S. Rept. 106-157 - 106th Congress (1999-2000)
September 13, 1999, As Reported by the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




Senate Report 106-157 - AGRICULTURAL TRADE FREEDOM ACT




[Senate Report 106-157]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 276
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    106-157

======================================================================



 
                     AGRICULTURAL TRADE FREEDOM ACT

                                _______
                                

               September 13, 1999.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______


Mr. Lugar, from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 566]

    The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, to 
which was referred the bill to amend the Agricultural Trade Act 
of 1978 to exempt agricultural commodities, livestock, and 
value-added products from current and future unilateral 
sanctions, to prepare for future bilateral and multilateral 
trade negotiations affecting United States agriculture, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon as amended and recommends that the bill as amended do 
pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
 I. Purpose and need for legislation..................................1
II. Background and summary of legislation.............................2
III.Legislative history and committee votes...........................3

IV. Regulatory impact statement.......................................6
 V. Budgetary impact of the bill......................................7
VI. Changes in existing law...........................................8

                  I. Purpose and Need for Legislation

    Unilateral sanctions have been imposed by the U.S. on a 
number of other countries to bar commercial transactions for 
the export of agricultural commodities. It is difficult to find 
evidence that such unilateral sanctions result in improved 
behavior by the targeted regimes. However, by denying U.S. 
farmers and agricultural businesses market access, domestic 
agriculture is clearly harmed. Approximately three out of every 
ten acres of domestic agricultural production are sold outside 
of the U.S. and export earnings are an increasing proportion of 
net farm income. Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers 
of food, feedstuffs, and fibers live outside of the U.S. As 
countries improve economically and democratically, the global 
demand for better diets and increased food imports is expected 
to increase as well. Theprosperity of U.S. agriculture is 
highly dependent on access, as unfettered as possible, to world 
markets. Furthermore, experience has shown that in instances when the 
U.S. has imposed unilateral sanctions, suppliers in competitor nations 
move quickly to fill the void. In the short term, significant sales are 
lost; in the longer term, the U.S.'s reputation as a reliable supplier 
is compromised and the opportunity to regain lost market access once 
sanctions are lifted is endangered. Income and jobs in the U.S. farm 
economy have been lost as a result of unilateral sanctions. Moreover, 
the evidence is clear that unilateral sanctions on food serve to punish 
innocent victims in the sanctioned countries rather than the offending 
leadership. Under this legislation, commercial agricultural sales are 
exempted from unilateral sanctions unless the President decides 
national security interests dictate their inclusion. Should that 
decision be made, the President must send a report to Congress 
detailing the reason for the sanction and for the inclusion of 
agricultural commodities in particular. Farm exports may then be 
included in the sanction unless Congress passes a joint resolution 
disapproving the inclusion subject to a presidential veto. In addition, 
this legislation contains criteria intended to guide future bilateral 
and multilateral negotiations. These guidelines are intended to boost 
U.S. agricultural exports and increase market access for U.S. farmers 
through negotiations.

               II. Background and Summary of Legislation


                               BACKGROUND

    For foreign policy reasons, the U.S. imposes economic 
sanctions on foreign countries barring commercial transactions 
for the export of agricultural commodities. As a unilateral 
act, this policy is seldom very effective and causes both short 
and long-term damage to U.S. farmers and their ability to 
export their product abroad. Ninety-five percent of the world's 
consumers of agricultural commodities live outside of the 
United States. As countries improve economically and 
democratically, global demand for U.S. farm exports will 
increase. Given global and domestic market realities, the 
ability of U.S. farmers to access foreign markets is more vital 
than ever. This legislation exempts commercial sales of 
agricultural commodities from unilateral economic sanctions 
except in limited circumstances under special procedures. In 
addition, the legislation offers guidelines to increase U.S. 
agricultural exports and increase market access through trade 
negotiations.

                                SUMMARY

1. Agricultural commodities, livestock, and products exempt from 
        unilateral agricultural sanctions

    The bill exempts commercial sales of agricultural 
commodities, livestock, and products thereof from unilateral 
economic sanctions. The exemption covers only commercial 
transactions and does not apply to government food aid, to 
government financed export sales or to government export 
programs such as PL480, section 416, direct credits, credit 
guarantees, supplier credits, facility credits, Export 
Enhancement Program, Market Access Program, foreign market 
development or barter programs. Items such as fertilizers, 
pesticides, and sprayers are not exempted. The President may 
include agricultural products in a sanction if the national 
interest dictates their inclusion. However, the President is 
then required to send to Congress a report explaining the 
national interest rationale, and a cost-benefit assessment of 
immediate and long-term ramifications of the inclusion. This 
reporting requirement applies to all future and current 
unilateral sanctions. Congress can override the President's 
decision by joint resolution.

