IOWA/MISSOURI JOINT CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

                                              Release No. 0312.97

REMARKS OF SECRETARY DAN GLICKMAN
IOWA/MISSOURI JOINT CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI -- SEPTEMBER 11, 1997

Thank you, Hal, for bearing witness to the importance of this effort. Expanded
trade is critical to all of America's economic interests, and especially
agriculture's future. I'd like to thank Harry Cleberg [President and CEO of
Farmland, head of Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce] and Chuck Johnson
[President, Pioneer Hi-Bred, and head of Des Moines Chamber of Commerce] for
calling this session today, and for giving their strong support to this
effort.

You've both got the kind of vision that's going to keep American agriculture
on top of the world in the next century. Now, we need to tend the grass roots
and make sure all Americans understand what we see on the horizon, and why
it's so important to their lives. This is an issue that is critical to the
lives and jobs of average people. 

It's good to be back in Kansas City. It seems I'm always talking about trade
when I come here. This is an outward-looking, forward thinking city ... a city
that's prepared for the future. Iowa's on the cutting-edge, too, and not just
in agriculture. 

I'm here today on an important mission. President Clinton sent me to you to
talk about the future strength of our country. You know, there are a lot of
reasons to be proud to be an American. We won the Cold War. Our economy is the
envy of the world. By cutting the deficit, investing in education, and opening
markets abroad, America has enjoyed the longest period of sustained growth in
a generation. The result? Nearly 13 million new jobs, unemployment below 5%,
low inflation. 

At the same time, from cars to pharmaceuticals to agriculture, America has
established itself as a formidable force in the global economy. As the
military conflicts of the Cold War recede into our history books, we're
shaping a more unified world in which our economic clout will largely
determine our international clout. 

Today, we are the undisputed leader of this new world. But the question before
us is: Where do we want to be tomorrow?

That's a question we cannot afford to take lightly. One thing we tend to
forget in America is that we are still a relatively young nation. Superpowers
have come and gone before ours largely because they took their place in the
world for granted. We must avoid complacency, and keep sharpening America's
competitive edge. If we wish to lead a changing world, we must be willing and
able to compete in that world. That is what the trade debate is really all
about. 

Since the end of World War II, America has had the most open markets of any
world power. We did this to encourage a more open and free community of
nations and to defeat communism. That accomplished, President Clinton and this
Administration have worked hard and done more than any Administration before
us to ensure that openness is a 2-way street. 

That's a good part of the reason why -- in the last 5 years -- agricultural
exports have risen 50% -- reaching a record near $60 billion in 1996. More
than $1.3 billion from right here in Missouri. More than $4.6 billion from
Iowa. During this same period, America reclaimed the title of the world's
largest exporter -- with automobiles, agriculture and semiconductors leading
the charge.

This trend must continue. But to achieve that goal, the President needs  fast-track' authority. For all intents and purposes,  fast track' means giving the
President the strength, authority and clout he needs to open more doors to
America's products around the world. It really is that simple.

All of you are in business. If you're negotiating a deal that's critical to
your company's future, would you give an inch if the person across the table
doesn't have the authority to budge? 

The President needs the freedom to work through the nuts and bolts and craft
the delicate give-and-take that is at the heart of any trade agreement. Other
countries simply will not come to the table, if we can't do this. In fact,
fast track was originally started back in 1974 after Europe stopped talking
trade with us. A number of deals had fallen through, and we'd run out of
credibility. That's when we first created a more unified approach between the
White House and Congress which is what we call  fast track.'

Some of you may know: I'm a big fan of Congress. I spent 18 years there, and I
firmly believe that they have an important role to play in trade agreements.
In fact, under  fast track,' they have the last word. They give the final
thumbs up or down, and that's no small matter. Obviously, President Clinton
wants trade agreements that are enacted, and that's going to require constant
consultations with Congress to make sure we're on target. 

So Congress' role will not be diminished if we continue this authority. But if
we take it away, the president's power to open markets is vastly curtailed
because every nuance of a trade agreement would be subject to change in
Congress. 

We cannot sustain the economic growth we've largely built on expanded exports,
if we force the President to walk into a negotiating room with his hands tied.
If he were down in Texas, they'd say he was  all hat and no cattle.' The
leader of the greatest economic and politically powerful nation in the world
would effectively be rendered impotent in ag trade negotiations, and for those
who have legitimate concerns about the labor and environmental practices of
other countries -- failure to have this authority lessens our ability to
change the bad habits of others. That's no place for America to be with the
world changing so dramatically all around us. 

The truth is, expanded trade has never been more important than it is today.
The explosion of economic growth -- particularly in Latin America and the
Pacific Rim -- is creating unprecedented opportunities for our country. Yet
what we're seeing right now is a series of regional trade pacts where these
lucrative markets link together to the exclusion of everyone else. If you're
in the club, the trade barriers come down and commerce climbs. If you're out,
you're really out. 

The question is: Do we want to negotiate our way back onto a level playing
field, or do we want our competitors to score all the points while we snooze
on the sidelines?

There's really no more persuasive argument out there for why we need to press
forward than agriculture. Right now, American agriculture's responsible for
22% of the world's food and fiber trade. That is a stunning accomplishment,
and those products come from right here in Missouri, in Iowa, and other farm
states. It allows us to feed the world and lift farm incomes and create jobs
here at home. 

