[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 108 (Tuesday, August 4, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7052-H7057]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT ELIMINATION OF TRADE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTATION 
          OF U.S. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SHOULD BE TOP PRIORITY

  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 213) expressing the sense of 
the Congress that the European Union is unfairly restricting the 
importation of United States agricultural products and the elimination 
of such restrictions should be a top priority in trade negotiations 
with the European Union, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 213

       Whereas on a level playing field, United States producers 
     are the most competitive suppliers of agricultural products 
     in the world;
       Whereas United States agricultural exports reached a level 
     of $57,000,000,000 in 1997, compared to a total United States 
     merchandise trade deficit of $198,000,000,000;
       Whereas the future well-being of the Unites States 
     agricultural sector depends, to a large degree, on the 
     elimination of trade barriers and the development of new 
     export opportunities throughout the world;
       Whereas increased United States agricultural exports are 
     critical to the future of the agricultural, rural, and 
     overall economy of the United States;
       Whereas the opportunities for increased agricultural 
     exports are undermined by unfair subsidies provided by 
     trading partners of the United States, and by various tariff 
     and nontariff trade barriers imposed on highly competitive 
     United States agricultural products;
       Whereas the Foreign Agricultural Service estimates that 
     United States agricultural exports are reduced by 
     $4,700,000,000 annually due to the unjustifiable imposition 
     of sanitary and phytosanitary measures that deny or limit 
     market access to United States products;
       Whereas Asian markets account for more than 40 percent of 
     United States agricultural exports worldwide, but the 
     financial crisis in Asia has caused a severe drop in demand 
     for U.S. agricultural products and a consequent drop in world 
     commodity prices;
       Whereas multilateral trade negotiations under the auspices 
     of the World Trade Organization and the Asia Pacific Economic 
     Cooperation Forum and trade negotiations for a Free Trade 
     Area of the Americas represent significant opportunities to 
     reduce and eliminate tariff and nontariff trade barriers on 
     agricultural products;
       Whereas negotiations for country accessions to the World 
     Trade Organization, particularly China, present important 
     opportunities to reduce and eliminate these barriers;
       Whereas the United States is currently engaged in a number 
     of outstanding trade disputes regarding agricultural trade;
       Whereas disputes with the European Union regarding 
     agriculture matters involve the most intractable issues 
     between the United States and the European Union, including--
       (1) the failure to finalize a veterinary equivalency 
     program, which jeopardizes an estimated $3,000,000,000 in 
     trade in livestock products between the United States and the 
     European Union;
       (2) the ruling by the World Trade Organization that the 
     European Union has no scientific basis for banning the 
     importation of beef produced in the United States using 
     growth promoting hormones, and that the European Union must 
     remove by May 13, 1999, its import ban on beef produced using 
     growth promoting hormones;
       (3) the failure to use science, as in the beef hormone 
     case, which raises concerns about the European Union 
     fulfilling its obligations under the WTO Agreement on the 
     Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures;
       (4) the promulgation by the European Union of regulations 
     regarding the use of specified risk materials for livestock 
     products which have a disputed scientific basis and which 
     serve to impede the importation of United States livestock 
     products, despite the fact that no cases of bovine spongisorm 
     encephalopathy (mad cow disease) have been documented in the 
     United States;
       (5) the ruling by the World Trade Organization in favor of 
