, in my view, the first
step in providing the President, any President, and his national
security team and his foreign policy team, the real-world flexibility
to deal with the proliferation and testing of nuclear weapons.
The obvious case in point, and the reason we are here, is the
situation in Pakistan and India. More than a month ago, Secretary of
State Albright told Members of this body, in a briefing, that she
needed a full arsenal of diplomatic tools to help both coerce and
possibly positively influence India and Pakistan to cease any further
testing and to discuss some kind of mutual strategy for improved
relations between the two countries. I would add at this point, my
colleague and the senior Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, and
Senator Robb from Virginia, have been to India and Pakistan and have
taken a hard look at that situation.
As I recall Secretary Albright's words, she wanted the flexibility to
use carrots and sticks instead of a sledgehammer. I think that is
pretty graphic.
Let me stress, too, that the actions of India and Pakistan were most
serious and dangerous. No way did this bill or the original and more
comprehensive bill really condone the aggressive and dangerous actions
of India and Pakistan. That is not the case. It should go without
saying that our national and international security is the foremost
concern of everyone in this body, and the President, and, yes, farmers
and ranchers, and, yes, everybody in the business community. It is this
Senator's foremost concern.
The United States cannot countenance the proliferation and testing of
any weapons of mass destruction. We must continue to evaluate and
improve
[[Page S7804]]
our joint effort with our allies to achieve these mutual goals. But, in
the doing of this, I say to my friends, there is a right way and there
is a wrong way.
Unfortunately, the best of policies years ago may not serve our best
interests as of today. Those who passed legislation 4 years ago could
not know--we cannot know--how the world would look in 1998 or 4 years
down the road. But as a result of mandatory sanction legislation passed
in 1994, the executive has little--little, if any--any flexibility to
deal with the extremely sensitive issue of India and Pakistan.
These sanctions are now in place. We have stopped all loans from
international lending institutions, all credit programs. India, which
is not dependent on World Bank financing, has largely been--somewhat--
has been unaffected by the sanctions. But Pakistan is in serious
jeopardy of default. How can this serve peace and cooperation?
Under the law of unintended effects, mandatory U.S. sanctions may
well increase the suffering in Pakistan, it may well promote further
extremism, serve no useful purpose--I might add in farm language, the
testing cow is already out of the nuclear barn--and increase the
likelihood of war in south Asia. And, in the process, since the United
States alone has imposed sanctions, our trade competitors are first in
line to seize our U.S. markets.
In the original bill introduced by Senators McConnell and Biden, and
supported by the great majority of the Senate, we fixed that problem.
Step two of the bill would have granted the executive the full
authority to impose none, some, or all of the sanctions in the Arms
Control Act. It also gave the President authority to lift some or all
of the sanctions when appropriate. In other words, the original bill
provided an ``as you were, 9-month cooling off period,'' and gave to
Secretary Albright the tools she requested to see if we could not
achieve some progress in south Asia.
However, due to the concerns of several Senators--and I do not
question their intent, their concern--it will not be possible to enact
this more comprehensive bill. But as I said, in terms of the warning I
said earlier--here is the warning: My friends, we are passing a very
narrow and limited sanctions reform bill that applies to agriculture
only, due to the Pakistani wheat tender and problems in farm country
and our trade policy and our export policy. But I must warn you, when
you deal with sanctions, they become overall embargoes. We saw that in
1980, with the infamous embargo imposed by President Carter. It ended
up for 10 years like shattered glass and we had a terrible time putting
it back together in regard to contract sanctity for U.S. agriculture.
If our competitors offer the same credit arrangements, and Pakistan
has a choice, who do you think they are going to buy from as long as we
continue the overall sanctions? In farm country language, you sanction
a country and they get their nose out of joint.
The danger is this: Without section 3, which we originally had in the
bill, we are also endangering the agricultural segment. It could
happen. I hope it doesn't, but it could happen. As a matter of fact, I
think a policy of ``we will continue to sanction a whole lot of this
but we will sell you some of that only if it suits us'' does not do
anything for a comprehensive and a clear trade policy.
I have already pointed out that in national security terms the
current policy is counterproductive. Let me spell out some economic
consequences in striking section 3.
Prior to the imposition of sanctions, the United States accounted for
25 percent of India's international trade. That is remarkable,
considering all the miles in between our country and theirs. Also, I
say, Senator Brownback just went all the way over and all the way back
to try to get an update on this. It has been truly extraordinary. The
sanctions are now, however, estimated to cost India and Pakistan $4
billion in international bank loans. The Boeing aircraft company stands
to lose up to $6 billion over several years in business with 30
airplanes that cannot now be delivered. Enron is building a huge power
plant in western India, essential to raise the standard of living of
India's near billion population. A foreign competitor could, in fact,
actually take over that project. And $21 million in economic
development and housing assistance and $6 million to combat greenhouse
gases in India have been terminated.
Now, if there was any evidence, some evidence, a shred of evidence,
that stopping this business activity or assistance would somehow result
in Pakistan and India agreeing on a test plan and resolving their
differences, I would gladly support sanctions. I would gladly do that.
If there is any evidence that trade and foreign policy dominated by
trade sanctions would have any practical or positive effect, I would
support sanctions. In some rare cases they may be effective. In this
case, I think they are making things much worse.
I think we have made a mistake in striking section 3 of this bill. In
doing so, we have put grain sale to Pakistan at risk. I hope that is
not the case. I am still optimistic. We continue to send signals that
out of date and counterproductive sanctions are still the order of the
day.
I full well realize, and I respect, the concerns in regard to
authorship, jurisdiction, and the agreed-upon goal of a sanctions task
force and the committees of jurisdiction achieving meaningful and
comprehensive sanction reform. I understand that. I am part of the
sanctions task force. That is going to take a considerable amount of
time. It probably should, in terms of comprehensive reform. And, as a
member of the task force, I look forward to working with my colleagues.
But, Mr. President, in the doing of this, and in striking section 3, if
we limp to the meetings it will be because, by delay in striking
section 3 from this bill, we will have continued to shoot ourselves in
the foot.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South
Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from South
Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Delaware,
Senator Biden, and the Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, for
their work in helping expedite consideration of this very urgent
legislation; also, a special commendation to my colleague, Senator
Patty Murray of Washington State, for her extraordinary leadership on
this legislation, as well as to Senator Roberts from Kansas.
Over 10 percent of the world's wheat market is currently boxed out to
our country's wheat farmers due to the current economic sanctions. The
situation of wheat becomes all the more urgent as we consider sanctions
against Pakistan and India, Pakistan being our third largest importer
of wheat, at a time when wheat prices have fallen to less than $3 a
bushel.
I have to say, however, that our effort to address this issue today
needs to be regarded, I think, as part of a much larger effort to
revisit the entire matter of sanctions imposed by the United States, as
well as taking a look at other protrade mechanisms available to us.
In my view, it is inexcusable that the 105th Congress has not moved
full funding of the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and fast
track continues to languish. I look forward to working with Senator
Lugar and others who are looking at comprehensive reform of our entire
sanctions regime.
The fact is, Mr. President, that the United States has slapped
economic sanctions on other countries about 120 times in the past 80
years, but over half of those instances have been since the Clinton
administration came to power. This month, it is India and Pakistan, but
no other country on Earth opts for sanctions as often as has the United
States. Currently, our sanctions imposed by our Government affect more
than 70 nations in one form or another, home to two-thirds of the
world's population. What is worse is that this 105th Congress is
considering, as we speak today, an additional 30 sanctions in other
pieces of legislation.
Frankly, it is often an emotional and short-term political
calculation which drives these sanctions, rather than a longer term,
reasoned, logical explanation of what kind of cost benefit would derive
and what kind of diplomatic leverage actually is derived from the
sanctions.
It vents more outrage, but more often than not backfires,
particularly
[[Page S7805]]
in the case of food items, particularly in the case of grain where
other nations have an opportunity to grow and to take our markets.
It is America all too often, rather than the target nations, that
becomes isolated and that becomes victims of our own sanctions. When
other nations refuse to join with our sanctions, American business
suffers. In 1995 alone, unilateral sanctions cost the U.S. economy an
estimated $15 billion to $19 billion and up to 260,000 jobs, according
to the Institute for International Economics. Sanctions beyond that
also give American suppliers a reputation for unreliability and its
effects can be long lasting.
There are instances where sanctions, to some degree, have been
effective. South Africa comes to mind. Some aspects or sanctions
against Iraq come to mind relative to chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons. But the successes we have had with sanctions in the United
States, I think, points to a general rule, and that is, to be
effective, sanctions must have broad international support and must
target specific vulnerabilities.
We need to be examining more alternatives to sanctions, whether
agricultural or otherwise. The engagement with other nations, rather
than isolation, is one that I think is coming upon this Congress and
certainly this administration as a direction that we need to pursue.