2. Objectives for agricultural negotiations

    This legislation contains the sense of Congress that the 
principal agricultural trade negotiating objectives for future 
multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations should be to 
achieve more open and fair conditions of trade and to boost 
U.S. agricultural exports by: developing, strengthening, and 
clarifying existing trade rules; eliminating barriers to trade; 
developing, strengthening, and clarifying rules that address 
unfair market access barriers; eliminating non- tariff trade 
barriers for meeting the food needs of an increasing world 
population through new technologies; and ensuring that foreign 
market access to U.S. agricultural commodities produced using 
various agricultural practices is not denied for reasons 
inconsistent with the rules of the World Trade Organization.

3. Sale or barter of food assistance

    This bill contains a sense of Congress that the 
monetization of donated agricultural commodities should occur 
only in the recipient country or countries adjacent to the 
recipient countries unless the transaction is not practicable 
in the country or adjacent countries. Further, the transaction 
should not disrupt commercial markets for the agricultural 
commodity involved.

4. Relief from unfair trade practices affecting U.S. agricultural 
        commodities

    This legislation states that it is the sense of Congress 
that the Secretary of Agriculture should aggressively use the 
authorities granted under section 302 of the Agricultural Trade 
Act of 1978. That statute provides the Secretary with the 
authority to use programs of the Department of Agriculture for 
an agricultural commodity regarding that commodity when there 
is undue delay in a dispute resolution proceeding of an 
international trade agreement.

5. Micronutrient Fortification Pilot Program

    The authority to conduct a pilot program, which has now 
been completed, is repealed.

6. Technical corrections

    Several technical corrections are made to the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, the Food, 
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, and the 
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978.

