[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5110, URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 564 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 564

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5110) to approve and implement the trade 
     agreements concluded in the Uruguay Round of multilateral 
     trade negotiations. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against the bill and 
     against its consideration are waived. General debate shall 
     proceed without intervening motion, shall be confined to the 
     bill, and shall not exceed four hours equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. Pursuant to section 151(d) of 
     the Trade Act of 1974, after general debate the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House. Pursuant to 
     section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
     passage without intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 564 is a rule providing 4 
hours of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  All points of order are waived against the bill and against its 
consideration.
  The rule provides that general debate shall proceed without 
intervening motion. The rule also provides, pursuant to section 151(d) 
of the Trade Act of 1974, that after general debate the committee shall 
rise and report the bill to the House.
  Finally, the rule provides for no motion to recommit, pursuant to 
section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5110, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, is the most 
comprehensive trade agreement ever considered by this body.
  It is legislation which will benefit the American people and the 
American economy. The success of our domestic growth is intimately 
linked with the success of the world economy, and this legislation will 
give a boost to the world economy of unprecedented proportions.
  The Uruguay Round Agreements will cut foreign tariffs on manufactured 
products by over one-third. This amounts to the largest global tax cut 
in history. This agreement, when fully implemented, should add $100 
billion to $200 billion to the U.S. economy annually.
  The Uruguay Round goes farther than any previous agreement by 
addressing areas of trade long ignored. For the first time, the 
intellectual property of U.S. entrepreneurs will be protected. For the 
first time, services are covered.
  This means there will be open markets for U.S. exporters of 
accounting, advertising, computers, tourism and engineering and 
construction services.
  In agriculture, it will greatly expand export opportunities for U.S. 
products by reducing the use of export subsidies and eliminating 
foreign government barriers.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout my tenure in this body, I have fought to 
ensure fair trade policies for the textile and apparel industries, 
businesses which are important to my district and my State. This 
legislation includes vital provisions for the U.S. textile and apparel 
industries.
  The agreement requires that, as of July 1, 1996, imported apparel 
items will be labeled as originating in the country in which they were 
assembled, rather than the country in which they were cut.
  This provision is aimed at those countries which continuously by-pass 
reasonable rules of international trade--particularly countries like 
Hong Kong, which have their clothing exports assembled by cheaper labor 
in China. Until now, the United States has been the only major trading 
country with a rule of origin.
  Textile and apparel companies will also benefit due to the greater 
market access provisions negotiated by U.S. negotiators. I would like 
to see these provisions strengthened--especially with regards to 
countries with strong protectionist policies like India and Pakistan--
but this agreement is a giant step in the right direction.
  Under the agreement, U.S. workers will gain major new employment 
opportunities. U.S. companies will gain major new export opportunities. 
And U.S. consumers will gain greater access to lower priced, high 
quality goods and services.
  In brief, the Uruguay Round Agreement will benefit the U.S. by 
strengthening the trade rules of other nations.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 564 is a fair Rule that will allow us 
to adequately debate and implement H.R. 5110. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Rule and the Uruguay Round Agreement Act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Edgefield 
for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I should say at the outset that this just may be the 
last rule under the management of my very good friend from South 
Carolina, and I would like to say how much I have appreciated the 
opportunity to co-manage rules with him over the past several years. He 
will sincerely be missed.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this rule. The Uruguay round is the 
largest and most comprehensive trade agreement in world history. I 
believe it should be called the GATT American Round.
  The major initiatives of this agreement are the direct result of U.S. 
proposals originating in the prior two Republican administrations to 
reduce trade barriers that block our most competitive industries. This 
agreement protects the intellectual property rights of American 
artists, writers, musicians, software creators, and inventors.
  Service industries, agriculture, and investment will finally be 
brought into the multilateral trade regime.
  The United States is the international leader in all of these fields. 
The result is that more good jobs will be created right here at home in 
the United States. Make no mistake, the GATT Uruguay Round is a good 
deal.

                              {time}  2000

  However, as a strong advocate of free trade, I believe that H.R. 5110 
is not as good as the trade agreement itself. The antidumping 
provisions could violate the Uruguay agreement. The textiles provisions 
are a step backwards that penalize American families. The 
administration made a number of deals with protected industries which 
are contrary to the spirit of free trade that is the hallmark of the 
Uruguay round.
  Last year when we overcame the mountainous hurdles that obstructed 
the North American Free Trade Agreement, nearly every observer believed 
that passing GATT would be comparatively easy. We could have completed 
the GATT by the July 4 recess. Now we must redouble our bipartisan 
efforts to ensure victory.
  Rather than quickly putting a bipartisan bill together that could 
move through both houses this summer, the administration waited until 
September 27 to finally introduce the bill. Rather than line up the 
votes and get all the Democrat committee chairmen in order to ensure 
smooth sailing, they got bushwhacked in the other body by one of their 
own chairmen. That has fundamentally changed the schedule, and clearly 
thrown this House into a state of disorder.
  Mr. Speaker, it appears that the administration's legislative 
strategy has been to confuse the opposition by having no discernible 
strategy at all. They have done it so well that friends and foes alike 
have been confused.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that many Democrats and Republicans want this 
operation to slow down. The other body is going to vote for GATT on 
December 1st. The Senators have 65 days to evaluate the bill. House 
Members have had only eight. No matter where one stands on GATT, it is 
very hard to argue that, although House Members are quicker studies, 
they do not deserve the same amount of time to review legislation as 
Senators.
  Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the term ``speed kills.'' My fear is 
that rushing the GATT bill itself onto the floor could have been one of 
those cases. Of all things, I do not want to see GATT defeated. That is 
why I strongly applaud the bipartisan leadership decision to pass this 
rule and then bring the GATT bill up in a special session after the 
election. GATT supporters can use some time to build stronger support 
for the GATT, as we did for the North American Free-Trade Agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and when we 
return later this year, I urge strong support for the GATT.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues 
the letter which was just sent to the President by the Speaker of the 
House, the Majority Leader, the Republican leader, and the Republican 
Whip. It reads as follows, Mr. Speaker:

       As strong supporters of an expanding economy through free 
     trade, we believe the GATT legislation currently before the 
     Congress should become law. Because of problems in the 
     Senate, the vote in that body will not be held until early 
     December. The Senate decision to postpone the vote has quite 
     frankly undermined our ability to guarantee strong bipartisan 
     support for this effort in the House at this time.
       With the ultimate goal of GATT enactment in mind, we would 
     prefer that consideration of GATT in the House be delayed 
     until later this year. In our view, attempting to pass the 
     legislation in the current atmosphere will weaken the strong 
     bipartisan spirit we want to see for final passage.
       We, therefore, take this opportunity to urge that the GATT 
     vote in the House be postponed until November 29th, just 
     before the Senate acts. At that time, we will be working with 
     you and with all those who believe in the importance of this 
     legislation to assure that GATT overwhelmingly passes the 
     House.

  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter referred to:
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 1994.
     President William J. Clinton,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As strong supporters of an expanding 
     economy through free trade, we believe the GATT legislation 
     currently before the Congress should become law. Because of 
     problems in the Senate, the vote in that body will not be 
     held until early December. The Senate decision to postpone 
     the vote has quite frankly undermined our ability to 
     guarantee strong bi-partisan support for this effort in the 
     House at this time.
       With the ultimate goal of GATT enactment in mind, we would 
     prefer that consideration of GATT in the House be delayed 
     until later this year. In our view, attempting to pass the 
     legislation in the current atmosphere will weaken the strong 
     bi-partisan spirit we want to see for final passage.
       We, therefore, take this opportunity to urge that the GATT 
     vote in the House be postponed until November 29th, just 
     before the Senate acts. At that time, we will be working with 
     you and with all those who believe in the importance of this 
     legislation to assure that GATT overwhelmingly passes the 
     House.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas S. Foley.
     Richard A. Gephardt.
     Robert H. Michel.
     Newt Gingrich.

  Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I strongly urge my colleagues to support 
this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  I rise in support of this rule and to express my disappointment that 
we have deferred a vote on the underlying GATT legislation until after 
the election. I fear that delay will lose votes and increase 
partisanship around an issue that should be bipartisan.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for allowing partisanship to 
sacrifice increasing American exports and creating new American jobs. 
The GATT bill is a good bill, one economists overwhelmingly agree will 
boost the American economy. Unfortunately, there are even GATT 
supporters who are seeking to delay final consideration tonight for 
political advantage. This is not our proudest moment.
  I want to recognize the special contributions of a bipartisan group 
of Californians who are critical to this effort: Special Trade 
Representative Mickey Kantor, Mr. Dreier, and Mr. Matsui. Their best 
efforts will continue to be needed to assure passage of the 
legislation, legislation which will be of enormous benefit to 
California, the largest exporting State.
  California's $68.1 billion of exports in 1993--almost 15 percent of 
total U.S. exports--make the State the Nation's largest exporter. 
California is also the fastest-growing exporter in dollar terms, with 
$15 billion growth during 1989-1992.

