[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 15, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H4232-H4237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              SELECTIVE AGRICULTURAL EMBARGOES ACT OF 1999

  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 17) 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. 17

       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 1999''.

     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 U.S. trade 
economy. The contributions of agricultural exports to the U.S. economy 
are impressive. The United States Department of Agriculture estimates 
that farm exports will be $49 billion in 1999, providing a positive 
trade balance of $11 billion.
  Just 3 years ago, however, there was another $10 billion higher on 
our agricultural trade balance. This was almost three times what it is 
today. It is a fact, and it is a painful one to many of us, that our 
agricultural economy is the one sector of the great American economy 
that is suffering very badly. If things do not improve, 10 percent of 
American farmers could be forced from their farms this year.
  New and reliable markets are one of the answers to this very serious 
problem. 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 the American farmer and 
rancher. H.R. 17 provides a vital and necessary foreign check and 
balance system. This legislation provides for congressional review and 
approval of both Houses of Congress if the President imposes an 
agricultural-specific embargo on a foreign country.
  H.R. 17 would require the President to submit a report detailing to 
Congress 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 resolution is enacted, the 
embargo will terminate at the end of the 100-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, H.R. 17 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 agriculture embargo language 
contained in that 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. exports and U.S. Government compensation to 
American farmers. The Soviet grain embargo is still 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 downturn in America since the Great 
Depression.

[[Page H4233]]

  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. The purpose of the Selective 
Agricultural Embargo Act of 1999 is to emphasize the importance of U.S. 
agricultural exports and the unique vulnerability of agriculture in the 
world trade arena. Agricultural embargoes hurt our farmers, help our 
trade competitors, and the 1980 Soviet embargo is a perfect example. 
The U.S. was deprived of the Soviet grain market, and France, 
Australia, Canada and Argentina stepped in to take over this market.
  Our reputation as a reliable agricultural supplier suffers and will 
suffer every time agricultural embargoes are put in place. On April 28, 
1999, the President announced a significant change in U.S. policy on 
sanctions and embargoes, and we applaud that change. 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 
agricultural products as a foreign policy tool. My legislation does not 
eliminate the President's ability to impose sanctions; it just includes 
Congress in the debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that the rest of my colleagues join me in helping 
the American farmer and rancher by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 17 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 as an original cosponsor in support of the 
Selective Agricultural Embargo Act of 1999. This bill provides for 
greater scrutiny of the unilateral embargoes we place on our trading 
partners, and is an important step towards the comprehensive sanctions 
reform that need to be enacted.
  When Congress passed freedom to farm 3 years ago, it promised to open 
foreign markets to U.S. agriculture products. So far, we have failed to 
deliver on that promise.
  By providing congressional review of unilateral agriculture 
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. It is time to find a more effective way to 
implement our foreign policy goals. Unilateral sanctions do not work, 
and they cost our farmers and ranchers dearly. Let us pass this bill 
and begin moving in the direction of comprehensive sanctions reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), Chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 17, the Selective 
Agricultural Embargoes Act of 1999. The bill 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.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research and Specialty Crops, 
and the author of this bill, for his hard work and tenacity on moving 
this subject forward.
  The use of economic sanctions is a subject that has captured the 
attention of all of us that are interested in the prosperity of farmers 
and ranchers. We can all agree that food should not be used as a tool 
of foreign policy. I especially welcome the administration's April 28 
announcement regarding lifting of certain economic sanctions of food 
and agriculture.
  Food should not, under nearly all circumstances, be used as a weapon. 
Such a policy ends up hurting our farmers and ranchers and all who are 
involved in agriculture production, processing and distribution. There 
are three things that can happen when agricultural sanctions go into 
effect, and none of them are good. Exports go down, prices go down, and 
farmers and ranchers lose their share of the world market.
  For American farmers and ranchers, trade is an essential part of 
their livelihood. Currently exports account for 30 percent of U.S. farm 
cash receipts and nearly 40 percent of all agricultural production that 
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.
  For years, U.S. agriculture has provided a positive return to our 
balance of trade, and in order to continue this positive balance and to 
improve upon it, markets around the world must be open to our 
agricultural exports.
  Embargoes and sanctions destroy the United States' reputation as 
reliable suppliers. U.S. agriculture remembers the 1980 Soviet grain 
embargo. Not only did our wheat farmers lose sales, but markets as 
well. France, Canada, Australia and Argentina stepped in and sold wheat 
to the former Soviet Union. The only people hurt by those sanctions 
were U.S. wheat farmers. The one lasting impression left of that 
embargo was that the U.S. could not be considered a reliable supplier 
of wheat. The past 19 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 agriculture product, we must address 
the effects of embargoes on U.S. agriculture, and I urge support of 
H.R. 17.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak here today on H.R. 17, the Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act 
of 1999.
  The farmers of Oregon work hard to actively market and promote the 
sale of agricultural goods throughout the world. Approximately 80 
percent of all agriculture production in our State of Oregon is shipped 
out of State, with nearly half of that going to foreign markets. Wheat, 
potatoes, hay and pears are just some of the products farmers in my 
district produce, which are dependent on foreign markets for their 
success.
  Oregon's producers have long been recognized for their initiative in 
expanding foreign trade. Sanctions on foreign nations that disallow the 
importation of U.S. agriculture products interfere with the ability of 
Oregon's farmers to sell the quality goods that they produce. Once U.S. 
agriculture loses its ability to compete in the market, it is very 
difficult to regain that market share. America's farmers and ranchers 
cannot afford to be used as pawns in foreign policy battles.
  H.R. 17 would simply give Congress the ability to review these 
agricultural embargoes imposed by the President. This legislation would 
then allow Congress 100 days to approve or disapprove of the 
President's decision to impose an agricultural embargo.