I am pleased that the Clinton Administration has organized a special
State Department team installed to rethink our overall sanctions
policy. The premise, I think, of our policy as we move in this
direction--first with this bill and then, hopefully, with broader, more
far-reaching sanctions legislation--is that it is multilateral
sanctions, even if they are weaker in nature, that are usually
preferable to unilateral sanctions. And secondly, any sanctions that we
do impose should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. Incredibly, in
the past, few sanctions have been evaluated for their consequence on
the American economy relative to what it does to the target nations.
The focus, I believe, needs to be on a much more reasoned approach to
sanctions in general. This is a good first step in the right direction.
It is urgent because of the Pakistani offer to purchase 350,000 net
tons of wheat as of July 15, and we have this urgency now. But I
support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent to be listed as a
cosponsor and yield back what time I may have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank very much
the Senator from Kentucky. I, too, ask that I be added as a cosponsor
of this bill.
I applaud the leadership of Senator McConnell, and the leadership of
the majority leader, Trent Lott, in moving this forward rapidly.
I think the number of people who have spoken on the floor about the
issue of food and that it should never, ever be used as a political
weapon or tool in foreign policy, speaks clearly with the mind of the
Senate that it doesn't work. Food being used as a political tool or as
a tool of foreign policy should never, ever occur.
Hopefully, as we move forward on some reforms, that will be a point
of agreement, something with which everybody agrees: Food is never,
ever to be used. It only hurts the people and hurts our farmers in the
United States. So I congratulate my colleagues.
I particularly recognize my colleague from Kansas who has been a
leading proponent in agriculture and agricultural trade for many years
in the Congress, now in the U.S. Senate. We need to move this
legislation, and we need to move it now.
Senator Robb and I just got back 10 days ago--actually less than
that, 7 days ago--from a trip to India and Pakistan. We met with the
prime ministers of both countries. We met with the defense and foreign
policy leadership in both countries, and we saw areas that they want to
engage with the United States, feel they have definite security needs--
both India and Pakistan --that they are responding to and are having
difficulty in understanding us throwing the book at them.
I think we need to work now, obviously, in lifting this particular
sanction on food. It should not be in place, period, anyway. It should
be lifted rapidly, and I am glad to see the leadership doing that.
We next need to work on lifting the rest of the sanctions. We need to
do it, in my estimation, rapidly. Pakistan is in crisis. They have less
than 2 months foreign reserves of funds left to meet their debt loans.
They have lost half of the valuation of their stock market. We need to
do so rapidly.
We need to move forward in a way that reduces tension in the region,
and this is a key point as well. We went to the line of control between
Pakistan and India, and tensions are high. At the time we were there,
11 people were bombed and killed on the Pakistani side--just the time
we were there. We met with a number of villagers who had been wounded
at some point in time in the last 6 to 12 months. They were showing us
the wounds they had. We have to act in a way that reduces tension. We
have to act in a way that re-engages the United States in the region.
I am convinced we can do all of these things. This is a good first
step. We have to further engage. I think we have to engage the United
States broadly in the region with India and Pakistan.
There were a number of concerns raised by India while we were there
at the same time the President was in China, saying that they were
reacting to perceived threats from China that they have stated publicly
and they were saying to Senator Robb and myself as well.
On Monday, Senator Robb and I will be hosting a hearing in the
Foreign Relations subcommittee that deals with the Indian subcontinent
on the issue of how can we next move forward with lifting the remainder
of these sanctions in a way that we can do so rapidly, that helps the
countries involved, that doesn't hurt unequally countries like Pakistan
and India, that reduces tension in the region, and works rapidly to
move this issue forward. We need to do so.
I am delighted to see that we are dealing with this issue of food. We
do need to deal with the rest of the issues, particularly in the
economic areas. We do need to deal with the areas of reducing tension
in the region. I am convinced we can do all of this. We need to be back
up in front of this body quickly, again, with the steps we need to take
to further engage the United States in lifting the sanctions in this
region.
I congratulate the leadership on moving this forward. I yield back
the remainder of my time.
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. I yield 13 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, before I make the rest of my remarks, I want to say I
support this legislation and will vote for it. I do want to bring up
some points, though, that have not been brought up here today. I
support this. It is good legislation that extends the exemption for
food assistance already contained in the Glenn Amendment sanctions.
This has been worked out with the leadership. And it is basically the
language that Senator Murray brought out of committee, I believe. I
think it is identical language--or close to it. So I want to
congratulate her also on this. But let me put a different perspective
on sanctions than some of those that have been expressed here today.
The United States currently has in effect some 61 sanctions against
different nations around the world. They are not all involved in
nuclear nonproliferation. We have sanctions involved with such things
as drugs, as terrorism, human rights, sanctions against Cuba.
This legislation today does not address those. I do not think in some
of these areas--for instance, on drugs, even if food was involved--we
would be lifting these sanctions. But the United States has wanted to
prevent nuclear war. Ever since the case of Hiroshima
[[Page S7806]]
and Nagasaki, most responsible nations in the world have realized we
need to control the threat of nuclear holocaust by sometime, somehow,
some way reducing nuclear weapons.
While that remained a long-term objective, it would become even more
difficult if more and more nations developed a nuclear weapons
capability. It was with that longtime hope that legislation has been
passed for more than 20 years--much of it my legislation; that is the
reason I feel a special relationship or a special responsibility here
today--for more than 20 years trying to stop the spread of nuclear
weapons while at the same time holding out hope for eventual weapons
control and reduction.
For many years I felt this was a rather futile gesture. I did not
feel good about what we had done at all because we were not making much
progress. But finally the cold war demise brought new hope for really
gaining control of nuclear weaponry, and in a comparatively short
period of time there was real optimism that control over these weapons
could be gained.
With the end of the cold war and agreement with the Soviet Union, we
saw missiles suddenly being taken out of silos, weapons being taken
down, cores of fissile material being removed, and real progress was
being made. The Lugar-Nunn--Nunn-Lugar--whichever way you want to say
it--legislation gave some help in that direction. That has been a big
mammoth help. And with U.S. leadership, we have achieved something we
would not have even thought possible a few years ago, 185 nations
signed the NPT, and progress is being made on the CTBT, the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which now has 149 signatories.
So it was against that backdrop of really making some progress that
the Glenn amendment was passed in 1994--which we are altering here
today--with the belief that if we were even a little tougher than we
had been, that this would really discourage other nations from moving
toward nuclear weapons. That hope, of course, went down the drain when
India's extreme Hindu nationalism took precedent over what most people
around the world thought should have been more rational behavior. It
was against that backdrop we passed the legislation.
The sanctions passed in the 1994 legislation were meant to be tough
and provided no Presidential waiver largely because of the very spotty
performance in nuclear nonproliferation in past administrations. I
would remind my colleagues today who are here decrying what has gone on
here that this bill passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate. Everyone
critical today--most of the people here were here in 1994. And so it
passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate.
Some feel that sanctions are just no good in any respect. But
sanctions or the threat of sanctions as one of our diplomatic tools, I
believe, has been effective in the past in helping to turn off either
actual or incipient nuclear and missile programs. And we can give as
examples Argentina and Brazil. Taiwan--I made a trip out there some
years ago when we knew what Taiwan was doing in heading toward possible
nuclear capability. South Korea was also on that list, and South
Africa. And we may even have delayed some of Pakistan's access to the
bomb which resulted in nuclear explosions.
What we do today here in the name of our own U.S. economy--I want
everyone to realize what we are doing--what we are approving are U.S.
loans, taxpayer dollars, to replace the money the Pakistanis spent on
developing nuclear weapons instead of on food for their own people.
I also say, does this bring them any closer--with what we are about
to do today, will this result in or do we have any under-the-table or
tacit agreement that they will go ahead and sign the NPT, that they
will sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? We can say this is a
carrot hanging out there, but our carrots to Pakistan in the past have
been rebuffed by one falsehood after another for the last 17 or 18
years that I have been experiencing personally, including visits to
Pakistan to talk to their top people when they denied having any
weapons or any weapons program, clear up until the time they set off
the bombs that they claimed they did not have all these years.
So my reaction to this is, yes, for humanitarian reasons, I certainly
do not want the Pakistani people themselves and little babies going
hungry, and so on. So I am willing to go along with these humanitarian
concerns. But we do need definitely to rethink sanctions across the
board and what we mean by them.
As time has gone along, and the nations of the world are no longer
being forced to choose between the United States and the Soviet Union,
the world really has become more multipolar in every respect, with
business, industry, banking, economics, and so on. And so the role of
sanctions has changed along with that.
It has become increasingly evident through the years that the
sanctions only become really effective if they have multilateral
support, either from our major allies or preferably at the United
Nations. I believe sanctions still have a major role to play in
nonproliferation and in our fight against drugs and terrorism and human
rights abuses and the situation in Cuba, and so on. I do not think we
have to say all sanctions are bad, but they are only effective if they
have multilateral support.