But increasingly, we're getting cut out of trade opportunities. Right now,
there are 30 major trade agreements in the Western hemisphere. You know how
many we're a part of? 1.

Now what does that mean?  It means that U.S. corn could lose half its market
share in Venezuela -- $36 million -- when Argentina joins the MERCOSUR club.
It's why U.S. wheat costs 10% more than Argentinean wheat in Brazil. We get
slapped with a tariff. They don't. I could go on and on, but the end result
is: While our agricultural exports to South America have increased due to the
region's economic growth, the U.S. share of this booming market has been cut
in half over the past 12 years. The longer we sit on the sidelines, the more
ground we lose.

Asia's starting their own club, and we're facing the same protectionism there.
The EU is looking at a massive expansion eastward ... are we in or are we out?

I'll tell you: There's only one option farmers can afford. Expanding trade is
a  do-or-die' mission for agriculture. Today, the products of a third of our
acres are headed overseas. They have to go. Our farmers and ranchers simply
produce far more than our people could ever consume. That's something to be
proud of. But it does mean that U.S. agriculture is more than twice as
dependent as the average U.S. industry on exports, and that number will only
go up in the future. Places like Latin America and the Pacific Rim are growing
at 3 times the rate of our domestic market. To build -- or even just maintain
-- our prosperity here at home, we need to compete in the world. 

And, that's really what this all comes down to: Whether you're in agriculture,
pharmaceuticals, high-technology ... any export driven line of work ... this
has everything to do with your job, your income, and America's economic
opportunities. Unfortunately, I think there's a bit of a tendency to see free
trade as a sort of elitist Washington debate, being pursued by rich powerful
interests without any concern for working people. 

I'll admit: There's some truth to that in how we talk about trade. Mention
 fast track' out in the countryside, and you're likely to find yourself locked
in a debate about who's on top in the NASCAR circuit. But it's also true that
you'll find some real skepticism.

Wall Street Journal columnist Gerry Seib calls this the  bookend theory of
economics.' He says that trade tends to be popular along the coasts and big
cities while middle America and the South are wary. He cites a poll that shows
while the coasts are excited about their place in the global economy of the
next 30 years, the heartland would just as soon take the economy of the last 3
decades. In some sectors, the rhetoric of trade agreements may have been
oversold. 

I think a good part of the problem -- honestly speaking -- is the public
perception of NAFTA. Many folks don't even hear the word anymore. They just
hear that  giant sucking sound.' Never mind that the best economists in the
world don't believe it exists. Nevermind that trade with both Mexico and
Canada is up ... way up. Folks turn on their radio, and they hear it. It's an
easy scapegoat when someone loses their job, when a company's profits are
down. But this popular resentment of trade is a dangerous path for our economy
and America's place in the world. 
 
You know, I understand that the concerns are real, and I'm not going to stand
up here and promise you that if we get fast track, the sky's going to open up
and all our problems will be solved. They won't. Adoption of fast track will
produce no miracles. But rejection of it would be an economic and political
disaster. We cannot lead in the modern world without leading in opening up
markets to our products. If we do not go down this path, the world will view
this as a retreat ... one with very serious economic and political
consequences.

You know, I asked my staff: If we didn't get fast track what would it cost our
farm exports? Of course, there's really no answer to that because fast track
is just the authority to negotiate. So I asked: Well, what if we didn't
export? What if we did just give up on trade? The answers there were pretty
stunning. We'd lose nearly half our wheat market, half our soybean market, and
close to 10% of beef and pork. In those 4 categories alone, it would be close
to a 12-billion-dollar loss ... per year. Wheat prices would go down more than
a dollar a bushel; soybeans more than 2 dollars; beef and poultry -- 8 and 9
dollars a hundredweight. It would hurt.

So we've really got to get over this notion that trade is bad. Expanded trade
pays. It's giving farmers a more prosperous life than they've had in a long
time. I think they've earned it. Our agricultural trade's also given more than
1 million Americans a good-paying job ... a job with a future. I think there's
something to be said for that, too.

There are problems in international trade. But more open trade is not the
problem. The problem is high tariffs. The problem is phony science trade
barriers to our products. The problem is preferential treatment that other
countries enjoy. The solution is being very, very aggressive in cracking open
what is clearly a world of opportunity. Without the authority to negotiate, we
wind up just accepting all these things that need to be fixed.

If you look at our country's amazing economy right now -- 1/3 of its growth is
due to expanded trade overseas. It is the ultimate irony that we are the envy
of the trading world, yet we have difficulty selling our own people on its
importance. If you agree, I hope you make your voices heard. Your country
needs you on this one. 

We need more folks like Hal Sweeney to stand up and tell their story. Just
yesterday, I read about a company right outside of St. Louis where the flags
of nearly a dozen countries are flying. The owner wants his employees to see
the connection between their work and the world, so a flag goes up every time
an order from a new country comes in. We have good stories to tell.

In making his case for fast track, President Clinton said,  the future will
not wait for us, but we can shape it.' That's the decision we're all being
asked to make: Do we lead or do we follow? Throughout this century, our nation
has had only one answer to that question.  

America's built a strong place for itself in the world. We are well out ahead
in the new global economy. But we cannot afford to sit on our lead. We must
press forward. We must continue to lead, and we must do so for our world, our
nation, and ourselves.

Thank you.

                               ###