                              {time}  1030

  Should the Congress agree with the President's actions, then the 
embargo will terminate on the date determined by the President or 1 
year thereafter. Should Congress disapprove this action, then the 
embargo will terminate at the end of the hundredth day after the 
congressional review period.
  This is commonsense foreign policy that our farmers deserve. Our 
Nation's farmers deserved the ability to compete fairly in the 
international marketplace. With farm prices at their lowest levels in 
years, U.S. agriculture needs to be promoted, not unilaterally 
restricted.
  This is particularly relevant to the State of Oregon, where 36 
percent of all of our agriculture products are exported abroad. The 
farmers in the Second District of Oregon can ill afford the devastating 
effects that agricultural embargoes cause.
  I commend my colleague the gentleman from Illinois for introducing 
this legislation, and appreciate the opportunity to speak on this 
matter today, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).

[[Page H4234]]

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very appropriate that a Republican speaks 
from the Democrat side of the isle to talk about this issue because it 
is a bipartisan effort that represents fairness.
  We have heard how it disrupts agriculture and causes great stress for 
the survival of the family farm in the United States. I think what also 
needs to be said is sanctions on food exports does not work. We have 
had embargoes and sanctions for several reasons. The fact is that in 
the end another country will sell their agricultural products when we 
stop selling to a particular country. Those countries still get food & 
fiber products, and the loser is the United States' farmers and 
ranchers.
  We have sanctions for a couple of reasons. Both administrations have 
made the mistake of doing it. We had a sanction under the Nixon 
administration because there was a shortage of soybeans. There were 
cries from consumers and millers calling on the President to, shut off 
the export of soybeans because prices are going too high in this 
country and shuting off exports would in crease domestic supply and 
reduce price.
  That is fine, but of course, we all know what happened. Japan, who 
was dependent on the United States for their soybean needs, decided to 
look for a more dependable supply and eventually went to Brazil. They 
bought and cleared land. They found that they could develop and grow 
soybeans down there very, very well. Brazil's soybean agriculture has 
expanded. Now they are one of the major competitors to the United 
States soybean market.
  President Carter decided to punish Russia in 1981 by cutting off much 
needed wheat from the U.S., Russia started looking for a more reliable 
supplies and again American farmers again were the loosers.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope everybody will move ahead, not only on this bill, 
but even a more aggressive bill that simply provides we will stop 
embargoes and sanctions on agricultural products for any reason. Number 
one because it is disrupting American agriculture, and number two, it 
does not work.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), my colleague and cochairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, foreign policy and international trade can sometimes be 
a very complicated topic for farmers and ranchers. But what is not 
confusing is the overseas markets that are so vital to our agriculture 
economy. This is especially true I think in my State of Nebraska.
  Unfortunately, agriculture often gets caught up in a sanctions policy 
that does not work as intended. Sanctions usually end up hurting 
producers far more than they influence the behavior of other countries 
or effect any real change.
  As agriculture continues to suffer from low prices, Congress needs to 
examine every policy to make sure that we are not standing in the way 
of recovery. We are doing that on the Committee on Agriculture, and I 
am glad to note that our colleagues on the Committee on International 
Relations are joining us in this effort, as well.
  A re-examination or rationalization of sanctions policy is an 
absolutely necessary part of this effort. H.R. 17 is a minor, 
reasonable change in sanctions policy. It only requires Congress to 
approve or disapprove future embargoes on farm products within 100 
days. It will not inhibit the President's ability to conduct foreign 
policy.
  Agricultural embargoes are not put in place lightly, but only at the 
highest level of provocation. Congress will not ignore an international 
crisis that requires our president to act in a serious way. I believe 
that the Congress will follow the President's leadership.
  Sanctions unfairly hurt agriculture. The House's passage of H.R. 17 
will tell producers that Congress recognizes the poor economy that they 
are facing and their concerns with how foreign policy is conducted. Let 
us respond to their need with this very small change in policy. Please 
support H.R. 17.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
  (Mr. PHELPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 17, which 
requires congressional approval of any agriculture-specific embargo on 
a foreign Nation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and 
I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for its quick passage.
  For those who represent rural agricultural districts, agriculture is 
always a priority issue. But with the crisis now facing our farmers, 
this issue should be a priority for every Member of this House.
  The bill of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) represents an 
important step in alleviating the hardships in the agriculture 
community. H.R. 17 would require the President to submit a report to 
Congress laying out the reasons and a termination date for any proposed 
agriculture embargo. A 100-day period would follow during which 
Congress could approve or disapprove the embargo.
  Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to overstate the importance of foreign 
markets to American agriculture. When our farmers are singled out to 
pay the price for punishing a foreign country the impact can be 
enormous, especially in times like these, when every opportunity for 
income is critical.
  This bill seeks to address only those embargoes which are 
agriculture-specific, and would not affect cross-sector sanctions such 
as those against Cuba and Iraq. There would be no question that this 
legislation is good for America's farmers, and if there were ever a 
time we need our help, it is certainly now. I hope every Member will 
join me in supporting H.R. 17.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 17, Selective Agricultural 
Embargoes Act of 1999, as introduced by my colleague and friend, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing). To put it very simply, embargoes 
can be the death knell for agriculture. We have seen it many, many 
times.
  This bill is simple and straightforward. It simply requires the 
approval of both Houses of Congress if the President ever decides to 
impose an agriculture-specific embargo on a foreign country. However, 
Mr. Speaker, the bill in no way impedes the President's authority to 
impose cross-sector embargoes, it only attempts to single out 
agriculture.
  With the enactment of Freedom to Farm, our farmers and ranchers have 
become increasingly reliant on foreign markets for a significant 
percentage of their income. In our global marketplace, the importance 
of being a reliable supplier of food and fiber cannot be overstated.
  The U.S. agricultural economy is more than twice as reliant on 
exports as the overall economy. Congress should have input when the 
President decides to use American agriculture as a foreign policy tool.
  For American farmers and ranchers, trade is an essential part of 
their livelihood. Currently exports account for 30 percent of U.S. farm 
cash receipts, and nearly 40 percent of all agricultural production is 
exported.
  Past experience has shown the weakness in using sanctions as an 
instrument of foreign policy. Unfortunately, it may be politically 
impossible to entirely eliminate the use of economic sanctions. The 
President needs to be able to waive those impositions when he believes 
sanctions will have a negative impact on U.S. interests, especially on 
American agriculture.
  Rather than continue policies that withhold sales of U.S. food and 
fiber as punishment, H.R. 17 would urge that food and agricultural 
trade be encompassed in U.S. diplomacy. Such a move would contribute to 
world security, help feed the engine of economic growth, and build the 
lines of communication that allow engagement with these countries with 
whom we have disagreements.

[[Page H4235]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this important legislation.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and friend, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman for using 
for his superb leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.
  Our farmers in this country have a lot of challenges. Many times we 
can do nothing about those challenges here in Congress. We can do 
nothing about too much rain or lack thereof. Oftentimes there is very 
little we can do about the price of commodities that is so important to 
the farmers. One thing we can do is everything possible to open up 
trade opportunities so our farmers can export their agricultural 
commodities.
  We have in Illinois the distinction of exporting about 47 percent of 
our farm products. That is, almost half of the farmers in the State of 
Illinois are dependent upon exports. We are presently involved in a 
battle with the Europeans over their acceptance of cattle that have the 
growth hormone, and also involved in a battle with them battle over 
their acceptance of genetically-altered grains and things of that 
nature.
  One thing we can do is get the government out of the way of hindering 
markets that already exist for the purpose of allowing exports by our 
farmers. We only have to look back to the days of the Russian grain 
embargo, which was disastrous. Russia ended up buying their grain from 
other sources, and this country has never recovered from the loss of 
sales to Russia, simply because Russia looked to Argentina and other 
countries that do not use trade embargoes as a method of foreign 
policy.
  The purpose of H.R. 17 is to eliminate that, to open up these 
markets. I would encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 17.
  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 time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things I think we have an opportunity to 
recognize is that sanctions may indeed be for worthy goals, or we 
intend them for worthy goals, but the impact of sanctions has not been 
proven to be effective. Certainly the sanctions on food and drugs not 
only are ineffective, but in terms of the humanitarian point of view, 
it certainly is inappropriate.
  Additionally, sanctions on food are counterproductive to our 
commercial interests, particularly when we consider in many of these 
countries we are now giving food where we are not even allowed to sell 
food. So it is not consistent with our understanding that we should be 
humanitarian, and yet at the same time we will not allow our commerce 
to sell these very basic goods of food and medicine in those areas.
  In my State, the products that we produce in abundance indeed are 
dependent upon trade. Having these sanctions certainly poses an 
economic threat, and indeed impacts them economically. But more 
importantly, sanctions as a whole are ineffective.
  This particular bill does recognize that having sanctions on food 
products is inappropriate and not in our best interests. The sales of 
sanctioned products to these most egregious countries, when we think of 
them, really are not representing a large portion of our sales. It is 
the principle that this particular bill indeed addresses. It removes 
those sanctions for basic food.
  When we begin to understand it, agriculture as a whole represents a 
significant part of our economy. So when we have sanctions on food used 
as a tool, we are indeed putting a deterrent on a significant amount of 
our economy.
  In my particular State, we produce far more pork than anyone else. 
Over 75 percent of that must be dependent on trade in some form. Then 
when countries are no longer able to buy those particular products, or 
any other products that we have to sell in abundance, such as turkeys, 
cucumbers, chicken, any of those that we are very proficient in 
producing far beyond our domestic needs, it has a great impact.
  I support this in principle, and I also support it in its specifics 
of looking at food as an area that should be barred from sanctions. The 
tools of food and medicine are not only inappropriate for us as a 
country, as a moral country, but it is inappropriate for us in a 
commercial way, and is counterproductive; particularly when we are 
going to give the food away anyway, why not have the opportunity to 
sell these very basic goods?
  Again, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I 
want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) for his 
leadership in putting this forward.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Clayton) for her support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
legislation.
  Let me say at the outset, hunger knows no politics; and we have seen 
down through the years that embargoes have very little positive 
consequences, either for whatever we are trying to achieve 
diplomatically but certainly for our farmers.
  I want to share a story that every day in Mankato, Minnesota, there 
are more soybeans processed than anywhere else in the United States. We 
grow an awful lot of soybeans in our area; and something that many of 
the Members do not know is that literally over half of all the soybeans 
grown, at least in the upper Midwest, ultimately wind up in some kind 
of export markets.
  Now, soybeans should be selling for somewhere between $7 or $8 a 
bushel. Today, they are looking like they may test at $4 a bushel. Here 
is an unvarnished fact, that whether one is talking about soybeans, 
whether they are talking about pork, whether they are talking about 
corn, name the commodity that we produce here in the United States, 
here is an unvarnished fact about it, we cannot eat all that we can 
grow.
  If we are going to allow farmers to achieve the kind of income levels 
that they deserve for the work that they put in, we have to open 
markets. We cannot close them off. Using food as a political weapon has 
never worked. It is like holding a gun to the heads of our farmers. It 
has not worked in terms of achieving diplomatic ends. It has been a 
mistake. This is a very important step in the right direction.
  Mr. Speaker, as long as I have the floor for just a moment I want to 
say that one day I hope that we in this capitol of Washington and 
capitols all over the rest of the world will embrace the idea of a 
world food treaty, because we ought to say that as long as there is not 
a declaration of war between two countries we ought to always say that 
we are going to be willing to sell food to those countries, regardless 
of their politics, regardless of what may happen within their borders 
in terms of their own political process, but we will never use food as 
a political weapon.
  This is an important piece of legislation, a very important step in 
the right direction. It is good for farmers, and I think in the long 
run it is good for our diplomatic relations as well.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate the reason why we are here and to 
commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Combest) for bringing this bill again to the floor, the 
reasons for passage are very, very clear. The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Ewing) pointed out the recent activities or actions taken by the 
administration, along the same line of beginning to recognize that 
unilateral sanctions are not helpful, particularly when it applies to 
food and to medicine.
  The administration supports the spirit of this legislation from the 
standpoint of continuing to work with the Congress to make those 
changes necessary to bring about an end to these very harmful actions, 
harmful to the producers of food and fiber in the United States.
  I think I would be remiss if I did not also mention, though, we have 
some other actions that this Congress needs to take this year along the 
same line.
  We have some very controversial actions coming up regarding normal 
trade relations with China, a country of 1,200,000,000 mouths to feed. 
This is something that also needs to be looked at in the same 
bipartisan spirit.