     the United States that the European import regime restricting 
     the importation of bananas violates numerous disciplines 
     established by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and 
     the General Agreement on Trade in Services, and that the 
     European Union must be in full compliance with the decision 
     of the World Trade Organization by January 1, 1999;
       (6) the hindering of trade in products grown with the 
     benefit of biogenetics through a politicized approval process 
     that is nontransparent and lacks a basis in science; and
       (7) continuing disputes regarding European Union subsidies 
     for dairy and canned fruit, and a number of impediments with 
     respect to wine: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) many nations, including the European Union, unfairly 
     restrict the importation of United States agricultural 
     products;
       (2) the restrictions imposed on United States agricultural 
     exports are among the most vexing problems facing United 
     States exporters;
       (3) the elimination of restrictions imposed on United 
     States agricultural exports should be a top priority of any 
     current or future trade negotiation;
       (4) the President should develop a trade agenda which 
     actively addresses agricultural trade barriers in 
     multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations and steadfastly 
     pursues full compliance with dispute settlement decisions of 
     the World Trade Organization;
       (5) in such negotiations, the United States should seek to 
     obtain competitive opportunities for United States exports of 
     agricultural products in foreign markets substantially 
     equivalent to the competitive opportunities afforded to 
     foreign exports in United States markets, and to achieve 
     fairer and more open conditions of trade;
       (6) because of the significance of the issues concerning 
     agricultural trade with the European Union, the United States 
     Trade Representative should not engage in any trade 
     negotiation with the European Union if the Trade 
     Representative determines that such negotiations would 
     undermine the ability of the United States to achieve a 
     successful result in the World Trade Organization 
     negotiations on agriculture set to begin in December 1999; 
     and
       (7) the President should consult with the Congress in a 
     meaningful and timely manner concerning trade negotiations in 
     agriculture.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Matsui) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on House Concurrent Resolution 
213, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, as amended by the Committee on Ways and Means, House 
Concurrent Resolution 213 calls on the President to first develop a 
trade agenda which actively addresses agricultural trade barriers and 
trade negotiations; secondly, seek competitive opportunities for U.S. 
exporters that are substantially equivalent to those opportunities 
foreign products enjoy in the U.S. market; and finally, aggressively 
pursue full compliance by our trading partners with dispute settlement 
decisions of the World Trade Organization.
  The United States possesses the most efficient and competitive 
agriculture sectors in the world. Agricultural goods accounted $93.1 
billion in total two-way trade during 1997, up 40 percent or $26.6 
billion, from 1992. U.S. agricultural exports alone stood at about $56 
billion in 1997. However, this number is projected to fall by about $4 
billion in 1998.
  My own State of Illinois is the third largest agricultural exporting 
State, shipping nearly $4 billion in agricultural exports abroad, or 
6.7 percent of the U.S. total in 1996. The largest export categories, 
feed, grain, and soybeans, accounted for over 75 percent of Illinois' 
agricultural exports in 1996.
  The resolution notes that agricultural markets in Asia, accounting 
for more than 40 percent of U.S. agricultural exports worldwide, have 
been severely affected in a negative way by the Asian financial crisis. 
Because of this economic downturn, combined with the fact that domestic 
food consumption is projected to remain relatively stable, the further 
elimination of trade barriers and development of new export 
opportunities is essential to the economic health of U.S. agricultural 
producers.
  The Administration's inaction on the fast track issue means we are 
missing