Today we have economic arguments here because sanctions are going to
hurt our own farmers in this country, and we may have some that will
affect the manufacturing of jeeps out of Toledo, for instance, in my
home State of Ohio, as well as farming interests there.
So the world situation has changed, and we need, in each one of these
cases, to consider the case on its own individual merits. In that
regard, I have submitted legislation that was put in just before the
last break. The legislation would alter the way sanctions are
administered, and would be not only prospective but would be
retrospective, also. And it would be basically this: At the time of an
event or a determination that triggers a sanction against a given
country, the President could, at his discretion, place a hold on the
imposition of the sanction for up to 45 calendar days to decide whether
to remove or impose the sanction or to say, ``Here is a part that will
work; here is a part that will not work.'' Maybe the President would
want to say, ``None of it will work,'' so he wants to recommend that we
do away with that whole sanction for that particular country at that
time.
He would be completely flexible in what he could recommend, but he
would have 45 days to either build the multilateral support that I
spoke about or come to the Congress and say to the Congress: Here is
what I recommend in changing this sanction in this particular
situation. And then he would propose that to the Congress, and Congress
would have 15 session days to act under expedited procedures--15 days.
We would have a limit on what debate could occur, obviously. It would
be given preferential treatment here, and we would consider the
President's purpose in this and require him to give us his reasons why
he wants to change this legislation, alter it, or how he thinks it
could be better administered. Congress would have 15 days to approve or
disapprove what the President had done. That gives the President
ultimate flexibility, it seems to me, and would be a great step
forward.
For sanctions that are already in place, the President, on the
anniversary of that sanction, would have to come back and say once
again to us why it is working, why it is not working, what changes he
thinks should be made in the sanction. And he would do that at the 2-
year anniversary of the imposition of any sanction, and then would have
to give us a report every year thereafter on that sanction as to
whether it was working or not working and recommend any changes to make
it more effective.
I do not see any other way to make this whole thing work in the
multipolar world in which we live now. Sanctions 15 or 20 years ago may
have had more of a chance of an effect even though they were
unilateral, but rarely in the situation we find ourselves in in the
world community today.
So while I am for this legislation today for humanitarian reasons, I
do not go along with some people who talk about poor little Pakistan
and how they are in the situation that they have brought upon
themselves because they have deliberately misled us intentionally--one
leader after another for
[[Page S7807]]
about the last 15 or 16 years that I have been personally dealing with
this. But I do not want to see the Pakistani people go hungry or
anything like that, and so I go along with this today.
It was mentioned a moment ago what a sad situation it was that we did
not include the other parts that were originally posed in this
legislation. If we had kept those proposals on this legislation, I can
guarantee you I would probably have participated in my first filibuster
in my 24 years in the U.S. Senate. I feel that strongly about it.
I do think we have played a good role in stopping the proliferation
of nuclear weapons, and sanctions have helped--but if we take these off
today as far as food sales go, maybe it will give us a lever; maybe it
will give Pakistan an incentive to sign the NPT, sign the comprehensive
test ban treaty, and hopefully that would encourage India.
There is nothing in here for India, so I don't know whether we are
unbalancing this situation or not. I don't know what the administration
may have planned to sweeten the pie, sweeten the pot for India in this
regard; also, to get them to move toward NPT and CTBT status.
Make no mistake, these are not just some international loans we are
approving, these are U.S. loans we are approving to Pakistan and will
pass in the Senate. It still has to pass the House, obviously, and we
hope this can get done in time to take place before the bidding starts
on the international sales, as I understand it, by the 15th.
I repeat, I think we need to rethink sanctions. The outline of what I
have proposed is in legislation now. It has been filed. I hope we can
move in that direction, because I think it would give the President the
ultimate flexibility he needs without dumping congressional
responsibility at the same time. It would mean whatever the President
proposes with regard to sanctions we would have to consider on an
expedited, privileged basis. To me, this is the way we should be going
in the future.
I know I am part of the task force that will indeed be looking at
these options between now and September 1 when we have to have them
submitted for the U.S. Senate.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his time.
Mr. GLENN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the time has come to pay the piper, and we
don't much like the price. For years we have been able to sing the
siren song of sanctions on the cheap. Whenever we are concerned about
human rights--sanctions. If we are concerned about nuclear
proliferation--sanctions. But I think almost always the magic of those
sanctions has been that they don't go into effect when we make the
speeches on that subject on the floor; they may happen sometime later.
And now they have happened.
All of us in this body and our predecessors are guilty of this song.
But now we learn what it really does. At a time in which farm prices,
especially in our wheat country and the Pacific Northwest, are already
declining precipitously because of the financial crisis in east Asia,
we add to our own pain by creating a situation that will almost
certainly cause us to lose hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of
sales in Pakistan to other countries that don't share our enthusiasm
for sanctions, unless we act in a period of time of less than 1 week.
Yes, this is an urgently needed bill, urgently needed for the farm
sector of our community, urgently needed for our own ability to operate
in a highly competitive world of agriculture. For that purpose, the
work of the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Delaware and
everyone else who has been a part of this is vitally important.
But the Senator from Ohio just said, gosh, this is unbalanced, it
does something for Pakistan and it doesn't do anything for India. It
did something for India this morning, Mr. President. This morning it
did when it also allowed waivers with respect to the Export-Import
Bank, where last year we sold almost $400 million worth of aircraft
from my State, with future similar sales greatly threatened by
sanctions which now remain because the Senators from California and
from Ohio wouldn't permit this bill to come up at all unless that was
taken out.
Of course we are going to support the bill in its present form, and
of course we will support a task force, and what my seatmate here, the
distinguished Senator from Indiana, has been working on for months, to
bring a more rational system of sanctions together. But we are finding
that the sanctions cost us more than they cost the Nations against whom
they are imposed, because you can buy wheat in parts of the world other
than the Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, you can buy jet airliners
from other sources than Seattle, WA. In fact, when you impose sanctions
on one thing on a country, you give that country an immense incentive
to buy other things from other countries, as well as a form of
resentment.
In this case, when the India nuclear tests were largely caused by our
policies with respect to China, and of course the Pakistani test by
what happened in India, the sanctions are particularly bizarre.
The sanctions that we are in part removing today should be removed.
But they are an illustration of an even bigger fact--that we should
have done what this bill did this morning and does not do now; we
should be doing even more. So in that respect, the promise in this bill
is dual: First, an opportunity, if we do get it all the way through and
to the President, that we will save a vitally important part of our
wheat sales; and, second, the illustration that we are only at the
beginning of deciding that maybe that song wasn't worth the price that
we are now paying the piper for. And that may be every bit as important
a part as the specific sections we are passing this afternoon, as
important as they are.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes, with the
permission of the Senator from Delaware who stepped off the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, let me say that I think the debate this
afternoon has been instructive, particularly with respect to the impact
of sanctions, because we are acknowledging, perhaps for the first time
in a forum and debate like this, the fact that sanctions clearly have
limitations and all too often the target of the sanctions ends up being
less impacted by the sanctions that are actually put in place than the
country that enacts those particular sanctions.
Senator Brownback spoke a few moments ago of a trip that he and I
took to the Asian subcontinent just over a week ago. We had very good
meetings with Prime Minister Vajpai and his key officials within his
Government, including Interior Minister Advani, Defense Minister
Fernandez, and others. We spent another day in Pakistan with Prime
Minister Sharif, Foreign Minister Khan, and a number of key officials.
We went up to a line of control and not only observed the positions
there but did observe the fact that the fighting in the Kashmir area
continues to inflict far more casualties on civilians than it does on
actual combatants.
But for a very different reason than my good friend and colleague
from Ohio, I am pleased that section 3 was removed because it was less
than, I believe, we need to do in terms of taking congressional fingers
off of the ability to waive sanctions that we currently employ. I
believe it is important that we continue to focus on our oversight role
and make the administration not only responsible for the conduct of
foreign policy, but for defending foreign policy choices. But
ultimately, if we prescribe sanctions and act, in effect, as 535
Secretaries of State in too many instances, we make it virtually
impossible for the administration to carry out the functions of any
administration--whether it be Democratic or Republican--to carry out
the functions that we expect an administration to carry out on our
behalf. So taking section 3 out of this particular legislation, which
would have had a limited waiver authority, and working to provide the
kind of complete waiver authority and comprehensive treatment that I
believe this subject deserves, in my judgment, it is the right thing to
do. Given the statement just made a few minutes
[[Page S7808]]
ago by the distinguished Senator from Ohio, it may be that we will have
extended debate on that particular topic. But it is important that we
do so.
