[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.

                          ____________________