[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5446-H5451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 AGRICULTURE EXPORT RELIEF ACT OF 1998

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 2282) to amend the Arms Export Control Act, and for 
other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read 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) Exemption Regarding Food and Other Agricultural 
     Commodity Purchases.--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 (i) by striking ``or'' at the end.
       (2) In clause (ii) by striking the period and inserting ``, 
     or''.
       (3) By inserting after clause (ii) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(iii) to any credit, credit guarantee, or financial 
     assistance provided by the Department of Agriculture to 
     support the purchase of food or other agricultural 
     commodity.''.
       (b) Description of Agricultural Commodities.--Section 
     102(b)(2)(F) of such Act is amended by striking the period at 
     the end and inserting ``, which includes fertilizer.''.
       (c) Other Exemptions.--Section 102(b)(2)(D)(ii) of such Act 
     is further amended by inserting after ``to'' the following: 
     ``medicines, medical equipment, and''.
       (d) Application of Amendments.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (a)(3) shall apply to any credit, credit 
     guarantee, or other financial assistance provided by the 
     Department of Agriculture before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act through September 30, 1999.
       (e) Effect on Existing Sanctions.--Any sanction imposed 
     under section 102(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act shall cease to apply 
     upon that date with respect to the items described in the 
     amendments made by subsections (b) and (c). In the case of 
     the amendment made by subsection (a)(3), any sanction imposed 
     under section 102(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act shall not be in effect 
     during the period beginning on that date and ending on 
     September 30, 1999, with respect to the activities and items 
     described in the amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)


                             General Leave

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on S. 2282, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H5447]]