In this particular instance, much like fast-track authority and
others, the Congress of the United States can play a role, but
frequently its most important role is as the ``bad cop'' to provide an
opportunity for the administration to get concessions and to make
progress in areas that, but for the possible effect of sanctions or
other activities that the Congress might impose, the President working
directly with the other country with singular decisionmaking authority
can achieve results that we simply could not obtain if we were reliant
solely upon the actions of the Congress of the United States.
So I am pleased to be supportive of this legislation. I think that
food is the right place to draw the line in the near term. I support
the amendment that will be offered by my distinguished colleague from
Virginia, and I believe the Senator from Connecticut, with respect to
adding medicine to that list--I think that is an appropriate addition.
Next week, we will begin to consider, in a more comprehensive
fashion, the kinds of authority that we ought to provide to the Chief
Executive of the United States, whatever party he or she might be in at
any given time, the authority to negotiate directly with foreign
governments and not have the prospect of having to then bring whatever
negotiation that took place back to the Congress, where it might be
amended or changed.
With that, again, I salute those who were involved. I thank Senator
Brownback for making a very exhaustive 96-hour trip to visit those two
countries and to get directly engaged in some of the problems that
confront us. I thank all of our colleagues for the effort they have put
into trying to find an equitable solution to a very serious problem
confronting not only the United States and the South Asian Continent,
but the international community and sanctions that we might employ in
the future have the kind of effects that we may not have intended them
to take.
With that, I yield back whatever time I may have and I yield the
floor.
Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Kentucky is
recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, Senator McConnell and Senator
Biden, my friends, who have shown leadership on this issue, I thank you
publicly for doing that. It's been a remarkable afternoon as we've
debated this issue. In fact, the debate has been somewhat limited
because I think there's a whole lot of unanimity and that perhaps the
Senate may have acted precipitously in the past.
I appreciated Senator Glenn's willingness to share with us some of
the history and motivation that went into the markup of the Arms Export
Control Act. I don't think anyone here doubts his sincerity and the
accuracy of what he said. However, I think all of us who have risen
today to defend wheat farmers recognize how seriously we have failed in
some regard. We have not kept a nuclear genie in the bottle on the
Indian Subcontinent, and now we see the bizarre spectacle of the
American Government poised to wrestle American farmers to the ground
because our law does not control arms half a world away.
I am pleased to rise as a defender of Oregon farmers. I suppose the
motivation of everyone here is absolutely appropriate. I have
additional motivation in that the farmers that we're talking about are
my neighbors.
I come from Eastern Oregon, a place of rolling hills of wheat. And so
when I consider this issue, I see their faces. And I know how much
they're suffering as we speak, because last time I checked, wheat in
the Port of Portland was selling at about $2.75 a bushel. I don't know
when it has been that low and to have the threat of sanctions come on
top of it is truly--truly a double jeopardy. I am pleased with what the
Senate is doing today and I am happy to be an original cosponsor of
this amendment. Again, I am thankful to the Republican and Democratic
leadership for changing at least a small portion of the Arms Export
Control Act.
Let me indicate how important this is as a country issue and a city
issue. This year alone about 40 percent of the U.S. soft white wheat
comes from the Pacific Northwest. Again, this year alone that crop
amounts to about $255 million. Sales of this magnitude for the rest of
the year will simply go to another country if we don't act as we are
today.
In addition to that, this will have an effect on the city of
Portland. So far this year, wheat sales in the Pacific Northwest have
resulted in about $10 million. So, this is an issue that brings country
and city together in a very significant way.
Now, Mr. President, I am pleased to tell you that in a recent
conversation with President Clinton, he emphasized his willingness,
even his great desire to sign this legislation. So we are doing
something here, acting unitedly as Americans and with our president.
I am also pleased to tell you that a couple days ago I met with the
Foreign Minister of Pakistan and Special Envoy of the Government of
Pakistan. We discussed the need for Pakistan to develop with America a
new way of rebuilding our relationship. I indicated to him that I felt
it important to keep the door of commerce open as we acted in this
Congress on sanctions legislation. I also let him know that they should
also act to reach towards us as well. He gave me his assurance that
purchasing soft white wheat from the Pacific Northwest would be a
priority over similar purchases from other countries.
Mr. President, it's been a pleasure to stand with so many Senators
who care about our farmers. I count myself chief among them. I thank
them for their support and ask for their votes in the Senate and for
the state of Oregon. I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North
Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. President, in my home State of North Dakota, we are facing a
disaster of stunning proportion. We are losing literally thousands of
farm families as a result of what I call a ``triple whammy'' of bad
prices, bad weather and bad policy. One part of the bad policy is the
sanctions that we place on foreign countries that locks us out of their
markets.
Mr. President, I have just spent 9 days in my State going from town
to town. Everywhere I have gone, farmers have taken me aside, bankers
have taken me aside, Main Street business people have taken me aside
and they have told me that something is radically wrong. Farmers are
not cash-flowing. We have the lowest prices in history, coupled with a
dramatic reduction in production because of the outbreak of massive
disease--scab and other disease--that is reducing yields dramatically.
That combination is absolutely devastating to farmers.
In the midst of this, our Asian markets, which are critical to us,
are weakening because of a financial collapse there. And on top of it,
our own Government is imposing sanctions on countries like Pakistan,
which is the third largest buyer of wheat, and we are locking ourselves
out of those markets, further weakening prices, creating what is, in
effect, a death spiral.
Mr. President, what are the consequences? In my State, there are now
30,000 farm families. We are anticipating losing as many as 10
percent--3,000 farm families--this year. We have auctions that are
being offered daily--many of them each and every day, as farm families
liquidate, leave the land, because they can't possibly make it. These
are some of the very best farmers that North Dakota has.
Mr. President, it is critically important that we pass this
legislation to exempt agriculture from these sanctions to give our
farmers a fighting chance. I visit farmsteads frequently in North
Dakota. I wish I could explain to my colleagues the depth of despair
that is being felt there. I had a farmer say to me this last week that
he believes farm conditions are worse than the 1930s.
I have had many farmers say to me that conditions are worse than the
[[Page S7809]]
1980s. That was an incredibly bad period in North Dakota and, of
course, in the rest of the farm country as well.
Mr. President, it is time to act. We can take a first important step
today by passing this sanctions legislation.
I want to especially thank my colleague, Senator Murray of
Washington, for her outstanding leadership on this legislation; Senator
McConnell from Kentucky, who has taken a strong interest in getting
this legislation passed--my hat is off to Senator McConnell as well;
Senator Biden, who has played a critical role in advancing this
legislation and keeping it together in the difficult hours this
morning; and Senator Roberts from Kansas, who has also played a leading
role. My thanks to each and every one of them.
I can tell you, we face a desperate situation in my State. It is
truly a disaster. I just went through six counties, and in every one of
them they are literally under water. There are 2 and 3 feet of water on
the farm fields. There won't be any crops there this year. Coupled with
the very low prices on crops they had last year, we face a deepening of
the disaster that is already occurring.
This is an important step. I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, who really, I think,
began this debate with his comprehensive sanctions proposal. We are all
grateful that it began to stimulate all Senators to certainly rethink
where we are at this point with our history of sanctions.
I thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and yield him 5
minutes.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, my thanks to the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky. I appreciate his leadership, that of Senator Biden, and
likewise the role of Senator Lott and Senator Daschle in appointing
this important task force.
I am eager to speak today as an original sponsor of the legislation
before the Senate. This bill is appropriate and a good first step
toward comprehensive review of economic sanctions that is sorely needed
for our Nation's economic security.
First, the legislation is timely. Executive agencies have debated
whether the Agriculture Department's export credit guarantees for
Pakistan should be included in the Glenn Amendment prohibitions, or
not. The Justice Department concluded the law did prohibit these
guarantees.
In fiscal year 1997, Pakistan bought $347 million worth of U.S. wheat
with USDA's export credit guarantees. In fiscal year 1998, Pakistan was
allocated $250 million in export credit guarantees and has used $162
million of that amount, all for wheat.
On July 15, Pakistan will hold a tender for 350,000 metric tons of
wheat. Without export credit guarantees, the United States will get
none of that business. That will mean the loss of about $37 million in
foreign exchange earnings.
The Pakistani government will not draw any lessons from our lack of
participation, except that the U.S. has chosen to cede another market
to its competitors. Other grain exporters are participating in the
tender and will make the sales if we do not. Only our farmers will
suffer. Quick action by the Congress, however, can resolve the short-
term problem.
Second, the legislation is appropriate. Food should not be a weapon
in foreign policy. The history of unilateral agricultural sanctions
over several decades adequately demonstrates their futility.
When sanctions are unduly rigid and automatic, they become a
roadblock to prudent diplomacy. This is a much more serious issue. In
fact, sanctions tend to harm our industries and hamper our foreign
policy more than they advance their stated goals.
Mr. President, rarely did we state our goals when we adopted any of
the 61 sanctions that are now on the books; nor have we established
benchmarks that show whether these sanctions have been successful.
Obviously, our policy was not successful with regard to the sanctions
we are discussing today. Unilateral sanctions rarely accomplish their
objectives in the absence of multilateral cooperation. In fact,
scholarship on this subject is replete with almost no instance in which
unilateral U.S. sanctions have achieved their intended goals, even when
the goals were implicit as opposed to being explicit.
Finally, the legislation is a good first step. This Senate needs a
broad debate on economic sanctions and their consequences. The majority
and minority leaders have shown strong leadership in naming a
bipartisan task force to consider sanctions policy.
The fact that we need to pass this legislation on an emergency basis
only illustrates the need for a more comprehensive legislative
approach. We need to think through the consequences of unilateral,
inflexible sanctions before they are imposed, not after.
In the near future, I will offer a modified version of my bill, S.
1413, for the Senate's consideration. That legislation will establish a
framework for the consideration and review of future sanctions, and
will broadly exempt food and humanitarian assistance.
I look forward to working closely with the task force headed by
Senator McConnell and Senator Biden. I appreciate that we must examine
not only prospective views on any legislation suggested but likewise
retrospective views and those of our Chief Executive and Secretary of
State.
For the moment, we need to pass the bill before us. I commend those
who brought this important legislation to the floor today.
Mr. President, we will also need to think carefully, as other
Senators have suggested, about the overall agriculture situation in our
country. As a general rule we ought to be thinking about how we make
the sale and move the grain, not about how we store the grain and
dismember the farm bill.
Congress should grant the President fast track trade negotiating
authority. We must have this in order to successfully move our grain to
the rest of the world this year, next year, and for many years to come.
Fast track is essential for the World Trade Organization (WTO)
negotiations that will be paramount next year. We must also act on
International Monetary Fund (IMF) replenishment. This is critical to
having any chance of regaining Asian demand. Right now, prices are down
because demand is down. It is as clear as that.
Finally, we must have broad sanctions reform. Sanctions inhibit us
and cost American jobs and American sales.
For all of these reasons, Mr. President, this is an important moment,
an important bill, and I strongly support its passage.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I first thank my good friend, the Senator
from Delaware.
Mr. President, we are now embarked on a very significant policy
change with respect to sanctions. Over the past several years, it was
simple for the U.S. Congress to slap sanctions on an offensive country.
We could also give the President the authority to grant sanctions. We
could do this because we believed this power was free. That is to say,
we in Congress freely used sanctions to express our sentiments about
issues of particular concern, and we passed several pieces of
legislation giving the President sanctions authority because it didn't
cost anything. And we made our statements loud and clear by doing so.
Good statements, for example, that tried to curb proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction. And at that time, these efforts were
necessary in steering certain countries away from a course contrary to
world public policy.
Unfortunately, despite our best intentions, most of these sanctions
bills have been ineffective. Many have not accomplished the purpose for
which they were intended. We may ask ourselves why? I believe one
important reason is the fact that the world has become so global. In
addition, this global marketplace is not conducive to the imposition of
unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States. Quite simply, the
sanctioned country can very easily avoid the purpose and penalty of our
sanctions by going to other countries to get the products that they
would otherwise obtain from the United States.
So, by and large, unilateral sanctions have not worked very well. On
the
[[Page S7810]]
other hand, multilateral sanctions tend to work when a majority of
countries in the world join together with the same purpose and to help
accomplish the same objective. The legislation that we are considering
today, and will pass today, recognizes that phenomenon.
That being said, I believe that there is definitely a role for
sanctions--unilateral and multilateral. We just have to work together
to determine when and where each sanction is most appropriate and
effective.
Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen a demonstrated interest
in reforming our sanction's policy. We realize today that it probably
makes more sense to pass something narrowly crafted than to use a
blanket action to achieve a specific goal. Take for example, the fact
that we are considering a waiver with respect to GSM agricultural
credits for food shipments to Pakistan. We now believe--and I think I
am speaking for almost all Members of Congress--that food shipments
should never be used as a foreign policy weapon. Barring a country from
a necessary food source is wrong. It is anti-humanitarian. More often
it hurts the very people who need it the most. It also tends to
inadvertently penalize our producers here in America.
Food as a weapon simply does not work, and the legislation before us
today essentially provides a release valve with respect to food
shipments and agriculture products. Today we are talking about
Pakistan, but we should also rethink our policy toward India and the
rest of the sanctioned countries after this particular vote. We must
also devise a way to give the President a little more flexibility when
targeting a specific result. These results include the reduction of
nuclear tests and weapons of mass destruction in Asia.
I believe that it is also important to point out that our
agricultural producers are currently blocked out of 10 percent of the
global market due to sanctions. This lack of market access obviously
hurts our producers. It is almost ironic that in many cases we hurt
ourselves far more than we hurt or influence an errant country. This is
most often the result when we employ the use of unilateral sanctions.
Our producers simply cannot afford to bear the brunt of our failed
foreign policy endeavors. We simply must oppose and remove trade
sanctions that unfairly inhibit market opportunities for our ag
producers.
I might also add that I recently accompanied President Clinton on his
trip to China. During this trip, I talked to several Chinese officials
and tried to encourage them to open up their markets to American
products like Pacific Northwest wheat. Unfortunately, the response I
received was to the effect that China would be willing to buy if
America was a reliable supplier. Their spin on trade was justified by
claiming we in America sanction our food exports too often. Why, then
should they depend on us to provide a reliable source of wheat, or beef
or any other commodity subject to sanctions?
Now I'm not saying the sole reason China does not take wheat,
particularly Pacific Northwest wheat, is due to sanctions. But I do
believe our random sanctions policy is a contributing factor. Again it
was obvious that if we stop using food as a tool of foreign policy, we
will have an easier time in encouraging market access.
Mr. President. It took awhile but sanctions reform is now moving
quickly. Many Senators should be recognized for their efforts in
bringing the forefront--Senators McConnell, Lugar, Dodd, Biden, Glenn,
Murray, Feinstein and Roberts. There are many more and I would like to
compliment them for their efforts. I only suggest that, as we work
together on a solution, we be a little more thoughtful than we were
this morning in rushing to push legislation throughout without
thoughtful consideration and foresight.
Discretion is the better part of valor. For that reason, I am pleased
that we in the Senate decided to focus on a narrow sanctions reform
provision that would pass on its merits in the immediate future. This
is much more reasonable that trying to enact broader sanctions reform
which we should do, but at a later date in the fall after we have a
sufficient amount of time to work together to produce a truly dynamic
sanctions package. In the interim, I urge us to think carefully, think
thoughtfully. Find a proper role for sanctions and offer a nonpartisan
solution. We need to work together as a team. We have to, in fact, as
the world becomes more complex with regard to foreign policy and trade
policy build a strong coalition. As a team of Americans representing
the Democrats, Republicans and Administration we will be able to set
forth a policy enabling Americans to be respected as we would like to
be.
With that, Mr. President, I compliment those who are involved in this
legislation. It is a good first step. Let us continue down this path.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note with some concern the support of
some of my colleagues for a weakening of the sanctions currently in
place against India and Pakistan under the terms of the Nuclear
Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994. Although I do not oppose the
Farmers Export Relief Act of 1998, I would encourage members of
Congress not to lose sight of the national security considerations
which motivate our sanctions against India and Pakistan, and to tread
warily along the path of haphazardly lifting those sanctions.
In 1994, the United States Senate voted unanimously in favor of
automatic sanctions against any country which ``crashed the gates'' of
the nuclear club. The gravity of counter-proliferation sentiment in the
Senate at the time was clearly expressed by the absence of the standard
``national security waiver'' that sanctions legislation typically
contains. At the time, we believed that such a tough sanctions
requirement would serve as an effective deterrent to any country which
believed it had more to gain than lose by developing the ability to
detonate a nuclear device.
The tenor of the debate in the Senate today indicates that our 1994
sanctions legislation is viewed as a failure. India and Pakistan are
now nuclear powers, attesting to the inability of the global non-
proliferation regime to constrain their national ambitions.
But can we say with any degree of certainty that our sanctions policy
is as powerless as some suggest? The 1994 legislation was intended not
only to deter countries from developing a nuclear weapons capability,
but to punish countries that flouted the global consensus, embodied in
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, against developing nuclear
weapons as a legitimate instrument of national power. Sanctions against
India and Pakistan have been in place for less than two months. It has
been widely acknowledged that both countries, particularly Pakistan,
have suffered from the cut-off in U.S. trade and investment and the
cessation of loan guarantees from the international financial
institutions.
An earlier draft of the Farmers Export Relief Act of 1998 would have
granted the President the authority to waive all the sanctions mandated
by Congress by the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994. I am
pleased that this language was removed, as it would have been
inconsistent with both the spirit and letter of the 1994 law.
