[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 AGREEMENT ACT--Continued

  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Sarpalius].
  Mr. SARPALIUS. Madam Chairman, I rise for the last time as chairman 
of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, a committee that has 
jurisdiction over the cotton program, wheat, corn, grains, sorghum, 
rice, soybeans, the very commodities that will prosper a great deal 
under this GATT agreement.
  I commend our President for working aggressively to bring down walls 
so that our farmers and businesses can compete more competitively 
around the world, and that is what this agreement is all about.
  Today the Europeans subsidize their farmers by more than 75 percent, 
and I ask my colleagues, ``Don't you remember seeing farmers picketing 
in the streets in Europe against this agreement?'' This agreement gives 
credit to our farmers by more than 25 percent. It will require the 
Europeans to reduce their subsidies by 25 percent, but gives us credit 
through our CRP Program, and setaside programs and other programs that 
we have implemented.
  I challenge my colleagues to support this GATT agreement, and again I 
commend our President for the leadership that he has shown in reaching 
a consensus to the GATT agreement.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Madam Chairman, we often hear so many complicated terms 
when we are trying to explain a very, very complicated General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or a NAFTA agreement, and we go back in 
history and look at the different international agreements. Let us talk 
about this one in terms of domestic terminology. What about growing 
small businesses, and what about jobs for our constituents?
  Madam Chairman, when I have contacted the people in my district, in 
the Third District of Indiana, in the farming community where I have 
over 4,800 farmers, they know this will benefit them and that Indiana 
will grow in their exports by over $1 billion in the next 10 years for 
our wheat farmers, our corn farmers and our bean farmers. At Miles, a 
pharmaceutical company in Elkhart, IN, which employs about 2,800 
people, we have taught, and they know, that this will protect 
intellectual property agreements with other countries and thereby help 
employment in Indiana. ANCO, which is a company that employs 1,800 to 
1,200 people in Michigan City, will have better agreements in the 
automotive sector.
  Madam Chairman, we need to pass this for jobs, for small businesses 
and big businesses to have a more even playing field. This is in the 
best interests of the United States of America.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], a very fine member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, the bill before us today implementing 
GATT is a critical decision for the 103d Congress as we seek to ensure 
the long-term prosperity of this Nation. Our future, and particularly 
the growth of our economy, is directly tied to global markets and 
international trade.
  My colleagues have made all the right points regarding the benefits 
of this agreement in estimates of GNP growth reaching hundreds of 
millions of dollars in this Nation alone; in the hundreds of thousands 
of new, well paying jobs here resulting directly from growth in 
exports; in the value of increased protection of intellectual 
property--the new ideas and inventions that have always been the 
hallmark of this Nation; in the opening of foreign nations to our 
banks, insurance companies, and other service industries; and on and 
on. By including intellectual property rights protection and 
strengthened standards for agriculture in this agreement, we have 
helped American manufacturers and producers.
  I would like to particularly note two important issues that I have 
worked to address in the implementing bill that will benefit American 
workers. The future of our domestic textile and apparel industries 
under this agreement has been a subject of great debate and conflict. 
GATT will result in the phasing out of the multifiber agreement over 
the next 10 years. In an agreement negotiated among 125 States, 
tradeoffs are necessary and the continued direct protection of our 
textile and apparel industries was something we could no longer 
maintain in the face of changing global markets. I regret this fact, 
but the so-called Cardin-Breaux proposal adopted in this bill, changing 
the rules of origin, will ensure more effective enforcement of the 
multifiber agreement quotas while they remain in place. I commend the 
administration for including this change in the bill and providing 
domestic textile and apparel workers the best possible competitive 
situation under the negotiated agreement.
  The second issue I focused upon in the bill was ensuring the best 
enforcement of fair trade in the United States under the GATT through 
our antidumping and countervailing duty laws. The unfair trade cases 
brought by domestic steel manufacturers in 1992 made clear the 
importance of our laws enforcing fair trade in this Nation. As a result 
of the size of our domestic market and the relatively free trade we 
allow in imports, many domestic manufacturing industries are always at 
risk from imports sold in this Nation at prices that could never be 
fairly equaled. Foreign nations employ a wide, and ever-changing 
variety of means to significantly subsidize specific domestic 
industries. Our antidumping and countervailing duty laws are the wall 
between our domestic markets and a flood of unfairly priced imports. I 
am confident that the bill before us today strengthens the protection 
for domestic manufactures under these provisions.
  Madam Chairman, I am proud of the long, hard work on the part of 
Congress and the last three Presidential administrations that has led 
us to this day. I would ask my colleagues to join me in support of this 
bill. Passage of GATT will greatly enhance economic growth and 
prosperity in this Nation and around the world.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, after long and careful consideration I 
have made the difficult decision to vote against GATT today. GATT may 
lower barriers to trade and increase U.S. exports, but it cannot solve 
America's domestic economic problems that it was not designed to, and 
it does not address the social problems it needs to.
  As Chairman of the Government Operations Committee I have spent 6 
years carefully studying the areas of GATT under my jurisdiction. I 
have met with the U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor as well as 
his predecessor on numerous occasions, and both have testified before 
my committee. Working closely together, the committee and the 
administration have made meaningful progress in perfecting the 
procurement provisions of this agreement. The renegotiated government 
procurement agreement provides greatly improved access for highly 
competitive U.S. firms to the international procurement market 
estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, at my 
request the administration included provisions in the implementing 
legislation that better protect minority business preference programs 
from foreign competition. The inclusion of these protections in a 
multilateral trade agreement is an important step in safeguarding these 
critical programs.
  Unfortunately, GATT is not a perfectly crafted document. Many of our 
domestic goals are subordinated to the interest of the 120 nations who 
are members of GATT. Some of our partners have little hesitancy in 
locking us into international competitive plunder, where the lowest 
wage offers the best competitive advantage and wages harmonize 
downward. This is not the right course for us to take. I believe that 
as American global economic interests expand, so do our moral 
responsibilities. The American standard in international trade should 
favor equity over injustice, cooperation over tension, and 
accountability over irresponsible economic behavior. GATT does none of 
these things.

  Ultimately, this trade agreement will grant additional economic 
rights to those who already have the most. It does nothing to change 
the most egregious working conditions that have been repeatedly 
documented. In Guatemala, unionists who organize can be murdered merely 
for requesting the minimum wage--not ours but theirs. In Indonesia, 
labor organizers are routinely arrested while other organizers engaged 
in nonviolent campaigns are tortured. In Pakistan, despite new 
legislation and promises to end the practice of bonded labor, millions 
remain in chains. There are other examples as well. These nations are 
currently members of GATT, and the agreement we vote on today will do 
nothing to curb these systematic and flagrant worker rights abuses, 
even though it could. We can turn a blind eye to these human costs 
abroad if we choose, but the economic costs at home as American workers 
are forced to compete with this exploited labor will be inescapable.
  Samuel Gompers said it best when he declared that the mission of 
unions is to ``Protect the workers in their inalienable rights to a 
higher and better life; to protect them, not only as equals before the 
law, but also in their health, their homes, their firesides, their 
liberties * * *.'' Their purpose, he said, is to preserve for workers 
``the right to be full sharers in the abundance which is the result of 
their brain and brawn, and the civilization of which they are the 
founders and the mainstay.'' If only that spirit could be found 
somewhere in these thousands of pages, but it isn't.
  Sub-Sahara Africa will suffer by losing an estimated $2.6 billion 
annually in a best case scenario according to the World Bank and the 
Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development, who estimate 
these costs could continue for as long as 15 years. Even worse, the 
Wall Street Journal reports that as American and European wheat and 
corn subsidies are cut, the price of these staples will surge for 
African nations, which are net importers of food. The Caribbean 
countries share the same risk of widespread hunger.
  GATT will ravage the environment in developing countries by placing 
the lowest tariffs on raw materials. This will encourage the 
exploitation of natural resources in poor countries while giving the 
wealthy countries the temporary benefit of the jobs and profits. GATT 
further threatens the environment by even reaching out to our state 
environmental laws, such as Michigan's ``green procurement'' laws which 
encourage recycling by opening them to challenge as barriers to trade.
  America should be able to set its own ethical, legal, and 
economic priorities. This agreement will undermine America's ability to 
act unilaterally against nations with unfair trade practices. The 
Clinton administration was absolutely right to initiate an 
investigation into Japanese barriers to American automobile imports 
under Section 301. Nearly two-thirds of Japan's $60 billion trade 
surplus with the United States is in automobiles and automobile parts. 
Section 301 is clearly one of the most important tools the United 
States has to work with to change that trade imbalance. With GATT, we 
could either lose our ability to retaliate, or be forced to do so only 
with the consent of the publicly unaccountable World Trade 
Organization. Europe has already questioned the legality under GATT of 
this crucial trade mechanism. Meanwhile, the European Union added 
amendments to the GATT during the negotiations to limit Japanese access 
to their automobile market. This will make the United States even more 
vulnerable to Japanese dumping.

  I do not resist global economic integration, but I think we must 
better aspire to apply it. There are unquestionably parts of the 
agreement which will likely benefit some sectors of the American 
economy. But we cannot ignore its fundamental weaknesses. I think we 
can all agree on a set of values in international agreements which hold 
that the weak must not be drowned in the undertow of the powerful, and 
that we should act in a way which preserves the finite resources of our 
planet. America must assume the moral responsibilities of its economic, 
political, and global civic leadership.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chairman, while this House debates the virtues 
and vices of international trade, we on Guam have to smile. As 
America's Western-most community, Guam is a short distance from Japan, 
Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the rest of the Pacific rim. We know first hand 
the benefits that come with trade. In addition, we live outside the 
U.S. Customs Zone, which means our exports to the United States have 
been subject to quotas. This status has contributed to our economic 
growth by allowing us to be duty free. Thus, we benefited by being both 
associated with the united States and outside the customs zone.
  Given all this, what will GATT do for us? Not much. Instead of our 
current system, which puts a ceiling on the amount of goods entering 
the States from Guam, we will be faced with a prohibitively high tariff 
on those goods exceeding the current ceiling. Either way, our ability 
to export to the States will be hamstrung.
  Although Guam and other United States territories have the potential 
to benefit under certain preferences granted by American law, these 
preferences will mean less as Pacific nations enjoy lower tariffs and 
better trading conditions with the United States. The territories' 
competitive advantage, such as it was, will be eroded.
  I had hoped that GATT would help one of our manufacturers on Guam, 
Magnolia Ice Cream. While we might be able to marginally increase 
Magnolia's exports to the States under this new regime, we still will 
not have the ture ``free trade'' promised by this agreement.
  Madam Chairman, I am a free trader at heart. I believe that lowering 
trade barriers around the world is a positive step toward economic 
growth and international peace. I am convinced that this legislation 
and the international agreement it implements will be good for the 
United States and good for the world. But I fail to see how it will 
benefit my community. And since it is my job to represent the people 
who sent me here, I simply cannot enthusiastically support GATT.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chairman, after careful deliberation I have decided 
to vote against passage of GATT. In fact, Madam Chairman, I believe 
that this agreement ought to be considered as a treaty, not the way it 
is being considered here.
  Today, we have heard many statistics cited and seen several rosy 
scenarios painted by the proponents of GATT. What is missing, I 
believe, is a realistic appraisal of the impacts this agreement has on 
the lives of working Americans.
  To me, GATT appears to be another example of the rich getting richer 
while the middle class continues to struggle. In the past decade, the 
top 5 percent of Americans accumulated more than 40 percent of the 
wealth that resulted from growth in the U.S. economy. In the meantime, 
the wages of working people have remained stagnant. This is not the 
type of growth that benefits the American people. It is a strategy that 
is destined to create a two-tiered society: the haves and the have 
nots.
  Before we move further into a global economy, we need to develop a 
strategy of job creation in this country that restores the American 
dream for middle-class families. I said this at the time of the NAFTA 
vote and, unfortunately, since then my home State of New York has lost 
1,300 jobs to Canada and Mexico.
  At this point, our priorities are backwards. We are bringing our 
economy down to the level of other nations, rather than raising the 
standard of living for working people around the world. The GATT 
agreement does nothing to address the low-wage, exploitative labor 
practices of other nations.
  Any effort by the United States to promote--or even uphold--its labor 
and environmental standards can be thwarted by the World Trade 
Organization, where a vote by Singapore or Bahrain has the same value 
as the United States vote.
  As our manufacturing base erodes under GATT, the U.S. trade deficit 
will soar. And GATT will also increase our budget deficit by billions 
of dollars. I strongly suspect it will be working Americans who will 
pay for this double-whammy--such as through the elimination of the 
guaranteed interest rate on U.S. savings bonds that is included in 
section 745 of the GATT agreement.
  At a time when we need to encourage savings and develop a job 
creation strategy, we are instead cutting the legs out from under the 
American worker.
  I believe in free trade when it is fair trade, but GATT is not a good 
deal for American working families.

                              {time}  1740

  At a time when we need to encourage savings and develop a job 
creation strategy, we are instead cutting the legs out from under the 
American worker. I fear that this agreement will ensure that the wages 
of the average American will continue to be depressed. I believe in 
fair trade when it is free and fair. But GATT is not a good deal for 
American working families. I am therefore constrained to vote no, and I 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I thank my colleagues for sticking around for those 
who have watched this debate and for analyzing the facts and the 
figures in this giant mountain of data that has been available on GATT 
over the last several years and which you have had to sift through to 
come to this final vote that is going to manifest your feeling on this 
very important vote.
  Let me tell you, this is an important vote. For those who have talked 
about the World Trade Organization as not having much power and this 
not really being much more than a continuation of what we have had 
since the end of World War II, let us set the record straight: The best 
place to see how important GATT is and how important this transfer of 
power is, is to look at the statements of foreign ministers around the 
world who analyzed what GATT is going to do with respect to their power 
vis-a-vis the United States.
  Let us start off with the French foreign minister of trade. He said, 
``The United States has wielded a very large stick which enabled them 
to have their way. From now on, the stick will be more in the hands of 
the WTO, the World Trade Organization, which will become the policeman 
of world trade.'' It looks like the French foreign minister does not 
agree with the analyses of the World Trade Organization that have been 
made for the last several hours on the floor, the characterizations of 
WTO being toothless, not being very important, not being able to 
infringe on our laws.
  Let's look at the statement of the European Commissioner for Trade. 
``A major trade power such as the United States now has fewer levers 
with which to impose its view on other countries because it has 
formally agreed to be more mindful of the rules of the multilateral 
game.''
  GATT is a formalization of a very tough, disciplined process that 
will result in this country being punished if we do not agree to the 
renditions and the judgments that are made by a committee that we are 
giving our power to. This is a transfer of power first and foremost, 
from this Congress, from the people we represent, from the United 
States of America, to a committee. And the committee is 123 nations, 
and about two-thirds of those nations have a record, a record in the 
United Nations, countries like Bangladesh and Cameroon and all the 
rest, who during the cold war voted more than 50 percent of the time 
against the United States. They did not do that because they thought we 
were wrong; they usually did that because they were bullied or 
intimidated or persuaded or cajoled by the Soviet Union.

  Those same countries, indeed some of those same diplomats, will now 
be voting in another world forum, the World Trade Organization. And I 
think they are going to vote against the United States, because they 
are going to be intimidated and cajoled and persuaded, not by the 
former Soviet Union, but by trade empires, like Japan. Indeed, Japan's 
trade minister told a group of his industrialists, don't worry about 
301, we are going to blunt the effects of 301 through the committees on 
GATT.
  So if we do not look at GATT as forming a WTO that has enormous 
power, the rest of the nations of the world do. And let us do away with 
this game of semantics that we have been employing over the last 
several weeks with respect to sovereignty. Does this infringe on 
sovereignty? No, it doesn't; yes, it does.
  Here is what it does do, and I think everybody will agree with this: 
We can maintain our laws, and we can pass new laws. And those laws can 
affect trade. And those laws can be inconsistent with GATT. They can 
contradict GATT. We can do anything we want to. We are the American 
people. If we give away this power to the WTO, we do not give the power 
away to legislate in this body so we can pass laws.
  GATT and these 123-odd nations that make up the WTO can also pass 
laws. And if our laws are in contradiction with their laws, here is 
what they can do. They can punish us. They can retaliate against us. 
GATT and WTO can sanction retaliation against the United States. They 
can do the same thing that a civil court does if you do not obey it. 
They can punish us. And that means they can tell an industry that they 
can block our goods from coming in.
  This is a very serious game, this world trade, and retaliation and 
cross-retaliation are very serious measures. So the first thing we have 
to realize about GATT, and I think both sides have to agree on, is that 
this is a transfer of power. It is a transfer of power to regulate 
trade from this body and from this country to a committee that has not 
been very friendly to the United States.
  Second, this agreement preludes a shift of production. You know, we 
look at what happened in the Tokyo round, and we remember the words of 
our trade representatives in the Tokyo round, and they told us this 
will increase wages of American workers. They said this will reduce the 
trade deficit. This is going to make America healthy.
  Since the Tokyo round, we have experienced a $1.4 trillion trade 
deficit. We went in exactly the opposite direction of where our Trade 
Representative said the country would go after the Tokyo round. We have 
been reducing tariffs constantly, especially since 1973. And you know 
what has happened along with that reduction? What has attended that 
reduction of tariffs? A reduction of real wages.
  Now, let us dispense with all the talk about what exports do and how 
consumers will be benefited by this GATT agreement, and let us look at 
it through a very simple formula. Real wages for nonsupervisory workers 
have gone down 20 percent since 1973. As tariffs went down, real wages 
went down.
  What does that mean? That means that an American worker pushing a 
shopping cart through a Wal-Mart or a K-mart today, even though he can 
buy these low tariff, cheap foreign products off the shelf, can only 
fill his shopping cart up to four-fifths the level that he could fill 
it up to in 1973. That means you do not get as much as you used to get 
for your weekly wages, and that is one reason why the American 
electorate was so frustrated and angry a couple of weeks ago.

  Now, let me just say one thing to my Republican friends. You know, we 
agree, I think almost unanimously as a party, that our welfare system 
is wrong in this country. And one reason we do not like our welfare 
system is because we claim it incentivizes families to split up, the 
father to leave. We say that is bad, we are going to have to reform 
that welfare system.
  Well, why have we gone along with a system of trade that incentivizes 
production, American companies to separate from their workers? When you 
have total fluidity of product across an international border and you 
have high wages on one side and low wages on the other, it is a simple 
economic axiom that those wages tend to come to equilibrium. American 
wages come down a little and the other wages come up a little bit. And 
we know that we are incentivizing American producers with this GATT to 
move offshore. The reason they can move offshore is because they can be 
guaranteed that there will no longer be a tariff wall between 
production and that good old American worker who buys their products in 
the Wal-Marts and K-Marts and on the automobile showroom floors in this 
country.
  They can move production offshore. You know what that means? I think 
it is best illustrated by an ad that ran for a couple of years that the 
State of Yucatan put out. And that ad had a picture of an American 
businessman working late at night, burning the midnight oil, and he was 
saying I can't find good loyal workers who will work for a dollar an 
hour within a thousand miles of here. Of course the ad by the State of 
Yucatan said, ``Yes, you can, in Yucatan.''