  According to the International Trade Administration, nearly 800,000 
California jobs are supported by the State's export of manufactured 
goods. This includes both direct jobs and indirect employment in 
supporting sectors. Almost one in every five manufacturing jobs in the 
State were attributable to exports; and given the State's export growth 
since that time, export-related jobs have probably increased beyond 
that number.
  As a result of the Uruguay round, California's key export sectors 
will benefit from reduced foreign tariffs, strong intellectual property 
protection and improved trade rules protecting United States industries 
against unfair trade practices and removing burdensome obstacles, 
including:
  Producers of civil aircraft benefit from better protection against 
unfair subsidization by foreign governments;
  The elimination of duties on beer, brown distilled spirits, 
furniture, pharmaceutical, medical instruments, and toys in key foreign 
markets;
  Import tariff reductions greater than 50 percent on industrial 
machinery and electronic equipment, including the complete removal of 
tariffs by the European Union and Korea on semiconductor manufacturing 
equipment; and
  Computer exports will benefit by significantly improved intellectual 
property protection for computer programs and databases for a minimum 
of 50 years.
  The Uruguay round agreement is the product of the labor of three 
administrations. The process was initiated by President Ronald Reagan, 
negotiated by George Bush, and concluded by President Clinton. The 
agreement has wide bipartisan support here in the Congress. Across the 
country virtually every sector of American business supports GATT. So 
do the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, the South Bay Area Chamber 
of Commerce, 41 State Governors including California's Governor Pete 
Wilson, numerous South Bay businesses such as Hughes, TRW, Dow, and 
Mattel, the California Council for International Trade, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, Biotechnology Industry Organization, and 
the American Electronics Association.
  Mr. Speaker, during each session of the Congress there are a few 
pieces of legislation of unquestioned importance to the United States 
and other Nations of the world. The legislation addressed by this rule 
falls in that category.
  The implementation of the Uruguay round of the GATT will have 
significant and far-reaching economic affects here at home and across 
the globe. GATT has the potential to move the world to the verge of a 
totally open market. The positive economic impact in the next decade in 
terms of jobs and economic growth will be substantial.
  GATT's benefits--including a $36-billion tax cut over the next 10 
years--are recognized in a recent editorial in the New-Pilot, a paper 
in my congressional district. I ask unanimous consent to insert its 
text in the Record following my remarks.
  Unlike the NAFTA agreement which confers special rules that give 
Mexico unfair trade advantages, GATT opens markets to American products 
on an equal basis with our foreign trading partners. A vote for this 
rule and for GATT is a vote for America's workers, for a tax cut, and 
for bipartisanship. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

         Trade Accord Is Top Priority--Congress Should OK GATT

       As the world's largest economy, the United States stands to 
     gain more than any other country from the increased commerce 
     that would be generated by a new global trade pact. That's 
     why the No. 1 priority of Congress should be to approve the 
     treaty before it adjourns.
       The agreement, negotiated under the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade (GATT), constitutes a huge tax cut for 
     American consumers in the form of lower tariffs on imported 
     products. It is the culmination of nearly a decade of 
     bipartisan efforts to reduce trade barriers around the globe.
       If the Senate and House approve the measure, it is 
     projected to add $100 billion a year to America's gross 
     domestic product over the next decade. That growth would 
     churn out an additional 500,000 jobs for American workers.
       Why, then, is the agreement a long way from being a done 
     deal on Capitol Hill? The short answer is that an election is 
     drawing near, and that means nothing can be taken for granted 
     in Congress.
       Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Fritz Hollings has 
     erected the latest obstacle to the treaty. The South Carolina 
     Democrat is promising to bottle up the accord in his 
     committee in order to press for changes sought by textile 
     producers in his home state.
       Meanwhile, such Republican champions of free trade as 
     Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas and Sen. Phil Gramm 
     of Texas have urged that the agreement be put off until next 
     year. The obvious suspicion is that both Senators--who say 
     they support the agreement--want to deny President Clinton 
     and Democratic lawmakers a legislative victory just a month 
     before the election.
       It is essential that the treaty be approved by Congress 
     this year.
       The United States and other participating nations have 
     agreed to implement the liberalized trade rules by Jan. 1. If 
     lawmakers leave town without approving the deal, other 
     countries almost certain will pull back their support, 
     jeopardizing a complex and fragile agreement that took seven 
     years to negotiate.
       The long-term economic benefits to be gained from the 
     global trade accord would magnify the surge in U.S. exports 
     that have resulted from the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement. Congress should not leave town until it is 
     approved.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
very good friend, the gentleman from Peoria, IL [Mr. Michel], our 
revered Republican leader.
  (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, which 
will set the stage for a vote on GATT in November. Since we are all a 
bit weary as we engage in the usual end of Congress chaos, let me make 
my message as briefly and clearly as I can.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is in the best interests of all the 
American people to pass the rule tonight with strong support on both 
sides of the aisle. I am not going to bore you with details of how we 
got to this moment. Members all know the pressures and the problems and 
the conflicts that have brought us to this particular point.
  Suffice it to say that working with the Democratic leadership, we 
were able to come to an agreement as to the time when we would actually 
debate GATT and vote on it in November, just prior to its being 
considered in the other body.
  Mr. Speaker, I specifically want to praise the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished Majority Leader, and, of 
course, the Speaker, for their willingness to sit and listen to our 
concerns and discuss the issue as we did in calmness today.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend them on their fine judgment and wisdom 
in agreeing to the compromise. This is neither a time nor place to 
debate GATT, but what I would like to say to my Members, Mr. Speaker, 
particularly, is that we oppose rules on occasion for several reasons. 
If we are absolutely opposed to the consideration of a bill, we vote 
against the rule to let it be known that that is what our feelings are. 
Other times we oppose rules because we feel they are probably too 
tightly structured and we would like to open them up for amendments.
  However, I have to tell all Members that under the procedure for a 
trade agreement such as this, the rule will be the same today, 
tomorrow, next week, next year. It is not that it is a difference of a 
rule. It is going to be the same rule, so we would appreciate very much 
having the support of as many Members on our side of the aisle as feel 
comfortable in voting for the rule to make it a purely bipartisan 
approach.
  Mr. Speaker, this does not commit a Member definitely in voting for 
the rule. You are voting to consider and debate it. I thought on our 
side we always countenanced full debate on any issue, as controversial 
as that may be. That is why I would urge Members to vote for the rule, 
take our chances when it comes up, then, the day before the Senate 
considers it over in the other body.

  There will be that time, I hope, during the debate which normally 
might very well be a 4-hour stint. Those of us who feel strongly about 
GATT can make our case at that time.
  Just one final point again, to our Members on the Republican side, 
because traditionally, traditionally our party has been for free and 
open trade, breaking down tariff barriers, and improving the commercial 
intercourse between countries to provide jobs, jobs, jobs. That is what 
this bill does do over a long haul.
  Mr. Speaker, I would surely hope that having come to this agreement, 
as we have, in a bipartisan way, that we can assure our democratic 
counterparts and colleagues that there will be a significant body of 
support here on our side for the rule tonight.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding such time that the leader might 
make these comments, hoping it will convince a sufficient number to 
carry the day.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I think there was an appropriate term 
used here on the floor. It was ``intercourse.'' I think it really fits 
well with our trade policy. Forty years ago our factories were booming, 
our government invited the Japanese in. They took tours. We allowed 
them to take photographs. We let them take blueprints of our factories 
and machinery. Then we lent them money so they could build some 
factories. Then they could not repay, so we converted the loans to 
grants. Now Japan has factories, America has photographs, and we are 
going on with the same trade program.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. Speaker, I am for free trade, but how in God's name can you have 
free trade when they can make it for 10 cents an hour in China and send 
it over here?
  If GATT is so great, why does Japan love it? If GATT is so great, why 
does China love it? This bill, it is projected, will cost 1 million 
textile and apparel jobs. All I want to say is this: This is not a 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This is a Great Ambush to 
Taxpayers. It is another God awful trade treaty. It is nothing special. 
You cannot separate our trade deficit from our budget deficit. We have 
record highs.
  If this was a good trade program we had been practicing, we would be 
doing better. The Democrat Party is abandoning the American worker and 
the Democrat Party is going to send the American worker to the 
Republicans, because the Democrat Party is not standing up today for 
the American worker. In my district when American workers and our 
workers start questioning the leadership and the direction of our trade 
policy, the Democrat Party is beginning to turn their back on the 
average working man. I oppose this rule, I oppose these trade policies 
and I wish there could be some common sense around here because we will 
be lucky to have a damn job left.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Indianapolis, IN [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from California that this is 
the largest trade agreement that we have ever negotiated. I agree with 
him that we should not rush it because it is inadvisable to rush 
something of this magnitude through this body. But what I do not agree 
with is coming back in a lame duck session with probably 50 to 100 
Members who will be voting on this no longer Members of this body and 
not answerable to the electorate. It is the same in the other body. 
This is a heck of a way to run a railroad.
  There are questions about the impact of this trade agreement on U.S. 
sovereignty. There are questions about us being able to unilaterally 
impose trade sanctions against people who unfairly treat us in trade 
areas. There are questions about the constitutionality of the World 
Trade Organization. There are questions about the impact of this 
agreement on the patent system in this country. All of those questions 
need to be well thought out and voted upon by the people who are 
elected to represent the people of this country. To come back in a lame 
duck session when all the pressure is off and to vote on an issue of 
this magnitude is just simply wrong. Some of my colleagues have said 
that the fast track provisions run out and the Senate will not extend 
them if we wait until January. I say to that, baloney. Baloney. They 
will extend fast track if they know there is no alternative.

