[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 26, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6045-S6046]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     AGRICULTURAL TRADE FREEDOM ACT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to voice my 
support for S. 566, the Agricultural Trade Freedom Act, which was 
passed out of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
Forestry this morning on a 17-1 vote. I appreciate Senator Lugar's 
strong leadership on these trade and international issues.
  More than any other industry in America, agriculture is extremely 
dependent on international trade. In fact, almost one-third of our 
domestic agricultural production is sold outside of the United States. 
Clearly, a strong international market for agricultural commodities is 
therefore of utmost importance to our agriculture economy.
  As those of us who herald from agricultural states know, the business 
of agriculture in America reaches far beyond farmers alone. There are 
many rural businesses, such as feed stores, machinery repair shops and 
veterinarians, who depend on a strong agricultural economy. And when we 
discuss international trade, there are many national businesses, such 
as agricultural exporters, which are greatly impacted by our trade 
policies.
  Despite the importance of these international markets, agricultural 
commodities are occasionally eliminated from potential markets because 
of U.S. imposed unilateral economic sanctions against other countries. 
These economic sanctions are imposed for political, foreign policy 
reasons. Yet there is little to show that the inclusions of 
agricultural commodities in these sanctions actually have had the 
intended results. The question now emerging from this policy is who is 
actually hurt by the ban on exporting commercial agricultural 
commodities, and should it continue?
  American farmers and exporters obviously face an immediate loss in 
trade when unilateral economic sanctions are imposed. Perhaps even more 
devastating, however, is the long-term loss of the market. Countries 
who need agricultural products do not wait for American sanctions to be 
lifted; they find alternative markets. This often leads to the 
permanent loss of a market for our agriculture industry, as new trading 
partnerships are established and maintained.
  Our farmers, and the rural businesses and agriculture exporters 
associated with them, are consequently greatly hurt by this policy. The 
Agricultural Trade Freedom Act corrects this problem by exempting 
commercial agricultural products from U.S. unilateral economic 
sanctions. The exemption of commercial agricultural products is not 
absolute; the President can make the determination that these items are 
indeed a necessary part of the sanction for achieving the intended 
foreign policy goal. In this situation, the President would be required 
to report to Congress regarding the purposes of the sanctions and their 
likely economic impacts.
  Recently, the administration lifted restrictions on the sale of food 
to Sudan, Iran and Libya--all countries whose governments we have 
serious disagreements with. It did so, and I am among those who 
supported that decision, because food, like medicines, should not be 
used as a tool of foreign policy. It is also self-defeating. While our 
farmers lost sales, foreign farmers made profits.
  Unfortunately, the administration did not see fit to apply the same 
reasoning to Cuba. American farmers cannot sell food to Cuba, even 
though it is only 90 miles from our shores and there is a significant 
potential market there. This contradiction is beneath a great and 
powerful country, and Senator Lugar's legislation would permit such 
sales. The administration should pay more attention to what is in our 
national interests, rather than to a tiny, vocal minority who are 
wedded to a policy that has hurt American farmers and the Cuban people.
  The Agricultural Trade Freedom Act maintains the President's need for 
flexibility in foreign policy while simultaneously recognizing the 
impact that sanctions may have on the agricultural economy. This 
legislation is

[[Page S6046]]

supported by dozens of organizations including the National Association 
of State Departments of Agriculture, the U.S. Dairy Export Council, the 
National Milk Producers Federation, and the National Farmers Union.
  In closing, I would like to thank Senator Lugar for his leadership on 
this issue. I was pleased to join with him, the ranking member, Senator 
Harkin, the Democratic Leader, Senator Daschle, Senator Conrad and 
others in this effort, and I look forward to working with them and all 
members of the Senate to see that this measure becomes law.

                          ____________________