[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 147 (Tuesday, November 29, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: November 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 564 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 5110.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Barlow], to act 
as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole for the first hour, and 
requests the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp] to assume the chair 
temporarily.

                              {time}  1315


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5110) to approve and implement the trade agreements concluded in 
the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, with Mr. Sharp, 
Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be 
recognized for 2 hours, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] will 
be recognized for 2 hours.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of debate, I yield 1 hour 
of my time to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], and ask unanimous 
consent that she be permitted to yield time as she desires for the 
purposes of debate only.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 1 hour of 
my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], and that he be 
allowed to yield that time as he sees fit.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, in the long march of civilization there 
are certain events that history will record as having been extremely 
important. This is one of those events. This is perhaps the most 
important decision to be made in the latter half of the 20th century. 
For the first time, over 125 sovereign nations have agreed to a set of 
rules covering practically all matters of trade.
  From a disastrous beginning that began a little over 60 years ago 
with the Smoot-Hawley tariff, we have made marvelous progress in trade. 
Shortly after World War II we adopted the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade and have functioned under that set of rules since that time. 
Time has now arrived in history when it is appropriate to modify and 
improve on that agreement.
  During most of the time since World War II international trade in 
tangible goods, manufactured goods, has been governed by the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and by and large our observation of 
those rules has been good. Now for the first time in the history of 
civilization we have agreed to begin controlling not only the tangible 
goods, manufactured goods, but agricultural goods, intellectual 
property such as copyrights and trademarks, patents and so forth, and 
trade in services and the trade-related investment measures. If we are 
successful in passing this legislation through the Congress today, 124 
other nations will rapidly follow us. If we should fail somewhere along 
this road today or this week, then I think civilization would have a 
very, very rocky future.
  We do this today not just for civilization: we do it primarily 
because it is good for America.

                              {time}  1320

  It is good for America, because when you look at this with common 
sense, you will understand that the average tariff, imposed by the 
United States, are roughly around 4 percent, and the average tariff of 
most of the industrialized world outside of the United States is around 
20 percent.
  This agreement, by its enactment, will reduce worldwide tariffs by a 
third. In other words, the average tariff in the United States will 
drop from around 4 percent to around 3 percent, but the average tariff 
in the rest of the world will drop from around 20 percent down to 13 or 
14 percent. This is a substantial economic advantage for American 
workers, and it is for those people that we do this.
  We learned a long time ago, and painfully, that we could not pretend 
to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. We did that with 
disastrous results in the early 1930's, bringing a recession into a 
depression, spreading it worldwide, and sowing the seeds for World War 
II in that action.
  It has been a painful process recovering from all of that. We have 
learned a lot. We must pass this implementing bill today.
  A predecessor to this enactment was the enactment of NAFTA, and, Mr. 
Chairman, I will resume this a little later and cover it in further 
remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge passage of H.R. 5110, the 
``Uruguay Round Agreements Act.''
  This historic legislation will approve and implement the most 
comprehensive and economically significant set of international trade 
agreements that have ever been negotiated.
  The Uruguay Round agreements took 125 countries over 7 years to 
negotiate in the GATT.
  These negotiations were carried out on a bipartisan basis in full 
consultation with the Congress by three administrations.
  President Reagan began these negotiations, President Bush moved them 
forward, and President Clinton concluded them. But it was Ambassador 
Mickey Kantor and his team at the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative (USTA) that did the hard bargaining and concluded this 
negotiation. Our negotiators brought back a good deal for the United 
States.
  The Uruguay Round agreements will: Reduce global tariffs by over one-
third over the next ten years; reduce or eliminate numerous nontariff 
trade barriers; set forth revised and improved international trading 
rules on subjects such as antidumping, subsidies, safeguards, 
government procurement, product standards, trade in agriculture, and 
dispute settlement; create international trading rules on services for 
the first time ever; and raise the level of protection and enforcement 
for intellectual property rights around the globe.
  The results of the Uruguay Round, once implemented, will have been 
worth all the time and effort that have gone into these negotiations.
  It is estimated, for example, that U.S. GNP will grow by $100 to $200 
billion annually as a result of these agreements.
  Between 300,000 and 700,000 permanent new jobs will be created as a 
direct result of the agreements. These are jobs for American workers.
  The tariff cuts alone represent a global tax cut of $750 billion over 
the next 10 years and a $36 billion tax cut for Americans during this 
time.
  U.S. agricultural exports are expected to grow by $8.5 billion 
annually when the agriculture agreement is fully implemented as foreign 
subsidies and market access barriers are reduced.
  In sum, the economic and trade benefits for the United States from 
these agreements will be enormous. Most importantly, this agreement 
makes our trading partners play by the same rules we do.
  As you know, the implementing bill for these trade agreements was 
submitted by the President to the Congress on September 27 under the 
so-called fast-track procedures governing congressional consideration 
of international trade agreements.
  A Statement of Administrative Action, which expresses the intent on 
implementation of the agreements, was also submitted with the bill for 
approval by the Congress.
    
    
  I received a letter from the U.S. Trade Representative dated October 
3 transmitting corrections of a few printing errors in that statement. 
That letter was printed in the Record of October 8 so that the 
statement as corrected will be reflected in the legislative history.
  In addition to the trade provisions that are necessary or appropriate 
to implement the Uruguay Round in U.S. domestic law, the bill also 
contains revenue provisions which offset the projected cost of the 
legislation. This title contains important pension protections for 
American workers and taxpayers. These protections will require 
companies with underfunded pension plans to better fund their plans in 
the future.
  While the legislation was formally submitted in late September, it 
was developed over the previous 9 months by the administration in close 
cooperation and consultation with the Congress on a bipartisan basis. I 
want to commend my colleague, Bill Archer, for his hard work and the 
contributions of the members of the Subcommittee on Trade in developing 
this bill.
  The administration has worked out the content of this legislation 
with the Committee on Ways and Means and seven other House committees 
of jurisdiction.
  In addition, numerous public hearings have been held by committees of 
jurisdiction on the Uruguay Round agreements since they were agreed 
last December.
  In the Committee on Ways and Means alone, we had nearly 2 weeks of 
public hearings earlier this year before we began drafting the 
legislation in consultation with the administration.
  In all, there have been 22 Congressional hearings this year and 
countless reports on the Uruguay Round results, virtually all of them 
positive.
  This extensive public process clearly shows that this legislation has 
not been hastily conceived and has received adequate public input.
  As an indication of the broad, bipartisan support for this 
legislation, I would note that on September 28 the Committee on Ways 
and Means ordered H.R. 5110 favorably reported by an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote of 35 to 3.
  The Uruguay Round is strongly supported by virtually the entire 
American business community, by over 40 of the Nation's governors, by 
44 State attorneys-general, and by organizations as diverse as 
Consumers Union, the Heritage Foundation, the Business Roundtable, and 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  Mr. Chairman, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act is good for America 
and for the world.
  Its enactment will be a clear signal to the rest of the world of our 
intent to reassert economic leadership in the world on the basis of the 
same sound economic fundamentals and rules of fair play that have 
characterized the American economic system.
  I look forward to passage of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act by the 
House today and by the Senate later this week.
  This legislation will allow these historic trade agreements to enter 
into force on January 1, 1995, as was agreed earlier this year by the 
world's trade ministers.
  It is unfortunate that the GATT financing package before us today 
could not contain the important provisions contained in H.R. 3419, the 
Technical Corrections and Simplification Act of 1993. In addition, I 
have been contacted by several Members who have expressed a strong 
interest in various extensions of expiring provisions and 
noncontroversial miscellaneous tax proposals that also could not be 
included in the GATT financing package.
    
    
  One of these miscellaneous provisions, called to my attention by Mr. 
Neal of Massachusetts, would address the issue of the tax treatment of 
a dividend to policyholders resulting from the consolidation of the 
life insurance departments of savings banks into a stock life insurance 
company as mandated by State law. This is an issue upon which the 
Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures took testimony last year as 
part of a series of hearings on miscellaneous issues of interest to 
Members. The Treasury Department did not oppose this provision. Of 
course, if the Committee crafts a bill containing this proposal, any 
revenue loss associated with this provision would have to be offset 
with an acceptable revenue raiser.
  Further, at the request of Mr. Rangel and Mr. Brewster, I wish to 
express my understanding regarding section 744 of this legislation, 
which amends section 6662(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, relating to 
the substantial understatement penalty. It is my understanding that 
this amendment is not intended to alter the definition of a tax shelter 
for purposes of the substantial understatement penalty. Furthermore, it 
is my understanding that under current law, only entities, plans or 
arrangements that have as their principal purpose the avoidance of 
Federal income tax are considered tax shelters. Therefore, an entity, 
plan or arrangement that has as its purpose the claiming of tax 
benefits, such as the low-income housing credit under section 42 or the 
credit for producing fuel from nonconventional sources under section 
29, in a manner consistent with the statute and congressional purpose, 
is not considered a tax shelter for purposes of the substantial 
understatement penalty and will not be affected by the proposed 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, a vote for H.R. 5110 is a vote for a strong economic 
future for America.
  I urge Members to do the right thing for America and support this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  (Mr. ARCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, approval of the Uruguay round launched by 
Ronald Reagan and negotiated under George Bush is enormously important 
to the future health of the American economy, and now I urge the 
colleagues on my side of the aisle to join with the President in 
supporting H.R. 5110.
  The history of this century teaches that free trade is the most 
effective public policy tool that we have to increase prosperity in our 
society. That means giving more American families hope that they can 
achieve their dream of improving their standard of living and having a 
better future for their children.
  One look around the globe reveals that vast areas of the world have 
embraced our economic outlook. From Eastern Europe to Latin America, 
command economies and statist policies are yielding to forces of free 
markets and expanded opportunity. Our economic future is closely linked 
to the tearing down of export barriers and to locking in these 
extraordinary reforms.
  With 94 percent of the world's consumers living beyond the U.S. 
borders, the global economy is here to stay. We must compete. We must 
find our future there.
  In the 21st century, the thriving markets of Asia and Latin America 
will purchase a much larger share of U.S. manufactured products. Under 
this new GATT agreement, these nations must undertake greater 
responsibilities and obligations toward our exporters.
  The Uruguay round agreement fortifies the bipartisan American 
commitment to free and fair trade and positions the United States to 
reestablish its leadership role in the world economy. Competing and 
succeeding in the world marketplace will create new, high wage jobs 
where Americans will be able to improve their standard of living, not 
just now, but in the future, for generations to come.
  We should approve this new set of GATT rules, because it will allow 
our entrepreneurs what they do best. It will unleash American ingenuity 
and productivity.
  Our country is the world's greatest exporter. American consumers and 
businesses will receive a $12 billion tax cut from reduced tariffs 
contained in H.R. 5110. The significant Federal revenues resulting from 
expanded international sales will help us reach our goal of a balanced 
budget. It is a win-win situation for American taxpayers.
  Also, under this bill, U.S. sovereignty is fully protected. The 
Speaker-elect secured effective procedures wherein the U.S. Congress 
will be able to closely oversee all aspects of the new World Trade 
Organization to insure that U.S. interests are fully protected. U.S. 
Federal and State law will prevail over WTO decisions in all cases.
  In the area of dumping, H.R. 5110 and the statement of administrative 
action represent a series of carefully crafted compromises on many 
controversial issues. The implementing package attempts to strike a 
balance between the interests of U.S. firms that produce primarily for 
the domestic market, and the interests of U.S. consumers and those U.S. 
firms that also produce for export and source their supplies worldwide. 
We must ensure that this balance is maintained.
  While I believe in effective antidumping laws, I also believe that 
the United States and its trading partners should not use them for 
protectionists purposes. The WTO agreement represents a clear step 
toward ensuring that goal. In implementing the agreement, the United 
States must comply with its obligations. It is increasingly important 
for the United States to set a strong example in this regard, since for 
the past 5 years, U.S. exporters have been the leading targets of 
antidumping actions. The United States will be in no position to 
challenge suspect foreign practices that we ourselves have adopted. 
Just as the United States has copied Canada in adopting a captive 
production provision, we must expect that the practices we adopt today 
will one day be used against U.S. exporters by our trading partners.
  With this in mind, I fully expect that the Commerce Department will 
implement the antidumping provisions of H.R. 5110 in manner which is 
consistent with both the letter and spirit of our obligations under the 
WTO agreement.
  There are very few measures we could pass here today that would help 
U.S. workers, producers, and consumers more than this agreement. H.R. 
5110 sets the stage for vital U.S. economic expansion in the 21st 
century, and I urge a ``yes'' vote to inaugurate a new era of 
opportunity and prosperity for U.S. workers and businesses alike.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, today I rise in strong opposition to 
GATT.
  Let me say to my colleagues on the right of the political spectrum, 
over a period of generations you have tended to perpetuate the illusion 
that rugged individualism and market forces alone can solve the 
declining buying power of the majority of America's families. Let me 
remind you most people born in America are born with their entire net 
worth ahead of them, not a silver spoon in their mouths. A good-paying 
job is their only ticket up the ladder of economic opportunity.
  So when U.S.-based Nike Shoe Co. decided to move all of its products 
to Asia or when Dole Pineapple decided to move out of Hawaii, I do not 
care how hard you might have worked as a shoemaker or a pineapple 
worker, your job disappeared, and your family and your world were 
devastated. To hold out a low minimum-wage job with no benefits as a 
viable alternative to Americans who have lost their jobs because of our 
trade policies is hypocrisy.
  To my colleagues on the left of the political spectrum who believe 
that the Government produces wealth, let me caution you that the role 
of the Federal Government should not be primarily redistributive; 
rather, the role of the Government must be to set the terms of the 
negotiation between the rights of corporations and capital and the 
rights of labor.
  For too long, the Government of the United States and this Congress 
have abdicated their rightful responsibility to set the terms of the 
trade negotiations and have ceded it to the executive branch, the 
multinational corporations, and their well-paid trade lawyers here in 
Washington and in Geneva.
  To supporters of the GATT on the right and on the left, you are both 
wrong. You have turned your backs again on the American people 
themselves.
  The workers of America are restless. It is they who have borne the 
impact of the misguided trade agreements our Nation has struck for the 
past two decades. This is not the first GATT. This is the eighth GATT. 
And after each of the past GATT agreements, as corporate profits have 
gone up and consumer prices have gone up in America, real wages for 
America's workers have gone down, and the buying power of our working 
families have not gone up. Workers are holding their own, and our 
families are holding their own only by taking two jobs or more, and at 
the same time more imports have flowed to America's shores at a much 
faster rate than our exports going out.
  It is not difficult; you do not have to be a mental giant to figure 
out that there is a correlation between declining living standards in 
this country and the massive trade deficits we are racking up as a 
country. This year America will face her 11th consecutive year of 
negative trade deficits. This year it is projected to be at an all-time 
high of over $150 billion more imports coming in here than are exports 
going out.
  It is no secret our economy has not grown fast enough for two decades 
to meet our people's rising expectations. Remember, for each billion 
dollars of trade deficit, we have lost another 20,000 jobs in America.
  And so today I speak on behalf of every truckdriver in this country, 
every retail store clerk, every hairdresser, every waitress, every 
factory worker, every farmer, every small businessperson on Main 
Street, every person the elites call the red, white, and blue-collar 
workers of America. You know who I am talking about.
  Most citizens are starting to understand the connection between their 
standard of living, their paycheck, and international trade.

                              {time}  1330

  They booted out the Republicans in 1992, and then the Democrats this 
year. They want a government in our Nation's capital that speaks to the 
economic stress that they are experiencing in their homes every day, 
the shrinking buying power of their checks as they run faster to stay 
in place. In spite of working harder and rising productivity, it is 
tearing our families apart.
  We see two-track wage levels in the same factory, with CEO's often 
making hundreds of times more than their own workers; we see back-
breaking overtime for those who have jobs, but no new hires brought on 
board because companies do not want to pay benefits.
  Our working men and women sense that both political parties, while 
embroiled in partisanship, have drawn them into a race to the bottom. 
American workers are further pitted against, under this GATT, the low-
wage, undemocratic nations of the world in cahoots with multinational 
companies that owe their allegiance less to our Nation than to the 
despots from which these companies draw their succor. The Fortune 500 
companies are the biggest backers of this agreement and have not 
created a single job in America in the last 20 years.
  Look on the shelves--shoes from China. I went out to buy toys for my 
godchildren last week and could not find a single one made in America. 
Canned fruit from Thailand, VCR's from Japan. It is hard to find an 
American product to buy. Every year the deluge of imports gets larger. 
Think about a retail clerk at Wal-Mart who works part-time for minimum 
wage and has no benefits. When she sees a customer buy a $100 pair of 
tennis shoes made in China by Nike but those tennis shoes cost that 
company only $8 to produce in China, that clerk knows she is not 
benefiting from trade but somebody else is benefiting. And those who 
are benefiting are the biggest backers of this GATT agreement today.
  So, of course, this agreement has the multinational seal of approval 
on it, with all of their fancy brochures and ads in all of the major 
newspapers. But it is silent on the terms under which laboring people 
everywhere can gain a standard of living and legal status similar to 
that which we have in this country so that they can improve their way 
of life.
  This GATT agreement, like the GATT agreement before it, is silent, 
silent on the impact that it will have on the working men and women in 
America and, on those grounds alone, should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleagues, this GATT agreement amounts to a transfer of power, I 
think we should make no mistake about it. Our trading competitors know 
that, and to comment, to quote the French trade minister, Mr. Longuet, 
he says, ``Admittedly, the United States is more powerful in economic 
terms. They wielded a large stick which enabled them to have their way. 
From now on the stick will be more in the hands of the future World 
Trade Organization, which will become the world policeman of world 
trade.''
  So I think we should not kid ourselves about the World Trade 
Organization having some power and having some authority and being 
something more than the nothing that it has been described as by the 
pro-GATT advocates.
  The World Trade Organization is going to have clout. Right now we 
have clout.
  The strongest asset that this country has in managing its trade 
policy and in making a deal with another country and in opening up that 
country to our exports is the great leverage that we have with our 
market. We can stand toe to toe with any nation in the world and say, 
``If you don't open up your market, we are not going to open up our 
market.''
  We have been able to do that up to now with bilateral leverage. Well, 
we are going to lose all of that in this World Trade Organization 
because now we are going to give this power away to a committee. My 
colleagues, this is not a committee of friends.
  Of the 123 nations that will form the World Trade Organization, about 
85 of them have a record in the United Nations of being against the 
United States more than half the time. I want you to think about that a 
little bit. What does that mean?
  Those old United Nations votes were made back during the cold war 
when our main adversary was the Soviet bloc. The Soviet Union, which is 
no more.
  What does this say about this, the little countries like Bangladesh 
and Cameroon and those dozens and dozens of countries, each of which 
will have the same voting power in the WTO that the entire United 
States of America has. It tells you that those countries are subject to 
what we can call, charitably, friendly persuasion. It means when the 
Soviet Union leaned on them or offered them something and we were not 
willing to lean on them or intimidate them, to buy them, the other side 
did. And it got to vote for them.
  So, when we have a dispute and we look at this committee that we have 
given our power away to, remember, as politicians, when you give your 
rights away to a committee, you had better make darned sure it is a 
committee of friends. As we look at this list, let us try to find a 
friend: Angola, Antigua, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Moraine, 
Bangladesh, Barbados. I would submit to you that we are not going to 
find a lot of friends. I think that is why it is very evident from this 
commentary around the world, by the French, by the Japanese--the 
Japanese foreign trade minister told his industrialists, ``Don't worry 
about 301. We will blunt it with the World Trade Organization.''
  It is very clear that this is a shift of power, and it is not just a 
shift of power from the United States to this world committee, it is a 
shift of power from this body, this body which has had the 
constitutional responsibility to regulate trade.
  Very possibly this vote on GATT, if we pass it today, will be the 
last meaningful vote that we will make on trade.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Matsui].
  Mr. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this GATT agreement has been described by the vice 
president of the United States last week as one of the most important 
votes any Member of the House or the Senate will have in their careers.
  If this passes and becomes law, it probably will be a blip, but if 
this GATT fails, I can assure you the stock market will drop, the 
United States will lose its world leadership, and certainly what will 
happen is our economy will be in great danger.
  This agreement is merely a continuation of the last 50 years of 
agreement we have had in the area of world trade, with the exception of 
four areas.
  One, it gives us protection in intellectual property. Two, it gives 
us protection in the idea that we can now open up foreign markets to 
our services.
  Three, obviously you are going to see a major reduction in tariffs 
worldwide. This means that for every family in America from here on out 
they will save $150 per year on consumer goods. That is $150 per year 
tax cut for the average American.
  Of course, the world trade agreement, which has been very 
controversial--we have both Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader against it, so 
that must mean something--but the reality of the situation is that the 
United States, Japan, and the industrialized countries support the WTO. 
And the reason they support the WTO is because we are going to be 
opening up markets by using this dispute settlement process. This is to 
the advantage of the United States, not to the advantage of the less-
developed countries. Countries like India, Pakistan, Indonesia, they 
are the countries that are going to be trying to close their markets 
with non-tariff barriers. So this is in our interest. That is why the 
WTO is in our interest, in the interest of this country.
  If in fact the United States wants to keep unemployment down, keep 
interest rates down, keep inflation down, we are going to have to be 
looking for new markets. That is in Asia, Latin America, and throughout 
the world, because we are the most productive nation in the world. We 
can produce more than we consume, so we need new markets. We need a 
``yes'' vote on this agreement, this very historic agreement.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the question that must be answered today is:
  ``What can the great GATT be?''
  Is it the name of a motion picture of Academy Award status, or is it 
the threshold of new opportunities for America and America's people?
  When one tries to explain to the people back home that this is the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, their attention span dwindles, 
but when one begins to outline job opportunities, increased exports, 
increased economic activity, and then, in my own district, to point out 
that Pennsylvania products, Pennsylvania activity, Pennsylvania 
technology, will be in the forefront of the new export opportunities in 
the next decade and beyond, then my constituents in the district begin 
to understand better what GATT can be.
  On top of that, Mr. Chairman, when we consider that as our district 
goes, as my personal district goes, so goes Pennsylvania; well, that 
makes it even more important. But when we also add to that: As my 
district goes, so goes Pennsylvania, so goes the United States; well, 
then it becomes an internationally powerful message of jobs, economic 
development, for the future of Pennsylvania and the Nation.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant]
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 more minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Barlow). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. The American people have spoken. What the Democratic 
party failed to do from within, the American voters did from without. 
Some of those issues were the flag, school prayer, capital punishment, 
taxes. But let there be no mistake; there was one other area, a four-
letter word a lot of people do not want to hear: ``Jobs.''
  To the Republican Party I say, ``I wish you well. May you never be 
hated by Tonya Harding and never loved by Lorena Bobbit. Good luck. But 
don't misconstrue or misinterpret the vote of November 8. The American 
people are fed up with all of Washington, both parties. The Democrats 
had, unfortunately, the power of the majority, and the American people 
said, `we got to at least try the other side.'''
  But I think the big defining issue for Democrats is this issue, and I 
disagree with the philosophy and ideology of our party, and I love the 
chairman who called the decisions personally. But we cannot separate a 
trade deficit from the budget deficit, and, God Almightily, we cannot, 
we cannot, separate the trade policy giveaways of America from our 
unemployment and bankruptcy. My colleagues, we are a corporation that 
is in Chapter 11, trying to reorganize with new trustees called the 
Republicans.
  There is no difference between the parties on trade, national 
security and commerce, the two major things we do in Congress. What is 
the difference between Democrats and Republicans on trade? Show me the 
difference between Clinton and Bush, Regan and Carter, Nixon and 
Johnson. Show me the difference. We continue with the same so-called 
free trade ideology, and I could support it if it worked.
  My colleagues, our trade deficit will hit a record of $150 billion 
this year, Japan's is up to $60 billion, and now we are going with 
another free trade program. Japan has apologized, starting with Richard 
Nixon, for not opening their markets, and last year they apologized to 
Bill Clinton for not opening their markets. They build a Honda in 
America so they could import an America car.
  Wise up.
  The stock market is going to fail if we do not vote for this? The 
banks are going to collapse? Who is kidding whom? I say to my 
colleagues, ``If you don't vote for this, the American people are going 
to stand up in their living rooms and cheer each other with high fives. 
The American people in the work place are going to say, `My God, don't 
they understand what our concerns are?' They're not afraid of 
competition.''
  Now tell me this:
    
    
  ``How could the Cleveland Browns compete with the Seattle Seahawks if 
the Seahawks are allowed to play with 15 players?''
  Ten cents an hour wages in China? Most-favored-nation trading status? 
Last month the trade deficit with China was $3.6 billion. Last year it 
was 26 billion annualized. What will it be this year? Forty billion? 
What is Japan? Sixty billion?
  Now let us look at Mexico. All this great program is Mexico. Here is 
the bottom line:
  All these think tank experts say for every billion in trade deficit 
we lose 20,000 jobs. Well, our surplus was $4 billion with Mexico. And 
a year after NAFTA it is down to a $2 billion surplus.
  Here is the Traficant analysis:
  We lost $2 billion in deficits the first year under NAFTA to Mexico. 
We lost 40,000 high paying jobs. I do not want to hear about flipping 
burgers anymore without benefits.
  Wise up, Congress. Now is the time for the Democrats to take a look. 
I say to my colleagues, ``If there is a Democrat policy here, you're 
the majority. The Republicans have the power to kill GATT. The American 
people know it. You're jumping into the same cesspool, being seduced 
into the same ideology the American people have been opposing, so help 
me God. And I have, in fact, supported many of your economic packages. 
I think your tax packages make more sense than the Democrats'. But on 
trade I think you're failing.''
  My colleagues, how in God's name does America compete? Just look at 
Mexico: No IRS, no Social Security, no EPA, no OSHA, no workman's comp, 
no unemployment comp, no bank regulations, no security regulations, no 
minimum wage, no pension law, no labor law. They cannot even create a 
union in Mexico, and they hire people at 50 cents an hour. I ask, ``Why 
in God's name would I invest in your district?'' And then 4.5 billion 
dollars' worth of new investment in Mexico, and half of it came from 
the United States of America.
  This is not a general agreement on tariffs and trade. It is just 
simply another God-awful trade treaty. It waives the Constitution. It 
waives the Constitution and destroys American jobs.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, several months ago I cast a 
vote in favor of NAFTA. It was a difficult choice, but I finally 
attained a level of at least partial comfort and was able to conclude 
that NAFTA offered more benefit than detriment. In retrospect I believe 
my aye vote in favor of the passage of NAFTA was a sound one.
  I have not yet attained a similar comfort zone regarding the passage 
of GATT however. A lame duck session is not the proper forum where 
trade policy is to be determined in my opinion. The problem a lame duck 
session poses is obvious.

                              {time}  1350

  Candidates duly elected earlier this month will be deprived of voting 
upon this critical issue because they have not yet taken their oaths of 
office. Conversely, candidates who were previously defeated this month 
and Members who are voluntarily leaving the Congress within 5 to 6 
weeks will be permitted to cast their votes. It could be argued that 
this latter group is inaccessible to constituents but permitted 
nonetheless to vote.
  This is a luxury that should not be extended, Mr. Chairman, in my 
opinion.
  The matter of increasing the amount of the deficit is of concern to 
many. Inevitably, the United States will lose revenue, significant 
revenue, as a result of the lowering of tariffs. Proponents assure us 
that this loss will be transformed into a surplus once additional 
revenues are generated with the passage of time. Perhaps. Perhaps not. 
My point is that I remain unconvinced.
  The laws applicable to the esoteric issue of intellectual property 
and the concern of special interest matters contained in GATT are 
points of contention but far too complex to be resolved in 4 hours of 
debate.
  Finally, there is this matter of compromising our sovereignty. Those 
who insist this will result if GATT is enacted may well be 
overreacting, but I cannot assure them beyond doubt that our 
sovereignty will not be compromised.
  There are some barriers, some reefs and shoals, if you will, that 
must be negotiated, and it is my belief that deliberation and delay at 
this point may well be our best course to pursue. We do not have to 
abandon our present course but rather proceed cautiously and come into 
port at a later date.
  GATT is likely neither as good nor as bad as respective proponents 
declare, but a belated arrival with all cargo intact and properly 
lashed down is preferable to a premature arrival with cargo adrift and 
not accounted for.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from southern California for 
yielding this time to me, and I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr Chairman, I remember the debate on NAFTA. I 
remember the ``giant sucking sound'' of jobs lost to the border. But 
what was the result? A hundred thousand American jobs over 6 months in 
the first year of NAFTA. It sounds to me like winds of jobs were 
created instead of sucking sounds.
  Mr. Chairman, today we have a chance to be responsible right after 
the election, to act in the best interests of this country, simply 
because GATT will put more money in people's pockets. Consumer goods 
will cost less. We will create more jobs, close to 1 million, from this 
agreement.
  What happens if we delay, let us say, 6 months? We will lose $90 
billion of the global tax cut, which is $744 billion over the next 10 
years, if we delay by 6 months. And we cannot make that money back. We 
lose the most from this delay because American producers and exporters 
pay tariffs levied by foreign governments, and what we do is have a 
situation where foreign governments are lowering their tariffs by about 
50 percent more than Americans are, and we have 12 percent of relevant 
world exports. We lose over $70 billion in total GDB over the next 10 
years if we have this 6-month delay. Most importantly, we lose 25,000 
jobs permanently from this delay.
  Mr. Chairman, let us do the right thing. This election has nothing to 
do with this vote. This election has nothing to do with how Americans 
feel about trade. This vote today asks: Where is America going to stand 
in the world? Are we going to lead, or are we going to retrench? Are we 
going to stick our heads in the sand, or are we going to be the leader, 
just as we were after World War II, the one that led the world into 
some prosperity.
  Mr. Chairman, the right vote, the right substantive vote, the right 
political vote is aye.
  GATT is an agreement that will change the economic relationship of 
the United States to the rest of the world.
  125 countries are signatories and it is vital that the United States 
take the lead in the new global competitive strunt.
  There are no hidden agendas, no evil supranational authorities, and 
no unknown quantities in this legislation.
  What is at stake is jobs. American jobs in a rapidly changing global 
economy.
  Over the next 10 years GATT will increase the gross national product 
by up to $200 billion per year.
  GATT means more U.S. exports in computers and other high technology 
sectors.
  GATT means agricultural exports will increase by up to $8.5 billion 
per year by 2005.
  GATT means intellectual property will finally be protected so that 
U.S. entrepreneurs can flourish in foreign markets.
  GATT means the United States will have much greater access to markets 
around the world.


                       gatt and u.s. sovereignty

  Concerns have been raised regarding GATT's effect, or more 
specifically the World Trade Organizations' [WTO] effect, on U.S. 
Federal, State, and local laws.
  On page 15, section 102, of this bill on line 6 it states ``No 
provision of any of the Uruguay round agreements, nor the application 
of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is 
inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect.''
  Also, the WTO will follow the GATT rules of decision making based on 
consensus. However, unlike current GATT procedures the WTO will need 
three-fourths rather than two-thirds of members to agree before an 
amendment to the Uruguay round is adopted.


                           dispute settlement

  Dispute settlement procedures will enhance our ability to enforce our 
trade rights.
  The new dispute settlement process includes cross-retaliation 
provisions to ensure that U.S. negotiators can build a strong case.


                         gatt and spectrum fees

  Claims that the Washington Post and other companies are getting a 
give away in the GATT are just untrue.
  The language in this bill regarding pioneer preferences ensures that 
the Federal Government will recover revenues from the pioneers.
  The language in this bill will have three companies pay an 
approximate market value for licenses that they would otherwise have 
for free.


                           why can't we wait

  Waiting, for even a few months, will cost U.S. consumers, U.S. 
industry, and the U.S.'s global leadership.
  Passing GATT after January will be seriously complicated and probably 
doomed to failure because we will lack fast track authority and other 
nations will balk without U.S. leadership.


                         gatt a budget buster?

  The GATT agreement does not bust the budget. I find it amazing that a 
$750 billion global tax break could be considered as breaking the U.S. 
budget.
  The fact is that as we cut tariffs the Treasury takes in less money. 
H.R. 5110 replaces 60 percent of that lost revenue through spending 
cuts and responsibly budgets the other 40 percent through revenue 
raising provisions.
  The problem arises because the revenue provisions are spread out over 
10 years rather than 5 years, as mandated by the fiscal year 1994 
Budget Act.
Exports as a share of industry shipments:
  Computers.........................................................49%
  Aircraft, engines and parts.......................................46%
  Construction machinery............................................37%
  Semiconducters....................................................37%
  Machine tools.....................................................35%
  Farm machinery....................................................29%
  Flat glass........................................................28%
Jobs and Exports:
  Merchandise (million)...............................................7
  Services (million)................................................3.5
Percentage of U.S. farm products exported (average 1979-89):
  Corn..............................................................30%
  Tobacco...........................................................40%
  Cotton............................................................51%
  Soybeans and meal.................................................52%
  Rice..............................................................55%
  Wheat.............................................................60%
U.S. jobs dependent on agriculture exports--1990 (thousands):
  Farm..............................................................439
  Food processing....................................................75
  Trade and transport...............................................231
  Other manufacturing...............................................167
  Other services....................................................200
                                                               ________

      Total.......................................................1,062

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the GATT Agreement 
and in support of H.R. 5110, the implementing legislation to accompany 
it.
  I have been following the development and evolution of this 
legislation very carefully because, from the beginning, I have had some 
very serious concerns on two counts--sovereignty and financing.
  I have made it clear all along that I would not and could not support 
the agreement or the legislation if it jeopardized or compromised our 
Nation's sovereignty in any way. And I have made it clear from the 
beginning that I would not and could not support it if it were not paid 
for openly and honestly so that it did not add to the Federal deficit.
  This implementing legislation has satisfied me on both counts.
  In late September, in the Ways and Means Committee, the final version 
of the implementing legislation was dropped in our laps--all 651 pages 
of it--and we were asked to vote it out of committee an hour later. I 
cannot read that fast.
  Since I promised not to vote for GATT, until I have read the 
legislation, I felt compelled to vote ``no'' in committee. Last minute 
changes had been made in the financing section of the bill and in the 
dispute settlement language and I was not about to vote for it, until I 
had a chance to carefully review those changes.
  Since then, we have had plenty of time to study it. I have gone over 
the implementing legislation with a fine toothed comb. And I have 
determined to my satisfaction that the implementing legislation does 
provide adequate financing to offset the lost revenues from tariff 
reductions. It will not add to the deficit.
  The bill provides for savings of nearly $12 billion in accounting 
changes, outlay reductions and user fees--a sufficient amount to offset 
lost tariff revenues over the first 5 years of the agreement. 
Therefore, the agreement will not add to the deficit and does not 
require a budget waiver, despite the fact that the tariff reductions 
under the agreement provide the American consumer the equivalent of a 
$12 billion tax cut.
  I do wish the financing provisions were a little heavier on spending 
cuts and relied less on accounting changes. However, I also believe 
that if dynamic modeling were used to predict the impact of tariff 
reductions on our Federal budget, the increased trade encouraged by 
GATT would more than offset tariff reductions anyway.
  From a Federal budget and tax perspective, this GATT agreement is a 
win-win situation. It is a tax cut for consumers and it will not 
increase the deficit.
  After thoroughly studying the bill, I have also determined to my 
satisfaction that the implementing legislation does sufficiently 
clarify the terms of the dispute resolution mechanisms in the agreement 
and does provide adequate protection and congressional oversight of the 
trade dispute resolution procedures under the world trade organization.
  I am convinced that this agreement does not in any way jeopardize or 
compromise our national sovereignty.
  Unlike NAFTA--which I did oppose--GATT is not something new. We have 
been living under GATT for 47 years. It has a longstanding tradition of 
solving trade disputes through consensus. The establishment of a new 
World Trade Organization does not change that. In fact, the agreement 
and the implementing legislation strengthen that foundation of reliance 
on consensus.
  Like the GATT, the World Trade Organization cannot impose new rules 
on us without our consent. The new WTO voting procedures--if they are 
ever invoked--fully protect our interests. No vote can force us to 
accept any amendment that alters our rights or obligations. Article 10 
of the WTO agreement states explicitly that any amendment of any kind 
is not binding on us unless we agree to it.
  The World Trade Organization cannot override or change U.S. law. 
Section 102(a) of the implementing legislation provides that if there 
is a conflict between any of our laws and the Uruguay round agreements, 
United States law will prevail.
  The World Trade Organization is not a court--it cannot strike down 
U.S. law. It cannot order us to change our laws. And it cannot impose 
upon us any remedies or penalties without our consent.
  If, in response to a complaint, a WTO panel finds that we are 
violating our obligations under GATT, we can choose to offer trade 
compensation, such as lower tariffs in another sector--or--we could 
negotiate another solution with the complaining country--or--we could 
simply ignore that ruling and take no action at all and allow the 
aggrieved country to withdraw concessions equivalent to those we 
withdrew by violating the agreement. That's the worst any one could do 
to us.

  This system is not only fair, it works to our advantage. Because of 
our tremendous domestic market, we have more leverage than any other 
country in the world. Most other countries simply do not have the 
economic clout to make retaliation against us a credible option.
  The GATT agreement does not jeopardize our sovereignty.
  The funding and the sovereignty issues, having been resolved to my 
satisfaction, I intend to vote for this implementing legislation. It's 
good for our Nation.
  Virtually no one disputes the prediction that the tariff reductions 
under GATT will increase trade--increase U.S. exports. The tariff 
reductions will boost the U.S. gross national product by somewhere 
between $100 billion or $200 billion a year over the next 10 years.
  GATT will jump start the world economy which is stalled right now--
and that is good for us.
  GATT will open up markets for our products and for our services and 
create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in this country.
  It is good for U.S. steel. It is good for U.S. agriculture. It is 
good for tobacco. It is good for U.S. intellectual properties. It gives 
us access to markets in the fast growing countries like Brazil, 
Thailand, and Malaysia.
  GATT deserves our support and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting ``yes'' for H.R. 5110.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
  (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, ``beware of foreign entanglements.'' These words of 
wisdom were left to us by none other than the Father of our Country--
George Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, the GATT is a foreign entanglement of the first order. 
It is an unabashed surrender of our sovereignty. Turning over decisions 
concerning American citizens and subjugating the rights of American 
workers to foreign interests is something I will not be a party to.
  Many of my Republican colleagues have talked about how the recent 
election returned power to the people. Ross Perot, in endorsing 
Republicans, said: We the people want the power back. Now these same 
individuals are going to vote to take decisionmaking power away from 
the American people by giving it to nameless, faceless foreign 
bureaucrats.
  The American middle class is threatened--it is under assault from 
seemingly all sides--economic insecurity, economic instability--
American workers are scared--they feel they have lost control. That is 
what they screamed on November 8. And now this Congress is going to 
respond by saying: We are turning the future--your future--over to a 
foreign trade organization. Is Congress deaf? How does the GATT calm 
the anxieties American workers feel?
  What we have won over hundreds of years--the right to control our own 
destinies--the right to make our own decisions--is about to be 
surrendered under the banner of free trade.
  Nothing is free, Mr. Chairman, and the price tag to American 
sovereignty and the cost to American workers will be great.
  This administration points to NAFTA as an unqualified success. They 
say exports to Mexico have dramatically increased.
  That is the same play on words as saying we are reducing the deficit. 
We are not reducing the deficit. We are slowing its growth.
  NAFTA is increasing American exports to Mexico, but it is increasing 
what we import from Mexico at a much faster rate. It is costing 
American workers jobs--it is making American workers nervous--it is 
costing American workers their dreams and their future.
  But NAFTA and GATT proponents only talk about exports.
  I look at individual worried faces these are the people who sent many 
here a message. They said take care of us first.
  Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the GATT puts them last.
  The facts have proved time after time increased exports do not mean 
more American jobs.
  The Chicago Tribune has reported that Illinois' leading exporter, 
Caterpillar, has eliminated 20,000 jobs over the past few years--at a 
time when exports have quadrupled.
  I am not alone in expressing my strong reservations about the Work 
Trade Organization or WTO which would replace the GATT as the vehicle 
for enforcing the trade pact and resolving disputes between trading 
partners. The WTO would have tremendous power and possess the same 
legal status as the United Nation and World Bank.
  Under the WTO, panels of unelected trade bureaucrats would hear 
challenges by other nations to U.S. laws.
  The WTO could direct the United States to change the law or face 
economic sanctions. This situation places laws passed by Congress and 
State and local governments at significant risk.
  U.S. laws must conform to the WTO or be exposed to challenge from 
other countries as illegal trade barriers. As a result, the rulings of 
the WTO can be expected to lower our strong consumer and food safety 
standards and threaten ``Buy American'' provisions.
  U.S. Environmental Laws would also be seriously undermined--that is 
why all major environmental groups oppose the GATT.
  Furthermore, the WTO decision process is closed to the press and the 
public. This organization would be entirely unaccountable to the 
working people of the United States who are concerned about higher 
taxes and higher deficits--and our first response to their election 
message is to increase the deficit by $30 billion.
  Think about what you are doing. Under the GATT, foreigners could 
impose taxes on American citizens or raise the cost of what we pay for 
American food and clothing. No wonder Americans are nervous and angry.
  Mr. Chairman, the GATT agreement has serious implications for U.S. 
sovereignty, as well as American workers. For these reasons, I intend 
to support our founding father, George Washington, by casting a ``nay'' 
vote on this foreign entanglement called the GATT.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
California, for yielding this time to me.
  We have heard and are hearing a lot of rhetoric on GATT, but we have 
an old saying in Wisconsin, an old adage that says that ``talk's cheap, 
it costs money to buy whiskey.''
  I think it is well to remember that when we talk about GATT because 
the American people are not interested in economic theory and grand 
philosophy. These are specific changes that are going to affect every 
American.
  This is the GATT legislation right here, over 2,000 pages. Actually 
it is only half of the bill because this is the other half. We have 
4,004 pages in this bill, in this enabling legislation.
  I know this legislation as well as anyone in this House, but I hope 
no one gets up and asks me all kinds of questions because, I say to my 
friends, there is a lot in this legislation, and just to pass it 
helter-skelter is not serving this Congress or the American people.
  There is no question that some parts of the American society are 
going to benefit from this legislation, but it is equally true that 
this agreement is going to cause irreparable damage to certain parts of 
our economy and the people whose jobs and industries are linked with 
this part of the economy.

                              {time}  1400

  For example, in the area of dairy, textiles, intellectual property, I 
know a state that has 30,000 dairy farmers, 300 companies who process 
dairy products, 17,000 people working for these companies.
  The economy of the small towns in America, rural America, are also 
going to be adversely affected. We must think of those people. We all 
want the benefits of expanding trade, but we have to look at the 
downside too. We cannot sacrifice whole sectors of our economy to reach 
that goal. The end, my friends, does not justify the means.
  The cost of GATT is too high for the American dairy farmer and the 
average American working men and women. Someone must speak for the 
average Americans, and that is why we have a dissenting opinion in this 
case before Congress and before the American people.
  The bottom line is that if this GATT accord is implemented, the 
domestic price of our dairy products will drop because foreign imports 
will flood into the American market. It would be one thing that if GATT 
produced more dairy exports, but that will not happen. You see, under 
GATT, our principal dairy competitors in Europe still get substantially 
more government assistance than the American dairy farmers here at 
home, more farm support payments and more export assistance in Europe 
than we have here. So the bottom line is that for American dairy GATT 
is a bad, bad deal.
  It is particularly frustrating to me that the Clinton administration 
has ignored this problem. For months a group of us in Congress have 
worked to fix the problems in GATT. We formed the Congressional Dairy 
Task Force and sent a series of recommendations to the White House. We 
have implored and pleaded with the White House. We have made specific 
proposals on how the President could improve this trade agreement and 
help American dairy.
  I sent a letter to the President and to Ambassador Kantor on this 
issue. I even added a specific recommendation on dairy to the GATT 
legislation that our Committee on Foreign Affairs sent to the 
President. Sadly, our advice was ignored.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no one in this House who has worked harder to 
expand American exports. In this Congress alone, I have helped bring 
three trade bills to this House to expand exports and to create 
hundreds of thousands of jobs for American workers. Indeed, the 
principal focus of my work as the senior Republican member on the 
Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Trade and Environment of the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs is to expand our exports and create jobs. But it is 
clear as a bell, it is clear to me, that in writing this GATT 
legislation, the Clinton administration has turned its back on the 
American dairy farmer.
  Well, I will not turn my back on the American dairy farmers and rural 
American working men and women, and I am asking you not to turn your 
back on the average American. It is our duty to stand up and to speak 
out for our dairy farmers and for the average American worker.
  Therefore, I ask you to vote no on this legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Price of North Carolina assumed the chair.) The 
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, the conclusion, successful conclusion, 
of the Uruguay Round of GATT marks a milestone in United States trade 
negotiations. This round signifies the achievement of Republicans and 
Democrats and their administrations for the goals of something everyone 
of us care about, economic growth, job creation, and trade 
liberalization. The United States illustrated its determination to 
ensure reduction and elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. We had 
bold leadership and brought our trading partners to a more level 
trading field and created a world of opportunity. I have heard people 
say on this floor today that everybody doesn't understand everything in 
GATT, and that is absolutely true. Many Members understand certain 
parts of it, but that has been true in the past on our trade laws. 
There is nothing more complicated than trade laws, except probably the 
IRS Code. But the fact of the matter is there are experts who 
understand these rules and have negotiated these new rules, and these 
new rules are fairer, and we will have a better deal with these new 
rules.
  Maybe you do not understand every little thing in this agreement. But 
what we do understand are the broad things that happen with this 
agreement. And what it means is that we will be able to trade better in 
the world. What it means for a state like mine, Connecticut, that is 
going through some very difficult times, it means that we can have our 
state product go other places. It used to be if you traded in your own 
town you are okay, then if you traded in your own state you are okay, 
then if you traded in the United States. Now to be successful, you have 
to trade internationally.
  For us it means we make jet engines, the best in the world. But 
unless we have this agreement, we can't sell them. This means we have 
had to downsize because of defense cuts, but because we can get new 
manufacturing, good deals through this trade agreement, we can keep our 
workers who are trained and they will stay in Connecticut. It means 
that we have medical supplies that are better than anybody else's in 
the world. And this new agreement means we can sell them globally.
  This is a good agreement across the board. Maybe every single nuance 
is not understood, but some people understand them and they are for our 
betterment. I think we should absolutely vote for this trade agreement 
so we can go on to be the world power we want to be.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, as the world's foremost free trading Nation, 
we must be a part of a 123 country international free-trade agreement.
  The recent NAFTA agreement has proven that free trade will stimulate 
economic growth. For the first time since 1980, the U.S. auto industry 
will produce more cars this year than any other country--over 11 
million total, largely due to NAFTA. NAFTA has been a great help to the 
economy of my State of Michigan despite the cries that the sky would 
fall if NAFTA was passed.
  Isolationism and protectionism does not stimulate growth--free trade 
does.
  GATT will complete the elimination of foreign duty fees on key 
industrial machinery products which is Michigan's most rapidly growing 
export. Sales of transportation equipment, which is 88 percent of 
Michigan's total export sales, will benefit greatly from GATT by 
lowering or eliminating tariff fees and export taxes. The Agriculture 
community has learned from NAFTA that free trade will benefit their 
markets. U.S. farm exports rose 11 percent during the first 6 months of 
NAFTA implementation. GATT will also substantially improve the 
exporting of feedgrains, soybeans, sugars, redmeats and many other U.S. 
farm products by billions. Michigan employers, workers and families 
need GATT because GATT will stimulate economic growth.
  The facts are clear--free trade works--protectism does not. GATT will 
open many markets which have been closed to U.S. products including 
many U.S. agriculture products which have been wrongly restricted in 
the past. GATT will cut foreign tariffs on U.S. exports by 43 percent 
and trigger incredible growth.
  GATT is about free enterprise, the very premise upon which the 
economic foundation of this country is based. I believe that bringing 
down trade barriers around the world is the greatest economic 
opportunity given to American workers and consumers. We are a nation of 
opportunists, in the greatest sense of the word is has made us what we 
are today. This vote is about moving forward and advancing the cause of 
American free enterprise.
  The world is looking to us to lead them into the 21st century--let us 
do it in a way that encourages everyone to incorporate the American 
ideal of free and fair trade in a global marketplace. This is our 
responsibility as leaders of today and as the parents of future 
generations of Americans. Can America get the job done? I say we can, 
and I will cast my vote in support of GATT and the future.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an extraordinarily important vote, and I do not 
believe that there is a vote that will have more impact on the day-to-
day economic lives of the citizens of this country, a vote that will 
have more impact on the future economic prosperity and the 
competitiveness of this Nation in the world community, in all the votes 
taken by this Congress combined in this session and perhaps the last 
several sessions. And this should not be a vote taken at the 11th hour 
on the last day in a lame duck session of Congress, voted upon by many 
people who have been asked to come home by the American voters because 
they think they are just a little bit out of touch.

                              {time}  1410

  This is the ultimate arrogance. Now the new leadership of the 
Congress, the Republicans, are hand in glove in complicity in this 
agreement, because they could block it here today. They could stop 
this.
  This is not being done by the 103d Congress of the Democratic 
leadership, it is being done by the 104th Congress, the new leader, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], and his colleagues on the 
Republican side. They could stop this. It is within their power, and 
they will choose not to do it.
  We are going to hear a lot today and you have already heard about how 
great this is going to be. We are going to have a World Trade 
Organization and it is going to open markets for America. No, it is not 
going to open markets for America, it is going to further open the 
American markets to unfair traders around the world.
  This agreement does nothing to stop child labor. This agreement will 
put at risk the environmental, food, consumer, health and safety laws 
of this Nation to something called a World Trade Organization, an 
organization that will settle disputes over trade barriers, and trade 
barriers is interpreted as anything that restricts the free movement of 
goods, whether it is restrictions against child labor, whether it is 
restrictions against dangerous substances in food and pesticides.
  In secret tribunals--when I asked Mickey Kantor, our Special Trade 
Representative, how is it that the United States could bind itself to 
an organization that will have secret tribunals that will determine 
whether or not the laws of the United States are trade restrictive and 
should be overturned, he said ``You have to understand, most of the 
signatories of this agreement, they do not believe in our system of 
jurisprudence. They would be very uncomfortable in an open system. They 
would be very uncomfortable if we had rules of law. They are much more 
comfortable with secret tribunals with no conflict of interest rules.''
  We are lowering ourselves to the worst standards, to the lowest 
common denominator, in order to get something that a few multinational 
corporations desperately want.
  This will not benefit the American people $150 each per year. Give me 
a break. I buy made-in-American shoes. They cost the same as the Nike 
shoes made in China and they pay a hell of a lot more to those workers 
to make them.
  Those profits do not go to the consumers. Those profits go to the 
stockholders, plain and simple, and there are a number of very powerful 
stockholders of corporations that desperately want this agreement done 
today, before the American people are focused on what a loser it is.
  Last week we celebrated Thanksgiving with turkeys. This is a turkey. 
Send it back.
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Bentley].
  (Mrs. BENTLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Chairman, this Lame Duck session of the 103d 
Congress should not be voting on the GATT. Three out of four of the 
voters think the vote should be postponed to allow study time by 104th 
Congress before it votes on the GATT and its World Trade Organization. 
Furthermore, recent polls show that 80 percent of the American voters 
are opposed to the World Trade Organization.
  Why the voters are opposed was echoed by a former member of this 
body, U.S. Senator Hank Brown, who originally was inclined to vote for 
GATT. He changed his mind after studying the hundreds of thousands of 
pages making up the Uruguay round of GATT and accepted a challenge from 
Ralph Nader to take a test on the GATT. If all this was to remove 
tariffs/duties, that could be accomplished in one page. But because the 
agreement includes many other elements that adversely affect the United 
States, it is volumes thick.
  Senator Brown stated, ``This treaty creates a new government without 
fair representation for the U.S. and an international court system 
without due process.
  ``The United States takes in about 30 percent of the world's imports 
and could pay up to 23 percent of the cost of running the World Trade 
Organization. Yet we would have only one vote out of 123. More than 90 
votes would be controlled by Third World countries that pay almost none 
of the cost. The countries that pay have little control.
  ``The WTO creates 50 new committees, boards, panels and organizations 
and could become an international bureaucracy of unprecedented size.''
  In short, we are losing our sovereignty over trade. The International 
Herald Tribune in an April 26, article this year said ``It will be 
actually be good for the United States to be overruled by the World 
Organization when Washington tries to take politically motivated action 
against other countries' exports.'' Doesn't say anything about what 
other countries can do to ours.
  This clearly spells out a loss of U.S. sovereignty although 
Ambassador Kantor assures elected officials this is not so. What he is 
not telling officials is we are altering the Federal/State relationship 
with this agreement.
  States such as North Dakota, Florida and California have been faxing 
in the lists of law they want protected by the Federal government. What 
the Administration does not replay to the states is that it cannot be 
done.
  In fact the GATT Law Book, published in March, of this year by GATT 
clearly establishes that state laws must be changed. (Incidentally, 
advertisements for the book states lawyers need it if they want to 
practice law before GATT). On page 1001 it states ``That under United 
States constitutional law GATT law is part of United States Federal law 
and, being based on the commerce clause of the Constitution, overrides, 
as a general matter, inconsistent State law.''
  What does that mean to us? It means the Federal/State relationship is 
being altered. Our environmental laws will be effected as well as our 
ability to set American standards over food and other products.
  In addition, our most prized system, the patent and copyright system 
will be under the authority of the WTO. The Administration has dealt a 
serious blow to American inventors by sneaking a patent term change 
into the GATT enabling legislation.
  The 20 year-from-filing date patent term is fixed while the other 123 
GATT members have a 20-year minimum patent. Shortening the term is a 
direct attack on the American technology base.
  For 200 years we have led the world in technology, and this one act, 
will sacrifice that lead for the next 100 years. The Administration 
made this change in response to Japan and the large multinational 
companies. The patent term has no business being included in GATT. The 
only reason it is so this body--the Congress--can never reverse that 
disastrous agreement signed by the U.S. Commissioner of Patents.
  I ask you, where are the American people in this deal. We are 
jeopardizing American jobs--and transferring congressional sovereignty 
over trade to a foreign body. Most importantly, only one American, the 
Special Trade Representative, who currently is Ambassador Mickey Kantor 
will have standing at the WTO to represent the United States. No 
American citizen or business can address his or her concerns to the 
WTO. A basic tenet of American law is any citizen can address his or 
her concerns to the government--all Americans have a right to a jury 
trial in an American court. These rights are being seized from American 
business and American citizens in this document.
  It is unfortunate that we will not put off this vote until we can 
determine what kind of hydraheaded monster is being foisted on the 
American people. Our government will not be the same.
  I hope my colleagues will hear this and vote no.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Andrews].
  (Mr. ANDREWS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is an historic opportunity 
not only for our country but for our trading partners around the world. 
For America, it means jobs, it means competition and open markets.
  However, there is something more at stake here. At the close of the 
cold war, Harry Truman and Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg joined 
together to formulate the Marshall Plan, and like that historic moment 
in our history, today's vote sets a stage and a platform for America's 
role in an international marketplace well into the next century.
  This is a critical vote. Should we fail to pass this this week, 
America will be in retreat. If we take the reins and pass this 
legislation, we will have every opportunity to be the leader in this 
new age of international competition, and I urge the passage of this 
important treaty.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in 
support of the implementing legislation for the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade [GATT] that is before the Congress. This historic 
agreement represents over forty-five years of trade negotiations 
between the United States and other member countries, and the 
Administration should be highly commended.
  The world is continuing to evolve into a single global economy in 
which international trade provides the crucial link between nations. As 
this evolution continues, the international trading system must adapt 
in order to realize the maximum potential benefits worldwide, and the 
Uruguay Round agreement is essential to break down existing trade 
barriers and thus to make these benefits a reality. Further, the new 
trading rules established by the agreement will provide a more 
consistent and enforceable trading atmosphere as countries continue to 
seek competitive advantages in the global marketplace.
  On a more regional level, the passage of this legislation will add 
another critical building block to the goal of free trade in the 
western hemisphere. The Uruguay Round agreement establishes a more 
stable atmosphere for continuing the work initiated by the North 
American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] in lowering trade barriers in 
Central and South America. More importantly for me, the Uruguay Round 
is a substantial component in further opening trade opportunities for 
Texas companies interested in accessing markets south of the border.
  For states such as Texas, the Uruguay Round opens important foreign 
markets to our products. Being the nation's third largest exporter of 
merchandise, Texas' economy will be bolstered by the GATT's creation of 
significant export and employment opportunities.
  The timely implementation of this agreement can only be good for my 
state's economy. From 1987 to 1993, Texas merchandise exports almost 
doubled, rising by 97 percent. This rise was the second largest among 
all the United States. Texas' leading export industries of industrial 
machinery, computers, electronic equipment and chemical products 
together accounted for 57 percent of our state's exports in 1993. Texas 
is uniquely positioned to build on past successes to benefit from the 
Uruguay Round and the opportunities the GATT will create.
  In negotiating the Uruguay Round agreement, the Administration was 
successful in achieving U.S. trade objectives. The agreement reduces 
trade distortions for agricultural and industrial goods, creates 
regulations for new areas, such as services and intellectual rights, 
and establishes an improved process for resolving trade disputes.

  For industrial countries, tariff barriers have been lowered from an 
average of 40 percent in the early 1950's to an average of less than 4 
percent at the completion of the Uruguay Round. Specifically, with 
respect to all signatories, tariffs will be reduced on manufactured 
items by an average of one-third, mostly by zeroing out tariffs in 
selected product categories. For the United States and most other 
developed countries, these categories will include steel, construction, 
and agricultural machinery, furniture, paper, toys, medical equipment 
and drugs as well as beer and distilled spirits.
  Industrialized countries will phase out their quotas on textiles and 
clothing in four stages over a 10-year period. For the first time, 
however, developing countries will also eliminate their textile import 
barriers.
  The Uruguay Round agreement also effectively incorporates agriculture 
goods into the GATT framework. Agricultural tariffs will now be reduced 
approximately one-third over 6 years. The effect will be seen in 
increased U.S. agricultural exports and increased farm income.
  Further, the final GATT accord will establish a new governing body 
for world trade, the World Trade Organization [WTO]. The WTO is 
designed to facilitate implementation of the Uruguay Round and, more 
importantly, to enhance the enforceability of decisions relating to 
international trade disputes.
  The Uruguay Round agreement also includes provisions applicable to 
antidumping and countervailing duties. These provisions are the fair 
result of difficult compromises between a myriad of interests. In 
particular, I would like to thank the administration for their work to 
improve the definition of import concentration in regional industries 
antidumping cases. In the past, interpretations of antidumping laws 
have made it difficult for regional industries to prevail in pursuing 
fair treatment. As specified in the Statement of Administrative Action 
[SAA] the new language should provide more consistent interpretations 
and should more closely align future interpretations and should more 
closely align future interpretations with the original intent of the 
Congress as expressed in the legislative history of the Trade 
Agreements Act of 1979. I commend the administration for recognizing 
the unique nature of regional industries and providing regional 
industries with a fair remedy to respond to unfair trade practices.
  The Uruguay Round agreement and the implementing legislation 
represents a detailed compromise between various sectors of the U.S. 
economy. The United States stands to realize significant benefits based 
on this agreement, such as increased economic activity through the 
expansion of markets and lowering of trade barriers. The agreement will 
provide stimulus for job creation at home as well as improved welfare 
worldwide. We must seize the opportunity to pass the implementing 
legislation at the earliest possible time so that other countries will 
follow our lead and the benefits of the agreement can be fully 
realized.
  Mr. Chairman, to further illustrate the importance of GATT, I would 
like to bring your attention to a recent editorial by former President 
Gerald R. Ford, and I include the following article in the 
Congressional Record:

                          Why We Need GATT Now

                          (By Gerald R. Ford)

       Next week, Congress will return to Washington to vote on 
     the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
     Trade. This is the most important vote of the 103rd Congress. 
     For it is about fundamental issues: the nation we are and the 
     nation we aspire to be.
       Senators and congressmen should bear in mind that our 
     nation's economic health--now and in the future--is 
     inextricably linked to the outside world. Sixty percent of 
     the wheat we grow, half of the computers and aircraft and 
     over a third of the machine tools, semiconductors and 
     construction machinery we produce each year are shipped to 
     overseas markets.
       This agreement makes us a lot more competitive. It 
     dramatically cuts the taxes that other nations impose on the 
     products we ship. For example, it cuts Japan's, Korea's and 
     India's tariffs by more than half. Europe, our single biggest 
     market, will reduce its tariffs by 37%.
       Without the Uruguay Round's sweeping changes, we condemn 
     ourselves to a lawless international jungle, where trade 
     conflicts multiply.
       For an increasing share of what we sell abroad is not 
     covered by internationally agreed-upon trade rules. For 
     example, there are no rules covering trade in agriculture; 
     nations are free to subsidize their producers and thereby 
     price U.S. farmers out of world markets.
       Nor are there any rules covering services; nations are free 
     to bar our companies from providing accounting, 
     telecommunications, health care, or engineering services in 
     their markets. And there are no rules to prevent foreign 
     pirates from copying software, books, CDs and recordings from 
     American producers; such theft amounts to $60 billion a year.
       This agreement changes all that. As the world's largest 
     exporter of goods and services, the U.S. is the largest 
     beneficiary of this agreement. And it would be the largest 
     loser from its defeat.
       Our legislators have hard, perhaps disproportionately, from 
     those who are concerned that the agreement will break the 
     budget. But the truth is quite different. Reliable economic 
     studies show that the agreement will boost U.S. economic 
     growth by $100 billion to $200 billion a year, and thus 
     generate about three times more in tax revenues than we lose 
     in tariffs.
       Our legislators have also heard from some who assert that 
     the proposed World Trade Organization creates a form of world 
     ``government'' that will run roughshod over U.S. sovereignty. 
     But this vote does not affect U.S. sovereignty. Nothing in 
     the agreement changes U.S. laws or standards. Only Congress 
     can change our laws.
       This vote is as much about our continued role as global 
     leader as it is about our economic prosperity. For nearly 50 
     years, we have led the world in dismantling barriers to 
     commerce among nations. We have helped to fashion a world in 
     which nations are bound together by trade and investment--
     which discourages international conflict and encourages 
     collaboration. Our nation has stood as a role model for so 
     many nations, encouraging them to make the tough transition 
     from state-controlled to market-driven economies, persuading 
     them to enter the world community and end their self-imposed 
     isolation.
       Although 10 presidents have occupied the White House since 
     World War II, there has been one constant. Regardless of 
     party affiliation, each has encouraged trade liberalization. 
     For five decades, we have enjoyed bipartisan support for a 
     policy that opens markets and expands trade.
       I stood with President Carter, Bush and Clinton a year ago 
     at the White House to lend my support to the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement. The GATT negotiations were launched 
     under President Reagan, all but brought to a close under 
     President Bush, and finally concluded under President 
     Clinton. This agreement deserves bipartisan support.
       As legislators prepare for this vote, they should reflect 
     on the fact that we are the leader in an increasingly 
     integrated world. The forces driving such integration are 
     many: technology and communications, airplanes and fax 
     machines. We cannot stop this process. Let's not make the 
     mistake of 1931--when Congress approved Smoot-Hawley, the 
     protectionist high-tariff legislation that deepened and 
     accelerated the Great Depression. We must participate in the 
     adoption of international principles that will move us 
     forward, minimize potential areas of disagreement, and 
     resolve conflicts when they occur.
       This is a vote about the future, and what our role in it 
     will be. A vote in favor of the agreement is a vote for 
     prosperity, not poverty; for order, not chaos. The vote 
     should not even be close.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished 
colleague and neighbor, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, passage of GATT is essential to the 
future job growth in the 16th Congressional District of Illinois and 
the rest of the Nation. We have already seen the benefits of free trade 
in the months since the implementation of NAFTA. American automotive 
exports have soared to Mexico, going from 4,800 in August 1993 to over 
30,000 in August 1994. That's nearly a seven-fold increase in just one 
year.
  Dozens of fastener manufacturers in Rockford are pumping out more 
products for the automotive sector and other industries. Exports to 
Mexico have increased 22 percent from Green Giant of Belvidere, thanks 
to NAFTA. Caterpillar, and all their suppliers such as T.C. Industries 
of Crystal Lake, have greatly increased sales by 77 percent to Mexico.
  GATT is like 123 NAFTA's. GATT will cut tariffs or the tax on U.S. 
goods entering 123 foreign countries by an average of one-third. GATT 
will also eliminate import quotas over time, replacing them with 
tariffs. GATT will also have a clear set of guidelines to protect 
intellectual property rights and services.
  Why all the fuss? Because protectionists are hiding behind a wall of 
misinformation about GATT.
  GATT will not override any U.S. law. On page 14 of the GATT 
implementing bill, it clearly states that no U.S. law can be overridden 
by GATT. Period.
  Mr. Chairman, GATT is good for America and for American workers.
  Mr. Chairman, many people have heard only the most dire predictions 
about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). As Congress 
faces a vote on this historic agreement today, I want to take the 
opportunity to let you know what is in this agreement and address some 
of the arguments raised against GATT.
  First, GATT is not a new international organization. GATT has been 
around since World War II, originally created in Bretton Woods, New 
Hampshire in 1944. The aim of the organization is to avoid future world 
wars by creating and promoting economic growth through increased world 
trade so that political dictators will not be able to take advantage of 
economic hardships such as Adolf Hitler did with the Great Depression 
in Germany. Much to GATT's credit, lowering barriers to trade has, in 
part, helped prevent World War III.
  There have been a series of agreements or ``rounds'' since 1944 to 
further liberalize world trade, first focusing on lowering tariffs 
among free, non-communist nations of the world and now towards non-
tariff or regulatory barriers.
  The latest round, originally started in 1987 in Uruguay by President 
Ronald Reagan, concluded with a signing ceremony in Marrakech, Morocco 
last April. Over the summer, various Congressional committees worked 
together in a bipartisan manner to draft legislation to implement the 
agreement. Many Members have had input into this process, including 
myself, so the details of the legislation are not a secret. On 
September 27, the legislation (HR 5110) was formally presented to 
Congress for a final passage. Thus, there has been plenty of time for 
Members to review this historic agreement.
  Passage of the latest General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade round is 
essential to the future job growth in the 16th Congressional District 
of Illinois and the rest of the United States. We have already seen the 
benefits of free trade in the months since the implementation of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement.
  U.S. automotive exports have soared to Mexico, going from 4,800 in 
August, 1993 to over 30,000 in August, 1994. Dozens of fastener 
manufacturers in Rockford are pumping out more products for the 
automotive sector and other industries. Green Giant of Belvidere 
exports have increased 22 percent to Mexico, thanks to NAFTA. 
Caterpillar, and all their suppliers such as TC Industries of Crystal 
Lake, have greatly increased sales to Mexico.
  GATT is like 123 NAFTA's. GATT will cut tariffs or the tax on U.S. 
goods entering 123 foreign countries by an average of one-third. 
European countries have pledged to cut their tariffs in half. And, on 
some goods, such as construction equipment, steel, toys, 
pharmaceuticals, and furniture, there will be no tariffs.
  GATT will also eliminate import quotas over time, replacing them with 
tariffs and even those tariffs will be gradually lowered. This will be 
a great boon for Illinois corn and soybean farmers long shut out of the 
immense potential of the European market.
  For the first time in nearly 50 years, GATT will have a clear set of 
guidelines to protect intellectual property rights and services. For 
years, some countries have been literally stealing our technology, 
patents, and cultural heritage. GATT will provide a set of procedures 
to insure that if this continues in the future, there will be 
consequences.
  Most economic analysts agree that GATT, when fully implemented in ten 
years, could add to the U.S. economy between $60 to $120 billion, thus 
adding as many as 1.4 million high-wage, highly-skilled American jobs 
that pay, on average, 17 percent more than non-export related jobs.
  Illinois is already the nation's sixth-largest exporting state, with 
$20.3 billion in overseas sales in 1993, which represents a 99 percent 
increase over the past six years. Nineteen billion of that figure was 
manufactured goods. The U.S. is still the largest economy in the world 
and the largest exporter. We have nothing to fear in global competition 
or trade. Just look at the list of companies in the 16th District in 
support of GATT: Aqua-Aerobic Systems; Atwood Industries; BVR Aero 
Precision; Chrysler; CLARCOR; Custom Cutting Tools; Eclipse; ECOLAB; 
Estwing; Greenlee-Textron; Hydroline; Hydro-tec; Ingersoll Milling 
Machine; J.L. Clark; Kelly-Springfield Tire; Kraft General Foods; 
Motorola; Honeywell/Microswitch; Micropure Filtration; Morton 
International; National Metal Specialist; Newell; North American Tool; 
Precision Twist Drill; Rockford Manufacturing Group; Rockford Process 
Control; Rockford Products; Scot Forge; Suntec; Sundstrand; T.C. 
Industries; Triseal Corporation; W.A. Whitney; and Warner Lambert.
  Plus, numerous agriculture groups have expressed support for GATT 
including the Illinois Farm Bureau; the Illinois Pork Producers; the 
Illinois Corn Growers, the Illinois Beef Association; the Grain and 
Feed Association of Illinois; the Illinois Specialty Growers 
Association; the Illinois Lamb and Wool Producers Association; the 
State of Illinois Department of Agriculture; the American Soybean 
Association; and the International Dairy Foods Association.
  Most of the concerns raised against GATT have nothing to do with the 
immense positive economic aspects of the agreement. They are mostly 
side issues that have little to do with trade.
  I have been asked by many constituents about the World Trade 
Organization (WTO), which is found in the first ten pages of the GATT 
agreement. Unfortunately, these misunderstandings are mainly based on 
the negative connotations of the name of this institution as opposed to 
what it will exactly do.
  As part of the 1988 Omnibus Trade Act, the President was required by 
Congress to devise some consistent method to revolve trade conflicts, 
as opposed to the current ad hoc procedures in the GATT. The WTO will 
operate much in the same way as the current GATT Secretariat on a 
consensus basis.
  There has never been a vote in the GATT, and custom prescribes that 
there will not be a vote in the future. We will not be outvoted by 
small nations in the developing world. Countries vote their politics at 
the General Assembly in the United Nations. But small developing 
nations will not jeopardize their export opportunities by antagonizing 
the largest economy in the world--the United States, just like the 
World Bank or the International Monetary Fund.
  We are part of dozens of international organizations, such as the 
Universal Postal Union, which regulates international mail service. 
This is not a surrender of sovereignty but an agreement to mutually act 
in the best interests of all. Any treaty, including GATT, can be 
modified by mutual consent of the signatories or abrogated by a country 
that simply wants out. The GATT agreement specifically provides that 
future trade law changes may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote, and 
that those changes are only binding on those WTO members that accept 
them. Thus, the U.S. could not be bound by any change to international 
trading rules under the WTO that the President or Congress did not 
accept.
  Plus, the WTO international trade dispute resolution system leaves 
U.S. domestic legal powers totally intact, just as they were under the 
old GATT system. The WTO simply provides an updated procedural 
framework for dealing with GATT trade issues. In fact, the WTO gives 
the U.S. more, not less, procedural protections in the dispute 
resolution system than under the old GATT. If anything, the GATT 
agreement protects the sovereignty of individual Americans to be as 
free as possible to buy and sell goods abroad without government 
interference.
  President Reagan's most conservative Supreme Court nominee, Judge 
Robert Bork, has stated that GATT will not impact U.S. sovereignty. In 
fact, he said in a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative, Michael 
Kantor, that the sovereignty issue ``is merely a scarecrow.''
  Finally, H.R. 5110 contains a provision that requires the President 
to report to Congress every year on the actions of the WTO and allows 
Congressional review of U.S. participation in the WTO every five years. 
The GATT itself contains a provision allowing nations to withdraw from 
the agreement at any time as long as the nation gives six months 
notice.
  And, under the agreement between the future Senator Majority Leader, 
Bob Dole, and President Clinton, an independent five-member panel of 
judges will determine whether WTO decisions usurp U.S. laws or 
sovereignty. If the WTO violated U.S. sovereignty three times in five 
years, any member of Congress could introduce a resolution to have the 
U.S. pull out of the WTO. So, even if the worst fears of the detractors 
of GATT come true, the U.S. will retain many opportunities to withdraw 
from the system.
  GATT will also not override federal or state laws. In fact, on page 
14 of HR 5110 it clearly states:

       No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor 
     the application of any such provision to any person or 
     circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United 
     States shall have effect.

  It goes on further:

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to amend or modify 
     any law of the United States, including any law relating to 
     the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health; the 
     protection of the environment; or worker safety.

  This language was inserted by future Speaker of the House, Newt 
Gingrich, at the insistence of Republican Members like myself to make 
absolutely sure in plain everyday English that GATT will not override 
U.S. sovereignty.
  Some have argued that GATT will add to the deficit. However, GATT 
represents the largest tax cut in history--nearly $750 billion. 
Unfortunately, the budget rules forbids taking into account future tax 
revenue from increased economic activity that will result from GATT, 
using a dynamic economic model. The budget rules only sees only one 
effect of various policy proposals (static economic model). HR 5110 
pays for the $12 billion loss in tariff revenue associated with GATT 
over a five year period mainly from spending cuts and from making 
several non-controversial tax timing and compliance changes.

  Regrettably, because GATT is spread out over ten years, some 
Congressmen believe it should be fully paid for over that entire 
period. Some Senators will insist on a technical parliamentary 
procedure requiring 60 votes to override or waive these budgetary 
considerations. However, it will be quite evident by the end of five 
years that corporate and individual taxes paid to the U.S. Treasury 
will increase because more job creation and more exports will more than 
offset the ``loss'' of tariff revenue associated with GATT.
  Regardless, spending cuts make up 60 percent of the financing package 
in HR 5110, many of which result from the decreased need for federal 
spending on various agricultural export promotion and price support 
programs because farmers will be able to sell more of their commodities 
abroad.
  The new revenue is mainly accounting changes, such as eliminating the 
tax credit for corporations which build and operate manufacturing 
facilities in Puerto Rico. These changes are nothing radical and there 
is nothing conspiratorial about them. But I agree that if a dynamic 
economic model were applied to GATT, as opposed to a static analysis, 
there would not be a need to even discuss these issues.
  GATT does not contain any ``give-aways'' to special interest groups. 
There is no break for the Washington Post or the Atlanta Constitution. 
A little background is needed to discuss this issue.
  In 1990, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) selected three 
communications firms (American Personal Communications, Cox 
Enterprises, and Omnipoint Communications) out of 90 companies that 
applied for free use of new cellular spectrum, called ``Pioneer 
preference.'' This innovative, new spectrum will compete with existing 
cellular and telephone services, which will produce more communications 
choices at less cost, overall, to the consumer.
  Some companies that were denied this license were unsatisfied with 
the result. They successfully lobbied the FCC to issue a new regulation 
last August requiring these three pioneer firms pay 90 percent of the 
market value of this spectrum as a fee.
  The three pioneer firms challenged this rule in court and would have 
most likely won because the FCC initially promised this spectrum for 
free. As a compromise HR 5110 requires pioneer firms to pay 85 percent 
of the average market value of these licenses in the 20 largest 
metropolitan areas. The pioneer companies reluctantly agreed to this 
compromise because further litigation in the court system would delay 
the launch of the pioneer spectrum. This compromise will also bring 
into the U.S. Treasury at least $544 million. Collecting 85 percent of 
the market-value of a good or service versus nothing is not a give-
away! Rather than costing the government, HR 5110 will require these 
three pioneer firms, who were promised free spectrum communications 
licenses by the federal government four years ago, to pay between $544 
million to perhaps more than $1 billion.
  Finally, to delay a vote on GATT until next year will have 
devastating consequences for the U.S. economy. According to the 
Treasury Department, the United States loses $90 billion of this global 
tax cut if we delay implementation of GATT by six months. Delaying the 
vote would reduce U.S. employment by an average of 25,000 a year over 
the next decade and cost the U.S. $70 billion in lost production.
  Most of the rest of the world awaits the approval of GATT by Congress 
because the U.S. is the largest economy in the world. They look to us 
for leadership. If we don't pass GATT by the end of this year, 
protectionist forces in other countries will become more emboldened and 
will sabotage this global trade treaty. If that happens, at least 
300,000 high-wage, highly-skilled jobs would not be created in this 
country.
  Once again, there is nothing secret in GATT--it's been under 
negotiation by three presidents, finalized last December, and signed 
last April. The GATT implementing bill has been discussed among the 
various Congressional committees throughout the summer and was formally 
ready on September 27. There has been plenty of time for Members to 
review this treaty--there is no need to delay a vote on GATT any 
longer.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to go back to basics what GATT will do for 
our economy. GATT is primarily about reducing government barriers to 
free trade among 123 nations. It's time to move beyond the scare 
tactics and misinformation to focus on what GATT will really do for the 
U.S. and the 16th District of Illinois--expand economic opportunity and 
create and sustain good paying jobs. Trade is not a zero-sum game where 
there are winners and losers. It is a win-win situation for all 
nations.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, the Uruguay Round of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 2,000 pages of implementing 
legislation, 20,000 pages of tariff schedules. Evelyn Wood could not 
speed-read it. Arnold Schwarzenegger could barely lift it.
  Every time we pass a trade bill in this body, every time we worship 
at the altar of free trade, every time we reconvert to the religion of 
free trade, our Nation falls deeper and deeper into job-killing trade 
deficits. 25 years ago, we had the Kennedy Round. The trade situation 
worsened, Americans lost jobs. 20 years ago Congress passed the Trade 
Reform Act. The trade deficit grew bigger, Americans lost more jobs.
  Fifteen years ago we had the Tokyo Round. Larger trade deficits 
resulted. More and more job loss was a further result. Then we had 
NAFTA last year. More job loss, a worsening trade situation with 
Mexico.
  Now we have GATT. When are we going to figure this out?
  This is not the kind of change that Americans voted for in 1992. It 
is not the kind of change Americans voted for in 1994. They did not 
vote for the World Trade Organization, the new international United 
Nations of trade. They certainly did not vote for budget waivers. 
Americans in 1994 did not vote to have business as usual. The first 
vote after this election should not be to jettison fiscal 
responsibility.

  The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] and the Republicans were 
elected just earlier this month because they promised no more business 
as usual. They promised to pay as you go. They promised no more budget 
games. Yet the pay-as-you-go rule imposed by the Gramm-Hollings 
legislation should not be shunted aside in the name of free trade 
fundamentalism. Playing games with budget rules is not the type of 
change that Americans voted for. Americans did not vote for the pork-
barrel projects in this bill. The American people certainly did not 
vote earlier this month to punish middle-class savers. But that is what 
this legislation does. Because the administration and Republican 
leadership could not come up with a credible financing mechanism, they 
chose once again to cover up with smoke and mirrors.
  This legislation which supposedly deals with international trade will 
eliminate the minimum interest payment on U.S. savings bonds. Ask 
yourself: Who buys savings bonds? The answer is, grandparents buy 
savings bonds. The answer is, middle class people buy savings bonds. 
The answer is, parents sign up for payroll deduction and they buy 
savings bonds to help pay for their kids' college education.
  So the administration that promised to put people first and the 
Republican leadership which promised to help the middle class instead 
have put the interests of multinational corporations first, and instead 
have put the interests of international financiers first and then sent 
the bill to middle-class Americans. It's the same old story.
  Mr. Chairman, the high priests of free-trade fundamentalism led by 
the incantations and rituals by the Washington Post, which 
incidentially stand to gain handsomely from this agreement, are 
proposing that prosperity is just around the corner.
  As in the Wizard of Oz, the free trade fundmentalists tell us, ignore 
that man behind the curtain. Ignore the huge and growing trade deficit 
and pass another trade agreement that turns its back on American 
families. Ignore the hemorrhaging of the American economy and sign on 
to another trade agreement that is opposed by every single 
environmental organization in the United States.
  The free trade fundamentalists, Mr. Chairman, are telling the 
American people to act as if these is no such thing as cheap labor 
overseas. Do we really believe that low wages and Third World countries 
do not pose a threat to American jobs?
  This is not what Americans voted for in 1994. Vote no on GATT.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  First, let me say that I am for free trade and I am for fair trade, 
but unfortunately I do not believe this agreement achieves either. We 
have over 4,000 pages of legislation in this trade agreement. My 
colleague from Illinois said to me, well, the actual bill itself is 
only 800 pages. Well, let us just say it is only 800 pages. How many of 
my colleagues in this Chamber have read it and understand the GATT 
trade agreement?
  I bet you there are not over 20, yet 435 will cast votes today on it. 
In addition to that, we have 87 people who are no longer Members of 
Congress, who are going to be voting on the most important piece of 
trade legislation in the history of the world. And they, with all due 
respect, are no longer Members and do not have a right to vote on it. 
This issue should be carried over to the next duly elected Congress 
which takes office in January. And we should study it and work out the 
bugs and make sure we have got a good agreement that complies with fair 
trade and free trade.
  There are questions about the constitutionality of GATT. A former 
Member of the Reagan administration has said that. Mr. Fine, Bruce Fine 
said that article II, Section 2 of the Constitution may be violated by 
GATT. We should check that out because we swore to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States. And if this violates it, we 
certainly should not be voting for it.
  Section 301, which has been used very effectively in the past against 
Japan and others to try to make sure that if they do not let our 
products into their country, while we let theirs in, that we can impose 
some penalties on them, section 301 goes right out the window. Former 
Japanese Prime Minister Hosokawa told Japan's business leaders that, 
``The U.S. is threatening to use section 301 in the framework 
negotiations. Japan will have to act to contain that move through the 
new World Trade Organization.'' And the new World Trade Organization 
consists of 123 nations. We will have one vote. They will have 122 
against us. Many of them, most of them have voted against us in the 
past at the U.N. and we are going to pay for 23 percent of the cost. 
Twenty-three percent of the cost. It just does not seem fair to me.
  They talk about the fiscal impact. We are going to lose $42 billion 
initially on tariffs and other import requirements, on products coming 
into this country, $42 billion. There is no provision for making up 
that loss. We are not addressing that, even though we have these huge 
budget deficits.
  This is not new, GATT is not. This is the eighth GATT agreement in 
history, the eighth. Not the first, but the eighth. We have a $150 
billion trade deficit staring us in the face. Each $1 billion cost us 
20,000 jobs. Multiply that. That is 3 million jobs we lose because of 
trade deficits right now and we have had 7 previous GATT agreements. 
They are not working. What we need to be doing is to negotiate with our 
trading partners on a bilateral basis. If Japan does not treat us 
fairly, we ought to be sitting across the table with the Japanese, 
saying, ``Look, if you don't treat us fairly, that is what's going to 
happen,'' and we eyeball them one on one.
  But if we cede authority to a 123-member World Trade Organization, 
who by secret ballot can take us down the tubes, the world's economic 
superpower, we are ceding away an awful lot of our sovereignty, in my 
opinion.

                              {time}  1430

  I think it is a giant step in the wrong direction. We are the 
greatest economy in the world and we can negotiate on a bilateral basis 
and get fair trade agreements because they want access to our markets. 
But when we cede that authority to a secretive world trade organization 
along with a lot of our sovereignty, we have let this economy be put 
into the hands of those who do not have the best interests of America 
at heart, and that is wrong.
  So I say to my colleagues today, think about all of this. I am for 
free trade, and I am for fair trade, but let us do it on a sound basis 
on a bilateral basis and not cede our authority, our constitutional 
authority to a 123-member world trade organization that does not have 
the best interests of the United States at heart.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is time to correct the record just a little 
here. We are not voting on some 2,000 pages, we are voting on 443 pages 
of legislation. I am sorry that Members who make these wild statements 
have not read this, but that is what it is. This is 443 pages which was 
developed over many, many months and years of deliberations in the 
Congress. It is not brand new.
  The same Members who protest today that we are voting at this time 
were the same ones who protested earlier this fall and did not want us 
to vote then, but keep on delaying it. If we delay it today they will 
be around here next year complaining that we are voting too soon. So I 
think we ought to just dismiss that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick].
  (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman, we have come back here today for this 
historic session of Congress for no small reason. H.R. 5110, the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, is the single most comprehensive trade 
agreement ever considered by this body.
  Simply put: This legislation will greatly benefit the American people 
by adding $100 billion to $200 billion to the American economy.
  Our domestic growth has been largely dependent on the success of the 
world economy, and this legislation is vital to the health of the world 
economy.
  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. For the first time, there will be 
open markets for U.S. exporters of accounting, advertising, computer, 
tourism, engineering and construction services.
  The textile and apparel industries are very important to the 
livelihood of my State of South Carolina. I have consistently fought to 
make sure they were treated fairly in this body, and I would never 
support any proposal which was not in the long-term interest of textile 
and apparel workers.
  This agreement will force those countries who constantly circumvent 
international trade rules--countries like Hong Kong and China--to halt 
their illegal activities and conform to reasonable rules of 
international trade.
  Textile and apparel companies also benefit from the greater market 
access provisions achieved by U.S. negotiators.
  This is one area I would like to see 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.
  With passage of this 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 all Americans. And 
for the good of all Americans--both present and future--I urge my 
colleagues to support this agreement.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, after much examination and reflection, I 
have decided to vote in favor of passage of GATT, the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade. While I have some lingering reservations, I 
believe, taken as a whole, the benefits of GATT outweigh the negatives.
  As we near the end of this century, the U.S. economy is becoming 
interwoven into a global economy. Where we once bought, sold, and 
produced all consumer goods entirely at home, we now participate fully 
in the global marketplace. With this understanding, we cannot ignore 
our role in foreign trade. Increased participation in foreign trade 
would increase our sales abroad, create new jobs at home and expand our 
own economy. Reductions in trade barriers and the resulting expansion 
of trade will have a dynamic effect on the U.S. economy by inducing 
businesses to invest more and stimulating long-term economic growth.
  Following World War II, the major powers of the world, recognizing 
the benefits of international trade, drafted a new trade agreement 
called GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade--the largest, 
most comprehensive trade agreement in history. However, the GATT rules 
were increasingly out of step with the rapidly changing world. In 
response to these changes, 177 countries concluded discussion on a 
revamped trade agreement labeled the Uruguay Round of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This final step had been thoroughly 
negotiated over a lengthy period of time including the support of both 
the Reagan and Bush Administration. The agreement will lower foreign 
trade barriers and reduce tariffs, which will open foreign markets that 
were previously closed to American products.
  GATT promises to provide many rewards--rewards that will benefit 
every American. It is estimated that the benefits of GATT will include 
an increase of America's annual income by about $1,700 per family. 
Another projected benefit will be an estimated 500,000 new American 
jobs and $150 billion per year in additional economic activity. More 
importantly, the lower tariffs will result in lower prices for imported 
products and increase exports of American products to overseas markets. 
Low tariffs will have unprecedented benefits for world consumers. Here 
at home, Americans will experience these changes when they go to 
purchase groceries, clothes, household appliances and automobiles.
  One particular area of concern to me and to many others is the 
creation of the World Trade Organization [WTO], which will establish a 
forum for member governments to address trade issues as well as to 
supervise the trade industry. Opponents of GATT fear that the 
establishment of the WTO would limit American sovereignty when 
governing international trade. However, the WTO provides an updated 
procedural framework for dealing with trade issues, leaving U.S. 
domestic legal powers intact. Moreover, Representative Newt Gingrich 
[R-GA] inserted many oversight amendments to ensure that Congress will 
carefully examine all WTO votes and procedures. Under these proposals I 
have concluded, our interests will be protected by requiring periodic 
reports to Congress on the WTO budget, on trade decisions made by the 
WTO and on how these decisions may affect the United States federal and 
state laws and regulations. Another provision will require 
recertification of U.S. participation in the WTO every five years. More 
importantly, Sen. Bob Dole [R-KS] and President Clinton reached an 
agreement to create a permanent commission to review decisions made by 
the WTO. Labeled as the ``three strikes and we're out'' program, if the 
WTO decides improperly against the United States, Congress will vote to 
re-negotiate the rules in WTO. After the third bad WTO decision, 
Congress will vote on whether to withdraw from the WTO. Despite the 
concerns brought out by those who oppose the agreement, the WTO will 
not limit American sovereignty, nor will it dictate American trade 
policies. The bottom line is that with proper oversight, the WTO is not 
a reason to oppose GATT.
  A second area of concern was obtaining the money to fund a huge trade 
agreement like GATT. Under the Budget Enforcement Act, any revenue lost 
over the first five years of any new law must be replaced with either 
spending cuts or additional revenue. GATT's five year costs--revenues 
lost with the elimination of tariffs--are expected to amount to 
approximately $12 billion. However, it can be easily argued that the 
benefits from the trade agreement will greatly exceed the original 
costs. Nonetheless, in following the Budget Act, Republicans on the 
Ways and Means Committee and Republican Leadership worked with the 
Clinton Administration in crafting legislation that would fund GATT but 
ensure that lost tariffs would not come from increased taxes.
  Prior to the introduction of GATT legislation, there was much fury in 
the textile world over current Rules of Origin laws. The current Rules 
of Origin makes it very easy for exporting countries to bypass trade 
quotas by claiming that a product was cut in a certain country--when in 
fact--it was not. However, the addition of the Breaux/Cardin/Payne Rule 
of Origin compromise is a positive provision for the U.S. fiber, 
textile, and apparel industry. The rule change puts a stop to Hong Kong 
and China's $6 billion scam to avoid textile quotas by cutting fabric 
in Hong Kong, sewing it in China and shipping the apparel with a Hong 
Kong label, under Hong Kong's quota. This provision, in GATT, will 
bring more clarity and fairness to the North Carolina textile and 
apparel trade.
  There was some concern regarding provisions that would change the 
terms of patents. Under present law, patent rights exist for a term of 
17 years measured from the date the patent is granted. Under the GATT 
implementing legislation, a patent term of 20 years would start from 
the earliest effective filing date of the application. This change, 
which has strong bipartisan support of the House and Senate Judiciary 
committees, has been recommended many times by expert study groups. A 
patent term of 20 years will generally extend the life of a patent. The 
change also addresses the problem of ``submarine patents'' by 
publishing applications before they are granted. ``Submarine patents'' 
allow a patent applicant to delay issuing of a patent for years--
shutting down or demanding royalties from businesses that independently 
develop that technology in question. However, under the GATT 
provisions, industries will be able to keep abreast of new technology 
as it is published.
  GATT has received overwhelming support from many industries in North 
Carolina and across the country. Those industries supporting GATT 
include: the defense industry; tobacco companies; hosiery 
manufacturers; telecommunication and retail companies; bankers, 
agricultural, chemical and transportation industries; as well as, paper 
and pharmaceutical companies. For example, the American Furniture 
Manufacturers Association [AFMA], who have long suffered in the 
international market by tariffs as high as 70 percent, support GATT and 
the opportunity to meet the competition head on when allowed fair 
access to markets around the globe. The furniture industry which 
employs over 30,000 men and women in my district will profit from the 
passage of GATT.
  The need for open markets is sweeping the world. The United States 
must be a participant in this trade if it is to remain a world economic 
power. Legislators have successfully eliminated all obstacles and 
sticking points by revising the WTO and textile provisions. As a 
nation, we cannot ignore the statements of support from major 
industries around the country as well as all the benefits it will bring 
to many Americans. Now is the time for our country to pass GATT. Any 
delay in passing GATT will bring adverse consequences to our economy 
and to our people.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
GATT implementing bill. We know that opening markets creates jobs, and 
on balance I believe that this bill may well create jobs in our Nation.
  However, I think that this implementing bill goes too far and it goes 
too fast, and this agreement's gains come at great cost to our domestic 
textile and apparel industries and to its workers.
  The GATT phases out the multifiber agreement over 10 years. For more 
than 20 years this multifiber agreement has provided some quota 
protection for our Nation's 1.7 million textile and apparel workers. 
Fifty thousand of these workers reside in my congressional district.
  Even with the multifiber agreement, textile and apparel imports have 
surged, and have cost thousands of jobs. A 10-year multifiber agreement 
phaseout such as is in this GATT implementing bill puts as many as a 
half million textile and apparel jobs at risk.
  I recognize that in the past 2 years this agreement has been 
improved, that we have had better market access for our textiles 
overseas, that we have had improvements in the rules of origin. But 
these improvements simply are not enough. We can and we should do 
better by defeating this GATT legislation and work for a fairer 
legislative vehicle that will ensure fairness to all American workers.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just make the point to my colleagues that for a 
number of times, Members who are pro-GATT advocates have stated that 
this is a giant tax cut. This is not a tax cut. I am a guy who supports 
tax cuts because they leave a few bucks in the pockets of the 
businessman who goes out and hires the extra labor or hires the extra 
worker and that person begins paying taxes through withholding, and 
that increases Federal revenues as well as expanding our economy. That 
is a tax cut. Taking a so-called break in tariffs by buying a foreign 
product that by definition unemploys your neighbor is not a tax cut.
  In fact, the social payments that we make in terms of AFDC 
unemployment and all of the other payments that attend unemployment of 
American workers cause tax increases. So let me just offer my objection 
to that nomenclature, which is very creative, but which is not 
accurate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to my friend the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher.]

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I am a free trader. I supported NAFTA. 
Let us make that very clear. I was down here supporting NAFTA. I also 
supported fast track. I even support the GATT agreement itself. But I 
do not support this bill.
  I strongly oppose this legislation because President Clinton has 
abused his fast track authority and betrayed those of us who voted for 
fast track. We gave him the authority to submit an unamenable bill, 
which would contain only what is required by the GATT agreement, with 
the understanding we would have 45 days to consider it.
  By submitting this legislation shortly before Congress's scheduled 
adjournment President Clinton sought to cut that 45 days to fewer than 
10 days. This power play was rightfully rejected and is the reason this 
legislation is now before us in this lame duck session of Congress. The 
Administration's underhandedness should tip us off that something in 
this bill is amiss.
  What is amiss in this legislation are provisions not required by 
GATT. Some are little more than payoffs and sweetheart deals. Others 
are more sinister provisions that will enrich Japanese and 
multinational corporations, at the expense of the American people.
  The provision that most concerns me dramatically reduces the length 
of patent protection enjoyed by Americans, a provision hidden in this 
implementation legislation, but not required by the GATT understanding 
itself.
  Proponents of this devastating provision are counting on our 
ignorance of what it does, and our acquiescence to the take-it-all or-
leave-it-all rule of this vote. In 1968 and subsequent years, Japanese 
and other multinational interests have sought legislatively to shorten 
the length of America's patent term. Wisely, the Congress has defeated 
every attempt to gut America's patent protection. This GATT legislation 
represents an underhanded effort to use a major trade bill as a vehicle 
to fundamentally alter our patent system, something multinational and 
foreign corporations could not do in separate legislation. We are 
talking about the grabbing of billions of dollars of royalties that 
should be going into the pockets of innovative Americans and American 
investors. We are also talking about losing control of technology 
invented and paid for by Americans. Our own creations will be used by 
foreign competitors against us. This will have a devastating long term 
impact on our national economic well being.

  Let me make this simple and understandable: Provisions in this 
legislation not required by GATT will substantially reduce the number 
of years of patent protection now afforded Americans under current law. 
Every inventor's organization in this country confirms this and opposes 
this provision.
  Administration spokesmen, on the other hand, deny this, and, in fact, 
cynically claim the provision will actually increase the length of 
protection of most patents.
  We are being lied to. This administration claims this provision will 
lengthen patent protection, yet it has rejected out of hand compromise 
language that combined their provision with current law with the 
proviso that whichever is longer shall apply.
  Mr. Kantor, tell the truth. This provision, snuck into this bill, 
will gut our citizens of patent protection and steal control of 
technology from American inventors and American investors and give to 
Japanese and multinational corporations control of those inventions 
after a short period of time. It will be a ripoff of tens of billions 
of dollars and will be a disaster for our country, drying up private 
research and development dollars just as we are entering a new era of 
high tech global competition. Reduce the number of years of patent 
protection and you eliminate much of the research and development 
dollars that are available in the private sector. It is as simple as 
that, and people understand that; they know it.
  The U.S. Patent system is the world's strongest at present time. Our 
creative citizens, along with private capital, have, under current 
rules, created vast new industries. Today, for example, while other 
countries are trailing in biotechnology, America is in the forefront. 
All this was created by private capital made possible by a strong 
patent system. Weaken the patent system, eliminate private capital 
investment. Other countries with their weaker patent systems have tried 
and failed in biotechnology. Now these foreign competitors want our 
patent protections weakened so they can copy our technology without 
paying for it. Through GATT, this Administration is simply legalizing 
this foreign theft.
  If we defeat this implementing legislation today, we can clean it up, 
take out the sweetheart deals, giveaways, and ripoffs of American 
investors and inventors.
  This lame duck session should not aid and abet this ripoff of our 
citizens.
  This legislation contains hidden ripoffs. The Administration is lying 
to us. This Administration has betrayed us just as this legislation is 
a betrayal of American interests.
  Let us defeat this monster, this GATT monster, before it devours 
American Competitiveness.
  One last note, as an active member in the Congressional Human Rights 
Caucus, it deeply concerns me when I look at the GATT implementation 
legislation. It is my understanding, and I could be wrong on this, that 
our efforts to in some way make demands, human rights demands, on 
people who trade with us and differentiate between those people who are 
basically conducting slavery and the worst kinds of tyranny and torture 
in the world will be put on the same economic level as people who are 
basically democratic governments. I believe in free trade between free 
people.
  This GATT legislation, for example, could well leave us in the 
position that no matter how tortuous the regime gets in Red China that 
the Communists can do whatever they want, and that we still may have 
to, because we are a member of GATT, not treat them any differently 
than the people of England or Canada or other countries. That is of 
deep concern to me.
  I will have to admit that I am not an expert in this area, and I do 
not know for sure whether or not that is the result of the GATT 
legislation that we are about to vote on, but if it is, we should have 
second thoughts, all of us in this, should have second thoughts about 
treating in our foreign trade policies monstrous Nazi and Communist-
type regimes with other democratic societies.
  Vote against this GATT implementation legislation.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes], an expert in this area, chairman of the 
committee that handles all of the patents and copyrights and things of 
that sort.
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
H.R. 5110, and urge my colleagues to support it.
  I listened very carefully to my colleague from California on the 
subject of intellectual property, and I want to respond to him, because 
I have a great deal of respect for my colleague.
  He testified before my committee back in August, I think August 10 or 
August 12, made his views known at that time, so I find it very 
difficult to understand how he can suggest he has had such a short time 
to examine these issues. They have been around for a long time. We had 
a draft a long time before the filing of the draft GATT agreement. So 
the provisions in this agreement have been known since August when the 
gentleman testified.
  Let me just say generally that I voted against NAFTA because I 
thought that while there were some winners and some losers, a lot of 
those losers were in my congressional district, and that is one time I 
found myself having a real difficult time in trying to reconcile what 
is best for my district, what is best, I thought, overall for my 
country. So that was an easy decision for me, just as this is an easy 
decision.
  Because if we want to be big boys and play in the big market, and 
that is what I think we have to do, it seems to me we have to 
participate in the process. You cannot be on the outside looking in and 
expect to basically advance our national economic interest, and that is 
what it is all about.
  You know, we could argue about where we should have made the 
differences in this agreement, and I agree it is not the kind of 
agreement I would have developed in many areas. I would like to have 
seen us reduce the barriers in institutions, tariff barriers in many 
other areas, and I would have done that. I would have made some changes 
in the intellectual property arena that were not made.
  That is not what we have before us. The question is whether or not it 
is a good agreement. I think, without question, it is an outstanding 
agreement for a lot of reasons, not the least of which it sets a better 
process for us to reconcile disputes and because we are the biggest 
market in the world, we are going to benefit from reducing barriers of 
all kinds contained in this agreement.
  In the intellectual-property arena I say to my colleague from 
California, you are just absolutely wrong. I know your biggest hangup 
is about patents.
  Let me tell you we are turning patents around in this country in less 
than 3 years, even very complex patent issues. We are turning around in 
3 years. When we go to 20 years, we are basically giving most inventors 
more time, not less time.

                              {time}  1450

  So the suggestion that inventors in this country have less time than 
they presently have, I think the gentleman is absolutely wrong on that 
issue. What the gentleman is talking about perhaps is those issues 
where we have had abuses in the patent system--and we have, because 
inventors file extension after extension, in some instances where they 
have gotten as much as 35 years on a patent where they are only 
entitled to 17 years on the original patent.
  And the gentleman knows we have had all kinds of abuses, but we have 
plugged that loophole. That is where the biggest rub is.
  We are the only country in the world that basically runs a time from 
time of invention and not from time of filing. In the area of patents 
or the areas of copyright, in the area of trademarks, we win. It is a 
win/win situation for the United States because we have most of the 
intellectual properties being sold around the world. And if you do not 
think that they are stealing us blind, you visit those countries. Any 
time you can get other countries to put into place new intellectual 
property laws, in the area of copyright, in the area of patent and 
trademark, we win. And when you get them to put in place the 
enforcement mechanisms to enforce our intellectual property laws, we 
win. And that is precisely what we do in this law.
  There are a number of changes in copyright that will advance our 
interests in the area of bootlegging, which is going to basically 
protect our country.
  So anybody that suggests that we are not winners in the intellectual 
property area have not read the agreement. While we could argue about 
other areas because there are winners and there are losers in this 
agreement--and I regret that--but overall we advance our national 
interests and the interest of my State in particular in which I am 
interested. I am sure if you looked at the facts and figures in your 
States, in the area of pharmaceuticals, in the area of industrial 
hardware, and a whole host of those areas, you will find that your 
States are going to be net winners in the long term, also, because we 
are going to enlarge the pie.
  That is what it is all about. We are going to provide new mechanisms 
to resolve disputes, and that is going to benefit our industries and 
our exports.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
H.R. 5110. This act implements the comprehensive GATT agreement that is 
so crucial to trade relations with our global trading partners. The 
economic benefits to the United States are pivotal to the continued 
growth of the U.S. economy and to the increase of U.S. exports by 
reducing existing foreign trade barriers. As with all trade agreements, 
and all legislation, for that matter, there are issues that could have 
been better handled or more transition time provided, such as with 
textiles. On balance, however, there are many more advantages for the 
United States than disadvantages. We must be a player in the world 
economy or we simply will not progress.
  There has been much hand wringing over the World Trade organization 
which is created by the agreement and its alleged threat to U.S. 
sovereignty. There is no such threat. Decisions by the WTO are not 
automatically imposed on the citizens of the United States. If there is 
an adverse ruling, the United States must still decide whether to 
accept such a ruling by changing its laws or regulations. Only the 
Congress can make those changes and that will continue under the WTO 
framework.
  The establishment of a process by which complaints arising under the 
trade agreement can be heard and settled will benefit the United 
States. As the largest exporter facing the most restraints from foreign 
markets, an orderly process of bringing those restraints to light and 
resolved will make it easier for the United States to eliminate unfair 
foreign trade practices.
  The United States stands to gain the most from the trade agreement of 
all WTO members. The United States has fewer trade barriers than its 
trading partners, thus the lowering of these barriers will be of 
enormous value to U.S. industry. The agreement will significantly 
expand the already large market for American products and services and 
thus create more jobs in the United States.
  While the United States as a whole will gain additional markets, 
these gains will be reflected in the economic impact to individual 
States. Many States have significantly developed their export 
industries and can increase the export markets under the agreement.
  For example, New Jersey stands to make substantial gains under H.R. 
5110. The act will open important foreign markets to New Jersey's 
exports benefiting key industries creating export and employment 
opportunities. Through the implementation of this agreement it is 
estimated that the trade-rich region of New Jersey and New York will 
receive 10 percent of all jobs and revenue that the agreement would 
create in this country.
  In New Jersey, it is anticipated that over 18,000 additional jobs 
will be created and $5.4 billion in additional annual income will be 
generated over the next 10 years. It is important to note that New 
Jersey recorded merchandise exports of $14.5 billion in 1993, placing 
the State ninth nationally in total exports. Moreover, New Jersey's 
exports over the 1987-93 period grew by 90 percent, rising by almost $7 
billion. This increase represents the seventh largest dollar increase 
among the States.

  New Jersey boosted export sales of a wide range of manufactured 
products over the 1987-93 period. Eleven major manufactured product 
groups recorded export growth exceeding 100 percent. Rapidly growing 
export categories include electric and electronic equipment--citing a 
146-percent growth--and scientific and measuring instruments--citing a 
128-percent growth.
  With over 6,959 business establishments exporting products in 1987, 
New Jersey ranked fifth among all States in the number of business 
locations that exported. Virtually all of such establishments--99 
percent--had fewer than 500 employees.
  Under H.R. 5110, New Jersey's key export sectors such as the 
pharmaceutical, chemical and allied products, glassware and pottery, 
telecommunications equipment, and renewable energy technology 
industries--just to name a few--will benefit dramatically. This 
experience will be repeated in many individual States as the export 
market expands and American industries find a need to expand within the 
United States.


                     intellectual property changes

  Title V of the act contains a number of important amendments to U.S. 
intellectual property laws that will significantly strengthen 
protection for authors and investors both domestically and overseas.
  The intellectual property provisions are the result of extensive work 
and cooperation with the office of the U.S. Trade Representative to 
ensure that the implementing legislation was both reflective of the 
GATT agreement and responsive to U.S. needs. While I wish the final 
GATT agreement had required more in the area of national treatment and 
eliminated European and national content requirements in the area of 
audiovisual works, these are areas that will be the subject of 
continuing negotiations. The protection for pharmaceutical products 
also could have been accomplished in a shorter timeframe. We must not 
lose sight, however, of the fact that there are many industries and 
individuals which will benefit substantially from H.R. 5110.
  I would like to briefly note the changes that are made to copyright, 
patent and trademark laws by H.R. 5110.


                               copyrights

  Subtitle C contains four amendments on copyright and related rights:
  (1) Section 511 lifts a 1997 sunset on the commercial rental of 
computer programs;
  (2) Section 512 provides a new civil cause of action for performers 
to prevent bootlegs of their live musical performances;
  (3) Section 513 provides new criminal penalties for bootlegging done 
``knowingly, and for purposes of commercial advantage or private 
financial gain;''
  (4) Section 514 provides protection to preexisting works whose 
country of origin is another member of the Berne Convention or the 
World Trade Organization if those works are in the public domain in the 
United States due to noncompliance with formalities, lack of national 
eligibility, or, in the case of pre-1972 sound recordings, lack of 
subject matter protection. This amendment places the United States 
fully in compliance with its obligations under article 18 of the Berne 
Convention.

  None of these provisions are, to my knowledge, controversial, and all 
are expected to strengthen the rights of U.S. copyright holders 
overseas as other countries change their laws in order to comply with 
their GATT (TRIPS) obligations.
  Even President Clinton in his role as a jazz performer will benefit, 
since section 512, as required by articles 14(6) and 70(2) of the TRIPS 
agreement, extends protection to preexisting bootlegs, and it is my 
understanding that a bootleg recording of the President's jam session 
in Prague is currently being sold by mail order from New York. I've 
also heard the President's recording doesn't pose any competition to 
recordings of Lester Young or Coleman Hawkins.


                                patents

  H.R. 5110, changes patent law in a way that will benefit American 
inventors and the public. Contrary to those ads you've been subjected 
to in the newspapers, the patent law changes will not reduce the length 
of the term of a patent.
  The most significant change will alter the term of a patent from the 
present 17 years measured from date of the grant of a patent to a 20-
year term measured from the date of filing of the patent application. 
This is the best policy for the operation of the U.S. patent system. 
This change alone will benefit the vast majority of patent owners by 
providing a longer term of protection instead of a shorter term as 
claimed by opponents.
  The Patent and Trademark Office on the average processes patent 
applications in less than 20 months. Even for the more complex and 
difficult patent applications, such as biotechnology applications, the 
PTO is able to complete patent applications in less than 3 years.
  The present system encourages applicants to deliberately delay the 
processing of patent applications by permitting the filing of unlimited 
continuations and changes to an original application. Such permissive 
delays under the present system frustrate the goal of bringing 
innovation to the American public on a timely basis.
  The proposed changes in H.R. 5110 recognize that there will be delays 
beyond the control of the patent applicant as well as a need to develop 
the application. The legislation compensates for these potential delays 
in several different ways.
  First, a provisional application is provided for the first time. This 
will be a simple, low-cost application filed up to 1 full year before a 
complete application is filed. Additional development and research can 
occur during this year as well as the search for investment capital.
  Second, additional extensions of the patent term, for eligible patent 
holders, are included in the legislation. Delays caused by interference 
proceedings, secrecy orders, and appellate review by the Board of 
Patent Appeals and interferences or Federal court may permit an 
extension of the patent term for up to 5 years.

  Third, limited reexamination of pending applications is required 
without impacting the patent term.
  H.R. 5110 and the implementation of GATT will provide benefits to 
American patent owners and provide much greater protection abroad than 
that presently enjoyed by American inventors and industry. H.R. 5110 is 
in the public interest and provides better patent policy for the 
country.


                               trademark

  The trademark changes under H.R. 5110 include two changes to U.S. 
law.
  First, abandonment of a trademark based on nonuse of a trademark is 
extended to 3 years from the present 2 years.
  Second, wines and spirits, in the future, will not be able to use a 
geographical indication in its trademark that identifies a place other 
than the actual origin of the wines and spirits.


                               conclusion

  I urge my colleagues to look beyond the hyperbole that has been 
spread about the intellectual property changes in this act. 
Intellectual property rights produce products which are some of our 
strongest and most lucrative exports. We need to ensure that these 
rights are protected in the global market.
  There is a need for a comprehensive world trade agreement. It would 
be foolish for the United States to reject H.R. 5110 if we expect to 
compete fairly and effectively in the world market. A vote for H.R. 
5110 will provide the assurance we need for the future.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUGHES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Uruguay Round Agreement Act. 
But I also want to note that I am disappointed that the GATT did not 
serve as a foundation for eliminating the barriers that our European 
trading partners have erected against America's creative industries. 
The film, TV, music, book, and software industries are not only 
important to my district and the State of California, they are 
important contributors to America's GNP and balance of trade.
  I am pleased that the implementing legislation will enhance some of 
our trade laws governing intellectual property, and strengthen certain 
aspects of copyright law. While nothing that we do unilaterally can 
effect change on a global basis, or make up for the opportunity that we 
had to reduce trade tensions and lower trade barriers, the GATT 
implementing legislation will enhance America's ability to defend its 
copyright owners.
  I want to make a few observations about the Judiciary Committee's 
component of the bill. I was asked to chair part of our hearing on 
retroactivity--which would provide copyright protection to works that 
are still protected in their country of origin but are not protected in 
the United States. The foreign works are not protected in the United 
States at this time because the copyright owner did not comply with 
formalities that used to be part of our law. The reason for our 
adopting this policy is simple: If the United States passes a law that 
protects previously produced foreign works, then we will have every 
right to expect certain foreign countries to pass laws protecting 
previously produced U.S. works.
  Section 514 addresses the issue of retroactivity or ``restoration'' 
by granting, automatically, protection to a work created in a Berne or 
WTO country other than the United States. The newly restored term of 
protection lasts as long as it does for a U.S. work created on the very 
same day. The ownership of a restored copyright vests first in the 
author or other initial rightholder of the work as determined under the 
law of the country of origin. Such initial ``rightholder'' other than 
the author would be, for example, a producer of sound recordings under 
a neighboring rights regime, or the producer of a motion picture where 
the foreign law vests rights initially in the producer by automatic 
statutory transfer. Voluntary transfers of rights from such author or 
initial rightholder made at any time prior to restoration would be 
given effect depending on the terms of the contract.
  I would like to mention one other point. There is separate treatment 
for derivative works under the retroactivity provision. The owner of a 
derivative work does not have to stop exploiting that work as long as 
he pays the owners of the restored copyright a reasonable compensation. 
We do not intend for the meaning of the term ``derivative work'' to 
change from its current use, including as expressed with respect to the 
act's termination provisions, and as further elaborated in case law.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, for the eighth time since World War II, a 
multinational GATT agreement has been signed. This final Uruguay round 
accord, which must now be approved by the United States and over 100 
other countries, is the largest trade agreement in history and the 
largest tax cut in history. It represents a $744 billion cut in tariffs 
worldwide and a $12 billion tax cut for Americans.
  The United States is the world's largest trading country and will be 
the biggest winner from the GATT. Right now over 10 million Americans 
owe their jobs to exports and because trade is where the jobs of the 
future are coming from, that number will grow significantly once GATT 
is approved. In fact, GATT will create hundreds of thousands of jobs 
that will pay 12 to 22 percent more than average nonexport related 
jobs. In my home State of Ohio, exports currently support 370,000 jobs 
and GATT will allow the 5,200 Ohio businesses which export goods to 
expand their workforce even more.
  Under GATT, key industries in Ohio will benefit from reduced tariffs. 
They include transportation equipment, industrial machinery, chemicals, 
electronic equipment, auto parts, aerospace, and agriculture.
  For example, Ohio's largest export, transportation equipment, will 
see import tariffs reduced by 40 to 80 percent. Foreign duties on 
industrial machinery, Ohio's fastest growing export, will be reduced 
and in some cases totally eliminated.
  The United States is already reaping the benefits from NAFTA. In 
fact, despite the predicted great sucking sound, in 1994 increased 
exports under NAFTA will support 100,000 new jobs. It promised to 
increase U.S. exports and it has delivered. In the one-half of 1994, 
exports to Mexico were up 17 percent and exports to Canada were up 10 
percent.
  The same scare-tactics used by NAFTA opponents have been used against 
GATT. Opponents argue that GATT will produce unemployment, will drive 
up the deficit and will undermine American sovereignty. NAFTA has 
proven what free trade can do for job creation and economic growth and 
analysis has found that nothing in the GATT would endanger American 
independence.
  Whenever the United States has joined an international organization, 
such as the United Nations or NATO, the question arises whether U.S. 
sovereignty is compromised. The fact is that there is nothing in the 
GATT that could prevent the United States from withdrawing from the 
World Trade Organization at any time. I do not believe that any world 
body can force the United States to do something we believe to be 
against our best interests.
  It should be noted that GATT actually protects the sovereignty of 
ordinary Americans to be as free as possible to make economic decisions 
affecting their lives. The GATT agreement upholds the principles which 
allow entrepreneurs, workers and consumers to seek economic 
opportunities with the least amount of government interference.
  Because GATT will promote economic freedom and individual rights, it 
is critical that we move forward and approve this agreement.
  If you believe, as I do, that America can compete and win in our 
global economy, if you share my desire to allow American businesses to 
profit from selling their goods worldwide and use those profits to 
create jobs, and if you want America to maintain its leadership in the 
world of free trade, then you will vote ``yes'' today.
  Despite the pressures from those who would rather close our borders, 
I ask my colleagues not to lose sight of the fact that GATT will 
benefit not only businesses and their employees, it will benefit U.S. 
consumers. The sooner we implement this agreement the sooner all of us 
will realize the benefits.
  As with NAFTA we have little to lose and a lot to gain. We can side 
with protectionism or prosperity. However, if we make the wrong choice 
we may face the same future as those countries who in 1947 chose to 
vote against the first GATT. Those countries who decided to turn inward 
are now the poorest countries.
   Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will choose to go forward into the 
future and not back to the past of protectionism.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
so I may respond briefly to the gentleman from Ohio.
  With respect to NAFTA, in the first 9 months of the NAFTA agreement, 
the trade surplus that we enjoyed with Mexico has been cut in half.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
Dickey].
  (Mr. DICKEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I was for NAFTA, I worked hard for it. Now I am sitting 
in the corner of the aginners.
  I think what needs to be asked is: What is different? What is 
different is what is in the initials of WTO. I read that as the 
worldwide bureaucracy.
  What we have here is a bureaucracy that when, in the problems we 
have, with all the problems in the bureaucracy, we have enough problems 
with the ones that we can control absolutely. We have enough problems 
with the bureaucracies that have experience. This one will not have the 
experience, it will be a brand-new start.
  That would bring a lot of inefficiencies, a lot of inequities and 
unfairness.
  We have 1 out of 123 votes. There is no leverage there, America. 
There is no leverage in that.
  We have found hard to get ``one man, one vote'' in our elective 
system where we have one vote equalling as close as possible whatever 
vote there is in the whole Nation. Our 260 million people that we have 
are going to have the same vote as a country that has less than 1 
million people. That is not fair, it is not proper.
  We also have 23 percent of the costs of this bureaucracy. Something 
about it is going to have all the wastefulness that you can imagine 
when we have a worldwide bureaucracy. When we have 23 percent of the 
costs and only one vote, I am a businessman and I do not think that is 
a fair deal. I think we have a problem with that.
  As a businessman, I would not get into that, and I do not think you 
would either, in a deal where you have one vote and you put up 23 
percent of the cost.
  That cost leads to another conclusion: Is it better for us to get out 
now than to utilize the 6 months' provision for withdrawal that we have 
available to us.
  Why is that? Because if we establish this infrastructure, if we draw 
other people into it with our vote, we are going to spend our money to 
set it up and we are going to end up more likely competing with those 
people because they will be dealing with each other. There is a chance 
if we get out now and try to do this thing in a different way, that the 
GATT will never work. But at least that is different than what we had 
in NAFTA, because we had a different look at NAFTA with only three 
countries.
  What we have got is a United Nations without a veto. I have already 
heard on this floor today where someone said this is New Age 
legislation. That is exactly what is wrong with it. This New Age 
legislation is what is going to kill this country and take the spine 
out of our resolve.
  The second reason I am against it is because of my constituents. In 
the NAFTA agreement I went out all over my district and I found people 
who were against it, I talked to them, I explained things to them, I 
came back and sent them information, and I finally got a response in 
that particular legislation of 2 to 1 in favor.
  In this situation I have got 83 percent of the people who have 
contacted me against it. I cannot overcome that.

                              {time}  1500

  I am having difficulty with it, and it is important because those 83 
percent of the people may be representative of my whole district. We 
are experiencing the benefit of NAFTA right now in our district, so I 
even consider that 83 percent even more importantly.
  But the most important situation that we have here has been brought 
to my attention by one person who I did not see speak. She did not 
raise her hand. It happened on November 19 in Hot Springs, Arkansas, 
when we had a town hall meeting, and I said, ``Look, we're going to 
start off with this thing with one assumption, and that's a delay in 
this vote means that we are against it and that it will fail.''
  Out of the crowd came this voice which said, ``Does that tell you 
something, Mr. Congressman?''
  I let it go at that point, and, as I was driving home 2 days later, I 
started thinking maybe that is what the problem is. We have had an 
eruption of expression in the American people. November 8 said, ``We 
don't like the situation that's in Congress right now. We don't want to 
be led by those people who are in Congress right now. And for sure we 
don't want to be led by that system.''
  And now we are ducking under that message, and we are going to vote 
on this in a lame duck session. When we go home, they are going to say, 
``Did you not listen to what we had to say? Did you not listen that we 
wanted something differently? Why are you voting on that when you could 
allow the vote to happen in the new representation that we have asked 
for?''
  Mr. Chairman, that is the problem I have had, and I ask my 
colleagues, ``Doesn't that tell you something?'' It told me something. 
I am going to vote for delay. If I cannot get a delay, I am going to 
vote against GATT for those reasons.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
  (Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of both the 
GATT agreement, as well as the implementing legislation before us.
  I have taken very seriously each assertion about GATT's impact on our 
sovereignty and our economy. I have checked the language of the 
agreement. I have looked at the implementing legislation. I have even 
sought the counsel of experts in trade, business and constitutional 
law. But most importantly, Mr. Chairman, I have tried to keep a 
perspective and keep a sense of perspective about analyzing this 
complex agreement.
  I conclude the real issue before us is simple. By supporting GATT, 
Mr. Chairman, we say to the world that America is a winner, my own 
State of Michigan is a winner, that we can economically compete with 
any country in the world, and not only win, but win big.
  The WTO is not the sinister, trilateralist body that some would have 
us believe. Its jurisdiction does not go beyond the realm of trade. It 
cannot overturn U.S. laws, it cannot undermine our sovereignty, and it 
will not transfer and will not facilitate a transfer of wealth from 
industrialized nations to developing nations.
  Mr. Chairman, I am in support, and I would urge all my colleagues to 
join me and vote yes today. Support free trade. Support lower taxes. 
Support the expansion of the American dream.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
  (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] I insert the following:

                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, November 18, 1994.
     Hon. Sam Gibbons,
     Acting Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Gibbons: We are writing to call your 
     attention to a tariff modification provision in H.R. 5110, 
     legislation to implement the Uruguay Round of GATT, regarding 
     clomiphene citrate. The provision is Section 113(c)(2).
       The intent of the legislation is to restore duty free 
     treatment to finished dosage clomiphene citrate entering 
     during the period 1989 to 1992. This product was the subject 
     of an inadvertent error in conversion from the Tariff 
     Schedules of the U.S. to the Harmonized System. The error 
     resulted in the loss of duty free treatment. Legislation to 
     correct this error has been pending since 1991.
       Unfortunately Section 113(c) contains an error that renders 
     the technical correction virtually meaningless. The word 
     ``described'' should have been inserted between the words 
     ``goods'' and ``under'' in subparagraph (A). The inclusion of 
     the single word would restore the intent of the amendment and 
     provide the desired result. We are informed by the Treasury 
     Department that no other solution is possible. If nothing can 
     be done, new legislation will have to be reintroduced next 
     year.
       We hope that a mechanism will be available to correct 
     obvious unintended mistakes in the wording of this provision 
     before final passage. We would like to avoid the need for 
     additional legislation if at all possible.
       Thank you in advance for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Richard E. Neal,
       Member of Congress.
     John Joseph Moakley,
       Member of Congress.

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski].
  (Mr. KOPETSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Uruguay 
round on GATT, in support of this legislation. As the world's largest 
exporting nation, Mr. Chairman, the United States and the American 
worker will be the bigger beneficiaries of this GATT agreement. As my 
colleagues know, the U.S. population represents only 4 percent of the 
world's population, and for the U.S. economy to grow, for wages to 
grow, for jobs to grow in numbers, the United States must tap into the 
other 96 percent of the world population. If jobs are finite, markets 
are finite. If markets are infinite and open to us, then we can expand 
our economy.
  I want to just point out this simple fact as illustrated by this 
chart. The U.S. market is open to imports from all over the world, but 
this is not the case for our companies trying to do business, buy 
American manufactured goods in other countries. In fact the rules of 
trade vary from country to country, thus making it more difficult for 
American-made products to compete. In many cases the rules of 
international trade are structured to keep U.S. goods and services out 
of that marketplace.
  Well, this chart shows that without the GATT legislation and the GATT 
agreement approximately 30 nations adhere to the same rules as the 
United States in international trade. Passage of GATT will increase 
dramatically this number to over 120 nations for the following 
categories: In standards, in subsidies, in customs variations, in 
import licensing, in antidumping provisions. This means that 120 
nations, over 120 nations, will all have to play by the same rules.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States has traditionally led the world in 
developing and development of free markets, and I say to my colleagues, 
``If you want to expand the industrial and job base in the United 
States, you must support GATT today.''
  Mr. Chairman, I rise strongly in support of the Uruguay Round of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Passage of the GATT agreement 
will impact positively my Congressional District and my state of Oregon 
where according to the Employment Division over 90 percent of the jobs 
created in the 1990's will be linked to international trade. Already in 
Oregon, one in five jobs is dependent on international trade. And we 
know, on average, trade related jobs pay 17 percent more than non-trade 
jobs.
  As the world's largest exporting nation, the U.S. and the American 
worker will be the biggest beneficiary of this GATT agreement. Deep 
cuts in global tariff rates, simplification of customs procedures and 
licensing requirements, increased market access, stronger intellectual 
property rights protection rules, and improved enforcement of GATT 
rules will all benefit U.S. workers and consumers.
  With my time today, I want to focus on two charts that illustrate the 
importance of the GATT agreement to the U.S. economy, both today and in 
the future.
  The first chart provides some insight into the workings of 
international trade. The U.S. market is largely open to imports from 
around the world. This is not the case in many parts of the world for 
U.S. companies seeking to export. In fact, the rules of trade change 
from country to country, thus making it more difficult for U.S. firms 
and workers to compete internationally. In too many cases, the rules of 
international trade are structured to keep U.S. goods and services from 
the marketplace. The GATT agreement takes bold strides to change this 
situation.
  This chart shows that prior to the Uruguay Round approximately 30 
nations adhered to the same rules as the United States in international 
trade. The Uruguay Round will increase dramatically this number to over 
120 nations for the following categories: standards, subsidies and 
counterveiling duties, customs valuation, import licensing, and 
antidumping.
  The second chart shows vividly the growth in U.S. exports in the last 
decade and projects future growth. The U.S. population represents 
4 percent of the world's population, our market is fully mature. For 
the U.S. to grow, for wages to grow, for jobs to grow in numbers, the 
United States must tap into the other 96 percent of the world's 
population.

  Exports to Asia excluding Japan have grown more than 200 percent 
since 1984.
  Exports to Latin America and Mexico have boomed since 1984, almost 
equaling that of Asia.
  U.S. Merchandise exports are expected to climb to $1 billion by the 
year 2010.
  Again, exports to Asia excluding Japan are expected to lead the way 
totalling almost $250 billion per year by 2010.
  Latin America and Mexico, emerging democratic economies, are expected 
to total more than $200 billion per year by 2010.
  The GATT agreement brings more than 120 countries, including those in 
Asia and Latin America, into an accepted trade regime. The GATT 
agreement locks in United States access to these markets. In fact, the 
GATT agreement enhances our ability to compete where today our goods 
and services face high tariff rates, assorted non-tariff barriers, and 
other unfair trade rules.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States has traditionally led the world in 
the development of free markets. Today, as democracy grows in Asia, 
Latin America and the former Soviet Union, this leadership is more 
important than ever. A vote for GATT is a vote for the economic future 
of the United States as well as a bold gesture for peace through 
economic growth throughout the world. I encourage my colleagues to be 
bold, to pass GATT today.
  And finally, Mr. Chairman, let me commend President Clinton for his 
leadership and ability in the international arena. No President has 
done more, been as successful as President Clinton in developing the 
path to peace which international trade agreements provide. From 
successful final negotiations and passage of the North American Free 
Trade Agreement, to extension of Most Favored Nation status for the 
People's Republic of China to, now, successful completion of 
negotiation and passage of GATT, to two successful and fruitful Asia 
Pacific Economic Conference Meetings, the President has distinguished 
himself as no other President in his accomplishments of international 
trade. These agreements are all clearly in the best interests of 
American workers today and tomorrow will result in American jobs 
because of the quality products and business services Americans have to 
offer the world market. In addition, as I've stated before, the fabric 
of world peace is woven on the table of fair and equitable 
international trade.

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the implementing 
legislation for the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade.
  Maryland's economic health is increasingly reliant on foreign 
exports. Maryland's manufacturing exports to Europe alone account for 
33,000 jobs, making the region Maryland's largest export market; 
European investment in Maryland supports an additional 54,000 jobs. 
GATT will cut foreign tariffs and provide greater copyright protection 
for top Maryland exports, such as industrial machinery and computers, 
and electric and electronic equipment. Maryland's fishing industry and 
renewable energy technology corporations will also benefit from reduced 
tariffs on their products. In addition, GATT will remove unfair foreign 
standards that currently restrict Maryland's transport equipment 
exports.
  Maryland's merchandise exports, which grew by $1.2 billion, or 77 
percent, between 1987 and 1993, will continue to grow under the new 
GATT, creating new jobs in the State. Of particular importance to 
Montgomery County, MD, and its high tech corridor is GATT's increased 
protection for intellectual property rights through the first worldwide 
agreement on patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
  Concerns which were initially raised regarding GATT, particularly 
regarding sovereignty, have been addressed. Changes in GATT cannot be 
imposed on the United States against our will. We maintain our ability 
to take unilateral action regarding trade issues.
  GATT will promote global economic growth and enhance our ability to 
compete in the global marketplace because, for the first time, all 
countries which are parties to the agreement will be playing by the 
same rules. GATT cuts tariffs affecting our most productive sectors, 
improves protections for intellectual property rights, and lowers 
agricultural subsidies. In addition, this agreement strengthens GATT's 
dispute settlement system. These changes in global trade will create 
more and higher paying jobs in the United States and will allow U.S. 
consumers to choose among more and better products at lower prices.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the GATT implementing 
legislation.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I want to address the future of our country 
because today we are going to alter the course of history.
  By adopting this bill, we have the opportunity to boldly pursue new 
markets and new opportunities, or, by rejecting it, cower from the 
challenges that face us. Over 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson said, 
``We confide in our strength, without boasting of it; we respect that 
of others, without fearing it.'' By passing GATT, we will show the 
world we do not fear tomorrow's challenges. America should welcome 
these challenges for without trade barriers like tariffs, Mr. Chairman, 
we can compete anywhere, at any time.
  At the beginning of this century America was transforming from an 
agricultural economy to an industrial one. At the end of the century we 
are again transforming into an information and knowledge based economy. 
GATT will open world markets to the products and services of our new 
economy. Jobs for our children will follow.
  Mr. Chairman, we should pass GATT so that America can continue to be 
a leader in the 21st century.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to the very 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5110, 
the implementing legislation for the Uruguay Round agreement of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT].
  This measure presents us with one of the greatest opportunities the 
U.S. Congress has ever had to pave the way for the creation of hundreds 
of thousands of highly paid jobs, to improve the living standards of 
all Americans, and to promote the future success of our nation's 
industries as they compete in an increasingly integrated global 
economy. The agreement represents a major victory for the United 
States, and the legislation implementing it deserves our enthusiastic 
support.
  The Uruguay Round agreement, a package of 20 separate accords signed 
by 123 nations last April 15, will dismantle international trade 
barriers and establish a new World Trade Organization [WTO] to 
administer the GATT and help resolve disputes between trading partners. 
By cutting tariffs by one-third to an average of 3 percent, slashing 
industry subsidies, and eliminating quotas, and by opening markets in 
new trade areas such as services and intellectual property, this 
agreement will provide enormous economic benefits:
  The creation of 300,000 to 700,000 new jobs in the United States, 
most of which will be high-paying, high-skilled jobs;
  A reduction in global tariffs of about $750 billion over the next 10 
years, which will benefit consumers by making products significantly 
less expensive;
  An increase of $100 billion to $200 billion to the U.S. economy each 
year;
  A lowering of Federal budget deficits by about $60 billion over the 
next 10 years;
  A halt to the loss of billions of dollars each year due to copyright 
violations involving intellectual property such as computer software 
and videocassettes;
  An increase in agriculture exports by as much as $8.5 billion per 
year 10 years from now; and
  The promotion of growth in services such as advertising, law, 
accounting, tourism, computer services, and engineering through the 
opening of foreign markets to them.
  The new agreement will be of particular benefit to the State of 
California, which experienced a deeper and more prolonged recession in 
recent years than many other parts of the country. The most promising 
path to strengthening the economy in our State, which already exports 
$70 billion in goods and $35 billion in services annually, lies with 
promoting exports. If California maintains its current share of U.S. 
exports, it would acquire approximately 16 percent of the new trade 
generated by the Uruguay Round. This could increase California 
international business by $15 billion to $30 billion per year and 
create at least 200,000 additional jobs within 10 years, according to 
the California Council for International Trade.
  Opponents of this agreement have argued that the price of these 
economic benefits will be a loss of our sovereignty, of our ability to 
determine our own laws, particularly in the areas of environment, 
health, and safety. They say that the new WTO, which will have the 
authority to settle trade disputes, will force the United States to 
change its laws in response to a successful challenge of a law as an 
unfair trade barrier. As someone who has long been a strong supporter 
of environmental-protection and other consumers laws, I would like to 
briefly respond to that argument.

  The fact is, the WTO will have no power to order countries to change 
their laws. Any decision to adopt, repeal, or amend Federal or State 
laws will remain ours alone to make, and that assurance is explicitly 
stated in section 102(a) of this legislation, which states: ``No 
provision of any Uruguay Round agreement, nor the application of any 
such provision to any person or circumstance that is inconsistent with 
any law of the United States shall have effect.''
  If a WTO panels finds that a country's law constitutes an unfair 
trade barrier, all it can do is recommend a solution. It will be up to 
the disputing countries to decide how they will settle their 
differences.
  In fact, the new trade dispute system, rather than being a threat to 
us, will work to our advantage. For years, the United States has been 
frustrated by an ineffective GATT dispute settlement system which 
allows individual countries to block adverse panel rulings. Under the 
new agreement, all members must abide by the same rules. The United 
States, as the largest trading nation in the world, has the most to 
gain from having all 123 member nations playing by the same rules.
  Critics of the Uruguay Round have also pointed out that the agreement 
fails to include the kind of environmental safeguards which were 
approved as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA]. 
While it is true that environmental objectives are not incorporated to 
the extent that many of us would like them to be, the ``environmental 
package'' that emerged from the Uruguay round represents significant 
progress toward integrating environmental considerations into GATT. The 
preamble of the WTO now includes sustainable development as one of the 
objectives of the trading system. And, the agreement establishes a 
Committee on Trade and the Environment in the WTO to help ensure that 
health, safety, and environmental considerations are taken into account 
systematically in the WTO.
  This is an agreement that mainly benefits exporters--and the United 
States, as the world's biggest exporter, stands to gain the most from 
it. Over the past half dozen years, trade exports have been the 
strongest part of our economy, creating about two million new jobs. 
And, because export-related jobs pay about 17 percent more than the 
average for the economy as a whole, these jobs are among the most 
desirable. Opening up more foreign markets to our exports is the key to 
increasing jobs and prosperity in the United States.
  Yet, important as promoting our nation's economic prosperity is, the 
vote today on this historic world trade agreement is about much more 
than economic and trade policy. It is about American political 
leadership in the post Cold War world; about how the United States will 
relate to the rest of the world in the years ahead--as an optimistic, 
confident competitive leader and trading partner, or as a frightened, 
defeatist, and unreliable nation which is unwilling to act in its own 
best interest, and in the interest, as well, of the rest of the world.
  It was the leadership of United States which broke the stalemate when 
negotiations in the Uruguay Round stalled; it is our nation's 
credibility that is on the line as other nations watch to see if this 
Congress will uphold the work of three U.S. Presidents over seven years 
to promote freer world trade.
  Approval of this new GATT agreement will point us in the right 
direction: toward the opening of world markets to trade and investment, 
and the economic benefits our nation and others will reap as a result, 
and toward retaining and strengthening our nation's leadership in world 
affairs.
  This vote will, in a very real way, determine whether we will pursue 
our national responsibilities throughout the world, or retreat within 
our borders.
  Mr. Chairman, for the sake of the economic well-being of our people, 
and of all people throughout the world, and for the sake of our 
leadership in the world, it is essential that we approve this 
implementing legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this 
important measure.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our colleague, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  Mr. GRAMS. I rise today in strong support of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade. Taking almost a decade to negotiate through three 
administrations, GATT promises an era of free and fair trade which 
fosters economic growth and JOBS for Americans.
  In my home State of Minnesota, GATT will generate new export 
opportunities and higher export volumes of agricultural commodities, 
value-added products and technology-related components. In fact, GATT 
will allow Minnesota to increase its exports by 30 percent and create 
over 13,000 jobs over the next 10 years.
  Critics of GATT will argue that our country will hand over our 
sovereignty to the newly created World Trade Organization, or WTO. I 
too am concerned that we not allow our trade interests to be dictated 
by bureaucrats under the WTO. I am pleased that an agreement between 
the White House and Senator Dole was reached last week to give our 
nation a way out of the WTO if U.S. rights are violated. We should not 
hesitate to exercise the Clinton-Dole agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very special vote for me not only because 
this is my last vote in the House, but also because this is an 
important vote for Minnesota's economy: for its consumers, farmers and, 
most importantly, Minnesota's future.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton].
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I say to the Members of the House that I 
do not want to oversimplify this, but I must say that for everything we 
believe in in terms of strengthening our economy and in terms of being 
able to get some discipline in rules, this is a lay-down.
  Sure, there are some problems as far as dumping are concerned, sure 
there are some problems in the dairy industry, and for every horror 
story I may hear, I have 10 others I can talk about. But overall, this 
makes sense.
  There is nothing in the district that I represent or in many of the 
districts that I see that has as great an advantage to creating jobs. 
All of a sudden we are saying, ``Hey, look, the United States is no 
longer our only market or a little slice of the world.'' We are now 
opening ourselves up to 95 percent of the world's consumers.
  I have just been to China, I have been to Japan, and I have been to 
Hong Kong. They are dying for our products. All we have to do is create 
a structure where that is possible.
  Frankly, ever since World War II we have had the great markets. It 
has been our precious asset. But what has happened? People have dumped 
on us. We have no person to go to, we have no organization to go to, 
and now we do.
  This will create not only a structure in which we can be protected 
but also an opportunity to giving those people who are seeking jobs an 
opportunity to reach out to the rest of the world. It is a terrific 
chance for us to do something that we have not done in the history of 
this world. It may be a little overstatement to say that, but certainly 
that is true since World War II.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that all the Members would support what I 
think is an economically important step forward. With all its warts, it 
is the right thing to do, and this is the right time to do it.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Glickman assumed the chair). The Chair recognizes 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the very 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Uruguay Round Trade 
Agreement and this implementation bill.
  It was my honor to serve as the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture throughout the long process of negotiations that culminated 
in this historic trade agreement. I had the privilege of participating 
in several of the multilateral meetings as a congressional observer. I 
personally became friends with many of the officials and negotiators 
for the other nations, met with their families and came to understand 
their concerns--and I made them aware of America's concerns.
  What I learned during this experience is how difficult it is to reach 
a consensus in multilateral trade negotiations. Each country's economic 
interests and the future prosperity of its people are at stake. The 
stakes were particularly high in the politically and economically 
sensitive area of agricultural trade.
  Indeed, it is almost miraculous that we even have an agreement today. 
I want to take this opportunity to commend Presidents Reagan, Bush, and 
Clinton, along with their respective trade and agricultural officials 
for their tremendous efforts in these negotiations.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to turn our backs on this agreement. 
There is no question in my mind that this trade agreement is the best 
agreement possible among the world's trading nations at this time.
  This trade agreement can serve to expand our exports, foster economic 
growth, and create jobs here at home for much of the American economy, 
including for American agriculture.
  The Uruguay round's agriculture agreement brings agricultural trade 
fully into the GATT framework for the first time and sets the stage for 
the liberalization of trade in four areas.
  First, the agriculture agreement reduces trade-distorting export 
subsidies. Today European farmers receive 10 times the amount of export 
subsidies as are provided our domestic producers. The time has come to 
put restraints on these costly subsidies and start moving toward a more 
level playing field.
  Second, the agriculture agreement improves market access. That's good 
for much of American agriculture. But it does mean we must open up our 
own domestic markets to import competition. The only way we can ask 
other countries to open their markets to U.S. products is if we do the 
same.
  Admittedly, that will pose challenges for many producers of certain 
commodities. This implementing bill ensures that our farmers have 
safeguards in place to make the transition and the opportunity to 
compete in this new trading environment.
  Third, the agriculture agreement requires all GATT member countries--
for the first time--to begin to reduce their trade-distorting internal 
agricultural supports.
  This is what the United States has already undertaken unilaterally 
because of our own domestic budgetary pressures. The United States gets 
credit for these past actions and we are not required to make any 
further reductions in our farm price support programs under this 
agreement.
  Fourth, the agriculture agreement strengthens the sanitary and 
phytosanitary provisions of GATT. It will discourage the use of 
unjustified health-related measures as disguised trade barriers. In 
other words, all sanitary and phytosanitary trade restrictions must be 
science-based.
  Mr. Chairman, the majority of American farmers and our Nation's 
agriculture and food-related industries support the Uruguay Round Trade 
Agreements. I would like permission to insert into the Congressional 
Record at this point a letter I recently received that was cosigned by 
more than 200 agriculture and agribusiness organizations in support of 
the Uruguay Round Agreement.


                                                  AG for GATT,

                                Washington, DC, November 23, 1994.
     Hon. E `Kika' de la Garza,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
       Dear Congressman de la Garza: Very soon you will vote on 
     the GATT implementing bill, one of the most important pieces 
     of economic legislation since the end of World War II. 
     Passage of the bill will mean more U.S. exports, more 
     American jobs, lower taxes and a real stimulus to our 
     economy. Defeat of this bill would be nothing short of a 
     victory for protectionism both here and abroad.
       The nearly 300 farm groups, associations and agricultural 
     businesses that make up the AG for GATT coalition urge you, 
     in the strongest terms, to vote for the GATT and for a better 
     future for American farmers, ranchers and their allied 
     enterprises. With record or near record production of nearly 
     all farm products this year, we need the benefits that GATT 
     will bring to our sector and we need them now, not at some 
     unspecified time in the future.
       Agriculture will benefit from expanded export markets, 
     lowered export subsidies and an improved ability to challenge 
     unfair foreign trade barriers. It is estimated that the GATT 
     agreement will increase U.S. farm exports by anywhere from $5 
     billion to $14 billion per year by the end of the transition 
     period. It will also increase net farm income by over $1 
     billion and create over 100,000 new jobs throughout the food 
     chain. Quite simply, without the GATT agreement, more farmers 
     will be forced to leave farming and government expenditures 
     in agriculture will rise.
       The direct benefits to agriculture have been well-
     documented. However, there are two other issues in the GATT 
     debate that we would like to address because they have 
     received a great deal of attention and because they have 
     agricultural implications.
       The World Trade Organization and U.S. Sovereignty.--
     American agriculture has suffered under existing weak and 
     often ineffectual GATT dispute settlement rules. We support 
     the improved enforcement of international trade commitments 
     that will come with the WTO. We would not support the 
     agreement if it weakened U.S. sovereignty and we are 
     satisfied that it does not. The bill itself ensures that U.S. 
     laws and regulations are totally protected. Section 102 reads 
     in part:
       Relationship of Agreements to United States Law. 
       United States Law to Prevail in Conflict. No provision of 
     any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of 
     any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is 
     inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have 
     effect.
       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to amend or modify 
     any law of the United States, including any law pertaining to 
     the protection of human, animal, plant life or health, the 
     protection of the environment, or worker safety, or to limit 
     any authority conferred under any law of the United States * 
     * *
       The Budget Issue.--The GATT bill will result in increased 
     revenues to local, state and federal treasuries, by 
     stimulating economic growth and creating jobs. It will not 
     ``bust'' the budget. In fact, rejecting the GATT could be a 
     budget buster. In agriculture alone there are a number of 
     budgetary impacts that are receiving little, if any, 
     attention. For example, without the new markets to be opened 
     by the GATT agreement, U.S. surplus farm production will cost 
     the government more in storage costs, higher deficiency 
     payments and larger export subsidies to continue the ag 
     subsidy battle with the European Union. These are just a few 
     examples of how rejecting the GATT could hurt, not help, 
     efforts to reduce the budget deficit.
       The following organizations urge you to vote for the GATT 
     implementing bill and help American agriculture compete in 
     world markets now and in the years to come.
           Sincerely,


                         national associations

       Agricultural Retailers Association, American Cotton 
     Shippers Assn., American Farm Bureau Federation, American 
     Forest and Paper Assn., American Hardboard Association, 
     American Hardwood Association, American Hardwood Export 
     Council, American Institute of Timber Construction, American 
     Meat Institute, American Seed Trade Association.
       American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, 
     American Walnut Manufacturers Association, APA, The 
     Engineered Wood Assn., Coalition For Food Aid, Corn Refiners 
     Association, Inc., Fast Food Merchandisers, Fine Hardwood 
     Veneer Association, Futures Industry Association, Grocery 
     Manufacturers of America, Hardwood Manufacturers Assn.
       Holstein Association USA, International Apple Institute, 
     International Ice Cream Assn., International Dairy Foods 
     Assn., Milk Industry Foundation, National Association of 
     State Departments of Agriculture, National Barley Growers 
     Association, National Cattlemen's Association, National 
     Cheese Institute, National Corn Growers Association.
       National Cotton Council, National Council of Farmer 
     Cooperatives, National Dry Bean Council, National Food 
     Processors Assn., National Grain and Feed Association, 
     National Grain Trade Council, National Hardwood Lumber Assn.
       National Oak Flooring Manufacturers Association, National 
     Port Producers Council, National Potato Council, National 
     Wood, Window, and Door Association, North American Export 
     Grain Assn., Pet Food Institute, Snack Food Association, 
     Sweetener Users Association, Terminal Elevator Grain 
     Merchants Association.
       The Fertilizer Institute, United Egg Association, United 
     Egg Producers, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, 
     U.S. Egg Marketers, U.S. Meat Export Federation, U.S. Sugar 
     Industry, USA Poultry & Egg Export Council, USA Rice 
     Federation.


                      state/regional organizations

       Agricultural Council of California, Arizona Department of 
     Agriculture, Arkansas State Plant Board, California-Arizona 
     Citrus League, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 
     California Walnut Commission, Certified Angus Beef Program, 
     Colorado Department of Agriculture, Connecticut Department of 
     Agriculture.
       Delaware Department of Agriculture, Eastern United States 
     Agricultural & Food Export Council, Georgia Department of 
     Agriculture, Hawaii State Department of Agriculture, Illinois 
     Department of Agriculture, Iowa Department of Agriculture and 
     Land Stewardship, Kentucky Department of Agriculture, Lake 
     States Women in Timber, Louisiana Department of Agriculture 
     and Forestry.
       Maryland Department of Agriculture Massachusetts Department 
     of Food and Agriculture, Mid-America International Agri-Trade 
     Council, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Mississippi 
     Department of Agriculture and Commerce, Missouri Department 
     of Agriculture, Nevada Division of Agriculture, New York 
     State Department of Agriculture and Marketing, North Carolina 
     Department of Agriculture, Northeastern Loggers' Association.
       Northwest Horticultural Council, Ohio Department of 
     Agriculture, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Pennsylvania 
     Department of Agriculture, Penn-York Lumberman's Club, Rhode 
     Island Department of Agriculture, South Dakota Department of 
     Agriculture, Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association, 
     Southern Forest Products Association, Southern U.S. Trade 
     Association.
       Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Texas & Southwestern 
     Cattle Raisers Association, Texas Agricultural Cooperative 
     Council, Texas Cattle Feeders Association, Texas Department 
     of Agriculture, Utah Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Utah 
     Department of Agriculture, Vermont Department of Agriculture, 
     Washington State Apple Commission, Washington State 
     Department of Agriculture, Western U.S. Agricultural Trade 
     Association, Western Wood Products Association, Wisconsin 
     Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.


                         companies/cooperatives

       Abenaki Timber Corporation, Advance Food Company, 
     Affiliated Rice Milling, Inc., AgriBank, FCB, AGRIPAC, Inc., 
     Agri-West International, Inc., Agrolink Corporation, AJC 
     International, Inc., Allegheny Highland Hardwoods, Inc., 
     American Foods Group.
       American International Log, Appalachian Hardwood 
     Manufacturers, Inc., Anderson-Tully Company, Inc., Archer 
     Daniels Midland Company, Associated Rice Marketing 
     Cooperative, Augusta Logging Exporters, Inc., Austin Hunt 
     Logs & Lumber International, Averitt Lumber Company, Inc., 
     Baillie Lumber Company, Banks Hardwoods, Inc.
       Beaumont Rice Mills, Inc., Blaney Hardwoods, Inc., Blue 
     Diamond Growers, E. Boyd & Associates, Inc., Bradford Forest 
     Products, Broussard Rice Mill, Bryan Forwarding Company, 
     Inc., Buchanan Hardwoods, Inc., Bunge Corporation, CK 
     International.
       C-Wood Lumber Company, Inc., Calico Cottage Candies, Inc., 
     California Canning Peach Association, California Pacific Rice 
     Milling, Ltd., California Rice Milling, Ltd., California 
     Tomato Growers Assn., Camden Hardwood Company, Cardinal 
     Trading, Ltd., Cargill, Incorporated, Catlett Warehouse.
       Central Soya Company, Inc., CF Industries, Inc., Chicago 
     Board of Trade, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Coastal Lumber, 
     CoBank, National Bank for Cooperatives, Cole Hardwood, Inc., 
     Colonial Beef Company, Colonial Craft (Rasmussen Millwork), 
     ConAgra, Inc.
       Connell Rice & Sugar Company, Connor Forest Industries, 
     Inc., Continental Grain Company, Cookie Investment Company, 
     Cormier Rice Milling Company, Countrymark Cooperative, Inc., 
     David R. Webb Company, Inc., Diamond Fruit Growers, Inc., 
     Dockocil (Wilson Foods), Duckwater Farms, Inc.
       Edwards Wood Products, Elanco Animal Health, El Campo Rice 
     Milling Co., Energy Beverage Company, Inc., Excel 
     Corporation, Falcon Rice Mill, Inc., Farmers Grain Terminal, 
     Inc., Farmers' Rice Cooperative, Farmers Rice Milling 
     Company, Inc., Farmland Industries, Inc.
       Fitzpatrick and Weller, Inc., Florida Citrus Mutual, 
     Frontier Foods International, Inc., GDM Farms, Inc., Georgia-
     Pacific Corporation, Germain Timber Company, GROWMARK, Inc., 
     Gulf Compress, Gutchess International, Inc., Hampton Angus.
       Hardwood Plywood Manufacturers, Inc., Harris Ranch Beef 
     Company, Harvest States Cooperatives, Hatfield Quality Meats, 
     Inc., High Mountain Associates, Hitch Enterprises, Inc., 
     Hormrel Foods, IBP, Inc., Incotrade, Inc., International 
     Veneer Co., Inc.
       Interstate Producers Livestock Association, J.M. Jones 
     Lumber Company, Inc., Kane Hardwoods, KBX, Inc., Kitchen 
     Brothers Manufacturing Co., Langston Companies, Inc., Lewis 
     Brothers Lumber Co., Inc., Liberty Rice Milling, Linden 
     International, Inc., Lo Brothers & Associates, Louis Dreyfus 
     Corporation, Mackey's Ferry Sawmill, Inc.
       Matson Wood Products, MBG Marketing, Maverick Ranch Lite 
     Beef Company, Alan McIlvain Company, MFA, Inc, MFA Oil 
     Company, Midwest Lumber & Dimension, Inc., Frank Miller 
     Company, Miller and Company, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines.
       Monadnock Forest Products, Inc., Monfort, Inc., Monsanto 
     Company, Monticello Hardwood, Inc., Morgan Farms, John 
     Morrell & Company, New City Packing Company, Nicolet 
     Hardwoods, Norbest, Inc., NORPAC Foods, Inc.
       North Atlantic Timber & Shipping, Northland Corporation, 
     Northland Forest Products, North Pacific Lumber Company, Oaks 
     Unlimited, Inc., Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., Olive Growers 
     Council of California, Owens Forest Products, P.W. Plumly, 
     Pacific Lumber & Shipping Company.
       Pierce Foods/Hester Industries, Pioneer Hi-Bred 
     International, Inc., Port of Orange, Producers Rice Mill, 
     Inc., Providence Bay Fish Company, Purina Mills, Inc., RAM 
     Export Sales, Inc., R.B. Farms, Rice Belt Warehouse, Inc., 
     Rice Growers Association of California.
       Rice-Tec, Inc., Riceland Foods, Inc., Richmond Lumber, 
     Inc., Riviana Foods, Rose Packing Company, Rossi Enterprises, 
     Rue & Forsman, Salamanca Lumber Company, Inc., Schmid Lumber 
     Company, Inc., Seafood Export, Inc.
       Shannon Lumber International, Simplot Meat Products, 
     Skylark Meats, Inc., Southern States Cooperative, Inc., 
     Spellman Hardwoods, Inc., St. Paul Bank for Cooperatives, 
     Stewart Lumber Company, Inc., Stimson Lumber, Stinson Seafood 
     Company, Strauss Veal.
       Sun-Diamond Growers of California, Sunkist Growers, Inc., 
     Supreme Rice Mill, Inc., Syntex Animal Health, T & S 
     Hardwoods, Taylor-Cross International, Taylor Lumber, Inc., 
     Taylor-Ramsey Inc, The Bruss Company, The Jolt Company.
       Tradewest Hardwood Company, Tradewinds International, Inc., 
     Tree Top, Inc., U.S. Livestock Genetics Export, Inc., USA 
     Woods International, Vienna Sausage, W.M. Cramer Lumber 
     Company, W&W Rice Company, Walter H. Weaber Sons, Inc., 
     Webster Industries, Inc.
       West Implement, Western Farm Credit Bank, Weyerhaeuser 
     Company, Whitson Lumber Company, World Wood Company.

  Let me tell you why a vote for the Uruguay round trade agreements is 
the right vote for American agriculture:
  First, farmers receive income from sales not from taxpayers. With 
this trade agreement, American farmers gain access to previously closed 
foreign markets and expand exports through a growing world economy. The 
more of our production we sell overseas, the less is paid out in farm 
subsidies or goes into costly government storage.
  Second, as farm exports go up so do farmers' income. Accordingly to 
USDA, the agriculture agreement should increase U.S. agricultural 
exports anywhere from $5-$14 billion over the next 5 years.
  Third, agricultural exports create new American jobs. As agricultural 
exports go, so do the number of agriculture-related jobs. The Uruguay 
round is expected to create more than 112,000 new nonfarm jobs as 
agricultural exports rise, and as many as 190,000 export-related jobs 
by 2005.
  Mr. Chairman, American agriculture as a whole will be a winner under 
the Uruguay round. Yet we must acknowledge that the agreement does not 
create a true level-playing field in world agricultural trade. The 
European Union will still subsidize its farmers at a higher level than 
we do. In addition, some segments of American agriculture that have 
been shielded from import competition will face a difficult transition.
  That is why I and many other lawmakers representing agricultural 
areas urged the administration to help us address these challenges 
facing American agriculture. I am pleased to report that the 
administration has made several commitments to the Congress.
  First, the administration has promised to refocus the Export 
Enhancement Program and the Dairy Export Incentive Program on market 
expansion and promotion. These programs will no longer just be targeted 
at unfair trade practices.
  Second, the administration has pledged to use our key agricultural 
export programs to the maximum levels allowed under the Uruguay round.
  Third, the administration will propose an additional $600 million in 
funding for so-called ``green-box'' programs over the next 5 years. 
This will serve to increase the international competitiveness of a wide 
range of U.S. products including dairy, oilseed, high-value and 
alternative use products.
  Fourth and finally, the administration has pledged no further 
cutbacks in USDA discretionary agriculture programs in its budget 
submissions during the next 2 fiscal years.
  These are very welcome commitments from the administration and 
address legitimate concerns of our Nation's agricultural producers. Yet 
it will be up to the next Congress to provide the funding necessary to 
fulfill these commitments. We on the agriculture committees look 
forward to working with our colleagues next year on these issues.
  I urge my colleagues--particularly those who represent agricultural 
districts--to remember that American agriculture's prosperity depends 
on trade. Vote to secure a better future for American agriculture and 
our Nation. Vote for this trade bill. The world is looking to us for 
leadership. We must provide that leadership by voting for this 
implementing legislation.

                             {time}   1520

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, my ``no'' vote on the trade 
bill today is the result of my many concerns about key provisions of 
the Uruguay Round relating to U.S. laws protecting workers' rights and 
the environment. Also, I doubt that the GATT will remedy the economic 
insecurity felt by so many working American families.
  The GATT text includes stringent new tests for judging whether 
signatory countries' laws--environmental, consumer, public health, and 
safety laws--are serving as technical barriers to international trade. 
Unlike earlier rounds of the GATT, the Uruguay Round focuses less on 
tariffs, quotas and other explicit trade barriers, and more on 
potential nontariff trade barriers such as domestic laws and policies.
  The GATT process could pressure countries to amend or withdraw 
domestic laws that have the effect of ``discriminating'' against 
foreign imports, even if such effects are unintentional. For example, 
the GATT Agreement requires domestic product standards to be ``not more 
trade restrictive than necessary'' to fulfill legitimate objectives, 
without weighing the political feasibility of alternatives. Domestic 
food safety standards are subject to similar tests.
  Tough State laws like those in California are particularly 
vulnerable. Foreign Governments are likely to target State laws, and 
our executive branch could sue States to bring their laws into 
conformity with the GATT. Although I hope the current administration 
would be reticent to pursue such measures, officials in future 
administrations may be willing. This could represent a potential 
assault on the rights of Californians and residents of other States who 
seek more rigorous protections than either Congress or the GATT may 
endorse.
  California laws that have already been targeted by foreign 
governments as potentially GATT-illegal include the Safe Drinking Water 
and Toxic Enforcement Act, recycled content specifications for glass 
food and beverage containers, and maximum tolerance levels for lead in 
wine. Other California laws that could be challenged include: Low-
emission vehicle laws that surpass Federal requirements, threshold 
standards for environmental marketing claims, volatile organic compound 
[VOC] limitations for aerosol-based consumer products, and recycled 
content requirements for newsprint and plastic packaging.
  Innovative Government procurement programs also are threatened. 
Uruguay Round prohibitions on programs that discriminate against 
foreign imports may jeopardize Government preferences for purchasing 
certain recycled materials, and preferences for products bearing 
domestic environmental certification logos or ``green labels.'' GATT 
procurement rules also would eliminate most ``Buy American'' and other 
Domestic preference policies.

  Several provisions of the GATT conflict with, and could seriously 
erode, the Environmental Protections of International Agreements such 
as the Montreal protocol, which protects against depletion of the ozone 
layer, the Basel Convention on Hazardous Waste Export and Disposal, and 
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species [CITIES]. 
We have fought too hard for sound laws to safeguard our citizens and 
the environment to allow an International Trade Organization to 
undermine them.
  During the 103d Congress, I cosponsored H.R. 4737, to help make the 
GATT process more democratic and open to public scrutiny. I also 
cosponsored H.R. 4734, the Trade and Environmental Reporting Act, which 
proposed environmental assessment, monitoring and reporting processes 
for major trade agreements. Finally, I cosponsored H.R. 4710, which 
would have expanded protections for the environment and workers' 
rights.
  Last summer a group of colleagues and I met with the U.S. Trade 
Representative, Mickey Kantor, expressing our concerns about the GATT 
agreement and the U.S. legislation for implementing the agreement. I 
later wrote to Mr. Kantor outlining my additional concerns pertaining 
to the environment, workers' rights, and openness in GATT procedures, 
including a proposal for greater participation of Congressional 
Committees whose legislation could be subject to GATT challenges.
  The U.S. Trade Representative's proposed implementing legislation 
does not include environmental review provisions and certain other 
recommended measures. The administration did include provisions for 
greater openness in the GATT process, and procedures to help States 
assist the Federal Government in defending against GATT challenges to 
State laws. The administration also included a provision requiring the 
U.S. Trade Representative to consult with congressional committees with 
jurisdiction over laws challenged under the GATT.
  U.S. implementing legislation, however, can go only so far. It cannot 
directly modify the underlying Uruguay Round Agreement. In short, it 
cannot address the core concerns outlined above. For example, the Trade 
Representative's implementing legislation cannot unilaterally force 
open the closed doors of the GATT dispute settlement process. Although 
implementing legislation would foster greater public access to 
available information relating to foreign challenges to our laws, the 
implicit assumption is that existing U.S. laws will be subject to more 
frequent challenges under the Uruguay Round of the GATT.

  Beyond these substantive concerns, I question whether Global Trade 
Agreements such as the GATT offer genuine long-term economic advantages 
for the United States Global Trade Agreements are based on the 
principle of comparative advantage, favoring efficiency at the expense 
of environmental and safety concerns, and potentially disrupting 
communities worldwide. In recent decades, the growing mobility of 
technology and capital has allowed multinational firms to profit from 
cheaper labor and lax environmental and safety standards in other 
countries.
  Many projections of the potential economic benefits of the GATT are 
unreliable as they ignore our trade deficits. While the media report on 
expanding U.S. exports, they often ignore the far larger growth in 
imports. Fifteen years ago, the free trade advocates of the Tokyo Round 
promised that the GATT would create more jobs and build a stronger 
America.
  Since the last round of trade liberalization in 1979, we have 
imported over $1.4 trillion more than we have exported, contributing to 
our status as the largest debtor nation in the world. The trade deficit 
for merchandise in 1994 has been projected to reach a record $160 
billion. Almost 1 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 
1986. A major effect of trade deficits is that workers and businesses 
give up wages and profits in order to hold onto their jobs and markets.
  For these and other reasons, the U.S. business and industrial council 
and hundreds of small- and medium-sized firms throughout the Nation are 
urging further examination of the impacts of global trade pacts, and 
opposing the Uruguay Round of the GATT.
  In deciding to vote against the Uruguay Round, I am guided by the old 
adage, ``let the buyer beware.'' The Uruguay Round will impose long-
term burdens on America's ability to protect its citizens, and offers 
in return theoretical benefits that largely have eluded us in the past. 
As a discriminating buyer, I cannot endorse the provisions of this 
contract.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in unequivocal support 
for legislation to implement the final act of the Uruguay Round Trade 
Agreement. Today, this body can remedy a costly mistake made over 40 
years ago when a ``do-nothing'' Congress failed to adopt President 
Truman's visionary goal to establish the International Trade 
Organization. Ever since that debacle, our Nation has labored to 
abolish trade barriers throughout the world.
  When Ronald Reagan initiated the Uruguay Round trade negotiations and 
specifically sought an institution, like the World Trade Organization, 
to force France to comply with its agricultural trade commitments, this 
Member strongly supported his efforts. When former President Bush 
announced a historic breakthrough on agricultural trade, the Blair 
House Accords, this Member applauded. And finally today, as this body 
votes on the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement, this Member will vote 
``aye'' for expanded trade and prosperity for both the United States 
and for the world.
  Over 200 years ago, Benjamin Franklin said, ``No nation was ever 
ruined by trade.'' Today, this Member is entirely confident that 
Franklin's axiom remains true and that approval of the Uruguay Round 
Trade Agreement is clearly in the overall best interest of the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, this historic trade accord would instantly benefit all 
U.S. exporters and consumers by reducing tariffs by one-third and 
thereby generating the largest global tax cut ever. It would also 
greatly help U.S. exporters compete for multi-billion-dollar government 
infrastructure projects in the developing world and combat the piracy 
and theft of U.S. entertainment and high-technology exports in those 
same countries. Finally, the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement would 
greatly ensure stable, worldwide economic growth by establishing a 
rational and orderly system for the settlement of trade disputes.
  Mr. Chairman, for my home State of Nebraska, the Uruguay Round Trade 
Agreement is not even a close call. Because this agreement 
simultaneously forces countries to reduce agricultural subsidies and 
open their markets, Nebraska's grain and livestock producers could 
expect to see somewhere between an additional $3.5-$6.5 billion in 
export sales over the next 10 years. This increased trade is especially 
important for an agricultural industry which exports over one out of 
every three acres it harvests. Consequently, over 200 agriculture 
organizations are strongly supporting passage of this trade agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, history has clearly shown that protecting certain 
uncompetitive industries through government tariffs simply does not 
work. Therefore, the United States initiated and continued these 
international trade rules through both Republican and Democrat 
administrations. Unfortunately, a hodgepodge of critics from the far-
left and far-right, including opportunists, like Patrick Buchanan, 
Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, and others, seek to divide this bipartisan 
support for expanded trade. By grossly exaggerating the powers of the 
World Trade Organization and falsely arguing that the WTO can ``change 
U.S. laws'' and ``impose fines on the U.S,'' these critics seek to 
arouse American's most basic fears.

  Mr. Chairman, the World Trade Organization cannot change United 
States' health, safety, environment, and labor laws. Certainly, 
countries can challenge U.S. laws as discriminatory trade barriers. 
However, even if a foreign country successfully argues its case before 
a WTO dispute panel, only Congress can decide whether to change U.S. 
law to conform to international standards or risk the always-present 
threat of trade retaliation.
  In closing, this Member's only regret is that GATT does not go far 
enough in establishing rules for international trade in services, 
shipping, telecommunications, and the elimination of agricultural 
subsidies. As the world's leader in many of these industries, the 
United States stands to gain the most from the further liberalization 
of world trade.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member urges this body to first pass this historic 
trade agreement. Then, we must not waste any more time in pressing this 
and future administrations to persuade other countries to further open 
their markets to U.S. goods and services.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the GATT debate is about whether the 
United States Congress is going to represent the working people of this 
country, the middle class, our family farmers, or we are going to bow 
down to the multinational corporations who have put so much money into 
demanding that we pass this agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, if we believe that our current economy is doing well, 
if we believe that our current trade policy is doing well, then we 
should pass this GATT agreement, because it is an expansion and an 
enhancement of recent trade policy. This gentleman does not believe our 
economy is doing well when the standard of living of American workers 
is in decline, when we have lost millions of decent paying jobs because 
American companies have gone to the Third World and have hired workers 
there at a buck an hour or 50 cents an hour, throwing American workers 
out on the street. This gentleman does not believe that trade policy is 
going well when we have $150 billion trade deficit today. Economists 
tell us that $1 billion in trade is worth 20,000 jobs. Multiply, and it 
turns out we are losing 3 million jobs a year because of that huge 
trade deficit.
  So I think that it is time we stood up for the workers and the 
farmers and the middle class and we demanded a new trade policy, a 
policy which is fair, a policy which has the goal of creating new 
decent paying jobs in this country, that allows us to export our 
products to countries who will open up their markets, not to continue 
the hemorrhaging of decent paying jobs as we are doing today
  Second, in my own State of Vermont, there is no question but that the 
GATT will be a disaster for family dairy farmers. Within a 6-year 
period, there will be a doubling of dairy products coming into this 
country, driving the price that our farmers get for their milk down, 
throwing more and more family farmers off of the land.
  Third, I think there is an important issue of sovereignty. Maybe we 
are happy that 38 percent of the American people voted in this last 
election. I am not. The American people are increasingly alienated from 
the political process. GATT and the World Trade Organization only takes 
more and more power out of the hands of local government and state 
government and it gives it to nameless bureaucracies abroad that 
operate in secrecy.
  Mr. Chairman, let us turn this economy around. Once again, let our 
working people have the highest standard of living in the world. Let us 
protect our family farmers. Let us stand up for ordinary Americans and 
not just the multinational corporations. Let us defeat this GATT.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] to rebut a point that was made earlier.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago, the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] commented about positions I had taken 
concerning American patent rights. As chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration, he himself has had 
investigations into this. I would like to clear up a few of the issues 
that the gentleman brought up at that time.
  First of all, let me note that although there were hearings on the 
intellectual property rights and patent areas of this agreement in 
August, the fact is that no one in this body was permitted to have a 
copy of the GATT legislation we are now asked to vote on, and in fact, 
we are being asked to vote on in a very short period of time, until 10 
days before the adjournment of the Congress, meaning we were supposed 
to vote on it with less than 10 days of time to even look at it. For 
anyone here to suggest that we had ample time to investigate this issue 
before it was submitted to Congress is wrong, because we didn't even 
know what was in it. I requested over and over and over again to have 
the wording of the GATT implementation legislation concerning patents, 
and was not afforded that privilege, an elected Member of Congress not 
even being given the language that will be in the law, and other 
Members of Congress had that same frustration.
  Let us note this: Again, we were told that, well, this legislation 
will actually elongate most patents. That is not the case. Every 
inventors organization in this country is opposed to the patent changes 
that are part of the GATT implementation legislation. They are against 
it because they know their rights as American citizens and also as 
investors in the new inventions will be dramatically reduced.

                              {time}  1530

  If it is true, as we heard from the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Hughes], that we are actually going to increase the term of patent 
protection, why then was the compromise language that we who oppose 
this provision suggested, which would say ``The current language plus 
the language that is being proposed, with the proviso that whichever is 
longer shall apply,'' why was that rejected out of hand, if indeed 
patent protection is going to be elongated, as we have said?
  The reason why it was rejected out of hand is because the proponents 
of this provision know full well that we are dramatically reducing 
patent protection, and it means billions of dollars that should go into 
American bank accounts, into the pockets of American investors and 
American inventors, will now go into Japanese bank accounts, into the 
pockets of Japanese and foreign national corporations who are basically 
going to now have the privilege of exploiting American technology to 
use against us.
  As we enter this new era of technology, are we going to give our 
foreign competitors this type of edge, to be able to use our own 
creations to defeat us, to lower our standard of living? It is 
absolutely ridiculous.
  One thing the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] did not bring up 
was why this was included in the GATT implementation language in the 
first place. It is not required by the GATT Agreement to have a change 
in the patent law that reduces the patent protection for American 
citizens. It is not required. That is not part of the GATT Agreement.
  This is something that is being slipped into this legislation, 
knowing that they can use this as a cover to destroy the rights that 
are worth billions of dollars that now are the rights of Americans. 
This is one of the worst and most obscene ripoffs that I have witnessed 
since I have been in Congress.
  Finally, let me mention the last point that I mentioned when I was on 
the floor before. There is every reason for us to believe that today, 
if we agree with GATT, that no matter how heinous the regime that we 
are discussing trade policies with, for example with China, where they 
murder their people, and in some cases have used slave labor and prison 
labor to produce products, that we will not be able to have policies.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Rohrabacher was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. There is every reason for us to believe that we may 
be put in a position that if China continues to persecute their people, 
not to mention the Governments of Burma and other heinous dictatorships 
around the world, that we will not be able to differentiate in our 
trade policy between these countries and other democratic societies.
  I do not buy the argument that a lot of people have made today about 
sovereignty, because I do believe that we can get out of the World 
Trade Organization. I also do not buy the idea that we as a country 
cannot compete with people who come from a lower standard of living.
  I think with technology, and by the way, we will not be able to do it 
unless we have our technology, but of course they are trying to gut our 
ability to use technology at the same time; but we can outcompete 
people, because we can do a better job with our technological genius. 
However, we should not, it is immoral, to treat people who use slave 
labor in prison and torture their own citizens, and have the worst kind 
of Nazi and Communist regimes, it is immoral for us to enrich those 
regimes by permitting them to manipulate the trade with the people of 
the United States of America.
  Vote ``no'' on this GATT agreement. Protect American citizens' 
rights.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5110, the 
legislation implementing the Uruguay Round GATT Trade Agreement.
  No vote we cast during the 103d Congress has greater implications for 
our economy and our international leadership.
  Approval of the GATT Agreement will boost our exports and domestic 
economic growth, and reinforce U.S. foreign policy leadership.
  Rejection of the agreement would sharply limit our export prospects, 
harm domestic economic growth, and jeopardize U.S. foreign policy 
leadership.


                  I. Reasons to Support the Agreement

  Mr. Chairman, the case for U.S. approval of the GATT Agreement rests 
on two issues: economics and foreign policy.


                           a. economic impact

  Let us start with the bottom line: Every major study of the Uruguay 
Round Agreement--government or private--has concluded that it will 
increase U.S. exports, output, and jobs:
  The President's Council of Economic Advisors estimates the agreement 
will add $100 to $200 billion to America's annual output after 10 
years.
  Most studies predict that growing export sales will create hundreds 
of thousands of new U.S. jobs over the next decade.
  This is an economic stimulus package we simply cannot afford to pass 
up. Let me document the economic gains in four areas:
  First, the agreement requires countries signing on to reduce import 
tariffs and other import barriers across a wide range of industrial 
goods:
  Import tariffs on industrial products will be reduced by an average 
33 percent worldwide. The U.S. has also agreed with several of its 
largest trading partners to reduce import tariffs to zero for a number 
of critical products, including pharmaceuticals, steel, construction 
and farming gear, and medical equipment.
  These tariff reductions will amount to an immediate $750 billion cut 
in the taxes burdening world commerce.
  The agreement also outlaws a range of import quotas and other 
regulations used to keep out imports or win export sales.
  Deregulation and a massive global tax cut: Does that sound like the 
kind of agreement the U.S. should support?
  Second, the GATT Agreement will apply fair trade rules to sectors 
that the U.S. dominates, but which have until now remained outside the 
world trade system.
  Agricultural trade will be subject to global trade rules for the 
first time:
  Import quotas will be converted into tariffs, and tariffs will be 
reduced an average of 36 percent over 6-10 years.
  Export subsidies and domestic support payments will be reduced.
  Subsidies will be lowered 36 percent on average.
  U.S. farm support programs will not be affected, however, because 
they are already below GATT levels.
  These agricultural provisions will improve U.S. access to foreign 
markets.
  U.S. agricultural exports are expected to double, to $9 billion, by 
2005.
  Increased exports will generate tens of thousands of farm jobs.
  Tariffs will be phased out slowly for U.S. farm goods most vulnerable 
to competition from imports.
  Trade and investment in services will also be subject to 
international rules for the first time. Countries signing the new 
General Agreement on Trade in Services pledge to treat foreign 
providers of professional, business, communications, and financial 
services the same way they treat domestic service providers.
  This agreement is especially valuable to the United States, because 
service industries now account for 60 percent of our economy's total 
output and 70 percent of our jobs.
  Intellectual property will also be brought under world trading rules.
  The new Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 
Rights commits governments to take steps to prevent the piracy of 
products, trademarks, patents, manufacturing processes and other 
intellectual property.
  Firms in the pharmaceutical, software, designer apparel, chemical, 
and entertainment industries will benefit from this agreement. U.S. 
firms dominate each of these industries, yet piracy is costing them 
billions of dollars each year. Stronger protection will stimulate U.S. 
export sales and product innovation.
  Finally, the Uruguay Round Agreement creates a system for settling 
trade disputes that will better protect the economic interests of the 
United States and other countries whose trade practices are fair.
  The current GATT dispute system is weak. A single country--including 
the country a dispute panel rules against--can prevent GATT approval of 
retaliatory trade sanctions. The process also takes too long, often 
producing rulings long after the damage is done.
  U.S. negotiators achieved their goal of putting teeth into the trade 
dispute-settlement system, which will be managed by the new World Trade 
Organization, or WTO. The United States has won 80 percent of the 
disputes it has taken to GATT. Given the fairness of our trade 
policies, we can expect to continue to be on the winning side of trade 
disputes much more often than on the losing side. But under the WTO, 
unfair foreign trade practices are more likely to be eliminated.


          b. foreign policy impact of uruguay round agreement

  There is a reason the GATT agreement contains so many provisions 
favorable to our economy. It is because the United States drove the 
agenda in the negotiations: Nearly every new issue in the Uruguay Round 
talks was put on the table--and pushed to resolution--by U.S. 
negotiators.
  Increased exports and job gains are important payoffs of U.S. 
leadership. But approval of the GATT Agreement will also bring 
significant foreign policy benefits:
  First, open world markets are an essential pillar of international 
stability.
  The Uruguay Round is the eighth major round of global trade talks. 
Each Round reduced tariffs and import barriers and extended trade rules 
to new areas of commerce. This process has generated a vast expansion 
in the volume of world trade, accelerating economic growth worldwide.
  Trade-accelerated growth has undermined potential sources of 
international conflict.
  Second, the GATT Agreement will reinforce democratic transitions in 
formerly communist nations, and tie these nations more closely to the 
West.
  Democratic and market reform in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet 
Union is a top U.S. national security priority. The success of reform 
depends in part on how quickly these nations can improve living 
standards. Increased access to foreign markets is critical to their 
economic growth.
  Third, the GATT Agreement will bolster economic growth in developing 
countries.
  The Agreement will promote growth in developing countries by opening 
new markets for exports, exposing protected domestic industries to 
competition, and increasing access to advanced technology.

                 II. Concerns About the GATT Agreement

  A number of concerns have been raised about the Uruguay Round 
Agreement. Many of these concerns reflect legitimate fears and 
understandable confusion. Supporters of the agreement have a 
responsibility to address them.
  First, many Americans are concerned about the cost of U.S. approval 
of the GATT Agreement.
  Tariff reductions called for by the Agreement are likely to cost the 
U.S. Treasury $12 billion in revenues over the first 5 years.
  Under pay-as-you-go provisions in the Budget Act, these reduced 
revenues must be offset by reduced spending, increased revenues, or 
both. Congress and the Clinton Administration agreed on a package of 
spending cuts and revenue increases that should fully cover the revenue 
shortfall caused by tariff reductions.
  But Americans also need to be reassured about the impact on tax 
revenues of the expansion of U.S. exports that will result from the 
GATT Agreement. As it increases exports, the Agreement will also raise 
corporate and personal income--and U.S. tax revenues.
  Every economist who has looked at this issue has concluded that the 
increase in government revenues due to expanded export sales under the 
trade agreement will far exceed the reduction in government revenues 
due to lower tariffs.
  Second, some are worried that the new World Trade Organization will 
infringe on U.S. sovereignty. This is not the case.
  First, the WTO will have no power to change U.S. laws or policies. 
Only Congress and the President can change U.S. laws.
  If we receive an adverse ruling in a trade dispute taken to the WTO, 
it will be entirely up to us to decide how to respond. If we decided 
not to comply with the WTO's ruling, the worst possible outcome would 
be the imposition of trade sanctions by another country. We face the 
possibility of trade sanctions today, of course, but other countries 
have been extremely reluctant to take steps that risk a trade fight 
with the world's most powerful economy.
  Second, the WTO's ``one country-one vote'' system poses no threat to 
U.S. national interests.
  GATT makes all major decisions by consensus. There hasn't been a vote 
in 35 years. That consensus practice will continue under the WTO.
  It is true some issues could come to a vote, but all key WTO 
decisions will require a two-thirds--and in some cases a three-
quarters--majority vote to be adopted.
  And once again, no WTO decision or vote can change U.S. law or policy 
unless the President and Congress agree to make the change.
  Third, we can withdraw from the WTO if we conclude that our 
participation in it is harming our interests.
  U.S. participation in all international organizations is entirely 
voluntary.
  Legislation Congress will take up early next year will establish a 
system for monitoring WTO decisions. That system will enable Congress 
to play a larger role in deciding whether the United States should stay 
in the WTO.
  The final major concern about the GATT Agreement is its impact on 
certain sectors of the U.S. economy.
  This agreement will produce many more jobs than it will cost, but 
reductions in U.S. trade barriers could reduce sales and jobs in 
industries that are especially vulnerable to import competition.
  To soften the blow, tariffs and other import restrictions will be 
phased-out gradually in sensitive industries.
  But some workers will lose their jobs to imports, just as they do 
now. They will not acquire new jobs without training and job search 
assistance.
  If we want to enjoy the benefits of freer trade, we have an 
obligation to do more to help those hurt by it.


                     III. Consequences of Rejection

  What happens if Congress rejects the Uruguay Round Agreement? A 
``no'' vote by Congress will have serious adverse consequences for our 
economy, our security, and our foreign policy leadership:
  A ``no'' vote will deal a severe blow to U.S. international 
leadership and prestige. It's as simple as this: How much confidence 
will other nations have in us if we fail to approve an agreement we 
shaped and from which we stand to gain the most?
  If the U.S. rejects the Uruguay Round Agreement, there will be no 
agreement. Most countries are waiting to see what the United States 
does, and they will not sign on if we do not.
  The demise of the Agreement will have several serious consequences:
  First, the United States will pass up tens of billions of dollars in 
potential export sales and hundreds of thousands of new jobs over the 
next few years.
  Second, decades of progress on international trade liberalization 
will come to a halt. Without the incentive of reciprocal market-opening 
steps, it will be easier for countries to impose new protectionist 
barriers. Trade will decline, dragging down growth and employment.
  Third, democratic and market reform in formerly communist nations 
will become more difficult.
  Fourth, economic growth prospects will decline in developing 
countries.
  Finally, investor confidence in the world economic outlook will be 
shaken. That could cause financial instability and higher interest 
rates, pulling the U.S. and world economies back into recession.


                             IV. Conclusion

  The stakes are enormous--both for approval and rejection of the GATT 
Agreement.
  Recognizing the stakes, three U.S. Presidents worked hard to achieve 
the agreement: Ronald Reagan set the agenda, George Bush did most of 
the negotiating, and Bill Clinton pushed the talks to a conclusion.
  For the sake of our economy and our international leadership, I urge 
my colleagues to support H.R. 5110.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Evans].
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, in the rush to approve GATT, we are tying 
our hands behind our backs. If we approve GATT, in its currant form, we 
would be outlawing our nation's most influential tool to seek fair 
trade--section 301. That section authorizes our trade representative to 
investigate and negotiate an end to foreign trade barriers. If we 
cannot use it, sectors of our economy will be placed at a severe 
economic disadvantage.
  The administration claims that the new World Trade Organization [WTO] 
will not weaken our ability to act unilaterally. However, the 
administration's decision in October to target Japanese auto parts 
under section 301 would be unacceptable under the WTO. Our trading 
partners have clearly warned us that if we use section 301 or similar 
laws, the United States will be in violation of GATT and in turn face 
retaliation. A 1994 report by the European Commission, explicitly 
states that the United States must revise section 301 to ensure 
compliance with GATT and that any unilateral action will be considered 
illegal. If we are not able to use section 301, we cannot effectively 
protect our industries and most importantly hard-working Americans.
  I am gravely concerned about a trade agreement that would limit our 
sovereignty by forcing us to make a choice between the lesser of two 
evils: Revise our trade laws to comply with the World Trade 
Organization or face a trade war.
  By implementing GATT, we surrender our most effective trade policy 
and rely on the WTO to take appropriate action on behalf of the 
interests of our constituents, consumers, industries, and workers. If 
we relinquish our ability to take unilateral actions, we cannot ensure 
that fair trade will remain a priority of the administration and a 
guarantee to U.S. industry and its work-force.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our colleague, the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the GATT Agreement. I rise 
after much study and after much deliberation and after much 
understanding of the people of my district, who have expressed to me in 
the numbers of hundreds their concerns and their fears, and I share 
some of the concerns and some of their fears.
  However, after my research, I was concerned about the WTO and am now 
convinced that it is not the sovereignty problem many people contend. I 
am concerned about the fact that we are meeting in lame duck session, 
because I do not believe in lame duck sessions. Nevertheless, we are 
here and we must make a decision today.
  As far as the United States is concerned, as far as the First 
Congressional District of Alabama, which is heavily industrialized into 
the paper industry, which is a port, I feel like in the best interests 
of my people I should vote yes. I think in the long run that the people 
of the United States will come to agree that we are doing the right 
thing here today by voting yes on this very important treaty.
  Mr. Chairman, although, I would have preferred for the GATT agreement 
to be considered in the 104th Congress, I am pleased I had additional 
time to thoroughly review the agreement, speak with experts and become 
satisfied with my final decision. Although there are many provisions in 
GATT with which I disagree, I have concluded that overall, GATT is a 
tremendous opportunity for Americans to expand our trade abroad and 
increase our position for increased economic growth.
  I appreciate the immense interest shown by the hundreds of calls and 
letters from my constituents in south Alabama. It is encouraging to 
know that my constituents were involved enough to gather information to 
gain a greater understanding of this complex bill. Although many 
expressed their great concern and opposition to this bill, I feel that 
this agreement will benefit my district and the port city of Mobile.
  As a U.S. citizen and Member of Congress, I would never vote on a 
bill which I believed would in any way jeopardize the freedom and 
position of the United States of America. My initial concern with GATT 
was the sovereignty issue. However, I believe there are many safeguards 
in the agreement to protect the interests of the United States.
  The fact that the proceedings of the WTO are to be closed to the 
public gives me some concern, living in a country of sunshine laws.
  In addition, I feel the development of a WTO Dispute Settlement 
Review Commission would further guarantee the U.S.'s ability to end its 
participation in the WTO, if we find that the WTO panel reports are 
adverse to the United States.
  Although, I did not come to my decision easily, I am satisfied that 
my vote will be in the best interest of the United States, as well as 
the First District of Alabama.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
  (Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5110, a bill to implement the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. After careful review, 
and discussions with my constituents, it became clear that GATT is good 
for the USA.
  Once you have cleared away the cobwebs of confusion, the ideology of 
isolationism, you will find at the core of GATT a very simple 
principle--a principle of free and fair trade.
  It has been the policies of free and fair trade that has made 
Nebraska the second fastest growing export state in the country. 
Nebraska's exports have grown 429 percent since 1987.
  The companies responsible for this export growth are not the big 
international conglomerates. Of the 471 exporting businesses in 
Nebraska, 95 percent of them have fewer than 500 employees.
  But the biggest winner under GATT for Nebraska is the farmer. While I 
ardently oppose provisions in H.R. 5110 that may cut agriculture 
programs by $1.7 billion, in the end agriculture still comes out ahead.
  U.S. agriculture exports are expected to increase up to $4.7 billion 
in the year 2000 and by $8.7 billion by 2005. Agriculture related jobs 
are expected to grow by 112,000 new jobs by the year 2000 and 190,000 
jobs by 2005.
  And, farmer income, because of GATT, is expected to grow by $1.3 
billion in the year 2000 and by as much as $2.5 billion in 2005.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States has benefited from nearly 50 years of 
cooperation through GATT. This GATT compact will continue that 
tradition by finally giving the United States what it has sought for 
nearly 30 years, real leverage to get our products into new and closed 
markets abroad.
  Many of those opposed to GATT are afraid. Afraid of challenges to 
U.S. laws and basically afraid of change.
  Sadly, they are afraid of a paper tiger. There is nothing in GATT 
that will force a change in any federal, state, or local laws. The 
United States will be free to pass any law it wishes as long as it 
treats everyone fairly--something the United States has been trying to 
get other countries to do since day one of GATT in 1947, and is 
something our export laws have been doing for years.
  GATT is good. GATT is great for agriculture. GATT is what's right for 
the United States. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 5110 and begin a 
new era of export growth, export opportunities, and job creation for 
the good ole USA.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of GATT. There are 
compelling reasons why virtually all of California business and 
agriculture are supporting GATT. California is our Nation's largest 
exporter with 15 percent of U.S. products and services sold overseas. 
GATT reduces tariffs imposed on these exports by an average of 36 
percent. This is a tax cut of over $740 billion which will result in 
the creation of over 240,000 new jobs in California alone during the 
next decade.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a major trade deficit in this country in part 
because we do not have a level playing field for our exporters in 
international trade. While our tariffs are low by world standards, 
American exporters currently face high tariffs and other artificial 
barriers that block their entry into markets such as Japan. These 
unfair practices have hit my own area particularly hard. We are the 
second largest rice growing area in the Nation but for decades we could 
not sell a single grain of rice in Japan. Under GATT, we guarantee the 
elimination of such unfair trade barriers. That is why the California 
Farm Bureau, the California cattlemen and growers of California's 250 
specialty crops are asking us to pass GATT today. It is also why 
virtually every major business group in California supports GATT.
  Regarding sovereignty, I would never even consider voting for 
legislation which would infringe in any way on U.S. sovereignty. As a 
result of further clarifications crafted by the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Gingrich] and our own Committee on Ways and Means, I am convinced 
that the integrity of our government and U.S. Constitution is 
completely guaranteed.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Sharp].
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation to 
implement the GATT treaty. It is imperative that we pass this today. We 
have witnessed in our own district, certainly in mine, the radical 
changes under way in our economy and the economies around the world. We 
are most aware, of course, of the pain that has represented to a number 
of individuals and families and businesses in our areas. But the other 
part of the picture that we have seen with that change is how dynamic 
our business and industry and agriculture and our labor markets have 
become with this change. Seeing the creation of new business, seeing 
the creation of new jobs, including high-paying jobs that are critical 
to us. And many of these high-paying jobs are related to exports. We 
have a great deal to gain by lowering the trade barriers elsewhere 
around the world. Just one example in this treaty for our part of the 
country is the lowering of the barriers on auto parts in the European 
union because we have a great deal to sell, we are in a strong 
competitive position to sell it. But we all know that there is going to 
be pain along the way whether this passes or this does not pass for our 
people. But this should be a reminder to us that we must do more on 
education and more on job training so that no American is left behind 
in the new world.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hamburg].
  Mr. HAMBURG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the GATT 
implementing legislation.
  The United States should support fair and open trade among nations 
that agree to specific fundamental principles including family-
supporting wages, protection for worker safety, consumer safety, and 
environmental protection. Today's GATT, however, is based on just one 
principle--maximization of corporate profit through increased 
competition.
  The rationale for free trade is simple: increased world competition 
free of ``trade barriers'' leads to increased efficiency; increased 
efficiency leads to greater production, consumption, and of course, 
profit.
  Unfortunately, this is more simplistic than simple. Increased 
competition does not necessarily lead to greater efficiency when 
companies are encouraged to save money instead by lowering standards 
for pollution control, worker safety, wages, and health care. Firms 
primarily concerned about profit maximization may, and often do, choose 
to shift costs away from their own operations and onto the public 
sector.
  Countries like ours have well-developed legal, administrative and 
auditing structures to discourage this practice. There are no analogous 
international bodies of law and administration. Free trade--that is, 
deregulated international commerce--as administered under the GATT's 
World Trade Organization, does not in fact encourage economic 
efficiency across a community of nations. Instead, companies will 
continue to shift their production activities, and service capacities, 
to countries with lower standards. High paying jobs here become low 
paying jobs overseas. The global environment is further compromised.
  It is essential to the future of the Democratic Party that we 
reestablish a relationship of trust with the working people of 
America--those who are most affected by the GATT, President Clinton, as 
candidate Bill Clinton, tries to do this by calling for greater 
concentration on our domestic needs in terms of jobs and public safety. 
He also decried the free-fall of real wages for those who make this 
country run--the 80 percent of Americans who are wage earners, not 
investors; workers, not corporate directors.
  The Democratic Party's historic role is as the advocate for the 
working woman and man, but today that role is in serious question. Some 
traditional Democrats are estranged from us on gun control, some on 
issues like reproductive choice or the direction of health care reform. 
But essentially, Democrats will come home and stay home based on our 
attention to their economic security.
  The fact of the matter is that the people who are the foundation of 
our existence as a party have experienced a 20 percent drop in real 
wages over the past two decades. They are, as candidate Bill Clinton 
pointed out, ``working harder for less.'' No wonder they are 
disillusioned, angry and looking for new means of political expression.
  A significant reason for this sorry situation--for our party, but 
especially for our country--is the loss of manufacturing and other 
good-paying jobs to low-wage countries. Working people understand the 
relationship between their declining standard of living and the 
increasing trade deficit. The last major round of trade liberalization 
in the late 1970's was sold on the premises of an improved trade 
balance and the creation of jobs. Those promises remain unmet. The 
trade deficit has mushroomed and job growth--especially jobs that pay a 
family-supporting wage--has stagnated.
  As a Democrat, as an American, I believe that while NAFTA was a slap 
in the face to the American worker, GATT is a body blow. Let us not do 
this to our workers, to our party, to our country.
  Vote ``no'' on GATT.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski].
  (Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
5110, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
  I have been a life-long advocate of free and fair trade and have 
worked toward this end throughout my career in the House. This is the 
most important trade legislation to come before the House in more than 
60 years.
  Quite simply, the Uruguay round agreements are the most significant 
and beneficial trade agreements ever negotiated by this country.
  Last December, I led a delegation of committee and House Members who 
attended the crucial concluding phase of these negotiations with 125 
nations in Geneva. I can personally attest to the dedication and 
negotiating ability of U.S. Trade Representatives in the Reagan, Bush, 
and Clinton administrations in producing a result that meets the main 
U.S. objectives set forth in the 1988 act. This is one of the best 
examples of what can be accomplished when the parties work together for 
the country.
  The Uruguay round agreements reduce global tariffs by one-third. They 
establish disciplines on trade in services and protections for 
intellectual property-based industries worldwide for the first time. 
Reductions in nontariff barriers on agricultural products and 
government procurement, and improved disciplines on subsidies and 
dumping will open new foreign market opportunities for U.S. exporters.
  A lot of misinformation has recently been fed by opponents of this 
legislation to the American people about the new World Trade 
Organization and its impact on our sovereignty. Let me set the record 
straight on this point. The new, more effective dispute settlement 
system under the WTO responds to a congressional mandate and will make 
it more likely that all countries will abide by the new and improved 
international trading rules. The new World Trade Organization will help 
us ensure that no country is able to cheat the United States under the 
new rules. At the same time, U.S. sovereignty and the role of the 
Congress in writing and amending U.S. laws are fully preserved. And, 
this agreement represents the biggest global tax cut in the history of 
the world. Passing this legislation will mean hundreds of thousands of 
new high-wage jobs for American workers.

  This is one of the last votes that I will cast as a Member of 
Congress. I am proud that it is one that lays the groundwork for a 
prosperous American future. Those are the kind of votes the American 
people expect us to take. They are the ones that will make a real 
difference in the lives of our children and grandchildren.
  A vote for the GATT implementing bill is a vote in favor of 
governing, taking responsibility for our future, and rising above petty 
politics. More than 30 years ago, I came to Washington with one goal in 
mind: to help govern by writing good law. It has been a great privilege 
to serve in the House but I am especially proud to leave today with 
this vote. It too is about governing and good law.
  I wish you all well--and truly hope that in the days ahead you will 
put your minds first to the task of governing. That is why the American 
people send us here.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5110--the implementing legislation to 
provide for the approval by the United States of America of the revised 
General Agreement on Tariff and Trade [GATT]--will reduce tariffs on 
exported products, reduce nontariff barriers, ensure that all countries 
are working under the same trading rules, and allow for multilateral 
dispute resolution. The Uruguay Round negotiations, begun over 8 years 
ago, have spanned the terms of three Presidents. Each of those 
Presidents has educated much of what is in the agreement before us.
  We need the invigorated world economy which GATT will bring. History 
has told us that when trade crosses borders, armies are less likely to 
do so. When the trading system breaks down, as it did in the 1930's, we 
have seen chaos, poverty, and bloodshed. We should all remember that 
the Great Depression was caused by rising trade barriers and a loss of 
overseas markets. That is the bitter legacy of protectionism, and I 
have no wish to repeat the mistakes of the past. I am casting my own 
vote for GATT based upon the following considerations:
  GATT cuts taxes on U.S. exports. This is the largest tax cut in 
history--$750 billion worldwide on industrial products alone. The GATT 
will cover international trade in services, in which the United States 
has a trade surplus. This tax cut will help us maintain and expand our 
lead on services.
  Since our tariffs are smaller than those of the rest of the world, 
but our exporters and workers have to pay tariffs on goods sent to 
other countries of the world, the United States will gain more than 
most by tariff reductions. U.S. consumers will benefit due to lower 
prices.
  According to Rockwell International, whose Space Systems Division 
employs many of my constituents, 30 percent of its sales are overseas, 
and this represents a big tax cut for their exporting business.
  For the entire United States, the gains to the economy are estimated 
at between $100 to $200 billion per year.
  GATT implements rule changes to improve the world trading system. The 
dispute resolution mechanism, import licensing rules, and antidumping 
rules mean that we will be able to challenge nontariff trade barriers 
in a multilateral setting. It is crucial that every trading nation be 
working off the same set of rules. That will highlight the unfair 
practices of some nations that block imports with arcane trading rules.
  GATT extends trade protection to intellectual property. Until now, 
our country has had to rely on bilateral threats and other ineffective 
measures to ensure that the products of American inventors, authors, 
musical performers, software companies, actors, and video game 
producers were protected. Sadly, in many countries, our products do not 
have adequate protection. The bill extends GATT protection to 
intellectual property. With our large trade surplus in services, the 
United States will benefit tremendously.
  GATT strengthens the subsidies code. According to McDonnell Douglas, 
the subsidies code included in GATT will provide stronger rules 
policing Airbus, the subsidized European venture that has cost jobs in 
civilian aerospace at both Boeing Aircraft and McDonnell Douglas. This 
code is essential if the Airbus consortium is to be slowed. The 
billions of dollars that European countries have poured into Airbus 
have given it a competitive edge over the unsubsidized American firms 
in the last few years. The world aircraft production industry needs to 
be on a more even competitive playing field where underpricing due to 
government subsidy does not provide a competitive edge.
  What are the main objections some of my constituents have raised with 
respect to GATT? They are as follows:
  First. Will the World Trade Organization [WTO] be able to overrule 
U.S. environmental or labor laws?
  No. Section 102 of the bill clearly states that no provision of GATT 
or the WTO can override U.S. law. U.S. law will always prevail in a 
conflict with the Uruguay Round Agreement. In the case of a dispute 
panel ruling against the United States, Congress will be consulted, and 
can choose whether or not to comply.
  Second. Can foreign ship crews unload their ships on the docks?
  No. Maritime issues are not covered by GATT rules. Nor is banking, 
insurance or other financial services. Since maritime issues are not 
covered in the GATT, there is no basis in the agreement for challenging 
any American working practice.
  Third. If the United States is subject to a monetary penalty in the 
form of a tariff, is not that a fine that will force us to change?
  No. If the United States loses a case before a dispute resolution 
panel and we refuse to comply with the terms of the ruling, the 
petitioner can impose tariffs to recoup the damage done to their 
exporter. That is true. However, if we count a tariff as a fine, we can 
reduce fines by passing GATT. Even if we lost every single case brought 
before the GATT, our exports would still be ahead on the tariff 
reductions which will occur in foreign nations. That means greater 
market access for American products. If one is still concerned about 
fines, one should recognize the tariff reductions that GATT 
accomplishes.
  Fourth. The United States has only one vote in this organization, and 
we can be outvoted by Bangladesh, but we have to pay 20 percent of the 
dues to the WTO.
  It is true that we only have one vote, but we cannot be outvoted. If 
there is a rule change--say, adding maritime issues to those covered by 
GATT--the United States does not have to agree to such a rule change 
made by a majority vote. Such changes are not binding on any member of 
the WTO unless that nation consents. In any case, Congress must enact 
any change in U.S. law before such a WTO rule change can have any 
effect. This is similar to the rules of a softball game. By passing 
H.R. 5110, we all agree to play by the same rules. If, later in the 
game, we want to make changes in the rules, everyone must agree, or 
they do not have to play.

  As for the proportion of funding for the WTO, the United States will 
get 20 percent of the benefit from GATT, since we account for about 20 
percent of the world's economic activity. So the 20 percent share for 
us is reasonable.
  Fifth. Can we leave the World Trade Organization if it reduces our 
sovereignty?
  Yes. Section 125 of the GATT implementing legislation details the 
rules for leaving GATT if it is not working out for us. We can withdraw 
after giving 6 months notice.
  Sixth. Does the GATT/Trade Related Intellectual Property agreement 
unfairly harm small inventors?
  No. The GATT Agreement is a tremendous benefit for inventors, since 
it will give trade protection to inventors for the first time. Small 
inventors currently receive patent protection for 17 years from the 
date of issuance of the patent. Under the Trade Related Intellectual 
Property Provisions, they will receive patent protection for 20 years 
from the date of filing. Since over 85 percent of patents are approved 
or rejected in 20 months, GATT will extend the patent term for the vast 
majority of inventors.
  Seventh. What about inventors whose patent takes longer than 3 years 
to get issued?
  According to the Patent and Trademark Office, 95 percent of the 
patents are accepted or rejected within a 3-year period. Those that 
take longer are the result of the inventor filing continuing 
applications. If there is bureaucratic delay, up to 5 years can be 
added on to the term of the inventor's patent. Also, if there is a 
court challenge, an additional 5 years can be added to the patent term.
  Eight. Does trade with low-wage countries destroy American jobs? 
Won't GATT accelerate that process?
  The American market is largely open. There is no measure of trade 
protection that we are giving up in the GATT Agreement. However, other 
countries, including low-wage countries, have often blocked U.S. 
exports with tariffs and nontariff barriers. The opening of these 
markets will create additional needed jobs in the United States.
  My vote for the General Agreement for Tariffs and Trade is a vote for 
new prosperity in America and the world and for a strengthened spirit 
of cooperation between all Nations. The time to act, is now.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, a great deal has been said 
about the overall economic effects of GATT, and I think it contains a 
great deal of benefit to the overall economy. The problem is that those 
benefits will be felt unevenly, and while many will benefit some will 
be hurt.
  I want to quote from The Economist, the October 1 issue, the survey 
of the global economy. This is from a publication very dedicated to 
free trade.

    
    
       It is, in short, hard to maintain that trade has had 
     nothing to do with the decline in the relative fortunes of 
     low-skilled Americans. Rich countries' comparative advantage 
     lies with skilled labour, so there should be little surprise 
     that the skilled benefit most. Indeed, it is puzzling that so 
     many trade economists reject the notion of a link between 
     trade and changes in relative wages, while accepting the bulk 
     of international-trade theory from which it is derived. It is 
     as if free-traders are desperate to downplay any negative 
     effects of trade for fear of giving support to 
     protectionists. Yet by refusing to acknowledge a link they 
     may be sowing seeds of trouble for the future.

  One of our central problems we have all talked about is the erosion 
in wages for the people at the less skilled end. This by itself makes 
that worse. It need not do that.
  The administration under President Clinton was right to try to 
include labor standards as an issue in the international negotiations. 
They were rebuffed. We ought not to agree to an agreement that does not 
include some effort to deal with labor standards overseas.
  The Economist also says that is one of the things we have to do if we 
want to protect the people from getting hurt and in fact to work on 
programs within our own country to cushion the blow.
  John Kennedy said of Franklin Roosevelt that he could be a good 
neighbor abroad because he was a good neighbor at home. We have not 
been sufficiently good neighbors at home to justify at this point going 
forward. I think it is wrong to say that because it may be in the 
interests overall of the economy we will ignore the negative effects it 
will have on those within our country already most vulnerable. I cite 
The Economist as the authority which I think is unquestionable in this 
case for the proposition that this will further exacerbate differences. 
Indeed, as it says, that is the theory of free trade, of comparative 
advantage. You do better what you do well, but you do worse in other 
areas.
  This unadorned, without an effort to deal with international labor 
standards to protect our people against degrading levels of 
competition, and without the kind of worker training and other forms of 
compensation that we have the ability to do, will move us in the wrong 
direction.
  I would like to vote for a treaty like this. I agree that it has a 
great deal of important protections. I think we fail in our duty, 
however, if we simply vote for this as is and allow the policy to 
continue of a greater erosion in economic security for people of lesser 
skill, for people of lesser education.
  That is what economic theory and experience tells us will happen if 
we do this today without those other effects.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin], a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, let me get to the jugular issue that has 
just been addressed, and that is the likely impact on typical 
hardworking American families, many of whose income has lost ground.
  I think the balance of the evidence is clear, and that is that these 
families, so many of them in each of our congressional districts, will 
be benefited, not harmed by this agreement. Why is that? It is because 
tariffs in other nations will go down more than ours. Ours are already 
low, and when we bring all tariffs down, those that are the lowest will 
be hurt the least and those that are highest will come down the most.
  So, in a word, under this agreement there are going to be new markets 
abroad for goods made in the U.S. Our markets are already open. This 
agreement will open others for manufactured goods and for services. And 
for the first time there will be protections against pirating American 
brand names and other intellectual property.
  Competition, as has been pointed out, with low-wage nations is indeed 
a problem and a challenge. And as a major defender of industrial 
America I feel that deeply. But it is a serious mistake to place this 
issue on the doorstep of this GATT agreement.
  Just a word about American sovereignty. We worked actively in this 
agreement to make sure that we kept strong American laws on antidumping 
and section 301.
  Finally, let me say a word about trade deficits. Most of our trade 
deficit is with two countries, Japan and China. China is not even a 
member of GATT, and the basic causes of our deficit with Japan are not 
affected by this agreement. We must continue to insist with the 
Japanese on a bilateral basis that they open their markets, we must or 
take action to bring this about.
  For these reasons I urge my colleagues to support this agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Unsoeld assumed the chair.) The Chair recognizes 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
  (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5110, the 
implementing legislation for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
Uruguay Round.
  All of us recognize there are risks in free trade agreements, 
particularly between economically advanced societies like ours and 
those with lower standards of living. But in the final measure, free 
trade is a better answer to the world's economic disequilibrium than 
foreign aid; shared economic hope is a more effective deterrent to war 
than competitive protectionism.
  When it comes to advancing peace as well as prosperity, big fences 
simply do not make good neighbors. If there is any hope of countries 
and peoples coming to have shared values in a world of nuclear weapons 
and fractured group identities, competition must be in trade, not arms; 
in markets, not land masses.
  There are certain risks involved in free trade, but there are far 
greater risks in protectionism.
  Simply put, those countries which have opted for open markets in this 
century have prospered; those which have chosen protectionism have not.
  In fact, if history is a guide, protectionism belies its name. It 
provides job security for candidates, not workers. Just as in Pogo's 
terms, the enemy too often is us, in trade policy the enemy is 
politicians, usually one's own.
  One of the lessons of the 1930s was that protectionist legislation 
such as the Smoot-Hawley tariff lengthened and deepened the great 
Depression. By reverse logic, in recessionary times, promoting policies 
that impel the growth of international trade is likely to serve as an 
economic stimulant.
  From an Iowa perspective, trade barriers are particularly harmful to 
an export-oriented manufacturing and agriculture based economy.
  Our farmers are the most productive in the world, yet in the absence 
of international markets this very productivity is the largest 
contributor to our excess supply problems. What Iowa farmers and 
manufacturers need is open markets abroad that are based on fair and 
equal trade. What GATT provides is a common set of rules, the expansion 
of the rule of law to international commerce.
  Since America has lower tariffs than virtually any other country, 
GATT causes a larger tax cut for our exporters than those of other 
countries and thus increase significantly the competitive position of 
American commerce. In this regard, the elimination of tariffs required 
under GATT represents the largest tax cut in the history of world 
commerce, with the reduction of taxes greatest for goods produced in 
America and sold abroad.
  GATT is good for the consumer because it holds down inflation, abroad 
as well as at home. It is good for the producer because it takes 
government out of the equation of trade. Tariff and nontariff barriers, 
after all, impose costs on consumers and add in many societies 
corruption to the economic system. Reducing trade barriers thus reduces 
the need to grease bureaucratic hands.
  But, most of all, reducing trade barriers emancipates markets from 
governmental intrusion and increases the sovereignty of individuals 
over the state.
  Here, let me stress the anti-inflation implications of lowering costs 
of U.S. goods in foreign markets. Allowing foreigners to buy U.S. 
products without tariff add-ons will decrease inflation worldwide, thus 
allowing foreign central banks and thus our own Federal Reserve Board 
greater latitude to reduce interest rates. This anti-inflation aspect 
of free trade should provide an enormous stimulant to economic growth.
  Yes, there are weaknesses in this agreement. The World Trade 
Organization [W.T.O.], while proposed by the United States as an 
implementing mechanism to assist countries such as our own which comply 
with law to petition others which do not, is not as well structured as 
we might like. But it is better than having no dispute mechanism at 
all.
  In addition, there is no need to have in this implementing 
legislation a sweetheart deal for several of America's largest news 
organizations. Hopefully, this feature can be corrected in the next 
Congress.
  Yet the weakest link in this GATT agreement in what it fails to 
include rather than what it does provide. American negotiators were 
unfortunately unable to get strong reciprocity commitments in either 
the financial services or entertainment industries, which are two areas 
of commerce in which America is at the forefront. More work needs to be 
done.
  Nevertheless, while imperfect, the agreement is a good deal.
  For example, the reason most farm groups support GATT is that 
agricultural producers have been put in a competitive disadvantage in 
world markets because of protectionist agricultural policies abroad, 
symbolized by the European Union's lucrative farm supports. Open 
international markets which are fair and equal benefit Iowa producers. 
A prominent Iowa pork producer, Glen Keppy, notes by analogy that since 
the passage of NAFTA, pork exports to Mexico are up 71 percent, with 
that country now the second largest pork market for U.S. producers.
  GATT should bring similar gains for U.S. farmers in Europe and the 
countries of the Pacific Rim.
  As for the First Congressional District of Iowa, manufacturing, food 
processing and trucking companies centered in cities like Cedar Rapids 
and the Quad Cities should also benefit with the passage of GATT.
  Alcoa's Quad Cities plant--the most sophisticated aluminum producer 
in the world--has a great deal at stake in eliminating unfair barriers 
to trade. The job of the typical worker at the Alcoa Riverdale Works is 
in jeopardy when foreign governments subsidize their aluminum 
industries and, through tariffs, tax our exports to them.
  Likewise, Rockwell International Corporation in Cedar Rapids will 
benefit from the security of international standards for the protection 
and enforcement of intellectual property rights.
  Many Americans are rightfully concerned about the existence of a 
significant wage differential between countries. This is a major 
international problem, but it should be stressed, the same problem not 
only exists but is exacerbated without free trade agreements.
  In this regard, one protection for us that seldom is noted is that 
the effect of an agreement can be measured over time, and we 
will retain the right to withdraw if it doesn't prove fair.

  Free commerce between American states was ensconced in our 
constitution. today free enterprise, free trade, and free politics are 
gathering momentum in virtually every corner of the globe.
  Open trade borders has been the primary objective of U.S. economic 
strategy since the end of the Great Depression. The General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade was created to encourage trade and prevent the 
``beggar thy neighbor'' policies of earlier parts of this century. Free 
trade has served this country well; it has been one of the most 
important tenets of U.S. development philosophy facilitating the build-
up of the American economy as well as the reconstruction of post-War 
Europe and Japan and the recent economic progress in developing 
countries.
  Politicians too frequently assume that a bettering of world relations 
is likely to stem primarily from government-to-government ties. 
Actually businessmen and women, private people of private commerce, are 
bringing the world closer together than public officials and stand a 
better chance to defend the sanity of peace from the insanity of war 
than any President or Commissar.
  Ratifying GATT will strengthen the ongoing paradigm shift in world 
affairs toward the American vision of a peaceful world order based upon 
free peoples, free markets, and collective security.
  Republicans, while still the minority in this Congress, understand 
that the Presidency more than the President is at issue and that 
American leadership in the world on political as well as economic 
issues will be weakened if President Clinton is dealt a setback on 
GATT.
  For all these reasons, I believe that ratifying GATT is the best 
economic choice that America can make at this moment and that the risk 
of flinching from competition is not as great as the risk of status quo 
politics.
  For all the controversy stirred by the rhetoric of economic 
Nationalists, one fact cannot be shirked: Free markets create jobs; 
closed markets lead to lower standards of living.
  If the agreement later proves not to benefit the United States, it 
can and should be re-assessed. But for the sake of job creation, for 
the sake of bringing the world closer together in peace, this agreement 
deserves support. American values and interests are clearly advanced.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, the Uruguay round agreement represents a 
historic achievement for U.S. leadership and competitiveness in the 
world economy.
  The opportunity to vote for a $750 billion global tax cut will, I 
suspect, not come again in the legislative careers of all of the 
Members on the floor today. The Uruguay round victory which we hand 
ourselves and our country, while harvested by President Clinton, was 
planted and nourished by Presidents Reagan and Bush.
  This is a bipartisan effort in the best sense of the world. H.R. 5110 
is truly and unequivocally in the national interest.
  Emerging from the Great Depression and World War II in the 1940's the 
United States led the world in embarking on seven successive rounds of 
trade-liberalizing GATT agreements. The Uruguay round, the eight, is 
the result of 7 years of negotiation and represents an unmatched 
success in terms of comprehensive coverage.
  It would be an unwise mistake to turn down an agreement which for the 
first time obligates the rest of the world to follow fair-trade rules 
in agriculture, services, and intellectual property.
  Last year we considered NAFTA, and the proposition that expanded 
trade creates new, high-wage jobs. While the principle behind the 
Uruguay round is the same, the economic benefits to be captured for the 
United States by approving the GATT are on a much grander scale.
  To put the potential gains in perspective, the NAFTA reduced tariffs 
on $40.6 billion in United States exports to Mexico. The Uruguay round, 
involving 123 signatories, will reduce tariffs and other trade barriers 
on $450 billion of U.S. merchandise exports and $170 billion of 
services exports.
  We know that this bill will increase GDP by several percentage points 
and lead directly to the creation of 150,000 new jobs a year when it is 
phased in. Opening up markets individually is extremely time consuming. 
The beauty of the Uruguay round is that it will open up markets in 123 
countries all at once.
  For the first time countries will be bound to a single undertaking 
where they must accept all obligations of GATT if they are to derive 
its benefits. No more a la carte trade commitments that work to cut out 
our most competitive exports. This is extremely important when we 
remind ourselves 94 percent of the world's consumers of manufactured 
products live outside the United States.
  The vast majority of U.S. customers in the 21st century will be in 
the booming markets of Asia and Latin America. Until now, many of these 
nations have been abiding by relatively few trade commitments to us. 
For example, many countries have had very few bound tariff rates, and 
only a few have bothered to sign the earlier GATT codes limiting unfair 
subsidies and dumping.
  The United States led the Uruguay round negotiations from the start, 
and we achieved our primary objective of bringing the fastest-growing 
economies of these regions under the rules of fair trade.
  Many inaccuracies have been spread about the World Trade 
Organization. Under GATT rules, the United States gives up no sovereign 
power to change any U.S. law. We do commit, however, to abide by a 
uniform set of trade rules in a way which will reduce the amount of 
government intervention in the international marketplace.
  If there is a protectionist U.S. law we do not want to change for 
whatever reason, there are no dire consequences. We simply forgo some 
level of export sales resulting from these GATT negotiations. There are 
no monetary fines involved. All contracting countries to the GATT 
retain all rights to establish their own laws.

  What we gain is a more automatic way to get a decision on whether our 
trading partners are unfairly keeping U.S. products out of their 
markets.
  Madam Chairman, we have heard a number of smokescreen arguments about 
the chief beneficiaries allegedly of this agreement being the 
multinationals. My home State of Illinois is the sixth largest 
exporting State in the Union, and our exports have grown more 
dramatically than those of the other 49 States in the Union in the past 
several years. Last year, our exports totaled over $20 billion, and we 
are looking at job creation in the hundreds of thousands in my State of 
Illinois.
  Of those businesses, the overwhelming majority, and I am talking over 
7,000, are businesses employing 500 or less, 97 percent of them, to be 
precise, employing 500 or less.
  This is not a benefit exclusively for big corporations. It applies to 
the small businesses, too, and especially it applies to agriculture, 
which is another big export product out of my home State of Illinois.
  Madam Chairman, while there are minor imperfections in what is man's 
greatest achievement yet in promoting free enterprise and increased 
competition, I feel the future of American workers, consumers, and 
producers will be well served by this worldwide agreement to play by 
fair trade rules, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5110.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman].
  (Mr. LEHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEHMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 5110, 
implementing the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade.
  After World War II, the United States took responsibility for finding 
international structures which promoted American ideals of democracy, 
stability, and free trade. These structures remained strong within the 
constraints of the cold war, but different times require updated 
structures.
  In the transition period away from the cold war, we must look ahead 
and establish the guidelines that will shape our world in the 21st 
century.
  While GATT is not the sole answer to a stable and prosperous 
international community, it does create an atmosphere for a freer flow 
of goods and services between nations. Because the United States is the 
moist productive country on Earth, I have no doubt that we will see 
more sales and more jobs due to increased trade.
  While we stand to benefit greatly in general terms, I am concerned 
about specific American industries, such as wine production, that are 
not getting the best deal possible. The tariff cuts on wine products 
are not reciprocal.
  While the U.S. tariff on imports would be reduced 36 percent under 
GATT, higher European tariffs would be reduced only 15-20 percent. In 
order for GATT to create a level playing field for American products, 
this and other inequities must be resolved.
  Efforts to address concerns with this implementing legislation are 
promising in this regard. It is my understanding that the 
administration has reached a resolution regarding the pioneer's 
preference award. The administration has committed to revisit this 
issue next year if the Government has not received fair value for the 
licenses. I applaud this agreement and those who worked to resolve this 
issue.
  We cannot remain complacent after this implementing legislation is 
approved. We must continue to further reduce tariffs and pursue the 
elimination of nontariff barriers that impede the free flow of American 
products, such as wine. These issues can only be resolved by diligently 
following through on out trade agreements and enforcing the commitments 
of our trading partners in these agreements.
  In these uncertain times, we must establish a global strategy that is 
based in the best American traditions. Madam Chairman, the 21st century 
begins today. We must not fail the collective vision of our 
forefathers--we must continue to lead the nations of the world in the 
pursuit of the great American ideals of hard work and open competition.


                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, November 23, 1994.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: I appreciate the opportunity to respond 
     to your concerns about the so-called ``pioneers' preference 
     provision,'' which is found in Title VIII of the GATT 
     implementing legislation.
       As you know, this provision serves two basic purposes. 
     First, it prevents the pioneers from obtaining the use of 
     radio spectrum for free. Absent the GATT provision there is, 
     in our judgment, an unacceptable risk that the pioneers will 
     succeed in overturning the current FCC Order which, reversing 
     an earlier order, now requires payment from the pioneers. 
     Second, it rewards the innovation produced by the pioneers 
     who, in the judgment of the FCC, have helped to spur the 
     current interest in the provision of Personal Communications 
     Services. Indeed, we are only days away from the beginning of 
     the broadband PCS auction. The PCS auctions, which were 
     proposed by President Clinton and established in the budget 
     reconciliation act of 1993, are expected by OMB to raise 
     $12.6 billion for the federal government.
       Under the GATT provision, the three pioneers will 
     contribute a significant percentage of the total proceeds to 
     be gained from the PCS spectrum. OMB estimates that, over a 
     five-year period, the three pioneers will pay about $1.5 
     billion to the federal treasury.
       We are aware, of course, of competing estimates that have 
     been made by opponents of the GATT agreement and potential 
     competitors of the pioneers. In general, those assertions 
     attempt to compare mature, small markets for established 
     wireless services that possess a significant customer base 
     with the incipient, multistate, demographically-diverse 
     markets for new PCS services. In our judgment, no known 
     alternative estimate establishes a credible basis for 
     analysis.
       Of course, as the Administration has consistently noted, no 
     one can predict with certainty the outcome of the coming PCS 
     auctions and, therefore, it is impossible to be absolutely 
     sure how much the pioneers will pay under the GATT provision 
     or how much that payment might differ from the alternative 
     formula contained in the current FCC Order.
       I can commit to you, therefore, that the Administration 
     will work with Congress next year to do the following:
       1. Compare the price paid by the pioneers to the payments 
     paid by the PCS auction winners;
       2. Determine whether the government received a fair return 
     for the licenses obtained by the pioneers;
       3. If the determination in (2) above is negative, pass 
     legislation that would adequately compensate the United 
     States in accordance with the determination on fair return.
       Congress, of course, could still act on its own. We are 
     sending under separate cover a letter expressing our views 
     with regard to the constitutionality of future legislation on 
     this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Leon E. Panetta,
                                                   Chief of Staff.
                                  ____

                                            General Counsel of the


                                  U.S. Department of Commerce,

                                Washington, DC, November 23, 1994.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: One of the revenue measures included in 
     the GATT implementing legislation would require the Federal 
     Communications Commission to recover for the public a portion 
     of the value of the public spectrum that has been awarded by 
     the Commission to licenses granted under the ``pioneers 
     preference'' program. The legislation requires the pioneers 
     to pay not less than 85 percent on a per population basis, of 
     the highest bids for licenses in the 20 largest markets in 
     which no applicant has obtained preferential treatment (the 3 
     pioneer markets). Assuming enactment of the GATT legislation, 
     we understand that a question has been raised whether 
     Congress could pass subsequent legislation free from 
     constitutional infirmities that re-calculates the fees to be 
     paid by the pioneers. This subsequent legislation would 
     likely occur after the FCC proceeds to issue the licenses to 
     the pioneers and would raise a constitutional question 
     whether such subsequent legislation could be effective on a 
     retroactive basis. We believe that the Congress retains wide 
     discretion to enact retroactive economic legislation to 
     support legitimate legislative purposes and such legislation 
     would be permissible from a legal perspective.
       In a case decided June 13, 1994, the Supreme Court held in 
     United States v. Carlton, 114 S.Ct. 2018 (1994), that due 
     process was not violated by retroactive application of an 
     amendment to a federal estate tax statute limiting 
     availability of a deduction despite evidence that a taxpayer 
     detrimentally relied on the previous provision and had no 
     notice that the provision would be retroactively amended. In 
     the case, the Court noted that the due process standard to be 
     applied to tax statutes with retroactive effect ``is the same 
     as that generally applicable to retroactive economic 
     legislation.'' 114 S.Ct., at 2022. In quoting from its 
     decision in Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R.A. Gray & 
     Co., 104 S.Ct. 2709 (1984), the Court stated:
       ``Provided that the retroactive application of a statue is 
     supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by 
     rational means, judgments about the wisdom of such 
     legislation remain within the exclusive province of the 
     legislative and executive branches.''
       We believe that the Supreme Court's holding in the Carlton 
     case would be controlling if the Congress enacted subsequent 
     legislation with retroactive effect regarding the price paid 
     by the pioneers. There, as here, the subsequent Congressional 
     action would be intended as a ``curative'' measure to correct 
     previous legislation with ``significant and unanticipated'' 
     revenue consequences (Congress had estimated the revenue loss 
     from the deduction in the Carlton case at $300 million over 5 
     years but subsequently discovered the loss could be as much 
     as $7 billion). There, as here, the ``corrective'' 
     legislation would be enacted promptly with only a ``modest 
     period of retroactivity.'' Just as a taxpayer ``has no vested 
     right in the internal Revenue Code.'' no party has a vested 
     right in conveyance of Government spectrum at a discount. See 
     114 S.Ct., at 2023. In addition, two factors which the 
     appellate court found troubling in that case, a lack of 
     notice and detrimental reliance, would not be present 
     provided the Congress included floor statements in the 
     Congressional Record noting the possibility of subsequent 
     legislation relating to the fee question.
       For these reasons, we believe that Congress could, if it 
     wished, enact subsequent legislation with retroactive effect 
     regarding the assessment of fees to be paid by the pioneers.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Ginger Lew.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 24, 1994]

                          A Good Deal on Trade

       President Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole have struck a deal on 
     the trade bill that's a credit to both of them. When Mr. 
     Clinton inherited the world trade negotiations begun by 
     President Reagan and continued by President Bush, he turned 
     away from the protectionists in his own party and, a year 
     ago, pushed those negotiations to a conclusion that will 
     serve the United States well. The bill embodies that 
     agreement. Mr. Dole has now secured the administration's 
     assurances on several points that worried him and is throwing 
     his very substantial weight behind the bill.
       To judge the value of the trade bill to this country, keep 
     in mind that it triggers a worldwide agreement that mainly 
     benefits exporters, and the United States is the world's 
     biggest exporter. This country is one of many, rich and poor 
     alike, that are counting on increased exports to raise their 
     peoples' standards of living.
       Much of the debate has been revolving around the 
     (erroneous) claim that the trade agreement will diminish 
     American sovereignty. That claim has been argued in almost 
     exactly the same terms that an earlier generation of 
     isolationists, almost half a century ago, warned that joining 
     the United Nations would diminish American sovereignty. In 
     the present case, the president and Mr. Dole have agreed to 
     set up a commission of American judges to monitor the new 
     World Trade Organization's system of settling disputes. If 
     the WTO dispute panels exceed their legal authority, as the 
     opponents say they fear, the monitors will blow their whistle 
     and, if it happens three times in five years, any member of 
     Congress can introduce legislation to pull the United States 
     out of the organization. Fair enough. That's pretty unlikely.
       Another point in the administration's deal with Mr. Dole 
     affects this newspaper directly. To raise revenue, a 
     provision was put into the trade bill affecting the price of 
     a broadcasting license in which The Washington Post Co. has 
     an interest. The administration has agreed to review the 
     price and, if it's unfairly low as some competitors charge, 
     to support legislation raising it. That price has already 
     been raised hugely but, again, fair enough. As we have said 
     before, we supported this bill long before the license 
     provision was stuck into it, and we continue to support it 
     regardless of the outcome of this issue.
       Mr. Dole wisely dropped his attempt to link his support for 
     the trade bill with administration backing for a capital 
     gains tax. On that one, the administration simply said, 
     correctly, that the two issues are unrelated
       When Congress votes next week on this bill, its decision 
     will reach well beyond trade and economics. As the debate has 
     developed in recent weeks, it has swung back to that old 
     American question, whether to pursue national 
     responsibilities throughout the world or to retreat within 
     the borders of the United States. A vote for this bill will 
     be a vote for active international leadership by this 
     country, and not in trade alone. This deal between Mr. 
     Clinton and Mr. Dole greatly improves the prospect for 
     passage. As Mr. Dole said, ``There should be a big, big 
     vote--not a narrow vote, but a big margin, a bipartisan 
     margin as we've always had when it came to votes on trade.''

  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
  (Mr. KANJORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Madam Chairman, I wish I could say that we were 
considering other legislation or complimentary legislation with trade 
agreement. But unfortunately, I cannot. We have been called back into 
special session for the sole purposes of considering GATT.
  I would like to identify myself as a fair-trader, and potentially a 
free-trader; but to be forced into a situation to have to vote yes or 
no on an extended trade agreement such as this without considering a 
complimentary package on job creation and job retraining is 
disappointing.
  I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on GATT; not 
because I am against trade, not because I am against multinational 
corporations, not because I am against the fact that this will open 
some markets to American goods and services that are now closed, but 
because I think enacting this agreement today this is putting the cart 
before the horse.
  Madam Chairman, I think that this Congress and this administration 
should be addressing a much more fundamental issue than this trade 
agreement. We should be considering what the economic implications of 
this agreement are to the 50th percentile of our population and below 
of the work force who have seen their real incomes decline over the 
last 20 years. We have heard arguments here today that this is going to 
open up markets and, therefore, create jobs and create economic 
activity. Maybe it will.
  If it does, maybe someone could answer this question for me: Why is 
the Federal Reserve every month or 3 months raising interest rates? 
Because our productive capacity in the United States is already at 
almost maximum level. So if we create more economic activity as a 
result of this act, we can be certain it will result in higher interest 
rates as the Federal Reserve to uses monetary policy to contain 
inflation in this country.
  Instead, we should be talking about creating more venture-capital 
investment in this country. We should be talking about having the 
beneficiaries of this policy contribute to a fund that would retrain 
and reeducate the displaced and dislocated workers who will lose their 
jobs as a result of GATT.
  Madam Chairman, if we do not address these very real problems that 
face American workers we could be considered mean-spirited. That does 
not benefit any particular philosophy or party. This Congress has to 
act to right an injustice when an opportunity comes along. Now is the 
time to do so as we consider the trade question today.
  But, you know, we have just had an election, and if I listened to my 
Republican colleagues who won control of the Congress, they are telling 
me that they are about to undertake the most significant and major 
revolution of economic policy this Government will ever undertake; that 
they will have 2 years and out on welfare, without creating any new 
jobs; that they do not intend to have universal health care for those 
people who are uncovered now, or who lose their jobs and their health 
insurance as a result of GATT.

                              {time}  1610

  There is no plan or program out there to create opportunity for those 
people who would like to join the economic workforce of America. Yet we 
will create greater opportunities for multinational corporations to 
expand their economic activity around the world.
  Madam Chairman, I made a study in my district, northeastern 
Pennsylvania, and I went to some of my small- and medium-sized 
businesses. I asked them, ``What are the implications of GATT?'' In two 
out of three instances they found it would result in increased 
manufacturing overseas. They are literally packaging factories that 
will be moved overseas to take advantage of the low-wage rate and the 
lack of environmental protection and labor safeguards which exist in 
the United States but do not exist overseas. What have we done in the 
legislation to close this loophole? Nothing. What process have we 
established to attack what inevitably will happen to American workers 
and small businesses if this legislation is passed? Nothing.
  What is the prospect of the 104th Congress closing this loophole? 
Zero. If you listen to the Republican leadership and its Contract on 
America, it is laissez faire and nongovernmental involvement. In other 
words, do not even put lifejackets on the ship. When the ship starts 
going down and the crew members are in the water, they will have to 
swim for their survival or drown.
  That is where America is headed.
  I urge my colleagues not to support GATT until we support something 
that is much more fundamentally fair for American workers and which 
creates replacement jobs for those who will lose their jobs when GATT 
takes effect. For too many northeastern Pennsylvanians, GATT does not 
offer the prospect of a good-paying, new job. Instead, it only offers 
them a pink slip or a minimum wage job.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania who just spoke. This is a great example, ladies and 
gentlemen, of how people like to tap into the vein of emotion in this 
town, talking about the sinking of a ship. Instead you should sit back 
and apply your intellect. Decisions of statecraft should not be based 
upon the emotion of the moment and stirring the emotions of people, let 
alone this body.
  I am going to support GATT. That decision I have made was based upon 
intellect.
  There are concerns that I had, two of which I want to mention. One is 
relative to the World Trade Organization. I was concerned whether or 
not the United States could move unilaterally against their own or have 
moved against an allied nation. No different than the United States, 
with our economic embargo on the apartheid situation in South Africa or 
when Jimmy Carter did the grain embargo against Russia when they 
invaded Afghanistan.
  My research has indicated that in an article in the Agreement on 
Government Procurement in GATT, it does provide for the national 
security interests of this country.
  So I would like to quote, ``Nothing in this agreement shall be 
construed to prevent any party from taking any action for the 
protection of its essential security interests or the procurement of 
arms, munitions, and other forms of materials.''
  The other concern I have was regarding the antidumping and 
countervailing duty laws. The question is will the competitive U.S. 
industries be able to use these laws to offset effectively the injury 
or unfair advantage that comes from a less competitive foreign 
producer, due to the lack of laws, whether environmental or what, in 
other countries?
  What I have learned is under this new agreement, with respect to the 
antidumping, that the United States retains its ability to take actions 
against unfair dumping practices while U.S. exporters are assured the 
fair application of the antidumping or antiduty laws of this country.
  As I stand here, if in fact these two measures change in any way, I 
am glad there is a measure whereby which 100 Members of this body can 
move forward to change this agreement, and I would join.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Tennessee [Mrs. Lloyd].
  (Mrs. LLOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LLOYD. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. 
This landmark agreement provides a historic opportunity for the 
Congress to ensure the economic well being of our future generations in 
a global economy.
  The benefits of GATT are significant--a $744 billion cut in global 
trade taxes over the next 10 years and greater access to a wider range 
of lower priced, higher quality goods and services for consumers.
  Most importantly, expanded trade means jobs--1.4 million more high 
wage American jobs. In the year since the Congress passed NAFTA, 
Tennessee has seen its exports skyrocket and unemployment is at an all 
time low, GATT will create more jobs.
  Madam Chairman, this is the last vote I will cast as the Third 
District of Tennessee's representative in Congress. It is not a 
responsibility I take lightly and I could not in good conscience vote 
for an agreement which could jeopardize the future of our children and 
grandchildren.
  The facts speak for themselves. GATT is good for the American economy 
and it is good for Tennessee. I take pride in my final vote--a vote for 
GATT and a vote for the future of Tennessee.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland], a very fine member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. HOAGLAND. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Chairman, I grew up in Omaha at a time when we had two major 
industries: the railroads, and the packing plants. Both employed 
thousands. Our economy was heavily dependent upon them. Mutual of Omaha 
was just beginning; Con Agra did not exist; Norwest bank had not opened 
an account.
  Now the packing plants have decentralized and moved to the animals 
around the State, and the Omaha stockyards have virtually vanished. Now 
our mile-long trains carrying coal, or empty coal cars, rush through 
Omaha at 60 miles an hour. Or they move automobiles from Detroit to 
Mexico. They require little local labor.
  We have seen dramatic changes in our economy. I assume the same is 
true in most congressional districts across the country.
  Now Omaha is the center for insurance, financial services, 
information processing, and telemarketing. All global in scale. Omaha 
has truly become part of the world economy in a way no one could have 
forecast when I was a child.
  And 50 years from now, no one knows what industries will be dominant 
in Omaha, or in any congressional district for that matter.
  The GATT agreement covers many of these new Omaha industries. It 
covers agriculture for the first time, and it dramatically reduces 
trade barriers imposed on Nebraska by foreign countries.
  Did we get everything we wanted? Of course not. But we opened the 
barn door a mile wide, and future negotiations can open it many more 
miles, whether it is for the industries of today, or the industries of 
tomorrow.
  The GATT Agreement sets up a rule-based world trading system with 
built-in flexibility. It is future-oriented, particularly in areas 
where the United States is strong. Its outlook is even stronger in 
areas important to Omaha, such as information processing, efficient 
agriculture, and some financial services.
  Ratification of GATT is important to Nebraska and important to 
America.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my wonderful and 
distinguished friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pickle], a longtime 
distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Madam 
Chairman, he is a tiger.
  Mr. PICKLE. Madam Chairman, has the gentleman concluded?
  Mr. GIBBONS. I really have not. I want the whole wide world to know 
what a wonderful job the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pickle] has done 
here. I really commend him for having picked this time to retire. He 
could have stayed on for years and years, but he surely did choose the 
right time.
  Mr. PICKLE. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, 
and I thank him for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this GATT bill. It is 
unthinkable that we would not pass it.
  I speak particularly at this moment in behalf of the pension reform 
section in title 7 of this bill.
  Nobody seems to say anything about the Retirement Protection Act 
included in the GATT bill. It is one of the best kept secrets of the 
Congress. But this pension reform bill brings in over $900 million to 
help offset the tax cuts in GATT and restores the financial Solvency of 
the pension program. It is terribly important.
  Let me simply review for you that we have a problem because we have 
over $53 billion of unfunded liabilities in the private pension 
program. Now, that is unacceptable. We must do something about it.
  The administration recommended some changes, and this bill is 
supported now by a wide range of individuals and groups. It is 
supported by the AFL-CIO, and the steel workers; and by industry, 
groups such as FRIC, and APPWP. It is supported by Secretary of Labor 
Robert Roger Reich, Secretary of Treasury Lloyd Bentsen, and by the 
Clinton administraion.
  So, it has wide support, and it should be in this GATT bill because 
it corrects a serious problem.
  I want to pay my special respects to my friend, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Houghton] whose wise business experience has enabled him 
to give us 100 percent support on this bill on both the Democrat and 
Republican side.
  Now, Madam Chairman, I conclude by saying this:
  This is a good bill. It is the best pension reform bill we have ever 
passed in Congress since the creation of ERISA. It is terribly 
important for the country. However, Madam Chairman, I say to my 
colleagues, you Members ought not to think this has settled all the 
problems we have in the pension system. You have a lot more to do. We 
have provided a very generous transition rule to certain industries; in 
some cases, certain automobile and certain tire companies, they got 
more than even they were entitled to. But we had to accept that we 
couldn't put everything in this bill. On balance this is a very 
notable, worthwhile bill. It goes a long way toward correcting the 
weaknesses of our pension program, and I would hope that people will 
pay attention to the importance of this bill because it is very 
important for American workers.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5110, implementing 
the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs [GATT].
  While this GATT legislation has many merits, I am particularly 
pleased to call the attention of my colleagues to the important pension 
reforms included in the bill. These reforms address the serious problem 
of pension underfunding in our private defined-benefit pension system. 
I would remind my colleagues that private pension plans had unfunded 
liabilities of $53 billion at the end of 1992. The Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation [PBGC], an agency of the U.S. Government, is 
potentially liable for this full amount, and expects to pay actual 
claims of about $13 billion. The PBGC has already absorbed large losses 
and, as of last year, had a deficit of $2.9 billion. All of these 
indicators have steadily worsened in recent years, underlining the 
serious problems we face in our defined-benefit pension system.
  The reforms contained in the GATT legislation before us address these 
problems. They are the result of over 3 years of effort by the Bush and 
Clinton administrations. These pension reforms are supported by the 
AFLCIO, the UAW, and the United Steelworkers of America. They are 
supported by the ERISA Industry Committee, the Association of Private 
Pension and Welfare Plans, and the Financial Executives Institute. They 
have the strong support of Secretary Robert Reich and Secretary Lloyd 
Bentsen. And they have broad bipartisan support in the Congress on both 
the labor and the tax committees. Without this broad support they could 
never have been made a part of GATT. In this regard, I particularly 
want to express my personal thanks to the Honorable Amo Houghton, whose 
extensive business background and tireless efforts on this issue have 
been essential to the development of these pension reforms.
  The three main elements of these reforms are: stronger and faster 
minimum funding rules--for example, significantly accelerated funding 
schedules for pension plans that are less than 60 percent funded, and a 
requirement that plans use established interest and mortality rate 
assumptions when estimating their liabilities; increased PBGC premiums 
based on the higher risks posed by significantly underfunded pension 
plans--by phasing out over 3 years the current $53 per participant 
premium cap; and, improved financial disclosure to the PBGC and plan 
participants by the sponsors of underfunded pension plans--for example, 
requiring most employers whose plans are less than 90 percent funded, 
to send participants a plain English explanation of the plan's funded 
status and the limits of PBGC's benefit guarantees. These reforms will 
improve the funding of currently underfunded plans in a balanced and 
affordable way. Finally, and I want to emphasize this point, companies 
with well-funded plans will not be asked to pay more. These companies, 
some 80 percent or more of all plan sponsors, will benefit from these 
reforms, because they and their employees will have greater confidence 
in a stronger pension system and pension insurance program.

  In conclusion, I note that I would have personally preferred to make 
these reforms much stronger, and I caution my colleagues that they 
should not expect these reforms to immediately solve all the problems 
caused by underfunded pension plans. In order to overcome strenuous 
objections by certain automobile, steel, and airline companies we have 
included very generous transition rules for companies which have 
maintained chronically underfunded pension plans. These transition 
rules will delay the full impact of the pension reforms by another 5 to 
7 years. I deeply regret that we have given another reprieve to 
companies who have shirked their pension obligations for the 20 years 
since the passage of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 [ERISA]. In my opinion this is reprehensible. However, I want to 
be clear, that even with these compromises, the pension provisions 
included in GATT represent a worthy package of reforms. Despite the 
compromises, this is still the best pension reform bill since the 
passage of ERISA. I would strongly urge all Members to support it. By 
enacting these pension reforms now, before this situation has become a 
crisis, we will have avoided another S&L-type of debacle. Now is the 
time for reasonable and responsible action to better protect the 
pensions of America's workers. I urge your support.
  Madam Chairman, I would also take this opportunity to recognize the 
many staff people whose efforts have contributed to the success of 
these reforms.
  In the administration, the staff of the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation has provided invaluable assistance over the last year as we 
have considered the Retirement Protection Act. In particular, Martin 
Slate, PBGC's Executive Director; Judy Schub, Assistant Executive 
Director for Legislative Affairs; Nell Hennessy, Chief Negotiator for 
the PBGC; William Posner, PBGC's Chief Operating Officer; Stuart 
Sirkin, head of the Corporate Planning and Research Department; Carol 
Connor Flowe, PBGC's General Counsel; and their staffs, most notably, 
William Beyer, Terrence Deneen, Russlyn Guritz, Richard Ippolito, 
William James, Leslie Kramerich, Linda Mizzi, Michael Rae, Gail Sevin, 
and Gretchen Young are all to be commended for their tireless efforts 
over the last year and a half.
  Given the complexity of the funding rules in the legislation, special 
note should be made of the actuaries without whose advice and consent 
testing of alternative proposals the legislation could not have been 
crafted: From the PBGC, C. David Gustafson, Jane Pacelli, Eric Palley, 
Gary Gilliam, John Langhans, Ruth Williams; from the Treasury 
Department, Harlan Weller; and from the IRS, James Holland.
  From the Treasury Department, we also received expert assistance from 
Lesley Samuels, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Randolf Hardock, 
Benefits Tax Counsel, and Mark Iwry, Deputy Benefits Tax Counsel.
  I want to compliment the efforts of the staff of the Congressional 
Budget Office including Marvin Phaup, Ron Feldman and Wayne Boyington. 
I wish to thank those at the General Accounting Office, including 
Joseph Delfico, Bob Hughes, Don Snyder and John Woods. I also thank the 
staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, including Carolyn Smith, Pat 
Anglin, and Judy Xanthopoulos. And finally, I want to thank the staff 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, including Janice Mays, Don Longano, 
Beth Vance, Mildred Worrell, Susan Athy, Paul Auster, Mike Superata, 
and Joseph Grant. The efforts of these dedicated professionals 
contributed significantly to the success of this effort.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
5110, a bill to implement the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
[GATT]. There is no doubt, even by many of the agreement's critics, 
that GATT will greatly benefit the U.S. economy. For one, GATT 
dismantles many trade barriers worldwide, which disproportionally 
benefits the United States, whose trade barriers are already the 
world's lowest.
  Second, the GATT will expedite the arbitration of trade disputes, 
which will benefit the world's most frequent complainant: the United 
States. Quite simply, GATT will level the playing field for American 
companies, who must often face unfair and oppressive trade barriers in 
other countries while their foreign competitors enjoy practically no 
import restrictions here in the United States.
  By lowering foreign trade barriers, and thus facilitating more U.S. 
exports abroad, more jobs will be created here at home.
  But many fear that the World Trade Organization [WTO] will compromise 
U.S. sovereignty in several ways. For one, they feel that American 
domestic law will be threatened by WTO dispute settlement panel 
decisions.
  Second, they also fear that the WTO would allow the majority of the 
world to impose decisions contrary to American interests. I refused to 
take a position on this agreement until I adequately satisfied my own 
concerns about these issues.
  I have concluded that there are plenty of safeguards in H.R. 5110 and 
in the GATT agreement itself to protect U.S. sovereignty.
  The GATT agreement specifically provides that future amendments can 
become binding only on WTO members who accept them. If the WTO ruled 
against the United States in a dispute settlement, the United States 
would not be required to change any laws whatsoever, but must simply 
accept an equal trade retaliation. In addition, H.R. 5110, in section 
102(a)(1) specifically states that ``No provision of any of the Uruguay 
Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any 
person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United 
States shall have effect.''
  If that were not enough, Senator Dole recently won an agreement with 
the Clinton administration to add language to H.R. 5110 that would 
allow Congress to vote to withdraw the United States from GATT if the 
United States found itself on the losing side of three WTO decisions in 
a 45-year period and a review panel of Federal judges found that U.S. 
rights under these WTO ruling had been violated. Additional language 
added by Representative Newt Gingrich requires that all WTO decisions 
and meetings be publicly disclosed.
  With regard to the fear that unfriendly nations could gang up on the 
United States, the GATT agreement codifies the custom of operating by 
consensus. Thus, the United States will continue to exercise an 
effective veto as it has for decades. Besides, since America is still 
the world's largest economy and trader, the reality remains is that it 
is not in the economic interests of small nations to attempt to cross 
the United States.
  Madam Chairman, with the assurances defending U.S. sovereignty, I ask 
my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5110.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I simply want to take this time to urge 
every Member of the House to vote against this proposal. And I really 
have to say that I think that the selling job that has been done on 
GATT is one of the most elitist snow jobs I have ever seen in my life. 
I think there is a tremendous attitude of condescension toward those 
Members of this House who opposed the basic idea of GATT, and I want to 
say that I think, despite that condescension, supporters of GATT need 
to recognize that Congress ought to say no to GATT because it will make 
the welfare problem bigger when we ought to be making it smaller.
  GATT in my view suits the need of multinational corporations who can 
produce goods cheaply abroad using third world labor, but it will drive 
lower paid American workers onto the welfare rolls with higher social 
costs and higher costs to the U.S. taxpayer.
  Economists have a way of looking at issues only through an economic 
prism. We should obviously look at issues through an economic prism, 
but that should not be the only glass through which we view what 
happens to Americans. There are also social consequences from economic 
decisions, and, Madam Chairman, I say to my colleagues, ``If you do not 
make other policy decisions in Government that will mitigate those 
social consequences, it can wind up doing immense social damage to your 
country in the pursuit of economic theory,'' and that is what I think 
GATT will do.
  I also think, and I know it is not fashionable to say so because any 
time that anybody mentions farmers on this floor they are somehow being 
parochial, but the fact is that GATT will drive a stake through the 
heart of the U.S. dairy farmers. With respect to the dairy industry, 
Madam Chairman, I would simply ask one question: Why should this 
Congress support a proposition which will retain for European dairy 
farmers a 20-to-1 advantage in their ability to subsidize exports of 
dairy products? I see absolutely no reason, no good public policy 
reason, why we ought to do that. It does not level the playing field in 
that area, and I think that is another good reason to oppose it.
  Someone said once, ``If you take every economist in the country and 
laid them end to end, that would probably be a good thing.'' Now I 
suspect that in discussing this issue it would be good for all of us to 
remember that. I make that remark only facetiously because I have a 
good deal of respect for people in the economic profession, but I do 
think they have an obligation to understand that the economic choices 
which they are urging upon us today have social consequences that go 
far beyond the reach of the models that they use to determine cost 
versus benefit. The fact is this is going to make matters worse for 
many American workers, and I see nothing on the horizon that indicates 
that this Government will do absolutely anything at all to deal with 
the consequences of those changes.
  Under those circumstances, Madam Chairman, I think that GATT ought to 
be voted down.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I will use just a little time myself to say I really 
fear for the dairy farmer, but, when we tariffy the quota system that 
is now in existence, the new out-of-quota tariff on dairy products will 
be 130 percent, and I really think that is a sufficient amount of 
protection for this industry, 130 percent.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington 
[Ms. Cantwell].
  (Ms. CANTWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam Chairman, the GATT we are voting on today means 
growth for American trade and technology. Current GATT rules no longer 
protect the fundamental economic interests of our country. The rules 
were established 50 years ago. Television was still a novelty, personal 
computers were science fiction, and fax machines were only a fantasy. 
Many of the leading industries of Washington State, producers of 
software and biotechnology, did not even exist 50 years ago, and today 
they are the economic engine creating jobs in our State and throughout 
this country.
  That is why this agreement is so important, because it protects 
intellectual property rights for the first time. As an example, 
software programs will be given copyright protection for 50 years. The 
current GATT rules offer no such protection. The result is that for 
every U.S. dollar of U.S. software that is sold, almost another whole 
dollar is lost to foreign piracy. As the undisputed world leader in 
software, the United States cannot allow this to continue.
  The new GATT agreement will allow us to protect and advance these new 
sectors. This is an agreement and opportunity that America cannot 
afford to pass up, unless we want the rest of the world to pass us by.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I would like to address a relatively 
small but very important issue in the GATT implementing legislation: 
The issue of Chinese, Hong Kong, and Macau textile quotas. This issue 
relates to GATT because under the Uruguay round agreement, the world 
textile quota system, known as the multifiber arrangement, will be 
phased out by 2005. Until 2005, however, a quota system will remain in 
effect; and Chinese quotas could last even longer than 2005 if China by 
then has not joined the World Trade Organization. This also relates to 
GATT because the implementing legislation restates the rule of origin 
for textile and apparel imports.
  The question has been raised: Will the United States allow China to 
use the textile quotas we now allow Hong Kong and Macau once those two 
territories return to China? Not only would this be a mistake, but it 
would contradict the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992. Were 
the United States to combine these quotas, we would permit China to 
increase substantially its already enormous exports of textile and 
apparel goods to our country. China is now exporting to the United 
States some $7.5 billion annually in textile and apparel products. And 
that $7.5 billion in exports does not include some $2 billion in 
illegal textile imports which the Chinese move across our borders every 
year in blatant disregard of the rules of trade.
  Congress included in the GATT implementing legislation a strict rule 
of origin designed to prevent China from exploiting Hong Kong's textile 
quotas. Since this legislation seeks to prevent China from using 
indirectly the quotas now allowed Hong Kong, it would clearly violate 
the intent of this legislation if our Government were to allow China to 
appropriate to itself the Hong Kong and Macao quotas.
  On October 4, 1994, I wrote Ambassador Kantor a letter to confirm my 
understanding that the United States will refuse to merge the Hong Kong 
and Macau textile quotas with China's quotas. Ambassador Kantor 
responded on November 4, 1994, and confirmed that our Government will 
maintain separate quotas. For the record, I would like to include my 
letter along with Ambassador Kantor's reply.
  In his letter, Ambassador Kantor states, ``the United States will 
continue to maintain and administer separate quantitative arrangements 
governing imports of textiles and apparel from Hong Kong and China as 
under applicable international agreements.'' He also explains that 
``the same treatment will apply to the territory of Macau'' since Macau 
will be returning to China in 1999. Ambassador Kantor cited the United 
States-Hong Kong Policy Act, which specifically states that the United 
States will ``continue to treat Hong Kong as a separate territory in 
economic and trade matters, such as import quotas and certificates of 
origin.'' In addition, the agreements providing for the return of Hong 
Kong and Macau to China stipulate that both will remain separate 
customs territories for 50 years.
  I am grateful for Ambassador Kantor's direct response to my letter, 
and I submit his response so that it will be part of the legislative 
record.

                                    The U.S. Trade Representative,


                            Executive Office of the President,

                                 Washington, DC, November 4, 1994.
     Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr.,
     Chairman, Congressional Textile Caucus,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Spratt: Thank you for your letter of 
     October 4, concerning the status of Hong Kong and China 
     textile quotas after Hong Kong's return to China in 1997.
       As we discussed, in light of the agreement between the 
     United Kingdom, Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China 
     concerning the return of the territory of Hong Kong to China 
     in 1997, and the statement contained in that agreement that 
     Hong Kong will remain an independent Customs territory for 50 
     years following 1997, the United States will continue to 
     maintain and administer separate quantitative arrangements 
     governing imports of textiles and apparel from Hong Kong and 
     China as under applicable international agreements.
       The Congress made this very clear when it passed the United 
     States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992. That act specifically 
     states, in Section 103, that ``that United States should seek 
     to maintain and expand economic and trade relations with Hong 
     Kong and should continue to treat Hong Kong as a separate 
     territory in economic and trade matters, such as import 
     quotas and certificates of origin.''
       The same treatment will apply to the territory of Macau, in 
     light of the agreement between Portugal, Macau and the 
     People's Republic of China concerning the return of the 
     territory of Macau to China in 1999. Under the devolution 
     agreements, economic matters will be handled by Hong Kong and 
     Macau as separate Customs territories and textile quotas for 
     Macau and Hong Kong will remain separate from quotas with 
     China.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Michael Kantor.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                 Congressional Textile Caucus,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 1994.
     Hon. Michael Kantor,
     U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ambassador Kantor: I am writing to solicit our 
     government's position on the status of the China and Hong 
     Kong textile quotas after 1997 when Hong Kong reverts to 
     China. In particular, I would like to posit the following two 
     questions:
       1. Is it true that the United States will not change its 
     treatment of Hong Kong's textile quota after 1997? In other 
     words, will the United States still treat Hong Kong as a 
     separate entity and apply various import rules, including our 
     new rule of origin, as though Hong Kong were still separate 
     from China? (I understand that this approach is fully 
     consistent with British-Chinese agreements governing the 
     reversion.)
       2. Assuming the answer to the first question is yes, do 
     Hong Kong and China understand and accept this U.S. policy? 
     Or is this merely the U.S. interpretation of international 
     law?
       I am told that USTR has informed industry representatives 
     that the answer to at least the first question is yes and I 
     am writing to confirm that understanding. Several members of 
     the Textile Caucus are still undecided on the GATT and your 
     response will be important to them in deciding whether to 
     support the agreement. Since the vote is approaching very 
     soon, I look forward to your response as quickly as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                              John M. Spratt, Jr.,
                                               Member of Congress.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  (Mr. WISE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WISE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the GATT enabling 
legislation. I have reviewed it as carefully as I possibly can since it 
has such large stakes for my State of West Virginia. We exported 754 
million dollars worth of goods last year, especially in chemicals, but 
also in many other products as well, so I look at foreign trade very 
importantly.
  I see several major concerns. First of all is the budget 
implications. While the House has dealt with the first 5 years of lost 
tariff revenue, yet there are several more years that have not been 
dealt with. It could be as much as $30 billion. I have got to be 
consistent in asking that revenues lost be offset somehow in order to 
reduce the deficit.
  Second is worker protection. There are no clauses in here that deal 
with child labor abuses, that deal with unfair labor practices, those 
practices that make our workers compete unfairly against other nations 
and which we cannot challenge. So I have great concern over that. Yes, 
we can challenge prison labor, but not other labor conditions, at least 
not in a satisfactory manner.
  Third is the World Trade Organization. It needs to be nailed down. I 
understand some of the concessions that have been made. This Government 
can withdraw on 6 months' notice, the Congress can review every 5 
years. But yet there are too many unanswered questions, and indeed the 
most serious question is indeed whether this is a treaty implication 
which requires two-thirds vote of the Senate and not just 50 percent.
  Finally, there are numerous questions still needing to be answered. A 
22,000-page agreement, great implications for our workers. So I ask 
that this process not move forward today. Yes, we are all in favor of a 
fair General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, and we are in favor of 
expanded world trade, but we want to make sure it is done right, and it 
can only be done right with more deliberation, more review, more input 
from all concerned, and more protection from our workers, who are the 
ones that must be asked to accept this agreement, to work under it and 
make sure that it treats them fairly.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the distinguished 
future chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Trade and 
Environment for yielding me this time. I would like to rise in very 
strong support of this legislation.
  Madam Chairman, when we think about the issue of international trade, 
it is often a very controversial one and the GATT has been 
controversial. But if you look at what has taken place with 
implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, it has 
clearly been a win-win. We have seen benefits for Canada, the United 
States, and Mexico.
  There are 124 nations involved in the Uruguay round of the GATT. It 
is called the Uruguay round, but quite frankly, Madam Chairman, it 
should be called the American round. Why? Because the United States of 
America is the key beneficiary.
  We regularly hear that Members support free trade, but they want fair 
trade. That is exactly what the Uruguay round of GATT creates. It 
creates a level of fairness so that 124 countries involved in this 7-
year negotiating process will be treated the same way as the United 
States. They will be playing by our rules. Ninety-six percent of the 
consumers in the world are outside of the United States of America.
  Free trade is a principle which we have learned about from the 
failure of Smoot-Hawley, which the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] 
regularly likes to point to. This is a strong principle. As we prepare 
to honor the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Bob Michel, upon his 
retirement, I am reminded of that little red book that was handed out 
at the Bradley University dinner which honored him with the book of 
quotations from Leader Bob. In it he said in a speech in 1987 that we 
should never compromise our principle. But in a Democratic society, we 
must compromise for principle.
  I am not going to stand here and argue that every aspect of the GATT 
is absolutely perfect. But it is a principle which we stand for and we 
have worked for 7 long years. And our producers and consumers will be 
the winners. This is a smart vote for us to have in a bipartisan way as 
we lay the groundwork for the 104th Congress, where we will be today 
doing what we will be doing in the first 100 days of 1995: Cutting 
taxes, reducing the burden imposed on American workers and consumers 
with high tariff barriers, and creating private sector jobs.

                              {time}  1640

  That is what we are going to be pursuing in 1995. That is what we can 
begin doing right here today, by supporting this very important 
legislation.
  I thank my friend for yielding time to me.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the proposed 
Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
  I come from an area in southwestern Pennsylvania where during the 
last two decades these kinds of policies have caused us to lose, in 13 
counties, 155,000 manufacturing jobs. I do not take this very lightly.
  We were told by the same proponents of this legislation, as we stood 
here late last year, how wonderful NAFTA is going to be. Let me tell 
the Members something about NAFTA. We are currently fighting in 
Pennsylvania to hold on to, again, hundreds and thousands of jobs. In 
fact, in this entire Nation it is the State of Pennsylvania that leads 
the country in NAFTA trade adjustment assistance applications.We were 
told how wonderful this was going to be, and in fact that by the end of 
this year 30,000 cars would be exported to Mexico. What they did not 
tell us is that 10 times that number, 300,000 cars, are being sent, by 
American automobile manufacturers who have moved to Mexico, back across 
the border and are being sold here in the United States, and that the 
displaced workers in places like Flint, MI, in the northern Ohio area, 
there is no condolence for them in all of this.
  I do not understand why we are here in this lame duck session of 
Congress, anyhow, debating this, because during the NAFTA debate at 
least we had a debate. At least we had hearings.
  I happen to be on the Small Business Committee, the Committee on 
Education and Labor, and the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
Affairs. We held days of hearings, in fact, if you add it up, weeks of 
hearings on the NAFTA agreement, which of course involved only three 
countries: Mexico, the United States and Canada.
  We now have an agreement that involves 124 countries, yet why no 
hearings in any of these committees? Why will this agreement not stand 
up to the light of day? Why is this a stealth bit of legislation, that 
we cannot have a full hearing in all of these committees?
  I question whether or not many of my colleagues have had the 
opportunity, while we have been taking on health care, welfare reform, 
all of the educational agenda that we have done during the past 2 
years, budget discussions, that they had time to read the 22,000 pages 
of text that this agreement makes up.
  Let me read some of it to the Members now. article 8 of this 
agreement says that the WTO, the World Trade Organization that is being 
created, this United Nations of trade that will usurp our laws, ``* * * 
will have legal personality and shall be accorded by each of its 
members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the 
exercise of its function.''
  The United States will have the same vote as will Luxembourg, St. 
Kitt, all of those other large world powers. There is no weighted vote. 
There is no veto power, as there is in the United Nations, and yet we 
know that many of these nations, 80-some percent of them which are 
Third World developing countries, will be able to come together and to 
come against the United States as they have so often in the United 
Nations, but the good thing about the United Nations is we have a veto 
power. We have a weighted vote.
  Mr. Chairman, under the WTO, the Congress of this United States 
agrees to change the U.S. laws to meet our WTO obligations. Again, I 
will go directly to the agreement.
  In article 16 it says ``Each member,'' the United States being a 
member, ``shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations, and 
administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the 
annexed agreements.''
  That means if we have restrictions on hormones like the bovine growth 
hormone in milk and beef, if we have restrictions on food additives 
that have been proven to cause cancer, or a restriction on food 
labeling, or the ban on dangerous pesticides like DDT, or if we have 
child labor laws, if they are in the least trade restrictive, then 
under the WTO sanctions can be sought against our country and we will 
have to change our laws or we will have to serve or pay those 
sanctions.
  I do not think Congress can come here in a lame duck session, in 4 
hours of debate, and take a hard look at these 22,000 pages that affect 
what the WTO is going to do. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Wise] was correct, there are some areas here that we have been given 
some movement, but they are not nearly enough.
  We need to have hearings, we need to be what the people of this 
country elected us to be, and that is deliberative. Let us go back and 
take a look at this agreement. Let the committee process and the 
subcommittee process shed light on this agreement.
  Why is there a hurry? It is because the large multinational 
corporations want this agreement.
  I come from an area, Madam Chairman, where we used to make steel, 
near Pittsburgh, PA. This agreement, if this goes through, our textile 
industry is gone. Even in Pittsburgh, though we do not have a textile 
industry, we are concerned and worried about that.
  Again, I urge the Members to vote no. We have time to be not against 
the trade agreement as protectionist, but to say let us not give away 
the farm. Let us not have the WTO.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Every now and then we just have to get this debate back on track. I 
am glad the gentleman read so much of this big thick book here, but 
what we are legislating on is 443 pages of law. On the third or fourth 
page of this legislation, section 102 specifies that no American law 
can be changed unless the Congress changes it. I do not know of any law 
we are going to change just because somebody says we have to change our 
laws. The Congress is a pretty independent place.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, as one who opposed NAFTA, I believe GATT 
and NAFTA are substantially different agreements.
  Key differences include:
  Creation of a special trading relationship which favored one 
developing country [NAFTA] versus an evolutionary step toward reducing 
barriers in a world trading system [GATT];
  Eliminating all tariffs [NAFTA] versus keeping some tariffs in 
sensitive sectors [GATT];
  Promoting exports to a small neighbor [NAFTA] versus exports to the 
world's largest markets--Europe and Japan--on terms that favor U.S. 
markets [GATT];
  No change in U.S. unfair trade laws [NAFTA] versus strengthening 
those laws [GATT];
  Weak enforcement [NAFTA] versus more effective enforcement and an 
opt-out provision if Congress finds that enforcement is unfavorable to 
U.S. interests [GATT].
  Fair and open trading rules among nations do not fall from the 
heavens; they are negotiated.
  GATT is a tough treaty that will benefit the United States--
especially California, the largest exporting State. The sooner it is 
ratified, the sooner U.S. manufacturing and export-servicing jobs will 
grow.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak to all the members of 
this body and to those who will be Members of the 104th Congress, but 
particularly Republicans. We heard from an angry American public that 
they wanted less Government, not more. Deregulation, not regulation. 
Tax cuts, not tax increases.
  Implementing the Uruguay round is step toward meeting that 
expectation of the American public. It's about increased exports, more 
job opportunities, and higher wages and income in our country.
  It is about empowering Americans and citizens around the world with 
the ability to trade with one another.
  With this agreement, we and all the nations of the world, will be 
removing the burdens of government depriving people of their freedom of 
choice.
  When fully implemented, the Uruguay round will reduce taxes on world 
trade by about one third and for the first time eliminate many non-
tariff barriers to world trade in goods and services. It will increase 
U.S. economic growth and actually reduce the deficit.
  No doubt, some of our constituents are against the Uruguay round. 
They are against the GATT. They are against all forms of trade--period.
  However, the trade policies of Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan will not 
achieve the economic security and rising prosperity for future 
generations of Americans. The road is not as simple as they would make 
us believe. Their policies will not meet the international challenges 
ahead. We should not pretend that they do.
  Exporting nearly $475 billion of goods each year makes the United 
States the largest exporter in the world. Total trade today comprises 
more than 25 percent of our gross domestic product [GDP]. By the year 
2010, trade is expected to represent around 36 percent of U.S. GDP.
  That being true, our workers, employers, and consumers need a trading 
system with strong rules based on free trade, wide coverage of goods 
and services, and an effective dispute settlement procedure. 
Strengthening the GATT system through the Uruguay round is imperative 
to our economic future--particularly after a dozen tough years of 
economic restructuring, defense downsizing, and continued efforts at 
federal deficit reduction.
  Some conservatives have voiced concerns about U.S. participation in 
WTO because of fears about violations of U.S. sovereignty.
  By definition, all international agreements restrain or limit the 
actions of the parties. But, in return, each country gains some 
national security or trade objective important to its citizens.
  In each instance, nations signing the agreement must decide: do the 
collective benefits of this agreement outweigh the potential costs of 
assuming the obligations? But we should be clear in understanding that 
this choice neither violates American sovereignty nor undermines the 
American constitution.
  We make a sovereign decision to enter and comply with international 
agreements and we can always make a similar decision to withdraw or not 
comply in the future.
  Arguments characterizing the WTO as a violation of U.S. sovereignty 
are simply inaccurate.
  As a matter of international law, the WTO will not be able to take 
subsequent action binding the United States to which the United States 
does not agree. In addition, WTO decisions or dispute resolution 
recommendations will not be self-executing in U.S. law.
  Robert Bork, a well known constitutional expert, states the following 
in relation to that allegation:

       . . . it is impossible to see a threat to this nation's 
     sovereignty posed by either the WTO or the dispute resolution 
     system. Any agreement liberalizing international trade would 
     necessarily contain mechanisms similar to those in the 
     Uruguay Round agreements. The claim that such mechanisms are 
     a danger to U.S. sovereignty is not merely wrong but would, 
     if accepted, doom all prospects for freer trade achieved by 
     multi-national agreement.
       arguments to the contrary distort American law and 
     contradict principles recognized by the Supreme Court for 
     more than one hundred years.

  In closing, I would say that in 1982 President Ronald Reagan began 
the efforts which have brought us to this agreement and this moment. 
President George Bush and Carla Hills continued to press our trading 
partners toward an agreement. President Clinton concluded those 
efforts. We may not agree with every particular provision in the 
implementing bill. But the bottom line is that this is an agreement 
which plays to our strengths as the world's largest trading country, 
largest exporter, and most productive economy.
  It will open foreign markets at precisely the moment when American 
businesses and workers have sharpened their competitive edge.
  By supporting protectionist trade policies, others may choose to put 
their heads in the sand, but we cannot. Vote for our future, vote for 
the implementing legislation.

                              {time}  1650

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld]
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaRocco). The gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld] is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, 6 years ago I came to this body to 
improve the lives of average, hard working families and to seek 
policies that promote sustainable use of the Earth's resources.
  I am proud of my record over the years and today--consistent with 
these principles--I rise in opposition to this GATT implementing 
legislation. This agreement will hurt working families in this country 
and undermine our efforts to advance responsible natural resource 
policies.
  Mr. Speaker, I support expanding trade--and this GATT is good for the 
business of expanding trade. But I believe it is bad for our future 
because it makes unchecked free trade the only bottom line. It ignores 
our workers trying to support families while having to compete with 9, 
10, 11-year olds locked away in factories in far-off lands; it ignores 
the relationship between human right and trade; and it ignores those 
who profit from the Earth's natural resources without regard for their 
sustainable use.
  When will we have the foresight to develop trade policies that not 
only expand trade but also promote our common good in a global 
perspective?
  The agreement on which we are voting will establish a World Trade 
Organization. The WTO might be a good thing if it were a body dedicated 
to open process and if it were truly compatible with efforts to promote 
sustainable use of the Earth's resources and basic labor rights. But 
that is not the WTO we are asked to embrace today.
  This WTO will meet behind closed doors and its deliberations will 
remain secret. And there is no guarantee it will give either a healthy 
environment or labor rights a fair hearing. Laws designed to promote 
those goals will be vulnerable to challenge if they restrict trade.
  It is true the WTO will have no authority to repeal our laws. But 
unlike the current GATT, it will impose a stiff penalty if we keep a 
law that a WTO panel rules against. If this added incentive increases 
the number of challenges, it may be open season on U.S. laws.
  I will not compromise the work of advancing basic labor rights and 
the work of preventing child labor. That is what I fear this GATT will 
do. It will cripple our ability to sanction nations that allow and even 
encourage inhumane working conditions.
  This GATT will also undermine our efforts to promote sustainable use 
of the Earth's resources.
  To those who question the trade-environment link, let me share how it 
was first made apparent to me. Shortly after I became a Member of this 
body I was approached by many who make their livelihood from our 
oceans. They told me about 30-mile-long driftnets that some countries 
allowed. As I learned more, I found these driftnets were stripping our 
oceans bare not only of marketable fish stocks but of everything else. 
They were decimating fisheries and they were destroying precious ocean 
ecosystems.
  So what remedy was there when we were confronted with the spectacle 
of other nations allowing this kind of activity to go on? What recourse 
had we when global commons were being plundered and vital ecosystems 
wrecked? The only--I repeat, the only--viable tool we possessed to 
discourage this type of practice was the use of trade measures. I 
challenge anyone to tell me that another viable tool exists. And so 
trade measures were the tool that the Congress of the United States 
adopted. If this GATT had been in place in 1991 this body might not 
have passed laws and the United Nations might not have adopted 
resolutions banning this destructive fishing practice. Tell our 
fishermen that there is no link between trade and the environment.
  And the WTO may do more than compromise our ability to defend the 
global environment. It will have jurisdiction to consider the 
legitimacy of our domestic environmental laws as well. If the WTO 
determines in its closed-door process that a U.S. law, while having a 
legitimate aim, does not meet a least restrictive trade test, it can 
rule against it.
  There is a reason--actually several reasons--why every major 
environmental organization in this Nation opposes this agreement. If we 
implement this GATT, we will do so without any assurance that it will 
accept present or future international environmental agreements as 
legitimate. We will do so without any assurance that it will accept our 
right to use trade measures to protect the global commons. We will do 
so without any assurance that it will allow us to prohibit the import 
of goods produced with production and process methods that are 
particularly harmful to the global environment. And we will do so 
without knowing whether it will accept a long list of our domestic 
environmental laws as legitimate.
  Whatever the outcome of this vote, all those who care about the fate 
of this magnificent planet must redouble our efforts to forge a trade 
policy that does more than make the world safe for exporters. We must 
embrace a trade policy that works for this Earth and for our families, 
or we will be doing what we have done far too often; stealing from the 
future of our children in the pursuit of short-term economic gain.
  In the interest of our families and for the sake of this planet's 
future, I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Inslee].
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the GATT Agreement, 
because without GATT, American working people will have to continue to 
fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Without GATT the average 
tariff or government tax against the manufactured products made with 
the hands of Americans is 10.5 percent. In other worlds, governments 
not elected by Americans are imposing a 10.5 percent tax on the labor 
of Americans. Is our response to have an equivalent tariff? No. We have 
a low 4.6 percent average tariff.
  And what will happen if GATT fails? Nothing. American workers will 
remain at a significant disadvantage in trade.
  Simply put, our trading partner's walls are 10\1/2\ feet high that we 
have to crawl over. Ours are only 4\1/2\ feet high. GATT will cut their 
tariffs twice as much as ours.
  Is there any reason, Americans should be punished by a tariff that is 
higher than ours? Do Americans not work hard enough or long enough 
hours to justify efforts to get in a relatively better position? The 
answer is clearly yes.
  Mr. Chairman, we must reject the last legacy of Smoot-Hawley, seize 
this victory for a fair break for Americans and leave a far-sighted 
legacy for the 103d Congress.
  (Mrs. Unsoeld assumed the chair.)
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman form 
California [Ms. Eshoo].
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support 
H.R. 5110, which will implement the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade, or GATT.
  Madam Chairman, simply put, the GATT will benefit the United States 
by making our economy more competitive, leveling the playing field for 
our Nation's businesses, and protecting our country's ideas and 
products from exploitation by foreign producers.
  With the passage of GATT U.S. products--including medical equipment, 
computers, and software--will compete and sell better in other 
countries. Copyright and patent protection will be extended to other 
nations making it far less likely that U.S. products will be pirated by 
foreign countries. Our farmers will have an easier time competing 
against foreign subsidies.
  And while I always carry concerns on environmental issues and 
international labor rights, I am most hopeful that the Committee on 
Trade and Environment and the Preparatory Committee for the WTO will 
ensure protections for environmental and labor issues.
  Overall, the potential benefits of this trade agreement are clear and 
tangible. The Uruguay round will establish the world's first 
comprehensive and enforceable agreement for free, fair, and open global 
trade.
  It will provide a $750 billion global tax cut and an estimated $100 
to $200 billion boost to the U.S. domestic economy each year. In 
California alone, GATT is expected to generate $10 billion in new 
exports and up to 244,000 new jobs over the next 10 years.
  According to the U.S. International Trade Commission [USITC], 
California exports of computer and semiconductor devices will increase 
by 15 percent creating 67,000 jobs over a 10-year period.
  Madam Chairman, vast increases of U.S. exports and more high paying 
jobs for Americans are real and achievable but only if we act now to 
lead the establishment of a free and fair global trading network.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the potential benefits of the 
Uruguay round trade agreement to the U.S. economy and pass H.R. 5110.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam Chairman, I referred in remarks earlier to the unique 
opportunity provided to all of us who serve in this Chamber in this 
most historic of votes in at least the 25 years that I have served 
here.
  We have a unique opportunity before us to address some of the 
paramount concerns expressed repeatedly in polls by the American 
people. One of these has to do with taxes. As I stated before, we are 
in a position to put through the biggest tax cut in the history of 
civilization. It is a worldwide tax cut. And to be sure, the 
overwhelming majority of those reductions in taxes are to other people 
around the world. But what that means is more dollars in the pockets of 
consumers to purchase American goods because we are the biggest 
exporter on the face of this Earth.
  In addition to that, it actually is projected to increase revenues, 
increase revenues to our Treasury because of the expanded trade that is 
anticipated under the provisions of this agreement.

                              {time}  1700

  Finally, what we are talking about is economic growth in this country 
and we are talking about jobs. Fifty percent of our economic growth 
over the past 5 years has been a direct result of our exports in world 
markets. This opens a door or a window of opportunity to us that is 
literally unprecedented in the history of this world.
  So I would urge all of my colleagues to get behind this most 
important piece of legislation, report this GATT bill out favorably, 
and go on to a brighter future.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to respond 
and say that if everything was so rosy we would not be amassing the 
vast trade deficit that we have over the last year and the last 15 
years, in fact, and this year the highest in history. So something must 
be wrong with the fact that we have more imports coming in here than 
exports going out.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois 
[Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
H.R. 5110. the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
  Over the last 3 years, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer 
Protection, and Competitiveness has held 11 days of briefings and 
hearings concerning the Uruguay round agreements and related topics.
  Let me say, at the outset, that I know the Uruguay round agreement 
contains benefits, that in some cases, will help U.S. firms gain a 
larger share of foreign markets. Tariff reductions in the agreement 
should especially benefit steel, paper, pharmaceuticals, electronics, 
semiconductor equipment, medical equipment, agricultural equipment, 
toys, and furniture.
  For the first time, the new agreement provides for a multilateral 
framework covering services and agriculture. Intellectual property and 
investment measures, which are also covered by the new trade agreement, 
have never before been made subject to a multilateral discipline.
  Despite these achievements, there are still important areas where the 
agreement was not successful. For example, much more remains to be done 
in services, where negotiations will continue on financial and 
telecommunications services. Our trading partners have not made 
significant market access commitments on both financial services and 
telecommunications services; it is, therefore, impossible to say our 
objectives have been achieved in these areas.
  But, I think it is most important to recognize that the benefits of 
this agreement, however great they may be, are benefits that only 
American business, and the owners of American business stand to 
realize. They are not benefits that will necessarily contribute to the 
social and economic security of American workers.
  Above all else, this agreement promotes the globalization of 
manufacturing production throughout the world. This means that the 
ability to relocate manufacturing anywhere in the world will be greatly 
facilitated. As a result, the gross national product, and therefore, 
the wealth of countries participating in this agreement can be expected 
to rise.
  But, it is American workers--not American business--who may pay most 
of the increased wealth. Under GATT, American workers will have to 
compete with 4 billion Chinese, Indian, Asian, Latin and East European 
workers, some who work for only 25 cents an hour.
  The new GATT's impact on textile and apparel workers in the United 
States is a good example. Estimates are that GATT will cause as many as 
one million American textile and apparel workers to lose their jobs. 
Even the Federal Government's own estimate in the GATT will eliminate 
146,000 textile jobs in the United States.
  GATT will lead to the destruction of U.S. textile and apparel jobs, 
because it would remove all controls that the U.S. currently has over 
the importation of clothing, rugs and textiles from third-world 
countries. Furthermore, the new GATT says nothing about the way goods 
are produced; in fact, it says, for example, the Federal Government 
cannot prevent trade with countries that, for example, abuse and 
exploit children for cheap labor.
  Clearly, American jobs will be lost and our standard of living will 
suffer, if U.S. workers are forced to compete with workers from 
countries that do not pay decent wages, nor protect the rights of 
workers to bargain for decent wages. This is simply too high a price to 
pay for the benefits that globalization would bring to American 
business under GATT.
  I also do not believe that the agreement fully protects U.S. 
authority to use our trade laws to defend U.S. firms against unfair 
trade practices. Section 301 of the Trade Act has been perhaps our 
greatest tool in prying open closed foreign markets. Under the 
agreement, we are committed to use 301 only when the World Trade 
Organization says we can. This is too great a restriction on our 
ability to deal with unfair foreign trade practices.
  Madam Chairman, I want to speak a moment now on a matter of special 
interest to me, and that is food safety. The implementing bill contains 
provisions which I think help strengthen our Government's ability to 
enforce tough food safety standards.
  Over the past few years, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer 
Protection, and Competitiveness has held many hearings on the problems 
trade agreements cause U.S. agencies that are charged with the 
responsibility of enforcing our country's, tough food safety standards.
  Whether it is deadly bacteria in hamburger or cancer-causing 
pesticides on fruits and vegetables, American consumers have grown 
concerned that, in the name of free trade, we are letting foreign food 
products enter the United States that do not meet our Nations' strict 
health and safety standards. Public concern will surely grow as food 
imports, which were valued at nearly $21 billion in 1993, are expected 
to rise sharply in future years.
  The bill we are considering today contains provisions I proposed that 
prevent any Federal agency from weakening our country's food safety 
standards, in the name of trade.
  In the past, trade agreements have allowed Federal agencies to waive 
enforcement of U.S. food safety standards based on assertions by 
foreign governments that their standards are equivalent to our own. For 
the first time, the legislation under consideration would prohibit a 
Federal agency from determining that a food safety standard of a 
foreign country is equivalent to a U.S. food safety standard, unless 
the Federal agency determines that the foreign standard achieves at 
least the same level of protection as the U.S. standard.
  The new legislation would also require the Food and Drug 
Administration to publish notice and to provide an opportunity for 
public comment anytime it makes a determination that a foreign food 
safety standard is equivalent to a U.S. standard. The bill also 
requires those Federal agencies, that represent the United States 
before organizations dealing with international food safety and other 
standards, to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on 
their agenda and activities.
  In this way, the public may intervene directly when Federal agencies 
are considering foreign and international standards that may affect the 
safety of the U.S. food supply.
  The American public's concern that the United States--not foreign 
governments or international organizations--set health and safety 
standards for our country has been heard, loud and clear. Our 
Government must never give up it responsibility for protecting the 
safety of the U.S. food supply and the public health generally, in 
order to promote trade with other countries.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to respond to my good friend over here. Yes, something is 
wrong. The American savings rate is too low. We are having to import 
huge amounts of foreign capital which translates eventually into 
foreign goods. Our tax system is all fouled up and hurts our exports. 
Something is wrong, but it is not our competitiveness.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my very fine friend, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bacchus] a real expert on trade.
  Mr. BACCHUS of Florida. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the words of a 
real expert, Mr. Sam Gibbons.
  Madam Chairman, for nearly half a century the United States fought 
for freer, fairer trade world wide on a bipartisan basis. Whatever the 
fears, whatever the pressures, whether Democrats or Republicans are in 
the White House or Democrats or Republicans control this House or the 
Senate, it is imperative that the United States of America continues to 
stand for freer trade and fairer terms. It is imperative not just for 
American business, but for American workers and for America's future.
  The GATT trade agreements are the biggest tax cut in the history of 
the world, $744 billion in tariff cuts, tax cuts that will benefit 
every American, including workers.
  The GATT trade agreement will add, once fully implemented, between 
$100 billion and $200 billion annually in gross national product. That 
translates into jobs and profits and prosperity.
  My friends, trade leads to prosperity. Prosperity leads to peace, and 
peace and prosperity lead to democracy. That leads to workers' rights 
and environmental protections and all of the things that all of us in 
both parties want for the American people.
  Vote for the GATT trade agreement.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] so that she may respond to the chairman's remarks.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman so much for 
yielding the time.
  Let me just say to the chairman, my good friend whose work I have 
respected, except in this particular area, let me just say the reason 
that U.S. savings rates are not up is because people's wages have been 
going down or they are stuck. It is not because they are bad people, 
but it is pretty rough to save money when you and your husband have to 
pull down two part-time jobs in order to keep feeding your kids.
  So for the past 20 years the gentleman has been a party to all of 
these trade agreements which have really pitted the workers of this 
country against the lowest-wage workers in the world in the most 
undemocratic nations on the face of the earth. I know he is the kind of 
man who wants to do good. But the fact is after 20 years of increasing 
trade deficits I think it is time to look in the mirror and say 
something has not quite gone right.
  This year we will amass again another $150 billion more imports 
coming into this country than exports going out. I cannot even buy toys 
for my grandkids. I go to the shelves and it is made in China, made in 
Indonesia, made in Thailand, all of these other places, and the prices 
are not cheap. The prices are not going down.
  Two things are going up, corporate profits are going up and prices 
are going up. But wages are going down.
  This is the eighth agreement. We have had seven others. We should 
have learned our lesson by now. The American people know what we are 
talking about.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. She has 
made a very good point that has not come up during this debate, and 
that is the fact that yes, according to all of our statistics, the pro-
GATT side, the anti-GATT side says since 1973 real wages in this 
country have gone down 20 percent. We all agree with that.
  The fact is that that has compelled many families to go from one-
earner families to two-earner families, and that produces what we call 
latch key children. Those are kids that come home and do not have a mom 
in the home when they get home and a lot of bad things happen to those 
kids.
  We spend a lot of time on the floor of the House of Representatives 
talking about narcotics, talking about crime, talking about 
delinquency, talking about unwed mothers and a lot of the problems that 
emanate in those areas that we have just described come from having a 
lack of time, a lack of bonding between moms and dads and their kids 
and having a parent in the home when a child comes home from school.
  So this lowering of the real wages for the nonsupervisory work force, 
and the nonsupervisory work force this country is 80 percent of the 
American workers, has resulted in some very negative effects with 
respect to this society. Trade has a lot of effects and the effects are 
not all in dollars and cents, and I would say that probably all of the 
problems we have with respect to narcotics and crime, et cetera, and 
our young people have gone up in direct proportion to the separation of 
mothers from their homes because a family simply has to have two 
paychecks to make ends meet. Part of that is as a result of coming to 
equilibrium of world wages which has pushed a lot of other countries' 
wages up, but yes, has brought down the American paycheck about 20 
percent since 1973.
  I thank the gentlewoman for engaging in this colloquy.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for this debate.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I want to go back to a little basic economics. The 
real villain in all of this is the budget deficit. We picked the wrong 
economic policy in early 1980. We ran up $3 trillion of additional 
budget deficit, and we are just paying the bill right now.
  It is paid because the savings rate that is so abysmal in this 
country, and it is not the personal savings rate, it is the government 
savings rate, the United States Government, us, we have run up this 
huge deficit, and that is what we are paying for. It is painful. It 
comes out of real live people, and that is why it is so important that 
we maintain budget discipline that we have now, and that continuously 
drive down this budget deficit. Then our savings rate will go up, and 
our balance of trade and balance of payments will all straighten out.
  But we are just fighting the wrong hobgoblin here. Our 
competitiveness is wonderful. America has never been more competitive 
than it is today. The American worker is good, strong, and competitive. 
The American business is good, strong, and competitive. But it is our 
fiscal irresponsibility that unfortunately got out of hand in the early 
1980s. The Congress, the President and all of us, we did it to 
ourselves.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GIBBONS. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, very quickly, let me simply remind 
colleagues that export-related jobs pay on average 22 percent more than 
those jobs for our domestic market, and I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.