I support American farmer and agribusinesses who wish to export their
products to South Asian markets. However, I am not convinced that the
campaign to waive U.S. sanctions for agricultural products is driven by
concern for American national security interests. What is the basis for
singling out agricultural products, rather than any other category of
goods, for a sanctions waiver? I am not convinced that the merits of
exporting grain, cotton, or even tobacco--all agricultural goods that
would be exempt from sanctions should this legislation pass--are such
that agriculture should be singled out for a sanctions waiver. What
national security logic drives this approach?
Let me stress that I do not oppose this legislation to exempt
agricultural goods from the sanctions regime in place against India and
Pakistan. I simply wish to caution my colleagues against piecemeal
efforts to take the teeth out of sanctions whose credibility and
effectiveness hinge on their capacity to hurt countries which defy
international norms and undermine American national security. we must
approach sanctions policy with an eye for overall strategy rather than
taking a more narrow, tactical approach that obscures the larger
objectives of our foreign policy.
[[Page S7811]]
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am a member of the Sanctions Taskforce
established by the Majority and Minority Leaders, and I support this
bill. I want to give the President additional flexibility in his
efforts to persuade the Indian and Pakistani Governments to walk back
from the nuclear precipice. I think this bill represents an appropriate
compromise.
But I also want to emphasize that I am doing so because the
President's waiver authority expires on March 1, 1999. I do not favor
an open-ended waiver, nor do I want my support for this bill to be
interpreted as a signal that the President should immediately use the
authority to waive sanctions. I hope he will think long and hard before
he does, and do so only if he is convinced that it could bring about a
significant change in behavior of these countries.
The United States finds itself in a difficult position. We are, after
all, the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons against
another country. We have also conducted thousands of nuclear tests, and
we have an enormous nuclear arsenal. From the perspective of the
Indians and the Pakistanis, our expressions of outrage at their recent
nuclear tests may seem hypocritical.
I for one believe the United States could do a great deal more to set
an example on nuclear disarmament. We do not need to wait for the
Russians before we take further steps of our own. Our overwhelming
military power makes it possible for us, indeed I would say we have a
responsibility, to do so. We can reduce our arsenal further without
risking our own security or the security of our allies.
But having said that, I also believe that the actions of the Indian
and Pakistani Governments were at complete variance with the trend of
history. Their acts were reckless and unnecessary. They contributed
nothing to their defense, and they have only increased tensions and
insecurity in South Asia. They have invited similar recklessness by
other countries.
It is therefore imperative that the President use whatever diplomatic
means he has to encourage the Indians and Pakistanis to join the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, to enter into serious
negotiations on a solution to the Kashmir problem, and to take whatever
steps are necessary to ensure that they are not drawn into a nuclear
arms race. In that regard, they need only look to the experience of the
United States and the former Soviet Union to understand why it is in
their interests to not start down that road.
I want the President's diplomacy to succeed, and I support giving him
the tools he needs. But I also support the sunset provision in this
bill because it gives these countries ample time to demonstrate whether
or not they intend to respond to these concerns. If they do not, then
sanctions should be reimposed. Any country that detonates a nuclear
device should expect to suffer the consequences. On the other hand, if
they do respond positively then I have no doubt that the Congress will
reciprocate.
Mr. President, the avoidance of nuclear war is our country's first
priority. Ever since the end of World War II we have done our utmost to
avoid the use of nuclear weapons, by ourselves or by others. We have
made headway with Russia on nuclear disarmament, but that process has
stalled. I fully support the President's decision to go to Moscow to
try to revive that process. The administration has also made progress
in building international support for the Test Ban Treaty. The Indian
and Pakistani tests have set that process back. This bill seeks to
revive it. If we fail, we can anticipate a future with nuclear weapons
bristling on every continent. That is not a legacy we want to leave.
I commend Senators McConnell and Biden for their very effective
leadership of the Taskforce that produced this legislation.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, times are tough for Idaho's farmers
right now. No one who has read a commodity report in the last few
months would disagree. Wheat and barley prices are at record lows as
are prices for other important Idaho agricultural products. Growers all
over the state are on the verge of bankruptcy. This is an emergency.
In a time when the situation is so desperate, eliminating a market
that represents almost half of Idaho's white wheat exports could
permanently cripple the grain industry in my state.
That is why sanctions against countries such as India and Pakistan,
at least those based on agricultural commodities, don't make sense. In
fact, the only loser--the only group that will suffer as a result of
the sanctions--will be America's farmers.
While I completely understand the reasons behind sanctioning
countries that violate the Arms Export Control Act, I cannot support
punishing Idaho wheat farmers for the actions of foreign governments.
This body cannot stand by while much of the nation's wheat crop is
sitting in grain elevators. Closing an existing market to America's
grain producers could have dire consequences. American wheat producers
are already shut out of 20 percent of international markets. I believe
that we need to expand new markets, not close off existing ones.
It is for that reason that I am an original cosponsor of S. 2282, the
Farmer Export Relief Act. This bill would send a strong signal to the
international trade community that the United States will aggressively
compete for commodity markets.
The fact is, food should not be used as an economic weapon. The
people of these countries, two of the world's largest, have to eat.
There are 967 million mouths to feed in India, 135 million in Pakistan.
That's over 4 times more mouths than we have here at home.
Pakistan will soon make a $37 million purchase of white wheat. Our
producers should be able to bid on that 13.5 million bushel sale. If
they don't get their food from us, that void will quickly be filled by
other nations with similar surplus problems. Pakistan is the third
largest wheat export market for the United States. We can't allow such
a big portion of exports to be handed over to our competitors.
Bill Flory, an Idahoan, is the president of the National Association
of Wheat Growers. As a grain producer from Northern Idaho, Bill knows
first hand the problems facing growers. Bill recently told me that the
prices he is getting for his wheat are almost exactly the same as he
was getting in the 1970's--almost thirty years ago.
Mr. President, this is, indeed, an emergency. Idaho's grain farmers
should not be punished for the actions of other nations. It is time for
this body to come to the aid of American grain producers and lift the
sanctions that don't hurt the violators, but instead only hurt our own
farmers.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this important
measure to keep our agricultural export markets open.
Beyond the legislation currently under consideration, I am pleased
that Congress has begun a serious discussion about the general issue of
our sanctions policy. Too often in the past we have been quick to use
the blunt instrument of unilateral sanctions without fully evaluating
its impact. I believe that when considering sanctions, we in the
Congress must take into account not only the likelihood the policy will
meet our objectives, but also the effects sanctions will have both
domestically and abroad. By acknowledging that our farmers should no
longer bear the brunt of our sanctions policy, this legislation is a
small but important first step.
More importantly, those of us from rural states know that a crisis is
brewing in rural America and I think it is vitally important that the
Senate begin to act to preserve family based agriculture. Exports are
down, prices are collapsing, and producer incomes are decreasing at an
alarming rate. And somehow, this crisis in rural America is growing at
a time when the rest of the country enjoys an unprecedented economic
boom.
Without action, we are about to see another migration from our family
farms. If we don't act to preserve this way of life, we are going to
alter forever the face of rural America. And I suspect that the
agricultural sector we end up with will not be one we like.
I believe strongly that this Congress should act and will act to
preserve family based agriculture. I am pleased that we are taking this
first step to support our wheat farmers today and I look forward to the
upcoming debate about how best to act to preserve a healthy and
prosperous rural economy.
[[Page S7812]]
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the
legislation before us today. This bill touches on matters of great
importance to the future of American farmers as well as the direction
of foreign policy for the United States.
I agree with many of my colleagues who contend here today that this
legislation signals an important first step in reevaluating our
sanctions policy. Many of us would agree that we have overused and
thereby deadened the sting of sanctions. In addition, unilateral
sanctions only hurt U.S. producers, regardless of the sector, and
essentially amount to a gift to our foreign competitors.
I would also like to express my agreement with those who have
suggested that agricultural sanctions in particular are an ineffective
stick and cause substantial damage to already depressed agricultural
markets. In a world market where the prices for agricultural
commodities continue to decline and almost every major player heavily
subsidizes its agricultural sector, curtailing U.S. farmers' access to
significant portions of the global market through sanctions only serves
to make a difficult situation worse.
I would also like to emphasize the importance of allowing the free
market to dictate agricultural production and sales. The wealth of
nations--and this is a conscious choice of wording--is not attained by
erecting barriers--either through tariffs or embargoes--to the export
of our agricultural commodities. Our agricultural surplus must be
allowed into markets where there is a demand. Pakistan is only one of
those markets.
If left in place, these sanctions will have a devastating immediate
impact on American farmers. The pending sale of 15 million tons of
wheat to Pakistan hangs in the balance. Our wheat farmers will shoulder
the most immediate burden of misguided foreign policy unless we are
willing today to take a small, but crucial step, in changing that
policy. American farmers desperately need the remaining 10% of global
markets that our current sanctions deny them. We already witnessed the
impotence of embargoes in 1980. How often do we have to repeat our
mistakes to learn?