  We must in my opinion, if we are going to hold this thing over and 
not vote on it before we adjourn, carry it over until the next session 
and let the newly elected representatives of Congress, the elected 
representatives of the people, vote on this, not 100 Members who are no 
longer Members, who do not have any accountability to the people, who 
can succumb to political pressure if they choose to do so, for whatever 
reason, without any accountability to the electorate in this country. 
It is just wrong.
  If it was not something of this magnitude, if it was something that 
was relatively insignificant, I would say, well, maybe it is all right 
to have a lame duck session. But this is the most important piece of 
trade legislation that is ever going to come before this body. And to 
have 100 Members of the House of Representatives who are no longer in 
this House, who are no longer accountable to the people to vote on it, 
is just wrong. I think everybody here knows it. It is going to be the 
same in the other body. I would just like to say to my colleagues, 
whether you are for it or whether you are against GATT, if we are not 
going to vote on this before we adjourn sine die now, then let us wait 
until the newly-elected Congress and bring this up and debate it 
thoroughly and let the American people have some input and not have a 
lot of unelected, former Members of this body making major decisions 
for the people of this country when they have no accountability.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have read most of this agreement, I 
think, more than most of my colleagues and I am unalterably opposed to 
it. I think it is going to be the death knell of the United States as a 
great trading power or industrial power and I am not going to be 
allowed to speak for more than 15 seconds tonight.
  This is a gag rule, it is ridiculous, and I would urge people to vote 
down this rule.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule 
because a vote on this rule is the only real vote on GATT, because this 
rule means that fast track prevails and whatever comes down here in 
November will have the opportunity for no amendment. Think about it, my 
friends. Why the rush to pass a 4,000 page bill, plus supporting tariff 
schedule that was 7 years in the making and now is allowed only 1 hour 
of debate on the rule tonight and 4 hours, if we are lucky, in 
November? This vote tonight on the rule strictly sets the terms of 
debate. Fast track was supposed to mean 45 days of deliberation, not 45 
minutes tonight, and maybe 4 hours in November. Think about it. GATT 
creates a new World Trade Organization. Nations that have consistently 
voted against us in the United Nations, like China, Cuba, India, North 
Korea, will have voting power in trade disputes equal to us as the 
United States and we will have no veto power. What does that mean? It 
means that under GATT, other nations will have the power to impose 
sanctions on us for our environmental, labor, and consumer protection 
laws already on our books including child labor laws. Under this 
proposed GATT, our laws protecting children could be challenged so that 
those who profit from child labor can continue to do so.
  My friends, if you are not familiar with the recent softwood lumber 
dispute in Canada in which Canada subsidized their lumber industry, 
dumped their product in the United States and then stacked the dispute 
resolution panel with 2 jurists with proven ties to the Canadian lumber 
industry, you have a little idea of what is going to happen. There is 
more here than you might imagine at first blush. The World Trade 
Organization's secret dispute resolution process will not be open, nor 
will it be subject to American style appellate review. If other nations 
try to bribe panel members, who will defend the integrity of the 
process? Beyond this, if you have noticed that this bill weakens 
protections for U.S. patentholders and inventors, you cannot do 
anything about it once you vote for this rule tonight because you 
cannot amend the basic bill. This bill is too important to be passed 
without being thoroughly reviewed. In this post-cold war world, trying 
to pass massive trade agreements through the narrow eye of the needle 
of the House Committee on Ways and Means is antiquated. In a world 
where we see economic interests governing political relationships, the 
spillover effects of trade should be dealt with by the other important 
committees in this institution, like the Committee on the Judiciary, 
the Committee on Education and Labor, the environmental subcommittees, 
the budget and joint tax committees. Every one of them is effectively 
neutered in this process.
  If you believe, as Michael Schrage from MIT states in the Washington 
Post, that ``to talk about global economic development without 
addressing the challenges posed to the U.S. workforce is disingenuous, 
a marriage of bad policy to bad politics,'' then you will vote no on 
this rule tonight. For a change, stand up for American workers. Do not 
even swing at this fastball. Vote no on the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, Florida [Mr. Goss], my Committee on Rules compadre.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the 
greater San Dimas metropolitan area for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear Members harbor mixed feelings about taking 
up the GATT implementing language.
  With the other body on hold for extended review and the House clock 
ticking down toward adjournment, there came an escalating drumbeat in 
favor of taking more time on this landmark legislation.
  Many Members and many Americans still have serious, legitimate 
questions about this agreement that deserve thoughtful and specific 
answers.
  I have been deeply troubled that this administration--which has shown 
itself willing to jam a highly unpopular and questionable military 
misadventure in Haiti down the throats of the American people--was 
again attempting to stomp out opposition to a policy, rather than take 
the time to educate and lead the public opinion.
  There seem to be reasonable answers to most of the questions that 
have been raised by GATT. But the administration--and frankly this 
Congress--has not gotten the message out to the people we work for. 
That is one reason why this House has been so skittish on the subject 
of GATT--and that is why now is not the best time to force the issue.
  Americans want a better idea of if and how our laws and trade 
policies might be constrained by GATT. They want to understand how this 
agreement came about and who will have a say over enforcing it down the 
road.
  They want assurances that some international conglomerate is not 
going to be able to dictate American policy. And, having seen reports 
of giveaways to large corporations including apparently to the 
Washington Post, they are wondering if there are still surprises tucked 
into this 651 page implementing bill.
  I know many Members have been dealing with the Uruguay round for more 
than 8 years, but most Americans have not had that type of detailed 
exposure to this complex process.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize the importance of world trade and drawing 
down barriers to free markets and am pleased to support this rule with 
the understanding that the leadership will hold further consideration 
until later this year.
  I think that is a wise step to avoid risking the demise of the entire 
GATT process on a poorly timed effort to ram this thing through.

