[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 41 (Monday, April 15, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2666-S2667]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, one of the pieces of legislation I
thought would be on the floor of the Senate by this time is trade
promotion authority. I know our majority leader has a lot of problems
and issues with which he has to deal. I think he has intentions of
bringing the bill up sometime, but I am trying to encourage the Senate
majority leader to bring it up soon because we have so many issues
before us. I want to speak about one of those issues in regard to trade
and agriculture.
Trade promotion authority is so important for us to get down trade
barriers that stand in the way of the successful and fair trade of our
agricultural products with other countries. Without trade, there is not
going to be any profitability in farming. The fact is, we produce 40
percent more on our farms than is consumed domestically. So a good
trade policy is what is necessary if we are going to have full
production and if we are going to have profitability in farming.
We had the pleasure of bringing up a bill that had the support by a
vote of 18 to 3 of the Senate Finance Committee. That was about 4
months ago and we still don't have any commitment from the leadership
to bring this critical, bipartisan trade legislation to the floor by a
date certain, so we can plan on that date and be ready for one of the
most important issues to come before Congress this year and eventually
vote on it.
We have had several offers: that this bill would come up sometime
this spring; one time it was in March; another time, it was soon after
the Easter recess; now it is maybe sometime before Memorial Day. There
is a great deal of uncertainty. During this period of uncertainty, we
lose opportunities for the United States to be a leader in global trade
negotiation.
Remember, this is not something new for the United States. This is
something that the United States has been doing since 1947 when the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was first started. Whatever
success we have had until 1994, when the President's authority ran out,
has been accomplished under U.S. leadership. We ought to be proud of
our leadership and we ought to be looking forward to reestablishing
that leadership once again after a period of about 8 years during which
the President hasn't had the authority. Then we can continue the good
things that happen when trade barriers are reduced.
The good things that happen are the creation of jobs. I don't want
people to take my word for that. I want to repeat one of the things
President Clinton has constantly said, which I agree with, and that is
during his tenure as President, with a rapidly expanding economy--I
think in the neighborhood of about 20 million new jobs were created
during that term of office--President Clinton would say that one-third
of those jobs were created because of trade.
I am not talking about trade as some abstract political theory or
economic theory. I am talking about the good that comes from trade--the
good of creating jobs in America, the good that it does for our
consumers because of the opportunities to get the best buy for consumer
goods.
President Clinton's bragging about one-third of the jobs coming from
international trade was a direct result of 50 years of America's
leadership in the reduction of trade barriers. Two of those major
agreements were completed in the first year of President Clinton's
Presidency--the North American Free Trade Agreement, as well as the
Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which
established the World Trade Organization as a more permanent forum for
the establishment of trade agreements in the future and settlement of
trade disputes.
I am talking about having a better opportunity for America's economy,
for creation of jobs. Again, this is not something from which just
America benefits. We can look at the economies of Korea, Taiwan, and
Japan. As we know, after World War II, they were in a terrible state of
affairs. They were Third World economies. Look at what those economies
have done in the last 50 years through the principle of trading and
through the regime that was established under the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade. They were able to expand their economies to the
advanced economies they have today.
By having trade in the 77 countries in the world that are the most
poor--Africa and other countries as well--we can help them expand their
economies or, as President Kennedy said in his Presidency, trade not
aid, meaning that trade was a better way of helping the developing
nations to become strong economies rather than the United States just
giving something that was not an encouragement for them to advance.
When I talk about trade promotion authority, I am not talking about
some abstract delegation of authority to the President of the United
States to negotiate certain agreements that Congress is going to
control in the final analysis as we have to vote on that product that
comes out of those agreements. We are talking about helping countries
all over the world because we have an expanding world population, and
we have to have an expanding world economic pie. If we do not, we are
going to have less for more people. But with an expanding world
economic pie, for sure, with an expanding world population, we are
going to have more for more people, and we are not only going to be
talking about a better life for those people, but we are going to talk
about more social stability, more political stability and more peace
around the world.
This is a very important issue that we ought to be dealing with in
the Senate. Every day we delay in approving bipartisan trade promotion
authority for the President is another day that the United States
cannot advance the interest of our workers or, in the case of my
remarks today, the interests of America's farmers, ranchers, and
agricultural producers at the negotiating table as effectively as they
should, as effectively as we did in the Uruguay Round starting in 1986
and ending in 1993, which resulted in a very favorable agreement or any
time since 1947. It is a reality, not some theoretical point.
While month after month there has been a delay in this issue coming
up, our agricultural negotiators are at the table right now in Geneva.
They are fighting for better market access for our farmers, but without
trade promotion authority, our agricultural negotiators have one hand
tied behind their backs. There are timetables, there are goals, and
there are deadlines in Geneva that have to be met if these negotiators
are going to accomplish what we want them to accomplish for the good of
American agriculture.
Without trade promotion authority, it will not be the United States
that will shape the negotiating agenda of
[[Page S2667]]
these talks. It will be the countries that want to shield their markets
from competition that will shape the agenda and the timing of these
negotiations.
This would be a devastating situation for America's export-dependent
farm economy, and it will cost virtually every farming family in
America. Without greater access to world markets, America's family
farmers and ranchers will pay more in the form of higher tariffs or
taxes than will our competitors. As a result, our farmers will have
lower prices, lower income, and lost opportunity.
I thought I would bring to the attention of the Senate a letter that
is shown on this chart in its entirety. I am not going to read the
letter in its entirety. It is from a constituent of mine. He also
happens to be a person I know well, not because I socialize with this
person, but because he is an outstanding agricultural leader in my
State and, in that capacity, I get to know some of these people who are
outstanding farmers, outstanding civic leaders.
I received this letter from Glen Keppy and brought it with me so my
colleagues can see how a third generation pork producer from Davenport,
IA, looks at the issue of trade and the relationship between trade and
the profitability in farming and, more importantly, the strength of the
institution that we refer to as the family farmer.
If I can explain what I mean by a family farmer because some think
that might be 80 acres or 500 acres. I am not talking about the size of
the farm. I am talking about an institution where the family controls
the capital, they make all the management decisions, and they provide
most or all of the labor. That is a family farm. That can be a 30-acre
New Jersey truck garden; that can be an apple ranch in the Presiding
Officer's State of Michigan; that can be a ranch, with cattle on
thousands of acres, in Wyoming where it takes 25 acres of grass to feed
one cow and calf unit.
Mr. Keppy wrote to me about the huge foreign tariffs that are on
pork, averaging in some instances close to 100 percent. He also wrote
about other foreign trade barriers that hamper his and other farmers'
ability to export overseas.
According to Glenn, and I am going to read the first sentence that is
highlighted:
The only way our family operation will survive over the
long term is if we can convince other nations to lower or
remove their barriers to our pork exports.
That comes from some experience. We have learned from some reductions
of tariffs going into Mexico since the North American Free Trade
Agreement. We are sending more pork into Mexico. As a result of
agreements with Japan, more beef is going into Japan. A lot of
agreements that were made in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade proved that as well.
Mr. Keppy knows that where barriers have gone down, it has created
opportunities for the American farmer. What he is talking about is that
we need to continue opening markets, and trade promotion authority is
the tool that we give to the President to negotiate. We give to the
President our constitutional power under certain short periods of time
with restrictions so the President can sit down at the table and
negotiate because, quite frankly, it is not possible for 535 Members of
Congress to negotiate with the 142 different countries that are members
of the World Trade Organization.
So we give the President this authority. We have done it in the past.
It has been very successful. We control the end products because if we
do not like it, we do not vote for it, it does not pass, it does not
become law.
We also control the process through consultation that we require of
the President of the United States. We limit some areas where he might
be able to negotiate or not negotiate. We instruct the President to
emphasize some things over other things. So we are not giving away any
constitutional power. We are asking the President, as a matter of
convenience, to negotiate for Congress in the exercise of our
constitutional control over interstate and foreign commerce.
I remember in the Senate at the beginning of this debate on trade
promotion authority there were some who said it really was not
necessary to pass trade promotion authority right away. These critics
were wrong then. They are wrong now.
To show how one of my constituents feels about this, this is what
this family farmer who emphasizes and specializes in pork production,
Mr. Keppy, says, and I would read another sentence:
To the American farmer, despite the pressing need to
improve export prospects and consequently, the bottom line
for American farmers, no timetable for considering TPA
legislation on the floor of the Senate has been set.
That is his way of saying that is not a very good environment for
agriculture at the negotiating table as we are right now in Geneva.
He also says in another place in these letters:
To farmers like my two sons and myself, trade is not a
luxury. It is a vital ingredient to our success.
``It is the key,'' Mr. Keppy says, ``to our survival.''
There are a lot of Glen Keppys whose survival as family farmers
depends on trade. So it matters a lot to Mr. Keppy and to all the
farmers in America like him when the Senate leadership delays month
after month in bringing legislation that is vital to the survival of
family farmers to the Senate.
Saying one is for the family farmer and then ignoring or delaying
legislation that is vital to the farmers' survival is beyond most
farmers' ability to understand. Glen Keppy, his two sons who work with
him, and all the family farmers like them whose survival depends on
trade hope the Senate Democratic leadership is listening and will
schedule this bill for debate. More importantly, the family farmers of
America hope we act on this bill.
Again, I know this has been on Senator Daschle's list of important
things to get done. I know he knows the importance of it because he is
one of the 18 who voted to bring this out of our Senate Finance
Committee, but it is something we have to get done, even if it takes
working extra hours, as we are not tonight. I am not complaining about
not working nights because none of us want to work at night, but
sometimes we might have to do it to get the job done.
I welcome that opportunity and I thank Senator Daschle for his
consideration of my request.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________