[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 137 (Monday, October 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9503-H9507]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SELECTIVE AGRICULTURAL EMBARGOES ACT OF 1998
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 4647) to amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to require the
President to report to Congress on any selective embargo on
agricultural commodities, to provide a termination date for the
embargo, to provide greater assurances for contract sanctity and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4647
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 ``Selective Agricultural
Embargoes Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. REPORTING ON SELECTIVE EMBARGOES.
The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5711 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end of title VI:
``SEC. 604. REPORTING ON SELECTIVE EMBARGOES.
``(a) Report.--If the President takes any action, pursuant
to statutory authority, to embargo the export under an export
sales contract (as defined in subsection (e)) of an
agricultural commodity to a country that is not part of an
embargo on all exports to the country, not later than 5 days
after imposing the embargo, the President shall submit a
report to Congress that sets forth in detail the reasons for
the embargo and specifies the proposed period during which
the embargo will be effective.
``(b) Approval of Embargo.--If a joint resolution approving
the embargo becomes law during the 100-day period beginning
on the date of receipt of the report provided for in
subsection (a), the embargo shall terminate on the earlier
of--
``(1) a date determined by the President; or
``(2) the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment
of the joint resolution approving the embargo.
``(c) Disapproval of Embargo.--If a joint resolution
disapproving the embargo becomes law during the 100-day
period referred to in subsection (b), the embargo shall
terminate on the expiration of the 100-day period.
``(d) Exception.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, an embargo may take effect and continue in
effect during any period in which the United States is in a
state of war declared by Congress or national emergency,
requiring such action, declared by the President.
``(e) Definitions.--As used in this section--
``(1) the term `agricultural commodity' includes plant
nutrient materials;
``(2) the term `under an export sales contract' means under
an export sales contract entered into before the President
has transmitted to Congress notice of the proposed embargo;
and
``(3) the term `embargo' includes any prohibition or
curtailment.''.
SEC. 3. ADDITION OF PLANT NUTRIENT MATERIALS TO PROTECTION OF
CONTRACT SANCTITY.
Section 602(c) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7
U.S.C. 5712(c)) is amended by inserting ``(including plant
nutrient materials)'' after ``agricultural commodity'' each
place it appears.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Ewing) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing).
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, American agriculture plays a key role in the U.S. trade
economy. The contributions of agricultural exports to the U.S. economy
are impressive such as near record farm exports of just over $57
billion in 1997 and a positive trade balance of $21 billion among the
largest of any economic sector.
Additionally the U.S. agricultural economy is more than twice as
reliant on exports as the overall economy. This reliance makes
agricultural specific embargoes especially painful for American farmers
and ranchers.
I believe H.R. 4647 provides a vital and necessary foreign policy
check and balance system. My legislation would require congressional
review and approval of both houses of Congress if the President imposed
an agricultural specific embargo on a foreign country. H.R. 4647 would
require the President to submit a report to Congress detailing reasons
for the embargo and a proposed termination date. Congress then has 100
days to approve or disapprove the embargo. If Congress approves the
resolution, the embargo will terminate on the date determined by the
President or 1 year after enactment, whichever occurs earliest. If a
disapproving
[[Page H9504]]
resolution is enacted, the embargo will terminate at the end of a
hundred day period.
This legislation would not impact embargoes currently in place nor
would it impede the President's authority to impose cross sector
embargoes. Additionally, this legislation would not take effect during
times of war. This legislation was the official policy of the United
States when the Export Administration Amendments Act was adopted in
1985. Unfortunately that act expired in 1994 when Congress failed to
reauthorize it. It is important to note that the failure to reauthorize
was not a result of any opposition to the agricultural embargo
language. Congress just failed to act.
Mr. Speaker, according to the United States Department of
Agriculture, the Soviet grain embargo cost the United States about $2.3
billion in lost U.S. farm exports and U.S. Government compensation to
American farmers.
