[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 15935-15938]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       MEXICAN BARRIERS TO IMPORTS OF U.S. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it has been almost 10 years since the 
North American Free Trade Agreement--NAFTA--went into effect. Overall, 
this agreement has been a great success for America's farmers and 
ranchers. Between 1994 and 2002, U.S. Agricultural exports to Mexico 
grew by 95 percent.
  Mexican agriculture has benefited as well from NAFTA. Exports of 
Mexican agricultural products to the United States increased by almost 
97 percent from 1993 to 2001. At the present time, some 78 percent of 
all agricultural products exported by Mexico are sent to the United 
States, making the United States by far the largest market for Mexico's 
agricultural exports. Clearly, the agricultural sectors of both the 
United States and Mexico have on the whole profited from NAFTA. For 
this reason, I am confounded by some of the recent actions of the 
Mexican government that undermine the spirit, if not the letter, of 
NAFTA.
  Allow me to elaborate on some of these actions. Mexico has recently 
imposed, or threatened to impose, trade barriers to a wide variety of 
U.S. agricultural products. These products include pork, beef, corn, 
high fructose corn syrup, rice, apples, and dry beans. Apparently 
ignoring that increased competition in the Mexican market has benefited 
that country's consumers, some in Mexico have spoken of renegotiating 
the agriculture provisions of the NAFTA. Mexico's measures against U.S. 
agricultural products have certainly caught the attention of many 
members of the Senate, including me.
  Let me explain Mexico's actions that are directly impacting producers 
in my state of Iowa.
  I'll start with high fructose corn syrup. It's true that U.S. 
producers of agricultural products have, on the whole, benefited from 
NAFTA. And, at one point, that was the case with U.S. producers of high 
fructose corn syrup. Mexico was formerly the largest export market for 
U.S. produced high fructose corn syrup. But in January 2002, the 
Mexican Congress imposed a tax of up to 20 percent on soft drinks 
containing high fructose corn syrup.
  This move was undoubtedly intended to provide Mexican sugar producers 
with an unfair advantage in the Mexican market over U.S. high fructose 
corn syrup producers. As a result of this discriminatory tax, U.S. 
exports of high fructose corn syrup to Mexico are now at almost zero 
levels.
  Mexico's high fructose corn syrup tax was imposed following WTO and 
NAFTA panel rulings that found that a 1998 Mexican antidumping order on 
U.S. high fructose corn syrup did not comply with Mexico's trade 
obligations.
  Clearly, Mexico is going out of its way to prevent the sale of high 
fructose corn syrup in its market. Mexico's high fructose corn syrup 
tax is causing great harm to U.S. corn producers and U.S. high fructose 
corn syrup manufacturers. The U.S. corn refining industry estimates 
that it is losing up to $620 million annually on account of Mexico's 
discriminatory tax. It estimates that U.S. corn farmers are losing over 
$300 million each year due to lost sales to both U.S. and Mexican high 
fructose corn syrup producers.
  I find it especially ironic that Mexico, a country that is actively 
seeking foreign investment, is treating so poorly the U.S. high 
fructose corn syrup industry, an industry that has invested heavily in 
Mexico.

[[Page 15936]]

  Based upon the promises of NAFTA, U.S. high fructose corn syrup 
producers made major investments in the United States and Mexico. 
Mexico has now pulled the rug out from under them. This certainly 
sends, at best, mixed signals to foreign investors.
  Let me give you another example of Mexico's actions against U.S. 
agricultural products, this one impacting Iowa's pork producers. In 
January of this year, Mexico initiated an antidumping investigation on 
U.S.-produced pork. The petition that initiated this investigation has 
serious deficiencies. for example, the petition was filed by Mexican 
hog producers, not pork processors, so it is my understanding that the 
party bringing the case lacks standing under the Antidumping Agreement 
of the WTO.
  While Mexico's antidumping investigation on pork is ongoing, I 
recognize that Mexican officials last month terminated the Mexican 
antidumping order on imports of live hogs from the United States. I am 
pleased with Mexico's decision regarding the live hog order. I strongly 
hope that this decision provides an indication that Mexican officials 
will act reasonably and not impose an antidumping order on U.S. pork.
