[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 141 (Monday, October 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  GATT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, after careful review, I have concluded that 
the legislation implementing the Uruguay round of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade [GATT] is fatally flawed, It is flawed not for 
what it does, but for what it fails to do. It fails to provide fair 
rules for our dairy exports. It fails to protect U.S. intellectual 
property rights around the world. And it fails to safeguard America's 
standard of living by supporting our absolute right to a clean 
environment, a safe food supply, and sound labor practices.
  I believe in free trade. Last November, I voted for the North 
American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA]. And NAFTA has been an 
overwhelming success across the country and in my home State of 
Vermont. In the first 3 months since NAFTA went into effect, United 
States exports to Mexico jumped 15 percent and Vermont exports to 
Mexico skyrocketed 83 percent from a year ago. NAFTA has been an 
economic boon to Vermonters, opening up markets and spurring Vermont 
exporters to add more high-quality jobs to their payrolls.
  But GATT is not NAFTA. These two agreements are completely different 
animals. NAFTA proves that we can do better than GATT. NAFTA included 
intellectual property rights for U.S. products. And NAFTA included side 
agreements on labor and environmental issues. GATT fails to include any 
of these provisions.
  Overall, GATT is not good for dairy. We will export fewer dairy 
products and import more subsidized dairy products under this 
agreement. I am unwilling to expose Vermont dairy farms to these risks. 
Senator Jeffords and I tried to work with the administration to provide 
U.S. milk producers with the tools they need to be successful in a 
post-GATT world. For whatever reason, the administration was unwilling 
to work with us and the dairy industry. An agreement that does not 
provide increased access to foreign markets for Vermont dairy farmers 
is not free trade for Vermont.
  When United States officials went to Geneva to finish GATT 
negotiations last year, we had every reason to believe that the final 
agreement would eliminate many trade barriers that confront America's 
intellectual property creators and industries. But the U.S. negotiators 
were out-maneuvered. The European Union resisted free trade in the name 
of culture and succeeded in keeping their protectionist barriers for 
movies, TV shows, and other entertainment products. Although GATT does 
provide much-needed relief for our creators of computer software, its 
failure to include national treatment leaves other with precious 
little.
  This agreement, unlike NAFTA, does not adequately address labor, 
environmental and food safety concerns. In today's global economy, the 
interaction between trade and these issues cannot be ignored. We can 
never ask U.S. citizens to jeopardize their standard of living in the 
name of free trade. Unfortunately, GATT moves away from the crucial 
link between trade and the labor, environment and food safety issues 
that we fought so hard to forge in NAFTA. I cannot support this trend.
  I have supported President Clinton on many important issues since his 
election. I hailed his leadership on issues like NAFTA, health care 
reform and the crime bill. But I cannot support the President's 
position in favor of GATT. We can do better than this agreement.

                          ____________________