                              {time}  1750

  I think that is the essence of this GATT, this moving of production 
offshore. However, we have forgotten one thing about those workers. 
Those workers did not carry the American flag in World War II, Korea, 
Vietnam, Desert Storm. They do not pay $1,000 apiece out of their 
paycheck just for the national defense function of this country. They 
do not build our universities, bridges, roads. They do not pay our 
salaries, and they do not raise the American children. Only American 
workers do that.
  The only way we can serve American workers in a trade agreement is to 
raise their salary. GATT does not raise their salaries. Vote ``no'' on 
GATT.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  (Mr. PENNY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENNY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the GATT agreement.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5110, the 
implementation bill for the Uruguay Round Agreement of the General 
Agreement of Tariffs and Trade.
  I am pleased and proud that my final vote in the U.S. Congress will 
be for this monumental accord, which will reduce barriers to trade and 
help to rationalize the terms of international commerce. Passage of the 
bill will mean more U.S. exports, more American jobs, lower taxes, and 
a real stimulus to the country's economy.
  A vote in favor of this agreement is about the only good reason I can 
think of for leaving Minnesota and returning to Washington this week, 
aside from the snow.
  The Uruguay Round Agreement represents the culmination of 7 years of 
intensive effort by three administrations. All three deserve enormous 
credit for their aggressive pursuit of U.S. objectives in the 
negotiations.
  Some have expressed concerns about the trade agreement and its 
implications for U.S. sovereignty. I believe these concerns are 
unfounded, but I am pleased that the administration has sought to allay 
these concerns. I hope this vote will provide an opportunity to begin a 
new era of cooperation, in which partisan differences can be put aside 
to work in the best interests of the Nation.
  Ratification of this agreement is in the best interests of the 
Nation.
  The Uruguay Round Agreement will cut average tariffs on industrial 
goods by nearly 40 percent and eliminate them entirely on a number of 
products for which U.S. producers have a competitive edge.
  It will also open markets for a large number of service industries, 
such as accounting, advertising, law, architecture, construction, 
engineering, health services, and computer services. The protection of 
intellectual property rights also will be enhanced, helping to nurture 
the ideas and inventions of American scientists and artists by 
providing sound patent, trademark, and copyright rules.
  The effect of these trade liberalization measures is a freer and 
fairer international trade environment, a more robust U.S. economy, 
more and better jobs for American workers, and a higher level of 
prosperity.
  Congressional ratification of the Uruguay Round Agreement will 
solidify America's position as a world leader, and as a strong advocate 
of free and fair trade rules.
  By eliminating non tariff barriers and insisting on a rational, 
scientific basis for health and safety restrictions, the Uruguay Round 
Agreement has rationalized the terms of international commerce. No 
longer will U.S. exporters encounter a situation in which every market 
has a different trade barrier. Moreover, the advances made under the 
Uruguay round set the stage for future negotiations for further trade 
liberalization. It also provides effective dispute resolution and 
enforcement mechanisms. This is a tremendous step forward.
  This is not to suggest, however, that our work is done. Continued 
vigilance is vitally important in making sure that the full potential 
of this agreement is realized. We must insist on the full compliance of 
our trading partners. We must also seek out new opportunities to 
increase the breadth and depth of free trade. In this vein, I commend 
the President for his work earlier this month in Indonesia in advancing 
the prospect of increased trade through the Asian Pacific Economic 
Cooperation group.
  The Uruguay round also represents new challenges and opportunities 
for the U.S. private sector. With the world's largest economy and most 
productive work force, the United States is uniquely equipped the 
compete and prosper in a new international environment. We must gear 
these advantages to meet the evolving challenges of the global economy. 
I hope our politicians and policy makers, business and industry 
leaders, entrepreneurs and farmers will all work together to seek ways 
to adapt to this environment by establishing new ties, identifying new 
markets, developing new products and creating new jobs.
  The first step is passage of H.R. 5110.
  This bill is an economic stimulus package; it's a deficit measure; 
it's a vote for limited government and a vote for strong U.S. 
leadership in world affairs--and it's a tax cut. How often do we have 
an opportunity to do so many things right?
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 5110, in 
passing the Uruguay Round Agreement implementation bill.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLEMENT. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the GATT 
agreement.
  Madam Chairman, after studying this agreement in great detail, I have 
concluded that GATT is good for Tennessee and good for the United 
States.
  Over the past several months, I have received countless letters like 
the one from Mr. Frank J. Orschlen of Nashville, TN, who expressed his 
deep concern that GATT, and specifically the World Trade Organization, 
threatens U.S. sovereignty.
  After reviewing GATT, it is clear that the World Trade Organization 
will have absolutely no legislative, executive, or judicial authority. 
Nothing it proposes can change U.S. law. Only Congress or a State 
legislature can change a statute in the United States and nothing in 
GATT alter that.
  I have also received countless letters like the one I received from 
Mr. Nevada A. Kent who states so eloquently that ``American economic 
growth and job creation depend upon the expansion of international 
trade and investment. Ratification of the agreement means greater 
demand for our exports and increased prospects for long-term growth and 
stability for American businesses.''
  That is exactly why I am supporting this agreement. On November 19, 
1993, this body rose above partisan politics and passed an historic 
trade agreement with Mexico called NAFTA. While NAFTA was a victory for 
free and open trade in our hemisphere, GATT will be a victory for free 
an open trade throughout the entire world.
  As the number one exporter, the United States is in the best position 
to take advantage of the trade liberalization resulting from the GATT. 
In 1992, the United States accounted for almost 12 percent of all world 
exports. The U.S. market is already very open to imports. The GATT will 
help level the playing field for our exports.
  Tennessee also stands to benefit from reducing trade barriers world 
wide. In 1993, Tennessee exports abroad totaled $6.1 billion. Within 
the South Central Region, Tennessee ranked second after Texas in the 
value of exports. Household appliances, motor vehicles, and office 
furniture are just some of the Tennessee-made products which are sold 
in Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Japan.
  GATT will cut the tariffs those countries add to the cost of those 
products, allowing Tennessee-made products to compete fair and square 
with their foreign competitors. The net result of adopting this 
historic trade agreement will be to dramatically boost export 
opportunities for Tennessee businesses and create thousands of new, 
high-paying jobs across the State.
  I urge my colleagues to do what is best for America which is to vote 
``yes'' on this historic trade agreement.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, it gives me great honor today to be able to help 
summarize in debate here those of our colleagues who are opposed to 
this particular GATT agreement. Let me say to the working people across 
our country who are listening to us today, remember this vote, just as 
you remembered the NAFTA vote, and you have seen America's trade 
advantage with Mexico be cut by over half in the first 8 months of this 
year as more imports come in from Mexico than our exports going into 
that nation.
  We have lost a company a day to Mexico since that accord was signed. 
Now we move on to GATT.
  Let me ask the working families of our country directly, those beyond 
the confines of these walls here in the Congress, do you feel that your 
wages, your buying power, and your standard of living have been 
slipping? Are you working overtime because your company will not hire 
more workers? Are you seeing your job status threatened because workers 
are being brought in at lower wages in your company? Are you being told 
if you stand up for fair compensation, the company will move offshore 
to Asia or South America? Have you seen your wages cut? Are you working 
two or three jobs, most of them part-time, just to keep your home 
together? Are you having trouble finding the time to spend with your 
kids because you are so gosh darned busy? Or do you live in one of 
America's inner cities, Third World nations inside the borders of this 
country, where jobs at one time could be found as people began their 
climb up the economic ladder, but now only find closed factories, much 
idle labor, and a great deal of hopelessness?
  Madam Chairman, this is the eighth of the GATT agreements. It is not 
the first. For those who say this is the biggest whatever in the world, 
it is just more of the same. It is the eighth of the same, with some 
added bells and whistles, some of them pretty important.
  Madam Chairman, most Americans know this is happening to them. Yes, 
past trade agreements have produced larger corporate profits, and they 
have paid plenty to get their message out in this debate. Consumer 
prices have not gone down. Consumer prices have been going up.
  However, what has been happening to wages in America for over two 
decades? The buying power of our people has been cut consistently.
  Working people of America, farmers, family farmers, remember this 
vote as you remember NAFTA. Free trade between free people is a great 
idea, but free trade among people who are not free means exploitation 
at both ends of the shipping channel, where our workers' wages are 
drawn down to the level of places that are unfree, nations like China, 
where our workers are put in competition with 4 billion people on the 
continent of Asia that have never known democracy 1 day in their life.
  It is unfair to our people and it does not uphold the best that is in 
us as a country. The Fortune 500 companies have plenty of wherewithal 
to get their message across inside the boundaries of Washington, DC, 
but outside the boundaries of Washington, DC, they have not created a 
single job in this country in the last two decades.
  Who would ever imagine that IBM Corp. would be on its knees? Who 
could imagine that the biggest automotive companies in this country 
would be creating more jobs abroad than they are inside the boundaries 
of the United States? This is a serious vote today.
  We have talked a bit, a tad, about the World Trade Organization, that 
cedes the rightful authority under our Constitution of us as elected 
Members of our people to a bunch of trade bureaucrats over in Geneva 
that we have to pay for under this agreement. The agreement reads we 
must appropriate funds to pay for the operations of the World Trade 
Organization. It is just another form of foreign aid.

  We have to pay for an organization in which we will be put on an 
equal par, on an equal par with nations that vote against us 80 percent 
of the time in the United Nations, and we have no veto power.
  Working people of America, remember this vote. A good-paying job is 
the only ticket up the ladder of economic opportunity in this country, 
but where have the most jobs been created in this country over the last 
decade? Temporary work, restaurant work. If it were not for the minimum 
wage those people would be in the poorhouse, too. Jobs in nursing homes 
and in hospitals, which are among the lowest paid jobs in the country.
  Let us look at the record. If we look over here at every single trade 
agreement that the United States has signed, and this is the current 
area, 1994, right here, the result of every single one of those has 
been greater and greater and greater trade deficits that this country 
has amassed, which translates into for every $1 billion of trade 
deficit, and this year it will be $150 billion of added trade deficit, 
another 20,000 lost jobs in this country, people who cannot afford to 
come to Washington to lobby in the halls outside this Chamber, people 
who only have us as their voice. Working people of America, remember 
this vote, because when this vote is over, it will not be over.
  Madam Chairman, this GATT, like the others before it, and there have 
been seven others, will only add to our hardships, unless one is a CEO 
of a big multinational, and they will give more to their shareholders 
because they can pit low-wage workers on both sides of the shipping 
channels against one another.
  There are no international standards contained herein, and there 
should be, to put the low-wage undemocratic nations of the world on a 
path upward. Rather, this GATT continues the same tired, worn-out 
policies that continue to pull our workers' wages and life styles on a 
race to the bottom.
  Working people in America, there is nothing in this GATT for you and 
your family. If you have calluses on your hands, if you have not gone 
to college, you are going to be one of the casualties, as these people 
have all been casualties, people who cannot afford paid lobbyists here 
in Washington.
  I ask my colleagues today to listen to the American people and vote 
against GATT. Eighty percent of the public has stated that they oppose 
the World Trade Organization.

                              {time}  1800

  During the recent elections, these same Americans voted for change, 
not outdated, warmed-over trade policies which are hopelessly out of 
date. Passage of GATT will only prove how out of touch this Congress is 
with the electorate at large. Working people of America, remember this 
vote as you remember NAFTA.
  To my colleagues, then, if you are thinking of whether or not to vote 
for GATT, just ask your constituents back home who voted for you to be 
their representative. Eighty percent of them said ``no'' to GATT.
  If you want to vote for rising incomes in America, vote against GATT. 
If you want not to cede the trade-making authority of the people of the 
United States to a bureaucracy over in Geneva where you as a 
private citizen will have no legal right of action under the laws of 
this country, vote against GATT.
  If you feel it is wrong that you will forgo $50 billion of revenues 
to our Treasury that have to be made up by added taxes on you because 
that will be the beginning price of the enactment of GATT, vote ``no'' 
on GATT. And if you care about democratic values and about people being 
treated decently in the workplace in this country and around the world, 
vote ``no'' on GATT.
  Working people of America, remember this vote.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to our 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish].
  (Mr. FISH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FISH. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this measure.
  After 8 years of negotiation, 116 nations have come to an agreement. 
The case has been made over and over this afternoon that the lowering 
of tariff barriers will open markets to the United States and to all 
our trading partners. Lower tariffs mean lower prices for consumers. 
These reductions will allow many strong industries in this country to 
sell goods in markets previously not open to them due to high tariff 
barriers. More open markets will lead to increased business activity in 
this country and more jobs for Americans.
  The industries that will benefit from GATT are the strong industries 
and job providers in my home state of New York. Industrial machinery 
and electric/electronic equipment are a significant source of 
manufacturing employment in the region, accounting for about 120,000 
jobs. Currently the European Union has relatively high tariffs on 
electronics. With the implementation of GATT many of the tariff 
barriers will be significantly lowered or removed.
  The chemical and pharmaceutical industry in the New York State region 
employs more than 128,000 people with high average wages. One-third of 
U.S. pharmaceuticals employment is based in the region. Elimination of 
tariffs on pharmaceutical products and harmonization of chemical 
tariffs will open foreign markets to regional producers as will the 
elimination of non-tariff barriers.
  One-quarter of world trade is attributed to services: Accounting, 
finance, legal jobs, advertising and insurance. The United States 
annual service industry exports amount to $200 billion. A significant 
portion of the $200 billion annually in service industry exports 
originate in the New York region. More than one-tenth of all the 
accounting, finance, and legal jobs and one-fifth of all advertising 
jobs are located in the New York-New Jersey region. The region also has 
significant concentrations of the nation's employment in 
communications, computer services, management consulting, engineering 
services, and environmental services. The inclusion of services in the 
GATT is very good for the United States as such a major provider of 
services worldwide.
  I urge my colleagues to support this trade agreement. It will enable 
this country to compete in a world economy. It holds the promise of 
more jobs and a more prosperous nation.
  Mr. CRANE. Madam Chairman, it is my distinct honor to present to this 
Chamber our minority leader, the man who, like Moses, saw us to the 
promised land. I yield our remaining time to our distinguished minority 
leader, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 10\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. MICHEL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Crane] for yielding me the time.
  I have listened intently to the arguments that have been made all 
afternoon, some very sharp and incisive from both sides of the aisle 
and on both sides of the issue. It obviously does not cut right down 
the center aisle and it is one in which we are going to have yeas and 
nays on both sides of the aisle. But this GATT agreement is one of the 
most important trade agreements of our time. In the final analysis, 
GATT is about more than trade. It is about differing attitudes toward 
change and the future. It is about confidence in America's ability to 
compete in the world and that is what makes it so controversial.
  The question before us today is whether we will passively sit by and 
watch our destiny be shaped by other nations in the next century 
because we are too afraid to compete. Or whether we will have the 
political courage and the national confidence to proclaim to the world 
that we are for GATT because we are Americans and we can compete with 
anyone at any time in every field in free and open competition.
  And amidst all the heated rhetoric, I would ask Members to consider 
several indisputable facts.
  There are currently more foreign trade barriers against U.S. products 
than there are U.S. barriers against foreign products. Under GATT, 
foreign governments have agreed to reduce their tariffs by some 50 
percent more than we are lowering ours. Under this GATT agreement, all 
nations must abide by the same rules. Now, that is a significant first 
for a multilateral trade agreement. Figures show that we currently have 
about 12 percent of the world's exports but will gain some 18 percent 
of the benefits accruing under the GATT agreement.
  Our Republican Joint Economic Committee staff estimates that the 
total fiscal impact of GATT could produce as much as $115 billion in 
additional revenue to the Federal Government over a five-year period. 
More important is the number of better paying jobs that will be created 
by the passage of GATT and those estimates range anywhere to over half 
a million to 700,000 jobs and beyond. Notwithstanding all those dire 
predictions of our losing jobs during the NAFTA debate, we have 
actually increased our exports and created a minimum of 100,000 new 
jobs with its passage.
  I am a free trader by nature, by heritage and by congressional 
district. I believe that in world trade, you have to take the 
offensive. And when it comes to creating jobs in a global economy, a 
Nation cannot sit there and contemplate its navel, twiddle its thumbs 
and gas about how frightened it is. In this day and age you either have 
to get out there and compete to gain your share of the market or you 
die economically. That is what this world is all about today. It is not 
like yesterday. And some of our highly organized labor unions, I am 
sorry to say, have not recognized the changes that have taken place 
domestically and internationally.
  As for the issue of losing our sovereignty as a member of the World 
Trade Organization, that argument has been debunked by eminent 
constitutional scholars. Besides, that very language we are approving 
as part of the implementing legislation makes it clear in these words: 
``U.S. sovereignty is fully protected under the WTO agreement. The WTO 
will have no power to change U.S. law. U.S. law will have precedence in 
any conflict between U.S. law and the Uruguay Round Agreements. Only 
Congress and the administration can decide whether to implement a WTO 
panel recommendation and if so, how to implement it.''
  Allow me to get a bit autobiographical at this point. For 50 years, I 
guess in one capacity or another, I have had the great honor of serving 
my country. I believe I can say with honesty that the protection of the 
sovereignty of the United States has been at the heart of much of what 
I have been asked to do over the period as a soldier and as an elected 
official. My friends, believe me, I did not come this far and endure 
all we have endured from World War II through the Cold War to come to 
the floor now in my last official speech as a House member and try to 
convince anyone to give up our sovereignty as a country.
  One final observation, particularly for those on my side of the 
aisle. GATT really began as a Republican agreement negotiated primarily 
by the Reagan and Bush administrations and since World War II we 
Republicans have by a wide margin been advocates of lowering tariff 
barriers, free and open trade. We believe in competition. That is what 
it is all about. We will cut the deficit in the best way possible by 
encouraging economic growth and the increased revenue resulting 
therefrom.
  This GATT agreement is a door to the future through which we must 
pass if we are to shape our own destiny as we have in the past.
  Step through that door with me today, my colleagues, so that history 
can say that the 103rd Congress proved in the end that it was worthy of 
the great traditions that sustain us and the great promise of America 
to come.
  I would strongly urge the adoption of this very vital piece of 
legislation.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett].
  (Mr. SWETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SWETT. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the GATT 
implementing legislation.
  The expansion of free trade is an important national goal, and there 
are aspects of this GATT agreement which I strongly support. I am very 
concerned, however, that this GATT agreement will force American 
workers to compete in a continual race downwards: Downward in wages, 
downward in environmental protection, downward in standards of living. 
Undemocratic nations around the world seeking a low-wage, low-standard 
advantage will continue to steal American jobs. I fear that the only 
thing that will go up will be the federal deficit.
  This agreement hands over vast, new authority to a secretive World 
Trade Organization (WTO)--a world government body without fair 
representation for the U.S. The WTO will be a huge international 
bureaucracy where the U.S. would have only one vote out of 123 
countries.
  I am also very concerned about waiving Congress' budget rules in 
order to cover the billion of dollars in lost revenue to the Treasury. 
I believe Americans expect Congress to be fiscally responsible and 
should account for how the resulting 40 billion dollar additional 
deficit should be avoided.
  As world trade increases, we need to decide what fundamental values 
will form the foundation of our trading relationships. I believe that 
we should exercise our economic strength to ensure that new trade 
agreements protect and support our environmental and labor standards, 
economic interests, and preserve public participation in the 
development of trade policies.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Costello].
  (Mr. COSTELLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the GATT 
agreement.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today to address the issue of GATT, the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, an agreement negotiated by the 
last three Presidents over a period of 14 years. It will bring together 
124 trading nations in an attempt to lower trade barriers and increase 
trade around the globe.
  This agreement, like the North American Free Trade Agreement, 
purports to fit into the neat principle of ``free trade,'' where all 
nations abide by the same rules and apply the theory of open 
competition as they sell their goods on the international market. 
Unfortunately, like NAFTA, GATT will only further erode the once-strong 
U.S. trade position overseas.
  The proponents of GATT suggest that our economy is changing, and that 
to oppose this agreement only delays the inevitable changes in our 
economy. To me, that attitude represents a concession that the 
occupation which built this Nation in the last 50 years aren't worth 
saving.
  If we pass GATT, we will only accelerate the loss of good, high-
paying jobs, many of which have gone overseas during the past decade. 
Because of our trade policy and government decisions, our Nation's 
once-strong manufacturing industries--steel, oil, glass, textiles, and 
coal--are in decline. Which job categories are on the rise? New, 
consumer-oriented industries such as services, retail and high 
technology, which with the exception of some high technology jobs pay 
lower wages.
  Do we really want a Nation that promises its children and 
grandchildren jobs at Wal-Mart, area dry cleaners and local computer 
outlets? Will these jobs be the occupations that include health 
insurance, and wages sufficient to raise a family to a high standard of 
living? These questions lead me to believe that our whole policy of 
international trade is headed in the wrong direction.
  On the one hand we cannot, and should not, deny that many of 
America's future strength lies in new technologies--telecommunications, 
financial services, and entertainment which will make all of our lives 
more convenient and provide decent jobs for the future. On the other 
hand, however, GATT will do little to further those industries which 
are already dominant on the global scene. What GATT will do is strike 
at the heart of middle-income jobs.
  One need only look at the reaction of our allies to see how the U.S. 
trade position on GATT. A French official recently admitted candidly 
that they supported GATT not because it meant greater trade for France, 
but a weaker position for America.
  Take a look at these statistics under the present GATT, the Tokyo 
Round: We have lost 3.2 million jobs and our Nation has undergone the 
greatest outflow of wealth--$1.4 trillion--of any nation in history; 
the U.S. has gone from the world's biggest creditor to its biggest 
debtor; those with full-time jobs are now receiving 20 percent less 
take-home pay than they were 20 years ago; and U.S. manufacturing was 
26 percent of our work force 10 years ago, but is only 16 percent 
today.
  As we see in Bosnia right now, international organizations have their 
limitations. The United Nations is at war with itself and its own 
member countries over how to respond to Serb aggression in the Baltics. 
While the UN plays an important role in many important international 
decisions, it is virtually helpless in determining the outcome of this 
conflict.
  I believe that the World Trade Organization may face the same 
gridlock when judicating international trade disputes. Charges of 
violations will be considered by a panel of three bureaucrats in Geneva 
with no conflict-of-interest restrictions. Their findings can be 
blocked only with 100 percent approval of GATT members, which will 
almost never occur.
  In addition, at a time when our federal budget deficit is coming 
down, passage of GATT will send it back up. In waiving the budget 
rules, we acknowledge we aren't paying the $31 billion bill for GATT, 
but addings its lost tariff revenues to the budget deficit.
  I urge my colleagues to consider their vote closely. I believe they 
should cast their votes in opposition to the GATT agreement.
  Mr. LEWIS of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
5110, legislation to implement the Uruguay round of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. In doing so, I would like to 
commend the efforts of the past three administrations during the 
negotiations of the extremely complex agreement. Solid foundations of 
this agreement were laid through the negotiations of two previous 
administrations. Their diligence led to a point were the agreement was 
successfully concluded under the present administration.
  During the debate over fast-track extension in June or 1993, I 
doubted this administration's ability to successfully complete these 
negotiations. As a participant in these negotiations 4 years ago in 
Geneva, I doubted an imminent conclusion. But, as I stated back in 
June, I will admit my misjudgment and commend Ambassador Kantor for his 
diligent efforts in concluding the negotiations and his willingness to 
work in a bipartisan manner on behalf of this agreement.
  Madan Chairman, the past teaches us that protectionism is not the key 
to advancement in the global marketplace, competition is. For example, 
since the end of World War II, global trade liberalization has been the 
keynote to American trade policy. In that time, we have seen the 
advancement of the United States to the ranks of the only global 
superpower in the world in every sense of the word, politically, 
militarily and economically. Now, we must continue on this course for 
the future generations of this country.
  While initially I had reservations and concerns over the formation 
and operations of the World Trade Organization [WTO], I believe that 
significant safeguards have been added in this implementing legislation 
as well as by an agreement reached by Senator Dole and the 
administration. These safeguards have strengthened this agreement and 
protected the sovereignty of this Nation. Specifically, I would like to 
point out section 102 of the implementing legislation to my colleagues. 
It reads:

       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.

  Section 102 represents the foundations of the protection of this 
country's sovereignty in this implementing legislation. Over the past 
12 years in Congress, I believe that I have stood up for America's 
sovereignty, I have opposed U.S. troops under United Nations command, I 
have voted to cut the United States share of United Nation's funding 
and I have stood up for a strong national defense.
  Never would my conscious permit me to vote for an agreement that did 
not properly safeguard the country's sovereignty. I believe that this 
legislation will prove to be effective on this matter.
  Madam Chairman, the Uruguay round of GATT represents the future of 
global trading relationships in this increasingly interdependent global 
economy. No longer is the United States an economic island, able to 
stand alone in the complex sea of international trading partnerships. 
While it remains true the United States remains the strongest economic 
power in the world, its strength is based on its ability to compete in 
the global marketplace and win--not by erecting protectionist barriers.
  By cutting tariffs on approximately 85 percent of world trade and 
sharply reducing quota restrictions of the remaining 15 percent, the 
Uruguay round of GATT will strengthen this country's ability to compete 
abroad by opening new markets of American products. Furthermore, the 
Uruguay round opens up markets to key Florida industries, such as 
citrus, industrial machinery, and electric and electronic products. 
This round of GATT will benefit my home State of Florida and the entire 
country; therefore, I intend to cast my vote in favor of the 
legislation to implement the Uruguay round.
  Global trade is a fact of the future, and protectionism is merely a 
relic of the past. With this in mind, I have full confidence that 
America and the residents of my home State of Florida can compete with 
anybody globally, and I look toward to the future with hope, not fear, 
about the effects of free trade.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam Chairman, as my colleagues know, I have long 
been concerned about the implications of Japanese financial practices 
for the United States. It is fitting that we address this topic today, 
as we consider the Uruguay round implementing legislation. 
International finance is the opposite side of the same coin as 
international trade. Yet we often focus exclusively on international 
trade and ignore international financial concerns. I believe that the 
two are essential complements of one another in the marketplace, and 
that our deliberations ought to reflect the market.
  Several years ago I introduced legislation that would require the 
Treasury Department to conduct a study, and to report to Congress, on 
the structure and operation of Japan's financial markets and their 
implications for the United States. I would like to take a moment as we 
approach adjournment to bring my colleagues up to date on developments 
since I last spoke on this important subject.
  I believed then, and continue to believe, that this topic is of vital 
importance to the United States. Japan emerged during the 1980s as a 
global financial power and a leading creditor nation. Japanese 
financiers and financial institutions played major roles in American 
real estate markets, the American stock market, American credit 
markets, and American public debt. At the end of the 1980s, Japanese 
banks accounted for some 15 percent of new commercial lending in the 
United States.
  The structure and operation of Japan's financial markets, however, do 
not appear to match the sophistication of Japan's export manufacturers. 
The Japanese banking industry is suffering a crisis comparable to or 
exceeding our own savings and loan debacle. The Tokyo stock market 
index fell by some 60 percent before recovering to about one-half of 
its 1989 peak. The Japanese real estate market has collapsed, with 
reports of declines in property values approaching 40 percent from peak 
levels during the 1980s. These indicators raise serious questions about 
the soundness of Japanese financial markets, and the reliability of 
Japan as a contributor to international financial stability.
  Since I last spoke on this topic, several important developments have 
taken place:
  American investment in Japanese stocks has soared over the past year. 
Some press accounts suggest that foreign investment, largely American 
in origin, is supporting the Japanese stock market. Among the major 
American investors are mutual funds and pension funds. This trend, if 
true, is disturbing. It may mean that American pensioners and small 
American investors are unwittingly having their savings placed at risk 
in a volatile market characterized by reports of highly questionable 
practices.
  Second, some signs of financial reform have emerged from Japan. 
Although perhaps slower than we in this country might prefer, the 
Japanese government has deregulated more of Japan's financial markets 
and given signs of more rigorous enforcement of its securities laws. 
For these steps, the Japanese Government should be applauded. I 
believe that the United States Government should encourage this 
incipient reform process, which can benefit Japan as well as the United 
States.

  Third, thanks to broad agreement among my colleagues, especially my 
distinguished colleague from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], the Treasury 
Department was directed to complete a study of Japan's financial 
markets and to report its findings to Congress by September 1994. I 
understand that Treasury is close to completing this study, for which I 
commend the Department. I look forward to receiving Treasury's 
conclusions on Japan's financial markets and what they may portend for 
the United States.
  Fourth, I recently received proposals for reform of Japan's financial 
markets from a leading critic of Japan's financial practices. I believe 
these reform proposals merit consideration by this body, by our 
negotiators, and by the Japanese Government. The reform proposals 
suggest:
  Creating more competition in the Japanese brokerage industry, which 
may help to open Japanese securities markets to American financial 
service providers and to foster greater stability in the Japanese stock 
market.
  Regulating market practices of Japanese brokerages, which may help to 
restore credibility to the market and protect American investors.
  Tightening delisting standards for stocks, which may inject greater 
liquidity and stability into the Tokyo market and may help to open the 
Japanese market to American commerce by loosening cross-shareholding 
bonds between Japanese corporations.
  Enhancing shareholder rights to participate in the affairs of 
Japanese corporations that they ostensibly own, to help protect 
American investors in Japanese corporations as well as to inject 
shareholder discipline into Japanese corporate governance.
  Reforming the Japanese legal system to assure that American investors 
will be able to secure a fair and impartial arbitration of disputes 
that will arise inevitably as American investment in Japan increases.
  These proposals simply make sense to me. They suggest only that Japan 
offer the same rights and protections to American investors that 
Japanese investors enjoy in the United States. Moreover, I understand 
that existing Japanese law may provide the foundation for these 
reforms, if the Japanese government has the will to enforce them.
  These reform proposals would seem to complement and supplement the 
administration's objectives in the United States-Japan framework 
negotiations. For example, the United States is seeking greater access 
to the Japanese market for American goods and services through the 
framework talks. Of what value is market access, however, if an 
American exporter or service provider cannot receive fair treatment 
from the Japanese legal system in resolving inevitable disputes?
  As another example: the United States has acknowledged already the 
importance of cross-sharing in opening the Japanese market to American 
auto insurance providers. These intercorporate bonds may affect other 
areas of U.S. commerce as well. Reform of cross-shareholding therefore 
would seem to warrant broader consideration by our negotiators.
  I intend to address these issues in greater depth when we return in 
January. In the meantime, I encourage our negotiators: the Secretary of 
State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the U.S. Trade Representative, 
and the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, to raise 
these concerns with their Japanese counterparts. I believe that the 
United States can play a constructive role in stimulating reform of 
Japan's financial markets to the benefit of Japan as well as the United 
States. Simply by raising these concerns, and making the Japanese 
Government aware of American interest in Japanese financial reform the 
United States can make a significant contribution to international 
financial stability.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5110 to 
implement the Uruguay round trade agreements. Frankly, I would have 
preferred that we delay the GATT vote until the new 104th Congress 
convenes in January. As a matter of principle, I don't believe that a 
lame-duck Congress should vote on major issues. Nevertheless, we are 
doing so, and my vote for the agreement would not be affected by 
postponement in any case. Approval of GATT is good for the U.S.. 
economy and, specifically, for New York's economy. We should join the 
rest of the world in approving it.
  New York's role as a capital of international trade and commerce 
means that our region will benefit more than most from the cuts in 
tariffs made possible by GATT. New York was established because its 
harbor made it the gateway to the New World. In 300 years that has not 
changed. Ours remains a region dependent on international trade. Fully 
12.6 percent of U.S. merchandise trade which constitutes 25 percent of 
the U.S. Gross Domestic Product [GDP] passes through New York. In 1993, 
New York manufacturers exported $36 billion in merchandise. That is why 
GATT, which relaxes trade barriers throughout the world is a good deal 
for New York. It will allow consumers worldwide to more readily buy the 
goods they need and want. That means that they will be buying products 
made in the USA and specifically in New York.
  GATT is a trade agreement in which most of the tariff reductions will 
be made not by the United States--our tariffs are already low--but by 
our trading partners who have used tariff walls to keep quality U.S. 
products out of their markets. It is to our advantage to tear those 
walls down. In Asia, Latin America, Africa and Europe a growing middle-
class is clamoring to purchase United States goods but are blocked by 
unfair tariffs. GATT will help level the playing field. This should not 
worry us because our workers and our goods are the best in the world. I 
simply reject the idea that we cannot compete in a free market, that 
U.S. industry will not be able to withstand any challenge posed by 
others in the developed and the developing world. The same arguments 
were made against NAFTA which has already produced a boom in exports 
that has created over 100,000 high-paying export-related jobs for 
Americans. GATT, a far broader agreement than NAFTA, will lead to far 
more jobs and a stronger U.S. economy overall.
  This is not to say that every sector of the economy will emerge 
stronger as a result of GATT. I am concerned that some industries may 
be hurt as GATT is implemented. It is critical that we monitor this 
closely so that we can mitigate any negative effects. We must increase 
funding for job-retraining and education programs so that workers who 
are displaced are helped to find even better jobs. No working man or 
woman should be allowed to slip through the cracks. On the Federal and 
State levels we must redirect resources so that our people are equipped 
for a future economy that may be very different from what we have 
today, but one that expands opportunity for all of us.
  I want to address one issue that has been raised as a reason for 
opposing GATT. Some GATT critics charge that the World Trade 
Organization [WTO], which would be set up to enforce the agreement, 
could infringe upon U.S. sovereignty by ordering this country to change 
its laws or regulations. This is a serious charge. I can say without 
reservation that I would not support this, or any international 
agreement, if I believed that it would set up any entity that could 
overturn U.S. law. This agreement does not do that. No WTO finding has 
any standing in a U.S. court. There is no mechanism under which any 
GATT official or any GATT-sponsored entity could force the United 
States to change any law or regulation. The only sanction available to 
GATT would be to allow a nation with a trade complaint against the 
United States to impose added tariffs on U.S. goods entering that 
country. However, under the agreement reached between the White House 
and Senator Dole, we are establishing a panel to monitor all GATT 
decisions in this area. If the panel finds that the United States is 
being treated unfairly, a U.S. withdrawal from the agreement could be 
initiated.
  In conclusion, I believe that this agreement will result in a 
stronger U.S. economy and a better future for working men and women, 
and for every consumer, in this country. I urge its passage.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. Passage of GATT will 
mean opening foreign markets and reducing barriers to trade. The result 
will be increasing U.S. exports, more high paying American jobs, and a 
revitalization of our economy, especially our rural economy.
  Exports are the key to future market growth for food and agriculture 
products provided by U.S. farmers, ranchers, and processors, who I 
believe to be the most efficient in the world. Ten percent of U.S. 
exports are agricultural. Agricultural exports must continue to grow to 
provide a critical source of income for rural America.
  The family farm, the Iowa economy's bread and butter, is a major 
winner with GATT. It has been estimated the GATT Agreement will 
eventually increase U.S. farm exports by anywhere from $5 billion to 
$14 billion annually. Corn prices are forecasted to increase up to 10 
cents per bushel, and pork exports are expected to double. Beef exports 
and soybean prices will also increase. This means more money for the 
farmer and more money being spent on Main Street. It means creating 
over 100,000 new jobs in agriculture related sectors and a 
revitalization of the rural economy.
  Many of my constituents have expressed concern about the role of the 
World Trade Organization [WTO] and its effect on U.S. laws and 
sovereignty. And I shared their concern. However, after carefully 
considering this matter, I am convinced the WTO will not weaken our 
laws or threaten our sovereignty. I commend Senator Dole and President 
Clinton for crafting an agreement to establish a panel to review WTO 
decisions affecting the United States and allowing a means for the 
United States to withdraw from the WTO. I also commend the work of 
Representative Newt Gingrich to provide a high level of congressional 
oversight over the entire GATT and WTO process.
  GATT will open markets in the Pacific rim, Asia, and Europe. Markets 
that the United States traditionally has had difficulty penetrating. It 
will benefit U.S. farmers and workers by lowering tariffs and reducing 
trade barriers, creating good, high paying jobs.
  Free and fair trade is vital to the U.S. economy. We must continue to 
push for policies to stimulate economic growth and economic security 
for Americans.
  I urge approval of this agreement.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
the GATT implementing legislation currently before the House. The 
Uruguay round of the GATT is the largest and most comprehensive trade 
agreement in history. it comprises 123 nations worldwide and will cut 
global tariffs by $744 billion, the largest tax cut in history. Passage 
of the agreement will add $100 to $200 billion to the U.S. economy each 
year.
  My home State of Illinois is the Nation's sixth leading exporter of 
merchandise, with one out of every four factory jobs dependent on 
exports. The GATT will eliminate many of the unfair foreign trade 
barriers on American-made products and increase high-wage jobs for 
Illinois workers.
  Recently, I received a letter from USDA Secretary Mike Espy. 
Secretary Espy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture project that the 
implementation of the Uruguay round will lead to a cumulative increase 
of U.S. agricultural exports over the next 5 years of between $5 and 
$14 billion. The increased agricultural exports will result in a gain 
of 112,000 U.S. jobs by the year 2000. Also important to note, more 
than $10 billion to $30 billion in related economic activity will be 
generated in the agriculture sector alone under this historic trade 
agreement.
  I have strong reservations about one section of this measure that 
would give the President authority to unilaterally establish a tariff-
rate quota on tobacco imports pursuant to article 28 of the GATT. My 
concern is that the GATT permits affected countries to seek 
compensation for losses caused by such a tariff-rate quota, and to 
retaliate if an agreement is not reached.
  It has been estimated that the value of the foreign commodities 
affected by this provision is nearly $200 million. In theory, the 
United States could be vulnerable to retaliation in that amount.
  The administration has indicated its intention to negotiate with the 
affected countries to avoid such retaliation.
  It is essential that such retaliation be avoided, because if 
retaliation occurs the likely targets would be U.S. agricultural 
commodities. I wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor that 
such an outcome would not be acceptable. Other commodities should not 
be forced to bail out the U.S. tobacco industry.
  Ambassador Kantor responded in writing that the outcome of the 
negotiations will not lead to retaliation in other agricultural 
commodities, and that, instead, the negotiations are being conducted to 
achieve an outcome acceptable to all the negotiating parties.
  I have accepted this assurance from Ambassador Kantor and trust that 
he will live up to this commitment. For the record, I would like 
Ambassador Kantor's letter to be printed in the Record following this 
statement. Because of Ambassador Kantor's assurance on this matter, I 
can say that this legislation is good for Midwestern agriculture and 
manufacturing, and I hope the measure will pass.