  Mr. Speaker, it has been long-standing American policy to penalize 
nuclear proliferators. In fact, the so-called ``Glenn amendment,'' 
which we are modifying today, was supported by the Clinton 
administration and was adopted by the 103d Congress.
  This bill, as amended, would permit taxpayer financing of certain 
commodity shipments to India and to Pakistan. It was approved in a 
slightly different form by unanimous rollcall vote in the other body. 
It extends an existing exemption for food assistance already contained 
in the law to financing food shipments. It also changes the definition 
of agricultural products and extends an exemption to include medicines.
  The bill is necessary because, after extensive review, the Justice 
Department concluded that the law prohibits export credit guarantees 
for Pakistan. In response, we are making the necessary adjustments and 
showing ourselves capable of responding in a timely fashion to adjust 
these laws, if necessary.
  We have made, in consultation with the Agriculture Committee, a 
series of changes to the Senate-passed bill. First, we have removed the 
provision that provided that spending to carry in effect the bill would 
be emergency spending under the Budget Act. Because we did not want to 
designate this as emergency spending, we have followed the pattern of 
the Nethercutt Amendment to the Agricultural Appropriations bill which 
makes this change only through September 30, 1999. Finally, there were 
several technical changes. I appreciate the work of the Committee on 
Agriculture and its staff in putting this amendment together.
  In fiscal year 1997, Pakistan bought $347 million worth of U.S. wheat 
with USDA 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 U.S. will not be able to 
secure that market for our farmers, which is worth some $37 million. 
The taxpayer subsidy will be $7 million in 1998 and $24 million in 
1999.
  Members should not lose sight of the fact that we are weakening the 
sanctions put in place against India and Pakistan on account of their 
having conducted numerous nuclear tests. These tests have only served 
to increase tensions and instability in south Asia.
  I anticipate that today's debate may become a debate about our 
nonproliferation laws, but we should be careful about proceeding 
piecemeal to dismantle any of those laws. The credibility and 
effectiveness of our policies depends on our capacity to penalize 
nations which defy international norms and undermine our own national 
security.
  I want to make clear that I am pleased that we can help our farmers 
by enacting this legislation. Food should not be any weapon in foreign 
policy.
  But I also want to say that all Members should be aware of what we 
are doing today. We are approving United States loans funded by 
taxpayer dollars to replace the money that the Pakistanis could have 
used to take care of their own needs. Instead, they used that money to 
develop nuclear weapons.
  I am confident that some Members will say that this bill is evidence 
that we need to rethink and rewrite all of our proliferation sanction 
laws. They will argue that our laws are ineffective and have not 
accomplished the purposes for which they were intended. They may even 
argue that our sanction laws are counterproductive.
  Well, I fully disagree. There is definitely a role for both 
unilateral and multilateral sanctions, and I believe that they deterred 
India and Pakistan for many years from taking the steps they finally 
took earlier this year.
  Many of the statistics and arguments you may hear today about how 
sanctions don't work and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are gross 
exaggerations. For example, the Congressional Budget Office did work 
for at the request of Mr. Hamilton and myself on the impact of 
sanctions. Their estimate is that the actual impact of sanctions on the 
economy may be closer to $1 billion per year than the $15 billion often 
asserted in this debate. I happen to believe that $1 billion is not too 
much to spend to help keep Iraq, Iran, and other countries that would 