                              {time}  2020

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 6 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] the 
majority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, once again we are engaged in a debate about 
the trade policy of this Nation.
  And once again, supporters of this agreement are trying to portray 
this debate in very simple terms: Are you for or against free trade?
  But to portray this debate in those simple terms is to turn our backs 
on all this country has stood for, and to close our eyes to the real 
challenge we face in the global economy today.
  We can never forget that the only reason we are able to bargain from 
a position of economic strength today is because of all the sacrifies 
made by the people who went before us.
  People who had the wisdom to know that if we gave people the right to 
organize, and the fight to bargain for better wages, it would raise the 
standard of living in America.
  And in doing so, in giving people the ability to make enough so they 
could afford to buy the products they made, we would create a middle 
class that would propel this Nation forward.
  For over 100 years, we clung to that vision, and we succeeded.
  But today, the rules have changed.
  Our success as a nation today no longer depends solely on whether or 
not we can afford to buy the products we make, but whether or not other 
nations can afford them as well.
  The challenge we face today is whether or not we can use our trade 
agreements to raise the standards of other nations to our level, rather 
than lowering ours to theirs.
  But as I look over the list of the 123 nations that signed this GATT 
agreement, I see many nations where people work for a dollar an hour or 
less--where people work within arms reach of toxins and poisions--but 
yet they are denied the right to bargain for better wages and a better 
life.
  We cannot continue to pretend that these conditions do not have a 
direct impact on our own families and businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, it is naive to think that just opening the border to so-
called free trade will fix these problems. Because history has shown us 
just the opposite.
  History has shown us that if we do not address the environment, and 
wages, and working conditions directly in our trade agreements, they 
never get addressed at all.
  But sadly, this agreement does not address them. On each and every 
one of these issues, GATT is silent.
  Here we have an agreement that is over 20,000 pages long--signed by 
123 other countries--that will affect every sector of our economy, and 
influence our trade policy for generations to come, and not one of 
these issues is addressed.
  Mr. Speaker, by passing this agreement, we run the risk of seeing 
more companies pack up and move overseas, more Americans having their 
purchasing power eroded, and more nations unable to buy the products we 
make.
  Yet we continue to ignore the stark reality facing us today. I 
believe this is the same mistake we made with NAFTA.
  To this day, we continue to close our eyes on NAFTA, and only look at 
half of the story.
  The Commerce Department tells us that United States exports to Mexico 
are up 17 percent. What they do not say is that imports from Mexico are 
up 21 percent, and that has cost us jobs.
  They point out that the United States has exported 22,000 vehicles to 
Mexico through July. What they do not say is that we have imported 
221,000 vehicles from Mexico, and that has cost us jobs.
  What they don't say is that 35,000 workers from 224 firms in 37 
States have already applied for benefits due to jobs lost from NAFTA, 
and that's just through August.
  What they do not say is that Mexico continues to devalue its peso--
making our products that much more expensive in Mexico, and Mexican 
products that much cheaper in the United States.
  Yet we keep closing our eyes.
  Last fall, many dismissed our warnings that Germany and Japan would 
use Mexico as a platform to export cars duty-free into the United 
States. Yet, since NAFTA passed, Honda, BMW, Nissan, Volkswgen, and 
Toyota have all announced plans to build new plants in Mexico--and have 
vowed to drastically increase their imports to America.
  When you look at both sides of the story, it is easy to understand 
why our trade surplus with Mexico has dropped by over 30 percent in the 
past year alone--and continues to shrink.
  That's the reality of NAFTA today.
  Don't get me wrong--now that it's the law of the land, we all hope it 
succeeds. But it never will succeed until we open our eyes to both 
sides of the story.
  It doesn't have to be this way. We can do better in our trade 
agreements--and we must.
  I supported the Canadian Free-Trade Agreement. And I believe I will 
be able to support an agreement with Chile. Agreements that are 
carefully crafted, that achieve a real balance on wages, working 
conditions, and living standards. That is where our future lies.
  But that is not what we have before us today.
  I will support this rule. I believe we should have this debate. But I 
will be voting against this GATT.
  I believe both NAFTA and GATT will come back to haunt us.
  But regardless of what happens on GATT, I promise you this: We have 
not heard the last of this issue.
  Not until we open our eyes and face the future with the same vision 
that built this great Nation.
  In the end, unless we remember the rights that we fought for, unless 
we fight for those rights for others, we will lost those rights 
ourselves.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Lutherville, MD, [Mrs. Bentley], who will also be 
retiring at the end of this term.
  (Mrs. BENTLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues tonight, 
please read carefully the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton], and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], before they vote.
  Mr. Speaker, all of you who are voting on this rule tonight--whether 
for or against--must remember the golden rule of politics, ``Never 
waffle!'' I predict to anyone of you thinking of voting one way on the 
rule for political reasons and, then, voting another way on the GATT 
for PAC reasons, that you cannot have it both ways.
  There are literally millions of Americans across this country who 
will know how you voted on both votes. As long as you are in politics 
those people will remember and your waffle will dog your campaign days.
  It is a historic vote tonight. Every one of our names will forever be 
engraved on this watermark legislation--to our pride--or, ultimately, 
to our shame. If there is one Member, who like the Washington Post or 
the Atlanta Journal, has a vested interest in the passage of GATT--a 
future job with one of the companies heavily lobbying this 
legislation--large personal investments in companies that will be 
profiting from the opening of foreign markets--not the average American 
manufacturing company with 100 or less employees--I hope they will 
recluse themselves from the vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration has changed the terms for 
patents in the general agreements on tariffs and trade [GATT] at the 
request of Japan. Clinton's deal shortens the lifespan of a patent, 
robs Americans of royalties, and robs Americans of jobs. With these 
patent changes in the GATT, we are giving away our technological lead 
for the next 100 years.
  If for no other reason we should reject this rule and ask for more 
time because the whole world of inventors will effectively be shut 
down. The United States has the largest body of patents or intellectual 
property--but under the terms of GATT only the Federal Government can 
bring a lawsuit to protect our patents.
  The fate of American inventors will be decided by foreign members in 
an international dispute panel, instead of being heard in American 
courts in front of American juries as guaranteed by the 7th amendment 
of the Constitution.
  My friend, Prof. James Chandler, president of the Intellectual 
Property Law Institute states, ``Without intellectual property there 
are no jobs.'' Save our patent system--save our jobs. Vote ``no'' on 
GATT.
  A no vote states loudly and clearly that we the U.S. Congress will 
continue to legislate and carry out the will of the American people. 
Not the will of Sri Lanka, or Singapore, or Peter Sutherland, director 
general of the world GATT organization. We should not bow on our knee, 
or our head to Geneva!
  A no vote tonight is a no vote against foreign interference in our 
national affairs.
  America is watching.
  I believe America will remember.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support 
of GATT. This trade agreement represents the most significant 
opportunity in years for the U.S. economy to grow.
  The benefits of GATT are clear. The U.S. Department of the Treasury 
estimates that 10 years after implementation of the Uruguay round 
agreement, United States total annual incomes should be greater by $100 
to $200 billion. In California alone, estimates are that $10.1 billion 
in new manufactured goods exports will be generated between 1995 and 
2005, creating as many as 200,000 more jobs. U.S. agricultural exports 
are expected to increase from $1.6 to $4.7 billion by the year 2000 and 
up to $8.7 billion in 2005.
  The GATT agreement improves market access for U.S. products by 
requiring our trading partners to lower tariffs and other nontariff 
trade barriers. It expands protection for intellectual property, which 
will benefit the U.S. computer, entertainment and other industries. The 
agreement establishes an improved dispute resolution mechanism and new 
rules on import licensing that will benefit U.S. industries.
  The United States provides the most open market in the world. 
Unfortunately, up to now, all we have received in return from our 
trading partners are increased tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers 
and increasing unfair government subsidies. The Uruguay round agreement 
puts in place specific reductions in all three of these areas, which 
will lead to a more level playing field for American exports.
  I have no doubt that American farmers, manufacturers, and workers can 
compete and win in the world market, However, for too long we have had 
to compete in an unfair market. This GATT agreement represents a golden 
opportunity for U.S. exports to break into new markets and expand 
existing markets.
  All of the criticism that has been leveled against this agreement 
pales in comparison to the benefits that will accrue to the United 
States. Don't let the scare tactics being used by the opponents of GATT 
obscure the concrete benefits of this agreement.
  The Uruguay round does not increase taxes, as some opponents of the 
agreement will argue. Rather the agreement will lower global tariffs by 
$744 billion over the next 10 years. However, the budget rules require 
Congress to provide offsets for the $12 billion of lost tariff revenue 
to the U.S. Treasury--even tough in reality GATT will increase the 
gross domestic product [DGP], and thus revenues to the Federal 
Treasury. The bipartisan financing package for GATT is more than 60 
percent spending cuts. The remaining financing is primarily changes in 
current revenue and compliance items--not new taxes.
  Opponents of the agreement have also misrepresented the role of the 
World Trade Organization [WTO] under the agreement. This is the 
organization that will be charged with oversight of the GATT agreement, 
and will replace the current GATT structure. The WTO is like a contract 
among member countries. Under the contract, a country found to be in 
violation of the agreement can choose to, first, pay compensation, 
second, negotiate a settlement with the complaining party, or third, 
take no action and allow the complaining government to withdraw some 
equivalent level of concessions. Under no circumstances would a country 
be required to change an existing law. In no way does the WTO threaten 
U.S. sovereignty.
  The population of the United States will increase by 30 million over 
the next 20 years, and the world population will increase by 2 billion 
over that same period. Clearly, the U.S. must find ways to gain access 
to the international market. GATT will facilitate U.S. access to this 
fast growing world market.
  I am alarmed by increased pressure to enact protectionism trade 
policies in the United States and around the world. Closing our markets 
is not the solution. Increasing productivity, improving quality and 
meeting international demands are the solutions. American business can 
meet this challenge, if given the chance. I believe the GATT agreement 
is a step in the right direction. Vote for the rule and for the 
implementing legislation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this House who is a 
stronger proponent of free trade than my friend, the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Kolbe].
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to the House this evening 
about this. I rise in strong support of this rule, as I will rise in 
strong support next month when we debate the agreement itself.
  I am disappointed, and I know many of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle are disappointed, perhaps some on both sides of the issue, 
that we will not debate this issue tonight or this week, that we will 
not have a vote on it now.
  As my colleague from California explained, it is because of action in 
the other body, it is because of action of the Senators that they will 
not be voting on it before this election that compelled us to take the 
same action over here.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the GATT agreement is important. Make no 
mistake about that. If you have any doubt about it, you only need to 
watch what has been going on the last 2 days on the markets to see the 
kind of indicators that we have seen and the drop in the market values. 
Make no mistake about it, whether you are for it or against it, the 
world is watching this debate and will be watching the debate that we 
have next month.
  We live in a world that is interdependent economically, and we cannot 
take lightly the vote that we cast.
  Why must we do this this year? Because we will lose much of the 
benefits of NAFTA if we do not act this year. We will lose the 
benefits, and we will lose the value, because we lose fast track, and 
we will not have the ability to debate it under the same circumstances.
  This represents the biggest tax cut in history, $750 billion over the 
next several years. It will result in a 2- to 3-percent increase in the 
gross domestic product in the United States. It will put thousands of 
dollars in the pockets of every American. It will result in better 
jobs, more jobs, better-paying jobs. We need to have GATT.
  Before I close, let me pay tribute to my distinguished leader, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel], for the role that he has played, 
the Speaker, and to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] for the 
willingness to work out the arrangement that we have here tonight, and 
I want to especially pay tribute to my good friend and colleague on the 
other side of the aisle, the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui], 
whom I have had the privilege of working with on this issue, and, of 
course, to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  I look forward to coming back next month, debating this issue, and I 
look forward to the passage of GATT, the largest tax decrease in 
American history.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Cantwell].
  (Ms. CANTWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to support 
this rule. The world economy has reached an historic juncture. The 
economic interdependence of countries throughout the world has grown 
dramatically. The old GATT rules, if not modernized and expanded, will 
soon be overwhelmed.
  The new GATT agreement addresses the emerging trade issues of the 
future and readies us for the twenty-first century. Once in place, the 
new rules will lead to a vast expansion in world trade.
  I wish we were voting tonight to ratify the agreement as well as the 
rule.
  Washington State has embraced the opportunities international trade 
offers. It is the most trade dependent State in the Nation. The result 
has been $28 billion in exports and 600,000 jobs--more than one out of 
every five jobs in the State.
  The computer software and aerospace industries in my State, in 
particular, will greatly benefit from the new GATT rules protecting 
intellectual property rights and controlling unfair trade practices.
  Yearly losses from piracy of U.S. intellectual property are estimated 
to be a staggering $12 billion. The new GATT agreement will finally 
give U.S. copyright and patent holders a means to enforce and 
capitalize upon their legitimate intellectual property rights 
throughout the world.
  The new GATT agreement is the right agreement for my State and the 
right agreement for America.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule tonight.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
friend, the gentleman from Warren, PA [Mr. Clinger], the ranking member 
of the Committee on Government Operations.
  (Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and 
only regret that we have to wait until November to vote on the bill 
itself.
  Mr. Speaker, the sooner we vote on opening markets worldwide, the 
sooner we quench the fires of protectionism now going out of control. 
Europe and the rest of the world are closely watching what we do 
tonight. Let us not flinch.
  Mr. Speaker, my home State, Pennsylvania, ranked 10th among the 
States in exports of merchandise in 1993, with $13.2 billion worth of 
goods sold abroad.
  Frankly, I think we can do better, and the Uruguay Round agreement 
will help Pennsylvania exporters by opening markets overseas--markets 
in which Pennsylvania products may have been uncompetitive because of a 
high tariff at the border or markets where our pharmaceuticals or 
software could not be sold due to weak or nonexistent protection for 
intellectual property rights. New sales there means more jobs here.
  Lest the noise of the debate over peripheral issues drown out that 
fundamental truth, let me repeat it: by opening new markets to American 
products we will strengthen our own economy and put more of our own 
people back to work. This is an American jobs bill.
  The opportunity we have today, to pry open markets across the globe, 
is rare and fleeting. Let us not squander this opportunity; indeed, 
seize it.
  The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has provided an orderly 
and stable system for trade for the last 45 years. Our exports in this 
period have provided significant numbers of American workers with 
relatively high-paying jobs. Our economy is far stronger and more 
robust than it would have been if we had never joined GATT.
  Too much is at stake for us to forget how these economic benefits 
came about or to take them for granted. In 5 or 10 or 50 years from 
now, as our children and grandchildren are enjoying the economic fruits 
of a healthy trading system, the superficial, petty disputes aired here 
today will be long forgotten. This vote, however, and the vote on the 
implementing bill that will occur later today, will have a place in 
history.
  A vote to adopt this rule recognizes that the United States has spent 
nearly a decade negotiating, arguing, cajoling, and sometimes 
threatening our trading partners in order to secure an unfettered world 
trade system. A vote against this rule signals our trading partners 
that they need not heed us the next time we complain about the rules or 
about a country's failure to comply with those rules. A vote against 
this rule is a vote to weaken the position of future American 
presidents.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, a vote on this rule is a vote for jobs today, 
for strong underpinnings for the U.S. economy now and into the future, 
and to advise other nations of our trade policy with a strong, clear 
voice. For Pennsylvania workers today and tomorrow, I ask for a ``yea'' 
vote.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the 
gentleman from Simi Valley, CA [Mr. Gallegly].
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I am normally very supportive of all of 
the issues that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] brings 
before this body.
  As a free-trader, I must speak out in strong opposition to this rule, 
because I think it is plain unconscionable that we bring this back in a 
lame-duck session. This important legislation should not be decided by 
Members who have no political stake in the outcome.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui].
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
  If this GATT becomes law, it will produce an additional $100 billion-
$200 billion worth of additional GDP to the American economy on an 
annual basis.
  The GATT can basically be divided into four areas. First of all, it 
is a continuation of the existing world trade treaty that determines 
rules on goods and services that cross borders in the world today that 
has actually given a great rise in the world standard of living over 
the last 50 years since the end of World War II.
  First, this new GATT will expand protection in the intellectual 
properties. As you know, when software goes across U.S. borders into 
countries right now, we do not have adequate protection of software and 
intellectual property. China, for example, steals $1 billion worth of 
U.S. intellectual properties on an annual basis. This, over a 10-year 
period, will give U.S. protection and protection worldwide to our 
copyrights, to our intellectual properties.
  Second, the GATT will reduce tariffs worldwide by one-third, which 
will means there will be a tremendous increase in trade back and forth 
across the borders.
  The third area, of course, is the first time we will have trade in 
the area of services such as financial services, such as insurance, 
such as securities. This is an area that will help expand the U.S. 
economy, because we are the leaders in these particular areas.
  The fourth is for the first time we will have a World Trade 
Organization that will solve disputes, and as you know, since we will 
be dealing with less-developed countries, countries, that probably will 
have nontariff barriers, the United States will be the country, along 
with the countries of Europe and Japan, that will be using the World 
Trade Organization more than it will be used against us.