Between 1993 and 1996, the United States unilaterally imposed
sanctions 61 times against 35 countries. The effectiveness of these
sanctions in attaining specific foreign policy objectives would have to
be evaluated on a case by case basis. However, what requires no
detailed examination at all is that we have created a web of walls to
U.S. exports that previously did not exist. We have erected, in
essence, extensive non-tariff barriers to myriad U.S. exports. We have
systematically carved out large pieces of the global market and made
them inaccessible to U.S. producers. The competition should be
overwhelmed with gratitude. We are doing more to bolster foreign
producers of agricultural goods than their own governments could hope
to achieve through subsidies.
The focus of this legislation are the sanctions invoked in reaction
to the nuclear tests carried out in India and Pakistan earlier this
Spring. The 1994 Glenn amendment not only included agricultural
commodities, it also shut off agricultural credit programs that enabled
countries like Pakistan to import U.S. wheat and feed its citizens. In
sanctioning Pakistan in this manner, we run the risk of further
destabilizing the existing regime. I have already voiced my concern
about the danger inherent in this approach. Hungry citizens and
desperate regimes with nuclear weapons capability could be a formula
for disaster.
A further disaster must, however, be noted and has not been
adequately emphasized in the discussion of this bill. Allowing
international markets to be regulated by supply and demand for
agricultural products--as well as other goods, services and capital--is
an idea that dates back to the founding of this nation. The wealth of
this nation can only be derived from a free market economy and
unimpeded international trade. These artificial barriers will spell
disaster for U.S. farmers in the immediate term, and they will
eventually have negative ramifications for every sector in the U.S.
economy.
Mr. President, I am hopeful that this legislation will initiate
further changes. It is essential to American farmers that we change the
current policy. This is an important first step to removing the
barriers we have created to allowing U.S. producers to compete and
profit in global markets. The economic lessons published by Adam Smith
in 1776 are as pertinent today as they were at this country's birth.
U.S. sanctions will serve to crush the invisible hand and hinder our
competitiveness. I believe we should keep this foremost in our mind as
we evaluate our sanctions policies, MFN and fast track in the coming
months.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Who yields time?
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I believe I have 6 minutes remaining under
my control.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Just under 5.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield just over 4 then to the Senator
from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
Let me join in the chorus of praise of our distinguished colleagues
from Kentucky and Delaware, who have worked out this arrangement to
allow for the adoption of this resolution that will permit the sale of
food shipments to go forward in the case of both Pakistan and India.
I also want to take a moment here to commend our colleague from
Indiana, who is no longer in the Chamber, but who went beyond the
particular legislation in front of us and suggested that there are a
number of things we need to be doing on the international level if we
are going to continue to have the kind of success economically at home
that we have enjoyed over these past several years.
The critical elements, of ensuring success at home economically over
the long term are that we have a sound education policy, an issue which
we have been debating today as part of the higher education
reauthorization legislation, in addition to the obvious sound monetary
and economic policy. Another important component is to also have
responsible global economic policies. Certainly enactment of IMF
legislation is a critical element of such a policy. I am hopeful that
the other body will follow the Senate in passing the IMF legislation
before we adjourn this Fall.
Sanctions policy is another part of our global economic policy that
certainly demands our attention in this Congress and in this session. I
think most Members now have come to the conclusion that our present
sanctions policy is not only not working very well, but is actually
counter to our own self-interest.
Someone suggested the other day that when we adopt unilateral
sanctions, what we ought to do is immediately lay off about 5 percent
of the workforce in the affected industries, because that is the
ultimate effect and we should be honest about it.
Senator Hagel, Senator Pat Roberts, Senator Biden, and I, and others
introduced legislation before the July 4 recess would fundamentally
change how unilateral sanctions are dealt with in this country. I would
restore the appropriate balance of power between the Congress and the
Executive in the sanctions area by giving the President the authority
to delay, suspend, or terminate a particular sanction if he believes it
serves an important national interest to do so. But we are not going to
debate that today or bring it up, but I am hopeful that before this
session ends we will find the time to do so.
I am fearful that while there is a keen interest in the sanctions
issue now because of recent events in Pakistan and India, we will soon
move on to other things without fundamentally addressing the problems
with sanctions that the India/Pakistan highlighted so vividly. I hope
that doesn't happen.
We currently have in place sanctions that effect more than 40% of the
world's population. In one year alone, existing sanctions has cost the
United States $20 billion in lost export revenues and affected 200,000
jobs in America. And even if you did not pass one new sanction, that
$20 billion turns into $100 billion over a five year period, and those
200,000 jobs turn into a million.
[[Page S7813]]
So I am hopeful that this interest being expressed today by both
Democrats and Republicans on this particular issue--and they have gone
beyond it to suggest we need to fundamentally change how we impose
unilateral sanctions--will bear fruit in terms of some broader
legislative steps before this Congress expires.
Amendment No. 3113
(Purpose: To exempt medicines and medical equipment from sanctions)
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, Senator Warner and I have an amendment, on
which we have been joined by Senator Hagel and Senator Robb, which I am
going to send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr.
Warner, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Robb, proposes an amendment
numbered 3113.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 1, after line 14, insert:
(c) Section 102(b)(2)(D) of the Arms Export Control Act is
further amended in clause (ii) by inserting after the word
``to'' the following words: ``medicines, medical equipment,
and,''
Renumber succeeding subsections accordingly.
Mr. DODD. This amendment has been cleared by both sides. What it does
is, to exempt the sale of medicines and medical equipment from
sanctions that would be imposed under this provision of the Arms Export
Control Act. Senator Warner, Senator Hagel, Senator Robb, and I feel
that just as food should not be used as a weapon against other
countries, neither should medicine or medical equipment.
I have heard it said now countless times over the last hour and a
half or 2 hours on this floor that food shipments ought never to be
used as an instrument of sanctions policy. Whatever else we may choose
to do to sanction a government, we shouldn't be hurting the average
person in that country because they aren't responsible for the actions
of their leaders. We shouldn't be victimizing innocent men, women and
children with our sanctions policy.
I guarantee you that the political leaders who formulate policies of
countries get their flu shots, get their medicine; they get their food.
It is the general population who are the innocent victims who suffer.
So we wanted to add medicine and medical equipment to make a point
today, to put them on the same footing as food shipment are treated in
this bill, so that we would begin to set the precedent that food
shipments and medicine will no longer be used as a tool of our
sanctions policy. Our ultimate goal is to lift all sanctions on the
sale of food and medicine that currently are included in existing law,
and bar the imposition of any future sanctions of this kind. We hope we
will accomplish this broader objective before Congress adjourns later
this year. But that goes beyond the parameters of the legislation that
is being considered today.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in correcting
what is clearly an unintended consequence of Congressional enacted
sanctions--namely preventing American farmers from being able to export
their products abroad. This not only hurts American farm families, but
it also ends up hurting innocent populations who in many cases are
terribly dependent on American food stuffs in order to stay alive.
Moreover, it is unlikely to alter the behavior of the sanctioned
government.
I do not believe that food should ever be used as a weapon against
other governments or people. That is not what the United States should
be about. The American people have an enormous humanitarian spirit
always reaching to help the weak and defenseless. Surely there are
enough weapons in our foreign policy arsenal that we can forswear the
use of food as a sanctions tool.
Similarly, I believe that we should also forswear denying life saving
medicines and medical equipment to innocent women and children, simply
because we don't like something their government officials may have
done. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking we are denying any high
government officials access to all the food or medicine they need--
they'll get it even though there is scarcity with respect to the
general public.
I am pleased that the Managers have agreed to accept the Dodd/Warner
amendment that amends the Arms Export Control Act to make it explicitly
clear that medicines and medical supplies will not be withheld under
the sanctions provisions of this act.
When we impose sanctions against other governments we are at the same
time sending a signal to the rest of the world about what the United
States stands for and believes in. For that reason I believe we should
never be telling the world that we believe in starving innocent people
or denying them access to medical care. It is important that throughout
the planet everyone understands that the United States operates only on
the highest moral standards and will never stoop to the kind of
behavior that is the hallmark of petty dictatorships who care nothing
for the well being of their people.
Mr. President, while I support what we are doing today, I do not
believe it goes far enough. It does not resolve the problem that
currently confronts the President with respect to sanctions generally
and India and Pakistan most immediately. We have done nothing today to
give him the flexibility he needs to bring India and Pakistan back
within the fold of internationally responsible countries in the realm
of nuclear nonproliferation. I would hope that we could get agreement
to deal with this issue very quickly so that a bad situation does not
become a global tragedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time under the control of the Senator from
Delaware has now expired.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. I think this proposal is a step in that direction. It makes
sense. It deserves our broad-based support. I strongly urge our
colleagues to join with us on the broader efforts to fundamentally
change sanctions policy.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Kentucky has
2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there is no objection to the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1313) was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the situation is this. We are just
about out of time, but I have one more Senator on our side of the aisle
who would like a couple of minutes.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thompson have 2
minutes and Senator Harkin have 2 minutes, and Senator Biden and I have
2 minutes each for a close.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. So I say to our colleagues, that means the vote will
be about 8 minutes from now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. THOMPSON. I thank my colleagues from Kentucky and Delaware.