exploit our technology against their neighbors under some sort of 
control.
  Just as we do not throw out the criminal code or abolish the police 
when we find that crime occurs, we should not give up the deterrent 
effects built into our nonproliferation, technology control, human 
rights and other foreign policy laws, even though they are not 
airtight.
  Often it is argued that only multilateral sanctions work. Well, 
Members will recall that, following the G-8 summit in May, the 
President said he could not assert that it would have made a difference 
if he had been able to persuade the G-8 to sanction India. I have a 
hard time believing that the President really thinks that. In my view, 
he was merely rationalizing a failure to lead.
  Had the President worked harder for a multilateral firm response, we 
would not be here today. In fact, Pakistan may not have tested. But we 
are where we are today, and we have to adjust to the situation we face 
today. We do not want our farmers needlessly penalized.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Smith is coming in from the airport, so at this time 
I will reserve the balance of my time; but, pending that, I ask 
unanimous consent that time be controlled by the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) on our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of this bill, S. 2282. I think all of us understand 
the intent of the bill. Section 102 of the Arms Export Control Act, 
which is commonly referred to as the ``Glenn Amendment,'' mandates a 
set of sweeping sanctions against any country that detonates a nuclear 
explosive device other than the five recognized nuclear weapon states.
  Following the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan which they 
conducted last May, the United States imposed section 102 sanctions 
against both countries. The section 102, as currently written, exempts 
humanitarian assistance and intelligence activities from these 
sanctions.
  The bill we have before us today would create one additional 
exemption. It would permit government financing and credits to support 
the sale of food, agricultural products, including fertilizers, 
medicines and medical equipment.
  The question, of course, is why this additional exemption is needed, 
I think, because our experience has demonstrated that the original 
language of the Glenn amendment, at least in present circumstances, was 
too broad and sweeping in its coverage.

                              {time}  1700

  It was indiscriminate in its targets. It provided the executive 
branch with no waiver authority, and therefore reduced the President's 
ability to negotiate with the governments of India and Pakistan. It 
contained no termination date. It penalized the individuals and 
families in the sanctioned countries, with whom we really have no 
complaint, rather than the governments that have offended us. It 
required American producers and American farmers to forsake important 
sales that would be lost to foreign producers.
  This bill should not be construed as a lessening of our commitment to 
nonproliferation. To the contrary, by crafting a more focused sanctions 
policy, it helps secure the domestic base for continuing sanctions. For 
that reason, I think even Senator Glenn, the author of the original 
sanctions legislation, supported this change when the Senate voted on 
it last week.
  The administration supports this legislation. The Senate adopted it 
last week by a practically unanimous vote of 98 to zero. I want to note 
that we are amending the bill for technical reasons, and they support 
this amendment.
  Creating an exception to sanctions in this bill does have budgetary 
consequences. The Senate passed the bill as an emergency spending 
authority. We are revising it to provide for offsets. It is my 
understanding that there is bipartisan agreement on this amendment, and 
I hope that the Senate will quickly agree to the House amendment and 
send the bill to the President by the time that Pakistani wheat tender 
occurs tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to support S. 2282.

