[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 82 (Friday, June 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
                      SILLINESS ABOUT SOVEREIGNTY?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Penny). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Bentley] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton is urging the public to 
pressure Congress into passing the expanded General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade [GATT] this year, not next. That, despite estimates 
that tariff cuts negotiated in the treaty could cut $12 to $14 billion 
from Federal revenue over 5 years.
  The loss of revenue is a major concern. However, what is more 
distressing is the loss of sovereignty of the United States under the 
agreement.
  Individual States and American citizens are waking up to the truth 
about GATT. According to the North Carolina Winston-Salem Journal, the 
new GATT can be used to overturn tax laws that foreigners consider 
unfair.
  American citizens understand this fact and also are loudly voicing 
concerns about the loss of sovereignty of the United States under the 
World Trade Organization [WTO], one of the 200 agreements included in 
GATT. Those concerns are legitimate.
  GATT supporters insist they will be able to make up the revenue loss 
through eventual economic growth. However, once you've lost your 
sovereignty, it is gone.
  Countries assuming the right to reject GATT rulings as a sovereign 
prerogative were criticized by Peter Sutherland, director general of 
the GATT, in a June 16 Reuters story.
  In his interview, Mr. Sutherland said countries assuming the right to 
reject GATT rulings as a sovereign prerogative ``amounts to a country 
choosing to be above the law whenever it is inconvenient to observe the 
law and this option would not be open to countries under the WTO.''
  That means the United States of America is expected to abide by and 
live under the WTO law--laws made by international bureaucrats, trade 
lawyers and other approved representatives from 118 nations and not--I 
repeat--not your elected representatives.
  Proof of this fact is in a Wall Street Journal story which reported 
on a letter written about the telecommunications bill by U.S. Trade 
Representative Mickey Kantor.
  In his letter, Ambassador Kantor warned Members of Congress who 
sought to require jobs for Americans in the bill,

       That the local manufacturing and local content requirements 
     [in the telecommunications bill] would be inconsistent with 
     existing U.S. obligations under the GATT.

  When he was questioned about what the United States could do if it 
violated the WTO provision, Ambassador Kantor replied by citing both 
NAFTA and GATT that

       If a dispute settlement panel found the provision [the U.S. 
     law] to be inconsistent with the NAFTA, the United States 
     would have the choice of either bringing the provision into 
     conformity with the NAFTA, through congressional amendment or 
     agreeing on alternative trade compensation.

  In other words, the United States has no other choice but to adhere 
to regulations set up by an organization made up of 118 nations.
  Under the new GATT, Congress will have limited power over trade. If 
passed, the WTO and GATT commission will supersede U.S. law. We cannot 
allow this to happen.
  In criticizing opponent to the GATT, one newspaper headline read, 
``Silliness About Sovereignty.''
  I disagree heartily that protecting the rights of Americans is silly. 
To quote Thomas Jefferson in a March 1809 address to the citizens of 
Washington County, MD, ``The care of human life and happiness, and not 
their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good 
government.''
  It seems to me that a sovereign nation is obligated to act to protect 
its citizens. Not after the NAFTA and not under the WTO.
  Florida found out what happens with the dumping of Mexican tomatoes 
into the State which is destroying the Florida farmers. Now, the fresh-
cut flower industry is suffering because of the dumping of roses from 
South America at below market prices. Neither the State nor the Federal 
Government can act to protect those businesses.
  Our Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves if they knew 
what is happening to this country under these international agreements.

                          ____________________