[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 54 (Friday, May 6, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             GATT CONCERNS

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I wish to raise further concerns about 
the new GATT agreement soon to be addressed by the Senate.
  Mr. President, I have spoken on the Senate floor once before about 
the new GATT agreement that the United States recently signed. I am 
very worried that we are agreeing to something which could put us at a 
trade disadvantage. At first glance, the new GATT agreement looks good. 
Indeed, I stand here as a free trader. I believe in free trade as long 
as it is on an equal basis. If other countries will allow our products 
to go into their countries, we should allow their products to come here 
on an equal basis.
  So frequently some people think that free trade is just access to the 
U.S. market, and that when our products go there, they are inspected 
and reinspected or face other trade barriers that keep our products 
out.
  I believe the American farmer, the American worker, and American 
business can compete anywhere in the world on a fair playing field. But 
under this GATT Treaty a 125-nation council will be established where 
each country will have one vote. Most of the countries in the world are 
dictatorships, very frankly. They are not democracies. Many of them are 
kleptocracies; that is, leaders steal from their own people to enrich 
themselves. That is what we are dealing with. We do not have a family 
of nations in this world that are democracies. We do not have a family 
of nations in this world where human rights are widely respected.
  So the United States is 1 vote out of 120. I am afraid that trade 
policy could be imposed upon the United States, or assessments will be 
imposed upon our taxpayers. The final result will be unfair trade for 
the developed nations.
  The GATT Treaty is not set up like the United Nations where you have 
a Security Council of major powers who can stop something from going 
through. In fact, the really important issues in the United Nations are 
not voted on by all the countries in the General Assembly. They are 
decided by the so-called ``Security Council,'' the five most important 
powers. That is not the case in this new GATT Treaty.
  I would say that in 5 or 10 years down the road, we will regret 
having agreed to this GATT agreement.
  The full consequences of this agreement are just beginning to come to 
light. Congressional interest in the WTO is growing daily. Many 
questions and concerns are being raised. Unfortunately, there appear to 
be more questions than answers.
  I have many concerns about the proposed WTO. What impact on U.S. laws 
will this organization have? What will be its budget? How many taxpayer 
dollars will be spent on the WTO? Who will the WTO, with its unelected 
bureaucrats, be answerable to?
  There are many questions to be answered before we vote on legislation 
to commit the United States to participating in this entity. I have 
joined my colleague Senator Helms in requesting that the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee hold a hearing on the WTO as soon as possible. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that request be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [See exhibit 1.]
  Mr. PRESSLER. The World Trade Organization is one concern arising 
from the new GATT agreement. Though it could be argued that the WTO is 
created by treaty, it is not being presented as a treaty. I think it 
should be a treaty so we would have to have 60 votes here in the Senate 
to confirm it. However, it is being submitted as an agreement, which 
means it will only need 51 votes.
  Another concern is the likely impact of the new agreement on U.S. 
agriculture. International trade expansion is the key to the future of 
U.S. agriculture. We must open more world markets to U.S. farmers and 
ranchers.
  The goal of the latest round of GATT negotiations, the Uruguay round, 
was to reduce tariffs and import barriers. For the first time, the GATT 
will cover agricultural trade. The potential impact of the new 
agreement on agriculture is a major concern of mine.
  Last Congress, and again in this Congress, I introduced a resolution 
to establish as U.S. Senate policy that meaningful reforms with respect 
to agricultural subsidies must be achieved in the new GATT.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Senate Resolution 12, and my 
opening statement on it, appear at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [See exhibit 2.]
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I also have some real problems with how 
the new GATT agreement deals with the use of agricultural subsidies. 
Allowing other countries, like the European Union [EU], to continue 
their protectionist agricultural subsidy programs means that South 
Dakota farmers and ranchers would continue to face unfair foreign 
competition, as would farmers and ranchers throughout the country.
  The United States has substantially reduced its agricultural 
subsidies over the past 10 years, while the EU has increased subsidies. 
This has cost U.S. farmers and ranchers billions of dollars in lost 
exports and thousands of jobs. Every farmer and rancher in South Dakota 
knows that higher grain, dairy, and meant prices depend on better 
access to foreign markets. We must keep pressure on the EU to make 
major reductions in its export subsidies.