[[Page H4236]]

  Fast track negotiations need to be brought before this Congress so 
that we might include sending our negotiators to the table to negotiate 
in areas in which perhaps we can avoid sanctions even being considered 
by any administration. We also have to acknowledge the fact of the 
disappointment of many in the agricultural appropriation bill that was 
passed just a few days ago. The lack of step 2 funding for cotton, for 
example, is going to make it extremely difficult for our cotton 
industry to participate in the international marketplace; China's 
ascension to the WTO; all of these need to be considered in the same 
spirit in which we are here today in support of H.R. 4647.
  Again, I commend the leadership, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Ewing), his leadership on this, and look forward to the passage of 
this, the passage in the Senate, a presidential signature and moving on 
to other very important activities regarding agriculture.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to express, as the ranking member has, our great 
desire to work with the administration on this new and revised policy 
about sanctions and embargoes. I think it is very important and very 
timely, particularly with the problems in agriculture, that we 
recognize that some of these policies have not worked as we had hoped 
they would.
  Some of the sanctions are put on by this body here, by the Congress, 
some by the administration. We need to approach that very carefully. In 
that regard, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Bereuter), a member of that committee, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce), also a member of that committee, have worked 
very hard to get this bill, H.R. 17, out of the Committee on 
International Relations and here on the floor today, and I personally 
recognize them and thank them for their help.
  Embargoes and sanctions are not effective. The solution is a 
bipartisan approach, and that is what we have here today.
  With that, I want to thank the staff of the Committee on Agriculture, 
the staff on my committee, for all the work they have done. This is not 
a complicated bill, but it has taken some time to bring it here to the 
floor and to work through the channels.
  I do very much appreciate the very strong support on both sides of 
the aisle of the Committee on Agriculture for this piece of legislation 
and particularly my thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
for his cooperation and help today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just close by saying that this bill is strongly 
supported by the Agricultural Retailers Association, the American Farm 
Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, Corn Refiners 
Association, Farmland Industries, Inc., IMC Global, Louis Dreyfus 
Corporation, National Association of Animal Breeders, National 
Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National Association 
of Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National 
Chicken Council, National Corn Growers Association, National Council of 
Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union, National Food Processors 
Association, National Grain and Feed Association, National Grain 
Sorghum Producers, National Grange, National Milk Producers Federation, 
National Pork Producers Council, National Renderers Association, 
National Sunflower Association, North American Export Grain 
Association, North American Millers' Association, the Fertilizer 
Institute, United Egg Association, United Egg Producers and the U.S. 
Canola Association.
  So there is strong support out there in the agricultural community 
for this bill, and I would now ask for its passage.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in supporting H.R. 17, 
the Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act of 1999, and I commend the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Ewing, and his cosponsors for their strong 
commitment to bringing this measure forward.
  As a technical matter, what H.R. 17 says is that, in the future, if 
the President selectively embargoes the export of U.S. agricultural 
commodities to a foreign country, Congress can either pass a law 
authorizing that embargo, or pass a law disapproving that embargo. If 
Congress does either of these things, H.R. 17 specifies what 
consequences for the embargo will follow from that action. If Congress 
does neither of these things, nothing happens and the embargo will 
remain in effect.
  Inasmuch as selective agricultural embargoes are extremely rare to 
begin with, and Congress is unlikely in any instance where the 
President imposes such an embargo to be able to enact a law with 
respect to that embargo, the practical impact of H.R. 17 will be 
limited.