[[Page H7053]]

opportunities every day to improve the well-being and future security 
of U.S. farmers and ranchers. House Concurrent Resolution 213 makes the 
point that disputes regarding agricultural matters involve the most 
difficult and intractable intractable issues between the U.S. And our 
largest trade and investment partner, the European union.
  For example, Europe continues to maintain an import ban on beef 
produced using growth-promoting hormones, despite the fact that WTO has 
ruled that there is no scientific basis for this ban and that it must 
be removed by May 13, 1999. House Concurrent Resolution 213 underscores 
the fact that Congress fully expects that Europe will come into 
compliance with its international obligations by this date, at the 
latest.
  In another important ruling for U.S. interests, the WTO determined 
that the convoluted licensing and quota system restricting the 
importation of bananas into the EU violates numerous provisions of the 
WTO and must be brought under compliance by January 1 of 1999.
  Full implementation of these WTO decisions against the EU will show 
the world whether Europeans are committed to the credibility and long-
term viability of the WTO dispute settlement system. This resolution 
underscores the importance that this body places on aggressively 
pursuing trade negotiations to eliminate trade barriers to American 
agricultural exports.
  It calls upon the President to develop a trade agenda that puts a 
priority on addressing these barriers in negotiations under the 
auspices of the World Trade Organization and the Asia-Pacific Economic 
Cooperation Forum, and trade negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement of 
the Americas.
  I hope my colleagues will give their unanimous support to the 
important objective of achieving additional market opportunities for 
U.S. agricultural exports, and I urge a yes vote on House Concurrent 
Resolution 213.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 213. 
This resolution reflects the importance of agricultural to our Nation's 
economy, and the fact that the elimination of foreign restrictions to 
our agricultural exports must be a top priority in trade negotiations.
  American farmers are the most competitive suppliers in the world. 
They exported over $57 billion worth of agricultural goods last year, 
an increase of nearly one-third since 1992. Yet, old barriers and the 
continuing creation of new ones affecting agricultural trade are some 
of the most recognized problems U.S. exporters face. They are also 
among the most challenging for U.S. trade negotiators to resolve.
  Among the most important agricultural trade issues are the 
implementation of dispute settlement decisions under the WTO, 
elimination of export subsidies, achieving transparency in foreign 
regulatory policies, opening up foreign market access, and ensuring 
that our farmers can export goods produced with safe advanced 
techniques, such as biotechnology.
  The need to address these issues has become urgent in light of the 
impact of the financial crisis reducing demands for U.S. agricultural 
exports in Asia. These exports account for over 40 percent of our 
agricultural exports worldwide. The negotiations on agriculture 
scheduled to begin next year in the WTO, as well as negotiations in the 
APEC and for the Free Trade Area of the Americas, offer important 
opportunities to reduce and eliminate the various barriers to trade and 
agricultural goods.
  As noted in the resolution, disputes regarding market access under 
existing trade agreements involve the most difficult issues between the 
United States and our second largest agricultural export market, the 
European Union. Europe has not yet lifted its import ban on beef 
products with growth hormones, nor implemented changes in its banana 
import regime to comply with their obligations under the WTO.
  European regulations lack the sound scientific basis for impeding 
U.S. exports of livestock products and products grown with the benefit 
of biogenetics. We continue to have disputes over European subsidies 