{time} 2015
The Soviet grain embargo is still very fresh in the minds of grain
farmers throughout America. In the midst of an already poor overall
economy, the imposition of the Soviet grain embargo triggered the worst
agricultural economic turndown in America since the Great Depression.
As if we had not learned our lesson from the Soviet grain embargo,
there are unilateral sanctions in effect today that have damaged our
image as a reliable supplier of agricultural products. The problem with
agricultural-specific embargoes is that our farmers and ranchers end up
losing a share of the global marketplace while the embargoes often fail
to achieve their purpose.
With the enactment of the Freedom to Farm Act, our farmers are
dependent more and more on foreign markets for an increasingly
significant portion of their income. In our global marketplace, the
importance of being a reliable supplier of food and fiber cannot be
overstated. Therefore, Congress should have input when the President
decides to use American agriculture as a foreign policy tool. My
legislation does not eliminate the President's ability to impose
sanctions, it just includes Congress in the debate.
As many of my colleagues are aware, U.S. farmers and ranchers are
increasingly dependent on the marketplace for a greater share of their
incomes. To quote former President Ronald Reagan, ``The freer the flow
of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace
among nations.''
In echoing these sentiments, I believe we owe it to our farmers and
ranchers to make sure that they do not bear a disproportionate share of
the burden of U.S. foreign policy decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the rest of my colleagues join to help the
American farmer and rancher by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 4647 today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Selective Agricultural
Embargoes Act, which I am proud to cosponsor.
When Congress passed Freedom to Farm 2\1/2\ years ago, Congress
promised to open foreign markets to U.S. Agricultural products. So far,
we have failed to pass Fast-Track authority or provide funding for the
International Monetary Fund.
This bill, however, recognizes that sanctions, imposed as a part of a
coordinated effort with our allies, may be an effective tool of foreign
policy. The focus of this legislation, however, is to provide for
greater scrutiny of the ineffective unilateral embargoes we place on
our trading partners at the expense of our farmers and ranchers.
In the words of U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky,
unilateral sanctions send the message, ``Stop that, or I'll shoot
myself.''
By providing for congressional review of unilateral agricultural
sanctions, this bill will require us to put a little more thought into
our actions, to think before we concede our agricultural markets to our
competitors.
The bill will also help to maintain our reputation as a reliable
supplier of food, which is essential to building long-term market
share. It is time to find a more effective way to implement our foreign
policy goals and to recognize that unilateral sanctions do not work.
Let us pass this bill and give our farmers and ranchers a fighting
chance. It is a very good first step towards comprehensive reform.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding to me, and I congratulate him on his introduction of H.R.
4647.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly rise in support of the bill. As a matter of
fact, an editorial in today's Journal of Commerce describes which
national farm organizations support and which oppose trade. The
analysis: most farmers support international trade.
If you had asked me this question 6 months ago, I would have readily
agreed. But due to the problems in the agricultural economy and
resulting mood in the countryside, I am not so sure today. American
farmers in rural communities are hurting, and trade is blamed for many
of these problems.
Farmers know that trade is the way to better prices and higher
incomes. Many believe that trade has been a disaster for agriculture.
While I disagree, I can certainly understand this feeling.
Unfortunately, our government is a large part of the problem.
Agriculture has been used as a weapon to achieve questionable foreign
policy far too often. It has not received the attention it deserves by
this administration. In fact, it has been badly misused, often for
political purposes. No wonder there is such disconnect with the
government's role in trade in rural America. The government's actions
or inactions, as the case may be, affect farmers' and ranchers'
perceptions of their future.
I support H.R. 4647 because it will require the House and the Senate
to approve an agriculture-specific embargo imposed by the President. We
used to do this, and I am glad to see that we are on the way to doing
that again. Congress must have a chance to analyze any proposed
agriculture embargo in order to mitigate any unintentional consequences
that do hurt farmers and ranchers.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me express my appreciation to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Committee on Agriculture
chairman, for his leadership on trade. He has made a difference, and he
will be missed.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing). It is good to be
on the floor with them on this very, very important matter.