                                    The U.S. Trade Representative,


                            Executive Office of the President,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Durbin: Thank you for your letter of 
     September 23 concerning the tobacco provisions in the Uruguay 
     Round implementing legislation.
       The provisions on tobacco were necessary for inclusion in 
     the Uruguay round implementing legislation in order to bring 
     our domestic laws on tobacco in line with our existing GATT 
     obligations. As you know, a recent GATT panel has determined 
     that the domestic content regulations currently in place are 
     not consistent with the GATT. These provisions allow us to 
     rectify that situation by modifying our tariff concessions on 
     tobacco in a manner consistent with the GATT.
       As you know, the provisions in the implementing legislation 
     do not include authority for compensation. Nor will the 
     outcome of the Article XXVIII negotiations lead to 
     retaliation in other agricultural commodities. Instead, we 
     are conducting the Article XXVIII negotiations to produce a 
     GATT-consistent tariff-rate quota regime acceptable to all 
     the negotiating parties.
       I hope that we can count on your support of the Uruguay 
     round implementing legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Michael Kantor.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to speak 
for a few brief moments about the impact of the implementing 
legislation of the Uruguay round on a very important employer in my 
district, USS-POSCO Industries, or UPI. This state-of-the-art steel 
finishing facility provides high-quality products to numerous west 
coast companies, many of which previously purchased their steel from 
foreign producers. Since UPI completed a $450 million modernization in 
1989 it has become the quintessential American steel industry success 
story--steadily increasing market share at the expense of foreign 
producers, and maintaining the employment of more than 1,000 unionized 
workers.
  UPI is owned by an American company, USX, and a Korean company, 
Pohang, which jointly supply UPI with all its raw steel needs. This 
relationship, when a producer of raw material sells to a downstream 
finishing facility that it controls, is known as a captive supply 
relationship, and is typical in the steel industry. Although most 
captive supply relationships are among divisions of a single company 
that are located geographically near one another, there is no 
difference analytically between those relationships and the captive 
supply relationship of UPI and its two parent companies, although they 
are located thousands of miles away.
  Because of its hybrid ownership and the fact that a portion of its 
captively supplied steel is imported from its foreign parent, UPI 
became embroiled in the steel trade cases before the International 
Trade Commission in 1993. Once it became clear that UPI's existence was 
threatened by the potential imposition of outrageous import tariffs on 
its input steel, I worked with my colleague Bill Baker and the rest of 
the California congressional delegation to ensure UPI's viability. 
Fortunately, UPI was victorious in the trade case and its workers' jobs 
were again secure.
  Mr. Chairman, I have serious reservations about GATT's effect on U.S. 
laws that protect the environment and workers' rights and also GATT's 
ability to rescue American working families from their serious economic 
insecurity. But I also was concerned that the GATT implementing 
legislation might undo UPI's victory and cast a cloud over the 
company's continuing success. Over the past 9 months, I worked hard 
with Chairman Matsui and the administration to ensure that this 
legislation would not harm this American company and its American 
workers. Fortunately for UPI and its workers, it is my understanding 
that the provisions of this legislation, unlike some proposals that 
were considered earlier, treat all captive supply alike whether the 
related supplier is located in the U.S. or abroad.
  I understand that, according to the staff of the International Trade 
Commission, the new law will continue to require extensive evidence to 
support a finding that the captively supplied imported product competes 
in the marketplace--the type of evidence that UPI's opponents were 
unable to present in the previous trade case and will likely not be 
available in the future unless dramatic changes occur in the market. I 
appreciate the assistance of Mr. Matsui and others, in clarifying this 
matter.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support this bill--to help tear down the tariffs that stand between 
America's promise, and our performance in the foreign markets of the 
world.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill--the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade--
has been 7 years in the making. Three United States Presidents--leaders 
of both parties--have cast their weight behind it. And scores of 
America's leading companies and employers are begging us, beseeching us 
to pass it into law.
  They're standing up for GATT not because it's a partisan issue, not 
because they like every dot and comma, not because they agree with 
every technical trade provision in the bill.
  No, they're standing up for GATT because, at its heart, this isn't 
about the politics or the provisions.
  It's about our people. It's about our jobs.
  It's about the hard-working American farmer, who wants to sell his 
crops overseas, but just can't compete with the sky-high government 
subsidies of his foreign competitors.
  It's about the bright young computer programmer, crafting the most 
cutting-edge software, only to have her work copied, counterfeited, and 
peddled for pennies on foreign shores.
  It's about the auto worker, who faces a devastating lay-off after a 
life on the assembly line--because our cars are shut out of foreign 
markets by astronomical tariffs. So instead of opening up new plants, 
our car companies have to close them down.
  That's what GATT is about. It's about American jobs. And given 
today's roller-coaster competition, if we don't have GATT--if we can't 
bring foreign tariffs down to a level that's fair and square for our 
Nation, and for all nations.
  Then America's workers don't have a fighting chance.
  The critics of GATT say that it somehow compromises America's 
sovereignty--that we shouldn't have to abide by the same rules and 
standards as all the other nations of the world.
  But the point is, America's already playing by the toughest rules in 
the book. We have the lowest tariffs, the freest trade, the fairest 
markets in the whole world. Too many of our competitors are taking that 
for granted--and in the process, they're taking us for a ride.
  Right now, America's average tariff on foreign goods is about 4 
percent. Many of our fiercest competitors have tariffs that are several 
times that high--some as high as 100 percent. How do you compete when 
you're hit with a 100 percent tariff? The answer is, you don't. You 
shut your doors, board up your windows, and go out of business.
  GATT will say to the nations of the world: it's time for real trade 
fairness. It's time to open up your markets, and let the real 
competition begin. And believe me--when that happens, our workers are 
going to reap the benefits, because any fair fight is a fight they will 
win.
  It's no secret that America has the best, most talented, most 
dedicated workers in the whole world. They're the engines of growth and 
opportunity in this country. If we pass GATT, we give them a chance to 
build a better America for all of us.
  Since the day I came to the U.S. Congress, I've been fighting for 
free and fair trade. I've been fighting to break down the protectionist 
policies that stop trade from being a two-way street. And quite 
frankly, any trade bill that drags down America's economy--any trade 
bill that corrupts our economy, and costs us jobs--is a bill I vote 
against.
  That's why I voted against NAFTA. That agreement said to the 
Government of Mexico: keep your workers living in cardboard shacks; 
keep denying them basic human rights, and labor rights; keep degrading 
your environment--and we'll meet you somewhere in the middle.
  NAFTA was a bill that dragged our standards down, instead of lifting 
Mexico's up.
  But this bill is very, very different.
  This bill doesn't throw another roadblock in America's economic 
path--it tears down the barriers, and helps us get where we need to go.
  It doesn't set up more obstacles of unfair competition--it makes 
every nation play by the rules we follow today.
  It toughens the world's intellectual property laws--so that America's 
best ideas mean money in the bank, not contraband on the streetcorner.
  It cracks down on the skyrocketing foreign subsidies that are the 
worst form of welfare the world has ever known.
  It ensure that all trading partners will start to play by the same 
rules, and compete on a level playing field. That's not a corruption of 
free trade. It's the only way we can have free trade in the first 
place.
  And voting for this bill is not the end of the process, but the 
beginning. All the issues that had concerned us about NAFTA--human 
rights, labor rights, the environment--issues that were resolved the 
wrong way with NAFTA--those issues still remain to be resolved with 
GATT. But GATT gives us a forum to resolve them the right way.
  When you look at the details, this bill makes good common sense for 
America.
  But there's a bigger principle at stake.
  As much as some people may want to close off our borders, as much as 
some may yearn for a simpler economic time, when America's only real 
markets were the stores that lined our streets.
  Those days are gone.
  We can't turn back the hands of time. We can't hide from a world 
that's growing smaller, more closely intertwined, more deeply 
interdependent with each passing day.
  You see, whether we like it or not, the world community is now our 
community. All that remains is for us to decide whether to face it, or 
fear it.
  If we have the courage to pass this bill--if we have the courage to 
pass GATT--we'll be able to face our competitors with strength and 
security. We'll know that the rules of free trade--while far from 
perfect--are fair for all.
  And we'll be able to say to our children, and our children's 
children: when it came to America's jobs, and America's future, and 
America's place in the world--we face up to the future, and we knew 
there was no turning back.
  Vote for this bill.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the aims and intent of 
the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. 
While this agreement is not perfect, I have learned that legislation--
like most things in life--is never perfect, and when the legislation 
involves almost all the nations of the world it is certain to be 
complex and even controversial.
  There are a number of reasons to support GATT, but I would first like 
to address the concerns I have heard from some Rhode Islanders about 
GATT. I understand the power of these concerns because they are the 
same gut fears that most middle-class Americans have about their 
economic futures.
  First, many are worried that the [WTO] World Trade Organization will 
have the power to override United States and State laws. This is not 
the case. The WTO will change the way decisions on tariffs and trade 
barriers by the GATT, but it will not have any power to change our 
laws. Only the U.S. Congress and the States can change our laws. 
Indeed, the first 50 pages of this bill state this clearly and provide 
for continuous public and congressional input. The WTO theoretically 
could determine that a U.S. law is a barrier to trade, but the United 
States has a number of responses to such a decision. We could do the 
unlikely and change the law. We could appeal the decision. The country 
that brought the case to the WTO could increase tariffs on one of our 
exports as a retaliatory tactic, but if they wanted access to U.S. 
markets they would think twice about it. There would be other options, 
but none of these options allows the WTO to change U.S. laws. In 
addition, there are several ways the United States can leave the WTO, 
if it becomes clear that the WTO does not work. We should be concerned 
about threats to our Nation's sovereignty, but I do not believe that 
when all is said and done that the WTO will be a threat to our 
sovereignty.
  Second, some are concerned that there has not been adequate 
considerations and debate about GATT. This legislation is not some 
middle of the night special deal. Rather, it is the result of over 10 
years negotiations by three Presidents to modernize and expand the GATT 
trade framework that has existed for almost 50 years. Both the House 
and Senate will vote on the agreement and both have held numerous 
public committee hearings on the Uruguay round over the past few years. 
The Senate went one step further and held this legislation for 
additional public hearings. I also want my constituents to know that I 
have reviewed the GATT legislation personally.
  Third, other Rhode Islanders fear that they or their neighbors will 
lose their jobs because of GATT. However, I believe GATT will give the 
United States the tools to prevent a major source of lost jobs--abuses 
of American patents, copyrights, and intellectual property. In the 
past, U.S. companies and their employees have lost sales and business 
because countries have allowed pirates and knock-off artists to violate 
U.S. copyrights and intellectual property. For example, under GATT, 
Rhode Island jewelry makers should be better able to protect their 
designs and jobs from unscrupulous foreign competitors.
  Finally, a number of Rhode Islanders do not see a difference between 
NAFTA and GATT. NAFTA aims to fully integrate our economy with Mexico's 
less developed economy without adequate standards and protections. In 
contrast, the Uruguay round of GATT builds on and strengthens 
established trading rules and cuts tariffs among almost all the nations 
of the world, and helps ensure United States access to the markets of 
developed nations which can afford and want the kind of high-value, 
high-tech products made by U.S. workers.
  Again, GATT is not perfect, and if the fast track process allowed 
amendments, I am sure there would be a number of amendments offered to 
refine this legislation that I would support. Indeed, in the future, 
Congress will have to reconsider the legislation authorizing the fast 
track procedure. After the GATT and NAFTA debates, I have serious 
concerns with fast track. I am skeptical that future trade agreements 
be considered under this restricted procedure, and I would urge the 
administration to ensure even greater public and congressional input 
into trade agreements.
  While there are concerns about GATT, on balance the agreement 
benefits our economy. The international economy is a reality, and if 
America wants to be the leader of this economy, it has to lead. We 
should all understand that the acts of this Congress are watched by the 
entire world, and if we fail to pass GATT, we send a signal that the 
United States does not want to lead or be part of the world economy. It 
also will send a shock through the financial sector.
  GATT has been described as the world's largest tax cut because it 
will reduce tariffs around the world by approximately one-third. GATT 
also gives us either the direct access to markets as well as the tools 
to fight for access to the markets of our economic competitors. This 
legislation would also retroactively extend the generalized system of 
preferences [GSP] which a number of Rhode Island businesses have told 
me they desperately need. GATT forces countries to drop subsidies for 
many industries and establishes international copyright protection for 
industrial products such as computer chips and costume jewelry.
  This agreement is worthy of support. However, I plan to remain 
vigilant about the impact of GATT on the United States, our laws, our 
environment, and most importantly our workforce. I will push for aid 
for workers who might lose their jobs because of GATT and I will fight 
any unsound effort to change our laws.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
legislation before us.
  Before I outline my reasons for my opposition I would like to say 
that this was not an easy decision. I am a strong supporter of the 
advancement of fair international trade. I also understand that there 
will be benefits to some sectors of the United States as well as other 
nations if the Uruguay round is accepted.
  Unfortunately, the legislation before us, in my estimation, will 
result in a continuation of the old expression ``the rich get richer 
and the poor get poorer.'' This is true on both the domestic and 
international levels.
  Let me begin by looking at the impact of the Uruguay round on the 
United States domestically. While there seems to be overall agreement 
that there will be an increase in jobs in the United States as a result 
of GATT, this increase will occur in the areas of service, grains, 
other transportation equipment, and recorded media. There also appears 
to be a consensus that there will be job losses as a result of the 
Uruguay round. The largest job losses are expected to occur in the 
apparel, fabricated metal products, and furniture industries. Estimates 
vary from a total loss of 30,000 jobs to as many as 912,000 jobs in the 
manufacturing sector.
  Unfortunately, I do not believe that a man or woman who has been 
working in a factory sewing together raincoats for the past 30 years 
can be retrained as a grain operator. In other words, I do not believe 
that the people who lose their jobs as a result of this agreement will 
be able to simply pick up and move to one of the sectors in which the 
new jobs are being created.
  Nowwhere in the legislation before us are those 30,000 to 912,000 
hard working men and women taken into account.
  Furthermore, these people who would be adversely affected are, for 
the most part, those who can least afford to be unemployed. According 
to Adrian Wood in his 1994 book North-South Trade, Employment and 
Inequality: Changing Fortunes in a Skill-Driven World, the expansion of 
trade between the United States and underdeveloped nations ``. . . has 
hurt unskilled workers in the North, reducing their wages and pushing 
them out of jobs.''
  There is also the geographical problem of job losses. Textile 
industry employment losses will be concentrated in the Carolinas. 
Apparel industry employment loss will be concentrated in the South, 
Northeast, and the Carolinas. I do not believe that it is reasonable to 
expect a person who has been living in inner-city Baltimore for most of 
their adult lives to move to rural Nebraska for a job that may not even 
exist.
  So while the Uruguay round may result in new jobs, there is an entire 
sector of workers who will be adversely affected by this agreement. And 
nowhere in the legislation before us is there a remedy, or even a 
proposal, for helping these people survive the catastrophe in their 
lives that we may be creating.
  If any of my colleagues are interested in seeing first-hand the 
result of such policies, they need travel no further than Maryland, 
where we have been fighting for the last year or so to try to keep the 
London Fog factory, and its 700 jobs, in the United States. While we 
have been able to postpone the inevitable for some of these workers, 
hundreds lost their jobs.
  Internationally, I also have concerns about how this recent round of 
trade negotiations will affect many of the less developed nations on 
this Earth. As is the case with domestic employees, it appears that the 
Uruguay round will most adversely affect the nations that are least 
able to absorb it.
  Let's begin with the nations in the Caribbean region. Members of the 
Caribbean Basin initiative were promised a trade agreement which would 
provide parity with NAFTA, which we passed earlier this year. Because 
the Caribbean nations and Mexico export many of the same items to the 
United States, NAFTA gave one nation--Mexico--a distinct edge.
  The Caribbean nations were promised parity in the NAFTA agreement. 
When that fell through, the Caribbean nations were told that the GATT 
implementing legislation would include a parity provision. In the last 
minute, however, the parity provision was withdrawn. Now the Caribbean 
nations are being told to wait until fast track.
  Meanwhile, Caribbean economies are beginning to slow, a trend that 
may continue until they are allowed to trade with their primary 
partner--the United States--on a fair level.
  I also have concerns about how the Uruguay round will impact sub-
Saharan African countries. The Uruguay round agreements will reduce 
subsidies which in turn may reduce food production in major food 
exporting countries like the United States. This, in turn, could 
possibly cause a rise in the worldwide food prices and an increase in 
food prices for sub-Saharan African countries over the next 5 to 10 
years. Most sub-Saharan countries' food imports account for 15 to 35 
percent of total imports. The heavy dependence on food imports renders 
sub-Saharan nations vulnerable to increases in world food prices.
  While most of the industrialized signatories to the Uruguay round 
agree that most sub-Saharan African nations will suffer as a result of 
the Uruguay round, I have yet to see anyone take any real steps to help 
these nations that are already some of the poorest in the world.
  Finally, I also have concerns about the impact this agreement will 
have on U.S. domestic attempts to promote small and minority 
businesses. Because there is not language in the treaty providing for 
the protection of current U.S. policies which provide that a certain 
amount of government commerce be conducted with small, minority, women-
owned, or disadvantaged businesses, these allocations may be 
challenged.
  While the lack of protections does not, in and of itself, mean the 
demise of programs such as the Small Business Section 8A Program, the 
Uruguay round agreement will open the program up to new challenges, 
both from within and outside of our borders. You may rest assured that 
I will be certain to monitor the situation and do what I can to 
preserve what I see as one of the most productive programs in our 
Government today.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this as it does not represent fair 
trade, nor does it represent the best interest of all Americans.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
5100, which will implement the Uruguay round agreement of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. This landmark trade agreement 
will stimulate global trade, open foreign markets to U.S. goods and 
services, and create hundreds of thousands of good jobs for American 
workers.
  Last December, the Clinton administration successfully completed the 
Uruguay round negotiations with 125 nations, leading to the trade 
agreement we have before us today. This agreement will slash worldwide 
tariffs by an average of 34 percent.
  While the GATT agreement may not be perfect, it will substantially 
benefit the U.S. economy, productivity, and standard of living. In 10 
years, GATT will create between 300,000 and 700,000 new jobs. It will 
increase U.S. annual incomes by an estimated $100 to $200 billion. This 
represents a total boost to Americans' incomes and production amounting 
to at least $1,700 per family of four per year.
  By lowering the tariffs and reducing the nontariff barriers of our 
trading partners, GATT will pry open protective foreign markets to 
goods and services produced by American workers. This will result in 
expanded merchandise exports estimated at $150 billion per year by 
2004. Expanded trade resulting from GATT will allow Americans to invest 
more in the factories that produce our principal exports, and in the 
skills and education of the work force.
  Of more importance, GATT will require our trading partners to play by 
the same rules we play by. Currently, the U.S. market is the world's 
most open to competition. Americans are competitive and honest, and now 
other nations will be forced to do business the way we do. GATT will 
level the playing field of world trade and ensure that our foreign 
competitors can no longer block their markets to U.S. goods and 
services.
  While GATT will substantially reduce trade barriers, it will also 
preserve the ability of the U.S. Government to protect its strong 
health, labor, and environmental standards. Despite the arguments of 
the critics of the new World Trade Organization [WTO] that GATT will 
erode U.S. sovereignty, the fact remains that the WTO cannot change 
U.S. laws--only Congress can do that. The worst the WTO can do to us is 
authorize trade retaliation, a practice that already exists in the 
unruly climate of our current trading system.
  The United States sought the creation of the WTO to pressure our more 
protective trading partners to open their markets to U.S. goods and 
services. Because we have the world's largest and most open market, we 
can use the threat of closing our markets to our foreign competitors if 
they violate their commitments to keep their markets open to us.
  GATT has many other benefits for the U.S. economy and U.S. workers. 
The agreement preserves, and in some cases strengthens, existing 
authority for the U.S. Government to impose fines or countervailing 
duties against countries that engage in dumping--exporting goods at 
prices below cost. GATT also broadens and strengthens protection from 
piracy for patents, copyrights, and trademarks, which will be 
particularly beneficial to the computer, semiconductor, and 
entertainment industries.
  Much has been made about the budgetary impact of GATT because of the 
loss of tariff revenue under H.R. 5110. However, over time, GATT will 
in fact reduce the budget deficit. The additional income created by the 
agreement will result in $206.8 billion in additional Federal revenue. 
This will more than offset the loss in tariff revenue.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent a port city which relies on international 
trade to sustain its economic viability, GATT will significantly 
increase trade and commerce through the port of Philadelphia, creating 
much-needed jobs at the port and at industries located in the city that 
depend on the port. Failure to enable GATT will squander a great 
opportunity to expand and stimulate growth at one of the Nation's most 
competitive ports.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, GATT is a good deal for working Americans. 
Three successive administrations under Presidents Reagan, Bush, and 
Clinton pressed the world to complete the Uruguay round. Now we must 
lead by implementing it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. The most critical issue facing 
this country is the creation of the good, high paying, high skill jobs 
that have always provided hard-working Americans the promise of a 
better life--for themselves and for their children. Yet for the last 
decade and more we have seen our good jobs disappear as wages of 
working Americans have remained flat.
  We must pursue policies that will rebuild our economy, provide good 
jobs--the key to a better future--and keep the American dream alive. 
The GATT is a trade agreement that will help create jobs by opening new 
markets to the high-wage, high-technology jobs that provide American 
workers a better life. Now, more than ever, these jobs are dependent on 
opening up new markets abroad.
  In Connecticut, exports have surpassed defense as one of the 
mainstays of the State's economy. In 1991, Connecticut exports were 
worth nearly $6 billion--an increase of 72 percent over the previous 4 
years. And Connecticut has one of the highest proportions of jobs 
related to manufactured exports of any State.
  This GATT means that trade barriers around the world that now block 
the exports of goods from Connecticut will be dismantled. We will be 
able to sell more Connecticut goods around the world, and that means 
more jobs for Connecticut workers in the critical export areas of 
computer manufacturing, transportation equipment, and chemical 
products.
  Mr. Chairman, this agreement differs markedly from NAFTA. I strongly 
opposed NAFTA in large measure because of the Mexican Government's 
policy of holding wages artificially low, and depriving their workers 
of pay that was consistent with their productivity. NAFTA threatened to 
drain industry from the United States through this low wage policy and 
provide little if any new market for U.S. goods. But, unlike NAFTA, the 
GATT is an agreement between countries around the globe--many of which 
are highly industrialized and whose workers can afford, and want to 
purchase, U.S. goods. GATT will open up these critical markets in 
Europe, Japan, and Asia to U.S. goods. GATT provides the United States 
with a more efficient, effective way to deal with unfair trade 
practices; and it lowers trade barriers to sectors of the U.S. economy 
not covered by GATT in the past, including agriculture, intellectual 
property, and services.
  We live in a world where the economy is truly global, and where huge 
numbers of jobs in this country depend on our access to foreign 
markets. We must all keep in mind that imports and exports of goods and 
services accounted for nearly 22 percent of our gross domestic product 
in 1993. Our implementation of the Uruguay round of GATT takes this 
into account, and will improve our ability to trade abroad, strengthen 
our job base, and help us add new jobs. I urge my colleagues to support 
passage of the GATT implementing legislation.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation to 
approve and implement the Uruguay round trade agreements.
  The new trade rules embodied in the Uruguay round agreements will 
provide real opportunities for U.S. industries, workers, and consumers. 
Once they are fully in place, the GATT agreements will add tens of 
billions of dollars annually to our gross domestic product and create 
hundreds of thousands of additional jobs across the country. 
Pennsylvania, with its diversified manufacturing, agricultural, and 
services sectors, is well positioned to gain from the expanded 
opportunities under the agreement.
  These agreements enhance our ability to compete globally in the areas 
where we are most competitive and where we face the most imposing 
barriers to trade. The accords mean lower tariffs on agriculture and 
manufactured products, expanded protections for the intellectual 
property of U.S. firms, and a new set of rules to govern disputes more 
effectively. The GATT also means changes that will help to bring down 
the cost of manufactured goods for American consumers and make our 
products more affordable in foreign markets.
  As one result of these agreements, for example, tariffs will be cut 
and American families will enjoy the equivalent of a $36 billion tax 
cut through lower prices on many consumer goods.
  American agriculture is another clear winner, and that is 
particularly important in Pennsylvania where agriculture is our largest 
industry. It is certainly not an idle boast to say that Americans 
produce among the highest quality and most affordable farm goods in the 
world. Nevertheless, American farmers have struggled for years to 
contend with barriers to their products and competition from highly 
subsidized foreign goods. Exports currently make up 20 percent of our 
Nation's total agricultural output; but we can do better--and GATT will 
help make that happen.
  The GATT agreements level the playing field for American farmers. It 
will mean the end of Japan's ban on rice imports, and the opening of 
several other Asian markets to significant volumes of American meat 
products. Most importantly, the agreements' rules on subsidies will 
compel the European Union to curb the equivalent of $12 billion in 
agriculture subsidies annually. These changes are a big reason why 
farmers in my State expect large export gains and why net farm income 
should rise by $1 billion over the next 10 years.
  The accords will also open new foreign markets for our successful 
service industries, such as advertising, law, architecture, health 
care, and computer services. Previous rounds of GATT had virtually 
ignored services, but this area of our economy now accounts for more 
than half of our domestic output, and 70 percent of our jobs. Expanding 
our ability to provide services around the world will mean many more 
American jobs in the future.
  Despite all of these obvious benefits, I have concerns about the 
impact of the Uruguay round agreements. Expanded trade opportunities 
carry many new dangers. One of the biggest dangers we face is trade-
related unemployment since jobs in some vulnerable industries will be 
at risk to strong competition from abroad. I know that other countries 
will aggressively work to protect and preserve their most vulnerable 
industries, and I believe that we must do no less in defense of ours.
  I am pleased that this legislation contains several important 
provisions to preserve jobs in industries in Pennsylvania and around 
the country. I urged the administration to adopt these changes, and 
worked to see that they would be included in the final bill.
  For example, several important steel trade cases have recently been 
lost because the U.S. International Trade Commission was double or even 
triple counting certain types of steel products in their analysis of 
the domestic industry. The size of the domestic steel industry appeared 
much larger than it is in reality and the percentage of imported 
products appeared smaller. Thus, it became much harder for domestic 
manufacturers to show that they had been injured by unfair trade.
  H.R. 5110 contains an amendment to address the problem of captive 
production. This language will clarify the U.S. International Trade 
Commission's market analysis so that the U.S. steel industry will be 
treated fairly.
  This bill also includes a change in the textile rule of origin. This 
compromise language will harmonize U.S. law with the practice of other 
countries and close a loophole in our treatment of textile imports.
  Both of these changes are critically important to Pennsylvania 
workers and will help to preserve jobs in key industries in the 
commonwealth.
  It is also worth noting the proposed changes in U.S. laws that were 
left out of this bill, including the administration's recommendations 
for the treatment of economies-in-transition and the short-supply 
amendment. Both of these changes would have seriously undermined U.S. 
anti-dumping laws, and would have made it virtually impossible for 
injured American industries to find relief.
  Defeating these amendments was a clear victory for American workers, 
and I strongly urge my colleagues to continue to reject these dangerous 
proposals in future trade debates.
  There are other concerns as well. A recent GATT panel review of the 
Commerce Department's countervailing duty determinations on steel bar 
imports, for example, could lead to possible inequities in the dispute 
resolution process. I will be watching future panel decisions carefully 
to ensure that our obligations and rights are fairly interpreted by the 
new WTO.
  In addition, I am also concerned by the language inserted in this 
bill to grant inexpensive telecommunications licenses for three 
companies. This provision was added to the bill very late, and I 
believe it has not been sufficiently explained by its sponsors. I look 
forward to this provision receiving careful scrutiny during the 104th 
Congress.
  We have many important tasks ahead of us. The implementing 
legislation clearly sets out negotiating objectives for further 
negotiations in financial services, basic telecommunications and civil 
aircraft. I support these objectives, and I call upon the President to 
press for swift action in these areas.
  Our work, however, will not stop once these objectives are met. We 
must continue to move forward in our effort to improve labor and 
environment standards around the globe. We must press for more open 
proceedings at the WTO and break down the secrecy that surrounds the 
dispute resolution process.
  Moreover, though the WTO is intended to oversee and administer the 
rules of trade fairly, we cannot expect the WTO to safeguard our 
interests. That is why it is imperative that we continue to use very 
tool in our trade arsenal to fight unfair competition from around the 
world, and we must vigilantly protect our national interests in every 
area of the economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge that this is not a perfect agreement. 
Considering all of the obstacles that the United States faced in 
negotiating these accords with 123 other countries, however, I must 
conclude that it is most likely the best deal we will get. And overall, 
the GATT will lead to greater economic growth and more job creation in 
Pennsylvania and throughout the country.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
agreement, so that we can commence addressing these further objectives 
with the framework of the Uruguay round agreement.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to explain why I 
support the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
  GATT will bring renewed prosperity to my district, the Houston area 
and the State of Texas. One of every three jobs in the Houston area is 
directly or indirectly supported by international business. There are 
over 700 foreign companies from 44 different countries operating in 
Houston. According to a Department of Commerce report, Texas is 
America's second-largest exporter and passage of GATT will create 
faster growth opportunities for Texas' diversified export industries. 
The gross domestic product in Texas is estimated to grow by $12 billion 
by the end of the 10-year period as a result of GATT.
  Houston, in particular, serves as a center for trade not only from 
the north and the south but also from the east and the west. Houston's 
centralized geographical location, its port--which is the seventh 
largest in the world and the second largest in the United States--and 
its international airport contribute to its potential for growth in 
international trade.
  Not only will the passage of GATT benefit my district, this important 
trade agreement also will benefit the future of the Nation's 
telecommunications industry.
  This agreement protects intellectual property rights; indeed, it is 
the first multilateral trade agreement to include such protection. 
Intellectual property protection is critical to U.S. companies, 
particularly to those in the video programming field, which have 
endured years of piracy of their products--theft without any payment 
for the unauthorized use of copyrights.
  The GATT will lower tariffs for U.S. products and services abroad. 
Notably, it will create opportunities for United States 
telecommunications companies in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Many 
of these foreign markets have telecommunications infrastructures that 
are antiquated or primitive by American standards. By agreeing to a 
trade treaty that opens these markets now, U.S. companies will be able 
to play an important role in improving and expanding these 
infrastructures. This trade agreement also will help us in future 
multilateral and bilateral negotiations to open up foreign markets to 
U.S. telecommunications products and services.
  The U.S. telecommunications industry is the leading growth industry 
in this country; it will account for nearly one-sixth of the economy by 
the next century. We need to do everything we can to foster growth and 
opportunities for our companies to sell their goods and services 
abroad--and GATT is an important step in that direction.
  There has been some controversy about section 801 of GATT, which 
requires PCS pioneers--that is, the three companies that created PCS 
and thus made possible the PCS spectrum auctions that will begin next 
Monday--to pay at least half a billion dollars for their licenses. Some 
have questioned whether this provision will result in a fair return to 
the Government.
  I am intimately familiar with this provision, which was crafted over 
the course of the past several months in an open and normal fashion. I 
am also familiar with the 4-year history of the pioneer of the pioneer 
proceeding at the FCC. It is my belief that section 801 guarantees a 
more than fair return for the Government. That is why I supported 
section 801 in the first place. As far as I am concerned, the matter of 
the PCS pioneers now is closed.
  As many of you know, the FCC had promised over the past 4 years to 
guarantee the pioneers a license as a reward for their innovative 
efforts. The pioneers were not promised just an option to purchase a 
license, but a guaranteed license. In January of this year, the FCC 
clarified that it would give pioneers free licenses, even though it now 
can auction licenses. It was only in August of this year that the FCC 
changed its mind. The pioneers have taken the FCC to court, and all 
informed observers believe the pioneers will win. They then will 
receive licenses for free--and taxpayers will get nothing.
  GATT guarantees the taxpayers will get significant funds from the 
pioneers. Pioneers will pay 85 percent of an average auction price, and 
they will make a minimum payment of some $530 million even if bid 
prices are lower than expected. No other company has committed to a 
minimum price. All the bidders in the auction to begin Monday will try 
to win their licenses for as little as possible. The pioneers alone 
have guaranteed the taxpayers more than half a billion dollars. And 
they have not been granted a ceiling--even if the auction yields 
billions, they will pay according to the GATT formula.
  Is this a fair return for the American taxpayer? Consider all the 
relevant factors, and I am sure you will agree with me that it is more 
than fair. The pioneers worked for 5 years with no Government funding 
to develop PCS. They put all their research and development in the 
public record so that all could learn and benefit from it. They relied 
on a 4-year, 10-times-reaffirmed promise of a free license--a promise 
the FCC broke only this August, after the pioneers had completed their 
hard work and performed their side of the bargain. They put millions of 
high-risk dollars at stake at a time when PCS was just a glimmer in an 
entrepreneur's eye. The pioneers, in short, created PCS for the benefit 
of the American taxpayer. The auction bids that will begin next Monday 
are the direct result of the pioneers' efforts. How much more fair of a 
return could we expect?
  Some have called for an assessment, after the auction, of whether the 
pioneers made a fair return to the taxpayers. But Congress took full 
account of all the relevant factors in crafting section 801. Any post-
auction assessment that took the proper factors into account--the hard 
work of the pioneers, their commitment of high-risk capital, their 
public submission of research results, their reliance on the FCC's 
promises--could only reaffirm the section 801 formulation. And a post-
GATT rejiggering of the formula would be the same kind of unfair and 
unconstitutional retroactive lawmaking that so many of us have spoken 
against in the past.
  There is no need for any further inquisition into the efforts of 
these three companies, which have gone above and beyond the call to 
create a new service. In fact, letting the specter of some further 
review hang over the pioneers for months while they attempt to raise 
capital to build their businesses would be unconscionable. It would 
accomplish nothing but burdening them in the marketplace and favoring 
their well-heeled competitors. It could destroy the very pioneers that 
have created a terrific new PCS service that will generate billions in 
tax revenues and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed. The pioneers should 
get on with building their systems and bringing their service to the 
American public without being threatened with unwise and retroactive 
legislation. They have been delayed long enough.
  For the telecommunications industry as well as every other American 
industry, passage of GATT is an important step, and a necessary 
precursor to a thorough examination of the openness of our own markets. 
I believe that next year Congress should review our Nation's 
telecommunications laws to create further leverage for entry into 
foreign markets.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise again in support of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This agreement is the culmination of 7 
years of negotiations conducted by the U.S. Trade Representative under 
Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton. the objectives achieved during 
these negotiations will serve to benefit a broad range of sectors of 
the U.S. economy, while bringing areas such as agriculture, 
intellectual property and services under GATT. The Uruguay round of 
GATT will benefit the United States and the State of Indiana through 
expanded market opportunities, the elimination of tariffs, the creation 
of jobs. The $744 billion expected revenue from GATT over 10 years can 
be directed toward deficit reduction.
  In philosophy I strongly support the reduction of tariffs and the 
expansion of markets for U.S. goods. I had reservations with this 
agreement due to concerns regarding the creation of the World Trade 
Organization [WTO] and its implications for U.S. trade policy and 
foreign policy, the effects of the Blair House II Agreement 
establishing the provisions contained in the Agreement on Agriculture, 
and the longterm effects of the antidumping agreement. However, after 
examining the agreement and especially the safeguard provisions 
contained therein I decided to vote in favor of GATT. Without the 
congressional oversight responsibilities contained in the implementing 
legislation pertaining to the sovereignty issue I would not have been 
able to support the agreement.
  The provisions provide added safety to the United States in regard to 
its position in the WTO. The provisions include specific mention of the 
sovereignty of U.S. laws, the establishment of Federal-State 
consultation for addressing issues directly affecting States; the 
annual report to Congress on the WTO, panels appointed, decisions made, 
impact on the U.S. and the States. Moreover, the implementing 
legislation contains language specifically enabling the United States 
to review the actions of the WTO and opt to withdraw from the WTO by a 
process similar to disapproval of most favored nation status. Thus, the 
Congress has the ability to oversee U.S. involvement in the WTO to 
ensure the interests of the citizens of our nation are strongly 
represented.
  In 1988, Congress instructed the U.S. Trade Representative to 
negotiate a stronger trade agreement which will achieve expeditious 
resolutions to trade disputes between member nations in GATT. With the 
creation of the World Trade Organization member nations agree to follow 
the agreements contained in the GATT and recognize that violations of 
these agreements could mean managed and enforced dispute settlement 
proceedings. This allows the United States, which has been the most 
frequent complainant, to benefit from enforced dispute proceedings.

  During the past few months I carefully studied the implications of 
the Uruguay round from both the macroeconomic and microeconomic 
perspective. The potential economic stimulus for U.S. business and 
manufacturing is clear. The passage of the agreement will mean 
increased global market opportunities for businesses and industries in 
my congressional district as global tariffs fall, and will enforce 
fairer trade practices among our trading partners. The combination of 
these factors facilitates continued U.S. predominance as the world's 
largest market and most powerful economy while bring benefits to the 
consumer through reduced prices for goods.
  Representing one of the largest agri-business production districts in 
America, the inclusion of agriculture under the GATT is very important. 
For the first time foreign nations will be forced to comply with the 
provisions contained in the agreement. According to figures provided by 
the Indiana Farm Bureau, commodities such as corn, soybeans, pork, and 
cattle will account for over $1 billion in creased exports. The U.S. 
Department of Agriculture estimates the agreement will spur agriculture 
exports to increase between $4.7 billion and $8.7 billion by 2005 and 
that it would create 105,000 jobs by the same year. Moreover, this 
agreement further opens the global market to agricultural products from 
Indiana.
  After further researching the agreement, and its effects on U.S. 
antidumping laws, I learned that the United States may continue to 
invoke antidumping provisions. These new provisions provide greater 
detail to U.S. antidumping law while providing greater transparency 
which allows foreign nations to understand domestic rules in this area. 
Further provisions allow the United States to list unfair trade 
practices and invoke section 301 in certain cases. These provisions are 
important to U.S. industries. Their inclusion was important in my 
decision to vote in favor of GATT.
  Also important to my district are provisions pertaining to autoparts 
manufacturers. Autoparts dealers in Indiana will benefit from greater 
market access due to the Uruguay round. Japan and other nations will be 
forced to comply with nondiscriminatory standards thus allowing 
products greater access to foreign markets. The European Union has 
agreed to a 43 percent reduction in tariffs for autoparts. According to 
United Technologies Automotive, their producers in Plymouth, North 
Manchester, and Peru, Indiana, will gain from the Uruguay round. The 
reduction of tariffs will allow United Technologies Automotive to 
expand business and will increase export opportunities. Such 
opportunities will also benefit the 700 Fifth District employees 
working in those plants.
  In conclusion, GATT will benefit Indiana and the United States. The 
agreement covers important manufacturing industries while establishing 
rules for agriculture trade. By reducing tariffs on approximately 85 
percent of world trade, reducing the agriculture subsidies of foreign 
competitors, preserving U.S. ability to impose antidumping laws, and by 
strengthening the current GATT with stronger dispute settlement 
proceedings, the United States is positioned to maintain global 
dominance.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Uruguay round of 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT] that was submitted by 
President Clinton on September 27, 1994.
  The American people and Congress have repeatedly expressed their 
support over the years for more open and fair trade relations with 
foreign countries. The United States has been a part of the GATT since 
its inception in the post-war period. Throughout the several rounds of 
multi-lateral negotiations over the past half a century, the United 
States has worked with the nations of the world to improve world trade: 
reducing barriers and tariffs, settling disputes, and relaxing quotas. 
We have always sought to improve the agreement for ourselves and for 
the world.
  The Uruguay round is the largest and most comprehensive trade 
agreement in history. Global trade tariffs, essentially sales taxes, 
are estimated to be cut by $744 billion. The agreement is estimated to 
contribute $100 to $200 billion to the U.S. economy each year.
  Numerous allegations have been raised as to the effort on U.S. law 
such as section 301 of the trade laws which provide the U.S. 
administration with the ability, authority, and responsibility to act 
on matters of unfair trade. However, the implementing legislation we 
consider today actually strengthens section 301 of current U.S. trade 
law. It includes provisions to improve the U.S. situation vis-a-vis 
dumping in global trade. The agreement moves the United States forward 
by including varied services as commodities, beginning to open areas 
such as tourism, law, accounting and important environmental services. 
This 1994 GATT agreement importantly enhances intellectual property 
protections, strengthens international rules against trade-distorting 
subsidies, and authorizes the required tariff and subsidy reductions.
  Nonetheless, this is not a perfect agreement. Some questions do 
remain regarding the impact the World Trade Organization could have on 
certain State and local laws that protect local workers, consumers or 
the environment because those laws could be deemed to interfere with 
world trade. We certainly have a responsibility to U.S. citizens, at 
the very least, to continue to lead the world in protective laws that 
prevent unnecessary disease, accidents, and even death in the workplace 
and the environment. We must be prepared to ensure that this leadership 
will not be taxed and have additional costs attached to it in the world 
trade marketplace.
  Although continued fast track authority was removed from the 
legislation at this time, the bill fails to address a range of 
environmental concerns raised by the round, and it offers no indication 
that future U.S. trade negotiations will seek environmental reforms as 
a priority. For example, we must work to ensure that legitimate local, 
national and international environmental, wildlife, and animal 
protection regulations will not be attacked as barriers to trade.
  Frankly, the Clinton administration endorsement and signature to the 
Rio Conference Agreements on global biodiversity, rain forest 
preservation, global warming and earlier work on chlorofluorcarbons 
[CFCs] help temper the silence in the GATT Agreement on these matters. 
It should be borne in mind that those of us attempting to include 
within the GATT, health, safety, environmental, labor, and human rights 
concerns, are attempting to set a new policy path, a higher level of 
economic and trade accords. I'm convinced that this is a proper and 
appropriate agreement goal. Past GATT Agreements, however, didn't have 
such focus or initiatives. Achieving the 1994 GATT Agreement with 123 
nations and the U.S. is a significant accomplishment. It has been 8 
years in the making. This agreement makes real progress in economic 
terms. I only wish we had the leverage to do more for the host of 
social, political, worker, environmental, and human rights issues that 
all agree upon. Insisting upon these issues at this late date would 
cause the GATT Agreement to falter and we need the fundamental reforms 
inherent in GATT.
  The Uruguay round is not balanced as it impacts working 
Americans. While I agree that the global economy is dynamic and 
American workers and companies are ready to compete and win, there are 
undeniably industries and workers who will suffer as a result of the 
implementation of the GATT. Textiles and apparels industries are likely 
to lose millions of jobs. The dairy industry is projected to be hurt by 
the Uruguay round. Industries attempting cleaner and more 
environmentally sound processes could be threatened by lower cost, less 
sustainable product manufacturing.