for dairy, canned fruits, and there are numerous impediments for 
American wine exports.
  Madam Speaker, agricultural exports are critical to the future health 
of America's farms and our overall economy. Foreign government 
compliance with the existing trade agreement commitments and the 
opening of new market opportunities through trade negotiations are 
essential.

  I might just add that I am a supporter of the fast track legislation, 
although I have not been contacted formally by anyone on the other side 
of the aisle in terms of the intention of bringing this issue up in 
September of this year.
  The administration, as we know, supports fast track. They put a great 
effort into it last year. But since we are reopening the whole 
discussion on language on the whole issue of agriculture, which I think 
makes a lot of sense, we also ought to look at ``necessary and 
appropriate,'' that language, and we ought to look at labor and the 
environment as well.
  If we want to maximize our votes on both sides of the aisle, and 
right now I do not believe there are the votes to pass fast track, then 
we should renegotiate this and look at a realistic way, frankly, of 
trying to get a consensus. But if we all become stubborn, we stiffen 
our backs, we are going to face the same thing we did last November 14; 
that is, defeat of this legislation.
  We cannot afford to take this to the floor and defeat it. If that 
should happen, that would have more of a danger in terms of our 
leadership in the area of agriculture and also free trade, so it is my 
hope that both parties would begin to look at this in terms of trying 
to work a consensus, not trying to just push something through.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from my home State of Illinois (Mr. Ewing), 
who was author of the original resolution that we have under 
consideration today.
  (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EWING. Madam Speaker, my personal thanks goes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Chairman Crane) and to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Matsui) for their support of this resolution, and to the gentleman 
from Texas (Chairman Archer) for seeing that this piece of legislation 
is brought to the floor. I am very appreciative. I think it is very 
important. I think it sets a pattern for all of us and for American 
agriculture.
  The resolution is really very straightforward. It expresses the sense 
of Congress that liberalization of trade and agriculture should be a 
top priority in any negotiation between the U.S. and European Union on 
a trade agreement.
  Agriculture has a unique role in our export economy. While the total 
U.S. trade position has been in deficit since 1971, U.S. agricultural 
exports have consistently been in surplus. Millions of Americans find 
their employment because of our agricultural exports. About 40 percent 
of American agricultural commodities are exported.
  The European Union has an agricultural policy, though, that is one of 
the most archaic in the world. The Common Agricultural Policy and free 
market capitalism really are mutually exclusive. They spend billions of 
dollars subsidizing their agriculture products and exports. This, of 
course, disrupts our ability to trade with the European community.
  In April of this year, the European Union proposed a new trans-
Atlantic marketplace which would create a free trade agreement between 
the European community and the U.S. Amazingly, the proposed framework 
left out agriculture as one of the areas which would be negotiated.
  The gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) imposed this resolution 
when he proposed an amendment which said, we will not just apply this 
to the European community but to all of our trading partners. I 
wholeheartedly adopt and accept his amendment.
  The passage of the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 set the policy that we 
must help our farmers be more reliant on the marketplace and less on 
big government solutions. Congress cannot on one hand say, look to the 
marketplace, and with the other hand allow access