              III. Legislative History and Committee Votes

    The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry, on May, 11, 1999, held a hearing on agricultural 
sanctions reform and on S. 566 in particular.
    The first panel to testify consisted of Stuart Eizenstat, 
Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and 
Agricultural Affairs, and August Schumacher, Under Secretary of 
Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services. Mr. 
Eizenstat testified on a sanctions policy change announced by 
the Administration in the weeks prior to the hearing. The new 
policy would exempt commercial sales of food, medicine and 
medical supplies from unilateral economic sanctions on a case-
by-case basis and through a licensing process. Mr. Eizenstat 
testified that the regulations necessary to implement the 
policy had not yet been developed, but were the subject of 
ongoing discussion among various federal agencies. Mr. 
Eizenstat testified that the Administration would examine S. 
566 and felt the principles embodied in it were very similar to 
the Administration's position on the issue. Mr. Eizenstat also 
discussed S. 757, a broader sanctions reform bill, but 
expressed the Administration's inability to support the 
legislation based on certain differences regarding Presidential 
waiver authority. Mr. Eizenstat concluded by reiterating the 
Administration's support for sanctions reform and expressed a 
hope that common ground would be found between the 
Administration and Senator Lugar both on agricultural sanctions 
reform and on general sanctions reform.
    Mr. Schumacher testified next that the Administration was 
in the process of finalizing the proposed policy change 
announced by the Administration. He testified that U.S. 
sanctions policies need to be reevaluated due to their often 
limited efficacy and their tendency to harm domestic 
agricultural interests. Mr. Schumacher reiterated the 
Administration's commitment to agricultural sanctions reform 
and stated that such a policy change is very timely, given low 
prices and soft global demand.
    The second panel consisted of Charles J. O'Mara and Paul 
Drazek. Each had served as Special Counsel for Trade to the 
Secretary of Agriculture during the Clinton Administration.
    Mr. O'Mara testified that unilateral economic sanctions are 
seldom successful in achieving U.S. foreign policy objectives 
and often have negative ramifications for U.S. agriculture 
which outweigh any positive effects. Mr. O'Mara expressed his 
support of S. 566 and also discussed the 1999 WTO negotiations 
scheduled to begin in Seattle, stating that the negotiations 
present an excellent opportunity to achieve improvements in 
foreign market access.
    Mr. Drazek echoed Mr. O'Mara in his support of S. 566. Mr. 
Drazek noted that the tendency for the U.S. to impose 
agricultural sanctions on other countries undermines the U.S.'s 
reputation as a reliable supplier and encourages other 
countries not to be too reliant on the U.S. for food. Mr. 
Drazek stated that along with ``fast-track'' trade negotiating 
authority, legislation exempting agriculture from sanctions is 
the most important step the U.S. can take to ensure a 
successful outcome of the 1999 WTO negotiations. Mr. Drazek 
questioned whether the ``case-by-case'' approach announced by 
the Administration was workable in the dynamic context of 
international commodity trading.
    The third panel consisted of producer groups with 
experience in sanctions.
    First to testify was Dean Kleckner, President of the 
American Farm Bureau Federation. Mr. Kleckner stated that the 
future of American agriculture is dependent on access to 
foreign markets. Mr. Kleckner commended the Administration for 
its policy change but stated that the new policy would not 
completely resolve the issue due to the licensing requirement. 
Furthermore, Mr. Kleckner testified, the problem of U.S. 
producers being viewed as unreliable suppliers would not be 
solved under the proposed policy change since a sale could be 
denied by the U.S. government. Mr. Kleckner expressed his and 
the American Farm Bureau Federation's support of S. 566. He 
also discussed Cuba as an example of a long-running economic 
sanction which has failed to produce the intended effect and 
stated that leading agricultural economists have predicted up 
to $1 billion in sales should the ban be lifted on Cuba alone.
    Next to testify was Gary Turner, a farmer from Burley, 
Idaho, on behalf of the National Farmers Union. Mr. Turner 
commended the effort to reform agricultural sanctions policy 
and stated that the U.S. sanctions policy which has been in 
effect for the past forty years has been detrimental to U.S. 
agriculture. Mr. Turner also endorsed S. 566.
    James Matlack, Director of the Washington Office of 
American Friends Service Committee, testified next. Mr. Matlack 
spoke for his and for AFSC's stance that sanctioning foreign 
countries is a complicated issue which necessitates careful 
cost-benefit analysis but is a practice far more preferable 
than use of force. He testified that sanctions need to be 
evaluated on an individual basis with the most careful 
consideration given to potential negative effects on the 
civilian populations living in the targeted country.
    Next to testify was Richard Bell, President and Chief 
Executive Officer of Riceland Foods, Inc. Mr. Bell voiced his 
support for S. 566 and stated that no commodity has suffered 
more from the use of U.S. trade sanctions than rice. Mr. Bell 
noted that the leading U.S. rice export market has been 
sanctioned three separate times: Cuba in 1963, Iraq in 1990, 
and Iran in 1995. He reiterated the point made earlier from 
other witnesses that U.S. farmers have undoubtedly been hurt by 
U.S. sanctions policy whereas no tangible evidence exists that 
such sanctions have had any positive effect on the targeted 
regime.
    Mike Yost, President of the American Soybean Association, 
testified next, stating that U.S. trade sanctions have been 
extremely damaging to U.S. agricultural interests. Mr. Yost 
expressed his support for S. 566 and also stated his opposition 
to imposing a licensing system for agricultural exports, as the 
Administration's sanctions policy change does.
    Last to testify was Jack Pettus, who spoke on behalf of 
Herb Karst, farmer and President of the National Barley Growers 
Association. Mr. Pettus agreed with the Chairman and previous 
witnesses that unilateral sanctions seldom achieve their stated 
objectives and often harm U.S. producers more than targeted 
regimes. Mr. Pettus testified to the harm U.S. sanctions have 
had on domestic barley producers and stated that U.S. 
competitors are given the opportunity to fill the void when 
U.S. producers are barred from competing.

                             committee vote

    In compliance with paragraph 7 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, the following statements are made 
concerning the votes of the Committee in its consideration of 
the Committee bill:
    The Committee met in open session on Wednesday, May 26, 
1999, to mark up this bill.An amendment in the nature of a 
substitute was agreed to by voice vote. The Committee accepted by 
recorded vote (17 yeas and 1 nay) an amendment by Senator Conrad which 
provides a framework through which Congress can override the 
President's decision to include agricultural commodities as part of a 
unilateral sanction. The rollcall vote was as follows:
        YEAS                          NAYS
Mr. Lugar                           Mr. Helms
Mr. Cochran
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Coverdell
Mr. Roberts
Mr. Fitzgerald
Mr. Grassley
Mr. Craig
Mr. Santorum
Mr. Harkin
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Conrad
Mr. Daschle
Mr. Baucus
Mr. Kerrey
Mr. Johnson
Mrs. Lincoln

    The Committee then ordered by voice vote that the bill be 
favorably reported.

                    IV. Regulatory Impact Statement

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the following evaluation is made 
concerning the regulatory impact of enacting this legislation:
    The Committee has determined that this legislation will 
have no detrimental impact on the private sector as a result of 
new regulatory requirements. No new regulations are required to 
be instituted and existing regulations dictating whom producers 
may not transact commercial business with are lifted. The 
Committee expects a positive economic impact through lifting 
existing regulations, no adverse impact on the personal privacy 
of the individuals affected by the legislation, and no amount 
of additional paperwork resulting from regulations pursuant to 
the enactment of this bill.