  The reality is that negative effects of this GATT Agreement will fall 
unevenly upon certain sectors of American workers. It is not clear that 
we have ready or are prepared to put in place a safety net of 
appropriate programs like Trade Adjustment Assistance [TAA] or economic 
conversion efforts to assist those adversely affected. The workers and 
the families whose lives will be affected because they lose their 
livelihood will need our help and as we make general trade policy we 
should acknowledge this specifically.
  This shortfall in training for job displacement is an on-going 
concern as the dynamic U.S. economy is restructured. It is imperative 
that Federal policies successfully move people from one place in the 
world of work to another, but surely an agreement which safeguards 
skilled jobs and vocations cannot be subordinated to the lowest common 
denominator of maintaining at all costs entry level positions. This is 
a job question that we can and should address in general terms not only 
in isolation to trade, but totally in the context of education and 
training.
  Finally, this GATT now asks the Congress to treat the pay-as-you-go 
U.S. budget legal requirements in a special way. It is unfortunate that 
even as we look to adjournment, leaving countless legislative 
initiatives mangled and abandoned by partisan gridlock more concerned 
with budget costs than human costs; for GATT, the numbers can be 
rationalized. This is troubling to me. We have spent countless hours 
debating and working very hard to reduce the Federal budget deficit. 
Often, we have not been able to act as I would like on a growing 
American human deficit because of the U.S. budget problems. We should 
remember this willingness to bend the rules for the next decade in 
comparing current costs to benefits when we look at other programs that 
can help the pillars of our Nation's future, our children.
  I favor this 1994 GATT Agreement. On the whole, GATT globally should 
provide mutual benefits and competitive parity; and industries in 
Minnesota will be better positioned generally by the Uruguay round. The 
Federal Government will need to be vigilant and aggressive to assure 
that GATT provides and promotes the sustainable use of our resources, 
and is fair to American workers. While the U.S. must remain part of the 
global economic marketplace, the relationship must be based upon common 
sense and common values about the law and basic human rights.
  I recognize that although the deadline for ratification is July 1, 
1995, many nations are looking with high interest to the passage of the 
GATT by the United States prior to consideration in their own countries 
because of the informal agreement to proceed with it in January of 
1995. We need to act now, today, in order to fulfill our responsibility 
and remain a player and a leader in the global marketplace. I ask my 
colleagues to strongly consider supporting H.R. 5110.
  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the legislation 
implementing the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade. A vote in favor of GATT would signal to the world that America 
is ready to look to a prosperous future, look to opportunities abroad, 
and look to create the well-paying jobs that our workers deserve. A 
vote against GATT would push our country down the slope of growing 
isolationism, and mire us in the trap of economic stagnation and 
uncertainty.
  Many of my colleagues have made impassioned arguments condemning 
GATT. They say that GATT would undermine the sovereignty of our country 
by allowing the World Trade Organization to invalidate our laws. These 
naysayers tap dance around the fact that the WTO would strengthen our 
hand by forcing other countries to play by the same rules that we do. 
For years we have little recourse when other countries have unfairly 
stood in the way of American products by imposing tariffs or structural 
barriers to their markets. The WTO puts teeth into our trade agreement, 
and will help ensure that American workers and companies will be able 
to compete on a level playing field. In spite of the arguments against 
GATT, it is important to remember that the WTO cannot dictate to our 
Government a change in any law. As before, only Congress will have the 
power to change our laws.
  Another red herring that has been thrown into the debate is GATT's 
effect on our patent laws. Many have sought to make this a seminal 
concern that could hasten the end of American ingenuity by prematurely 
invalidating patents. Nothing could be further from the truth. GATT 
would simply replace the 17-year patent term from the patent grant with 
a 20-year term from the final patent application. As of the end of 
September, the average patent decision takes under 20 months. Simple 
math shows that GATT would increase the average length of the patent 
duration thus helping to encourage continuing investment in research 
and technology. Mr. Chairman, is this patent change important enough to 
deny up to a $200 billion infusing into the American economy?
  Perhaps you have heard of the supposed conspiracy with the Washington 
Post and the Atlanta Constitution that involves hush-hush deals and 
multimillion dollar giveaways. Don't fall for this clumsy argument. The 
issue concerns the granting of new cellular licenses to 
telecommunications firms. Both newspapers have interests in firms which 
were instrumental in the development and implementation of a new 
cellular phone technology. In the past, we have granted ``pioneer 
preference'' status to those companies which had a significant 
contribution to the development of a new telecommunications technology. 
This status qualified companies to receive free FCC licenses to use our 
airwaves for their services. GATT changes this formula to increase the 
fees to those with pioneer preference status from nothing to 85 percent 
of the fee paid for the average license. Opponents of GATT call this a 
giveaway because the pioneer companies will pay less than those which 
did not devote significant resources to developing a new technology. It 
is outrageous to call this discount to pioneer companies a giveaway 
when we are raising the fees they have to pay. Should we provide no 
incentive for developing new telecommunications technologies? I say no. 
This would only stunt the growth of the telecommunications sector.
  All of these arguments against GATT are misleading at best, and focus 
attention away from the heart of the issue: Will GATT help our country 
by creating jobs and prosperity for the American people? After 
considering this question for some time, I have concluded that it will.
  The key to the future prosperity of our country is through exporting 
our goods to foreign markets. In fact, exports are responsible for half 
of our total economic growth even though trade only represents 
approximately one-fourth economy. GATT would help us increase our 
exports by cutting tariffs on manufactured goods for all countries by 
more than one-third. Our country's structural and tariff barriers are 
consistently lower than those of our trading partners. GATT would force 
our trading partners to open up markets that have been closed to 
American exports and allow our companies and workers to compete in a 
fair market. GATT would also save us billions with stronger 
intellectual property rights which will protect our most competitive 
industries such as computer software, engineering, and other service 
industries from rampant piracy worldwide. By increasing our exports, 
GATT would create 500,000 new jobs, and add $100 to $200 billion to the 
U.S. economy.
  A final factor to consider: GATT would give a much-needed tax break 
to the American people. By reducing the tariffs and barriers on 
imports, Americans will pay less government taxes on many imported 
manufactured goods. It is estimated that the passage of GATT would 
result in a $750 billion global tax cut, making it the largest tariff 
reduction in history. Many say that we should wait until next year for 
the consideration of GATT. I strongly disagree. If we tarry in our 
mission to pass GATT, we could cost the American economy up to $70 
billion, and signal to our trading partners that we are looking toward 
protectionism.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people have indicated their wish for tax 
cuts and less government interference in their everyday lives. A vote 
for GATT will be a vote for high-paying jobs and a bright economic 
future.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This agreement will provide a 
large economic boost to Connecticut and the Nation as a whole. Passage 
of the GATT will reduce trade barriers to U.S. products by an average 
of one-third. This will result in the removal of about $750 billion in 
global trade barriers and tariffs.
  The GATT Agreement is particularly good for my home State of 
Connecticut: Our aerospace, chemical, medical devices, and 
pharmaceutical manufacturers will greatly benefit from this historic 
agreement. Economists estimate that adoption of the GATT could pump 
between $100 and $200 billion into the U.S. economy.
  As I said during the NAFTA debate earlier this Congress, long-term 
jobs have been created when risks were taken. Simply stated, greater 
access to new markets means more sales. It does not take a rocket 
scientist to see that more sales means more jobs. The GATT Agreement 
will provide greater market access for U.S. Goods and services.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the GATT and the NAFTA may represent the 
only successful jobs creation bills submitted by the Clinton 
administration in the 103d Congress. American businesses will receive 
an immediate benefit from the passage of GATT since U.S. tariff rates 
are far less than the duties imposed on us by our foreign trading 
partners.
  I certainly understand some of the criticisms my colleagues may have 
about this agreement. However, I believe that those who fear this 
agreement lack faith in the United States. When given the opportunity 
to compete in free and fair trade, I feel that the United States will 
always prosper and win. We are the most powerful economic force on the 
globe. Those that slander this agreement lack faith in the American 
worker. Its time to give our workers a vote of confidence and pass this 
important agreement.
  The GATT Agreement is not a partisan issue. A vote in favor of this 
agreement is a vote to support job creation and economic growth. A vote 
against GATT is a move toward the regressive protectionist policies 
that ruined our economy in the past. I urge my colleagues to put 
politics aside and pass this important agreement today.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of GATT, the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In light of the national 
attention surrounding GATT, the benefits of GATT greatly outweigh the 
negatives. However, I was disappointed with the administration's 
failure to include in the bill before us the interim trade program 
which would have provided equal treatment for apparel and textiles from 
the Caribbean and Central America with apparel and textiles from Mexico 
under the NAFTA agreement.
  The President in his meetings with the leaders of the CBI countries 
promised to propose legislation designed to prevent a shift of 
production out of the region and accompanying disinvestment from the 
CBI countries to Mexico as a result of the significant cost benefit 
Mexico receives under NAFTA. This legislation would have been an 
appropriate and excellent vehicle for the Congress to consider such an 
important proposal.
  The ITP is needed because it will help U.S. firms compete with 
imports from low-wage areas in other parts of the world which will 
become quota-free with the enactment of the Uruguay round. In addition, 
the ITP will further open the CBI region to U.S. products--a region 
where the United States already has a substantial trade surplus.
  More importantly, I am pleased with the provision added to the GATT 
implementing legislation regarding the Rules of Origin. 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. The changes put 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.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that Congress will pass the GATT implementing 
legislation today. I also have faith that the administration will, 
early next year, send to the Congress legislation implementing the ITP, 
and I hope Congress will expeditiously enact the legislation.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I believe a vote for GATT is a vote for 
the American people.
  I support the passage of GATT for four reasons: more American jobs, 
fairness in trade, GATT is a bipartisan agreement, and protection of 
American sovereignty.
  Jobs: GATT will create hundreds of thousands of high paying, high-
skilled U.S. jobs. For every billion dollars of American goods that are 
exported, 16,000 to 17,000 new jobs will be created. This agreement 
will be even better for the American people than the extremely 
successful NAFTA agreement was. Under NAFTA in the first quarter of 
1994 Texas exports to Mexico increased from $5 billion to $5.6 billion. 
This is an 11 percent increase in exports to Mexico in a single 
quarter.
  GATT is as good for the American farmer as it is for the manufactures 
of America. The new international trade language will lead to 
substantially improved access for U.S. farm exports. Our country is 
relatively ``open,'' and GATT will require others to reduce their 
trade-distorted support payments, export subsidies and import 
protection laws. More American exports mean more sales; more sales mean 
higher prices; higher prices mean higher profits; higher profits mean 
higher net income, and that is good for the American worker.
  Fairness: For the first time ever in a multilateral trade agreement, 
all 123 member countries will have to play by the same rules. In our 
previous trade agreements, any member country could pick and choose 
what part of the agreement applied to them. GATT is different. GATT 
will require all member countries to agree to and abide by the same 
rules, and this will benefit the American worker.
  Bipartisanship: This agreement is neither a Democratic nor a 
Republican agreement, but rather both parties' agreement to level the 
playing field with other countries. This agreement was launched by 
President Reagan, fostered by President Bush, and concluded by 
President Clinton. Throughout the negotiation process and this year's 
legislative process, all three administrations have consulted with 
Congress in an effort to make this agreement bipartisan, and this 
effort has better served the American worker.
  Sovereignty: Under the GATT agreement, despite what the critics say, 
U.S. sovereignty will not be compromised. The argument that the United 
States will be beholden to the whims of third world countries or 
faceless bureaucrats is completely false. Nothing in GATT affects the 
sovereignty of this country or any state. The only governing body that 
can now or ever will be able to make U.S. law is the U.S. Government.
  The WTO will not be able to dictate law to either the U.S. Government 
or any state government. Nor will the WTO have the power to overturn 
State or Federal law. Any decision to adopt, repeal, or amend U.S. law 
will remain ours alone to make. To ensure that the United States is 
never at the mercy of a run-amok, anti-American international body, 
dominated by developing countries and powerful bureaucrats, a final 
amendment was added to require Congress to vote on WTO membership every 
5 years. This amendment will ensure that the United States retains its 
sovereignty, and this is good for the American worker.
  While this is a solid trade agreement that will provide an increase 
in hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans, this agreement may 
cause some temporary worker displacement, and a drop in some individual 
wages. Despite this, GATT will benefit the majority of the American 
workers. Our country is in an global market, and our economy must be 
responsive to this fact.
  As a Congressman who will vote for this agreement, I believe that we 
should look for new and innovative ways to put those displaced by this 
agreement back to work. We must not leave these workers behind. Neither 
should we bring the entire train to a screeching halt in the face of 
progress. We must vote for this agreement for the long term good of all 
American workers. If the American worker wants to remain competitive in 
the future, we as a country will have to adopt to the world economy, 
before we can thrive within it. The passage of GATT is the first step 
to thriving in the world market, not just getting by.
  It is for these reasons that I believe GATT should be passed now. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for the American people and vote for GATT 
today.
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, during this year's campaign, I made a 
specific and unequivocal commitment to the people of the fourth 
congressional district of Kansas that I would not support the GATT 
Agreement during this lame duck session of the 103d Congress. I intend 
to keep that commitment.
  Notwithstanding my defeat and, importantly, my support for the 
substance of the GATT Agreement and the fair trade principles it 
embodies, if I renege on my commitment, I believe that act would deepen 
public cynicism toward Government and further the debasement of 
contemporary political debate.
  GATT is critically important to our country's economic well being. 
The economic battlegrounds on which we will determine our and our 
children's prosperity are radically different from those of the past. 
This agreement which, deservedly, has strong bipartisan support, will 
enable the United States to get a fair deal on those new 
battlegrounds--the most important markets of the 21st century. It will 
take extraordinary steps toward leveling the global economic playing 
field. GATT will eliminate unfair barriers other countries have erected 
in the way of Americans and should be, for those reasons, implemented.
  During the campaign, I expressed reservations about the process by 
which this legislation is being considered, concerns about GATT's 
effect on agriculture, and the powers of the World Trade Organization 
[WTO]. I am satisfied these substantive concerns have been met. Senator 
Dole's efforts to strengthen the ability of the United States to remove 
itself from GATT have satisfied my concerns about the WTO and I commend 
him. But, my reservations about bringing the agreement before a lame 
duck session, populated by an unprecedented number of retiring and 
defeated Members, including myself--remain.
  Restoring public trust in Government and elected officials is as 
critically important to strengthening our political future as GATT is 
to our economic well-being. Indeed, unless we rescue the political 
commerce of the Nation from the abyss into which it has slipped, 
securing our economic future will be next to impossible. In one of my 
last acts as a Member of the House, I will continue striving toward 
those goals, which I can do best by keeping my word, and I will.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill to 
implement the provisions of the Uruguay round of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade. And I am strongly opposed to the GATT provisions 
that create the World Trade Organization.
  I have grave concerns about the economic harm that will come to many 
of our industries if GATT is passed. It is widely acknowledged that the 
textile industry is one that could be devastated by GATT. Moreover, as 
the agreement is currently structured, GATT would clearly have a 
negative impact on the Northeast dairy industry. This GATT agreement 
does not provide fair or increased access to foreign markets for our 
dairy products. In fact, when it comes to our dairy industry, our trade 
negotiators seem to have gone out of their way to hurt it. Let me give 
you an example. New Zealand is a major exporter of dairy products. In 
their infinite wisdom, our trade negotiators gave New Zealand greater 
access to American markets. In exchange, all New Zealand agreed to do 
was lower its tariffs on pet food, hardly a justification for a trade 
agreement that could cripple our dairy industry.
  But this example of our trade negotiators' work is really not 
surprising. Just over a year ago, this body passed the North American 
Free Trade Agreement, and to this day they still have not finalized the 
fine print in that agreement. The U.S. Trade Representative has invoked 
NAFTA's dispute resolution process in response to the economic 
devastation caused by my state by New Brunswick's unfair Provincial 
Sales Tax. This trade dispute has continued relentlessly since the 
summer of last year with no solution in sight, while Maine businesses 
are hurting and Maine jobs are being lost as a result of the unfair and 
punitive tax.
  But the dispute process has stalled because the roster from which the 
dispute panel would be drawn has not been finalized. In fact, there is 
every indication that Canada and Mexico are dragging their feet on this 
because it is not in their best interests to have the NAFTA dispute 
resolution process completed.
  NAFTA was an agreement between just three countries. If our trade 
negotiators cannot handle a trade agreement with only three countries, 
how can we expect them to ensure that our trading partners will live up 
to their promises when GATT includes over one hundred countries?
  But what concerns me most about GATT is the new World Trade 
Organization. The WTO will be used to enforce GATT's trade regulations, 
and membership in the WTO is a prerequisite for participating in GATT.
  Frankly, I do not believe our trade negotiators when they say that 
many of our federal, state, and local laws are not in danger of being 
overturned by the WTO. Even strong supporters of free trade and NAFTA 
have expressed concerns about the United States joining the WTO.
  In my view, the WTO places the principles of free trade above all 
else. Under the WTO an individual nation's right to enact its own 
consumer, environmental, and labor laws would be jeopardized because 
these laws could be challenged by other countries as ``barriers to free 
trade.''
  Our state officials are extremely worried about the threat to state 
sovereignty by the WTO. In July, the Attorney General from my State of 
Maine circulated a letter that eventually was signed by the attorneys 
general from forty-two states. They sent that letter to President 
Clinton urging him to convene a summit with them to discuss the WTO's 
threat to state and local laws. I also wrote to the President last 
summer and urged him to meet with these attorneys general, but their 
request for a presidential summit was denied.
  One of the failures of this 103rd Congress is that we have not 
adequately addressed the implications of United States membership in 
the WTO. Concerns about the WTO have been voiced across the political 
spectrum. Conservatives and liberals alike have concluded that the WTO 
does indeed pose a threat to many of our laws.
  One of the most notable critics of the WTO has been Professor 
Laurence Tribe, an expert in constitutional law at the Harvard Law 
School. Professor Tribe is a Democrat who describes himself as strong 
supporter of NAFTA. But his comments about the WTO should be enough to 
convince almost anyone that we must take a closer look at the motives 
of the WTO.
  For example, Professor Tribe has stated that if a law of one of our 
fifty States were found to be WTO-illegal in a proceeding in which that 
state had no official role or voice, the United States would be 
required either to change the offending law or pay the fine assessed by 
the WTO.
  The Supreme Court has held that Congress cannot constitutionally 
compel any State to exercise its sovereign legislative authority in a 
particular manner. But states still have no protection from the fiscal 
pressures that the Federal government could readily impose on any state 
unwilling to alter its laws to comply with a WTO mandate.
  Under GATT, if a federal law was determined to be illegal by the WTO, 
the U.S. Congress must either repeal that law or keep it in place and 
accept the trade sanctions imposed by the WTO. These sanctions would 
likely remain in place so long as the Congress chooses not to change 
the law that the WTO bureaucrats find objectionable.
  But it will be the Executive Branch, not the Congress, that will 
determine the fate of any state or local law found by the WTO to be a 
violation of GATT. What would happen to a state that chose not to bow 
to the pressure of the WTO? Would the President support the state or 
the WTO? Would the President be tempted to try and pressure the state 
into changing its law rather than go against the WTO?
  If this GATT is passed, we could be faced with a very disturbing 
scenario. The President of the United States may actually want to 
submit prospective federal and state laws to the WTO for its approval 
before these laws are even voted on in either the U.S. Congress or the 
state legislature. I am vehemently opposed to this prospect that any of 
our laws and regulations must be screened first by the international 
trade bureaucrats of the WTO.
  The fact is that the basic thrust of this GATT agreement is to 
empower international tribunals to effectively override state laws 
protecting local workers, consumers, or the environment on the grounds 
that those laws interfere with world trade. And the WTO would do so on 
the basis of findings rendered in proceedings to which the affected 
states are not parties.
  What makes the WTO disturbing is that it will be based on one nation, 
one vote, just like in the United Nations General Assembly. GATT 
members such as Cuba and Yugoslavia will have an equal vote to the 
United States. But, the WTO will not have an organization similar to 
the U.N. Security Council, where the United States is a permanent 
member with veto power. The United States would be at the mercy of any 
international coalition that could muster the necessary votes in the 
WTO to challenge any of our laws.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to say no to the WTO, no to 
threats to our laws, and no to GATT.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, after a thorough examination of the 
implementing language of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 
and listening extensively to all sides and all arguments, I have 
reached what I believe is a fair and independent conclusion: on the 
whole, GATT represents an extraordinary opportunity for the State of 
Washington and the United States.
  I deeply appreciate the concerns expressed by some of my constituents 
in Washington state over the creation of the World Trade Organization 
[WTO]. Clearly, the protection of U.S. sovereignty--and state 
sovereignty--is, and will continue to be, the primary concern of 
lawmakers. As one of our Nation's leading legal scholars--Robert Bork--
has pointed out, the new World Trade Organization will have no 
legislative, executive, or judicial authority whatsoever. Nothing 
proposed by the WTO or its members can change U.S. laws. Only the 
United States Congress has that power. The WTO will help settle 
disputes and enforce the agreement, but that's it.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States may eventually find itself on the 
losing side of a WTO recommendation. While we can no longer block those 
pronouncements, we needn't change any of our laws or regulations. The 
WTO cannot force us to change our laws, or impose fines or anything 
else. The WTO is not a court. All it will do is make recommendations. 
Should we lose a dispute, we are simply susceptible to trade 
retaliation, just as we are now and just as we would be to a 
tremendously higher degree without this agreement.
  Further, the WTO cannot override U.S. or state laws: As Section 
102(a) explicitly 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.'' The section goes on to say that if there is any 
conflict between U.S. law and any of the Uruguay Round agreements, only 
U.S. law will apply. The bill also provides that WTO dispute settlement 
panel reports will not be binding on U.S. courts.
  On the other hand, if another country decides it will not play by the 
rules, and our workers and firms are hurt as a result, the U.S. will be 
able to respond. We will be able to use our strongest trade laws when 
countries violate GATT commitments. The U.S. has far more trade 
leverage than any other country in the world, so retaliation against 
the U.S. is not a terribly credible or wise option for countries whose 
economic clout pales in comparison.
  Mr. Chairman, we are the most open and transparent market in the 
world. We have initiated many complaints in the past under the old GATT 
dispute settlement system, and won most of them. For example, several 
GATT cases we won with Japan were settled by Japan's offering to 
substantially open its markets in products like aluminum and beef. 
These decisions directly benefitted exporters in Washington state. But 
in the 1980's, our foreign competitors frequently used their ``veto 
right'' in the GATT process to hold panel recommendations hostage--thus 
hurting our export potential. For that reason, Congress explicitly 
stated that improvement of the dispute settlement process should be one 
of the highest priorities of the Uruguay Round.

  Three successive Administrations have combined to deliver a process 
which expedites decisions yet preserves our sovereignty. The new 
process sets deadlines for a dispute to be resolved, and explicitly 
allows retaliatory measures which can be used as a final resort. The 
U.S. should benefit the most from these measures since we have been the 
most aggressive in pursuing unfair trade practices abroad, which we 
list annually in our ``National Trade Estimates Report.'' Of course, we 
sometimes have taken measures to protect domestic industries--measures 
inconsistent with the GATT. We have, on the whole, fixed those 
regulations that have been in blatant violation of our trade agreements 
in the past and will likely do so in the future. But the United States 
has the greatest potential to gain from this streamlined, rule-based 
dispute settlement system.
  While I strongly endorse this GATT agreement, I also support the many 
provisions in the GATT which empower the United States with the option 
of withdrawing from the agreement, should that ever be necessary: The 
continual five-year review period, regular consultations with 
Congressional committees, review of WTO voting procedures to ensure 
fairness, annual reports on WTO management and operations, and 
ultimately, the option of pulling out of the agreement after giving six 
month's notice.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress to my constituents in the 8th 
District of Washington, who have told me they have not adequately heard 
the arguments for passage of GATT, a few of the reasons why GATT 
deserves their support. First, the State of Washington is our nation's 
fourth leading exporter of merchandise, with $27.4 billion of sales 
last year. Because Washington State is heavily trade dependent in 
industries such as aviation, software, agriculture, fishing, wood and 
paper products, jobs in Washington are tightly bound to international 
trade. In short, our state's economy stands to benefit 
disproportionately from passage of this agreement. Washington State 
exports will rise. We also stand to enjoy lower taxes on imported 
products--which means lower prices for consumers--and a dramatic 
increase in the state and national income. For the increased job 
opportunities, higher wages, and for the largest tax cut in history, 
for all of these reasons, I support the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the GATT agreement we consider today 
proposes some of the most diverse and far-reaching changes in world 
trade in nearly 50 years. As in all agreements of this nature, there 
are tradeoffs: some U.S. economic sectors will benefit, others will be 
adversely affected, while still others will see little or no change. On 
balance, it is important that our trading partners, in the context of 
this agreement, are willing to modify their policies on import quotas, 
non-tariff barriers, outright subsidies, licensing, and intellectual 
property rights--all of which will very likely improve trade 
opportunities for various U.S. industries.
  However, the agreement raises substantial concerns among important 
domestic sectors such as agriculture and steel. With respect to steel, 
the agreement is not sufficiently strong in reducing our trading 
partners' protective tariffs, quotas, or countervailing duties. I would 
feel differently toward GATT if a multi-lateral steel agreement were 
already in place with specific, enforceable reductions by our trading 
partners in their steel export subsidies and elimination of their 
quotas and other non-tariff barriers that discriminate against our 
steel exports.
  I have witnessed too much pain in the domestic steel and taconite 
(iron ore processing) industries--especially in my district--over the 
past 20 years to be anything but highly skeptical that this agreement 
will translate into more jobs, more production, or more exports for 
American steel products. My instinctive feeling is that since America 
is the world's largest open market, it will continue to be the dumping 
ground for foreign-subsidized steel. American steel workers have 
already paid too high a price in lost jobs, economic dislocation, and 
community deterioration, to cheer an agreement that provides no firm 
protection against unfair trading practices by our foreign competitors 
which likely will lead to future job losses for steel, which remains 
the basic building block for an industrial society.
  With respect to agriculture, particularly for our American dairy 
farmers, the anti-competitive practices engaged in by the European 
Union (EU), Canada and other countries which benefit their dairy 
producers to the disadvantage of ours will continue under GATT. In a 
post-GATT environment, U.S. subsidized exports will be restricted to no 
more than one percent of milk production while the EU will continue to 
subsidize at 12 percent of production and Canadian subsidies will run 
at 6 percent. At a time when even the most efficient and well-managed 
U.S. dairy farmers are struggling, it is disturbing that the GATT will 
reward foreign countries that encourage anti-competitive trading 
practices.
  I cannot support this agreement because I believe that U.S. dairy 
farmers and U.S. steelworkers will not be able to compete 
internationally or domestically under the terms of this GATT agreement.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote for GATT.
  My decision to do so is related to my belief that there are more 
positive attributes to the agreement than there are negative reasons 
for opposing it. This agreement is certainly not 100 percent perfect--
there are a multitude of pluses and minuses, but I believe the merits 
outweigh the demerits and that it would be impossible to negotiate an 
agreement that everyone found 100 percent acceptable.
  My earlier-stated concerns related to GATT had principally to do with 
the World Trade Organization [WTO] and certain portions of the 
implementing legislation. For instance, whether or not the agreement 
would usurp U.S. sovereignty; certain elements in the implementing 
legislation that, in my opinion, conferred ``sweetheart deals'' on 
certain media entities such as the Washington Post could be amended; 
the United States could easily extricate itself from the WTO if none of 
the anticipated good came to pass and we concluded that the WTO was 
intolerable or adverse in an overall sense to our interests.
  After considerable study and consultation with appropriate 
authorities, my foregoing stated concerns can, indeed, be 
satisfactorily answered: The fact is that the WTO cannot change U.S. 
laws, only Congress can do that; and any ruling that is in conflict, 
Congress may, by law, resolve the issue; although not a part of the 
formal agreement, the administration has made an agreement with Senator 
Dole to review the provisions of the implementing legislation that I 
have referred to as ``sweetheart deals.'' If the Congress finds that 
the Federal Government has not received a ``fair return'' from the 
telecommunications companies involved, the companies would 
retroactively pay more for their ``windfall'' than they would under the 
GATT bill. There is dispute about whether in fact there is a 
``sweetheart deal'' involved, but I am satisfied that the 
administration's agreement with Senator Dole provides an appropriate 
mechanism for the resolution of this issue of concern; and finally, the 
agreement provides that upon 6-months notice the United States withdraw 
from the WTO, if the Congress concludes that it is in our best interest 
to do so.
  No less an authority than the distinguished conservative jurist 
Robert Bork has assured those of us concerned about the sovereignty 
issue that the United States is not threatened under the GATT 
Agreement.
  This GATT has been negotiated over the course of roughly the last 8 
years during the administrations of Presidents Reagan, Bush, and 
Clinton. Fundamentally, it defines the playing field and the rules of 
the game of world trade. The United States, under the rules of GATT as 
they have existed over the last approximately half century, has very 
often been frustrated in its efforts to open overseas markets. In fact, 
many of the provisions of the agreement at hand are there as a result 
of U.S. insistence on a mechanism to make sure that other countries 
can't cheat and that they abide by all the rules, not just the ones 
they choose to recognize. This GATT Agreement reinforces those United 
States' concerns, and the WTO is simply the entity through which those 
concerns may be addressed and resolved.
  I repeat for emphasis that, at any time we feel that the WTO and GATT 
are not working as anticipated they should, the United States may give 
notice and withdraw from the WTO.
  Most fundamentally, I believe, the GATT Agreement provides the 
framework in which foreign tariffs will be diminished and foreign 
markets will be made far more accessible to U.S.-made goods and 
agriculture commodities.
  Many Eighth District manufacturers and producers have told me that 
this agreement will be a healthy tool for them to increase their 
foreign sales. We are a very trade-oriented district, and agriculture 
is collectively our No. 1 industry. Agriculture-producing organizations 
such as the Cattlemen's Association, the Pork Producers, the Corn 
Growers, the Cotton Council, the Wheat Growers Association, and the 
Rice Federation have all spoken out in favor of GATT. Manufacturing 
firms including Procter & Gamble of Cape Girardeau, Polysystems of 
Steelville, Olin Brass of Cuba, Briggs & Stratton of Poplar Bluff and 
soon Rolla, Gilster-Mary Lee of Perryville, Huffy Bicycles of 
Farmington, Arvin Automotive of Dexter, Gates Rubber Company of Poplar 
Bluff, and Southwest Mobile Systems of West Plains have also spoken out 
in favor of GATT.
  On the other side of the coin, there may be some industries adversely 
affected. I know that portions of the textile industry have some 
concerns, as do certain segments of the milk and dairy industry. Be 
assured that my colleagues and I have a heavy obligation to work to 
minimize any adverse effects on these and other industries that may be 
negatively impacted.
  In a comprehensive sense, the merits of the agreement itself far 
outweigh the demerits; and with the Dole agreement with the 
administration to address certain concerns regarding the implementing 
legislation, I believe the best interests of the Eighth District lie 
with my vote for GATT.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, on December 15, 1993, 117 countries 
concluded a major agreement to reduce trade barriers which currently 
block exports to world markets. The Uruguay round of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT] is the most comprehensive trade 
agreement in history. Trade experts agree that the existing set of 
trade rules are incomplete and increasingly unresponsive to the major 
concerns of U.S. exporters. I believe the passage of GATT will provide 
for a more comprehensive, effective, and enforceable set of world trade 
rules.
  On October 5, 1994, the House overwhelming passed a rule providing 
for consideration of the GATT accord. However, a vote on final passage 
was postponed until today, November 29, 1994, paving the way for the 
first bicameral lame-duck session in 12 years. I believe this hiatus 
provided members with an adequate amount of time to review the final 
version of the agreement.
  The U.S. economy is an integral part of the global economy. While the 
United States once bought, sold, and produced almost entirely at home, 
we now fully participate in the global marketplace. By expanding our 
sales abroad, we create new jobs at home and strengthen our economy. 
Currently, the United States is the world's largest exporter. In 1992, 
over 7 million U.S. workers owed their jobs to merchandise exports and 
thousands of the jobs are supported by exports within the service 
industry.
  However, U.S. companies exporting goods and services are often 
limited by international trade barriers constructed to protect local 
industry. These barriers can be tariffs, which take the form of taxes 
on goods entering a country, or non-tariffs barriers, which are often 
rules, regulations, subsidies, or other unfair trading practices that 
limit trade. Therefore, to the extent that we reduce trade barriers 
around the world to U.S. exports of goods and services, we increase 
economic opportunities here at home for workers in all areas of the 
economy. GATT will reduce these trade barriers and it is for this 
reason I support its passage.
  Mr. Chairman, the Uruguay round achieved more than a one-third 
average reduction in tariffs on trade with GATT partners around the 
world. This will amount to a global tax cut of more than $740 billion 
over the next 10 years. In addition, many non-tariff barriers will be 
eliminated or reduced. These reductions in trade barriers and the 
resulting expansion of trade will have a dynamic effect on the U.S. 
economy. According to the United States Trade Representative [USTR] and 
the Council of Economic Advisers, the Uruguay round, when fully 
implemented, should add at least $100 billion to the U.S. gross 
domestic product [GDP] annually. By the 10th year after the GATT 
agreement takes effect, this figure will increase to $200 billion 
annually--an amount equal to 3 percent of the current GDP. This rise in 
GDP means jobs. The United States already the world's leading exporter, 
clearly stands to benefit from the passage of GATT.
  While GATT is a ``$740 billion global tax cut'', the budget rules of 
Congress require the nearly $12 billion in tariff income which will be 
lost over the first 5 years of the GATT agreement, to be offset. 
Congress has accomplished this task by producing a package which 
contains no new taxes. The GATT financing package is an economic 
rarity: an overall tax cut, job and economic growth, and good trade 
policy.
  What does the passage of GATT mean for Illinois? Currently, Illinois 
is the Nation's sixth-leading exporter of merchandise with $20.3 
billion of sales in 1993. The top three leading exports in Illinois for 
1993 were industrial machinery and computers, electric and electronic 
equipment, and chemical products. In the area of industrial machinery, 
companies such as Caterpillar and John Deere will receive an 83 percent 
tariff reduction for major markets, from an average of 9 percent to 1.5 
percent. Companies operating in the field of telecommunications 
equipment, such as Motorola, will benefit substantially from the 
intellectual property rights because GATT rules would be extended to 
protect from piracy such items as computer programs and semiconductor 
chip designs. Exports increased 91 percent for the telecommunications 
industry from 1989 to 1993 and account for an estimated 21 percent of 
the industry's equipment shipments. This trend is sure to continue with 
the passage of GATT. Last, chemical companies, like Nalco Chemical, 
will reduce the tariffs they pay on chemical products by 47 percent. In 
addition, an agreement to harmonize chemical tariffs by the United 
States, the European Union, Japan, and other developed country markets 
will produce a level playing field.

