Date: 1981-01-22
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Madam President. this Senator has consistently supported the grain embargo imposed on the Soviet Union just over 1 year ago. I believe it is imperative that the United states clearly demonstrate that aggressive behavior by the Soviets Will be costly to them. To continue unrestricted sales of agricultural commodities to the Soviet Union. while that nation invaded and subjugated previouslyindependent Afghanistan. would have been construed by other countries as apathy toward aggression. Our response to the Soviet move shows our allies and our potential adversaries that aggression carries a cost. I have been encouraged in recent weeks by the statements of President Reagan and his senior advisers with regard to the grain embargo. It is understandable that certain positions stated during the intense pressures of the Presidential campaign battle may have been subsequently reexamined. I am encouraged that the grain embargo will be analyzed and that it will not be Instantly scrapped by the new administration. The embar3o has had both substantive and symbolic effects on the Soviet Union. These effects. though sometimes subtle. will I am sure be apparent to the new administration. First. It is important to recognize the conditions that prompted President Carter to impose the restrictions on farm exports to the Soviet Union. The itvasion of Afghanistan was the first time since the end of World War II that the Soviet Union had directly invaded a previously independent and unoccupied nation. The Soviet action poses a threat to Pakistan. Iran. and the other countries of South Asia and the Near East. That region is fragile enough without the prospect of increased tensions caused by Soviet military adventures. By entering and occupying Afghanistan. the Soviet Union has put its aircraft within striking range of the oil facilities and resources of the Persian Gulf. This is a serious development not only for the United States. which depends on the movement of oil from the gulf for about onefourth of its total supplies. but for our European and Japanese allies. as well. Those nations are far more dependent on oil from the gulf. These are critical considerations for those responsible for carrying out otir foreign polier and d~fending our national security. These factors have not changed since the Soviets moved into Afghanistan in December 1979. The Reagan administration will face the facts of Soviet military subjugation of Afghanistan as it considers whether to lift the embargo. The repression of the people of Afghanistan has not been lifted. the embargo remains an appropriate American policy. The effect of the embargo on the Soviet Union has been the subject of some dispute. Evidence from the Department of Agriculture. the Defense Intelligence Agency. international grain trading companies. and our allies shows an unmistakable trend. It became clear by midNovember 1980. that the Soviet grain harvest for this crop year was disastrous. A total of less than 200 million tons of grain was harvested by the Soviets in 1980. despite a planned level of 235 million tons. Anticipating the bad harvest. President Brezhnev gave an uncharacteristically pessimistic speech to the Central Committee of the Communist Party in October 1980. He reviewed the shaky state of Soviet agriculture. and suggested that the situation was getting worse. The bad harvest in 1980 nearly matched the debacle of 1979. and the two consecutive poor years put pressure on the Soviet standard of living. In his speech. the Soviet leader. evidently made an exceptionally rare effort to soften the blow to his people. Such admissions are almost unheard of in the Soviet Union. and often signal major policy shakeups. True to form. a new member. an agricultural specialist. was installed in the Politburo shortly after the poor harvest. The Soviets have had to adjust their supreme governing body in light of their food problems. More evidence on the reduction in Soviet meat supplies and basic food stuffs has been forthcoming over the past several .onths. A reduction in the Soviet standard of living Is a serious setback when the Soviet leaders are attempting to increase the supply of red meat and other food. The Soviets have had to draw down their reserve stocks of grain. They have had to slaughter substantial portions of their livestock herds. which are fed grain. The typical lines for even basic food items that are found In Communist countries are longer in the Soviet Union. particularly in the regions whichare seldom in contact with the West. While the Soviet Union had pinied its hopes on a gala celebration at the 1980 Moscow Olympics to make the world forget about its cruel invasion of Afghanistan. daytoday shortages. high prices. and reduced amounts of food have been the Soviets reward for their aggression. The world watched a sadly diminished Olympics. but the Soviets themselves have had to live with the embargo. I hope that the new administration will closely and carefully study the costs of our embargo to the Soviet Union. I believe it is an appropriate and necessary part of our policy toward the Soviet Union. I hope that the grain embargo will be retained.