                    V. Budgetary Impact of the Bill

    In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the following letter has been 
received from the Congressional Budget Office regarding the 
budgetary impact of the bill:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, June 17, 1999.
Hon. Richard Lugar,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 566, the 
Agricultural Trade Freedom Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Craig 
Jagger, Dave Hull, and Joseph C. Whitehall.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

S. 566--Agriculture Trade Freedom Act

    S. 566 would exempt commercial sales of agricultural 
commodities from current and future unilateral economic 
sanctions imposed by the United States on a foreign country or 
entity, unless the Congress has declared a state of war, or the 
President determines that applying the sanctions to 
agricultural commodities would be in the national interest. 
However, the exemption from sanctions would not apply to 
agricultural commodities sold with certain federal subsidies or 
financing specified in the bill.
    The President would be required to report to the Congress 
regarding his determination that applying the unilateral 
economic sanction to agricultural commodities is in the 
national interest, and thus the exemption from sanctions should 
not apply. The bill would establish procedures for the Congress 
to consider a joint resolution to disapprove the President's 
report, overriding his determination.
    S. 566 could affect direct spending if unilateral 
agricultural sanctions are imposed less frequently or are of 
shorter duration than under current law. CBO has no basis for 
predicting the likelihood, duration, or market effects of 
future sanctions, or the likelihood of future Congressional 
action to approve or disapprove of such sanctions. But the bill 
would not affect most federally supported sales of agricultural 
commodities, and thus, CBO estimates that enacting S. 566 would 
probably have no significant budgetary impact.
    Because the bill could affect direct spending, pay-as-you-
go procedures would apply. S. 566 contains no intergovernmental 
or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    The CBO contacts for this estimate are Craig Jagger, Dave 
Hull, and Joseph C. Whitehill. This estimate was approved by 
Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

                      VI. Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made in 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

                    AGRICULTURAL TRADE ACT OF 1978

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                            [7 U.S.C. 5677]

SEC. 417. TRADE COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (f), 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, if, after the date 
of enactment of this section, the President or any other member 
of the executive branch causes exports of an agricultural 
commodity from the United States to any country to be 
unilaterally suspended for reasons of national security or 
foreign policy, and if within 90 days after the date on which 
the suspension is imposed on United States exports no other 
country with an agricultural economic interest agrees to 
participate in the suspension, the Secretary shall carry out a 
trade compensation assistance program in accordance with this 
section (referred to in this section as a ``program'').
    (b) Compensation or Provision of Funds.--Under a program, 
the Secretary shall, based on an evaluation by the Secretary of 
the method most likely to produce the greatest compensatory 
benefit for producers of the commodity involved in the 
suspension--
          (1) compensate producers of the commodity by making 
        payments available to producers, as provided by 
        subsection (c)(1); or
          (2) make available an amount of funds calculated 
        under subsection (c)(2), to promote agricultural 
        exports or provide agricultural commodities to 
        developing countries under any authorities available to 
        the Secretary.
    (c) Determination of Amount of Compensation or Funds.--
          (1) Compensation.--If the Secretary makes payments 
        available to producers under subsection (b)(1), the 
        amount of the payment shall be determined by the 
        Secretary based on the Secretary's estimate of the loss 
        suffered by producers of the commodity involved due to 
        any decrease in the price of the commodity as a result 
        of the suspension.
          (2) Determination of amount of funds.--For each 
        fiscal year of a program, the amount of funds made 
        available under subsection (b)(2) shall be equal to 90 
        percent of the average annual value of United States 
        agricultural exports to the country with respect to 
        which exports are suspended during the most recent 3 
        years prior to the suspension for which data are 
        available.
    (d) Duration of Program.--For each suspension of exports 
for which a program is implemented under this section, funds 
shall be made available under subsection (b) for each fiscal 
year or part of a fiscal year for which the suspension is in 
effect, but not to exceed 3 fiscal years.
    (e) Commodity Credit Corporation.--The Secretary shall use 
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this 
section.
    (f) Exception to Carrying Out a Program.--This section 
shall not apply to any suspension of trade due to a war or 
armed hostility.
    (g) Partial Year Embargoes.--If the Secretary makes funds 
available under subsection (b)(2), regardless of whether an 
embargo is in effect for only part of a fiscal year, the full 
amount of funds as calculated under subsection (c)(2) shall be 
made available under a program for the fiscal year. If the 
Secretary determines that making the required amount of funds 
available in a partial fiscal year is impracticable, the 
Secretary may make all or part of the funds required to be made 
available in the following fiscal year (in addition to any 
funds otherwise required under a program to be made available 
in the following fiscal year).
    (h) Short Supply Embargoes.--If the President or any other 
member of the executive branch causes exports to be suspended 
based on a determination of short supply, the Secretary shall 
carry out section 1002 of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 
(7 U.S.C. 1310).

