[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 97 (Friday, July 22, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            GATT AGREEMENT IS GOOD FOR TEXAS AND FOR NATION

                                 ______


                        HON. MICHAEL A. ANDREWS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 22, 1994

  Mr. ANDREWS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support 
of the implementing legislation for the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade [GATT] that will soon be before the House of Representatives. 
This historic agreement represents over 45 years of trade negotiations 
between the United States and other member countries and the 
administration should be highly commended.
  For States such as Texas, the Uruguay round opens important foreign 
markets to our products. Being the Nation's third largest exporter of 
merchandise, Texas' economy will be bolstered by the GATT's creation of 
significant export and employment opportunities.
  This can only be good for my State's economy. From 1987 to 1993, 
Texas merchandise exports almost doubled, rising by 97 percent. This 
rise was the second largest among all the United States. Texas' leading 
export industries of industrial machinery, computers, electronic 
equipment and chemical products together accounted for 57 percent of 
our State's exports in 1993. Texas is uniquely positioned to build on 
past successes to benefit from the Uruguay round and the opportunities 
the GATT will create.
  In negotiating the Uruguay round agreement, the administration was 
immensely successful in achieving United States trade objectives. They 
successfully reduced trade distortions for agricultural and industrial 
goods, created regulations for new areas, such as services and 
intellectual rights, and established an improved process for resolving 
trade disputes.
  Under the GATT, tariffs will be reduced on manufactured items by an 
average of one-third, mostly by zeroing out tariffs in selected product 
categories. For the United States and most other developed countries, 
these categories will include steel, construction and agricultural 
machinery, furniture, paper, toys, medical equipment, drugs, as well as 
beer and distilled spirits.
  Industrialized countries will also phase out their quotas on textiles 
and clothing in four stages over a 10-year period. However, for the 
first time, developing countries will also eliminate their textile 
import barriers.
  Agriculture goods have been fully implemented into the GATT framework 
after the Uruguay round agreements. Subsequently, agricultural tariffs 
will be reduced approximately one-third over 6 years. The effect will 
be seen in increased U.S. agricultural exports and increased farm 
income.
  Important provisions regarding nontariff barriers, trade in services, 
foreign investment, and protection of intellectual property rights have 
also been added. The final GATT accord will modify or establish new 
world trading orders by creating the World Trade Organization to 
facilitate implementation of the agreements as well as strengthen trade 
dispute procedures. The final agreements also include antidumping 
procedures and contain subsidies provisions.
  The GATT negotiations have made historic strides in reducing tariff 
barriers. For industrial countries, tariff barriers have been lowered 
from an average of 40 percent in the early 1950's to an average of less 
than 4 percent at the completion of the Uruguay round.
  In particular, I would like to thank the administration for their 
work to improve regional industry import concentration provisions 
within the Statement of Administrative Action [SAA]. In the past, 
interpretations of antidumping laws have made it difficult for regional 
industries to prevail in pursuing fair treatment. I commend the 
administration for recognizing the unique nature of regional industries 
and providing regional industries with a fair remedy to respond to 
unfair trade practices.
  However, while the agreement offers many opportunities, there are 
still some provisions that require improvement. That is why I offered 
an amendment which would grant the Department of Commerce authority to 
suspend dumping duties only in exceptional cases.
  The necessity for this provision is clear, considering the problem 
many of our domestic industries face: The need for an effective means 
of securing access to the right quantity and quality product in times 
when domestic supply is inadequate.
  Under my amendment, authority would only apply if a specified product 
under a dumping order is not available in the domestic market. This 
means that either a domestic producer does not currently produce the 
merchandise, or a domestic producer cannot fill a request for the 
product.
  Let me offer an example to demonstrate the need for this provision: 
In 1992, Northern Natural Gas Co. undertook a large expansion project 
to provide clean burning natural gas to homes from Nebraska to Iowa.
  The product they neeed--large diameter steel pipe was in short supply 
here in the United States. After purchasing all domestic supply 
available, they petitioned Commerce under the steel VRA program--from 
which our amendment is modeled--for short supply. They were granted a 
short supply waiver and were able to import the steel they needed 
without having to pay a 55-percent duty. This exemption allowed them to 
complete the project on time and saved them millions of dollars in 
potential contract penalties that would have been assessed by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  This happy ending could not happen today. Instead this company will 
have lost the right to petition for short supply and will be forced to 
pay huge penalties as they wait for up to a year for domestic industry 
to supply their needed product. Without my provision, hundreds of 
companies like Northern Natural Gas will see their costs doubled and 
themselves placed at a serious competitive disadvantage.
  Mr. Speaker, I and the cosponsors of this amendment believe that 
antidumping and countervailing duty remedies are an appropriate 
response to injury caused by unfair import practices in most market 
situations. However, in some circumstances these remedies can prove 
excessive and may work to the detriment of consumers of a product. That 
is why we have drafted our amendment to model the successful steel 
voluntary restraint program [VRA], thereby giving the Department of 
Commerce broad authority to review petitions. Under my proposal, the 
domestic producer holds all the cards. If they can supply the needs of 
the customer, there is no grounds for a temporary suspension of duties. 
If they can supply 80 percent of the customers' needs, then the 
petition may be granted a waiver for the remaining 20 percent of the 
order.
  Mr. Speaker, the need for a temporary suspension of duties arises 
from the realities of today's marketplace. In our increasingly global 
marketplace, we must not tie the hands of American companies. We 
believe that our amendment guarantees a balance between the legitimate 
interests of producers and consumers. For the sake of fairness, balance 
and a competitive America we urge the adoption of a short supply 
provision to the GATT implementing legislation.
  I think this amendment will go a long way toward improving the GATT 
and strengthening the competitive advantage of American business. These 
landmark opportunities to stimulate our economy, promote U.S. exports, 
and create new, high paying U.S. jobs is a credit to the Clinton 
administration.

                          ____________________