[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 111 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6680-H6682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING MEXICO'S ANTIDUMPING DUTIES
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the Senate
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 43) urging the United States Trade
Representative immediately to take all appropriate action with regards
to Mexico's imposition of antidumping duties on United States high
fructose corn syrup, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. EWING. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, Senate Concurrent Resolution 43 expresses the
sense of Congress that the government of Mexico should review carefully
whether it initiated an anti-dumping investigation against United
States exports of high fructose corn syrup in conformity with WTO
standards. It urges the United States Trade Representative to take all
appropriate measures with regard to the imposition of preliminary anti-
dumping duties on U.S. exports of high fructose corn syrup.
[[Page H6681]]
These duties, which range from 61 percent to 102 percent, were
imposed on June 25 as the result of a petition filed by the Mexican
sugar industry. There is a question as to whether the Mexican
Government adequately investigated if domestic producers of HFCS in
Mexico are supportive of the petition. In light of the fact that United
States corn growers and refiners, including many in my State of
Illinois, are suffering the serious disruption of potentially
prohibitive tariffs on their sales in Mexico, I urge my colleagues to
support this resolution.
I also want to pay tribute to my distinguished colleague from down
state, he is more corn country than I am, because of his active
involvement in getting Senate Concurrent Resolution 43 reported over to
the House.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to object, of course, to this
resolution being brought, but I want to thank the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, Glen Poshard, and myself
have been most interested in seeing this resolution brought to the
floor. I would just rise in strong support of the concurrent
resolution, which talks about Mexico's recent decision to impose anti-
dumping duties.
Prior to our adoption of the NAFTA treaty, duties on high fructose
corn syrup were 15 percent. This year, under a negotiated agreement,
they should have dropped to 9.5 percent. Duties now in effect because
of this decision are as much as four to five times greater and above
the pre-NAFTA level.
Mr. Speaker, this case involves both important matters of
international trade policy and vital trade interests of the U.S.
agricultural producers.
I would just like do elaborate for a moment. First, the preliminary
findings of the Mexican Government were reached in what I believe is in
violation of the World Trade Organization code on dumping
investigation. The code requires that the government fully investigate
allegations brought by private parties before opening government
investigations.
In this case, it is my opinion that the Mexican sugar industry
presented an inaccurate allegation and that there was no production of
high fructose corn syrup in Mexico. I believe this to be wrong, and
that the Mexican authorities should have known, if they did not, that
it was wrong, and ignored their evidence that might have been available
to them.
By itself this is grounds for dismissal of the case. Simply put, the
Mexican sugar industry does not have standing under the WTO code to
file this case, and the Government of Mexico chose to ignore that fact,
for whatever reasons may have been expedient to them.
There is a second flaw. The Mexican authorities have failed to
demonstrate that the high fructose corn syrup and the Mexican sugar are
like products under the internationally accepted anti-dumping code.
Beyond both the technical and the procedural flaws raised in the case,
which should require its immediate dismissal, this action raises
serious political and economic problems.
Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the four largest corn-producing
districts in the U.S. Corn refining adds another $100 million to the
value of the corn crop in my district, and I cannot stand idly by and
allow others with whom we are trading to deny us access to their
important markets. I hope that the Members will join me in supporting
our corn farmers and processors, and send a strong message to the
Mexican Government that we intend to defend the trading rights we have
negotiated. I would ask for the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. EWING. I withdraw my reservation of objection, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I rise today
in strong support of this concurrent resolution, which criticizes
Mexico's recent decision to impose antidumping duties against U.S.
exports of high fructose corn syrup.
Prior to NAFTA, duties on high fructose corn syrup were 15 percent
and were to be phased out over 10 years. Duties now in effect as a
result of the Mexican Government's recent decision are four to five
times the pre-Nafta levels.
Mexico would like us to believe that their small sugar mills are
being overrun by large U.S. corporations. In reality, however, a small
number of individuals own a very large share of the Mexican sugar
mills. It is interesting to note that these same individuals rely
heavily upon U.S. financial markets to fund their goals in expanding
markets. I would suggest to my colleagues that perhaps it is time for
Congress to review whether or not we want our financial markets open to
those who refuse to compete against U.S. products.
Mr. Speaker, Mexico's action against fructose violates the standards
of the World Trade Agreement, of which Mexico and the United States are
Members. Important issues of standing and injury have been ignored and
the Mexican Government has failed to investigate allegations known to
be false.
On procedural grounds alone, this case should be dismissed. However,
in addition to its procedural and technical flaws, Mexico's action
raises serious economic concerns for this Nation and for my
southeastern Illinois district. The 1996 farm bill eliminated
traditional price supports available to U.S. corn farmers and replaced
them with a phased-down market transition payment. Farmers were told
that they must generate their income from the market, particularly the
growing international market.
Mexico's decision to impose antidumping duties on U.S. exports of
high fructose corn syrup, if left unchallenged, represents in my
judgment a breach of faith with Illinois corn farmers, who were assured
of their right to pursue markets around the world.
My district is home to several large corn refining plants which
provide direct employment for over 2,000 of my constituents. It is
estimated that corn refining adds over $70 million to the value of the
corn crop in my district. Last year, consumption of high fructose corn
syrup represented a market for about 500 million bushels of U.S. corn.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow competitive U.S. products to be shut out
of this critical market. I hope my colleagues will join me and the
other gentlemen from Illinois, Mr. Crane, and Mr. Ewing, in supporting
our corn farmers and processors, and send a strong message to the
Mexican Government that we intend to defend the trading rights that we
have negotiated.
Most importantly, I hope all Members will join us in sending a
message to our farmers that we have not forgotten the promises of the
1996 farm bill and that the U.S. Congress will defend their right to
export.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:
Whereas the North American Free Trade Agreement (in this
resolution, referred to as ``the NAFTA'') was intended to
reduce trade barriers between Canada, Mexico and the United
States;
Whereas the NAFTA represented an opportunity for corn
farmers and refiners to increase exports of highly
competitive United States corn and corn products;
Whereas corn is the number one United States cash crop with
a value of $25,000,000,000;
Whereas United States corn refiners are highly efficient,
provide over 10,000 nonfarm jobs, and add over $2,000,000 of
value to the United States corn crop;
Whereas the Government of Mexico has initiated an
antidumping investigation into imports of high fructose corn
syrup from the United States which may violate the
antidumping standards of the World Trade Organization;
Whereas on June 25, 1997, the Government of Mexico
published a Preliminary Determination imposing very high
antidumping duties on imports of United States high fructose
corn syrup;
Whereas there has been concern that Mexico's initiation of
the antidumping investigation was motivated by political
pressure from the Mexican sugar industry rather than the
merits of Mexico's antidumping law: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Government of Mexico should review carefully
whether it properly initiated this antidumping investigation
in conformity with the standards set forth in the World Trade
Organization Agreement on Antidumping, and should terminate
this investigation immediately;
[[Page H6682]]
(2) if the United States Trade Representative considers
that Mexico initiated this antidumping investigation in
violation of World Trade Organization standards, and if the
Government of Mexico does not terminate the antidumping
investigation, then the United States Trade Representative
should immediately undertake appropriate measures, including
actions pursuant to the dispute settlement provisions of the
World Trade Organization.
The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________