[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 27, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1026-S1027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bond, Mr. Baucus, 
        Mr. Burns, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Grams, Mr. Hagel, and 
        Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 315. A bill 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; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
 Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as a co-sponsor of a 
bill that I envision as just one piece in Congressional efforts to 
correct the inequitable treatment our Federal government forces on our 
nation's farmers. How many times do we need to impress upon this 
Administration that agriculture is a foundation for our economy? 
Agriculture producers are at the beginning of the food chain--they 
provide the food that feeds our nation and we, as American consumers of 
these products, enjoy the world's best food distribution system in the 
world.
  This bill, the Selective Agriculture Embargoes Act of 1999, requires 
the President to report to Congress on any selective embargo on 
agricultural commodities and also provides a termination date for the 
embargo. In the past, we've seen this Administration take steps to 
sanction a foreign country in an attempt to coerce that country's 
policy or behavior. I question the effectiveness of these measures in 
today's global environment--what may have worked forty years ago may 
not be today's solution.
  The Administration's use of this negotiating tool has an economic 
impact, not only on the country being sanctioned, but also on the rest 
of the global economy. And that is the important issue--not what we are 
trying to accomplish with the sanction, but what impact such actions 
are having on other nations' exporters at the expense of America's 
exporters.
  In Montana, and other states that rely on farmers and ranchers to 
fuel our nation's economy, the sanctioning process has a very 
substantial impact. Last year, Congress recognized an embargo on 
Pakistan based on it's nuclear policies was a bad policy decision and 
corrected the Administration's policy. Pakistan was recently ranked as 
the fifth largest importer of United States wheat and in recent years 
has emerged as the single largest buyer of soft wheat from the United 
States.
  Think about the impact on our producers when you reduce United States 
wheat exports by 1.7 million metric tons and that's just to Pakistan 
alone.
  Let's back up a little bit and talk about what has happened to farm 
exports, and especially to farmers in the Northwest. We need to keep in 
mind the global economy has helped to bring U.S. agriculture to it's 
knees over the past couple of years and in very short period of time.
  I am overwhelmed to think that the financial collapse of the 
economies in Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea could 
put a farmer in Shelby, Montana out of business. But that's the reality 
of this situation--we are so tied into the global economy that every 
foreign policy decision made has an impact on our domestic economy. 
That's a powerful notion, but again, it's a reality. If you don't 
believe me, go talk to my farming friends in Montana.
  Prior to the plague of the Asian flu, I was very convinced that you 
cannot let the economies in four major importing countries of 
agricultural products cave in and it not affect this country. Sadly, I 
was correct. So our exports to that part of the world have decreased 
dramatically. Then the President came along with sanctions.
  Let me tell you a little about sanctions. I have never been convinced 
that sanctions on agriculture commodities really work. I will tell you 
in an instant that if we unilaterally sanction a country on American 
agricultural exports, the following will occur: that country is still 
capable of buying a supply from somebody else in the world. However, 
the market is aware of these sanctions; therefore, the rest of the 
world maybe increases the price per bushel of wheat by 1 or 2 cents. 
Now, 1 or 2 cents doesn't sound like a lot for a bushel of wheat that 
weighs 60 pounds, but when you're buying 300,000 metric tons, it is a 
lot of money. To the farmer, it is the difference between making the 
land payment and not making the land payment--that's the value of 2 
cents a bushel.
  Once that sale is made to the country that we have sanctioned, other 
wheat exporting nations pour the rest of their crop on the world 
market. So our farmers compete for fewer markets at a lesser price. 
That is not right. Sanctions do not deny a country of a food supply for 
the people who live there, but it has denied our farmers entry into the 
marketplace a place to compete.
  In the last 4 years the United States has imposed 61 unilateral 
economic sanctions on 35 countries containing 40 percent of the world's 
population. Now, what action does that country take in reaction to the 
sanction? It retaliates: I am not going to buy American products at any 
price.