[[Page H5448]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation, and endorse my colleagues' best hopes that in fact the 
Senate will act expeditiously on the amended version.
  On May 11, 1998, America's wheat farmers were busy working in the 
fields when India detonated nuclear weapons the first time. Undoubtedly 
our farmers had no idea that Pakistan's subsequent nuclear test, and a 
very questionable American sanctions policy, which failed to deter the 
tests, would undermine our farmers' ability to sell wheat to the 
countries of the Asia subcontinent.
  Perhaps they were also busy in their fields in 1994 when Congress 
passed the Glenn amendment to the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act. 
That amendment prohibits export credit guarantees to nonnuclear 
countries which either develop or test nuclear weapons.
  Across the Atlantic on that same day, French wheat farmers had no 
idea that India's detonation of a nuclear weapon might produce such a 
windfall for them in lost American export markets. Contrary to the 
United States, France does not have a mandatory sanctions law, and 
their wheat sales, subsidized wheat sales, I might add, can continue to 
Pakistan.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, American wheat farmers stand to lose a 2.2 
million ton wheat market in Pakistan because of our unilateral 
sanctions policy toward the Asian subcontinent. The stakes are high and 
the timing could not be worse. If Congress does not amend the sanctions 
law to allow U.S.-backed wheat sales to Pakistan, the French, Canadian 
or Australian farmers will exploit this lucrative wheat export market 
without American competition at a time when American wheat prices for 
our farmers are at their lowest point in decades and at at time when we 
desperately need to hold onto those export markets.
  This nearly forgotten sanction legislation imposed automatically on 
the backs of American farmers without additional thought, is just one 
facet of the 61 sanction-related laws or executive orders that Congress 
or the administration has enacted in the last 4 years. Those sanctions 
target 35 countries. According to an Institute for International 
Economics study, economic sanctions cost American industry and 
agriculture combined about $15 to $19 billion annually in exports.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to express support for the 
Agricultural Export Relief Act of 1998 that is before us. This is the 
first effort by Congress to lift the sanctions imposed pursuant to the 
Glenn amendment after India and Pakistan conducted underground nuclear 
tests earlier this year.
  While I support this legislation, I think the President needs greater 
discretion in lifting these sanctions. Last week the task force 
empowered by the Senate leadership to look at the sanctions regime put 
forth a proposal that would give the President greater discretion in 
waiving unilateral sanctions against India and Pakistan, for example in 
international trade and finance. It would also allow for the President 
to clear the way for the U.S. to support international financial 
institutions to resume loan payments to India and Pakistan. The 
proposal, however, would not allow the President to waive sanctions 
that limit the transfer or sale of military and dual use technology.
  Mr. Speaker, I plan to introduce a House bill today that is identical 
to the Senate task force proposal. I believe U.S. policy has proven to 
be ineffective in deterring the proliferation of nuclear weapons in 
South Asia, and it is time that Congress review this policy and 
implement legislation that gives the President greater flexibility in 
addressing nuclear crises.
  I believe we must keep working for nonproliferation, but that the 
economic sanctions now in place are not the best way to achieve that 
goal. We have limited our diplomatic options in terms of 
nonproliferation in South Asia while damaging the growing economic 
relationship between India and the United States.
  The administration has conducted several senior level meetings with 
the Indian government since the tests. India and Pakistan have 
expressed a desire to work with the U.S. in resolving these issues. 
Later this week Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot and Assistant 
Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth will be visiting New Delhi and 
Islamabad to continue discussions and negotiations. This is following 
very successful meetings last week between the U.S. and India in 
Frankfurt, Germany.
  During this critical time it is important that we give the President 
the necessary tools to help achieve our nonproliferation goals. I urge 
my colleagues from both chambers to work together so we can rectify 
this serious problem.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), a distinguished member of the committee and a 
man very much focused on export issues.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. 
This bill makes sense. Tomorrow Pakistan will purchase 350,000 metric 
tons of wheat for $37 million. The only question remains which country 
will sell them this wheat.
  Only U.S. wheat growers bear this heavy sanctions burden, while 
farmers in other countries eagerly await to seize this market from us. 
Did we not learn anything from the failed Carter grain embargo against 
the Soviet Union? The Soviets simply bought wheat from Argentina, 
Canada, and Australia, and it took years for U.S. farmers to regain a 
foothold in the Russian market.
  What is good for the farm community should also be good for our 
manufacturing sector. Because of nuclear testing by India and Pakistan, 
Eximbank halted support for $4 billion in U.S. exports to those 
countries. That is placing 48,000 high-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs 
at risk, including those who work at Sundstrand and Woodward Governor 
in Rockford, which companies supply aviation parts to Boeing.
  What kind of punishment is that to those countries that detonate? 
Ingersoll Milling Machine Company is trying to determine if it can 
still sell an $8 million four-axis machine center to a state-owned 
electric utility company in India.
  Two Italian machine tool manufacturers not encumbered by these 
sanctions are standing by waiting to seize that market from the 
Americans. If Ingersoll does not receive an answer from the Commerce 
Department by July 20, we could lose that $8 million contract.
  Motorola has already lost $15 million worth of two-way radio sales to 
India, and could lose hundreds of millions in more export opportunities 
to upgrade India's communication system because of the Eximbank 
sanctions. Three thousand employees work at the Harvard, Illinois plant 
making telecommunications equipment for Motorola.
  That is why we need to rethink our whole philosophy towards 
sanctions. Why would we try to punish a country for doing something 
wrong, and we end up punishing our own workers, when that country in 
fact can end up buying the same materials from other countries?
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Indiana for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill that is under consideration is an emergency 
response in an emergency situation. We have seen the reemergence of an 
agricultural depression in this country. Among other areas that have 
been hit are wheat producing communities in the Red River and west. It 
has hit areas of Texas. It is critical that when our producers are in 
financial distress, we not attempt unilateral sanctions against other 
countries in this world that are doomed to failure.
  Unfortunately, the unilateral sanctions we have announced against 
India and Pakistan do not appear to be destined for effectiveness, 
because other countries which are competitors in selling agricultural 
commodities are