                              {time}  2040

  This agreement is in the interest of the United States, it is in the 
interest of progress and growth in our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote on the rule so that we can get to the 
point of voting on the GATT in November of this year.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Millbrook, NY, Mr. Fish, the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. FISH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FISH. I thank my colleague for yielding time, and I rise in 
support of the rule for H.R. 5110, the implementing legislation of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 5110, the 
implementing legislation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
[GATT] Uruguay Round Trade Agreement.
  By passing this rule we will be able to consider legislation that 
will allow American companies to have access to foreign markets that 
will bring anticipated growth of $1.1 trillion to the U.S. economy over 
the next 10 years. This agreement will cut foreign tariffs 
on manufactured products by more than one third, the largest reduction 
in history.

  I am also pleased with the intellectual property standards included 
in the legislation that will give new protections to American 
pharmaceutical, entertainment, and software industries. Without the 
intellectual property protections in this agreement, U.S. producers 
will continue to lose billions of dollars in U.S exports to piracy and 
counterfeiting.
  Agriculture will also benefit from this agreement. By reducing export 
subsidies and by limiting the ability of foreign governments to block 
agricultural exports through quotas, subsidies, and tariffs, export 
opportunities for U.S. agricultural producers will increase.
  Failure to approve the Uruguay round of GATT would serve a blow to 
the world leadership of the United States and our traditional 
commitment to free trade. We cannot allow the ever growing global 
economy to leave America and with it New York State behind, as other 
nations capitalize on the benefits of this agreement. We must realize 
our role as a world leader. We must not let the door to hundreds of 
thousands of new jobs for the people of this country close.
  When you cast your vote on the implementing legislation of the 
Uruguay round of GATT look forward to the promise of increased economic 
growth and job creation offered by free trade. Do not deny the people 
of the United States the opportunity for a more prosperous future.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Palm Harbor, FL [Mr. Bilirakis].
  (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I plan to vote against this rule. While I 
favor efforts to eliminate the trade barriers and other unfair trade 
practices, I have a number of questions regarding the implementing 
legislation which the originally planned rule would not have afforded 
me the opportunity to get answers to. While I am pleased that we are 
delaying votes on the basic bill, my constituents and I must get 
answers to the following questions and the answers thereto shall 
determine my vote on the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, will the United States sovereignty be undermined by the 
creation of the World Trade Organization? Can the WTO dispute 
settlement panels strike down U.S. law? Does the fact that each country 
has one vote in the WTO mean the United States will be outvoted on 
important trade issues? Will unilateral action by the United States be 
prohibited under the WTO?
  How will U.S. environmental laws be impacted by the GATT Agreement? 
Will the rules of the WTO promote the reduction of strong food safety 
laws to weaker international standards? Can U.S. food safety standards 
stronger than those of the WTO be challenged by other nations as 
illegal trade barriers?
  How much will the Uruguay round cost the American taxpayers? How is 
the agreement financed and will it increase the Nation's budget 
deficit?
  Does the implementing legislation weaken the Nation's patent system? 
Will U.S. competitiveness be weakened if we change our patent system? 
Is the change required under the GATT Agreement or was it added to H.R. 
5110 by special interests?
  Before Congress voted on NAFTA, the administration made a lot of side 
deals to secure votes in favor of that trade agreement. Are any similar 
deals attached to H.R. 5110?
  These are just a few of the questions that my constituents and I have 
regarding the implementing legislation for the GATT Agreement, and I do 
not believe that 4 hours of general debate will be sufficient to 
provide adequate answers to our questions.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
  (Mr. FINGERHUT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FINGERHUT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in 
opposition to the rule.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price].
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
rule governing debate on H.R. 5110, the implementing legislation for 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. My own preference would be 
to vote on this legislation this week. Delay could cost U.S. workers 
and firms billions of dollars in benefits and lost opportunities.
  But in light of the situation in the other body and the various views 
that we must reconcile in this body, a vote in late November seems to 
be the best that is achievable. I urge passage of this rule to set the 
terms of that debate and to allow us to pass this legislation well in 
advance of January 1 of next year.
  America needs the GATT Agreement, a bipartisan agreement negotiated 
by three administrations over a 7-year period. It will cut global 
tariffs by some $744 billion, it would create hundreds of thousands of 
high-paying American jobs, and it will contribute over $100 billion to 
the U.S. economy each year.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5110 contains provisions critical to the adjustment 
of the textile and apparel industry in this country during the 10-year 
phaseout period of the multifiber agreement. The so-called Cardin rule 
of origin amendment establishes that the country of origin for purposes 
of import, labeling, and other customs purposes will be determined by 
where apparel or other textile products are assembled rather than where 
they are cut. Secondly, the circumvention of textile and apparel quotas 
through illegal transshipments is addressed in this bill. Finally, 
authority is extended for the President to continue to regulate imports 
of textiles and apparel from countries that are not part of the World 
Trade Organization and to whom we do not grant Uruguay round benefits.

