[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 44 (Wednesday, April 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
{time} 1800
INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL TRADE UNDER WORLD TRADE RULES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Darden). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, last week U.S. Trade Representative Mickey
Kantor signed the Uruguay round trade agreement with representatives
from 125 nations. This agreement is the most far reaching and
significant elimination of trade barriers in the history of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or GATT.
Mr. Speaker, the Uruguay round trade agreement, if implemented, will
substantially improve the world trade environment for many industrial
sectors and especially agriculture. This Member has been a longtime
proponent of efforts to include agricultural trade under world trade
rules. As one of the world's most competitive producers of agricultural
commodities, the United States stands to gain the most from disciplined
trade rules in this very important industry.
Since 1947 and the inception of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade, member nations have cooperated to write international trade
rules for nearly all industries. However, for many reasons, these
nations have been unable to cooperate and form global trade rules for
agriculture. The Uruguay round's most ambitious task was to forge basic
rules for this important sector. Although it took longer than planned,
this is clearly the single most important accomplishment of the Uruguay
round.
By including agricultural trade under world trade rules for the first
time ever, the Uruguay round is projected to:
Increase U.S. agricultural exports from $1.6 to $4.7 billion by year
2000 and from $4.7 to $8.7 billion by 2005, with grain and animal
products accounting for 75 percent of the increase.
Increase net farm sector income by as much as $1.3 billion in 2000
and by as much as $2.5 billion in 2005. This could help to reduce
Government spending on agricultural subsidies by roughly the same
amount.
Mr. Speaker, the Uruguay round trade agreement is projected to have
this positive effect on U.S. agriculture because it accomplishes the
following four essential tasks:
First, it reduces and prohibits many trade-distorting internal
subsidies and other agricultural policies. Because U.S. agricultural
producers have already been forced to take serious budget cuts, they
will not be affected by internal subsidy reduction agreements reached
under the accord.
Second, it reduces trade distorting and price depressing export
subsidies. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration was forced to
accept a European Union proposal to more gradually reduce their trade-
distorting agricultural export subsidies. This compromise represented a
retreat from the dramatic Blair House agricultural accord previously
negotiated by the Bush administration which would have prohibited the
European Union from subsidizing an additional 8.1 million tons of wheat
and flour over the 6-year phaseout period.
Third, it converts nontariff barriers to tariff equivalents, binding
all tariffs and reducing both existing and new tariffs over time. This
binding of tariffs incidentally will have its most significant impact
on developing and newly developed countries entering the World Trade
Organization. For instance, the new binding tariff rates are already
having a beneficial impact on Taiwan's WTO accession negotiations with
United States trade officials.
Fourth, it establishes a science-based system discipline agricultural
trade rules, and therefore, makes it more difficult for importing
nations to discriminate against U.S. agricultural commodities on
illegitimate health and safety claims.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Uruguay round trade agreement is greatly
beneficial to the U.S. agricultural industry which currently enjoys an
annual $18 billion trade surplus. To Nebraska's grain and livestock
producers, this agreement is perhaps most beneficial. Our grain
producers export nearly 1 out of every 3 acres, so export subsidy
reductions--which fall more drastically on European Union producers--
will better enable them to compete for foreign markets by leveling the
playing field. Additionally, these grain producers should benefit
indirectly from greater market access to countries like Korea, where
Nebraska's livestock producers expect to export a lot more grain-fed
meat products.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, despite the Uruguay round agreement's
overwhelmingly beneficial effect on U.S. agriculture, it has been
reported in several newspapers that the Clinton administration may
attempt to make up lost tariff revenues from implementation of the
Uruguay round by forcing unnecessary and imprudent budget cuts on the
U.S. agricultural industry. While this Member believes there is a
strong justification for waiving the budget act's application to the
Uruguay round implementation legislation because the increased economic
activity generated under the enhanced trade from the Uruguay round
would generate more corporate and individual income tax revenue that
the lost tariff fees even in the first year, this Member urges the
administration, at a minimum, to fund all U.S. agricultural export
subsidy programs to the full extent permitted by the value and volume
export subsidy reduction commitments undertaken in the Uruguay round.
Finally, this Member supports efforts by the coalition of food and
agricultural interests to request that the administration shift current
funding from Uruguay round reduced or disallowed programs to certain
green box subsidy programs which are permitted to be increased under
the Uruguay round agreement.
Mr. Speaker, American agricultural producers have been forced to make
significant agricultural subsidy reductions in recent farm bills and
agriculture appropriations acts. The Uruguay round negotiations take
into account these past cuts in agricultural subsidies and U.S. farmers
were assured during the Uruguay round negotiations that recent internal
agriculture subsidy reductions were sufficient to meet the commitments
made in that agreement. It would be especially harmful if the Clinton
administration decided to unilaterally disarm the U.S. agricultural
industry by reducing agricultural subsidies permitted under the Uruguay
round agreement. If the United States chooses such an unrealistic
strategy, foreign agricultural producers and nations will gladly take
over traditional U.S. markets and beat us to lucrative markets emerging
in the world's developing countries.
____________________