[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.

                          ____________________