[[Page H5449]]

more than willing to come in and replace American farmers as the 
suppliers of those commodities; in this case, wheat.
  I would urge my colleagues to carefully review this situation, and 
understand that as much as all of us abhor the spread of nuclear 
weapons and nuclear testing, that what we need to make sure is that we 
act responsibly here and we not use a bludgeon that is designed to be 
ineffective, and in many cases come back and hit ourselves and inflict 
a mortal wound on our own producers, when what we are trying to do is 
to emphasize to India and Pakistan and other countries of the world 
that this country does not tolerate continued nuclear testing.
  This bill is a bill that ought to pass today. It ought to be signed 
by the President yet this week. We ought to be able to go ahead and 
move these agricultural commodities this week so our farmers do not 
have this impediment to their success in 1998.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), who was, of course, the 
Member who first took legislative action for the successful 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and related agencies on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this bill today. As 
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) stated, he and I and the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy) and many others from farm country introduced this 
sanctions exemption legislation over a month ago in anticipation of the 
effect of the Arms Export Control Act upon the agriculture industry in 
this country.
  I, representing the State of Washington, am particularly affected by 
the seriousness of this sanctions policy that was adopted in 1994. I 
must say, I was just home in Pullman, Washington, and Walla Walla and 
Davenport, and some of the very high quality farm wheat-producing parts 
of my State and our country.
  I must say to my colleagues, there is great concern about the effect 
of sanctions upon American agriculture; most particularly, our 
relationship with the countries of Pakistan and India. Pakistan is a 
very important trading partner to the State of Washington. We export 90 
percent of our wheat in our State, soft, white wheat, and Pakistan has 
been a very good customer.
  As we in this country have learned in the 1980s with the embargo of 
the Soviet Union, the self-imposed embargo, the unilateral sanctions 
that were imposed cost my State and my region dramatically. We lost 
market share in that part of the world that we are still struggling to 
recover. I must say, I am very supportive of this bill.
  We struggled with the cost issue. We passed this legislation, we not 
only introduced it a month or so ago but we passed it in the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies on which I serve on the Committee 
on Appropriations in a bipartisan way, we passed it in the full 
committee, and it has passed the full House. We just did not have a 
chance to get it worked out on a cost payment basis through the 
agriculture appropriations conference.
  The Senate has not finished their work yet. The other body has not 
finished its work yet. I respect the other body for bringing this bill 
to the floor, but we are going to do our best to make sure that all is 
fair and square regarding cost.
  The most important thing is if Pakistan buys wheat on the market 
Wednesday, tomorrow, with their tender, it is critically important that 
we do not interrupt that ability by Pakistan to deal with American farm 
interests. If we do not lift these sanctions and have it in place by 
today, then we lose. Our farmers are unilaterally going to lose because 
our market would be shut off by these sanctions in position.
  I must say to my colleagues, let us struggle through the cost part of 
this sanctions issue and lifting the sanctions issue, but we must stand 
up for our agricultural interests and the farmers of my State and 
Nebraska and Kansas and every other State that deal with agriculture, 
or else our farmers are in great jeopardy.
  I am pleased to speak in favor of this bill, and urge its adoption by 
this House.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2282. It is clear to me 
that the sanctions provisions of the Arms Export Control Act were never 
intended to limit the use of the Export Credit Guarantee Program. 
Nevertheless, I support clarification of the Act because of the 
uncertainty, as we have heard, of the U.S. wheat market.
  Indeed, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs 
has recently sent a letter to the Congress indicating the 
Administration's strong support for this clarifying provision. In plain 
English, what we are saying is that it really does not make any common 
sense for the United States to unilaterally impose sanctions upon our 
producers and allow our friends and allies to make a sale.
  As we have heard, the criticalness, the timeliness of this indicates 
we need to pass this and send this to the President for his signature 
very quickly.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  I also rise in support of this legislation. I do support the use of 
sanctions as a foreign policy tool, but I believe that the USDA has 
used them all too frequently.
  The bill we are considering today would allow USDA to guarantee U.S. 
wheat sales to Pakistan and to India. Without the bill, American 
farmers would not be able to sell their product.
  As has been mentioned by my colleagues from Illinois and Washington, 
Pakistan is expected to request bids for wheat very soon, possibly as 
early as tomorrow. This could involve nearly $40 million in sales of 
U.S. wheat.
  I have examined the proposals to address the crisis in American 
agriculture, Mr. Speaker. There are some producers out there that are 
hurting; there is no question about it. I do not believe that the 
proposed solutions we are hearing about will do as much good as some 
believe. The so-called solutions would only rechain American 
agriculture to the dictatorial whims of our government.
  However, the Federal Government, Congress and the executive branch, 
must live up to the promises of the 1996 Farm Bill or we could face a 
crisis. We must commit to a long-term, focused trade agenda. We need to 
expand our markets, enhance markets and find new markets.
  It is a good bill. I hope the body will support it.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California Mr. Dooley.
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 
2282 and ask my colleagues to support this important bill. This bill, 
which passed the Senate last week by a vote of 98 to 0, makes important 
changes in the 1994 Arms Export Control Act to allow India and Pakistan 
to continue to use U.S. guaranteed loans to import American food, 
fertilizer and other agriculture commodities.
  The immediate beneficiaries of this legislation will be the wheat 
farmers in the Pacific Northwest who will be able to participate in the 
upcoming auction for 350,000 metric tons of white winter wheat to be 
sold to Pakistan.
  While I support this legislation, I feel, unfortunately, that it does 
not go far enough, because it seems unlikely that India and Pakistan 
will be interested in purchasing U.S. agriculture products over a long 
term if we continue to prohibit the sale of other higher-value products 
to these countries.
  While I have been listening to the remarks of some of my colleagues 
here, I find it difficult to see how we can rationalize that if it 
makes sense and it is in the interest of U.S. farmers to allow for 
their exportation of products to countries that are subject to 
sanctions, why does it not make sense for

[[Page H5450]]

us to eliminate the sanctions on the production of any other U.S.-
produced commodity or product?
  Clearly, it is in the interest of U.S. workers and U.S. companies to 
eliminate sanctions that penalize our working men and women. That is 
why we need to go further, why we need to support the legislation 
introduced by our colleagues, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) 
and Mr. Sharp, that we can provide a better framework for future U.S. 
economic sanctions policy.
  When we go beyond the sanctions, we have to move forward aggressively 
with our other trade issues and turn to the full funding of the 
International Monetary Fund, the passage of China most-favored-nation 
as well as the eventual passage of fast track authorization for the 
President.
  I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak in support of S. 
2282.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York 
for yielding me the time.
  The timing on this legislation is important. S. 2282 needs to pass 
quickly and today. We need to resolve any differences with the Senate, 
and this legislation needs to be signed by the President. Not only is 
the timing important but Pakistan is important, 350,000 tons is up 
tomorrow for export tender, and our wheat farmers in Kansas as well as 
across the country cannot afford to lose one more market.
  Price is low, as we know. Storage is a problem in Kansas. 
Transportation is a problem in Kansas. We need to move wheat on world 
markets to assist in improving the price, opening up storage and moving 
grain in our transportation system. It is necessary to have a boost in 
foreign sales, and perhaps that boost will translate into higher prices 
for wheat sold on the markets across this country.
  This sets the stage for reducing trade barriers. It opens up the 
opportunity, sends a clear message to the rest of the world that we 
care about fighting on behalf of agriculture, and it also reminds us 
that sanctions do not work.
  The gentleman who spoke previously is correct. We need to take the 
next step in regard to the Agricultural Export Act and the Sanctions 
Reform Act.
  I urge passage of this bill quickly.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all 
the Members who have worked on this measure, particularly the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and 
my colleague, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Nethercutt). 
Without their leadership on this issue, we would not be here today 
considering this important measure.
  Right now, the wheat producers of Washington State are facing wheat 
prices that are below the cost of production. This means that they can 
either choose to sell for a loss or store their wheat in hopes that 
prices will return to a higher level. Many of these growers have been 
waiting around for months for the price to climb. It has not. Now is 
the time to act.
  Unfortunately, with the test of the nuclear weapons by both India and 
Pakistan, the Arms Control Act Mandates certain economic sanctions. Mr. 
Speaker, let me be clear, I wholeheartedly condemn the escalation of 
the arms race between India and Pakistan. I do not believe the way to 
send a message is to unilaterally cut off trade of our producers. That 
is precisely what will happen if we do not pass this bill before us 
today.
  It is important to note that Pakistan is a number one foreign 
purchaser of wheat from the northwest, over 35 percent. Without the 
guarantees that are offered by the credits, the Department of 
Agriculture, Pakistan will purchase billions of dollars of wheat from 
other countries such as Australia and Canada. They are not bound by 
these outdated laws on our books.
  So I would like to emphasize the timeliness of this legislation. If 
we do not pass this legislation today or the Senate does not follow 
suit immediately, our producers will be unable to participate in the 
upcoming rounds of purchases by Pakistan, and we will have missed 
another key opportunity to help our foreign farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate what has been said here today. 
This legislation is very, very important to our agriculture industry 
but particularly to the wheat industry in my State.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I just returned today from 3 weeks in North Dakota. I want my 
colleagues to understand just how desperately dire the farm situation 
is in my State and throughout the upper Great Plains.
  We are absolutely ravaged by the twin disasters of very difficult 
times producing a crop and then a horribly insufficient price once you 
get a few bushels to market. In fact, let us focus on the price problem 
for purpose of the debate before us.
  Price adjusted for inflation for wheat is at its lowest point in 50 
years, this in the face of input costs that have gone up 71 percent 
since 1992. Under that new farm bill, we have done terrible damage to 
any functioning safety net for agriculture, as the farmers in my region 
are so tragically demonstrating.
  That means we have to do everything possible to try and get that 
price up. That is why I was so pleased to join the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) in initiating the legislation that is 
substantially what is before us this afternoon and why we must act and 
must act now.
  The USDA has done some brilliant work using the GSM loan program to 
advance wheat sales. With Pakistan representing potentially 10 percent 
of our wheat export market, it is vital that we do not lose a day, that 
we do not lose one sale by virtue of having this GSM program 
opportunity disrupted by application of the Arms Export Control Act.
  I have read that act and I, for the life of me, do not really see why 
we could not have gone forward with this anyway, but the administration 
has ruled that we needed legislation. So let us pass the legislation 
and let us pass it today.
  We should not continue this ``hurt America first'' policy which is 
the unfortunate aspect of applying sanctions on our agriculture 
exports. We need this legislation. Please join me in voting for it.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I thought I would try to set some context for why the removal of this 
sanction is so important. Among the things that has happened that is 
very much on our minds are the ramifications of the Asian financial 
crisis. We have seen a dramatic cutback in agriculture exports from 
this country to Asia. One of the reasons for that reduction, of course, 
is not only the absolute cutback of the imports by those Asian 
countries, but it also reflects the fact that the American currency 
versus the Australian, the Canadian and the European currencies is now 
more valuable; therefore, our export commodities and processed food 
products are less competitive in price than they were just a few months 
ago.
  Thus we not only have an overall reduction in the imports of 
agriculture commodities by these countries, we actually have American 
exports a bit less competitive than they were. This reduction in 
imports and the reduced competitiveness of our exports have had a 
dramatic and negative impact upon our trade. That is why this 
legislation, before us today is so important. We especially cannot 
afford to lose those Pakistani or Indian agricultural export markets at 
this time. There is no reason why economic sanctions should fall on the 
backs of the American farmer. I would imagine that it was not, the 
intention of the original sanction legislation.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

[[Page H5451]]

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), distinguished chairman of our 
Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, having just arrived from a long airplane trip from 
Oregon, I can tell my colleagues that the eyes of the Pacific Northwest 
are upon us at this time.
  The urgency, I know, has been identified here, but, for instance, 
Pakistan is on the verge of a purchase of some 350,000 metric tons of 
wheat. I am sure it has been identified that sanctions were never to 
include food purchases and even the unintended result was voiced by the 
administration when the President has introduced this and supported 
this kind of legislation.
  So, without further ado, Mr. Speaker, we hope that we can rush this 
along, even move it to the other body within the hour and it can become 
law, a great benefit, by the way, to a great country that needs to sell 
wheat, the United States, and a great country, Pakistan, who, by the 
way, is buying wheat for half the price it paid last year. Both our 
benefits are met.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2282, the 
Agriculture Export Relief Act of 1998. This bill will allow our 
agriculture exporters to continue to sell food and fertilizer to India 
and Pakistan, both of whom are subject to sanctions under the Arms 
Export Control Act for conducting nuclear tests.
  Let's be clear here. This is not an argument about either of these 
countries conducting nuclear tests and raising tensions in this region 
of the world. I deplore their unilateral decisions to conduct tests, 
and urge both countries to comply with the nuclear non-proliferation 
treaty. But, without this legislation, our farmers will be shut out of 
these growing export markets, unable to sell their products, and thus 
unable to meet their own financial obligations. This could lead to job 
losses and bankruptcies throughout rural America.
  The sad truth is that we created this problem ourselves. We enacted a 
sanctions law with noble purposes--among them stopping the spread of 
nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this law, like most laws imposing 
unilateral sanctions, didn't work. It didn't stop India and Pakistan 
from nuclear testing. Yet our farmers and ranchers continue to pay the 
price.
  Unfortunately, this Congress seems to be far more willing to impose 
unilateral economic sanctions as the foreign policy solution to 
practically all of our international problems. And the fact is--they 
rarely work! When we pull out of a foreign market or refuse to trade 
with foreign countries our foreign competitors love it! U.S. products 
are quickly and easily replaced by foreign goods while U.S. business is 
forces to stand on the sidelines. And, unfortunately, unilateral 
sanctions rarely result in the political changes we want.
  Now I am not saying that economic sanctions should never be imposed. 
They can be an effective tool of foreign policy, particularly when 
applied selectively and multilaterally. Be we in Congress should 
remember that they are just a tool--not the ultimate solution.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this bill. I also hope many of 
you will take a hard look at a measure introduced by myself, 
Representative Hamilton and Representative Crane--the Enhancement of 
Trade, Security, and Human Rights through Sanctions Reform Act. Our 
legislation would not stop Congress from imposing sanctions, but would 
require a careful analysis of sanctions' costs and benefits before they 
are imposed. It would provide a rational, reasoned approach to our 
sanctions policy to help make sure that we do not find ourselves once 
again in the difficult situation we are trying to fix today.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2282, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill, as amended, was 
passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________