|
|
|
|
|
|
Remarks By Secretary
Ann M. Veneman
THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2001
Thank you all for coming this morning. And I want to thank Chuck Conner and Audrae Erickson for organizing this event.
The President has laid out an ambitious trade agenda – the launch of a new round of WTO negotiations in November, the completion of a free trade agreement with Chile by the end of the year, and the conclusion of the FTAA by 2005.
No sector of the American economy stands to gain more from this agenda than agriculture.
With exports accounting for over 25 percent of farm income, agriculture is already one of the most export-dependent sectors of the economy.
On average, each week American processors and producers ship a billion dollars in food and farm products to foreign customers.
While we can take pride in the natural resources, the infrastructure, and the technology that make this possible, we cannot afford to be complacent.
The long-term prosperity of the U.S. food and agriculture sector depends on our ability to stay ahead of the competition in the global economy.
One of the most important tools we have in the struggle to remain competitive is Trade Promotion Authority.
With TPA we can enter into agreements to eliminate trade barriers and roll back trade-distorting subsidies.
The President said on Monday, we need the help of the agriculture community to secure TPA for the President.
It is no coincidence that the first group he met with about TPA was agriculture.
The benefits of trade to U.S. agriculture shouldn’t be a hard sell.
Unfortunately, we haven’t been talking enough about the positive results from the Uruguay Round and the NAFTA.
U.S. ag exports to Mexico have doubled since NAFTA took effect, a fact that often goes unrecognized.
The Uruguay Round results are full of success stories -- rice to Japan and Korea, for example, or the establishment of effective SPS rules that have allowed us to successfully challenge unfair barriers.
We need to talk more about the real benefits we have gained from trade agreements and the benefits that will come from building on the process that was achieved in the Uruguay Round.
There is no question agriculture has benefited from being brought more fully in the WTO rules and having access to the dispute settlement mechanism.
The U.S. has been involved in 8 ag-related cases brought to dispute settlement panels.
We have prevailed in 6 of those.
Another message we need to communicate is the danger of not having TPA and sitting on the sidelines.
Other countries are not going to sit idly by if we decide to take ourselves out of the trade negotiations.
There are more than 130 preferential trade agreements in force globally.
The U.S. is a party to only two.
And while the U.S. was waiting for the renewal of trade negotiating authority, Canada negotiated a free trade agreement with Chile.
Canada is now taking market share from us in wheat and potatoes because they have lower tariffs in Chile than we do.
As a result of Mercosur, U.S. apples have trouble competing in South American markets.
Only with TPA can we continue to create new market opportunities for U.S. food and agricultural products in growing, and competitive, global markets.
Without TPA, those opportunities will be lost.
With TPA, we can maintain U.S. leadership in initiating and writing new agreements; without it, other countries will write the future rules of trade.
With TPA, we can play a major role in determining trade relationships here in our own hemisphere; without it, other will continue to forge new bonds of trade while the United States sits on the sidelines.
That is why we need Trade Promotion Authority now … and we need your help to secure it.
Thanks to all in this group for your leadership.
We encourage you to work with your members and related constituency groups to reach out to Congress.
These trade issues are too important – not only to agriculture and the food chain, but the United States as well.
Thank you.
|
|