I appreciate the efforts that they have made, and we can come and
talk about something that has a great impact on all of us, the whole
country, as well as the producers and farmers and ranchers.
I used to, as a youngster, go work for a neighbor, one of my first
jobs. He had an old horse that he called Jack. He would just about do
anything that you asked him to do.
I went over early one morning, though; and as he was kind of getting
the harness on old Jack, why Jack pawed and bit at him. He just reached
around behind the fence and picked up about a 4-foot two-by-four, and
he swatted him pretty good. And he turned to me; and, as a youngster, I
was kind of dismayed. He said, ``Well, you've got to get his
attention.'' He said, ``He will be okay for the rest of the day.'' So
it worked out pretty good.
Well, I think that we have been swacked pretty good, too, as we have
had some of these trade sanctions. It has hurt us a lot. I trust that
it has got us our attention.
I agree with the things that both of the previous speakers have said.
This is, not only important to the world economy that we live in, but
to our country as a whole. The agriculture community can ill-afford
these kind of things.
Then when we have had the opportunity to travel some around this
world and have seen some of the places where people go without food and
fiber, it is a very serious situation.
The combines are running in Iowa right now and other parts across the
country. Because their prices are so
[[Page H9505]]
low, the lack of market, so low, there is going to be a lot of grain
piled out on the ground. It is going to rot. Much of it will not be
used where it could have been used for people that could use it for
their very livelihood.
So I am very supportive of H.R. 4647. I think it is a step in the
right direction that, if something like this is going to be thought of
in a unilateral sense, that they would come back and talk to us, the
Members of the Congress, that we could discuss this and look it over
and be sure that we are doing the right thing.
So I support this, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight also to support
legislation that is vital to the U.S. agricultural interests, to the
farmers and ranchers of Kansas and across the country. The Selective
Agricultural Embargo Act is an important first step in our commitment
to reign in embargoes and open markets for U.S. agricultural products.
Just last Friday, this Congress took a step to address the short-term
needs of farmers by passing a disaster relief bill. Now it is time for
Congress to help solve the long-term needs of producers by removing
sanctions and opening agricultural markets.
The Soviet grain embargo cost United States farmers $2.3 billion. The
damage from that embargo left a lasting imprint upon agriculture and
scarred our industry in a way that few would have imagined. However, it
appears that we have not yet learned our lesson.
Wheat imports to North Korea, to Cuba, to Iran, and to Iraq have all
doubled since 1995, just a few years ago, since then they have doubled,
and now account for over 10 million tons of wheat. However, these
growing markets are off limits to U.S. producers but not to Canadian
and Australian farmers.
In today's global economy, unilateral sanctions unfairly penalize
U.S. producers, reward our competitors, and have little impact on
changing behavior on targeted countries. The American farmer is tired
of paying the price for this failed U.S. policy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this important measure.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
want to begin by commending the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing),
the subcommittee chairman, for sponsoring this legislation, H.R. 4647,
the Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act of 1998.
We have, from time to time, embarked on a horridly foolish embargo
strategy. The unilateral embargo has absolutely had the effect of the
hurt America first strategy.
I remember vividly the reaction in our part of the country to the
ill-advised Soviet grain embargo of 1980. Farmer after farmer could
watch their year's profits go down the drain as, as a Nation, we
embarked on a policy that did nothing to discourage the Soviet Union,
the object of that embargo, but did everything to give great
encouragement to our trade competitors who rushed in with their own
grain, easily filling the market while we bore 100 percent of the cost
of that venture.
Let us learn from this mistake, because an embargo of that nature
does not just cost us in terms of this year's lost markets, it makes us
unreliable as a trading partner, so that next year we do not get the
sale and the year after that we do not get the sale.
