[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.
____________________