  But there are other problems. Large quantities of U.S.-produced pork 
have been rejected at the Mexican border during the past year due to 
alleged sanitary problems. But millions of Americans consume U.S.-
produced pork each day, and we know that this product is safe. Mexico's 
rejection of U.S. pork for non-scientific reasons violates Mexico's WTO 
obligations.
  Iowa's beef producers are also being harmed by Mexico's actions. In 
April 2000, Mexico imposed antidumping duties on imports of U.S. beef, 
and this trade measure remains in place. Mexico's investigation 
resulted in numerous probable violations of Mexico's commitments under 
the WTO Agreements. On June 16, the U.S. Trade Representative announced 
that the United States is filing a case at the WTO over Mexico's 
antidumping order. I fully support the U.S. trade Representatives' 
actions at the WTO regarding this matter.
  Despite the ongoing Mexican antidumping order on U.S. beef, Mexican 
cattle producers earlier this year filed a safeguard petition on beef 
from the United States.
  Mexican officials have neither confirmed nor denied the existence of 
this petition. Lack of certainty with regard to this safeguard petition 
has made it even more difficult for the U.S. cattle and beef industry 
to plan sales in Mexico.
  White corn producers in Iowa are also threatened by potential Mexican 
trade actions. Mexican officials are hinting at initiating a safeguard 
investigation on imports of U.S. white corn. In addition, these 
officials have suggested limiting import permits for white corn for 
periods of short supply. Such a policy would not comport with Mexico's 
NAFTA obligations.
  Mexico's actions, and threatened actions, against U.S. agricultural 
products such as high fructose corn syrup, pork, beef, and white corn 
are having real effects on U.S. producers. Sales in Mexico are being 
lost or threatened. Uncertainty is making it difficult for U.S. 
producers to plan for future sales in Mexico.
  But Mexico's actions are having a broader effect than lost sales. 
Mexico's policies are indirectly threatening the entire U.S. trade 
agenda.
  Most of U.S. agriculture was solidly behind the passage of the NAFTA. 
But with Mexico failing to abide fully with its NAFTA commitments, many 
U.S. producers are beginning to question the worth of trade agreements.
  If America's farmers and ranchers back away from their strong support 
for new trade agreements, the U.S. trade agenda will lose its biggest 
proponents. And if the United States falters in its support for trade 
liberalization, the whole world will suffer.
  Given the importance of maintaining the U.S. trade agenda, I urge the 
administration to make the removal of Mexican barriers to U.S. 
agricultural products a top priority. The U.S. Government must not 
overlook systematic efforts by Mexico to keep U.S. farm products out of 
the Mexican market in disregard of Mexico's international trade 
commitments.
  Finally, I urge Mexican officials to think twice about the effects of 
their decisions involving U.S. agricultural products. Mexico's actions 
are threatening that country's trade relations with its largest export 
market. Damaged trade relations between the United States and Mexico 
are certainly not in the best interests of either country.
  NAFTA can, and will, continue to provide great benefits to farmers, 
ranchers, and consumers on either side of the border. But this trade 
agreement will work only if all parties to it abide by their NAFTA 
commitments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       IMMIGRATION AND DRUG COSTS

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, one of the most fascinating aspects of 
this job in the Senate is the myriad of issues that come before us in 
the course of a day or week. If you followed over the last few moments 
the two speakers--one from Alabama and one from Iowa--they both were 
speaking about related issues.
  My friend from Iowa and I share an interest in agriculture. His State 
and mine lead the Nation in the production of corn and soybeans, and 
naturally we try to export our goods to expand our trade. And he is 
concerned--and I share his concern--about Mexico. We both voted for the 
North American Free Trade Agreement in the belief of opening up--and it 
has opened up--trade substantially between these two neighboring 
countries, the United States and Mexico. But we have run into some 
problems here, problems related to corn, as my colleague from Iowa 
noted, whether we can export white corn to Mexico, which, of course, is 
a major staple of their diet, being the basis for tortillas, part of 
the Mexican cuisine, and also whether we can export a product made from 
corn called high fructose sweetener.
  For people who may not be familiar with that term, trust me, 
virtually every soft drink that you consume in America has high 
fructose sweetener in it rather than sugar. We want to sell it in 
Mexico, and they do not want us to sell it there. Frankly, they want to 
export more sugar to the United States.
  So this trade battle is on. The Senator from Iowa is right, this has 
been going on too long, and it has to come to an end.
  I would say to our friends in Mexico--and they are our friends and 
allies and neighbors--we have to resolve this.
  We have to resolve it equitably and honorably, but it has to be done 
with dispatch. So I certainly support what the Senator from Iowa said.
  Now, before he spoke, the Senator from Alabama got up to speak about 
immigration. And here is the story, as I see it, related to this trade 
issue.
  If the farmers in Mexico--who are struggling to grow their crops, 
with much less efficiency and productivity than the farmers in the 
United States--are unsuccessful in their farms, many of them move to 
the city. It is very common. It happens throughout the developing 
countries of the world. If they move to the large cities in Mexico and 
they cannot find a way to sustain their families, there is an 
alternative: El Norte. They head north. And we have seen a dramatic 
migration from Mexico to the United States.
  In the last 10 years, my State of Illinois has seen a substantial 
increase in the Mexican-American population. I know it; I see it; I 
feel it. It is now part of our life in Illinois. The people who have 
come here I have found overwhelmingly to be some of the finest people I 
have ever had a chance to meet. It takes real courage to get up and 
leave your village, your family, your church, your language, your 
tradition, and to head thousands of miles north into the bitter cold, 
trying to find a job, to make enough money to sustain yourself and 
maybe sending back some money to your family in Mexico. Thousands have 
done it. Many have done it undocumented and illegally, and that is 
another issue.

[[Page 15937]]

  I will say, it is naive for us to believe these undocumented 
immigrants to the United States have not become an integral part of our 
economy. They are. A leading restaurateur in Chicago said to me: If you 
removed all of the undocumented people from the restaurants of this 
great city, you would have to close them down. Every time you turn 
around and see who is washing the dishes, busing the tables, doing the 
work--some of the hardest work in my State and others--you will find a 
lot of people who are here perhaps without legal documentation.
  A few minutes ago, the Senator from Alabama said he objected to a 
provision in the bill we have been debating, S. 1, the prescription 
drug bill, because this provision says that those women who are legally 
in the United States--legally in the United States--would be able to 
qualify for Medicaid coverage and their children for basic health 
insurance coverage if a State decided to offer that coverage.
  That is what the bill says. So if the State of Missouri or the State 
of Illinois or Iowa or Alabama says: We are not interested in offering 
Medicaid coverage to legal immigrants who have not been here 5 years--
legal immigrant women--then they do not have to. Twenty States have 
decided, though, it makes good sense to go ahead and enroll these legal 
immigrant women and their children into Medicaid at their own expense.
  Why would a State Governor and legislature decide to pick up and 
cover these people? Well, for obvious reasons. Women who come to this 
country in a legal immigrant status often become pregnant and during 
the course of that pregnancy need prenatal care. If they do not receive 
prenatal care during their pregnancy they could end up with 
complications in the pregnancy or some serious illness facing the 
child.
  Now, Governors and legislatures have said it is far better for us to 
offer prenatal care to that legal immigrant woman and her child, once 
born, than to run the risk they are going to be unhealthy, not only for 
their own sakes but for the cost it would bring to society. I think 
that is perfectly sensible.
  The Senator from Alabama objects. He says we should not give States 
the option to provide, with Federal assistance, that kind of medical 
care. I think that is a mistake. I think the bill is right. The bill 
understands that these women, during their pregnancy, are carrying 
future American citizens. Those babies, once born on our soil, are 
citizens.
  Is it important for us to make sure--or do the best we can to make 
sure--those mothers are healthy and the babies are healthy. Well, if 
not for the sake of humanity, certainly from an economic point of view 
it is. A sick baby is not only a family tragedy, it becomes a social 
cost. So this bill, by giving to States the option of offering Medicaid 
to legal immigrant women and health insurance to their children, once 
born, I think just makes common sense.
  It will be interesting to watch the vote tomorrow to see how many 
Senators in this Chamber, who feel very strongly about the so-called 
pro-life position, who want to make certain that we avoid abortions and 
that we honor the children who are being born, join the Senator from 
Alabama in denying prenatal care to legal immigrant women and denying 
their babies, once born, health insurance.
  I would think it is obvious, whatever your position on the issue of 
abortion, that if you believe in families, you would vote against the 
amendment by the Senator from Alabama.
  Let me just say very briefly, when I was a young student, I read a 
Sherlock Holmes book that I still remember. It was entitled ``The Dog 
That Didn't Bark.'' Sherlock Holmes solved this mystery by not hearing 
something but by realizing that he hadn't heard something. The 
witnesses to this crime had not heard a dog bark. And that was an 
important piece of evidence for him to determine what happened that led 
up to the actual murder.
  The reason I remembered that is I am listening carefully to this 
national debate on the floor of the Senate about a prescription drug 
bill. I am waiting for the barking of the pharmaceutical lobby. Where 
are the drug companies? Why haven't we heard from the drug companies?
  This is a bill that will affect some 40 million senior citizens and 
provide assistance for them to pay their prescription drug bills, and 
the drug companies are silent. Why? There are two reasons for it.
  First, they believe the passage of a Federal prescription drug 
benefit is going to reduce the likelihood that more and more States 
will establish their own State prescription drug plans, bringing down 
the cost of prescription drugs in each State. I commend to those who 
follow it a ``Frontline'' program of last week on public television 
that analyzed this.
  As the States of Maine and Oregon and my State of Illinois and others 
developed prescription drug plans, the pharmaceutical industry 
challenged them in court, particularly in the case of Maine, and lost 
the challenge.
  So it was at that point that they became more intent on seeing us 
pass a prescription drug benefit on a national level to try to diffuse 
this growing public sentiment against increasing drug prices and the 
growing public sentiment that local and State legislatures had to act 
on this because the Congress was inept, unable to do it.
  So we have this bill before us that is one of the reasons why the 
pharmaceutical lobby has been strangely silent during this debate. They 
are happy that we are considering a Federal prescription drug benefit 
program.
  The second reason is even more important. This bill, S. 1, before us 
now for consideration, is a pretty long bill. As a matter of fact, it 
is 654 pages long. You will have to search this bill line by line and 
page by page and I am afraid you will find that after that search, 
there are few, if any, efforts in this entire bill to control the 
runaway cost of prescription drugs. So the pharmaceutical companies see 
this as a win/win situation. We pass a national prescription drug 
program that takes the heat off the States, and at the same time we do 
nothing to reduce the cost of prescription drugs to seniors and others 
across America. So these already very successful companies have to view 
this as the greatest windfall that has ever come their way.
  The Federal Government will pay a percentage of the cost of 
prescription drugs, but the Federal Government will do little or 
nothing to control the cost of those drugs.
  The senior citizens of this country understand this issue far better 
than Members of the Senate. In fact, when they were recently asked the 
question: What is more important to you, to provide a prescription drug 
benefit under Medicare to help you pay for your prescription drugs or 
to establish a policy and program that will bring down the excessive 
costs and the increasing rise in cost of prescription drugs across the 
Nation, by a margin of almost 2 to 1, they said go after the cost of 
the drugs. Don't tell me how much you are going to give me if you are 
not going to control the cost.
  Last year, the cost of prescription drugs went up 10 percent in my 
State of Illinois. Nationally, the figures are higher. If those 
increases continue, no matter what we pass this week in the Senate, it 
will not be enough. The cost of drugs will go off the end of the chart, 
and private insurance companies, HMOs that are being lauded by 
conservatives, by the President, and the White House as the answer to 
our prayers, frankly, don't have the interest or the power to make a 
difference in the cost of these prescription drugs. So the seniors will 
find themselves at the end of the day with a very limited benefit from 
this program.
  But hope is on the way. Tomorrow I will be offering an amendment 
which is a dramatically different approach to dealing with prescription 
drugs. We are going to make cost containment part of our prescription 
drug program. We are going to follow the model of the Veterans' 
Administration which said, in serving the millions of America's 
veterans, drug companies had to give a discount to the Veterans' 
Administration on the drugs that were provided, and the drug companies 
did--a discount of 40 to 50 percent. This isn't radical or

[[Page 15938]]

innovative. It is a fact. This is what is happening.
  We believe using the same logic and the same Government effort to 
bring competition and lower costs under my amendment will mean that 
drug costs will start coming down and this program will go a lot 
further in helping seniors. And once the drug costs start coming down, 
let me tell you what we can do: This bill does not guarantee a monthly 
premium for prescription drug benefits. It suggests $35 a month. But I 
think the sponsors will tell you, there is no guarantee that it won't 
be $50 or $75 a month for this prescription drug program being offered 
by HMOs and private insurance companies under the Grassley-Baucus bill.
  Under MediSAVE, which is my alternative plan, we mandate a $35-a-
month maximum monthly premium. Second, there is a $275 deductible 
before anybody can get the first dollar in Government benefits under 
the Grassley-Baucus bill. Under the amendment I will offer, there is no 
deductible. Third, under the Grassley-Baucus bill, they will pay 50 
percent of the cost of prescription drugs after the deductible is 
applied. Under the MediSAVE Program, which I am going to introduce, it 
is 70 percent.
  How can I offer all this? How can I offer a program that has no gap 
in coverage so that it continues to cover you right up to a $5,000 
annual cost in drugs and then you switch over to catastrophic coverage? 
How can I do all this? Because I go after the price of the drugs. The 
underlying bill doesn't touch the cost of drugs. As a result, $400 
billion, as large a sum as that may sound, does not go very far. When 
we bring in cost containment, we can offer a real prescription drug 
program.
  And there is one more thing. The amendment I will offer will allow 
Medicare itself to compete with the private insurance companies. I have 
listened carefully to the debate for the last week or so. I can tell 
you that most of my Republican friends are loathe to concede the 
obvious. There is no private insurance company that can effectively 
compete with Medicare when it comes to offering prescription drug 
benefits. Why? Because Medicare doesn't have a profit motive. Medicare 
has a low overhead. Medicare can bargain on behalf of millions of 
seniors to get a formulary or a list of drugs at discount prices.
  These private insurance companies cannot do any of those things. They 
are out for the profit. They have high administrative costs, and they 
won't have the power to bargain down the price of the cost of the 
drugs. So by putting Medicare in the mix, saying every senior can 
always turn to the Medicare prescription drug program, we have real 
choice and real competition and a real scare for the Republicans who 
believe that competition only involves private insurance companies. 
They don't want a Government agency competing with them.
  The amendment I will offer tomorrow has been endorsed by a number of 
my colleagues on this side of the aisle, as well as the AFL-CIO, the 
United Auto Workers, a variety of unions across the United States, as 
well as senior citizens organizations. They understand this is a real 
prescription drug benefit program that tries to keep the costs under 
control and makes sure we maximize the benefits to seniors across the 
United States.
  It will be interesting to note the vote tomorrow. I believe there 
have been clear indications that many people here are not going to do 
anything to ruffle the feathers of the drug companies and 
pharmaceutical lobby. I hope they will keep in mind that the senior 
citizens they represent understand full well that these drug companies 
are the most profitable companies in America.
  They can bring down costs. They have done it in Canada and in other 
countries. They can still make enough profit to reward shareholders for 
their risk and have money left to invest in research. I hope this 
MediSAVE amendment will have the positive response of my colleagues 
tomorrow when it is offered on the floor.
  I am prepared to yield the floor at this time, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________