Mr. President, just a couple of brief points that I think need to be
made in order to put what we are doing in context. I think the
legislation is good legislation and it is needed. However, I think what
we are doing here is taking a step toward Congress intervening in the
sanctions process, as we have sometimes, and I think that is good. But
I think we need to keep in mind that most of these sanctions have been
passed in times past because of concerns of nuclear proliferation.
Proliferation has come about because of detonation by countries that
have been carried out in their own countries, such as India and
Pakistan. Proliferation has also come about because of exports from one
country to another, to a troublesome country, to a rogue nation or a
nation that we feel might pose some danger to us.
[[Page S7814]]
So, while we are fashioning a particular remedy for a particular
purpose with regard to these sanctions, we need to keep in mind that it
is in a much larger context that we are going to have to address this.
Because, while we want to liberalize the administration's discretion
with regard to sanctions in this area, we need to keep in mind that
what is also going on right now is the situation where Congress, time
and time again, has expressed concern that the administration has not
used the sanctions that are available to it. We have a situation right
now where we have imposed sanctions on India because of detonations,
and India's response is that they are doing so in large part because of
our relationship with China. China, on the other hand, continues to be
the world's greatest distributor of weapons of mass destruction around
the world, and as they do so, the President waives sanctions on China.
More recently, the administration has decided to exercise its waiver
authority and not to sanction the Russian company Gazprom for energy
investments in Iran which violate the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.
So, while it may be appropriate and needed for Congress to intervene
to liberalize the application of sanctions in the area that we are
dealing with today, we need to keep in mind that while we are bashing
sanctions--and I personally believe that they have been greatly
overapplied, are indiscriminate, there has not been sufficient
distinction with regard to countries that pose a threat or not----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
Mr. THOMPSON. I ask consent for an additional 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMPSON. We have not made that kind of distinction; we have not
made a distinction between those countries that pose a threat and
countries that do not. We are going to have to address all of those
issues and mainly we are going to have to address the question of
whether or not we want to also intervene, as a Congress, with regard to
those instances where the administration is not imposing sanctions when
this Congress believes they should; where this administration is
granting waivers to Russia and China time and time again with regard to
their activities of proliferation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments in favor of
the bill and its swift passage. I just want to point out again what the
bill accomplishes. What this legislation will do is to establish that
the automatic sanctions under the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act
of 1994 will not include a prohibition against credit, credit
guarantees or other financial assistance provided by the Department of
Agriculture to support the purchase of food or other ag commodities.
Again, this bill does not deal with the underlying purposes and
operation of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994. It only
deals with the question of whether the automatic sanctions will include
USDA credit guarantees or other financial assistance for the purchase
of food and ag commodities.
My views in this regard are similar to what Hubert Humphrey, a former
Member of this body, once said when he wanted to extend more food sales
to the then-Soviet Union--which, of course, was our enemy in the cold
war--and someone was taking him to task for that. Senator Humphrey
replied that he was in favor of selling them anything that they
couldn't fire back.
That is essentially my perspective, too. We ought to be willing to
sell food with credit guarantees not only for our own purposes here in
this country but because a lot of people whose economic circumstances
are marginal in other countries need this food for their basic
subsistence.
Finally, it is important that the Senate not have the misimpression
that this legislation is going to solve what is shaping up to be a very
serious crisis in rural America and on our farms. We need to pass this
legislation. It will help, but it should not delude us into thinking
that now this is going to cure our low wheat prices or corn prices or
solve the farm income problem.
With respect to U.S. ag exports, I would point out the net impact of
U.S. trade sanctions in six markets--Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea,
Libya, and Sudan--amounts to only 1 percent of the total U.S. ag
exports. Those six countries purchased only about 2 percent--I ask
unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Those six countries purchased only about 2 percent of the
total world ag imports in 1996. When India and Pakistan were added, the
result was only 3.2 percent of the total world ag trade subject to U.S.
sanctions. That is simply not enough to have caused the tremendous drop
we have recently seen in wheat and other commodity prices. So, yes, we
need to pass this bill, but we need to come back in this body and do
something to help solve the low ag prices that are hurting our farmers
all over America. This bill alone won't do it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what we are doing here today at the urging
of Senator Murray and Senator Roberts is necessary and important. But I
want to make it clear we didn't start this off as an ag bill. This is
about foreign policy. This is about sanctions. It does affect us. It is
important.
My only regret here today is we are only exempting agriculture. I
hear my colleagues from the agricultural States stand up and talk about
how farmers are put at risk. I point out, people who work in a factory
at Boeing are put at risk. People who work in the Du Pont Company are
put at risk. People who work in every other industry are put at the
same risk farmers are put at when we impose these sanctions. So we
should go further than we are going today.
That is the task that has been assigned to the task force that is
chaired by Senator McConnell and myself. I am hopeful and I am
encouraged by the fact that we have been nonpartisan in our approach so
far, to try to deal with this. There is going to be a tendency on the
part of Democrats to say, ``Gosh, if there is a Republican President
next, maybe we should not do this.'' There is a tendency on the part of
Republicans to say, ``We have a Democratic President for the next 2
years, maybe we should not do this.'' I hope we continue to rise above
that and do what needs to be done and have a rationalized sanctions
policy that is fundamentally different than what we have here today.
But that is easier said than done. That is our task. We will attempt
to do it. I am just sorry we weren't able to go forward with what was,
even the broader version of this, was a modest version of what we had
to do. We weren't able to get that done today, but with the leadership
of the Senator from Kentucky and the help of our colleagues who have
engaged in this, maybe we can come up with something before this
session is over that rationalizes our sanctions policy.
I thank my friend from Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my good friend from Delaware. I do look
forward to this challenge we have together to try to move forward on
this issue.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Grams of Minnesota and Senator
Bond of Missouri be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, before we close for the vote on this
India-Pakistan bill, let me re-examine our mandate from the leadership.
Senator Biden and I and the task force have been asked to focus on
the following issues: What constitutes a sanction? Is it a sanction
when we withhold or condition U.S. foreign assistance? Is it a sanction
when we ban investment? Obviously, it is a sanction to ban commercial
activity or investment, but there are other issues of aid conditions
that are clearly foggy. What sanctions are in place? What flexibility
has been offered? And how are these current sanctions being
implemented? Implementation, even after we enact a sanction, has been
somewhat haphazard.
Mr. President, as the task force moves forward, let me suggest that
we are very likely to have a hearing before the August recess to give
people out in the country who are affected by what
[[Page S7815]]
we decide an opportunity to have their say. We know the business
community, for example, seems to be comfortable with the 301 process,
because they know what to expect and when to expect it. We look forward
to hearing from them. There are others out in our country who feel the
United States is, after all, the beacon of freedom in the world and we
should express ourselves about policies in other countries with which
we disagree, and we want to hear from them, Mr. President, as well.
It is the intention of Senator Biden and myself to meet the September
1 deadline that the leadership has given us. I want to say that we
welcome the thoughts and comments of our colleagues both on and off the
task force.
Mr. President, I understand that time has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill, as amended,
pass? On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison)
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Hutchison
Kyl
The bill (S. 2282), as amended, was passed, as follows:
S. 2282
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture Export Relief
Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. SANCTIONS EXEMPTIONS.
(a) Section 102(b)(2)(D) of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2799aa-1(b)(2)(D)) is amended as follows:
(1) In clause (ii) by striking the period and inserting in
lieu thereof ``, or''.
(2) By inserting after clause (ii) the following new
clause--
``(iii) any credit, credit guarantee or financial
assistance provided by the Department of Agriculture to
support the purchase of food or other agriculture
commodity.''.
(b) Section 102(b)(2)(F) is amended by striking the period
at the end and inserting ``which includes fertilizer.''.
(c) Section 102(b)(2)(D) of the Arms Export Control Act is
further amended in clause (ii) by inserting after the word
``to'' the following words: ``medicines, medical equipment,
and,''.
(d) Amounts which may be made available by this section
102(b)(2)(D)(iii) are designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended: Provided, That such amounts shall be available only
to the extent that an official budget request that includes
designation of the entire amount of the request as an
emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress.
(e) Any sanction imposed under section 102(b)(2)(D) of the
Arms Export Control Act before the date of this Act with
respect only to the activity described in section 2(a)(2) of
this Act shall cease to apply upon the enactment of this Act.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________