[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.

                          ____________________