[[Page H7054]]

to markets to be slammed shut. If the U.S. is unable to pry open 
foreign markets and be seen as a reliable supplier of agricultural 
products, calls for a return to farm payments and subsidies are 
inevitable.

                              {time}  1245

  We must guarantee our farmers access to foreign markets and fair and 
equitable treatment in those markets. I am proud to be a sponsor of 
this resolution in the House and ask Members to vote yes to express our 
commitment to protecting our farmers.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I also rise 
in support of America's hard working farmers. The farmers in Arkansas 
are facing a crisis. Troubles are coming at them from all directions.
  In our State we have drought, flooding, disease, low prices and no 
traditional safety net. Then we add in unfair competition, and they are 
at the end of their rope.
  I come here today to ask my colleagues to join me to help them 
through this, and all America's farmers. House Concurrent Resolution 
213 sends a message to the Europeans that we believe that huge export 
subsidies and restrictive trade barriers are unfair and should be 
ended. The American farmer is having to compete with the combined 
treasuries of the European Union. It is unwise to pump billions of 
dollars into inefficient farm practices to create produce which is 
inexpensive enough to compete in the international marketplace. This is 
what the European Union does.
  Two big problems this creates are, it keeps their farmers from 
developing better farm practices, and it makes it impossible for our 
farmers to have a fair opportunity to sell their goods internationally. 
America exports 30 percent of its farm products despite the tough 
competition created by the subsidized European produce. Two years ago 
we changed our farm programs to make trade the safety net for America's 
farmers. The farmers in America are the most efficient in the world. 
Only if they have open access to foreign markets will trade be an 
adequate replacement for our old farm programs.
  Normal trade relations, fast track and IMF, all of these should be 
done, and also the stabilization of the Asian economies, and they are 
all imperative to the U.S. farmer. So is leveling the playing field so 
our highly efficient farmers can succeed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and support fair trade.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) for bringing this resolution to the 
floor today.
  It is very important that Congress go on record in the strongest 
possible terms that we have got to knock down agriculture barriers 
around the country, around the world.
  The United States is committed to free and fair trade. In fact, we 
have not only the largest market in the world but in many respects the 
most open market in the world. Yet we see around the world that there 
are many countries that do not offer the same kind of treatment to our 
products. We have got to insist that other countries around the world, 
particularly in the developed world and particularly the European 
Union, open up their markets and comply with basic international rules 
that are found in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT, 
also the General Agreement on Trade and Services, and we must also 
insist that these other countries around the world fully comply with 
the decisions of the WTO.
  I am particularly pleased that the House will now be on record today 
specifically objecting to the EU noncompliance with the clear WTO 
rulings against the European Union's banana regime and against their 
beef hormone policy.
  We also are on record today urging that the President continue to 
steadfastly pursue full compliance with WTO dispute settlement 
decisions on these two matters. Again, I want to commend the chairman, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and others for bringing this 
to the floor, for highlighting this issue, and for continuing to put 
pressure on the Europeans to do the right thing, to open their markets 
in a fair way to our products.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the 
Pacific of the Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I want to commend the two gentlemen from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and 
(Mr. Ewing) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for bringing 
this important resolution to the floor. I am in strong support of it.
  It is extremely important for two reasons: First, it puts on notice 
those foreign countries that restrict access to U.S. agricultural 
exports that the United States will simply not continue to tolerate 
formal or disguised barriers to U.S. agriculture imports. Though the 
United States agriculture trade surplus totaled nearly $57 billion in 
1997, it should have been at least 5 billion more. Because countries 
like China restrict our meat, wheat and citrus imports and the European 
Union hides behind pseudo phytosanitary and sanitary barriers to U.S. 
agricultural imports, we, our farmers, that is, are cost a lot of 
money, about 5 billion at least.
  Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Carla Hills, former USTR, and President 
George Bush nearly imposed hundreds of millions of dollars in 
additional tariffs on European gourmet products sold in the United 
States because the European Union would not agree to reduce export 
subsidies under the Uruguay Round trade negotiations. That near trade 
war ultimately led to the Blair House agricultural trade accord and 
eventually the creation of the World Trade Organization.
  Ambassador Hills and the President, President Bush, proved, through 
their proposed 301 trade action, that trade liberalization often only 
occurs when tough trade sanctions are taken or credibly threatened. It 
is an important lesson that Ambassador Barshefsky followed in her 
intellectual property rights action against the People's Republic of 
China, and it is a lessen we may have to revisit again.
  Currently many foreign countries necessarily cling to protectionist 
policies in agriculture while reducing trade barriers in other sectors. 
The United States, as one of the world's most competitive agricultural 
exporters, cannot stand by while foreign countries deny our farmers the 
ability to sell their products.
  Therefore, Madam Speaker, this resolution is also important because 
it tells the USTR that it must use all conceivable remedies to open 
foreign markets to U.S. agriculture exports.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H. Con. Res. 213 
and this Member would like to commend the two distinguished gentlemen 
from Illinois (Chairman Crane and Chairman Ewing) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Matsui) for bringing this important resolution to 
the floor.
  H. Con. Res. 213 is extremely important for two reasons. First, it 
puts on notice those foreign countries that restrict access to U.S. 
agricultural exports that the United States will simply not continue to 
tolerate formal or disguised barriers to U.S. agricultural imports. 
Though the United States agricultural trade surplus totalled 
approximately $57 billion in 1997, it should have been at least $5 
billion more because countries like China restrict our meat, wheat, and 
citrus imports and the European Union hides behind pseudo phytosanitary 
and sanitary barriers to U.S. agricultural imports. Their actions cost 
American farmers approximately $5 billion in annual sales.
  Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Carla Hills, the former USTR, and President 
George Bush nearly imposed hundreds of millions in additional tariffs 
on European gourmet products sold in the United States because the 
European Union would not agree to reduce export subsidies under the 
Uruguay Round trade negotiations. That near trade war ultimately led to 
the Blair House agricultural trade accord and eventually the creation 
of the World Trade