  Mr. President, it may not be well known, but the United States has 
reduced its agricultural subsidies on a 5-year plan. We have had two 5-
year farm bills since I have been here in the Senate that have reduced 
each year the level of subsidy, and we would do it faster if the 
Europeans would match.
  This Nation's largest farm organization, the Farm Bureau, is for 
eliminating subsidies entirely. But it means Europe must also reduce 
those--our competitors--and they must also reduce their export 
subsidies, because Europe has a practice of taking their surplus grain, 
or whatever they have, and whatever they do not need, they undersell 
the United States with export subsidies. That is not fair to our 
ranchers and farmers.
  I pay tribute to Australia and New Zealand, who have reduced their 
agricultural subsidies faster than anybody else, and they have been 
paying a price. The Canadians say they are doing so, but they have 
transportation subsidies for wheat and unfair pricing tactics that has 
caused many problems for U.S. wheat farmers. The point is that our 
agricultural industry is willing to do its share in reducing subsidies 
to get to free trade, but the Europeans--especially the French and 
Germans--their governments have not been willing to do that. We should 
keep that in mind.
  I am a free trader. Historical experience has demonstrated that the 
free trade of goods between countries promotes prosperity and economic 
growth for all. It is not just agriculture, but also manufacturing, and 
services, and other things.
  Many countries say they practice free trade when, in reality, they do 
not. The United States has one of the most open markets in the world. 
Yet, many of our products do not receive reciprocal treatment in 
foreign countries.
  Earlier this week, the Journal of Commerce reported that the new GATT 
agreement will not change distortions of the world market caused by 
heavy farm subsidies.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record at 
this time.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Commerce Journal, May 3, 1994]

              Farm Subsidies Expected To Survive GATT Pact

                            (By Tara Patel)

       Paris.--The global accord on agriculture struck as part of 
     the Uruguay Round world-trade pact will not change 
     distortions on the world market caused by heavy farm 
     subsidies, according to trade experts attending a conference 
     last week in Paris.
       Agriculture was among the most difficult areas of last 
     year's trade negotiations under the auspices of the General 
     Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
       Although a compromise was finally reached, trade experts, 
     negotiators and academics who gathered last week in Paris to 
     analyze the ``New World Trading System'' at a conference 
     sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
     Development generally agreed the new trade pact will do 
     little to eliminate heavy government intervention in 
     agriculture.
       ``The farm trade deal was oversold,'' said one trade expert 
     who asked not to be named.
       Another observer concluded, ``If governments were allowed a 
     free-for-all (on farm policy), things would get worse, but 
     the Uruguay Round has merely put a halt to the more aberrant 
     behavior.''
       In the area of market access, the participants identified a 
     major problem in the high level of initial tariffs of many 
     countries resulting from their translation of 1988-90 quotas 
     into tariffs.
       Experts agreed that these tariffs, sometimes several times 
     higher than the prices of the goods, will do little toward 
     liberalizing the farm trade even after being reduced by the 
     required 15%.
       Another problem area, according to trade officials, is the 
     special safeguard section in the agreement. Experts said they 
     expect the higher-than-normal tariffs that can be charged 
     under this provision, and can triggered by either a surge in 
     imports or a fall in the market price, to be applied often if 
     not most of the time.
       Furthermore, one official said, the provisions can even be 
     shipment specific in some cases, making the tariffs 
     potentially discriminatory.
       Another shortcoming is that governments will be allowed to 
     keep protective tariffs on ``sensitive'' products.
       Experts said the biggest impact of the farm trade deal will 
     be felt from new constraints on export subsidies. But most 
     conceded even those provisions will not eliminate heavy state 
     subsidies in some areas.
       One estimate said subsidies will only have to be one-fifth 
     lower by 2000 than in the late 1980s to comply with the 
     agreement. The impact also is expected to be lessened by the 
     fact that some countries already have undertaken reform. 
     Problems with implementation are also expected in countries 
     with high rates of inflation or wide fluctuations of exchange 
     rates.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Senate needs to take note of this 
situation. The United States made significant concessions in limiting 
the future use of agricultural subsidies under the agreement. In fact, 
the administration is claiming that U.S. agriculture is the big winner 
in the agreement. As a result, it is looking for budget cuts in 
agriculture to help pay for the new agreement.
  We are learning that while the United States has agreed to 
significant cutbacks in the use of agriculture subsidies, the rest of 
the world will be allowed to continue the status quo. As the article 
notes, the farm trade deal has been oversold.
  How to pay for GATT is another major concern. The House needs to find 
$13.9 billion in budget offsets over the next 5 years, and the Senate 
needs to find $40 billion in offsets over the next 10 years to make up 
for the lower revenues resulting from GATT tariff reductions.
  Everyone seems to be looking principally at agriculture to find most 
of these savings. Mr. President, it has not yet been proven that 
agriculture will reap the gains that have been claimed. I am not 
prepared to accept major budget cutbacks in agriculture programs until 
the claimed significant agriculture gains are demonstrated.
  Concern over this issue is widespread among major agricultural 
groups. A broad coalition of agriculture groups recently wrote to 
President Clinton to say they could not support legislation 
implementing the proposed new agreement if U.S. agriculture is asked to 
bear a disproportionate share of the new agreement. The letter was 
signed by 22 major agriculture groups.
  I ask unanimous consent that a Farm Bureau News article be printed in 
the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 3.)
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, that letter tells it all. The Senate 
should not agree to implement any trade agreement that does not benefit 
American agriculture. The jury is still out on how this agreement 
affects U.S. agriculture.
  Mr. President, other issues need to be addressed, such as permissive 
subsidies on research and development; the impact on intellectual 
property rights; and the degree of access for the U.S. motion picture 
industry to European Union markets. I will address these in later 
speeches outlining my concerns with the new GATT agreement.
  So, Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say that I think the 
significance of these GATT agreements are being overlooked by the 
Senate and by the United States. I do not know why they are not a 
treaty, or why they are not an executive agreement. But the only way 
the Senate can slow them down or stop them is by not passing the 
implementing legislation, and that is an unfortunate situation to be 
in. But it may well be that the GATT trade agreement will be one of the 
worst things for the United States, because we are turning over our 
trade policy to a 120-nation world trade organization of which we are 
only one vote, and there is no Security Council or anything else. We 
are not going in with a group of nice guys so-to-speak. Of these 120 
nations, over half of them are dictatorships, and they have totally 
different values than we do, and they want to take advantage of the 
United States if they can.
  Once the WTO is created, then we have to pay our dues to the 
organization. The U.S. will have to accept trade decisions of the WTO 
or face trade restrictions, retaliations, or other actions on U.S. 
trade.
  This will not only affect agriculture, but it will affect 
manufacturing more, and goods and services. It is really a major 
decision in trade for this country.
  Many years ago, as a young lawyer, I worked in the State Department, 
in the legal adviser's office on GATT matters. I have followed GATT 
closely over the years. It has been, generally speaking, a good 
organization. But we have never before turned over such power to a 
world trade organization. We have never before, in any of the 
international organizations we are in, given so much authority over the 
sovereignty of the United States to a WTO, a world trade organization. 
And we have never before agreed to allow the other side to keep their 
subsidies so much, whereas we have cut ours back.
  So, once again, the United States is being the good guy. Our workers 
and our farmers and our manufacturers cannot have domestic subsidies, 
but the people they compete against can. Our workers and farmers and 
businessmen cannot have an export subsidy, but others are allowed to 
have it in this GATT agreement, this General Agreement on Trade and 
Tariffs.
  I see this as something that the Senate should be alarmed about and 
the country should be alarmed about. I am glad that some people have 
come forward and started to talk about it. But this is the sleeper 
issue of the year, and if we pass this thing, everything will be all 
right for a year or two, because the initial rounds have been agreed 
to. But in 2 or 3 years, we are going to regret it a great deal.
  I am giving a series of speeches on the Senate floor--and this is my 
second one--to try to alert people and groups as to what is going on.
  Mr. President, I hope America wakes up on the GATT trade agreement.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 1994.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Clai: The Senate soon will consider legislation to 
     implement the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). 
     Among other things, this new trade agreement creates the 
     World Trade Organization.
       Various aspects of the WTO raise some profound questions--
     for example, will the sovereignty of the United States will 
     be affected and, if so, in what ways and to what degree? And 
     how much funding will the United States be required to 
     contribute to the WTO?
       These are important questions that must be discussed before 
     the Senate considers implementing legislation.
       Since the Foreign Relations Committee has jurisdiction over 
     international organizations, we urge that you schedule 
     hearings on the World Trade Organization as soon as possible. 
     It goes without saying that we will gladly work with you in 
     assembling witnesses for the hearings.
       Kindest regards.
           Sincerely,
     Senator Jesse Helms,
     Senator Larry Pressler.

                               Exhibit 2

           Senate Resolution 12-Relative to GATT Negotiations

       Mr, Pressler (for himself, Mr. Heflin, and Mr. Wallop) 
     submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
     Committee on Finance:

                               S. Res. 12

       Whereas in 1986, negotiations on an international agreement 
     to reform the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
     (hereafter in this resolution referred to as ``GATT'') began 
     in Punta del Este, Uruguay, with a targeted conclusion date 
     of December 1990;
       Whereas the United States and other major agricultural 
     exporting nations insisted from the start on significant 
     reductions in the subsidy programs operated by the European 
     Community under its Common Agricultural Policy;
       Whereas in December 1990, after the European Community 
     decided against reducing the subsidy programs of its Common 
     Agricultural Policy, no international agricultural subsidy 
     reduction agreement was reached;
       Whereas in November 1991, the European Community indicated 
     some willingness to reduce its export subsidies during the 
     GATT negotiations;
       Whereas in November 1992, the European Community agreed to 
     certain reductions in its export subsidies;
       Whereas American agriculture has a long tradition of 
     supporting international efforts to achieve more open markets 
     and fairer rules governing world agricultural trade;
       Whereas the support of United States farmers and ranchers 
     for multilateral and other trade negotiations depends on the 
     success of the Uruguay Round GATT negotiations in achieving 
     agricultural subsidy reductions in the European Community; 
     and
       Whereas any agreement under the GATT that is not supported 
     by American farmers and ranchers would not be acceptable to 
     the Congress: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that any 
     agreement regarding proposed changes to the GATT must--
       (1) achieve the elimination or substantial reduction of 
     export subsidies as a means of disposing of agricultural 
     surpluses in the world market;
       (2) achieve new and expanded foreign market opportunities 
     for United States farm products;
       (3) ensure the European Community does not offset possible 
     reductions in its agricultural export subsidies by adopting 
     programs, such as variable levies or tariffs, which have the 
     effect of substantially limiting United States agricultural 
     exports to the European Community;
       (4) not limit the United States ability to exercise its 
     rights under the GATT to eliminate unfair trade barriers in 
     the future; and
       (5) achieve a sound agreement governing sanitary and 
     phytosanitary regulations.
       Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, during the 102d Congress I 
     introduced a resolution to establish U.S. Senate policy that 
     meaningful reforms with respect to agricultural subsidies 
     must be achieved in the GATT negotiations. Today, I join 
     several of my colleagues in reintroducing that resolution.
       By meaningful, we mean that any new GATT Agreement must 
     ensure fair trade opportunities for American farmers and 
     ranchers. Growth in exports is the key to a better future for 
     U.S. agriculture. We must expand world market opportunities 
     for U.S. farmers and ranchers.
       A new agreement also would shape significantly the future 
     economic growth of the world's developing and lesser 
     developed countries. The concessions afforded those countries 
     could determine their future economic growth and potential 
     for development. This could be significant for the United 
     States, since 40 percent of U.S. agricultural trade is with 
     the world's developing and lesser developed countries. Some 
     of the largest consumers of U.S. farm products once were 
     economically less-developed countries.
       Mr. President, the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations to 
     establish new trading rules in agriculture have been focused 
     on three areas: Internal support, market access, and export 
     competition. The arduous negotiations of the past 6 years 
     have resulted in certain agreements being reached, and now 
     the talks are entering their final stretch. If we are to have 
     a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round, the United 
     States must continue to insist that measurable improvements 
     be made in each of these areas.
       The Uruguay round originally was scheduled to be concluded 