We need to establish structurally everything we can to have
confidence in our ongoing presence as a trading partner. That is why I
think this bill is so well put together. It does not unilaterally say
no, no, never, never, because we cannot possibly foresee the future,
but it does bring Congress fully into the mix.
After 100 days, the evaluation period provided in this legislation,
we can be darn sure that, if an embargo continued, it was only because
there was a very strong, very deep national consensus that this is the
direction that we ought to go.
I think that this legislation gets the balance just right and
hopefully is going to put an end to the hurt America first strategy of
prior agriculture embargoes.
I want to end with a word of caution, because this legislation itself
is not in any way a comprehensive response to the deep crisis we have
today in the farm country. We need to do our part to replenish the
International Monetary Fund.
Our trading partners across the country, our grain customers are in
deep financial trouble. We need to do our part in this international
effort to shore up the stability of the financial markets across the
world.
Secondly, even today, we have States imposing rigorous grain
inspections against Canadian grain imports. Underscoring that it is not
just free trade, it is fair trade that we have to focus on, and the
subsidized grain imports into our country are not fair trade, and we
have a right to fair trade with respect to those imports.
Finally, we will continue in this town in the next few days to
evaluate whether the package of agriculture relief appropriated by the
House last Friday is adequate.
I adamantly maintain that we have not done enough to help farmers
through this period of prices tanking because, after all, prior farm
bills provided a measure of protection when prices collapsed.
We are now in a farm bill environment that does not provide the
protection, and we are going to lose farmers if we do not make a very
significant response, one more significant than the one that this
Congress has moved forward.
In the end, though, I commend the chairman for his legislation and
also would like to reiterate the comments of another subcommittee
chairman regarding the leadership the gentleman from Oregon (Chairman
Smith) has brought to the Committee on Agriculture. I have respected
him about as much as any legislator I have had the opportunity to work
with. His departure is going to leave a big old hole in the Committee
on Agriculture. He has done a wonderful job as the chairman in this
session.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
outstanding gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), an expert on world
trade matters.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Selective
Agriculture Embargoes Act, H.R. 4647. I would also like to commend the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) for his initiative
and his persistence in bringing this important legislation to the floor
prior to our adjournment. I also thank him for his kind words.
Last Friday, the New York Times ran an article on the massive grain
surplus building in the Pacific Northwest.
{time} 2030
Though the article focused on the damaging impact of the Asian
financial crisis on U.S. grain exports, the article also said, ``What
is also clear is that many farmers are increasingly angry over the
trade embargoes that the United States has imposed on many nations
around the world.''
Would my colleagues believe it? We have imposed trade sanctions on 35
countries in the last 5 years, and we have trade sanctions standing on
75 or 80 countries now under existing law.
One farmer and State representative from Washington State was quoted
as saying, ``If we take their money and they take our grain, I don't
think there is going to be anyone hurt.''
Mr. Speaker, that farmer correctly understands that unilateral
embargoes of U.S. food exports do not hurt or effect any real change on
the targeted country. All U.S. farmers have a right to be angry that
they are being used by both the executive and legislative branches to
carry out symbolic acts so foreign policymakers can appear to be doing
something about our toughest foreign policy problems.
There are three types of embargoes: Short supply embargoes, foreign
policy embargoes, and national security embargoes, and all,
unfortunately, end up hurting the people who should be least hurt by
the intent of the authors.
Those farmers, I think, have a legitimate right to be angry, because
when Congress and the President point the
[[Page H9506]]
sanctions gun at a foreign country, that gun, more often than not, gets
pointed at the guy on the tractor who is simply trying to provide for
his family.
Hopefully, certain Members of Congress and the President relearned
this lesson again this summer when American farmers lost, or nearly
lost, at least, a $300,000 metric ton wheat sale to Pakistan because of
our unilateral nonproliferation sanctions on that country. Sensing our
serious mistake, those of us concerned in Congress rushed to reverse
that sanction just hours before the bids for the wheat sale were made.