[[Page H7055]]

Organization. Ambassador Hills and President Bush proved through their 
proposed 301 trade action that trade liberalization often only occurs 
when tough trade sanctions are taken or credibly threatened. It is an 
important lesson that Ambassador Barshefsky followed in her 
intellectual property action against the People's Republic of China, 
and it is a lesson that we may have to revisit again.
  Currently, many foreign countries necessarily cling to protectionist 
policies in agriculture while reducing trade barriers in other sectors. 
The United States, as one of the world's most competitive agricultural 
exporters, cannot stand by while foreign countries deny our farmers the 
ability to sell their products.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is also important because it 
tells the United States Trade Representative that it must use all 
conceivable remedies to open foreign markets to U.S. agricultural 
exports. That includes not ``cherry picking,'' or negotiating trade 
liberalization in individual sectors, while undermining our ability to 
have a cross-sectoral, multilateral trade negotiation that drastically 
reduces barriers to agricultural trade. It also includes recognizing 
that we must use access to our own market as leverage to gain market 
access for U.S. agricultural exports worldwide. We cannot, for example, 
continue to see the European Union ignore science and impose its 
attitudes on hormones as a phoney barrier against beef exports from my 
state and our Nation.
  This Member urges the United States Trade Representative to negotiate 
forcefully on behalf of U.S. agriculture as we approach the 1999 
agricultural negotiations through the World Trade Organization.
  This Member urges his colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 213.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), another distinguished colleague on the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WATKINS. Madam Speaker, in my 16 years of service in the United 
States Congress, I have never spoken twice one day after the other on 
the floor of the House. I rise to speak today because of the crisis of 
the American farmer and rancher. It is one that is caused by the 
closing of markets in Asia, where we normally export 45 percent of our 
agriculture exports.
  We find also that the European Union is subsidizing their internal as 
well as their external markets by some 75 percent of their budget. 
Freedom to farm should mean also freedom to the markets.
  Today we have also another crisis, and that is the most severe 
drought since the dust bowl days or 1934 and unless the weather changes 
the worst drought in the history of our country come September or come 
October. We have a survival problem on the farm. I urge President 
Clinton, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, and this Congress to 
provide additional emergency drought relief funds for feed and hay 
assistance. I am delighted to be here supportive of this sense of the 
Congress, because for 20 months, since I have been back in Congress, I 
have pounded the table, I have talked about the unfair trade barrier of 
growth hormones with the European Union. They have literally stopped 
the market of United States beef and, think about the crisis. Our 
cattle people having to go to market because they do not have grass, 
hay or feed. The drought has wiped them out. They have to sell large 
numbers cheap on the domestic market. They cannot sell overseas. They 
are in an unfair situation.
  I know the agony and the pain of the American cattleman because I was 
there in the drought of 1956. I was there selling cattle for 10 cents a 
pound. I know what they are going through. We must do everything we 
can. We must have the will to help the American farmer be able to stay 
on the farm and the cattlemen be able to continue to produce.
  I was in Europe, and one of the Agriculture ministers said to me, we 
will pay whatever the price to maintain their domestic agriculture food 
basket. They will, because they went hungry twice, once in World War I 
and once in World War II. We must have the will if we are going to 
maintain the American agriculture for the National Security of our 
country.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Speaker, I hate to come to the floor and oppose 
these bills, and I am certainly not going to oppose this resolution.
  It bothers me when I oppose two of the finest Members of the House, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Matsui). But so help me, I disagree with our trade policy.
  I believe our trade policy is now a national security problem, and no 
one is looking at it. Our trade deficits continue to explode. Our 
negative balance of payments at record levels. And everybody 
idealistically pushing a button that I believe in all practical 
purposes is not working.
  Quite frankly, many of our competitors simply do not open their 
markets. China, Europe, Japan, every President since Nixon threatened 
Japan with sanctions, including the current President, President 
Clinton. If every President had to threaten Japan every 2 years with 
sanctions, it is evident to me, just the son of a truck driver, that 
Japan has never complied, Japan has never opened their markets, and we 
are a bunch of fools.
  China has a 34 percent tariff on most of our goods. They are selling 
tennis shoes, they were called sneakers in the old days, for $150 that 
cost 17 cents a pair to make over there. I do not see any signs in K 
Mart and Wal-Mart that say, these sneakers only cost $8 because they 
are only costing 17 cents in China. They are getting every penny they 
can out of it. They are squeezing the Buffalo on the nickel.
  This is a sense of the Congress resolution. I can support it. But it 
does not have enough teeth.
  The Constitution of the United States of America says, the United 
States Congress shall regulate commerce with foreign nations. It does 
not mean that we should turn that power over to the White House. It 
does not mean that a bunch of bureaucrats in the trade rep's office, 
who end up going on the employ of China and Japan corporations, should 
make that decision. Congress should do it.
  Here is what I am saying. We should have a reciprocal trigger in our 
trade agreements that says, you have free trade as long as we have free 
trade. But when you put up a barrier, you will receive a barrier in 
kind from Uncle Sam.
  That is the way to do it. If we do not, we are going to pay the 
piper, we are going to continue to lose big, good paying jobs. If I had 
$100 million to invest, I sure as hell would not invest it in America. 
I would go right across the board to Mexico with no regs, with low 
labor costs. And they are doing it. And get ready for it, no one wants 
to listen.
  Idealism has taken over the United States Congress. I think Congress 
should be a little more practical, take back the powers that the 
Constitution has vested in us and regulate commerce with foreign 
nations on a fair, reciprocal basis.
  If we do not do that, in my opinion we have failed the American 
worker, failed the American taxpayers and, worst of all, we fail 
ourselves, fail ourselves.
  I love the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). They are doing a good job. But 
I would hope that they would look at reciprocity and some fairness for 
American trade.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague from Youngstown 
that we are trying to move in that direction, and I know it is not as 
fast as he would like, but we are. I would again remind him that we 
have been, to our dismay, at full employment for almost 3 years in a 
row now.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) for authorizing this 
resolution. I rise in strong support.
  The European Union is a critical market for U.S. agriculture. U.S. 
agriculture exports to the European communities were 10.5 billion in 
1997, and imports from the EU to the U.S. totaled about 7.5 billion.
  However, the fact remains, the EU subsidizes agriculture far more 
than

