By ROBERT MACK

Forbidding any future grain embargoes

LED BY Sens. Charles H. Percy and Alan J. Dixon, opponents of the Soviet grain embargo in Congress have passed legislation that would forbid future presidents from imposing farm embargoes like the one President Carter put on grain following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

As of this writing, an anti-embargo measure proposed by the two Illinois senators had passed the Senate 66-20 and was sent to a House-Senate conference committee, where it appeared likely it would also be approved and sent to President Reagan for his signature. Percy and Dixon attached their amendment to a House-passed bill extending the Export Administration Act.

The Percy-Dixon amendment would bar a president from selecting one segment of the economy, such as agriculture, to be burdened with an export embargo unless Congress approved such action within 60 days of a White House request. Congress would also have to approve each year any extensions of such an embargo beyond one year.

An administration spokesman, noting Reagan had campaigned against the Soviet grain embargo during the presidential campaign, said the measure was acceptable because "we're not going to have any selective agricultural embargoes." But opponents of antiembargo legislation argued that was exactly why the amendment was unnecessary. Since Reagan opposes selective embargoes, they said, the amendment was just a waste of time. They also argued, however, that its adoption would tie the president's hands by taking away an effective nonmilitary means of retaliation against another country. The most persuasive argument made by the opponents — led by Sens. John Heinz (R., Pa.) and William Proxmire (D., Wis.) — was that if a president faces a crisis calling for a selective embargo, he would ask for congressional approval at the start of the 60-day period when nobody would dare oppose him. An embargo is " the only nonmilitary option available to a president to make a strong diplomatic signal," Heinz said during the debate. "It would be a mistake to tie his hands."

Percy countered that "we ought to create conditions where if it's fair to embargo one group, it's fair to embargo them all." And Dixon argued that Congress originally intended that embargoes affect only high-technology items, not food. "This amendment will provide needed assurances to both the American farmer and our foreign customers that the United States intends to be a reliable supplier and is committed to increasing agricultural exports," Dixon said. Added Percy, "Never again will the agricultural sector of our economy be singled out to bear a disproportionate share of the burden made necessary by difficult foreign policy decisions."

Under the grain embargo, imposed January 4, 1980, the Soviets received only 8 million of the 25 million metric tons of grain promised them in each of the last two years of a 1976 agreement. While the embargo caused food shortages in the Soviet Union, it did not drive the Soviets from Afghanistan and it hurt American farmers economically. Reagan lifted the embargo on April 24, 1981.

The Percy-Dixon amendment wasn't the only anti-embargo measure in Congress. Another one was added to the 1981 farm bill, but that provision and the entire farm bill itself appeared to be on shaky ground. The provision in the farm bill would require loans and direct payments to farmers if any major agricultural embargo were declared for national security or foreign policy reasons. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that provision could cost as much as $30 billion. Rep. Paul Findley (R., 111.) argued the embargo provision would give House members from some rural areas one more reason to vote against the farm bill. They already object to provisions settings high price supports for sugar and peanuts, he said. And Agriculture Secretary John Block hinted Reagan might veto the farm bill unless dairy price supports were lowered. The administration supported the Senate passed farm bill with a price tag of $10.6 billion. The House-passed bill cost $16 billion. Block indicated Reagan probably would not sign a farm bill that is more than $500 million over the cost of the original Senate bill. Block denied it was his intention to splinter the farm lobby, as indicated in a recently published interview with budget director David Stockman in The Atlantic Monthly. The article quoted Stockman as saying his farm bill strategy was ". . .to come in with a farm bill that's unacceptable to the farm guys so that the whole thing begins to splinter." Asked whether he shares Stockman's divide-and-conquer strategy, Block said, "No, I don't ever think about that. Maybe director Stockman thinks about that. I don't think about that at all." Asked if Stockman ever discussed his farm bill strategy with him, Block replied, "I can't say for sure. I don't think he told me that, but he might have had that on his mind." Block added: "When times are tough, farmers like everybody else are looking for a solution and all the different farm organizations, unfortunately, have different solutions . . . .My final objective and theirs are almost identical — stronger price for agriculture. But we don't always agree on how to get there. "□

34/January 1982/Illinois Issues