SEC. 418. AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, LIVESTOCK, AND PRODUCTS EXEMPT FROM 
                    UNILATERAL AGRICULTURAL SANCTIONS.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Current sanction.--The term ``current sanction'' 
        means a unilateral agricultural sanction that is in 
        effect on the date of enactment of the Agricultural 
        Trade Freedom Act.
          (2) New sanction.--The term ``new sanction'' means a 
        unilateral agricultural sanction that becomes effective 
        after the date of enactment of that Act.
          (3) Unilateral agricultural sanction.--The term 
        ``unilateral agricultural sanction'' means any 
        prohibition, restriction, or condition that is imposed 
        on the export of an agricultural commodity to a foreign 
        country or foreign entity and that is imposed by the 
        United States for reasons of foreign policy or national 
        security, except in a case in which the United States 
        imposes the measure pursuant to a multilateral regime 
        and the other members of that regime have agreed to 
        impose substantially equivalent measures.
    (b) Exemption.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) 
        and notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
        agricultural commodities made available as a result of 
        commercial sales shall be exempt from a unilateral 
        agricultural sanction imposed by the United States on 
        another country.
          (2) Exclusions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to 
        agricultural commodities made available as a result of 
        programs carried out under--
                  (A) the Agricultural Trade Development and 
                Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.);
                  (B) section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 
                1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431);
                  (C) the Food for Progress Act of 1985 (7 
                U.S.C. 1736o); or
                  (D) the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 
                U.S.C. 5601 et seq.).
          (3) Determination by president.--The President may 
        include agricultural commodities made available as a 
        result of the activities described in paragraph (1) in 
        the unilateral agricultural sanction imposed on a 
        foreign country or foreign entity if--
                  (A) a declaration of war by Congress is in 
                effect with respect to the foreign country or 
                foreign entity; or
                  (B)(i) the President determines that 
                inclusion of the agricultural commodities is in 
                the national interest;
                  (ii) the Presidents submits the report 
                required under subsection (d); and
                  (iii) Congress has not approved a joint 
                resolution stating the disapproval of Congress 
                of the report submitted under subsection (d).
          (4) Effect on agricultural trade.--Nothing in this 
        subsection requires the imposition of a unilateral 
        agricultural sanction with respect to an agricultural 
        commodity, whether exported in connection with a 
        commercial sale or a program described in paragraph 
        (2).
    (c) Current Sanctions.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
        exemption under subsection (b)(1) shall apply to a 
        current sanction.
          (2) Presidential review.--Not later than 90 days 
        after the date of enactment of the Agricultural Trade 
        Freedom Act, the President shall review each current 
        sanction to determine whether the exemption under 
        subsection (b)(1) should apply to the current sanction.
          (3) Application.--The exemption under subsection 
        (b)(1) shall apply to a current sanction beginning on 
        the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment 
        of the Agricultural Trade Freedom Act unless the 
        President determines that the exemption should not 
        apply to the current sanction for reasons of the 
        national interest.
     (d) Report.--
          (1) In general.--If the President determines under 
        subsection (b)(3)(B)(i) or (c)(3) that the exemption 
        should not apply to a unilateral agricultural sanction, 
        the President shall submit a report to Congress not 
        later than 15 days after the date of the determination.
          (2) Contents of report.--The report shall contain--
                  (A) an explanation of--
                          (i) the economic activity that is 
                        proposed to be prohibited, restricted, 
                        or conditioned by the unilateral 
                        agricultural sanction; and
                          (ii) the national interest for which 
                        the exemption should not apply to the 
                        unilateral agricultural sanction; and
                  (B) an assessment by the Secretary--
                          (i) regarding export sales--
                                  (I) in the case of a current 
                                sanction, whether markets in 
                                the sanctioned country or 
                                countries present a substantial 
                                trade opportunity for export 
                                sales of a United States 
                                agricultural commodity; or
                                  (II) in the case of a new 
                                sanction, the extent to which 
                                any country or countries to be 
                                sanctioned or likely to be 
                                sanctioned are markets that 
                                accounted for, during the 
                                preceding calendar year, more 
                                than 3 percent of export sales 
                                of a United States agricultural 
                                commodity;
                          (ii) regarding the effect on United 
                        States agricultural commodities--
                                  (I) in the case of a current 
                                sanction, the potential for 
                                export sales of United States 
                                agricultural commodities in the 
                                sanctioned country or 
                                countries; and