Had we not acted, I am sure that Australian, French or Canadian wheat
farmers would gladly become Pakistan's new primary supply of wheat.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important in that it takes the
first step towards rationalizing our sanctions policy by requiring the
President to report to Congress on any selective embargo on agriculture
commodities. It provides a termination date for any embargo, and it
provides greater assurances for contract sanctity. In addition, the
bill requires Congress to approve the embargo for it to extend beyond
100 days.
It is important to state what this legislation does not do. First, it
does not alter any current sanctions because it only affects embargoes
that apply selectively to agriculture products like President Carter's
ill-fated and totally ineffective grain embargo on the Soviet Union in
1980, or President Ford's unilateral, farmer-damaging, short-supply
soybean embargo. Additionally, this legislation does nothing to
restrict the President's ability to impose cross-sector embargoes or
embargoes that apply to agriculture as well as other U.S. export goods.
Mr. Speaker, the Selective Agriculture Embargoes Act is
straightforward, common-sense legislation that aims at ensuring that
our future sanctions do not unnecessarily hurt our farmers and our
agricultural sector, while having no impact on the targeted country.
This Member, therefore, urges his colleagues to vote for H.R. 4647.
I thank my colleague from Illinois for his outstanding work on this.
I would say to my colleague from North Dakota who addressed the House
just a minute ago, I happen to agree with him on his view on the
adequacy, or I should say the inadequacy, of the assistance rendered to
farmers. I believe that the transition payments, even though they were
up perhaps 29 percent, should be higher, because no one could really
have anticipated the Asian financial crisis or the fact that the U.S.
dollar was very much stronger suddenly than our major competitors. It
is for that reason that I voted for his motion to recommit on the
Agriculture Appropriation Conference Report.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the resolution.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I also want to join my colleagues in supporting H.R. 4647, the
Selective Agriculture Embargoes Act. It is a reasonable act. It is a
balanced approach. It is much needed. However, it is not all we need.
It is, indeed, the first step and has gone a long way to make sure that
agriculture will not be singularly selected as to be the area, the
sector, that will be suffering.
Obviously, our farmers now depend more than ever before on the global
market, and we need to make sure that the global market has a sense of
stability. This also recognizes that we have a corresponding
responsibility in adding to that stability. This allows us to be stable
providers of food, and it also allows us not to be the victim of
unilateral sanctions.
I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) for the
legislation, and I am delighted to join him as a cosponsor of this
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on this side. I
commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) for his initiative in
bringing this legislation to us tonight, and I encourage all of our
colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to close by thanking the gentleman from Texas and the
gentlewoman from North Carolina and the gentleman from North Dakota and
the Members on this side of the aisle that have come down here and
talked about something that I think really is a hot button among
farmers and ranchers across this country, and that is when their
government unilaterally says, we are not going to allow you to deal
with another country because we believe we can make a point by not
allowing you to trade with them agriculturally. They are very much
concerned about it. They want to see legislation like H.R. 4647 on the
books to protect them from that kind of unilateral action.
So tonight I am pleased to be here with this bill, pleased to have
the support of my colleagues in a bipartisan effort to address this
problem.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4647, the
Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act, introduced by Mr. Ewing, the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk Management and Specialty Corps.
The Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act of 1998 requires the
President to report to Congress on any selective embargo on
agricultural commodities and specifies the period during which the
embargo will be in effect.
For American farmers and ranchers, trade is an essential part of
their livelihood. Currently exports account for 30% of U.S. farm cash
receipts and nearly 40% of all agricultural production is exported.
U.S. farmers and ranchers produce much more than is consumed in the
United States, therefore exports are vital to the prosperity and
success of U.S. farmers and ranchers.
In order to continue to meet the worldwide demand for U.S.
agricultural products, farmers and ranchers must continually assess the
world market to determine where those markets are for specific
agricultural products. It has become increasingly difficult to make
this assessment because farmers and ranchers are denied access to
certain world markets due to economic sanctions and embargoes, among
other reasons.
