[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 174 (Tuesday, November 25, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15977-S15978]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 1952. A bill to direct the United States Trade Representative to 
enforce Special Agent rights, under certain trade agreements with 
respect to Mexico, pursuant to title III of the Trade Act of 1974; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mexican 
Agricultural Trade Compliance Act. This bill directs the U.S. Trade 
Representative to retaliate against Mexico over that country's de facto 
prohibition on the importation of U.S.-produced high fructose corn 
syrup.
  I introduce this bill reluctantly. For months I have made it clear, 
through letters, floor statements, a hearing, and a trade roundtable, 
that if the Mexican Congress did not lift its illegal 20 percent tax on 
soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup, I would be forced to 
consider introducing retaliatory legislation, such as this ``tequila 
tariff'' which also covers other agricultural products.
  We're at the end of our legislative session and there has been no 
action by the Mexican Congress. So, I'm faced with no alternative but 
to introduce this bill.
  Let me explain how we got to where we are today. Mexico was formerly 
the largest export market for U.S.-produced high fructose corn syrup. 
But since 1997, Mexico has engaged in a concerted effort to restrict 
U.S. imports of this product. Throughout this time, Mexico has 
consistently violated its NAFTA and WTO commitments.
  Let me give you a short history of Mexico's unjustified actions. In 
February 1997, Mexico initiated an antidumping investigation of U.S. 
high fructose corn syrup, followed by the imposition of an antidumping 
order the following year. The United States challenged Mexico's 
antidumping order under the NAFTA. On two different occasions, NAFTA 
panels determined that Mexico's actions violated its NAFTA obligations.
  The United States also challenged Mexico's antidumping order at the 
Wortd Trade Organization. On two separate occasions, the Dispute 
Settlement Body of the WTO held that Mexico's actions violated its 
international trade commitments.
  But Mexico continued to ignore its NAFTA and WTO obligations. In 
fact, Mexico went one step further and in effect threw gasoline onto 
the fire. On January 1, 2002, in a transparent attempt to evade the 
NAFTA and WTO determinations against it, Mexico imposed a 20 percent 
tax on soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup. The intent and 
effect of this tax was to continue Mexico's antidumping order on U.S. 
produced high fructose corn syrup by other means.
  In April 2002, with its tax now in place, and in a continuous event 
with the imposition of this tax, Mexico lifted its antidumping order on 
high fructose corn syrup. These actions enabled Mexico to make the 
disingenuous claim that it had come into compliance with the findings 
adopted by the NAFTA and the WTO regarding its antidumping order.
  The effects of the import restrictions of Mexico's antidumping order 
continue, with even more egregious results. Because of Mexico's tax, 
U.S. exports of high fructose corn syrup to Mexico are now at almost 
zero levels.
  This is an extraordinary situation. Mexico lost under the NAFTA, and 
it lost at the WTO commitments, Mexico responded by imposing a de facto 
ban on imports of U.S. high fructose corn syrup. Mexico is not only 
violating its international trade commitments, but also causing 
significant harm for Iowa's corn farmers. Iowa's producers of high 
fructose corn syrup are suffering as well. I know of no other U.S. 
agricultural product that has been shut out of its largest export 
market for so long.
  The United States has worked diligently, and patiently with Mexico on 
this issue. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and Ambassador 
Allen Johnson, our Chief Agricultural Negotiator, have put in countless 
hours trying to convince Mexico to come into compliance with its trade 
obligations regarding high fructose corn syrup. But still, the tax 
remains in place. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and

[[Page S15978]]

in both the Senate and the House, have repeatedly contacted Mexican 
officials reminding them of Mexico's trade commitments with regard to 
this issue. But still, the tax remains in place.
  I too have worked hard, since the beginning, to try to convince 
Mexico to lift its de facto ban on the sale of U.S.-produced high 
fructose corn syrup. As I have mentioned, I've written letters to 
Mexican officials, delivered floor speeches, conducted a Finance 
Committee hearing, and held an agricultural roundtable, all in an 
effort to convince Mexico to lift its de facto ban on imports of U.S. 
high fructose corn syrup. During a hearing of the Finance Committee on 
September 23, I stated clearly that if the Mexican tax on soft drinks 
containing high fructose corn syrup was not lifted--and soon--I would 
be forced to consider introducing retaliatory legislation. But still, 
the tax remains in place.
  So now, at the end of our legislative session, I see no alternative 
but to introduce the Mexican Agricultural Trade Compliance Act.