                              {time}  1710

  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Chairman, I rise today to add my voice to that 
of my colleagues in opposition to the Uruguay Round of GATT. I feel 
this matter is too important to deal with in only four hours--and I 
fear that the outcome of this vote will negatively affect our country's 
ability to manage its trade policy, and undermine the economic 
stability of working people here and abroad.
  Allow me to point out Guatemala's recent dispute with the Gerber Baby 
Food Co. As some of you might know, Guatemala has made impressive 
strides in the lowering of infant mortality through its strong 
promotion of breast-feeding under the World Health Organization/UNICEF 
Infant Formula Marketing Code. In an effort to prevent mothers from 
thinking that substitute foods are better for their babies than their 
own breast milk, Guatemalan law prohibits baby formula companies from 
putting doctors or pictures of infants on baby formula labels. Under 
the Uruguay Round of GATT, however, Guatemalan law violates GATT's new 
trademark rules. Fearing retaliatory measures Guatemala has decided to 
allow Gerber to sell a product that directly violates its laws. Under 
GATT, and the WTO, this case would be repeated thousands of times. US 
law, would be superseded by the GATT, and Americans would have to 
conform to standards that currently violate our legal code.
  Madam Chairman, I will not vote to condone such obvious faults. I 
cannot, in good conscience, vote for an agreement that would encourage 
companies to continue their exploitation of low-paid workers the world 
over, that would increase the deficit by $40 billion dollars over the 
next ten years, and that would trample national sovereignty. I 
certainly cannot compromise millions of American jobs without having an 
opportunity to remedy the agreement's many shortcomings.
  I ask my colleagues to consider the facts and vote no on H.R. 5110.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support, not just of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, but also in recognition of the 
inventiveness and creativity that is the American genius, which will be 
well-served by GATT. History tells us that when we are able to level 
the playing field and create equal opportunity in the international 
marketplace, the United States does very well.
  In 1970, exports represented 14 percent of our gross domestic 
product. Today, that figure is 27 percent of our gross domestic 
product. By 2005, just a little over 10 years from now, exports will 
account for at least 36 percent of our GDP. GATT will create jobs and 
opportunities in America, and jobs remains my favorite four-letter 
word.
  There is a big downside to defeating GATT. There is no question that 
it will send the wrong signal to the world capital and trade markets, a 
message that says the United States is reverting to an isolationist 
mode that in the 1930's let to the Great Depression. We do not want 
that. We want to expand our markets and create more job opportunities. 
GATT offers that very likely prospect.
  Three Presidents, starting with Ronald Reagan, continuing with George 
Bush and currently with Bill Clinton, have embraced this agreement. The 
bipartisan leadership in Congress has done so as well.
  GATT is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. There are some 
problems with it. But the opportunities far outweigh the potential 
problems, and even the potential problems can be dealt with. I'm 
concerned about the possible effects of GATT on dairy farmers. But some 
opportunities lie immediately ahead to address this issue with dairy 
farmers. Just a few months from now, we will begin working with dairy 
farmers on the reauthorization of the farm bill. I am convinced that we 
will be able to address some of the concerns of the dairy community in 
that vehicle.
  Furthermore, to those who suggest that we're giving up our 
sovereignty, I would quote Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich, who told me 
this morning, that simply is not so. The new Majority Leader of the 
Senate, Bob Dole, was very effective in negotiating an agreement with 
the Administration that overcomes one of the concerns I had with the 
sovereignty issue and whether or not the United States would be treated 
fairly. There is now a mechanism built into the legislative initiative, 
under which 20 Senators or 100 Representatives, either or, could call 
for a vote on GATT at any time during the course of its implementation. 
If there were sufficient evidence to justify the claims that we were 
being treated unfairly, we could withdraw. I do not foresee that 
happening. Neither does Senator Dole or Speaker-to-be Gingrich. Neither 
does the overwhelming majority in the business community at large, who 
view this, as I do, as an opportunity for America.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], our distinguished colleague 
from the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5110. The idea that the 
United States will be part of a world trading structure is, in fact, 
what should occur, and I support the measure.
  Madam Chairman, I support the Uruguay Round trade agreement. The 
agreement implemented by H.R. 5110 achieves a great deal by eliminating 
trade barriers that have kept us from selling our products overseas, 
barriers that have made it harder to keep jobs in the United States. 
Anyone honestly comparing what this agreement achieves with the 
specious concerns of its detractors will recognize that the Uruguay 
Round trade agreement is good for the U.S.
  The Uruguay Round imposes tough new rules on countries that have 
engaged in unfair trade. It cuts tariffs across the world. It gives 
Americans access to fast-growing markets in places like Korea, Thailand 
and Brazil. For the first time, we can protect Americans' patents, 
copyrights and other kinds of intellectual property. Tough new anti-
dumping and anti-subsidies rules will allow us to control shipments of 
unfairly-traded products to the United States. Foreign farm subsidies 
will have to be cut back. Perhaps even more important, health and 
safety standards applied to goods will have to have a scientific basis, 
preventing countries from using flimsy claims that our food, fibre and 
goods are unsafe when the truth is they wanted to stop our trade.
  Let us look at a recent trade agreement--NAFTA--as it shows the 
promise the Uruguay Round holds for American exports and job creation. 
Not even a year old, NAFTA has allowed Americans to dramatically expand 
exports to Mexico and Canada. In the first half of this year, our 
exports to Mexico rose nearly 17% and exports to Canada rose 10%. At 
present rates, we should see $7.3 billion more in U.S. exports to 
Mexico this year and a trade surplus of $2 billion. In 1994 alone, 
exports to Mexico and Canada could support 100,000 new American jobs.
  Just look at the progress American industries have already made 
because of NAFTA. Fresh fruit exports to Mexico are up 78%, vegetables 
up 25%. 55,000 to 60,000 cars will be shipped to Mexico this year. 
Americans have sold 16% more consumer goods in Mexico--$2 billion 
worth--in the first five months of 1994.
  California companies are doing especially well. A San Diego forklift 
company is expecting its sales in Mexico to increase by 30% in the next 
two years. We will see $10 to $12 million a year of extra sales of 
California almonds because of NAFTA. More California-made high 
performance computer chips will flow into Mexico's $400 million 
semiconductor market because NAFTA ended Mexico's 20% tariff on our 
goods. Companies specializing in engineering and environmental 
services, areas in which California firms are world leaders, see NAFTA 
bringing more work from Mexico.

  The Uruguay Round offers even bigger benefits than NAFTA. The 
Treasury Department estimates it will boost our economy by $100 to $200 
billion a year, producing up to 700,000 more American jobs by the end 
of this century. California alone could gain as much as $16 billion in 
new business.
  The ``World Trade Organization'' (WTO) is no threat to Americans' 
ability to govern themselves. The WTO cannot change our laws--only 
Congress can do that. The WTO cannot amend trade rules and force the 
U.S. to live by them; the United States would have to agree to the rule 
changes in order to be bound. In fact, a world trade is better for our 
interests. In the past, California farm groups and other industries 
have suffered because the European Union blocked our challenges to 
their unfair practices. The WTO's rules will set time limits on cases 
and create clear rights to retaliate against these unfair trade 
practices.
  If the Uruguay Round passes, the United States can continue to decide 
what safety standards to apply to foods and to reject foreign food 
considered unsafe. As they can now, states will be able to adopt 
standards even higher than the Federal Government's.
  If we ever decide the Uruguay Round works against our interest, the 
United States can pull out. The agreement explicitly provides for 
withdrawal. The implementing bill also ensures that the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will be regularly examined by Congress.
  I support the bill even though the Uruguay Round is not perfect. I 
want more cuts in foreign farm subsidies and even tighter controls on 
unfair trade. There will be future negotiations to eliminate additional 
barriers to selling American-made products overseas. What we need to 
realize is that the Uruguay Round vastly improves a trading system 
Americans involved in exports know is unsatisfactory and that without 
it, the unjust, inefficient current trading system stays in place to 
Americans' disadvantage.
  Finally, I want to comment on the ten-month extension of the 
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program contained in this bill. 
I would have preferred that the Ways and Means recommendations on GSP 
be adopted because they required statutory changes in the way the 
program is operated. One of the required changes would have been the 
product of my amendment to prevent reviews to add products from being 
conducted more than once every three years. This amendment would have 
forced any future product reviews to be conducted in conformity with 
the ``three year rule'' I developed with former Ambassador Brock in 
1984. That rule was supposed to prevent reconsideration of proposals to 
add products to the list of eligible articles if the products had been 
examined during the preceding three years. Imposed by regulation, the 
three year rule was ignored in several cases during the last decade. My 
amendment would have prevented such a thing from recurring.
  I am able to accept the limited extension of GSP contained in H.R. 
5110 because of assurances I have received from Ambassador Kantor about 
the program. The Ambassador, in the attached letter I received in 
September, clearly states that the GSP program will be operated 
according to the three year rule during the extension. The Ambassador's 
assurance resolves concerns about GSP I have heard from some California 
farmers.
  The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying this legislation 
also notes the Administration will make two changes in GSP's operation 
during this extension. First, the Administration will provide for in-
country confirmation of information in petitions to add products. 
Second, the Statement of Administrative Action says the Administration 
will dismiss petitions from competitive nations prior to the completion 
of a review process, a suggestion I made to save both government and 
domestic industry a good deal of trouble.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], our distinguished colleague from the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of H.R. 5110, the Uruguay Round Agreement Act.
  For the first time, this act will bring all of our trading partners 
under a common set of rules. These disciplines will protect 
intellectual property, increase trade services, and reduce nontariff 
barriers that will prevent U.S. goods from reaching foreign markets, 
and in doing all of that, this agreement will expand good jobs for 
working Americans.
  I want to make very briefly two points about it: By protecting 
intellectual property rights worldwide, we not only will protect $60 
billion of loss every year in America, but we will sow the seeds of 
both a market economy and a democratic political system throughout the 
world, because we are going to require countries that do not even 
represent concrete property rights now to represent ownership of ideas. 
So this is about helping the whole world see that knowledge matters, 
invention matters, ownership matters, democracy matters, and market 
economies, because they free the human spirit, create prosperity for 
all, and jobs worldwide.
  The second reason for supporting this agreement is because for the 
first time it puts in place a strong dispute-resolution mechanism that 
is going to help America. We win 78 percent of the GATT cases brought, 
but we rarely have gotten effective relief.
  Industry in my State of Connecticut is a perfect example of the 
terrible damage that has been done to American manufacturing because we 
keep winning unfair-trade cases, but we cannot enforce the verdicts in 
our favor. The dispute-resolution mechanism in the GATT gives us a time 
certain for the whole process; it will move along; it will be clear 
what the decision is; and there will be penalties for not enforcing the 
decision. It is absolutely what this Congress demanded the 
administration negotiate, and it is what manufacturers in my district 
working in an internationally competitive economy need.
  It is strong. It is pro-jobs. It is pro-prosperity. And I strongly 
support 5110 and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5110, the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act. The Uruguay round and the new World Trade 
Organization will, for the first time, bring all our trading partners 
under a common set of rules. These disciplines will protect 
intellectual property, increase trade in services, such as insurance, 
and reduce non-tariff barriers that prevent U.S. goods from reaching 
foreign markets.
  There also will be a strengthened method of resolving disputes to 
enforce those rules. I believe the new dispute settlement mechanism is 
one of the most important, but least appreciated, achievements of the 
round.
  The old GATT mechanism for settling disputes simply did not work in 
our interest. Disputes went on for years without resolution, because 
there were no effective deadlines. Even if the United States obtained a 
favorable report, the responding country could block the approval of 
panel findings and prevent retaliation for unfair practices. For 
example, the United States actually won 87 percent of the GATT cases it 
brought, but rarely obtained effective relief. Before, even if the 
offending country let the panel proceed, there was no assurance that 
they would actually comply with the ruling in the end.
  In 1988, because of intense frustration with this system, Congress 
specifically directed our negotiators to remedy these flaws and bring 
back a strong dispute settlement mechanism. And, the negotiating team 
brought back exactly what we asked them to.
  The new agreement remedies virtually all of the deficiencies about 
which the Congress bitterly complained. It establishes stringent 
deadlines for decision making. Panel reports can no longer be blocked. 
The WTO will automatically establish panels, adopt their reports, and 
if requested, authorize retaliation when necessary, unless there is a 
consensus not to do so.
  The United States stands to gain the most from strengthened dispute 
settlement procedures, because the United States already has a 
relatively open trading system, and takes its international obligations 
seriously. The United States will not be a target under the new system, 
but rather a beneficiary. The enhanced dispute resolution system gives 
the United States yet another tool to use to pry open foreign markets 
for our goods, and tear down unfair foreign trade barriers.
  To be fair, the United States will have to live by the same rules. 
But, we simply cannot expect other countries to abide by a system that 
we do not abide by ourselves.
  The new dispute settlement mechanism also is firmly in our interest 
because it does nothing to weaken U.S. sovereignty. In the end, any 
nation, including the United States, may refuse to accept a panel 
decision, and accept tariff retaliation or an adjustment in WTO 
benefits. But this does not impinge on U.S. sovereignty--it just means 
that the United States, like other nations, might pay a price for not 
keeping its end of the global trade bargain. What's more, even under 
the current system, there is nothing to prevent a country from 
retaliating against the United States. Nothing in the proposed WTO 
process will become automatically binding on the United States, and 
Congress still retains its full power over changes to U.S. laws.
  Madam Chairman, the Uruguay round is a classic win-win proposition, 
We gain substantial new markets for U.S.-made products, and a 
strengthened system to enforce the rules of fair play. It is a winning 
combination that is good for U.S. workers and their families. I urge my 
colleagues to support this great achievement and vote ``aye''.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff].
  Mr. ZELIFF. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Chairman, I have completed my study on GATT. I have listened to 
the arguments both pro and con. The picture that emerges for New 
Hampshire is one of job creation and economic growth.
  I will be voting for GATT today, because GATT is about New Hampshire 
and America's economic future.
  The economic benefits for America are astounding: added growth of $1 
trillion over 10 years, and hundreds of thousands of new private-sector 
jobs. Free trade is a proven job-creator.
  NAFTA, a small agreement compared to GATT, has created over 100,000 
new jobs during the past year.
  Opponents have claimed GATT will bust the budget. This charge is 
simply not true. The CBO projects that tariff revenues will fall $43 
billion over 10 years. That is a $43 billion tax cut for U.S. consumers 
that I strongly support.
  I would never vote in favor of any document that takes away U.S. 
sovereignty. The bottom line is no international body can change our 
laws. Only Congress has that power.
  U.S. law takes precedence over the World Trade Organization which, 
incidentally, we helped create.
  The bottom line is that GATT is a nonpartisan, good agreement. GATT 
will benefit Americans everywhere. GATT will create economic growth, 
good, high-paying jobs, and cut consumer costs at the same time.
  GATT will be good for New Hampshire and good for America. I urge my 
colleagues to support this historic agreement which has been in the 
making for the past 8 years.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the GATT 
agreement.
  Madam Chairman, today's vote on the Uruguay round of the GATT is the 
culmination of 7 years of difficult negotiations. As a legislation from 
a State highly dependant on international trade, I welcome this 
opportunity to vote in support of the Uruguay round.
  International trade is the lifeblood of Washington State. Sales of 
transportation equipment dominated Washington's 1993 exports.
  The Greater Seattle metro area, which includes my district of 
Seattle, had 1993 export sales of approximately $25.5 billion, which 
was 93 percent of the State total.
  While the passage of GATT will represent an important milestone in 
the development of a truly international trading system, I am 
disappointment that fast-track language containing environmental and 
labor negotiating objectives was not included.
  However, the specific environmental provisions that resulted from the 
Uruguay round represent an important first step toward integrating 
environmental considerations into the GATT in a balanced way.
  I also strongly urge the United States through its participation in 
the WTO to find a way to promote labor standards throughout the trading 
system without seeking to counteract legitimate comparative advantage. 
Delay or failure to implement the Uruguay round may result in the 
inability of many Washington State companies to stay internationally 
competitive and result in lost economic growth and jobs. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in support of the GATT.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAWYER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5110.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Uruguay round 
agreement of GATT. I also want to relate a compelling story to my 
colleagues--the story of a community's remarkable recovery.
   A decade and a half ago when the last tire plant closed in Akron, 
many were quick to write-off my hometown. What happened after that 
could provide every community with a working model for prosperity and 
growth into the next century.
  Yes, the large tire and rubber plants were gone, but the skills and 
production experience that made Akron the rubber capital were still 
there. An amazing thing began to happen: small, flexible operations 
which relied on our deep reservoir of skills began to appear. These new 
businesses built on our past comparative advantage in tires and rubber, 
and began to excel in polymers and plastics. Most important, they are 
able to compete as global leaders in these emerging industrial sectors. 
That transition has been difficult, but more people are employed in my 
community today than ever before in its history.
  GATT is more than an encyclopedia of technical trade regulations; it 
is about learning from what has happened in Akron. It is about 
providing opportunities to industries that can compete and win 
globally. It is about growing our economy and elevating the level of 
our citizen's skills so that jobs are more secure and rewarding. In 
short, it is about building a confident future for America's working 
families.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce].
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of H.R. 5110, the legislation 
which implements the GATT Uruguay round agreement.


                         Dispelling Some Myths

  First of all, I would like to emphasize that this is not a free trade 
agreement. It is simply a multilateral trade agreement covering the 
terms and conditions under which trade occurs among 123 countries 
around the globe. Nor are we creating a new GATT. GATT has existed 
since 1947 and we are already operating under the existing GATT 
agreement and the terms and conditions it imposes. The new agreement is 
simply a better agreement. The existing agreement has many shortcomings 
in the sense that it has allowed the perpetuation of numerous 
restrictions that keep U.S. exports out of potential markets. We are 
now simply replacing the existing GATT agreement with one which 
attempts to further modify the terms of world trade, and does so to the 
advantage of the United States.
  Before discussing those advantages, let me try to allay some 
concerns. There has been much discussion of the fact that the United 
States has only one vote in the GATT and that the new agreement creates 
a world trade organization that will somehow put U.S. sovereignty in 
jeopardy and U.S. domestic laws at risk. That is simply not the case. 
Fundamentally, nothing is changing. In the 47 years that the GATT has 
been in existence, the United States has always had only one vote. In 
this almost half a century, GATT has never voted on a significant 
policy issue on which there has not been consensus in advance. The GATT 
has always operated by consensus and always will, because it must. The 
simple fact is that the United States can simply walk away at will and 
if, as the world's largest trader we do so, the GATT cannot continue to 
operate. We have every protection.
  Nor are we creating some radical new construct in the World Trade 
Organization. The GATT is and always has been a negotiated framework 
for world trade--the WTO is simply another name for the same thing.
  The unfortunate fact is that global trade currently proceeds under 
myriad restrictions imposed by other countries, and in some cases by 
our own. The GATT is a framework which attempts to reduce those 
barriers. This new agreement will reduce those restrictions in a number 
of significant respects which, on balance, will be of advantage to U.S. 
industries and ultimately, I believe, to U.S. workers.


                   The benefits to the United States

  First of all, the agreement will substantially lower the tariffs that 
countries impose on imported goods. While the United States does impose 
some tariffs on imported products, on average U.S. tariffs are 
substantially lower than those of other countries. For example, on 
balance U.S. tariffs directed at the less developed countries [LDCs] 
will go from 5.9 percent to 4.1 percent; while LDC tariffs on U.S. 
goods will go from 23.3 percent to 13.8 percent. We have a great deal 
more to gain than to lose, since it is these LDC markets that have been 
the most closed and which provide the most growth potential.

  Substantial nontariff barriers also exist in markets to which U.S. 
companies want to export, in the form of actual quotas on the level of 
foreign product permitted entry or product standards structured to the 
advantage of domestic suppliers which operate as effective barriers. 
The United States makes little or no use of such devices, while other 
countries rely on them heavily. The substantial reduction in such 
barriers on a global basis that this agreement achieves works clearly 
to our advantage.
  This agreement also, for the first time, sets basic rules for the 
liberalization of global trade in services such as advertising, 
insurance, computer software, construction and engineering--areas in 
which the United States has a clear competitive advantage. United 
States service firms have often found foreign markets which have a 
clear need for their expertise virtually impenetrable, as other 
countries have given priority to the development of domestic industry. 
Now U.S. service companies will have a fair opportunity to compete.
  This agreement also represents the first time the GATT has dealt with 
the difficult issue of agricultural subsidies. It is true that we 
subsidize our own domestic agricultural industry to some degree, but 
other countries have much more comprehensive and extensive subsidy 
programs. The United States still has the potential to serve as the 
breadbasket for much of the world if competition occurs on a level 
playing field. Reduction in agricultural subsidies in other countries 
will give our agricultural producers a fair opportunity to compete and 
new access to export markets that offer enormous growth potential.
  Finally, we are all aware of how readily brand-name replicas of a 
variety of products are available in developing countries. This is in 
large part because current global trade standards offer no intellectual 
property protection, i.e., copyright, patent or trademark protection. 
The new agreement will put such controls in place.
  The fact of the matter is that this multilateral agreement negotiated 
between 123 participating countries over 8 years accomplishes a great 
deal which, on balance, will be to our advantage. As the Nation which 
imposes a minimum or trade constraints operating in a world of nations 
which generally impose far more, we have the most to gain from a 
further liberalization of world trade.


                     The Risks If We Do Not Approve

  But there is more than self-interest at stake here. This agreement 
represents an enormous achievement--a multilateral consensus among 123 
countries on sensitive issues that are vital to their economic well-
being and political sovereignty. For the United States to walk away 
from this agreement now would be analogous, in my view, to the United 
States failure in the early part of this century to join the League of 
Nations. I believe that was a terrible mistake for the United States 
and for the world.
  Some would have us withdraw from GATT, even withdraw from the United 
Nations. I believe that would be disastrous. If the United States does 
not remain an active participant on the world stage and work 
constructively to liberalize world trade we risk a reversion to 
protectionism and trade warfare of the worst kind--a law of the jungle 
that could pull the United States and the world back into serious 
recession. We have worked hard to get our economy and the world economy 
back on track. Investor confidence in the world economic outlook will 
plummet if we simply pick up our cards and go home.


                   The Deficiencies in the Agreement

  There is substantial benefit to the United States in this agreement. 
But the agreement is far from perfect and there are omissions which 
concern me greatly. Most notably, this agreement deals only with the 
rights of capital, but completely neglects the rights of workers. That 
is a serious deficiency. In the United States-Canada Free Trade 
Agreement, which I supported, labor standard provisions were not 
necessary since the labor standards of our two countries are so 
compatible. In NAFTA, which I opposed, I believed such standards should 
have been a condition precedent to any agreement since we were 
negotiating with a third party, Mexico, which offered neither a history 
of strong democratic institutions nor a culture strongly supportive of 
worker rights.
  On the multilateral level, we are very far from any consensus on 
labor standards. The question is how we might best ultimately achieve 
one. I firmly believe we are far less likely to achieve a consensus on 
this important issue if there is not a GATT agreement. Absent a 
framework for global trade, I believe we will fall back into a downward 
cycle of trade warfare and protectionism, creating an environment in 
which it will be impossible to deal effectively with labor and 
environmental issues. If, in contrast, we approve this GATT agreement, 
we are assured we will continue constructive discussions at the 
multilateral level. In such an environment, the administration and the 
Congress, if aggressive, have at least the hope of elevating the rights 
of labor to the status of a priority issue. It will be difficult, but 
it can be done, and we must do it.


                               Conclusion

  In conclusion, this agreement is not perfect, but it is a major 
achievement. On balance, it offers more hope and opportunity than risk 
to U.S. business and workers. On that basis, I support it, and hope you 
consider my rationale in the formation of your judgment.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support 
of legislation implementing the Uruguay round of the GATT [General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade]. This legislation is the result of 8 
years of negotiations by three different Presidential administrations 
and considerable congressional review and revision. The United States' 
interests under this agreement have been fully reviewed, and the facts 
argue overwhelmingly for its approval.
  As a representative of North Carolina's Research Triangle, I can 
vouch for the stake that our high-technology industries have in this 
agreement. But, I want also to stress the benefits of this legislation 
for two industries in my State that normally are considered vulnerable 
to open trading markets--agriculture and textiles. Agriculture groups 
overwhelmingly support the GATT because, for the first time, it will 
eliminate protectionist measures by European countries which have kept 
our Nation's quality farm products from competing in the marketplace. 
The State secretaries of agriculture have called the Uruguay round 
``one of the most important pieces of economic legislation since World 
War II'' resulting in ``more American jobs'' and ``lower taxes.''
  Even the textile industry--an industry which has been greatly hurt by 
unfair trading practices--has taken a neutral stance on this 
legislation because of its provision establishing strict rules of 
origin and other provisions designed to prevent illegal transshipments 
of textiles and apparel. The industry realizes that, while the Uruguay 
round is not perfect, this implementing legislation provides them the 
best deal possible. They do not want to see this legislation defeated 
or renegotiated.
  Madam Chairman, the Uruguay round of the GATT will benefit most 
sectors of our economy. It will create American jobs by the thousands 
and lower costs for the American consumer. I plan to support this 
legislation and encourage my colleagues to also support it.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to our esteemed 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Chairman, nations do not trade with each other--people trade 
with each other.
  I am for GATT--and I urge my fellow Republicans to vote for GATT--
because it strikes a blow for liberty and against big Government. It 
gets Government out of the way, so individuals can engage in free 
exchanges. And by lowering tariff barriers worldwide, it constitutes 
the biggest tax cut in human history.
  The question is: Will we let our citizens decide--or do we think 
Government knows best?
  When an American family goes into the marketplace to buy food or 
clothing or shelter or any other goods, that family should be free to 
buy the best product at the lowest price. No bureaucracy can know that 
family's interests better than does that family.
  No government is qualified to stand in that family's way.
  The other side in this debate takes a less charitable view of the 
American people. They believe governments know best. They want 
bureaucracies to manage and control exchanges between free people. They 
think government agencies should protect us from ourselves. They fear 
that, given more freedom, Americans will lose.
  Well, history says otherwise. The lesson of history is that freedom 
works. And with freedom, Americans win.
  Past efforts to free trade have helped make America the world's 
greatest exporter and have strengthened democracy around the globe.
  We now have an opportunity to take freedom a step further, to open 
markets to America's goods and services in more than a hundred 
countries.
  After coming this far, will we now retreat and leave the benefits of 
free exchange to others? Will America capture these new markets, or 
leave them to our competitors?
  GATT has rightly been called the biggest tax cut in history. Well, it 
is also the biggest jobs bill in history, creating at least 10 times as 
many new jobs as NAFTA.
  Yet some GATT opponents say the issue is not cutting taxes or 
creating jobs, but rather our sovereignty. They fear the World Trade 
Organization.
  I take their concerns very seriously. And I've looked closely at the 
WTO. And it turns out that, despite its ominous-sounding name, the 
World Trade Organization is not the tentacled monster described by 
some, but rather a harmless little blob, more a nuisance than a threat.
  It cannot levy a fine. It cannot alter a law. It cannot bind anyone 
to do anything. The worst it can do is find us in violation of our own 
free-trade principles and give an approving nod to a foreign nation to 
raise tariffs against us. But of course, every sovereign nation can do 
that anyway.
  So why did President Reagan want a WTO. Because it will provide a 
highly public forum in which to embarrass trade slackers and cheaters 
into keeping their word. And that's good for us, because we keep our 
trade commitments.
  A vote against GATT is a vote to turn our economy over to the timid--
to those who believe we can't compete. It is a vote for Government 
knows best.
  But a vote for GATT is a vote to reaffirm our faith in free 
enterprise--a vote of confidence in the ability of our working families 
to compete and prosper in a free marketplace without artificial 
barriers. A vote for GATT is a vote for freedom. And freedom works.
  Madam Chairman, let me close with this point: The choice before us 
today is between freedom and prosperity for the American people or 
dependence, security and peace provided by governments. It has been my 
observation, and it remains my observation today, that at any time we 
Americans decide that we should dare to love peace more than freedom, 
we will most certainly lose. This is our chance today to demonstrate to 
the world we love freedom most and we are prepared to win.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Chairman, it is appropriate that GATT be the last test of the 
outgoing Democratic Congress and the first test of the incoming 
Republican Congress because this is not a test of our politics, this is 
a nonpartisan test of our faith in America's future.
  Presidents Reagan and Bush had that faith, as does President Clinton 
today. They know that the most productive Nation on Earth can only gain 
by a level playing field throughout the world. They know that self-
confident nations do not make policy because they fear the worst, but 
out of their determination to bring about the best. We know that in the 
21st century no developing nation, no developed nation will be able to 
sustain its economic growth without free and vigorous international 
trade.
  In addition to GATT, it perhaps being the only road toward the 
economic self-sufficiency of our children's generation, it may also 
represent the only path to world peace as well because we know that it 
is only through economic interdependence among all the nations of the 
world that we can ever afford to relax our military preparedness and 
shrink our military resources.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to seize this historic 
opportunity and to vote for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Let me just point out several things we need to say over and over 
again. We would have a surplus in trade today if it were not for oil 
and automobiles. You know, we got a deal with oil and we got a deal 
with automobiles, and this is the problem we are having right now in 
foreign trade. GATT is something we asked for; every President, the 
last few Presidents have all asked for this. Why? Because we play by 
the rules, and it is the other side that does not.
  So GATT is really taking the process that we have been under and 
adding teeth. It says that no longer can countries suddenly decide, 
``Oops, we don't want to go to the tribunal to find out that we have 
really violated what we signed.'' We go ahead and we go and we allow 
them to publish the results while other countries do not go and allow 
them to publish the results.
  If we pass this today, it says, ``No more, everybody else has to play 
by the rules that they sign up for just as we do.''
  If we are going to have order and structure in trade, we must have 
this.
  So I encourage everybody to stand up today and vote for this. America 
can compete, we can do well in this; we are doing well in this, and let 
us get on with this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would observe the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Crane] has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Gibbons] has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter] has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania [Ms. Margolies-Mezvinsky].
  (Ms. MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of GATT. 
But I would like to emphasize that the U.S. trade officials must 
attempt to strike a balance between legitimate regulatory interests and 
foreign trade commitments. The debate on implementing legislation for 
the Uruguay round of the GATT involves many complex issues, as you have 
heard, including, of course, the power of the WTO.
  Madam Chairman, on concrete example of the resolve of United States 
trade officials in vindicating our interests in domestic regulations is 
the response to the Venezuelan Gatt challenge of the Clean Air Act's 
Reformulated Gasoline [RFG] Program. The Venezuelan state-owned oil 
Company, PDVSA, argues that it does not need to meet standards set by 
the United States for imported reformulated gasoline even though the 
Venezuelan RFG may contain more pollutants than the United States RFG, 
and may endanger the health of United States citizens. If the U.S. 
fails to vigorously defend this challenge as the WTO evolves, other 
U.S. legal frameworks designed to protect human health and the 
environment in this country could be threatened by future international 
dispute resolution panels.

                              {time}  1730

  I support the GATT, but I say that we must be very vigilant with 
regard to environmental standards.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5110, the 
implementing legislation for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
[GATT] Uruguay Round Trade Agreement.
  GATT was created by the United States and its allies after World War 
II to help stimulate the economies of underdeveloped nations and stop 
the spread of communism. Unfortunately, the free trade promises of 
economic efficiency and lower consumer prices have not been delivered 
to the average worker. If my colleagues think these promises have been 
delivered, then I invite them to ask the 3.2 million workers who have 
lost jobs since the Tokyo round of GATT what they think; or all of the 
Americans with fulltime jobs who now receive 20 percent less take-home 
pay than they did 20 years ago what they think. Job security is a high 
price to pay for lower prices on TV's and VCR's.
  Instead of providing Americans with a larger piece of the global 
economic pie, GATT has become a breeding ground for large, 
multinational corporations. There is a clear and present danger that in 
a global economy run by interlocking corporations, most of us will be 
reduced to urban peasants or suburban serfs. Semislave wages and 
working conditions pose a threat to academicians, technicians, and 
professionals, as well as assembly line workers. The only collective 
defense which the American people have against this massive 
exploitation is to demand that the Government bear the responsibility 
for full employment and safeguard our labor and environmental 
standards. First with the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA], 
and now with the Uruguay round, our Government has turned a deaf ear.
  Already, the jury has begun to deliver its verdict on NAFTA. While we 
have not heard the giant sucking sound that Ross Perot promised, the 
rosy picture which was painted by NAFTA's advocates last year has 
dulled and begun to fade. Despite claims that NAFTA has created 100,000 
jobs, a recent study found that only 535 new jobs could be attributed 
to NAFTA. Furthermore, in the first 10 months of this year, 275 
petitions were filed on behalf of 30,000 workers under the NAFTA-
related transitional adjustment assistance. Because many States do not 
yet have application procedures in place, it is reasonable to assume 
that these figures understate the severity of job losses resulting from 
NAFTA.
  Additionally, the environmental side agreement which was negotiated 
with NAFTA has been a dismal failure. The two new agencies which 
regulate the Mexican border do not have general managers, and cleanup 
projects have not even begun.
  With less than stellar results from NAFTA, it is no wonder that our 
constituents are wary of the Uruguay round trade agreement. Once again, 
promises are being made that will not ring true when the dust settles 
from the thousands of pages of the implementing legislation.
  First and foremost, American workers are once again being asked to 
walk the plank without any guarantees of job security. Workers in the 
textile and apparel industry would be particularly hard hit. The 
Uruguay round of the GATT would phaseout the multifiber arrangement 
[MFA], under which industrial nations have imposed quotas on textile 
imports from developing countries. This arrangement has provided job 
protection for U.S. textile workers for 30 years. Although phased out 
over a 10-year period, the dismantling in the U.S. textile and apparel 
industry, threatening more than 1 million jobs in the industry itself 
and hundreds of thousands of jobs in supplying industries.
  Second, public health and safety concerns have been given short 
shrift under the trade agreement and have given way to more 
economically powerful interests. The language of the agreement 
compromises the ability of the United States to promote legitimate 
environmental and animal protection goals and actually strengthens 
rules which weaken enforcement of important international treaties, 
such as the Basel Hazardous Waste Convention. The creation of the one-
nation, one-vote World Trade Organization [WTO] also would give 
increased clout to Japan, Canada, and the European Union [EU], which 
already have published long lists of United States laws they wish to 
see abolished because they consider them to be trade barriers. For 
instance, the EU objects to California recycling laws requiring warning 
labels on products containing substances found to cause cancer or 
reproductive harm. Given the fact that the United States is now more 
often the defendant than the plaintiff in trade disputes heard by GATT 
panels, it would appear that the United States has a lot to lose under 
a new WTO dispute resolution system.
  Third, the financing provisions contained in the implementing 
legislation are deplorable and unfair. The bill would prohibit 
nonresident aliens from claiming the earned-income tax credit [EITC] on 
their annual tax returns, unless such individuals are married and agree 
to subject all of their income to U.S. income tax. The bill also would 
increase to 85 percent from 50 percent the amount of social security or 
railroad retirement benefits that must be included in the gross income 
of nonresident aliens. These provisions perpetuate the immigrant 
bashing which is currently in vogue, a dangerous course which has 
divided this country in the past.
  This round of trade negotiations, which began with high hopes more 
than 8 years ago, has ended with much confusion, doubt, and 
disappointment. Labor and environmental concerns have not been 
adequately addressed at a time in the new world order when jobs equal 
survival and Americans feel increasingly threatened by toxins in the 
food they eat and the air they breathe.
  Although proponents of the trade package have insisted that it will 
help foster an economic boom, I firmly believe that preserving American 
jobs must remain our primary goal. The time to risk losing millions of 
jobs for the sake of global competition is not when Congress is about 
to consider forcing welfare recipients into an already inhospitable job 
market. In fact, the types of jobs that the Uruguay round trade 
agreement would kill--low-wage, industrial jobs--are precisely the jobs 
for which a welfare recipient would be qualified to gain a footing in 
the work force. Without the availability of such jobs, welfare reform 
is merely a pipe dream.
  Madam Chairman, labor and environmental concerns must become firmly 
embedded in new global trade agreements before I can support 
legislation implementing further changes to GATT. I urge all of my 
colleagues to hold themselves accountable for protecting American 
workers from unfair trade practices and significant job losses and 
preserving the ecosystem for the health of future generations.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this GATT.
  The decision we undertake today is probably the most important of 
this Congress. Yes, we had many heated words over the Crime bill. 
Intense debate over President Clinton's tax package. High drama in the 
weeks before our vote a year ago on NAFTA.
  Those were all important issues on the political landscape. But this 
is not about politics. It's about America's role in the global economy. 
It's about setting our economic foundation for 5, 8, or 10 years to 
come. GATT is about opening new markets for our products, creating good 
jobs at good wages for the next two generations of Americans, my 
children and their children.
  I understand the anxiety of many Americans who are concerned that 
they may wake up tomorrow to find their jobs transplanted to another 
developing economy. Indeed, this GATT has become the focal point for 
all their worries about our national ability to compete and win in the 
global economic wars.
  But we can not obsess about the manufacturing jobs we've already lost 
to the Pacific rim or to Latin America. they are gone, with or without 
GATT.
  This GATT will lower tariffs, open markets, protect American 
intellectual property and improve trade rules to protect our industries 
from unfair trade practices. The bottom line is GATT is good for 
America and particularly good for New Jersey.
  There's no secret that New Jersey's economy has been mired in 
difficult times over the past few years. We have witnessed the net 
losses of thousands of jobs in recent years. We begin to recover from 
these losses by doing two things; opening new markets to American 
products, and protecting those industrial sectors we already have.


                             OPENING MARKET

  Between 1987 and last year, exports from New Jersey to the world 
jumped 90 percent, up nearly $7 billion to a 1993 total of $14.5 
billion. That makes New Jersey the ninth largest exporting State in the 
Union.
  Clearly, the fate of the New Jersey economy has become increasingly 
tied to international trade. Indeed, the New Jersey-New York region is 
well-positioned to benefit from the GATT. U.S. Treasury officials are 
telling us that over 10 percent of all of the new jobs and new money 
that results from GATT will come to this region. For New Jersey, that 
is projected to be $5.4 billion and 18,000 new jobs 10 years from now.


                       PROTECTING NEW JERSEY JOBS

  We are all very proud that New Jersey is our national headquarters 
for research and development in the pharmaceutical, chemical, 
telecommunications, and other high-technology industries. Financial 
Services throughout the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan area will 
benefit.
  That means protection of the intellectual property--patents, formula, 
compounds, et cetera--produced by the likes of Johnson and Johnson, 
Becton-Dickinson, AT&T, Merck, Schering-Plough, Hoffman-LaRoche, 
Warner-Lambert and others is critically important. GATT has variously 
been described to me as ``the strongest agreement yet on intellectual 
property.'' New Jersey industry needs protection from unscrupulous 
pirates.
  Is GATT the answer to America's economic problems? No way. This is 
not a panacea. It is a trade agreement. Yes, an imperfect trade 
agreement that bears strict enforcement and constant surveillance.
  I will vote for GATT today and then tomorrow begin the hard work of 
ensuring that its implementation and enforcement protects our national 
interest.
  Madam Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of provisions in H.R. 5110 
which address the concerns of many regarding the present state of the 
ERISA title IV pension plan termination insurance program.
  Nearly 1\1/2\ years ago, the Subcommittee on Labor-Management 
Relations concluded a series of oversight hearings on the financial 
problems of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC]. Our 
conclusion then, at least my conclusion, was that there was a need for 
the Administration to expedite their study and forward legislative 
recommendations to the Congress on how to correct those problems.
  Finally, in October of last year, the bill H.R. 3396, the Retirement 
Protection Act was introduced, which embodied the administration's 
legislative recommendations.
  First, during our hearings we did not have one witness who denied the 
problem and the projections which show a growing deficit for the 
single-employer plan termination insurance program under ERISA. In 
fact, it was then that the executive director of the PBGC stated that 
the PBGC would ``grow and grow'' if no action is taken.
  Second, we heard witnesses from every persuasion urging the Congress 
to take deliberate steps that will achieve a careful balancing of the 
need to shore up the PBGC while still encouraging the continuation of 
the defined benefit pension system. I believe what's at stake here is 
the health of the voluntary pension system and, in particular, the 
support in Congress for defined benefit pension plans.
  To be sure, the subcommittee did hear from witnesses who raised 
concerns with the original bill. But there was little disagreement over 
the notion that the time has come for Congress to take the steps 
necessary to ensure the financial integrity of our private pension 
system. I believe the provisions before us, while perhaps not perfect, 
represent the first of those steps.
  As I've stated on several occasions, the task of fashioning an 
appropriate legislative solution in this complex area constitutes a 
``risky business.'' Certainly, we want to assure the Federal taxpayer 
that the PBGC Program will never require their assistance like the 
saving and loans did. Also, we need to exercise caution regarding any 
increase in the premiums on well-funded pension plans, or we risk the 
continuance of the very plans we need to keep the PBGC on a self-
financing basis. Clearly, changes in the pension funding rules are 
necessary.
  We must also be ever mindful of the principles underlying the 
establishment of the PBGC. That is, as stated in ERISA, to encourage 
the continuation of voluntary private pension plans, to provide for the 
timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits, and to maintain 
premiums at the lowest level consistent with these purposes. Clearly, a 
careful balancing of incentives and disincentives is required, if we 
are to avoid a future taxpayer bailout of the PBGC Program.
  Only time will tell if the details of the complex changes to ERISA 
included in this bill will fully meet all expectations. However, the 
heart of the proposal, increased plan funding and fairness in the 
premiums charged, should result over time in the elimination of the 
PBGC's shortfall, currently approaching $3 billion.
  The final provisions differ somewhat from the legislation originally 
recommended by the administration. Our subcommittee heard from 
witnesses who raised concerns about the legislation, particularly as it 
affects companies with plans that are, by all accounts, quite well-
funded. In this connection, the bill reported by our committee, H.R. 
3396, did attempt to address some of the concerns. For example, pension 
plans that have funded at least 90 percent of their current liability 
would not be subject to the accelerated funding under the bill. In 
addition, an easing of the mortality assumptions used in computing a 
plan's current pension liability is provided by means of the permitted 
use of special tables for disabled individuals and by delaying any 
update of the 1983 group annuity mortality table until the year 2000.
  Another amendment adopted in committee, however, was said by the PBGC 
to impair the bill's effectiveness by reducing the required 
contributions by about 25 percent over 5 years. This amendment would 
broaden the permitted interest rate corridor from 90-100 percent to 90-
105 percent of a moving average of 30-year Treasury rates.
  In this regard, the final language included in H.R. 5110 tracks the 
bill as reported by the Committee on Education and Labor with the 
following significant changes: First, in computing the amount of 
required pension contributions, the current law interest rate corridor 
of 90 to 110 percent of the weighted average Treasury rate is phased 
down to 90 to 105 percent over 5 years; second, so-called pension 
contribution volatility relief is granted to plans that fall below 90 
percent, but not below 80 percent funding 1 of 3 years; third, the 
provision allowing PBGC to seek equitable relief in court when 
corporate transactions threaten the continued funding of underfunded 
plans was eliminated; and fourth, the provision requiring advance 
notice to PBGC of potentially harmful transactions was limited to 
privately held companies.
  Pensioners need the assurance of a soundly financed plan termination 
insurance program, as do employees who we hope, in the future, will be 
able to look to defined benefit pensions as a continued resource for 
their retirement income security. It is toward this end that these PBGC 
reforms should be enacted in this Congress.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
                                                   N O T I C E                                                  
                                                                                                                
  Incomplete record of House proceedings; today's House proceedings will be continued in the next issue of the  
                                                     Record.                                                    
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