  As my colleagues know, we have had something of a debate over the 
last year or so regarding the wisdom and effectiveness of sanctions as 
a tool of United States foreign policy. I continue to believe that 
sanctions can be an effective foreign policy tool in appropriate cases, 
and I know that view is shared by the Clinton Administration, and also 
by the vast majority of my colleagues, if their votes on sanctions 
measures over the past several years are any indication of their 
position on the issue.
  If I thought the measure before us today compromised the ability of 
the United States Government to promote our vital foreign policy 
interests by preventing the application of sanctions in appropriate 
cases, I would oppose it. I am satisfied, however, that H.R. 17 does 
not compromise the availability of this foreign policy tool, and 
therefore I am pleased to join in supporting it.
  I also have received assurances from the distinguished Chairman of 
the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Combest, regarding the manner in 
which he will proceed if H.R. 17 is amended by the Senate. I appreciate 
Mr. Combest's willingness to provide these assurances, not least of 
which because they were critical to my ability to schedule this measure 
for action in the Committee on International Relations and to support 
the measure today. I insert the letter I received from Mr. Combest to 
be reprinted in the Record at this point.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 17.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 1999.
     Hon. Ben Gilman,
     Chairman, Committee on International Relations, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Ben: This correspondence is in regard to H.R. 17, the 
     ``Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act of 1999.'' The 
     Committee on Agriculture approved this legislation on 
     February 10, and as you are aware the bill was referred 
     additionally to the Committee on International Relations. I 
     understand that your committee will consider H.R. 17 on June 
     10, 1999, and that you do not anticipate any changes to the 
     bill.
       Subcommittee Chairman Ewing and I are eager for prompt 
     floor consideration of H.R. 17. As H.R. 17 relates to an area 
     of special concern to the Committee on International 
     Relations, I support your determination that changes to the 
     bill which would be within the jurisdiction of your committee 
     not be allowed to occur without your input and consent.
       If, as expected, your committee reports H.R. 17 without 
     amendment, let me assure you that in the event changes to the 
     bill were proposed, either by the Senate or in the unlikely 
     event of a conference, I will work with you to ensure that 
     your committee's interests are protected. Because of the 
     lengthy history of this legislation both in this session and 
     last, I am eager to ensure that any concerns your committee 
     may have concerning any attempts to modify this or similar 
     legislation be thoroughly and cooperatively addressed in the 
     same manner as was accomplished between our committees on 
     H.R. 4647 during the 105th Congress. Should changes be made 
     to H.R. 17 in the Committee on International Relations, I 
     will reconsider the options available.
       In the event your committee passes H.R. 17 without 
     amendment I will seek to have the bill considered on the 
     Suspension Calendar on the earliest available date.
       I deeply appreciate your cooperation regarding H.R. 17. If 
     I may be of further assistance regarding this matter please 
     do not hesitate to contact me.
       Sincerely,
                                                    Larry Combest,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as the Vice Chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations and an original cosponsor of the bill, this 
Member rises in strong support of H.R. 17, the Selective Agricultural 
Embargoes Act of 1999. This Member also wants to commend the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Ewing, for his initiative 
and his persistence in bringing this important legislation to the Floor 
as expeditiously as possible.
  As has been noted, H.R. 17 is identical to H.R. 4647, legislation 
which passed the House by voice vote under suspension of the rules in 
the final days of the previous 105th Congress. Unfortunately, since the 
other body did not consider the measure before adjournment, it is 
necessary for us to again pass this bill.
  House Resolution 17 takes the first step towards rationalizing our 
sanctions policy by requiring the President to report to Congress on 
any selective embargo on agriculture commodities. The bill provides a 
termination date