     in December 1990. At that time, the United States was calling 
     on the European Community [EC] to reduce its domestic 
     agricultural subsidies by 75 percent and its export subsidies 
     by 90 percent over a 10-year period. This demand marked a 
     retreat from the original U.S. position of total elimination 
     of all agricultural subsidies. Still, the EC balked and 
     walked away from the negotiations.
       In December 1991, efforts again were made to reach a 
     consensus agreement. Though the United States continued to 
     insist on its modified position, discussion centered on a 36-
     percent reduction in export subsidies and a 20-percent 
     reduction in domestic subsidies over a 6-year period. 
     Expectations were high and many believed that a breakthrough 
     was near. I was concerned that the United States might back 
     down on some demands simply to reach a new agreement. 
     Fortunately, that did not occur.
       Mr. President, at that time, I wrote the President and the 
     U.S. Trade Representative urging them not to back down from 
     our demands that Europe cease to practice agricultural 
     protectionism. No consensus was reached, and GATT Director 
     General Arthur Dunkel Proposed a draft final agreement 
     embracing a 36-percent reduction in export subsidies and 20-
     percent reduction in domestic subsidies over a 6-year period. 
     The so-called Dunkel proposal is now the center of 
     negotiations on agricultural trade in the Uruguay round.
       The recent threat of United States retaliation to counter 
     the European Community's GATT-illegal oilseed regime forced 
     some movement on the part of the European Community. The 
     agreements made in November 1992 offered renewed hope for 
     concluding the talks. However, since November, concerns over 
     market access in the European Community for United States 
     agricultural products have been raised. In fact, close 
     examination of the agreements reached to date could actually 
     result in fewer agriculture exports to the EC. Mr. President, 
     this cannot be allowed to happen. I will oppose any GATT 
     rules that hurt American farmers and ranchers.
       According to industry sources, elimination of EC 
     agricultural supports, such as variable levies and export 
     subsidies, could boost U.S. farm exports in all markets 
     between $4 and $5 billion, while at the same time reduce U.S. 
     imports about $2 billion. Among key commodities, U.S. grain 
     exports could rise about $1.8 billion, with imports dropping 
     $22 million. Meat and egg exports could increase $1.3 
     billion, while imports could fall almost $2.4 billion.
       Mr. President, the effect of such gains would be 
     substantial. Every billion dollars' worth of agricultural 
     exports means 26,000 new jobs here in the United States.
       Allowing the EC to continue its protectionist agricultural 
     subsidy programs means that South Dakota farmers and ranchers 
     would continue to face unfair foreign competition. Every 
     farmer and rancher in South Dakota knows that higher grain, 
     dairy, and meat prices depend on better access to foreign 
     markets. EC export subsidies deprive our farmers and ranchers 
     of billions of dollars in foreign sales.
       A new GATT Agreement that meaningfully addresses the 
     problem of EC agricultural subsidies would increase the U.S. 
     share of world export markets in grains and meats. Such an 
     agreement likely would result in little change in Government 
     supports and higher market prices for most U.S. commodities. 
     World prices for most agricultural commodities likely would 
     be higher than under a continuation of current policy. 
     Reducing export subsidies and import barriers would increase 
     world demand. U.S. taxpayers, and U.S. grain, oilseed, and 
     livestock producers, would benefit from meaningful GATT 
     reforms.
       Mr. President, the Dunkel proposal submitted in December 
     1991 does not go far enough. U.S. farmers and ranchers 
     currently are forced to compete on an uneven playing field. 
     It would remain uneven under the Dunkel proposal. Therefore, 
     our negotiators must work to level this playing field by 
     insisting on further concessions from the EC.
       The drama of the negotiation process will continue and any 
     final agreement probably will be reached in an 11th-hour 
     deal. Unless a significant reduction in agricultural 
     subsidies--at both the export and domestic levels--is 
     achieved, the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations will be 
     doomed to failure.

