[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 7 (Thursday, February 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S442-S443]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE INITIATIVES
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as we start the second session of the
105th Congress I want to outline my priorities on international trade
issues from my vantage point of chairman of the Finance Committee's
International Trade Subcommittee. Some of these are legislative
initiatives that began in the 1st session and others are things that we
should be doing everyday.
The first thing we need to do is restore the United States to its
rightful position of leading the world in liberalizing global trade. We
can do this by granting the President new trade negotiating authority.
The failure to pass fast track last year was harmful to American
workers, American farmers and American consumers.
Why? Free trade not only creates new, high-paying jobs/it helps
preserve existing jobs. When high trade barriers prohibit U.S.
companies from exporting to a foreign market, the company will choose
to relocate in that other country in order to sell its product.
The United States has one of the most open economies in the world.
Our average tariff is about 2.8 percent. The world average is 12
percent. Fifty years ago it was 48 percent. Many other countries have
virtually closed markets. According to the World Bank, for instance,
China's average tariff is 23 percent. Thailand's is 26 percent, the
Philippines 19 percent, Peru almost 15 percent, and Chile has a flat 11
percent tariff.
It can be difficult for American companies to export to a country
like China, that places a 23 percent tariff on our goods. The tariff
prices our goods out of the market. So these companies move their plant
to China and avoid paying the tariff.
The preferred alternative--for American workers--is negotiating with
China to lower its tariffs. Bring their tariffs down to our level. Then
the companies can stay here--employ American workers--and export their
goods to China. It's a ``no-brainer.''
But we can not negotiate these tariffs down without fast track
authority. That is why fast track is so important. It leads to lower
tariffs in foreign countries and the preservation of American jobs.
Fast track also leads to the creation of new jobs. Exports already
support 11 million jobs in the U.S. Each additional $1 billion in
exports creates between 15,000 and 20,000 new jobs. These jobs pay 15
to 20 percent higher than non-export related jobs. And, in Iowa,
companies that export provide their employees 32 percent greater
benefits than non-exporters.
All of this is in jeopardy without fast track. And it is the American
worker who will suffer.
Mr. President, what I am most concerned about is the vacuum of
leadership on international issues that is left by the United States
relinquishing this traditional role. Ever since the first Reciprocal
Trade Agreements Act of 1934, the United States has led the world in
reducing barriers to trade. And we have benefitted greatly from this
leadership.
American workers are the most productive, highest-paid workers in the
world. American companies produce the highest quality products. And
American consumers have more choices of goods and pay less of their
income on necessities, such as food, than consumers of any other
country. These are the benefits that we have enjoyed because we've been
willing to lead on trade.
This leadership is now being questioned by our trading partners. They
are moving on without us. They're forming regional and bilateral
trading arrangements that don't include the United States.
What are the consequences for the United States? The European Union,
Japan and developing countries will have a greater influence in shaping
world trade policies. Should we trust Japan and the European Union to
advance our interests? How hard will they push for opening markets?
I ask my colleagues who voted against fast track because of labor and
environmental concerns, how hard do you think other nations will push
for raising these standards? I ask my colleagues from rural states, do
you trust the European Union and Japan to push for open markets at the
1999 WTO agriculture talks?
Only our President can advance our interests. Only the United States
can influence other countries to improve their environment and labor
standards, to improve human rights, and to embrace democracy through
international trade. That is why the President should renew his effort
for fast track authority and Congress should pass it this year.
Congress also included a reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment
Assistance program in the Senate's fast track bill. This program
assures that every American who loses their job due to a free trade
agreement receives the job training and assistance they deserve. No
American will be left behind by our participation in the global
economy. My second initiative is to secure passage of the TAA this
year.
MY third priority is to keep markets open the troubled Southeast
Asian countries. I support IMF assistance of the nations in crisis. But
as part of the economic reforms that the IMF requires, we must insist
that the Asian countries open their markets to our exports.
Countries have a natural inclination to close their markets in time
of crisis. But this only accelerates the downward spiral they find
themselves in. For their own good, they should resist the temptation to
raise trade barriers.
Also, some of these countries will attempt to increase their exports
to our
[[Page S443]]
market in order to help their economies. If that's the case, they have
a moral obligation to open their markets to our exports. And I will
work to make sure that happens.
Last week I joined with 19 of my fellow senators on a letter led by
Senators Roberts and Baucus requesting a meeting with Treasury
Secretary Rubin to discuss the pervasive trade barriers that remain in
the Asian countries. Hopefully, that meeting will lead to a cooperative
effort between Congress and the administration to remove these
barriers.
The fourth area I will be focusing on in 1998 persuading our trading
partners to live up to the commitments they have made in prior trade
agreements. Getting a good agreement is one thing. But we must demand
compliance with our agreements on a daily basis. Many markets we
thought we had opened are still closed.
I will monitor our existing agreements and strongly urge the
administration to bring enforcement actions when necessary. Trade
agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on unless we put
some force behind them.
The last two initiatives I will pursue in 1998 involve agriculture
trade, which is so important to my state and many others. Exports now
account for over 30% of farm income in this country. Take away foreign
markets, and we'd have to idle one-third of America's productive
cropland.
In recognition of the importance of foreign trade to the agriculture
economy, last year Senator Daschle and I introduced S. 219 a bill
creating a ``Special 301'' process for agriculture. This new 301
procedure requires the U.S. Trade Representative to identify and remove
the most onerous barriers to U.S. ag exports. It will put other
countries on notice that we are serious about gaining access to their
markets.
This bill was made part of the fast track legislation that was on the
floor of the Senate at the end of last year. It is my intent to move
this bill again as a part of fast track legislation or independently,
if necessary.
Finally, agriculture is preparing for another round of market access
negotiations at the World Trade Organization beginning in 1999. These
talks will lay down the rules on agriculture trade for the next
century. I pledge to work with the administration to ensure the United
States sets the agenda for these talks.
Our trading partners do not necessarily want to remove their barriers
to our ag exports. Because our farmers produce the highest quality
products at the lowest cost. So American farmers will gain access to
new markets only if the United States leads these negotiations and
persuades other countries to open their markets.
Mr. President, free and fair trade creates good, high-paying jobs. It
raised the income of our farmers and the standard of living for our
workers and consumers. Trade has contributed significantly to our
strong economic growth and record low unemployment. I will continue to
pursue an agenda of free and fair trade through this Second Session of
the 105th Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, the majority leader had programmed a
short talk but I don't see him, so I will go ahead with mine, if I may.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, may I ask my friend if he,
in his request to speak, would add that I may speak for no more than 5
minutes following his remarks?
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Is the request you may speak following my remarks?
It's absolutely fine with me, but as I said, the majority leader was
supposed to speak for 5 minutes. But if he's not here, that's fine.
Mrs. BOXER. If you want to amend it so he can, if he does arrive,
speak before I speak, that's not a problem at all. I will then withhold
until he completes and take my 5 minutes at that time.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________