  So, in essence, we have denied our grain producers access to that 
market to even be considered to compete. We are talking about food 
here--I realize that to some folks that is not very important--until it 
comes suppertime. But to a farmer who only gets one or two paychecks a 
year, that is how he makes his payment on his operation, his 
fertilizer, his machinery, his land payment. It contributes to his 
community, his county, his state and his nation.
  U.S. farmers have developed export markets because of two factors: 
quantity and reliability. We are a reliable trade partner. We approach 
trade policy from a free market perspective--we compete against 
subsidized grain from many of the world's major exporters. We don't 
pool our wheat and we don't sell our wheat on the international market 
by a decision made by Government.
  So I ask my colleagues to support this bill and support the American 
farmer and, in turn, support the U.S. economy.
 Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President I rise today in support of this 
measure which will inject some much-needed common-sense into our 
nation's agricultural trade policy. This measure amends the 
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 and restricts the President's ability to 
single out agriculture when foreign embargoes are imposed.
  Food is basic humanitarian need and should not be included in 
economic embargoes or sanctions imposed by the United States. Our 
relationships with other nations must not be held captive to one issue. 
But our relationships with other nations are complicated. They include 
trade and commerce. They include U.S. interests abroad, national 
defense, human rights, and humanitarian efforts. But we must not allow 
one dynamic of our relationship with all other nations on this globe to 
be held captive to just one issue.
  Trade and U.S. agriculture are virtually indistinguishable. The 
Soviet grain embargo of 1976 cost the U.S. $2.3 billion in lost farm 
exports and USDA compensation to farmers. When the U.S. cut off sales 
of wheat to protest Soviet invasion of Afghanistan--France, Canada, 
Australia, and Argentina stepped in to claim this market and the former 
Soviet states have been timid buyers of U.S. farm products ever since.
  In recent months, Nebraska farmers, on many occasions, discussing the 
negative effects of the Carter grain embargo and many fear that a 
similar action could happen again. With more focus on sanctions and 
foreign policy, an anti-agriculture embargo measure is timely.
  History has shown, Mr. President, that trade and commerce engagement 
in reaching out does more to change attitudes and alter behavior than 
any one thing. Why? It improves diets; it improve standards of living; 
it opens society; it exposes people who have lived under totalitarian 
rule, who have had limited exposure to freedom, to liberty, to economic 
freedom, products, choice, consumerism. That is what

[[Page S1027]]

trade does. Not one among us believes that just trade alone is all we 
need. But it is an important, integral part of our relationships around 
the world.
  We live in a very dynamic time. The light of change today in the 
world is unprecedented in modern history, and maybe all of history. 
Food, fiber, and trade are common denominators of mutual interests of 
all the peoples of the world.
  We must not isolate ourselves. Trade embargoes isolate those who 
impose trade embargoes. We need dynamic policies for dynamic times. The 
world is not static.
  This is a strong step forward. This is the beginning of the larger 
debate that this Congress will have and must have about the role of the 
United States in the world and how we intend to engage the world, and 
trade is a very important part of that.
  Embargoes and sanctions without the support of our allies only hurt 
us. From a foreign policy perspective, embargoes rarely achieve their 
goal. Their real harm is on U.S. agricultural producers. It's estimated 
that sanctions and embargoes cost the U.S. economy more than $20 
billion each year. We have got to bring some common sense to our trade 
policy.
  American agriculture and the U.S. government must send a strong 
message to our many customers and our competitors. U.S. farmers, 
ranchers, and agribusinesses are a consistent and reliable supplier of 
quality and plentiful agricultural products. Support of the 
Agriculture-Specific Embargo Act will send a strong message that U.S. 
agriculture will be once again considered a reliable supplier of food 
and fiber around the globe.
   Mr. President, I am very proud to join my friends and colleagues who 
have worked on these issues diligently, who will continue to provide 
leadership, not just to this body but to the country, to the world, and 
to our farmers and our ranchers, our producers, and our citizens.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support this very important 
measure. Again, I say to my colleagues that this is an engagement we 
must be a part of today.
                                 ______