[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 67 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S5465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  U.S. AGRICULTURE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS

 Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased that last night the 
Senate approved S.Con. Res. 73, which emphasizes the importance of 
agriculture in our trade discussions with the European Union. This 
resolution tells the U.S. Trade Representative two things: The 
elimination of trade restrictions imposed on U.S. agriculture exports 
should be a top priority in any trade talks with the E.U. And no trade 
negotiations should occur, at all, if they will undermine our ability 
to eliminate these trade restrictions in the next round of ag talks at 
the World Trade Organization in 1999.
  Mr. President, on Monday the president announced in London that the 
United States and European Union will begin negotiating a new bilateral 
trade agreement. While I generally applaud any initiative to further 
reduce barriers to trade, I was dismayed to see agriculture included on 
the agenda in only a very narrow sense. The many outstanding trade 
barriers the Europeans have erected to our agriculture exports have 
been left off the bargaining table.
  Currently, the trade in agriculture between the U.S. and E.U. is very 
one-sided. The Europeans keep out our pork. They keep out our beef. 
They keep out our feed grains that are genetically modified. Their 
protectionist policies hurt our farmers. And the Europeans desperately 
want to keep these policies in place at the expense of our farmers.
  So it's understandable why the Europeans want to avoid discussions on 
agriculture. But I'm surprised the Clinton Administration is willing to 
move forward with this trade agreement and ignore all the problems we 
have in agriculture. They appear so anxious to move the trade agenda 
forward, perhaps to account for their inability to gain fast track 
authority, that I'm afraid the prospect for further liberalization of 
agriculture trade will be damaged in the process.
  In 1999, a new round of agriculture negotiations are to begin at the 
World Trade Organization. These negotiations will be critical to 
setting the rules for global ag trade for the next several years. It is 
a chance to build on what was begun in the Uruguay Round Agreement--
which was the first major trade agreement to address agriculture 
tariffs, subsidies and nontariff trade barriers.
  The United States has much to gain in these talks. We have the most 
productive, efficient agriculture system in the world. Our farmers can 
compete with the farmers of any other country. So if trade barriers to 
ag exports are removed, our farmers will export more of their 
production, their income levels will rise, rural communities will 
prosper and the trade deficit will be reduced.
  The Europeans, on the other hand, fear open competition in 
agriculture. They continue to impose high barriers to U.S ag products 
and to heavily subsidize their own farmers. Many Europeans view the 
next round of talks as a threat to their agriculture industry. They 
would rather avoid the negotiations.
  So we must use all available leverage to gain concessions from the 
Europeans. But I'm afraid we will surrender some of our leverage in 
this new bilateral agreement. In other words, if we give away 
concessions now, we'll have less leverage when we turn to the ag talks 
in 1999.
  And that would give the Europeans, who don't want free trade in 
agriculture, the upper hand. And reduce the likelihood that agriculture 
trade barriers will be eliminated in the 1999 talks. That's what this 
resolution says. Do nothing that will weaken our negotiating position 
in 1999.
  But the resolution also says something else. It says make the 
elimination of restrictions on agriculture exports a top priority in 
any discussions with the European Union. To me, this is just common 
sense.
  The United States has a trade surplus in agriculture products. The 
rest of the world wants to buy the food and fiber our farmers produce. 
So there is no doubt that our farmers produce safe, wholesome, high-
quality products. Yet the European Union does everything it can to keep 
these products out of their countries. Products sold all over the world 
are not allowed into the European Union. So doesn't it make sense that 
the U.S. would seek to negotiate to remove these trade barriers?
  But these barriers are not on the agenda for the upcoming trade 
negotiations. And I think that is wrong. I think it is unfair to our 
farmers. It tells them that their issues aren't important. We're just 
going to sweep them under the rug. And go on to negotiate other trade 
issues.
  Well, Mr. President, now the entire Senate is on record. The Senate 
has stated firmly: Our farmers deserve better. We will not stand by 
idly and let you ignore the problems of our farmers any longer.
  I hope the administration takes notice of our actions here today. And 
I hope they immediately press the European Union to put agriculture 
back on the bargaining table.
  Again I thank my colleagues for supporting this resolution.

                          ____________________