[[Page H4237]]

for any embargo and requires Congress to approve the embargo for it to 
extend beyond 100 days. House Resolution 17 also provides greater 
assurances for contract sanctity.
  Unilateral embargoes of U.S. food exports do not hurt or effect any 
real change on the targeted country. All American 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. Given the fact that in relative terms U.S. commodity and 
livestock prices are at the lowest level seen in years and that many 
American farmers are facing financial ruin, our agricultural sector can 
no longer bear this unfair discriminatory burden for our country.
  There are three types of embargoes: Short supply embargoes, foreign 
policy embargoes, and national security embargoes. Unfortunately, the 
imposition of any these types of embargoes ends up hurting America's 
farmers and other Americans working in the agricultural sector of our 
economy while having little or no impact on the targeted country. 
Indeed, the people who the authors of these embargoes might intend to 
harm least, namely American farmers, are harmed the most.
  For example, last year the United States nearly lost a 350,000 metric 
ton wheat sale to Pakistan because of our unilateral non-proliferation 
sanctions on that country. Seeing that unintended and futile effort a 
number of us in Congress rushed to reverse that sanction just hours 
before the bids for the wheat sale were received. Because of this quick 
action, American exporters and our farmers sold our wheat, but just in 
the nick of time. Had we not acted then, surely the Australian, 
Canadian or French wheat farmers would have gladly become Pakistan's 
new primary supplier of wheat.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member also believes it is important to state what 
this legislation does not do in order to reinforce the balanced nature 
of the bill. House Resolution 17 does not alter any current sanctions 
because it would only affect embargoes that apply selectively to 
agriculture products like President Carter's ill-fated and totally 
ineffective unilateral grain embargo on the Soviet Union in 1980 or 
President Ford's unilateral, anti-farmer short-supply soybean embargo. 
The former embargo benefitted European grain farmers while having no 
impact on the Soviet Union or its invasion of Afghanistan. The latter 
short-supply soybean embargo devastated American soybean farmers while 
creating our major soybean export competition in Brazil.
  House Resolution 17 does not restrict the President's ability to 
impose cross-sector embargoes or apply to multilateral embargoes in 
which all of our agricultural competitors agree to the same export 
prohibitions we have imposed on our agricutlural sector against the 
targeted country. This legislation reinforces the approach contemplated 
by this Member, that is that future export sanctions should be across 
the board and, whenever possible, multilateral, so that our competitor 
countries are also affected. And, if there is any room for any 
exception to that kind of embargo, it should be for food and medical 
exports. Food should not be used as tool of foreign policy.

  Mr. Speaker, in addition to thanking our colleague from Illinois for 
his outstanding work on this measure, this Member would also like to 
thank the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the International Relations 
and Agriculture Committees, Messrs. Gilman, Gejdenson, Combest and 
Stenholm, respectively, as well as International Relations Subcommittee 
Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Menendez for considering 
this legislation expeditiously. In the view of this Member, H.R. 17 is 
one of the more important steps the 106th Congress is taking on behalf 
of farmers and agricultural trade.
  Mr. Speaker, the Selective Agriculture Embargoes Act is a measured 
and responsible bill that protects the American farmer and the American 
agricultural sector from unnecessary and unwarranted harm while at the 
same time preserving an important foreign policy tool. This Member, 
therefore, urges his colleagues to vote for H.R. 17.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 17, the 
Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act of 1999. I commend Mr. Ewing for 
his leadership on this issue, and I am proud to be an original co-
sponsor of this legislation.
  H.R. 17 requires that if the President acts to implement an embargo 
of any agricultural commodity to any country, the President must notify 
Congress of the reasons for the embargo and of the period of time that 
the embargo will be in effect. Congress then has 100 days to approve or 
disapprove the embargo. The President's action is approved by Congress, 
the embargo will terminate on the date determined by the President or 1 
year after Congress considered the embargo, whichever occurs earliest. 
If Congress disapproves of the embargo, it will terminate at the end of 
a hundred day period.
  For well over a year, America's farmers have been suffering from 
prolonged low commodity prices and decreated export sales. In times 
like these, it is doubly important that food not be used as a weapon in 
political battles between nations. The grain embargo of the Soviet 
Union in the 1970s not only closed the door to one market for America's 
farm exports, but it also sent a loud message to our trading partners 
that the United States does not always deal in good faith. This 
legislation will help assure other countries that it is safe to do 
business with us, while also assuring our farmers that they are not 
being used as a foreign policy tool.
  Another policy which need to be reformed, in order to stop the damage 
that it is doing to America's farmers, is the use of sanctions against 
foreign nations. Congress needs to take up sanctions reform legislation 
as soon as possible to provide our farmers with more markets for their 
products. Food should not be used as a weapon, whether it is in the 
form of a sanction or an embargo.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 17, the Selective Agricultural 
Embargoes Act, because it is a vote for the future of America's 
farmers.
  Mr. EWING. 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 Illinois (Mr. Ewing) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 17.
  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.

                          ____________________