  Mr. Speaker, the GATT implementation bill is a crucial step for our 
country and for the world economy, and I urge passage of this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend, a 
hardworking member of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Bakersfield, CA [Mr. Thomas].
  (Mr. THOMAS of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, as is usually the case in 
these matters, virtually all of the people who are opposed to this 
measure speak tonight and the vast majority who are in support of it 
are not down in the well talking.
  To my friend from Florida, with whom I have worked long and hard on 
bipartisan legislation in the area of health care, all of his questions 
are answered ``no.'' Is U.S. sovereignty affected? No. Is U.S. law 
affected? No. Are we to be outvoted? No. Unilateral change of U.S. 
laws? No, no, no, no, no. The fact of the matter is I agree with all my 
colleagues who say we should be voting on the substance of GATT now. 
But because of a single Member over in the other body, we are not.
  Let me tell you, when you have 4 signatures on a letter 2 days before 
adjournment and those 4 signatures are Tom Foley, Richard Gephardt, 
Robert Michel, and Newt Gingrich, and all of them say vote for the 
rule, vote for the rule.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that when we were standing here on 
the floor last year, we were talking about NAFTA, and everybody told us 
about all the wonderful things that were going to happen. But in my 
State of Pennsylvania we have been the number one State in applications 
for NAFTA trade adjustment assistance. Nearly 3 dozen companies have 
made that effort. I mention that because if NAFTA were an ant, GATT is 
an elephant. That is the difference between these bills.
  Yet in the committees that I serve on in this Congress  Committee on 
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, Committee on Education and Labor, 
Committee on Small Business  we had hearings on NAFTA. We have not had 
hearings on GATT.
  Yet in the committees that I serve on in this Congress  Committee on 
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, Committee on Education and Labor, 
Committee on Small Business  we had hearings on NAFTA. We have not had 
hearings on GATT.
  Yet we are expected to come here tonight, coming from an area where 
in the past 2 decades in southwestern Pennsylvania we have lost 160,000 
manufacturing jobs because of the investment and trade practices of 
this country, I am expected in 1 minute to make my plea against this 
rule. I make the plea, and I say do not have a continuation of this 
service.
  We have people like the continuation of this service.
  We have people like the CEO of Alleghany Ludlum, in a letter to 
MIckey Cantor, saying,

       I am extremely disappointed with the Administration's 
     proposals to implement the weakening provisions contained in 
     GATT. These measures are not required. It is even more 
     alarming that the Administration has not attempted to address 
     the balance of trade.

  Ladies and gentlemen, do not keep this situation exacerbated, vote 
``no'' on the rule and kill GATT.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, every shred of evidence that we have received has 
demonstrated a dramatic increase, even beyond our expectations, for 
exports and improved relations with Mexico as a byproduct of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman 
from California, [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to oppose this rule. I voted 
for fast track, and, yes, I voted for NAFTA with all of this 
discussion.
  When I voted for fast track, I thought we were going to get 45 days 
to examine the treaty. Instead, in a total breach of faith, this 
administration submitted the GATT implementation legislation in the 
final days of this session, hoping to force us to a vote without even 
consideration that such a vital issue requires.
  Why the rush job? That is why I am opposing the rule even now and 
opposing GATT even now, because the administration snuck into this 
legislation items that should not be part of the implementation 
legislation, because they are not required by GATT, especially the item 
that would particularly reduce the patent protection now enjoyed by 
Americans.

                              {time}  2050

  The most disturbing of all of these provisions was that, but there 
are other things in GATT as well, the GATT implementing legislation, 
that are not required by GATT. This stealth rip-off of American patent 
rights hits directly at our competitiveness. Foreign competitors will 
now be able to use, if GATT passes and this remains in the bill, 
foreigners will be able to use our technology without paying royalties. 
They can use our technology against us. It is a crime that provisions 
like this are in the legislation in the first place.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I am voting against this rule. That is why I 
am going to vote against GATT unless they are taken out. I hope in the 
upcoming election every candidate is asked to oppose this crime by 
voting against GATT unless the provisions limiting American patent 
rights are taken out.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Mount Prospect, Illinois [Mr. Crane], the ranking minority member of 
the Subcommittee on Trade.
  (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] for yielding this time to me.
  Let me just remind some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
that the one fundamental division between our parties historically from 
their inception was our positions on trade, and it was Grover Cleveland 
who reflected on the thought that, when we impose tariff barriers, we 
inflict the greatest injury on that man who earns his daily bread with 
the sweat of his brow, and it was the McKinley tariff in 1890, the 
biggest protectionist measure in history that caused the panic in 1893, 
and Smoot-Hawley guaranteed the Depression went worldwide.
  Support free trade.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend and 
another member of the committee, the gentleman from Corning, New York 
[Mr. Houghton].
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, there are a million reasons 
why we should vote against this. I thought of them myself. I have 
anguished it myself. But the gut issue is whether it does good for the 
United States, and it does, and I do not care what sort of intellectual 
approach is being used over here. I do not know what the ghosts are 
that come out of the closet. From a business standopoint, Mr. Speaker, 
it makes sense, it creates jobs, it is good for my district, and I say 
to my colleagues, It's good for your district.
  We ought to support this rule. Let us get at it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute and a half to the 
gentleman from Lincoln, Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], who is my former 
colleague on the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I had not planned to speak 
on this issue tonight, but for balance I think it is important that I 
have a chance to say I am strongly in support of this rule and the 
agreement, and I would like to see the GATT agreement voted on this 
evening, if possible.
  There was a great deal of hyperbole about NAFTA, but let me tell my 
colleagues that the approval of the GATT agreement is the most 
important step we can take to stimulate the economy of this country. 
That is true of the world economy as well. The GATT agreement is 
ideally suited for the benefit of the United States.
  In fact we achieved all of our primary Uruguay Round objectives. We 
were the country that initiated the Uruguay Round. Manufacturing, 
agricultural, service sectors; all of these sectors benefit from year 
one. We are going to generate more individual and corporate income tax 
from year one under the GATT agreement than we will lose in reduced 
tariffs; there is no doubt about that fact,. When it comes to the 
improvement of intellectual property rights, we are the big 
beneficiary. When it comes to dispute mechanism settlements, change is 
here. The reforms that we have are going to benefit the United States; 
there is no question about it.
  Now we are going to have a school of red herrings swimming out there, 
I suppose, in the time remaining, but it is important to remember this 
GATT agreement is good for the United States, every sector benefits, 
and I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. It is too bad 
we could vote on the agreement tonight, but let us remember when we 
take up the agreement in late November, the basic arguments are for the 
United States to approve the GATT agreement produced in the Uruguay 
Round.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of legislation to 
approve and implement the trade agreements concluded in the Uruguay 
Round of multilateral trade negotiations. On deciding whether to vote 
for or against this historic trade agreement, it is not even a close 
call; this trade agreement (which took 7\1/2\ years to negotiate and 
which has been agreed to by in the history of the world. It is the 
single best economic stimulus for the United States and the 125 
countries who have signed it and therefore is a good prescription for 
an ailing and stagnant world economy.

  During the recent debate over the Uruguay Round trade agreement, many 
have forgotten that President Reagan led the call for the Uruguay Round 
trade negotiations, President Bush skillfully negotiated a majority of 
the provisions, and President Clinton concluded the arduous 
negotiations. This bipartisan effort has sustained itself over 7\1/2\ 
years for one simple reason; each and every citizen of the United 
States stands to benefit greatly from the opening of foreign markets to 
U.S. goods and services exports, the worldwide reduction of tariffs, 
the protection of intellectual property rights, and the systematic 
adjudication of international trade disputes.
  The Uruguay Round Trade Agreement--the most-ambitious and 
comprehensive trade agreement in history--attempts to remedy current 
world trade inequities by forcing foreign countries to open their 
markets to U.S. goods and services. In short, the Uruguay Round 
agreement would enhance export opportunities for agricultural products, 
manufactured goods, and many services, and it would create a World 
Trade Organization [WTO] to implement the agreement.
  Specifically, the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement:
  Adds a predicted $100-$200 billion annually to the United States 
Gross Domestic Product [GDP] according to the Office of the United 
States Trade Representative;
  Requires the conversion of nearly all non-tariff barriers to tariffs 
and significantly reduce these tariffs on nearly 85 percent of world 
trade;
  Expands GATT rules to cover Government procurement of goods and 
services and export of many services. This expansion will enable United 
States service exporters to continue to dominate this fast growing, 
lucrative sector of the United States and world economy, and it will 
help United States service providers compete for billion dollar 
infrastructure projects in the world's fastest growing regions like 
India and China;
  Expands protection of Intellectual Property Rights in the world's 
developing countries. This is especially beneficial to U.S. high-
technology exports and to the U.S. entertainment industry which 
currently loses billions in annual exports because of piracy and 
copying.
  Strengthens the WTO to arbitrate trade disputes between members and 
thus avoid costly and destabilizing bilateral trade conflicts among 
member nations.
  Includes agricultural trade under world trade rules for the first 
time ever.
  Mr. Speaker, for my home State of Nebraska, the Uruguay Round Trade 
Agreement is also overwhelmingly positive. For Nebraska's grain and 
livestock-dominated agricultural industry, the Uruguay Round is 
expected to boost export sales of these products from $3.5-$6.5 billion 
over 10 years. Additionally, it is expected to increase net farm 
section income by as much as $1.3 billion in 2000 and by as much as 
$2.5 billion in 2005. This could help to reduce Government spending on 
agricultural subsidies by roughly the same amount.

  Immediately, this agreement will help Nebraska cattlemen sell their 
beef in Japan. Koreans will put more Nebraska pork and corn flakes on 
their breakfast table, and Nebraska grain producers will better be able 
to compete against European grain barons, who will find their 
government export subsidies greatly reduced. Additionally, Nebraska's 
small-town manufacturers, like Valmont Industries in Valley, NE, will 
be able to exploit lucrative markets in the developing world where the 
thirst for Valmont's irrigation equipment is immeasurable. Clearly, Mr. 
Speaker, the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement is good for Nebraska and it 
is good for the United States as a whole.
  This Member acknowledges that there are many easy reasons to vote 
against legislation. In fact, this Member has objected to the Clinton 
administration's retreat on agriculture export subsidy reductions, its 
stubborn resistance to waiving pay-go rules, its decision to 
unnecessarily cut U.S. agriculture export subsidies, and its inordinate 
delay in submitting this legislation. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, this 
body's consideration of the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement, is simply 
too important to get sidetracked by the special interest groups who 
oppose this legislation.
  The Clinton administration's, and frankly Congress' stubborn 
reluctance to not waive pay-go budget rules--despite the overwhelmingly 
acknowledged fact that this trade agreement will pay for itself through 
greatly increased revenues from corporate and individual Federal income 
taxes--has undoubtedly caused several questionable provisions and 
seemingly absurd additions to this legislation. Nevertheless Mr. 
Speaker, even with these unnecessary provisions, this trade agreement 
and this legislation should be approved by this body.

  Mr. Speaker, those Members who believe they can take the easy way out 
by voting against this agreement, should strongly consider the 
implications of their actions today. Congress' seemingly benign neglect 
of the proposed International Trade Organization immediately after 
World War II defeated that organization and forced us to live with the 
interim GATT agreement, which has been largely ineffective in forcing 
countries to open their markets to U.S. goods and services for the past 
40 years.
  In closing Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the International 
Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee and the Export Task Force, this 
Member has strongly supported efforts to liberalize world-trade rules 
because this Member believes American individuals and companies can 
effectively compete in world markets if they are permitted to compete 
under fair-trade rules. In principle and within reason, individuals and 
companies of different nations should be able to trade with one another 
without governmental interference. This type of free trade is the most 
efficient way to promote world-wide economic growth because it permits 
individuals--not bureaucrats--to make international trade decisions on 
sound business principles. Therefore, this Member strongly supports 
this legislation and urges his colleagues to overwhelmingly approve 
this historic and important trade agreement by adopting this 
legislation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman 
from El Cajon, CA [Mr. Hunter], a true spokesman for what I am happy to 
say is a small minority of the Republican Party on trade.
  Mr. HUNTER. I hope my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Crane], is still in the room because in the Teddy Roosevelt room across 
the street one can see this gentleman that he studied, Grover 
Cleveland, Democrat President of the United States, in a political 
cartoon flat on his back in a boxing ring holding those gloves which 
the gentleman from Illinois has labeled free trade, and the Republicans 
are standing over him with their boxing gloves labeled fair trade and 
reciprocity, so do not put too much behind Grover Cleveland's career 
and credibility with respect to where we are going, my Democrat 
friends.
  Let me just say this is a bad business deal. We are going to talk 
about the substance later on. But this is a bad business deal because 
it gives away the most important American economic assets, which is our 
bilateral trading leverage, country to country, one on one, and it 
gives it away to a committee, and I say to my colleagues, ``If you look 
at the roster of that committee, it's a committee that doesn't like us 
very much.''
  This is President Clinton's GATT. This is his international year. He 
is sending our troops to Haiti, our Government to the United Nations, 
and our jobs to Asia and Europe.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I come before my colleagues today with 
reservations on both this rule and the implementation bill of the 
Uruguay round of GATT. This agreement will encourage companies to 
continue to exploit low-paid workers, and in the United States it will 
cost over a million jobs in the textile sector alone, and, according to 
both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget 
Office, the agreement's price tag for the first 10 years is over $40 
billion.
  Mr. Speaker, are we really in a position to give away $40 billion? Or 
will the people of this country end up paying for this agreement--
paying for it as they see important programs stripped away one by one? 
I ask you, will this be the real price of GATT?
  Mr. Speaker, I ask and I urge my colleagues to think long and hard 
about their vote and then cast it against this constraining rule and 
this harmful implementation bill. It is up to us to show the American 
people that this Congress can work for them.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
Britain, CT [Mrs. Johnson], another member of the committee.
  (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this country is at a crossroads, and the stakes are 
high. Today we decide whether to take the road of insularity and fear 
or the high road to greater growth and prosperity for our country.
  My colleagues and I on the Committee on Ways and Means spent many 
months holding hearings and negotiating to bring forth a very good bill 
that creates a far fairer trading system, preserves American 
sovereignty fully, and protects our world-famous inventiveness, a bill 
that will guarantee successful American participation in international 
trade for decades to come.
  Mr. Speaker, the GATT agreement means jobs for Americans. It means 
growth in personal income and our standard of living. It means greater 
certainty and fewer disputes with world neighbors.
  For my own State, GATT means increases in the $5.4 billion in goods 
and services sold to other countries. It means we will add to the 
nearly 200,000 jobs in Connecticut that create speciality metals, jet 
engines, chemicals, and a host of other products.
  I say to my colleagues, ``I urge your support of the rule.''
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to close debate on our side, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Houston, TX [Mr. Archer], my good friend 
with whom I have been working over the last several months on the 
Uruguay round. No one has been more diligent on behalf of free trade.
  (Mr. ARCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to my colleagues, to tell them 
that there should be no controversy over this rule. There may be 
controversy over the substance of the GATT ratification implementing 
the legislation, but the rule clearly should not be controversial. Yes, 
it waives points of order, as I say to my Republican colleagues, but 
that is always the case under fast-track. It is the exception to prove 
the rule. It gives perhaps what some might think of as limited debate 
time of 4 hours, but after this debate on the rule, and after all the 
other discussion that is going to occur between now and November 29, 
there will be plenty of time for people to understand what they are 
voting on.
  The rule should not be controversial. This rule should pass. This 
rule is important to the future of this country, to more and better 
paying jobs for Americans. Make no mistake about it. And it is 
destructive to this country as well as to the world if it fails to 
pass, because history teaches us that protectionism, no matter how 
seductive, inflicts a wound upon those who implement it on themselves. 
The one thing we seem to learn from history is that we never seem to 
learn from history and, as a result, we must relive it.
  But history tells us that since the Industrial Revolution, every 
country that has been seduced into protectionism has seen a decline in 
the standard of living of its people, and every country that has 
reduced its trade barriers has witnessed an increase in the standard of 
living of its people.
  America today is lean, strong, tough, competitive, to take advantage 
of a world marketplace which is willing to reduce its barriers to our 
products and our services as never before. We should not turn our back 
on this opportunity, not just for ourselves, but for our children and 
their children.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote for this rule.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from the State of Washington 
[Mr. Kreidler].
  (Mr. KREIDLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KREIDLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass the GATT bill. It is time to stop 
complaining about the timetable. It is time to stop pretending we can 
dictate the terms of trade to the rest of the world. It is time to stop 
listening to the paranoid fears of the far right and the far left.
  Of course, every one of us thinks we could have written a better 
agreement. Every one of us would like to see something different in 
this bill. But every one of us knows that, in the end, this is the best 
agreement three Presidents could reach over 8 years of negotiating.
  Make no mistake--trade is where our economic future lies. Half our 
economic growth in the last 5 years was in exports. Trade-related jobs 
have increased three times faster than overall jobs in the last 40 
years.
  In my State of Washington, one out of every four jobs depends on 
trade. This bill will help our exporting industries--aerospace, 
software, agriculture, forest products. It will open up markets and 
bring down world prices. It will be good for American industry, 
American workers, and American consumers.
  We hear a lot about taxes in this body, especially from the other 
side of the aisle. Well, this is the biggest tax cut in history. It 
will bring down prices all over the world.
  We hear a lot about over-regulation of business, especially from the 
other side of the aisle. Well, this is a massive deregulation bill, 
knocking down barriers to trade all over the world.
  But instead of cutting tariffs and opening up world markets, instead 
of seizing this chance to expand trade, some of our friends across the 
aisle have apparently decided to go for gridlock one more time, even if 
it jeopardizes the trade agreement Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill 
Clinton fought to achieve.
  Some of us came to Congress to fight for change. Nobody said change 
would be easy, or happen overnight. Change means choosing hope over 
fear. This is such a choice.
  Now is the time. This is the place. Vote ``yes'' on the rule and 
``yes'' on the bill.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the previous speaker 
more that the controversy is not the rule. I have heard a number of 
speakers get up tonight and say we need more time to consider it. My 
goodness gracious alive, we have been talking about the GATT Agreement 
for the last 6 years. If you do not understand the GATT Agreement 
tonight, you are certainly not going to understand it in another 2 
months, if we have had it for 6 years.
  The fact of the matter is do you believe in the economic might of 
this country? Do you believe in the future of this country? Do you 
believe that America can get out there in a free trade situation and 
compete with the rest of the world?
  I believe that. I think most Americans believe that. All we are doing 
tonight is voting on a rule to give their elected representatives an 
opportunity to express the will of the people. And I firmly believe the 
will of the people is that we have what it takes to compete throughout 
the world in a fair trade situation that will be granted under the GATT 
Agreement.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for 
the Generalized Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. Since the 
Uruguay round was completed on December 15, 1993, opponents have 
brought waves of false criticisms against it. The most common target of 
these distortions is the World Trade Organization [WTO], which is the 
disputes settlement body. I would like to take this opportunity to set 
the record straight regarding the WTO.
  The most often heard criticism of the WTO is that it threatens U.S. 
laws and U.S. sovereignty. Let me say, once and for all, this is simply 
not true. Nothing that the WTO does or says can affect Federal or State 
laws. Once GATT is on the books, what is true today will be true 
tomorrow: only the Congress or the State legislature is empowered in 
our system of government to enact laws. Thus, there simply is no threat 
to our sovereignty.
  When confronted with these facts, the naysayers respond that the WTO 
could require the United States to pay trade sanctions forever if a law 
is found to be a trade restriction. As is typical of their distortions 
of GATT, this is smoke and mirrors. U.S. laws based on scientific 
principles cannot be overturned. If there is a proven basis for the 
existence of a law, such as food product safety standards, other 
countries will not be able to successfully challenge it. In fact, under 
GATT, international health and food safety standards will rise. GATT 
even permits States to enact higher levels of protection than those 
specified by the Federal Government. What GATT does not let nations do 
is pass a law under the pretense of health and safety, but whose real 
purpose is to prohibit trade. Thus, contrary to what the critics say, 
GATT was negotiated with maintaining our Federal and State laws in 
mind.
  Aside from the technical aspects of the law, it is no secret that the 
United States has the largest economy in the world. Under the present 
system, the United States can legally block unfavorable rulings, and 
while complaining countries can still retaliate, they are extremely 
unlikely to do so out of fear of triggering a self-destructive trade 
war with us. We will continue to command this economic might under the 
new agreement. With such a vast and strong economy, the United States 
could easily retaliate and do serious damage to the economies of other 
countries. Consequently, there is no reasonable basis for arguing that 
the United States is surrendering its sovereignty in fact or in 
practice.
  In addition to considering one particular aspect of GATT, like the 
WTO, it is important to look at the larger picture. This agreement is 
really about a choice. A choice as to whether the United States will 
participate in the world economy or retreat to a position of 
isolationism. To my mind, the answer is clear. The benefits of 
participation far outweigh retreat. We should pass this rule and the 
agreement because it is good for my district, it is good for Wisconsin, 
and it is good for the United States of America.
  For example, most economists estimate that GATT will create between 
$100 million and $200 million in U.S. economic growth each year for the 
next decade. It is also expected to create as many as 1.4 million jobs 
in this country over the same period. And, the global tariff reductions 
will benefit U.S. consumers in the form of lower prices. In my State of 
Wisconsin, GATT is likely to build on our success in exporting goods 
and services. Wisconsin has experienced a 98 percent rise in 
merchandise exports in the last 6 years, largely on the strength of 
growth in industrial machinery and computers, scientific instruments, 
and electric and electronic equipment. These sectors, and all 
businesses, will benefit from lower foreign tariffs and protection 
against intellectual property infringement.
  In contrast, we know the results of a decision to isolate ourselves; 
economic depression. When the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 was enacted 
creating very high tariffs in an effort to protect domestic industries, 
the United States sank into the Great Depression, and for those of you 
old enough to remember, the average person paid an awful personal 
price. We must guard against the seductive charm of critics seeking to 
ply us with tales of the virtues of isolationism. Retreat will only sap 
our economic might and make us weak. Engagement in the world economy 
will make us strong, and participation with other nations will bring 
increased prosperity for all.
  The importance of passing the GATT does not mean I did not have 
problems with the implementing legislation. I did. Perhaps my foremost 
concern about the GATT was that the WTO's dispute resolution process 
would occur behind closed doors and at the whim of international 
bureaucrats. I worked with the administration to amend the legislation 
so that the WTO's activities are more open to public view. One of my 
proposals which became part of the legislation requires the USTR to 
open any dispute before the WTO involving the U.S. to public scrutiny 
by printing it in the Federal Register. Another amendment I worked to 
include in the bill requires the USTR to take the public's written 
comments into account in preparing its submissions to the WTO.
  I also sought to ensure that the USTR does not ignore public input 
during the dispute resolution process. Thankfully, a provision was 
included at my urging establishing a framework for close and continuing 
consultations between the USTR and interested U.S. parties. Finally, my 
proposal to require that the USTR make all U.S. written submissions to 
the WTO public was also included.
  The GATT Agreement before us also made substantial progress on my two 
final areas of concern--the environment and financing. First, while the 
agreement will not end all environmental problems, it elevates 
environmental considerations to the highest levels of trade policy 
making for the first time. Second, despite the fact that GATT will 
generate tremendous new business revenue and the jobs that go with it, 
current budget rules cannot account for these expected economic 
benefits. Thus, $12 billion in revenue measures was found to pay for 
the reductions in U.S. tariffs in order for the legislation to be fully 
paid for within the 5-year estimating period required by the rules of 
the House.
  Creating jobs and opportunities for businesses in Wisconsin and 
across this great Nation are two of my primary objectives, and GATT is 
expected to come through on both. While I never had doubts about the 
importance of the GATT, I did about the implementing legislation. 
However, I was able to get my leading concerns addressed during 
congressional consideration, which is why this GATT Agreement will 
receive my strong support.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 298, 
nays 123, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 492]

                               YEAS--298

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Solomon
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walker
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--123

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bentley
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Canady
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Evans
     Everett
     Fingerhut
     Gallegly
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Goodling
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Lantos
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     McHugh
     McInnis
     Mica
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Myers
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ravenel
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Sanders
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Carr
     Clement
     Edwards (CA)
     Ford (MI)
     Gallo
     Martinez
     Ridge
     Sharp
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Tucker
     Washington
     Whitten
     Yates

                              {time}  2126

  Mr. COBLE and Mr. QUINN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________