For U.S. agriculture, embargoes or sanctions, whether imposed by the
Administration or by law, often have unintended consequences that can
fail unfairly on U.S. farmers and ranchers. U.S. agriculture remembers
the 1980 Soviet grain embargo. The one lasting impression left of that
embargo is that the U.S. could not be considered to be a reliable
supplier of wheat. The past 18 years have been spent attempting to
reverse that opinion.
Therefore because of the importance of assuring the reliability of
the U.S. as a supplier of food and agricultural products, we must
address the effects of embargoes on U.S. agriculture.
The Ewing bill amends the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to require
that if the President acts to implement an embargo of any agricultural
commodity to any country, the President must submit a report to
Congress, within 5 days of imposing the embargo, that describes the
reasons for the embargo and the period of time the embargo will be in
effect. This requirement is applicable when there is an embargo of
agriculture commodities to a country and that embargo does not include
all exports to that country.
The bill also provides that if within 100 days of receiving the
President's report, a joint resolution is enacted that approves the
embargo, the embargo will end on the date determined by the President
or 1 year after the date of enactment of the joint resolution,
whichever is earlier. If a joint resolution disapproving the embargo is
enacted during that 100-day period, the embargo will terminate at the
end of that 100-day period.
The bill includes an exception providing that an embargo may take
effect during any period in which there is a state of war declared by
Congress or a national emergency declared by the President.
The bill also clarifies that ``plant nutrient materials'' are to be
included in the category of agricultural commodities in the section of
the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 regarding contract sanctity.
Therefore the protection afforded agricultural commodities in regard to
suspension of trade and contract sanctity will be applied to plant
nutrient materials.
Plant nutrient materials under export sales contracts will be
protected from suspension of trade, as long as the contract is entered
into before the suspension of trade is announced and the contract terms
require delivery within 270 days after suspension of trade is imposed.
Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent that correspondence between
Mr. Gilman, the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations,
and I be included in the Record at this point.
[[Page H9507]]
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4647.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on International
Relations,
Washington, DC, September 28, 1998.
Hon. Robert F. Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: I understand that the Committee on
Agriculture is requesting that the House leadership permit
the consideration of H.R. 4647 on the suspension calendar.
This bill is identical to H.R. 3654 as introduced, with the
exception of a technical change.
My understanding is that because of our Committee's
jurisdiction over exports and national security issues under
Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, our
Committee would be entitled to a sequential referral of this
bill were it reported in the form introduced.
As I have discussed with Mr. Ewing, the sponsor of the
bill, because of the need for prompt disposition of this
matter, we have no objection to the consideration of this
bill as introduced as a suspension item.
While not objecting to the consideration of the bill on the
suspension calendar, however, I would like to state that we
do not waive our jurisdiction over this bill or its subject
matter. I would request that, in light of our support for
early action on the bill on the suspension calendar, (a) you
undertake to support the naming of members of the Committee
on International Relations as conferees on this bill, should
a conference occur, and (b) you consult with me on any
further action on the bill or on any counterpart from the
Senate.
I also request that you include this correspondence and
your response to it in the Record when the bill is
considered.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Benjamin A. Gilman,
Chairman.
____
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, September 28, 1998.
Hon. Ben Gilman,
Chairman, House Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Gilman: Thank you for your correspondence on
H.R. 4647.
We appreciate the position of your Committee that you will
not object to the early consideration of the bill, as
introduced, on the suspension calendar.
In light of your Committee's jurisdictional claim, should a
conference be agreed to on the bill, I would support the
naming of conferees from the Committee on International
Relations, and I will certainly consult with you on any
Senate amendment to the bill or further action on it or a
counterpart from the Senate. Thank you again for your
cooperation in this matter, and please feel free to contact
me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Robert F. ``Bob'' Smith,
Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4647.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________