[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     THE TRUTH COMES OUT WITH GATT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Bentley] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Speaker, the old international dispute between 
Mexico and the United States over the U.S. 1972 Marine Mammal 
Protection Act which bans the use of tuna nets to catch dolphins has 
resulted in the European Community jumping into the dispute with 
charges of their own.
  The European Community is the winner and the United States and the 
dolphins are the losers with a GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade] dispute panel ruling the American ban illegal because GATT does 
not allow trade bans based on production methods. Production method is 
a fancy name for a net but, it still means that dolphins will be 
killed.
  Mexico originally complained to GATT and won a dispute panel ruling 
against the United States in 1991. The GATT panel determined that GATT 
barred any administrative law that attempts to regulate wildlife 
outside a nation's borders.
  Mexico, however, did not push the original GATT ruling according to 
the Wall Street Journal, because it feared the dispute would spoil 
Mexico's chances for Congressional approval for a North American Free-
Trade Agreement [NAFTA].
  Fortunately for the United States, the GATT ruling is just in time 
for Americans to discover how GATT really works before we vote on the 
GATT and the World Trade Organization. The claims about the authority 
of the panels to bring sanctions, or allow the raising of tariffs, plus 
the secretiveness of the whole process are borne out by our trade 
negotiators.
  Apparently Ambassador Kantor, the U.S. Trade Representative, is 
unhappy with the ruling. According to the Wall Street Journal, the 
Ambassador stated, ``GATT procedures not only denied us a fair hearing, 
but they need to be totally revamped''. This is in response to the 
hearing which was held in secret with closed proceedings. Ambassador 
Kantor's calling for revamping the rules is a little late since his 
team agreed to these new rules in December.
  Coming from the horse country in Maryland, this reminds me of someone 
closing the barn door after the horse has bolted out of the yard.
  The article also pointed out that the current GATT allows a panel 
ruling to be blocked, but--the new World Trade Organization rulings 
cannot be vetoed. The paper also pointed out that Ambassador Kantor 
stated ``the U.S. would refuse to alter the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act.''
  Advocates of GATT will claim this ruling does not affect our laws, 
but that is not exactly so under the new World Trade Organization. 
According to government documents the Dispute mechanism places time 
limits on when a Member of the WTO must bring its laws into conformity 
with panel rulings and recommendations.
  The mechanism also includes an authorization for retaliation if a 
Member has not brought its laws into conformity with its obligations to 
the WTO within a set period of time. Now, that is an interesting 
statement since the New York Times editorialized that the World Trade 
Organization bares no fangs in trade dispute cases but can authorize 
the plaintiff to retaliate.
  That means the petitioner has the ability to place tariffs on U.S. 
products, and it may not be in the offending sector. An example is if 
orange growers were violating trade law, the GATT panel may allow apple 
growers to be penalized. Sounds like Russian roulette--all an American 
business could do is hope the tariff threats would not be pointed at 
them.
  The actual GATT document that explains the dispute settlement 
agreement of the GATT provides that a losing country should implement 
the panel's report immediately. If not, the agreement provides for 
prompt, effective procedures to resolve disputes about the degree of 
compliance with the report.
  It sounds nice that the WTO would lower tariffs, but it may or may 
not be so. It depends on from what you are lowering them. Canadian 
authorities planned in January to impose tariffs up to 351 percent on 
certain basic farm products from the United States. Canada claimed the 
new GATT gave them the authority for these astronomical tariffs which 
would be reduced only 15 to 36 percent over a period of years. We need 
to beware. It seems the Government is claiming one thing while what the 
GATT does with the WTO is the one which has the ultimate authority. We 
must all wise up before it is too late.

                          ____________________