                               Exhibit 3

       [From the American Farm Bureau Federation, Apr. 18, 1994]

            Farm Groups Oppose Ag Cuts To Finance GATT Pact

       The Uruguay Round world trade agreement was formally signed 
     last week by more than 100 member nations in Marrakesh, 
     Morocco. But a coalition of farm groups, including Farm 
     Bureau, is concerned that the cost of the agreement could 
     fall unfairly on U.S. agriculture.
       In a letter to President Clinton, the groups said that if 
     U.S. agriculture is asked to bear a disproportionate share of 
     the cost of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, they 
     could not support legislation implementing the proposed 
     agreement.
       Some estimates show that by reducing tariffs on imports, 
     the agreement could reduce U.S. government revenues by $14-
     $18 billion. Such estimates, the groups noted, are highly 
     subjective and fail to consider the potential for increased 
     revenues due to expanding trade and increased economic 
     activity, which help create jobs and an expanded tax base.
       ``It is our understanding the administration has under 
     consideration various proposals, including requiring 
     significant reductions in current farm and related programs, 
     to help offset a major proportion of such revenue losses,'' 
     the letter said. ``This is despite the fact that tariff 
     revenue losses from agricultural imports account for only 
     about 5 percent or less of the estimated total.''
       The administration has repeatedly assured farm 
     organizations that the new GATT agreement would not require 
     any further reduction in domestic income and price-support 
     programs, the groups said.
       ``In meeting after meeting, we were repeatedly assured that 
     the new GATT agreement would not require any further 
     reduction in domestic income and price-support programs,'' 
     the letter said. At the same time, the administration 
     emphasized its commitment to fully use its authority under 
     GATT to maintain U.S. agriculture's ability to compete 
     internationally.
       The coalition is concerned, however, that payment for the 
     GATT agreement will fall disproportionately on the 
     agricultural sector, which already has seen significant 
     spending cuts in recent years.
       Under the negotiated GATT agreement, tariffs in 
     participating countries would be reduced on a wide range of 
     products. But while the agreement requires countries to 
     reduce their use of export subsidies, it allows them to 
     maintain--or even increase--their support for certain non-
     trade-distorting (``green box'') programs. The coalition 
     urged the president to shift current funding from reduced or 
     disallowed programs to those that are permitted.
       Agricultural support programs considered in the ``green box 
     category'' include market development and promotion, export 
     credit, food aid and other related programs. The budget 
     currently under consideration would significantly reduce many 
     of these programs, even though they are permitted by GATT.
       ``Unless these concerns are addressed, it is hard to 
     envision how U.S. agriculture stands to gain as a result of 
     the new GATT agreement,'' the letter said.
       The GATT agreement was negotiated over a seven-year period. 
     Before it can take effect, most participating countries must 
     bring their own domestic laws into compliance with the GATT 
     agreement. The U.S. Congress may take up this implementing 
     legislation later this year.
       The coalition includes the following organizations: 
     American Farm Bureau Federation; American Meat Institute; 
     American Sheep Industry Association; Coalition For Food Aid; 
     Natural Association of Wheat Growers; National Barley Growers 
     Association; National Cattlemen's Association; National Corn 
     Growers Association; National Cotton Council; National 
     Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National Farmers Union; 
     National Grange; National Milk Producers Association; 
     National Pork Producers Council; National Potato Council; 
     National Sunflower Association; National Turkey Federation; 
     Rice Millers Association; United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable 
     Association; and U.S. Rice Producers Group.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________