[[Page H7056]]

the United States. The EU export subsidies and domestic support 
programs are estimated to total almost $50 billion. U.S. programs total 
about $5.5 billion. The European Union's agricultural policies are so 
punitive that they have actually been known to distort entire world 
markets.

                              {time}  1300

  Tariff and nontariff trade barriers must come down.
  These policies hurt American farmers, they toy with our world 
markets, and we must level the playing field. Free and fair trade is 
critical to the success of our agricultural community.
  This Congress will continue to fight for improved access for 
agricultural exports. The President should join Congress in reducing 
and eventually eliminating agriculture from foreign sanctions.
  The 1999 World Trade Organization negotiations should address the 
issues that are important to America's farmers and important to rural 
America's economic health. The 1999 World Trade Organization 
negotiations present the administration with an opportunity to reduce 
barriers to free trade and expand on the many opportunities that will 
assist our cash-strapped farmers, and we must insist that decisions are 
based on sound science in Europe.
  It is in the United States' best interests to address unfair trade 
practices during the next year's negotiations. Let's continue to push 
for reduction in nontariff trade barriers, and I hope the U.S.-European 
trade relationship will continue to be successful in the future.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman.)
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I would like to address a bill that passed 
already, and that is the common agricultural policy. I come to the 
floor in my capacity as chairman of our Committee on International 
Relations, and having participated for many years in the exchange 
between our Nation and the European Parliament, I certainly agree with 
the thrust of that measure.
  The European Union's agricultural policies are certainly aggravating 
our bilateral relations and are harming American farmers and American 
high-tech industries. In our Committee on International Relations we 
have had a number of hearings on the EU's policies which unduly 
restrict exports of bioengineered products. We have taken that policy 
up directly with the president of the European Commission and with 
other members of the Commission, as well as with members of the 
European Parliament during our twice-yearly meetings.
  We recently had a European parliamentary delegation visit Texas, 
during the course of which they visited Texas A&M University in College 
Station, where they met many European scientists working in the U.S. 
because their research cannot be supported in Europe. I think the 
Europeans are beginning to get the message. They are going to be left 
behind, with an antiquated, costly agricultural sector.
  Of course, the EU's common agricultural policy is wrongheaded. Over 
time it will have to change because of changes in the world economy and 
because of the pending admission of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech 
Republic to the EU. The current policies of the EU are clearly not 
sustainable.
  I understand the concerns of our farm sector now under the dual 
threat of drought conditions and of unfair subsidies from Europe. But I 
am concerned that the controversies over the effect of our sanctions 
policies have led some to blame the downturn in our agricultural 
exports as being related to the implementation of our national security 
statutes. In fact, sanctions affect, if anything, a very small 
proportion of our $60 billion agricultural exports.
  And in the case of the Pakistan sanctions, we moved quickly, 
cooperating with the Committee on Agriculture, and amended the 
sanctions law to prevent any loss of our export markets by allowing 
substantial taxpayer dollars to help support wheat sales to Pakistan.
  Madam Speaker, we need to concentrate on the real problems of 
agriculture. We should refrain from creating the impression that by 
tearing down our national security laws we are going to do something 
substantial to help our farmers.
  I just want to remind my colleagues that we have important meetings 
with our European Union parliamentarians, and I would urge my 
colleagues to help participate in those exchanges. I think it would 
help them to more fully understand the complexities of our own 
problems.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
before I yield back the balance of my time, to first commend the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for bringing this bill through the 
subcommittee, the full committee, and on to the floor of the House; and 
I want to also congratulate, of course, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Ewing) as well.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, reluctantly I must rise in opposition to H. 