  The Mexican Agricultural Trade Compliance Act establishes that the 
Government of Mexico has engaged in a pattern of activity that has 
continuously denied the rights of U.S. exporters of high fructose corn 
syrup under existing trade agreements. Further, the denial of these 
rights is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. 
Therefore, Mexico's actions meet the statutory criteria under section 
301 of the Trade Act of 1974 for retaliatory action.
  The Mexican Agricultural Trade Compliance Act requires the U.S. Trade 
Representative to retaliate, pursuant to section 301, against imports 
from Mexico within 60 days of enactment of the Act. However, the U.S. 
Trade Representative shall not take such action if he certifies, within 
30 days after enactment of the Act, that Mexico has eliminated its tax 
on soft drinks containing high fructose corn syrup and is according the 
U.S. high fructose corn syrup industry the benefits of all applicable 
trade agreements.
  I fully hope that prior to the return of the U.S. Senate in January, 
the Mexican Congress will act rationally and bring Mexico into 
compliance with its international trade obligations regarding high 
fructose corn syrup. If it does not, I'll work hard to advance the 
Mexican Agricultural Trade Compliance Act through the Senate. Given the 
large number of unjustified barriers imposed by Mexico over the past 
months against imports of U.S. agricultural products, Mexico has not 
been earning goodwill with Members of the Senate. I expect that my 
legislation will receive broad support.
  I also intend to work with the U.S. Trade Representative to designate 
Mexican products upon which retaliatory duties will be imposed. The 
products on this list will consist first and foremost of Mexican 
agricultural products that are prospering on account of their access to 
the U.S. market. These Mexican products will likely include bottled 
tequila, tomatoes, bell peppers, avocados, limes, asparagus, mangos, 
papayas, watermelons, honey, pecans, and shrimp and prawns. The total 
amount of duties imposed on these Mexican products will equal the lost 
sales being experienced by U.S. producers of high fructose corn syrup 
on account of Mexico's de facto ban of this product, an amount which--
according to U.S. industry--could be as high as $465 million annually.
  Let me conclude by stating that I know that some in Mexico are 
working constructively to try to resolve this issue. Earlier this month 
President Fox of Mexico sent to the Mexican Congress a formal request 
to repeal the tax on high fructose corn syrup. I hope that his request 
becomes law. I appreciated the offer of Mexico's Secretary of 
Agriculture, Javier Usabiaga, to speak with me regarding the tax, and I 
regret that our schedules have not permitted us to meet personally. I 
also note that U.S. and Mexican private sector representatives have 
been negotiating over access for U.S. high fructose corn syrup to the 
Mexican market.
  Regardless of these efforts, Mexico's de facto ban on imports of U.S. 
high fructose corn syrup remains in place. Meanwhile, Iowa's corn 
growers and Iowa's high fructose corn syrup producers continue to 
suffer on account of Mexico's NAFTA and WTO illegal actions. Again, I 
strongly hope that Mexican legislators will remove Mexico's tax on soft 
drinks containing high fructose corn syrup prior to the return of the 
U.S. Senate next January. But if this tax is not repealed by January, I 
have every intention of working to advance this legislation through the 
Senate.
  I'm a strong believer in free trade. I fought hard for passage of the 
NAFTA. I did so because I know free trade benefits farmers in Iowa and 
other states. U.S. agriculture certainly benefits from the NAFTA, as 
does Mexican agriculture. But Mexico has engaged in a blatantly illegal 
act against U.S. agriculture for too long. Mexico's action is having a 
particularly negative impact on my State of Iowa. If we are to maintain 
support for free trade in this country, we must ensure that our trading 
partners live up to their obligations. If they do not, we must take 
action. I hope the introduction of this bill sends a strong message to 
my Mexican counterparts that we are ready and willing to stand up for 
U.S. agriculture. I sincerely hope that they will do the right thing 
and repeal their illegal tax on high fructose corn syrup.
  I hope they repeal their illegal tax to demonstrate their commitment 
to living up to the letter and spirit of Mexico's promises under NAFTA 
and the WTO. I hope they repeal their illegal tax to improve relations 
between the United States and Mexico and to bring the benefits of free 
trade to consumers and producers in both countries. And, Mr. President, 
I hope they repeal their illegal tax so the Mexican Agricultural Trade 
Compliance act is no longer needed. But, if that's what it takes, then 
that's what we should do.
                                 ______