[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 62 (Tuesday, May 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S4504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       EXPORT PROMOTION PROGRAMS

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the issue of 
U.S. trade policy, in particular the funds directed toward export 
promotion in the Bush administration fiscal year 2002 budget.
  Until only recently, the United States had been experiencing the 
largest period of sustained economic growth in our history, with over 
20 million jobs created, the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, the 
lowest poverty rate in 20 years, and substantial increases in gross 
domestic product and productivity. According to nearly every analyst, 
there is a direct correlation between increased international trade and 
these statistics, with exporting firms and workers contributing as much 
as 30 percent to our economic growth. Exports in U.S. goods and 
services have risen by almost 50 percent over the last eight years. 
This translates into increased international sales for business of all 
sizes, increased opportunities for high-wage employment, and enhanced 
economic security for Americans.
  Significantly, our trade policy over the last 8 years has included 
tangible resources directed toward export promotion initiatives, the 
primary goal being to ensure that exporters, large, medium, and small, 
could take advantage of market opportunities occurring as a result of 
international trade negotiations and market liberalization. Included in 
this trade strategy were a range of policy programs, from trade 
promotion and financing, to market monitoring and compliance, to 
database creation and business counseling, all of which were 
specifically designed to ensure that U.S. firms of all sizes had the 
information they needed, that they were positioned to take advantage of 
foreign markets, and, in this manner, that we could unlock the full 
potential of our national economy.
  As I examine the current budget I am concerned that this commitment 
to export promotion has weakened significantly under the new 
administration. Given the rapid changes occurring in the international 
political economy, I am concerned that the administration is ignoring 
the challenges U.S. firms now face with their competition. Given the 
emphasis placed on these programs by foreign governments at this time, 
I am concerned about the effect this change will have on the level of 
our exports. Given the state of our economy at this time, I am 
concerned this will simply be another factor contributing to a decline 
in economic growth.
  Let me give some specific examples of the budget cuts I am referring 
to. Based on the budget numbers provided by President Bush: Funding for 
the Trade Development Program, which performs trade investment 
analyses, works with firms to identify and capitalize on overseas trade 
opportunities, and conducts export promotion programs, will decrease 
from $66 million last year to $52 million this year. Funding for the 
Market Access and Compliance Program, which monitors foreign country 
compliance with multilateral and bilateral trade agreements, will 
decrease from $33 million last year to $28 million this year. Funding 
for the U.S. Foreign and Commercial Services, which maintains databases 
on markets overseas and counsels U.S. firms on export opportunities, 
will decrease from $199 million last year to $194 million this year. 
Funding for the Export-Import Bank, which provides export financing for 
U.S. companies, will decrease from $865 million last year to $633 
million this year. Funding for the International Trade Administration, 
whose primary goal is to expand opportunities for sales by U.S. firms 
in foreign markets, falls from $364 million last year to $361 million 
this year.
  From where I stand, we should not be cutting back on funding for 
these programs. On the contrary, we should increase funds for programs 
designed to translate American productivity, vitality, and ingenuity 
into sales overseas. Unfortunately, what we see here is a policy that 
runs contrary to the needs of our own country, and, significantly, the 
policies of most countries in the global trading system. The Bush 
administration trade policy incorrectly assumes that market 
imperfections do not exist, and that assistance to firms represents 
interference in the way the market works. If you look around the world 
and examine the trade and export policies of other countries, you will 
see this policy is an anomaly.
  If you go down the list of our trading partners anywhere in the 
world--be it Japan, France, Canada, Mexico, or Brazil--all consider the 
exports of their goods and services to be a top government priority, 
and, according to the U.S. Commerce Department, contribute substantial 
resources, both human and financial, to this goal. The most recent data 
available shows that the United States ranks dead last among a group of 
our trading partners, measured in terms of spending on export promotion 
as a percentage of GDP. And these data were calculated prior to the 
fiscal year 2002 budget cuts by the Bush Administration. All of these 
countries--France, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, Korea, Spain, 
Sweden, and the Netherlands--understand that trade is not an end in and 
of itself, but one of the tools by which governments can raise the 
living standards of its people.
  In his nomination testimony before the Finance Committee in January, 
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick stated that President Bush 
assigned a high priority to trade policy as part of his domestic and 
international agenda. He argued at that time that trade policy is 
important not only because it incrementally improves the economic 
welfare of all Americans, but also because it shapes the basic 
framework of the international system. Through international trade we 
not only export goods and services, we also export democratic values 
and stability.
  I agree with this statement. But my concern is that the Bush 
Administration is committed to this kind of trade policy in rhetoric 
alone. Their budget for export promotion activities suggests that they 
are unwilling to back up their words with substance--in this case, real 
funding for the programs that do the work needed to help U.S. firms. 
From where I sit, it is essential that the United States fund these 
programs so American business can continue to act as an engine of 
growth for the country. I am convinced that there is a national 
economic interest, tangible and beneficial, that needs to be pursued in 
an effective manner by the United States. While I accept the notion of 
free markets, I believe there are imperfections and biases in the 
international trading system that necessitate a commitment of resources 
to trade and export policy.
  President Bush has argued that he has focused on the people's 
priorities in his budget and put first things first. I would argue that 
his trade policy--the resources directed toward export promotion policy 
in particular--are simply another example of the fundamental flaws in 
his strategic goals for the country. There is still time to make a 
change in direction. There is still time to fund the programs that have 
done so much for American businesses and the American people. I urge 
the Administration to reconsider the funding levels for these programs, 
and bring them back to the appropriate level.

                          ____________________