Con. Res. 213. While I understand and support the interest of our 
domestic agricultural sector, this resolution could have far reaching 
negative ramifications.
  This Sense of Congress expresses Congressional disapproval of the 
European Union's trade practices. In fact, the United States and the 
European Union should be getting together to explore how to develop 
better trade relations. This bill does not help this process.
  I am particularly concerned about this hard line bargaining stance 
given the growing crisis for the many small banana farmers in the 
Caribbean Windward Islands. The United States Trade Representative, 
acting on behalf of the giant U.S. multinational corporation Chiquita 
Banana, unilaterally went to the World Trade Organization in an effort 
to tear down the relationship the European Union had with small and 
family farmers in the Carribean.
  The European Union had set up a special trade relationship with their 
former colonies in the Carribean and West Africa. This was going to be 
sunseted in 10 years but Chiquita wanted it ended immediately, before 
the Carribean had a chance to develop alternative economic strategies. 
The United States Trade Representative still refuses to negotiate with 
the Windward Islands and they now face imminent economic catastrophe.
  Our actions directly led to this negative outcome. This legislation 
only increases the possibility that other small developing countries 
will suffer as a result of our battles with other economic giants like 
the European Union. We need to approach each trade situation on a case 
by case basis and use thoughtful negotiating to avoid other Carribean 
like disasters. For these reasons I oppose this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 
213, which expresses the sense of Congress that the elimination of 
restrictions on U.S. agricultural products by U.S. trading partners 
should be a top priority in trade negotiations. I congratulate Mr. 
Ewing, the sponsor of this resolution, Mr. Archer, the Chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and Mr. Crane, the Chairman of the Trade 
Subcommittee, for bringing this resolution before the House.
  It is very important that agriculture should be a top priority with 
the Administration in all trade negotiations. This resolution calls on 
the President to develop such a trade agenda and for the U.S. to seek 
competitive opportunities for U.S. agricultural exports. Finally, the 
resolution provides that the U.S. Trade Representative should not 
engage in trade negotiations with the European Union if the U.S. Trade 
Representative determines that trade negotiations would undermine a 
successful result in the 1999 WTO negotiations.
  While this resolution is directed at all nations, the European Union 
is specifically mentioned. Using any yardstick, the EU subsidizes 
agriculture more than the U.S. This is a well known fact. EU export 
subsidies and domestic support total $47 billion. U.S. export subsidies 
and domestic support total $5.3 billion.
  Not only does the EU spend large amounts of money, it spends that 
money on programs that distort world markets. Certainly the EU should 
spend whatever it and its taxpayers determine appropriate to support EU 
farmers. But the EU should not link that support to production and 
thereby distort world agriculture markets.
  For American farmers and ranchers, trade is an essential part of 
their livelihood. Currently exports account for 30% of U.S. farm cash 
receipts. We produce much more than we consume in the United States; 
therefore exports are vital to the prosperity and success of U.S. 
farmers and ranchers.
  H. Con. Res. 213 cites specific disputes with the European Union. Two 
cases brought by the U.S. against EU agriculture practices regarding 
trade in beef and bananas resulted in positive decisions for the U.S. 
Despite that, no trade in beef or bananas has resumed.
  In 1996, significant reforms were made to U.S. farm programs. These 
reforms returned control of the farming operation to the producers in 
exchange for sharp restrictions on the

[[Page H7057]]

level of government support to the farmer. The goal was to provide U.S. 
farmers with the flexibility to plant for the market. Farmer's income 
will come from the marketplace and not from the government. For this 
plan to be successful, the U.S. government must ensure that our farmers 
and ranchers can compete against other exporters, and not against 
foreign governments.
  This resolution expresses the importance of U.S. agricultural trade 
and I urge Members to support H. Con. Res. 213.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, House 
Concurrent Resolution 213, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________