                                  (II) in the case of a new 
                                sanction, the likelihood that 
                                exports of United States 
                                agricultural commodities will 
                                be affected by the new sanction 
                                or by retaliation by any 
                                country to be sanctioned or 
                                likely to be sanctioned, 
                                including a description of 
                                specific United States 
                                agricultural commodities that 
                                are most likely to be affected;
                          (iii) regarding the income of 
                        agricultural producers--
                                  (I) in the case of a current 
                                sanction, the potential for 
                                increasing the income of 
                                producers of the United States 
                                agricultural commodities 
                                involved; and
                                  (II) in the case of a new 
                                sanction, the likely effect on 
                                incomes of producers of the 
                                agricultural commodities 
                                involved;
                          (iv) regarding displacement of United 
                        States suppliers--
                                  (I) in the case of a current 
                                sanction, the potential for 
                                increased competition for 
                                United States suppliers of the 
                                agricultural commodity in 
                                countries that are not subject 
                                to the current sanction because 
                                of uncertainty about the 
                                reliability of the United 
                                States suppliers; and
                                  (II) in the case of a new 
                                sanction, the extent to which 
                                the new sanction would permit 
                                foreign suppliers to replace 
                                United States suppliers; and
                          (v) regarding the reputation of 
                        United States agricultural producers as 
                        reliable suppliers--
                                  (I) in the case of a current 
                                sanction, whether removing the 
                                sanction would improve the 
                                reputation of United States 
                                producers as reliable suppliers 
                                of agricultural commodities in 
                                general, and of specific 
                                agricultural commodities 
                                identified by the Secretary; 
                                and
                                  (II) in the case of a new 
                                sanction, the likely effect of 
                                the proposed sanction on the 
                                reputation of United States 
                                producers as reliable suppliers 
                                of agricultural commodities in 
                                general, and of specific 
                                agricultural commodities 
                                identified by the Secretary.
     (e) Congressional Priority Procedures.--
          (1) Joint resolution.--In this subsection, the term 
        ``joint resolution'' means only a joint resolution 
        introduced within 10 session days of Congress after the 
        date on which the report of the President under 
        subsection (d) is received by Congress, the matter 
        after the resolving clause of which is as follows: 
        ``That Congress disapproves the report of the President 
        pursuant to section 418(d) of the Agricultural Trade 
        Act of 1978, transmitted on ______________.'', with the 
        blank completed with the appropriate date.
          (2) Referral of report.--The report described in 
        subsection (d) shall be referred to the appropriate 
        committee or committees of the House of Representatives 
        and to the appropriate committee or committees of the 
        Senate.
          (3) Referral of joint resolution.--
                  (A) In general.--A joint resolution shall be 
                referred to the committees in each House of 
                Congress with jurisdiction.
                  (B) Reporting date.--A joint resolution 
                referred to in subparagraph (A) may not be 
                reported before the eighth session day of 
                Congress after the introduction of the joint 
                resolution.
          (4) Discharge of committee.--If the committee to 
        which is referred a joint resolution has not reported 
        the joint resolution (or an identical joint resolution) 
        at the end of 30 session days of Congress after the date of
        introduction of the joint resolution--
                  (A) the committee shall be discharged from 
                further consideration of the joint resolution; 
                and
                  (B) the joint resolution shall be placed on 
                the appropriate calendar of the House 
                concerned.
          (5) Floor consideration.--
                  (A) Motion to proceed.--
                          (i) In general.--When the committee 
                        to which a joint resolution is referred 
                        has reported, or when a committee is 
                        discharged under paragraph (4) from 
                        further consideration of, a joint 
                        resolution--
                                  (I) it shall be at any time 
                                thereafter in order (even 
                                though a previous motion to the 
                                same effect has been disagreed 
                                to) for any member of the House 
                                concerned to move to proceed to 
                                the consideration of the joint 
                                resolution; and
                                  (II) all points of order 
