[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 201 (Thursday, December 20, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7974-S7976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          INTERNATIONAL TRADE

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, now I would like to speak to the issue 
and several issues that deal with international trade.
  During the last 2 years, there has been more talk about international 
trade in this town than at just about any other point since this 
President has been President or, you might say, over a long period of 
time in Washington.
  When I was elected to the Senate in 1980, the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade, known as GATT, was the main guiding document on 
international trade. GATT was signed by 23 nations in Geneva on October 
30, 1947, a little more than 2 years after the destruction of World War 
II. It remained the institutional foundation for global trade until 
January 1, 1995. That day is when the World Trade Organization--we 
refer to it as WTO--was born with 81 charter members, including this 
great country of the United States. The WTO has been in place now for 
24 years, serving as the clearinghouse for our rules-based 
international trading system.
  Since the start of the WTO, international trade volumes have 
increased by 250 percent. Countries representing 98 percent of global 
merchandise trade are currently members of the WTO, with 22 more 
countries officially working toward joining. Over all, the WTO is 
moving global commerce forward just as planned. The rules-based trading 
system it promotes has been very successful, integrating people across 
the world into the global economy.
  I also must acknowledge that international trade can, at times, be 
disruptive. There are regions of the country that have been 
disproportionately impacted by job losses, at least in part, to foreign 
competition over the last several decades. Those losses become 
especially problematic when they are the result of market forces being 
overwhelmed by foreign government intervention--any foreign government, 
as far as that is concerned. President Trump has rightly pointed that 
out and has delivered on his promise to make trade fairer for workers 
across our country, for agriculture and international trade is the 
bridge to the world's customers.
  In Iowa, we export every third row of soybeans. Some people like to 
say that God made Iowa for the growing of corn and soybeans, and I 
agree. Iowa also has significant pork and beef exports as well. 
American farmers produce more than we can possibly consume here in

[[Page S7975]]

the United States, so we understand then why the ability to trade and 
the freer trade, as well, is very important to us. So we rely on global 
customers. Export markets are and will continue to be vitally important 
to Iowa's farmers. I will make it a priority, as I resume chairmanship 
of the Finance Committee. After about 12 years of not being the 
chairman, I am going to concentrate on gaining access to new markets.
  The United States must continue leading the world on trade and 
economic issues. The U.S. market is one of the most open in the world. 
Unfortunately, other countries throw up numerous barriers to our 
exports.
  President Trump and Ambassador Lighthizer are working to correct 
these injustices. I intend to assist them in this fight, with the 
understanding that creating market barriers of our own, like tariffs, 
is not a long-term solution.
  One of the top issues Congress needs to address next year is 
implementation of the recently signed United States-Mexico-Canada 
agreement, which updates NAFTA for the modern economy.
  The new trade deal with Mexico and Canada make significant updates to 
the original NAFTA, with new sections on digital trade, currency 
manipulation, and State-owned enterprises. It goes further than any 
other trade agreement in protecting intellectual property rights and 
makes important changes to market access for agricultural products.
  While I commend the President for following through on his promise to 
renegotiate NAFTA, there are a few areas of concern. Those concerns go 
beyond just the Canada-Mexico agreement. As long as 232 tariffs on 
steel and aluminum imports from Canada and Mexico remain, the U.S. 
farmers and others facing retaliation, along with the American 
businesses that rely on those imports, will be unable to realize the 
full potential benefits of the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement.
  This is why I urge the administration to consult with Congress, as 
intended by the trade promotion authority, to ensure a clear path 
forward for the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement.
  I intend to work with members of the Finance Committee and, of 
course, with the Senate leadership to move the United States-Mexico-
Canada agreement quickly in the new Congress as soon as the President 
submits it. But I can't do it without a strong commitment from the 
administration that we will work together.
  The Constitution tasks Congress with the authority to regulate trade 
with foreign countries. We collectively--meaning the President and 
Congress--have a responsibility to ensure that U.S. farmers, ranchers, 
and businesses face minimal uncertainty from the updating of the United 
States-Mexico-Canada agreement.
  Building on the success of this new agreement, we must continue to 
play offense and pursue new market access opportunities. That is why I 
am happy the administration is pursuing new agreements with Japan, the 
European Union, and the United Kingdom. The economies of those 
countries account for 27 percent of global GDP. Having more access to 
those markets will help U.S. farmers, ranchers, and businesses for 
generations to come.

  I expect the agreement with the European Union and with the UK, when 
ready, to address agriculture. There is some talk that the Europeans 
don't want to talk about making any agreements on agriculture. The 
notion that some people in the EU think there could be an agreement 
that doesn't address the many ways they block our good agricultural 
products from being sold in Europe is outright ridiculous.
  While I agree with the President that we must have fair trade that 
benefits Americans, I want him to know, as well--and I have told him--
that I am not a fan of tariffs. Put simply, tariffs are taxes on U.S. 
consumers and businesses.
  The Constitution grants Congress authority over tariffs and 
international trade, but Congress has delegated some of its authority 
to the President through legislation. To some extent, I think, 
particularly in the 1963 legislation, too much authority was delegated.
  I am no novice when it comes to understanding the delicate balance 
between congressional and executive authority over international trade. 
In fact, I was the leader in renewing trade promotion authority as the 
ranking member of the Finance Committee in 2002. In addition to that, 
and more recently, I strongly supported its renewal under the 
leadership of Chairman Orrin Hatch in 2015.
  What was important then and remains truer now is that Congress plays 
a central and pivotal role in crafting trade policy. Our Founding 
Fathers were very explicit in placing this responsibility with Congress 
in article I of the Constitution. We must remain vigilant to ensure 
that the aspects of trade authority that Congress has delegated are 
used appropriately and in the best interests of our country. I am 
certainly not opposed to being creative in negotiations with other 
countries, but I strongly disagree with the notion that imports of 
steel and aluminum, automobiles, and automobile parts somehow could 
pose a national security threat, as the President's actions have 
stated.
  So I intend to review the President's use of power under section 232 
of the Trade Act of 1962, which grants the President broad legal 
authority to impose tariffs in the name of national security. Senator 
Portman and my colleague, Senator Ernst, and others have already 
introduced legislation to narrow the scope of how an administration can 
use the power that Congress authorized in 1962 under the influence of 
the Cold War. Maybe, considering 1962 and the issue of the now-
forgotten Cold War, there may have been reasons for Congress at that 
point to overdelegate power to the President, but I am not sure that 
those conditions exist today.
  I believe these efforts to restrain delegation of the authority to 
the President serve as a prudent starting point for the discussions we 
need to have on section 232 authority in the next Congress. The tariffs 
against products from China that were imposed as a result of U.S. Trade 
Representatives' findings under section 301 investigations are not 
ideal, but I do agree with the reasons that have been applied.
  The President is absolutely right to confront China regarding section 
301 findings. I am glad that he had a successful meeting with President 
Xi at the G20 summits last month. My hope is that the ensuing 
negotiations will result in a change in China's discriminatory policies 
and practices and an easing of tariffs and tensions.
  I recommend that everyone read the findings of the section 301 
investigation that were published in March of this year. That report 
outlines in detail many of the ways that China abuses American 
businesses and workers and steals, or forces the transfer, of U.S. 
intellectual property. American businesses that are able to access the 
Chinese market are, as a result of these Chinese policies, often forced 
to participate in joint ventures with Chinese firms and turn over the 
details of their technologies. No one can call that a level playing 
field.
  The Chinese claim is that this simply represents the cost of market 
access. My answer to that is hogwash. That is not how members of the 
WTO should act. It is an organization you join based upon respect for 
other people's rights, but the most important thing is to respect the 
rules of trade.
  I voted in favor of China's accession into the WTO. In many ways, I 
regret that vote. China has not lived up to its obligations or honored 
its promises, yet it enjoys many of the benefits that come with 
membership in the WTO.
  Part of the reason, in my view, that China gets away with so much is 
that the WTO systems we rely on have failed and are in great need of 
reform. The fact that China, the world's most populous country and the 
second largest economy on Earth, can self-certify as a developing 
economy--that is a term used in the WTO documents--is extremely 
frustrating to me. Can you imagine the world's most populous country 
and the second largest economy in the world is still somehow a 
developing country?
  I know many of my colleagues here in the Congress share that 
frustration.
  I have great interest in the WTO reform process that has begun. 
Reform and oversight are critical to the proper functioning of 
institutions. That is true whether we are talking about a Federal 
agency or the WTO. I will also continue conducting rigorous oversight 
as chairman of the Finance Committee.

[[Page S7976]]

  The United States has free-trade agreements in place with 20 
countries. One problem we have had with our agreements is that other 
countries don't always live up to the text and spirit of the agreement 
they signed. I will work with the administration to hold our partners 
accountable in order to improve outcomes for American businesses and 
consumers, but most important to American businesses and consumers is 
to get the proper respect for the rules of trade that come as a result 
of the WTO.
  In short, the Finance Committee has its work cut out for it and for 
us on the committee next year. International trade is a force for good. 
Farmers and businesses in Iowa and across the country have benefited 
tremendously from international trade and are better off because they 
can sell their products around the world. I am committed to making sure 
they have access to open markets with the guarantees of fair treatment 
and enforceable protections.

                          ____________________