[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.

                          ____________________