                                against the joint resolution 
                                (and against consideration of 
                                the joint resolution) are 
                                waived.
                          (ii) Privilege.--The motion to 
                        proceed to the consideration of the 
                        joint resolution--
                                  (I) shall be highly 
                                privileged in the House of 
                                Representatives and privileged 
                                in the Senate; and
                                  (II) shall not be debatable.
                          (iii) Amendments and motions not in 
                        order.--The motion to proceed to the 
                        consideration of the joint resolution 
                        shall not be subject to--
                                  (I) amendment;
                                  (II) a motion to postpone; or
                                  (III) a motion to proceed to 
                                the consideration of other 
                                business.
                          (iv) Motion to reconsider not in 
                        order.--A motion to reconsider the vote 
                        by which the motion is agreed to or 
                        disagreed to shall not be in order.
                          (v) Business until disposition.--If a 
                        motion to proceed to the consideration 
                        of the joint resolution is agreed to, 
                        the joint resolution shall remain the 
                        unfinished business of the House 
                        concerned until disposed of.
                  (B) Limitations on debate.--
                          (i) In general.--Debate on the joint 
                        resolution, and on all debatable 
                        motions and appeals in connection with 
                        the joint resolution, shall be limited 
                        to not more than 10 hours, which shall 
                        be divided equally between those 
                        favoring and those opposing the joint 
                        resolution.
                          (ii) Further debate limitations.--A 
                        motion to limit debate shall be in 
                        order and shall not be debatable.
                          (iii) Amendments and motions not in 
                        order.--An amendment to, a motion to 
                        postpone, a motion to proceed to the 
                        consideration of other business, a 
                        motion to recommit the joint 
                        resolution, or a motion to reconsider 
                        the vote by which the joint resolution 
                        is agreed to or disagreed to shall not 
                        be in order.
                  (C) Vote on final passage.--Immediately 
                following the conclusion of the debate on a 
                joint resolution, and a single quorum call at 
                the conclusion of the debate if requested in 
                accordance with the rules of the House 
                concerned, the vote on final passage of the 
                joint resolution shall occur.
                  (D) Rulings of the chair on procedure.--An 
                appeal from a decision of the Chair relating to 
                the application of the rules of the Senate or 
                House of Representatives, as the case may be, 
                to the procedure relating to a joint resolution 
                shall be decided without debate.
          (6) Coordination with action by other house.--If, 
        before the passage by 1 House of a joint resolution of 
        that House, that House receives from the other House a 
        joint resolution, the following procedures shall apply:
                  (A) No committee referral.--The joint 
                resolution of the other House shall not be 
                referred to a committee.
                  (B) Floor procedure.--With respect to a joint 
                resolution of the House receiving the joint 
                resolution--
                          (i) the procedure in that House shall 
                        be the same as if no joint resolution 
                        had been received from the other House; 
                        but
                          (ii) the vote on final passage shall 
                        be on the joint resolution of the other 
                        House.
                  (C) Disposition of joint resolutions of 
                receiving house.--On disposition of the joint 
                resolution received from the other House, it 
                shall no longer be in order to consider the 
                joint resolution originated in the receiving 
                House.
          (7) Procedures after action by both the house and 
        senate.--If a House receives a joint resolution from 
        the other House after the receiving House has disposed 
        of a joint resolution originated in that House, the 
        action of the receiving House with regard to the 
        disposition of the joint resolution originated in that 
        House shall be deemed to be the action of the receiving 
        House with regard to the joint resolution originated in 
        the other House.
          (8) Rulemaking power.--This subsection is enacted by 
        Congress--
                  (A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of 
                the Senate and House of Representatives, 
                respectively, and as such this subsection--
                          (i) is deemed to be a part of the 
                        rules of each House, respectively, but 
                        applicable only with respect to the 
                        procedure to be followed in that House 
                        in the case of a joint resolution; and
                          (ii) supersedes other rules only to 
                        the extent that this subsection is 
                        inconsistent with those rules; and
                  (B) with full recognition of the 
                constitutional right of either House to change 
                the rules (so far as the rules relate to the 
                procedure of that House) at any time, in the 
                same manner and to the same extent as in the 
                case of any other rule of that House.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


