THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

[Page: H3148]  GPO's PDF
---

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. KAPTUR) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to our colleagues this evening, think once, think twice about U.S. trade with China, particularly in agriculture.

   Recently I read a fascinating report prepared by Dr. Charles McMillian, former editor of the Harvard Business Review. He is a man who understands numbers. And he says, think once, think twice. China has produced an annual glut of agricultural commodities for over a generation. In fact, the United States has registered a consistent and growing deficit in agriculture with China in two-thirds of all agricultural groupings.

   It is true with pork. We produced a lot of that in my corner of Ohio. It is true with corn. It is true with citrus, with vegetables, with fish. Just go down the categories.

   China, in fact, in the last decade, had an average annual surplus, that means they are sending more out than taking goods in, in global agricultural trade of $4 billion annually. Just last year, in 1999, the rate of that is increasing to where just in 1999 they had a $4 billion surplus of global agricultural trade over what they imported. So their advantage, essentially, is increasing.

   They are rapidly expanding the quantity, the quality, and the composition of products that are being exported to our country, everything from ketchup to rice and, for the first time, in 1999, cotton.

   Now, China recorded an overall advantage with the United States in 1985, 1986, 1992, 1993, and 1999 in agriculture. In fact, we have maintained a chronic agricultural trade deficit with them in 17 of 26 agricultural commodity groups, everything from seafood, to tobacco, sugar, cocoa, vegetables, fruits, nut, and various animal parts.

   What is even more troubling is that our exports to them have fallen every year since 1995 as China has strengthened our ability to export to them in spite of our bilateral agreements and tariff reductions has decreased.

   In fact, our agricultural exports to China in 1999 were a third less than a decade before, while U.S. imports of their agricultural commodities had literally doubled, gone up by nearly 100 percent.

   Now, if we think about this, China's agricultural production growth continues to outpace their own growth in domestic demand. Our own embassy in China, our agriculture attache in Beijing, points out that China is struggling to solve its fundamental problems of chronic overproduction.

   But it does have an inefficient distribution system. And with capital investment that might occur there as a result of going into WTO, they are going to be able to move that product more quickly around the world.

   Particularly key in all of this are China's partnerships with powerful global firms such as Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and ConAgra. And of course, those companies export. In fact, Cargill, for example, has been in China since 1973. Cargill really does not care if it sells and markets Chinese corn or U.S. corn.

   So the point is there are some agricultural interests globally that will win, but it will not be U.S. farmers because that Chinese corn and pork and tobacco and seafood, and go down all the categories, are going to depress prices even more here at home.

   So I would say to people in rural America, think once, think twice about all of this.

   It is not clear that, in this recent agreement that the administration signed with China, that any new grain commitments to purchase were actually made. There were some promises that maybe there would be some tariff reduction. But if we look at the tariff reduction that occurred during the decade of the 1990s, it did not result in any more sales.

   It is highly unlikely that China will eliminate its non-tariff barriers to agriculture trade . It would put too great a risk on its own sector advancing. Because China, since 1949, has had an agricultural policy that said, we will be food self-sufficient. Starvation propelled them into the most recent half century, and they fully well understand what it means not to be self-sufficient in food production at home.

   I think that, as much as we talk about tariffs here and about non-tariff barriers, it is also important to point out that when China gets in trouble internationally, it does something very simple, it devalues its currency, as it did in 1994.

   So think once, think twice. China is going to put more downward pressure on U.S. food prices if permanent normal trade relations are approved with China.

   I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on that measure.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents