[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ON THE URUGUAY ROUND TRADE
AGREEMENTS
______
HON. SAM GIBBONS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Friday, October 7, 1994
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, on September 27, 1994, the President
transmitted to the Congress the Uruguay Round Trade Agreements, an
implementing bill introduced as H.R. 5110, and a Statement of
Administrative Action. These documents were printed as House Document
103-316. I have received a letter from the U.S. Trade Representative
dated October 3, transmitting corrections of a few printing and other
technical errors in the Statement of Administrative Action.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that this letter be printed in the Record so that
the statement as corrected will be reflected in the legislative
history.
The United States Trade
Representative,
Executive Office of the President,
Washington, DC, October 3, 1994.
Hon. Sam Gibbons
Acting Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In reviewing the Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round
implementing bill, H.R. 5110, we have found that a few lines
of text were omitted from the end of several pages of the SAA
due to printing errors. The omissions occurred on pages 20,
24, and 367 of the SAA and at the conclusion of the endnotes
following the document.
In addition, on page 45, the words ``soda ash'' were
omitted in the fifth line of the second full paragraph and in
the second line of the third full paragraph. The same words
erroneously appear in the third line of the sixth full
paragraph on the page.
Finally, in the first full paragraph on page 77, the words
``WTO member'' were erroneously inserted in place of the word
``country.'' The sentence should read: ``Combatting
subsidized competition in third country markets will remain a
high priority for the United States for two reasons.''
I am enclosing with this letter corrected copies of those
pages of the SAA pages mentioned above. I hope that they will
clarify the Administration's intent with regard to the
matters discussed on those pages and will permit the
Committee to take the corrections into account in preparing
its report on the bill.
Enclosures
* * * * *
Corrected Page 20:
f. private lawsuits
Section 102(c) of the implementing bill precludes any
private right of action or remedy--including an action or
remedy sought by a foreign government--against a federal,
state, or local government, or against a private party, based
on the provisions of the Uruguay Round agreements. This would
include any such suit brought against a federal state, or
local agency or against an officer or employee of any such
agency. A private party thus could not sue (or defend suit
against) the United States, a state or a private party on
grounds of consistency (or inconsistency) with those
agreements. The provision also precludes a private right of
action attempting to require, preclude, or modify federal or
state action on grounds such as an allegation that the
government is required to exercise discretionary authority or
general ``public interest'' authority under other provisions
of law in conformity with the Uruguay Round agreements.
With respect to the states, section 102(c) represents a
determination by the Congress and the Administration that
private lawsuits are not an appropriate means for ensuring
state compliance with the Uruguay Round agreements. Suits of
this nature may interfere with the President's conduct of
trade and foreign relations and with suitable resolution of
disagreements or disputes under those agreements. Moreover,
as section 102(c)(2) makes clear, through its approval and
implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements Congress will
have ``occupied the field'' with respect to any cause of
action or defense that seeks, directly or indirectly, the
private enforcement of those agreements. That means that
private parties may not bring suit or raise defenses:
directly under those agreements; on the basis of a successful
judgment against a state in a suit brought by the Attorney
General under the agreements; or on any other basis,
including Congress' Commerce Clause authority.
In sum, the language of section 102(c)(2) is intended to
make clear that Congress seeks the complete preclusion of
Uruguay Round agreement-related actions and defenses in
respect of state law in any action or proceeding brought by
or against private parties.
The prohibition of a private right of action based on the
Uruguay Round agreements, or on Congressional approval of
those agreements in section 101(a), does not preclude any
agency of government from considering, or entertaining
argument on, whether its action or proposed action is
consistent with the Uruguay Round agreements, although any
change in agency action would have to be authorized by
domestic law.
____
Corrected Page 24:
intends to maintain the existing policy advisory committee on
environmental and conservation matters. The Administration
also intends to seek the views and advice of the ACTPN and
environmental policy committee with respect to environmental
issues associated with trade policies or trade agreements,
including issues related to implementation of the WTO; and
for the environmental policy committee to include in its
reports on trade agreements an advisory opinion as to any
significant environmental effects of the agreement.
l. Working Party on Worker Rights
Section 131 of the bill directs the President to seek in
the GATT and the WTO the establishment of a working party to
examine the relationship of internationally recognized worker
rights, as defined in section 502(a)(4) of the Trade Act of
1974, to GATT and WTO articles, objectives, and related
instruments. Section 131 sets out four U.S. objectives for
the working party: to explore the linkage between
international trade and internationally recognized worker
rights, taking into account differences in the level of
development among countries; to examine the effects on
international trade of the systematic denial of such rights;
to consider ways to address such effects; and to develop
methods to coordinate the work program of the working party
with the International Labor Organization.
Section 131 also directs the President to report to the
Congress within one year on the progress made in establishing
the working party and on U.S. objectives with respect to the
working party's work program.
m. Countries Participating in Boycott
Section 133 of the bill calls on the Trade Representative
to oppose the admission into the WTO of any country that
participates in a boycott of the type described in section
8(a) of the Export Administration Act of 1979.
n. Africa Policy
Section 134 of the implementing bill provides that the
President should develop and implement a comprehensive trade
and development policy for the countries of Africa. Section
134 also requires the President to submit reports to the
House Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs Committees and the
Senate Finance and Foreign Relations Committees and other
appropriate Congressional committees within twelve months of
enactment of the bill and annually for the next four years
thereafter on its trade and development policy for the
countries of Africa and on progress made toward implementing
it.
____
Corrected Page 45:
which can be implemented through Presidential proclamation,
this change must be made in a statute.
Sections 113 and 114 of the bill amend the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (HTS) and other provisions of U.S. law to
permit the Secretary of the Treasury to liquidate or
reliquidate entries of specified products and, on request, to
refund any duty paid. These provisions are necessary to
correct long-standing errors in classification of certain
products in the HTS that are corrected prospectively in
Schedule XX, or to correct omissions in the preparation of
that Schedule.
b. Additional Tariff Proclamation Authority
During the Uruguay Round, the United States sought the
reciprocal elimination of duties among major trading
countries in a wide range of sectors of key interest to U.S.
firms. This zero-for-zero initiative consisted of the
following sectors: pharmaceuticals, electronics, furniture,
distilled spirits, medical equipment, non-ferrous metals,
paper and paper products, wood products, soda ash, steel,
agricultural equipment, construction equipment, scientific
equipment, oilseeds, and oilseed products and toys. These
products represent key U.S. import and export interests.
In some sectors, namely wood products, electronics,
distilled spirits, non-ferrous metals, soda ash, and oilseeds
and oilseed products, agreement on complete duty elimination
was not achieved. Obtaining further reductions and
elimination of duties in these sectors is a priority
objective for U.S. multilateral, regional and bilateral
negotiations.
The Administration was particularly disappointed over the
failure of Japan to agree to further reductions of tariffs on
wood products. Every effort will be made to negotiate
reductions toward the elimination of the tariffs facing our
exports in this sector.
Moreover, U.S. exports of items such as high value oilseed
products would especially benefit from tariff reductions
below that achieved in the Uruguay Round. U.S. interests have
identified specific products that should be subject to
intensified efforts to achieve duty reductions and
elimination and the Administration intends to pursue
negotiations on these products.
For those sectors in which the United States achieved duty
elimination, acceleration of the phase-out of duties in
certain sectors, such as paper, and paper products, should
grant these U.S. industries improved access to key markets.
The Administration will also pursue accelerated staging of
tariff reductions as a priority objective with our trading
partners, such as an accelerated reduction of the EU tariffs
on paper and paper products.
A third area in which further progress is necessary is the
harmonization of tariffs on chemical products. The
Administration will make every effort to expand * * *
____
Corrected Page 77:
their agricultural exports do not impose a similar
restriction on themselves and the restriction is not required
by the Agreement on Agriculture. No similar statutory change
is required for four U.S. export subsidy programs--the Dairy
Export Incentive Program, the Sunflowerseed and Cottonseed
Oil Assistance programs, and CCC dairy export sales--because
there are no similar statutory restrictions on their
operations.
Combating subsidized competition in third country markets
will remain a priority for the United States for two reasons.
First, the European Union, in general, has higher export
subsidy ceilings than does the United States. Therefore,
there will continue to be a need to protect U.S. export
markets abroad from subsidized competition. Secondly, the
Agreement on Agriculture requires further multilateral
negotiations on trade-distorting agricultural subsidies and
import protection in five years. The use of U.S. subsidies in
the interim should help induce the European Union and others
to agree on further reductions in those negotiations.
The CCC will also administer egg EEP initiatives in a
manner to maximize benefits to the entire U.S. egg industry.
In particular, the CCC will make efforts to enable the U.S.
egg industry to maintain a strong presence in Hong Kong.
b. dairy export incentive program
Section 153 of the Food Security Act of 1985 requires the
CCC to operate a Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP). The
program operates in a manner similar to the EEP, but is
limited to dairy products. Section 411(b) of the implementing
bill extends the DEIP through 2001.
c. ccc dairy export sales
Section 1163(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 currently
requires the Secretary of Agriculture annually through fiscal
year 1995 to sell for export not less than 150,000 metric
tons of dairy products, including not less than 100,000
metric tons of butter and not less than 20,000 metric tons of
cheese, out of CCC-owned stocks. Because export sales are
usually at world prices, which normally are lower than
domestic prices, the export sale of these products by CCC
under section 1163(a) is likely to constitute a ``sale or
disposition of export by governments or their agencies on
non-commercial stocks of agricultural products at a price
lower than the comparable price charged for the like product
to buyers in the domestic market,'' within the meaning of
Article 9:1(b) of the Agreement. Accordingly, CCC dairy
export sales made at prices meeting this standard are subject
to U.S. export subsidy volume and budgetary outlay
commitments under the Agreement.
____
Corrected Page 367:
infreqently. In certain cases, the United States has taken
such action because a foreign government has blocked adoption
of a GATT panel report against it.
Just as the United States may now choose to take section
301 actions that are not GATT-authorized, governments that
are the subject of such actions may choose to respond in
kind. That situation will not change under the Uruguay Round
agreements. The risk of counter-retaliation under the GATT
has not prevented the United States from taking actions in
connection with such matters as semiconductors,
pharmaceuticals, beer, and hormone-treated beef.
Finally, nothing in the DSU will affect application of
section 301 against practices by governments that either are
not WTO members or by WTO members to which the United States
does not apply the Uruguay Round agreements. The Trade
Representative will address section 301 investigations of
unfair trade practices by such countries on a bilateral
basis.
c. anticompetitive practices
Among the foreign government practices that section
301(d)(3)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974 defines as
``unreasonable'' are those that deny fair and equitable
market opportunities, including the toleration by a foreign
government of systematic anticompetitive activities. The
Administration will enforce vigorously the ``toleration of .
. . anticompetitive activities'' provision in section 301
when appropriate to address foreign anticompetitive behavior.
The practices covered by the provision include, but are not
limited to, toleration of cartel-type behavior or toleration
of closed purchasing behavior (including collusive coercion
of distributors or customers) that precludes or limits U.S.
access in a concerted and systematic way.
The Trade Representative, in consultation with the Attorney
General, will look to a variety of information sources in
evaluating a foreign government's toleration of
anticompetitive practices. Issues to be addressed include the
existence of the anticompetitive practices and whether there
was an unreasonable failure to take timely action against
them. In making an assessment, the Trade Representative will
consider whether the pertinent foreign government, and
especially its competition authorities, have been made aware
of the alleged practices and, if so, how they were informed,
the relevant evidence that has been provided to, or is known
to be available to, the foreign authorities, and the nature
of response those authorities have made.
The evidence provided to, or known to be available to, a
foreign authority normally should include, among other
things, the identity of the enterprises allegedly involved
and the relevant markets affected, a description of the
specific practices, and an indication of their duration and
pervasiveness. In keeping with the Congressional intent in
adopting this provision, the Trade Representative will also
take into account whether the anticompetitive activities are
inconsistent with the foreign country's own laws, how
systematic and pernicious those activities have been, and
their degree of effect on U.S. domestic or foreign commerce.
____
Corrected Endnotes:
who owns more than 10 percent of the capital or profits
interests in the partnership, or (3) in the case of a
corporation, owns more than 10 percent in value of the voting
stock of the corporation or all the stock of the corporation.
56. This method is also known as the frozen initial
liability method.
57. Under this funding method, the normal cost is generally
determined by dividing (1) the actuarial present value of
future benefits less the sum of the actuarial value of the
assets and the unfunded liability by (2) a weighted temporary
annuity factor that spreads the cost of the plan over future
years. If the sum of the actuarial value of assets and the
unfunded liability exceed the present value of future
benefits, the normal cost under the method will be negative.
58. For these purposes, plans with no unfunded vested
benefits and plans not subject to title IV of ERISA are
disregarded.
____________________