        AGRICULTURE TRADE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1954

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                          [7. U.S.C. 1736g-2]

[SEC. 415. MICRONUTRIENT FORTIFICATION PILOT PROGRAM.

    [(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of practical 
technology and to cost-effectiveness, not later than September 
30, 1997, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
Administrator, shall establish a micronutrient fortification 
pilot program under this Act. The purpose of the program shall 
be to--
          [(1) assist developing countries in correcting 
        micronutrient dietary deficiencies among segments of 
        the populations of the countries; and
          [(2) encourage the development of technologies for 
        the fortification of whole grains and other commodities 
        that are readily transferable to developing countries.
    [(b) Selection of Participating Countries.--From among the 
countries eligible for assistance under this Act, the Secretary 
may select not more than 5 developing countries to participate 
in the pilot program.
    [(c) Fortification.--Under the pilot program, whole grains 
and other commodities made available to a developing country 
selected to participate in the pilot program may be fortified 
with 1 or more micronutrients (including vitamin A, iron, and 
iodine) with respect to which a substantial portion of the 
population in the country is deficient. The commodity may be 
fortified in the United States or in the developing country.
    [(d) Termination of Authority.--The authority to carry out 
the pilot program established under this section shall 
terminate on September 30, 2002.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              --
--------


         FEDERAL AGRICULTURE IMPROVEMENT AND REFORM ACT OF 1996

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 216. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

    Section 407 of the Agricultural Trade Development and 
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1736a) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or 
                private entity that enters into an agreement 
                under title I'' after ``importing country''; 
                and
                  (B) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end 
                the following: ``Resulting contracts may 
                contain such terms and conditions as the 
                Secretary determines are necessary and 
                appropriate.'';
          (2) in [subsection (c)] subsection (b)--
                  (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting 
                ``importer or'' before ``importing country''; 
                and
                  (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting 
                ``importer or'' before ``importing country'';
          (3) in [subsection (d)] subsection (c)--
                  (A) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting 
                the following:
          ``(2) Freight procurement.--Notwithstanding the 
        Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
        1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.) or other similar 
        provisions of law relating to the making or performance 
        of Federal Government contracts, ocean transportation 
        under titles II and III may be procured on the basis of 
        full and open competitive procedures. Resulting 
        contracts may contain such terms and conditions as the 
        Administrator determines are necessary and 
        appropriate.''; and
                  (B) by striking paragraph (4);
          (4) [in subsection (g)(2)] subsection (f)(2)--
                  (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' 
                at the end;
                  (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the 
                period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                  (C) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(D) an assessment of the progress towards 
                achieving food security in each country 
                receiving food assistance from the United 
                States Government, with special emphasis on the 
                nutritional status of the poorest populations 
                in each country.''; and
          (5) by striking [subsection (h)] subsection (g).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


        FOOD, AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND TRADE ACT OF 1990

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                            [7 U.S.C. 5622]

SEC. 1542. PROMOTION OF AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS TO EMERGING MARKETS.

    (a) Funding.--The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make 
available for fiscal years 1996 through 2002 not less than 
$1,000,000,000 of direct credits or export credit guarantees 
for exports to emerging markets under section 201 or 202 of the 
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5621 and 5622), in 
addition to the amounts acquired or authorized under section 
211 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 5641) for the program.
    (b) Facilities and Services.--A portion of such export 
credit guarantees shall be made available for--
          (1) the establishment or improvement of facilities, 
        or
          (2) the provision of services or United States 
        products goods,
in emerging markets by United States persons to improve 
handling, marketing, processing, storage, or distribution of 
imported agricultural commodities and products thereof if the 
Secretary of Agriculture determines that such guarantees will 
primarily promote the export of United States agricultural 
commodities (as defined in section 102(7) of the Agricultural 
Trade Act of 1978). The Commodity Credit Corporation shall give 
priority under this subsection to--
          (A) projects that encourage the privatization of the 
        agricultural sector or that benefit private farms or 
        cooperatives in emerging markets; and
          (B) projects for which nongovernmental persons agree 
        to assume a relatively larger share of the costs.
    (c) Consultations.--Before the authority under this section 
is exercised, the Secretary of Agriculture shall consult with 
exporters of United States agricultural commodities (as defined 
in section 102(7) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978), 
nongovernmental experts, and other Federal Government agencies 
in order to ensure that facilities in an emerging market for 
which financing is guaranteed under paragraph (1)(B) do not 
primarily benefit countries which are in close geographic 
proximity to that emerging democracy.
    (d) E (Kika) de la Garza Agricultural Fellowship Program.--
The Secretary of Agriculture (hereafter in this section 
referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall establish a program, to 
be known as the ``E (Kika) de la Garza Agricultural Fellowship 
Program'', to develop agricultural markets in emerging markets 
and to promote cooperation and exchange of information between 
agricultural institutions and agribusinesses in the United 
States and emerging markets, as follows:
          (1) Development of agricultural systems.--
                  (A) In general.--
                          (i) Establishment of program.--For 
                        each of the fiscal years 1991 through 
                        2002, the Secretary of Agriculture 
                        (hereafter in this section referred to 
                        as the ``Secretary''), in order to 
                        develop, maintain, or expand markets 
                        for United States agricultural exports, 
                        is directed to make available to 
                        emerging markets the expertise of the 
                        United States to make assessments of 
                        the food and rural business systems 
                        needs of [such democracies] the 
                        markets, make recommendations on 
                        measures necessary to enhance the 
                        effectiveness of the systems, including 
                        potential reductions in trade barriers, 
                        and identify and carry out specific 
                        opportunities and projects to enhance 
                        the effectiveness of those systems.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *