Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska made their announcement as the agriculture committee on which they both serve turned its attention to the importance of international trade to the prosperity of the agricultural economy. Grassley convened a similar hearing of the international trade subcommittee last month. Grassley is chairman, and Kerrey is an active member of the Senate trade panel.
Today, Grassley and Kerrey said they will launch a joint effort because "there is no sense of urgency in the administration or by Congress for greater trade liberalization. The politics of trade has won out over good public policy." The Midwestern senators previewed a long-term program to advocate the expansion of foreign trade to benefit American workers, consumers and farmers.
Their campaign to inform and influence the public debate regarding the importance of free and fair trade to a prosperous U.S. economy will focus on building a grassroots coalition of support for expanded trade opportunities both in Congress and outside of Washington.
"The lack of attention to international trade in Washington right now could be devastating for our farmers back home. We just can't let that happen. Furthermore, America's will and ability to lead in world affairs is being questioned. That is dangerous for continued world peace and prosperity," Grassley said. The Iowa senator pointed to comments expressing astonishment on the editorial pages of foreign newspapers when fast track was defeated last year by the U.S. House of Representatives.
"We need to refocus Congress' attention on our international trade efforts and the impact these efforts have on rural America. Our producers bring the freshest, healthiest food to market of any nation and it is time we redouble our efforts to improve our ability to trade these products globally. These efforts will be good for our economy and help us maintain our dominance in the global marketplace," Kerrey said.
The senators said opportunities for American agriculture demand immediate attention. The Uruguay Round Agreement requires that the next round of world trade negotiations for agriculture be started no later than December 1999.
To build necessary public support and achieve the best agreement, Grassley and Kerrey said
it is essential that the administration consult extensively with Congress and the private sector. At today's hearing, they urged Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky to devote all available resources to prepare for next year's negotiations. Grassley and Kerrey said that in 1999, the U.S. should seek:
Elimination of all tariffs on agriculture products and the elimination of all export subsidies for agriculture products by a date certain.
The average tariff on agriculture products worldwide is in excess of 50 percent. U.S. tariffs average about 5 percent. "American farmers have nothing to lose and everything to gain by reducing all tariffs to our level," Grassley said. "It is also morally wrong to place high tariffs on agricultural products when millions of starving people live in countries that maintain trade barriers against food. We do not have a shortage of food in the world. We have an oversupply of barriers to trading food."
"We need to be vigilant in our efforts to reduce the enormous burden placed on our products as a consequence of high tariffs. If we are to participate in international agreements, and if we are going to help feed the world's population, we must work to reduce these harmful barriers," Kerrey said.
Reduction of all export subsidies and creation of a level playing field.
"When American farmers compete with other farmers based on efficiency and productivity, instead of government support, our farmers win every time," Grassley said.
"Our producers should not be penalized for producing superior products. They must be able to compete on a level playing field. And in our efforts to increase access to markets for our producers, we are faced with a growing disconnect with the people at home who only hear about trade when it runs counter to their personal interests. They only hear about trade when our grain is too expensive on the world market because of other countries' export subsidies. And they only hear about trade when American commodities are not allowed into other countries because of trumped up sanitary and phytosanitary questions, which are really just the same old trade barriers with a fancy new name. The administration must help us help Americans understand just how good and important agricultural trade is for our economy," Kerrey said.
They said arguments by some in Washington that the U.S. government should simply match the $6 billion spent on export subsidies last year by the European Union (EU) are short- sighted because even the EU is beginning to recognize that this level of spending is bankrupting their governments.
Stronger disciplines on trade barriers erected for unjustified sanitary and phytosanitary reasons.