  In September, 1994, allegations arose regarding the pioneer 
preference provisions of GATT. As in all matters of controversy, we 
must look at the facts. The Federal Communications Commission's [FCC] 
pioneer preference policy was designed to reward entrepreneurs who 
developed important new services or technologies. In the case at issue 
in relation to GATT, according to a prior agreement the three applicant 
companies would be permitted to apply for licenses while no competing 
applications would be accepted by the FCC, and the three licenses would 
have been awarded for free. However, the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee held hearings on this matter and introduced a bill to require 
the three recipients be required to pay 90 percent of the value of the 
license, instead of receiving them free of charge. After some 
squabbling between Congress and the FCC a figure of 85 percent was 
agreed to as a financing provision of GATT. So, where is the 
controversy? The Treasury, instead of receiving not a dime, will 
collect at least $534 million in fees from a group of companies who had 
thought they would receive this preference for free. Mr. Chairman, 
while I'm not an accountant by profession, I believe someone is cooking 
the books and merely seeking to throw sand in the gears on GATT.
  Mr. Chairman, some have expressed concern regarding the World Trade 
Organization [WTO] and its relationship to the passage of GATT. I would 
like to address several of the misconceptions which have been 
circulating about the WTO, an international body which would replace 
GATT.
  It has been claimed that developing countries will be able to change 
the rules of the game and avoid their GATT treaty obligations by voting 
on amendments and waivers in their favor over U.S. objections. However, 
in the case of amendments to the WTO agreement, no change in 
substantive rights or obligations will bind the United States unless we 
have agreed to them. Key provisions can only be modified when all WTO 
members have agreed to the change.
  Another rumor has circulated that the WTO will be the global supreme 
court of trade disputes. Very simply, the WTO is not a court. The WTO 
cannot impose any remedy on our country or order any change in U.S. 
laws. Only Congress or a State legislature can change a statute in the 
United States, and the creation of the WTO does not alter this fact. 
Let me remind my colleagues that we have heard this same argument 
during the consideration of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
[NAFTA]. The critics were wrong then and they are wrong now. The United 
States can also use the threat of closing its markets, the world's 
largest, to ensure we get the benefits for which we bargained. Since 
the United States has the world's largest market, our ability to close 
it will ensure countries think twice before violating their 
commitments.
  It has also been stated that challenges to U.S. laws will be decided 
in secret by closed tribunals of international trade bureaucrats. In 
reality, WTO panels do not have the power to make decisions or impose 
solutions; they will issue reports containing views on the dispute and 
a recommendation to the disputing parties. Under the WTO, panelists 
will be selected by the parties in the dispute and will be drawn from 
both the private and public sectors. If the United States is a party, 
we will participate fully in the selection of any person who sits on 
the WTO panel. No panelist will be appointed over the objections of a 
party to the dispute.
  Last, it has been reported the United States will wind up paying for 
the costs of a new international bureaucracy. The WTO will not create a 
new international bureaucracy. The existing GATT secretariat will 
provide technical support services for the WTO. United States 
contributions to the GATT last year were less than $10 million, a 
fraction of the amount the U.S. contributes to other international 
agencies such as the United Nations. A group of major trading 
countries, including the United States, controls the GATT secretariat 
through the committee on Budget, Finance, and Administration. As it has 
with GATT, the United States will use the power of the purse-strings to 
exercise discipline over the WTO expenditures.
  In addition, at the request of Congressman Newt Gingrich [R-GA] 
provisions were added to the implementing GATT Bill to require: First, 
a review of WTO voting procedures to ensure fairness; second, regular 
consultation with congressional committees; third, a vote on WTO 
membership every 5 years; and fourth, annual reports on WTO management 
and operations. I would also like to point out that the United States 
can pull-out of the WTO at any time with a 6-month notice. Also, after 
discussions with Senator Robert Dole [R-KS], the Clinton administration 
has agreed to the creation of a WTO Dispute Settlement Review 
Commission. The commission will review all final WTO dispute settlement 
reports which are adverse to the United States to determine whether the 
panel exceeded its authority or acted outside of the jurisdiction of 
the agreement. I believe all of these provisions provide adequate 
oversight and safeguard the interests of the United States.

  Mr. Chairman, many individuals have stated that the GATT agreement is 
being rushed through Congress on a fast track. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. Negotiations on the agreement before us were started in 
Uruguay in 1986 by President Reagan, continued with President Bush, and 
culminated with the accord signed by President Clinton. The GATT 
agreement has been 7 years in the making. The longer we postpone the 
passage of GATT, the more money we lose. These are losses we cannot 
recover. In addition, if the United States delays we greatly increase 
the probability that other countries will impose further delays. We are 
the world's trade leader and we must act as such.
  During the debate on NAFTA, outgoing President Carlos Salinas of 
Mexico said, ``poverty is the environment's worst enemy.'' I believe 
this statement hits the nail on the head. Many of the world's most 
polluted nations are those which are economically poor. GATT will, over 
time, improve these conditions. As economies grow throughout the world 
with the passage of GATT, nations will have more money to invest in 
environmentally clean-up programs.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I encourage all of my colleagues to do what 
is best for their constituencies, their State, and their country. Free 
trade and the opening of foreign markets is what the American workers, 
businesses, and consumers want--the ability to compete on a level 
playing field with the rest of the world. Let's pass GATT now.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5110, a bill to 
approve and implement the trade agreements concluded in the Uruguay 
round multilateral trade negotiations.
  In the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Congress 
outlined the U.S. negotiating objectives. According to an analysis of 
the Uruguay round by the General Accounting office the final act 
generally achieved these negotiating objectives which are: to open 
markets, reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers, such as subsidies and 
import licensing requirements, create dispute settlement mechanisms 
which would be more effective than those currently in existence, and 
extend GATT principles to areas such as intellectual property, services 
and agriculture, areas of importance to the United States, either not 
currently covered or covered in an inadequate manner.
  The President, in his message to Congress conveying the act to 
implement GATT, stated that the Uruguay round agreements are the most 
comprehensive in history and when fully implemented would add $100 to 
$200 billion to the U.S. economy each year. Treasury Secretary Bentsen 
has called GATT a ``global tax cut'' promoting growth and creating new 
export opportunities. The agreement provides for a worldwide reduction 
in tariffs of $744 billion. The United States in 1993 exported $660 
billion in goods, accounting for more than 10 percent of the U.S. GDP.
  According to a CRS report, economic theory and experience point to 
substantial overall gains that the Uruguay round is likely to produce 
for the United States.
  According to the CRS report the United States objectives in the 
Uruguay round were extensive. The report concluded that the United 
States was successful in having its objectives included on the agenda 
and it was, for the most part, successful in achieving these objectives 
in the final agreement.
  The Congressional Research Service cited the following as areas where 
the United States made gains: we secured a more effective dispute 
settlement mechanism; the antidumping agreement increases the 
transparency, specificity and due process of the antidumping 
provisions, ``and in this area many new provision promoted by the 
United States and reflecting present U.S. practices were accepted.'' In 
the area of subsidies and countervailing measures, the new agreement 
strengthens the multilateral discipline, and clearly defines these 
terms. As to trade related intellectual property rights, the agreement 
establishes standards and enforcement mechanisms in this area.
  The implementing legislation is supported by the steel industry. 
Recently the chief executive officer of LTV indicated strong support of 
this agreement along with the 36 member companies of the American Iron 
and Steel Institute. The reason: the Uruguay round is good for U.S. 
manufacturing--steel's customers. The Uruguay round also represents a 
competitive opportunity for U.S. steel. By lowering or eliminating 
tariff and nontariff barriers the GATT round ultimately creates a 
greater demand for steel and steel containing products; and an increase 
in U.S. export of steel and the products made from steel.

  The International Trade Commission also indicates that the 
elimination of steel tariffs by our key trading partners opens up 
export opportunities for U.S. steel makers.
  In the current edition of The Brookings Review the authors state that 
the recently completed Uruguay round is a landmark achievement that 
looks ahead to the ``increasingly complex international economic 
relations of the 21st century.'' The authors point out that services 
now account for a fifth of global trade. These agreements represent a 
major extension of GATT in this area. The authors also cite the 
creation of a new institution, the World Trade Organization, ``which 
develops a more sophisticated mechanism for settling trade disputes, 
significantly reducing the problem of countries blocking reports on 
their own discriminatory trade practices * * *'' I think many who have 
expressed concerns about the WTO have failed to see the benefit to the 
United States by its potential to impose a discipline on other nations.
  Some concern has been expressed about worker rights and the 
relationship between trade and worker rights. H.R. 5110 directs the 
President to seek the establishment in the GATT and, upon entry into 
force, in the WTO of a working party to examine the relationship of 
internationally recognized worker rights, as defined in section 
502(a)(4) of the Trade Act of 1974 to GATT and to the WTO. 
Internationally recognized worker rights as defined in this act are: 
the right of association; the right to organize and bargain 
collectively; a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or 
compulsory labor; a minimum age for the employment of children; and 
acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of 
work, and occupational safety and health.
  H.R. 5110 also directs the President to report to the Congress not 
later than 1 year after the date of enactment on the progress made in 
establishing the working group and the activities of the group. This 
section is directed at protecting worker rights world wide and at the 
same time it makes certain that a failure to adhere to these principles 
by other GATT countries does not place U.S. workers at a competitive 
disadvantage.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of H.R. 5110 because the lowering of 
tariffs over time by our trading partners will guarantee greater access 
to foreign markets for U.S. goods and services.
  I am confident that by gaining greater access to foreign markets 
through the reduction of tariffs and trade barriers in general, we are 
giving U.S. workers the opportunity to compete on a level international 
playing field. Once this is accomplished, I am certain that this will 
lead to increased exports of U.S. goods and services.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
H.R. 5110, the bill to implement the Uruguay round of the general 
agreement on tariffs and trade.
  This support comes only after a very extensive review of the issues 
raised by this legislation, including an analysis of the potential 
benefits to America's economy from the Uruguay round, an analysis of 
the benefits to my State of Florida, consideration of the provisions in 
the bill that will offset any loss of tariff revenue, and a detailed 
examination of the impact of the Uruguay round on our sovereignty.
  The Uruguay round represents the eighth agreement concluded under the 
GATT since 1947. Since the first agreement, import tariffs worldwide 
have been reduced by some 40 percent, and international trade has 
increased some 800 percent. The Uruguay round will result in a $750 
billion reduction in world tariffs over the next 10 years, cutting 
tariffs on some 85 percent of world trade and reducing quota 
restrictions on the other 15 percent.
  Key provisions of the Uruguay round agreement will eliminate foreign 
tariffs imposed on U.S. goods by the European Community, Japan, 
Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Australia, New Zealand, South 
Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore on major exports in one or more of a 
number of sectors, including pharmaceuticals; medical equipment; 
construction equipment; agricultural equipment; steel; beer and 
distilled spirits; paper, pulp, and printed matter; furniture; and 
toys. It will remove quotas and other barriers to the importation of 
U.S. goods by rapidly growing developing countries like India, 
Thailand, Argentina, Brazil, and Malaysia.
  In addition, it will provide greater protection for intellectual 
property rights, meaning that U.S. firms will have greater recourse 
with regard to those who ignore patents, copyrights, and trademarks and 
market copycat drugs, compute software, audio and videotapes, and other 
products--all at a cost of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. And 
it will open foreign markets to significant service-oriented market 
segments where the United States is highly competitive, including 
accounting, advertising, commuter services, tourism, engineering, and 
construction. Other provisions will be equally favorable.
  The overall impact of the Uruguay round on the U.S. economy stands to 
be considerable, according to several studies. The Council of Economic 
Advisors has estimated that it will increase annual U.S. national 
income by between $100 billion and $200 billion by the 10th year after 
implementation and will create some 500,000 U.S. jobs over that period. 
The CEA study also projects that the Uruguay round will increase 
America's income by roughly $1,700 per family by its 10th year.
  The Uruguay round would also appear to have great promise with regard 
to my home State of Florida. Exports have played a significant role in 
Florida's economic growth in recent years, and they currently stand at 
some $18 billion a year. Between 1989 and 1992, Florid exports grew by 
some 30 percent-greater than the national average of 23 percent. 
Enactment of the Uruguay round provisions will result in a further 
lowering of barriers to key Florida exports, including transportation 
equipment; industrial machinery and computer equipment; chemical 
products; scientific and measuring equipment; foods and beverages; 
printed materials; furniture; telecommunications equipment; and 
electronic and electrical equipment. I am convinced this will have 
positive results for the State.
  Moreover, this agreement will have significant positive ramifications 
for my home district. Northeast Florida's ports and facilities 
represent a world-class, integrated, intermodal transportation network 
poised to reap the benefits of the Uruguay round. In 1993, Jacksonville 
had some 27,000 jobs directly tied to trade at the Blount Island Marine 
Terminal, Talleyrand Docks and Terminals, and operations at 
Jacksonville, Craig, and Herlong airports. These operations have an 
annual economic impact of $2.7 billion already, and they are 
complemented by operations at the port of Fernandina, which contributes 
hundreds of additional jobs and several tens of millions of dollars to 
the regions economy. The Uruguay round will only serve to increase the 
scope of these operations and enhance the region's economic health and 
prosperity.
  While these considerations represent powerful factors that favor the 
passage of H.R. 5110, in my judgment, the implementing legislation also 
raised serious questions that merited the fullest examination. In 
particular, I have had concerns about the provisions that offset the 
potential loss of tariff revenues under the bill and about the 
potential loss of sovereignty under this legislation. I have carefully 
reviewed both of these matters and have reached the conclusion that 
these issues are nonstarters.
  Under the Budget Enforcement Act, revenue lost during the first 5 
years of any new law must be offset, either through new revenues or 
spending reductions. Most analysts project that revenues from trade-
related growth under the Uruguay round will more than make up for any 
losses in tariff income and would in fact negate the need for offsets. 
Nevertheless, the strictest interpretation of the Budget Act requires 
an offset of $11.7 billion. That has been accomplished with this bill. 
On the revenues side, it occurs primarily through the acceleration of 
existing tax obligations or the tightening of current tax loopholes. On 
the spending side, the bill would reduce expenditures through the 
tightening of requirements that must be met before certain specific 
benefits can be received. The result is that tax rates remain 
essentially unchanged, and no new areas of income are taxed.
  One section of the tariff offset portion of the bill that has been 
the subject of particular concern to some constituents centers on the 
legislation's so-called pioneer preference provisions. This section has 
been criticized as a windfall to three firms involved in the Personal 
Communications Services [PCS] industry. The controversy resulted from 
efforts by the Federal Government to promote the PCS industry by 
offering special pioneer preference status to a number of applicants on 
a competitive basis. This status was intended to encourage PCS 
technology development by freeing a limited number of firms from FCC 
licensing fees.
  The problem arose when the FCC later auctioned off PCS wavelengths 
and found that the industry was willing to pay far more than expected 
for them. Under the circumstances, awarding pioneer preference status 
to the three successful applicants was roundly criticized. In an effort 
to ensure proper compensation to the Government, keep faith with the 
three pioneers for their early investments, and avoid lengthy and 
expensive litigation which might ultimately have yielded no fees at 
all, Congress and the three pioneers reached an agreement under which 
they will be required to pay 85 percent of future average successful 
wavelength auction bids. These provisions are included in H.R. 5110.
  Critics of these provisions argue that what is essentially a 15-
percent discount for the three pioneers represents a loss of tens of 
millions of dollars in Government revenue. I am pleased to report, 
however, that Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole has succeeded in 
negotiating with the President a supplemental agreement that will allow 
a second look at this matter should future wavelength auctions actually 
yield a windfall to the three pioneers. I believe that by this action, 
Senator Dole has successfully addressed this issue and defused a 
potential timebomb.
  Finally, many have voiced serious concerns about a loss of 
sovereignty under the Uruguay round. These concerns revolve around the 
new World Trade Organization, or WTO, and perceptions about its ability 
to override U.S. law.
  The role and authority of the WTO has clearly been the most 
contentious element of the Uruguay round agreement. I have studied the 
provisions of the accord in great detail and have received input from 
legal experts ranging from Judge Robert Bork to the president of the 
American Bar Association. They are in agreement that the WTO will 
absolutely not supersede U.S. law. I ask unanimous consent that the 
texts of correspondence from Judge Bork and the American Bar 
Association appear at the conclusion of these remarks.
  Critics of the WTO maintain that it is equivalent to a world supreme 
court where our trading partners can conspire against us and have the 
power to compel us to change U.S. law or accept unfair decisions. This 
is not true. Even if a dispute settlement panel finds the United States 
in violation of GATT, legal experts are clear that the WTO has no 
authority to change Federal or State law. If the United States chooses 
not to accept a WTO finding and an agreement cannot be reached with the 
complaining country, the only recourse is the assessment of a higher 
tariff on U.S. products by the complaining country.
  In the words of Judge Bork, ``Under our constitutional system, no 
treaty or international agreement can bind the United States if it does 
not wish to be bound. Congress may at any time override such an 
agreement or any provision of it by statute. In sum, it is impossible 
to see a threat to this Nation's sovereignty posed by either the WTO or 
the [Dispute Settlement Understanding].''
  In fact, significant safeguards have been built into the new WTO 
process at the insistence of the United States, and WTO voting rules 
offer greater protection to the United States than do old GATT voting 
rules. On fundamental issues, the WTO cannot change trade rules unless 
there is unanimous consent for the change. On other issues, a two-
thirds majority may approve amendments to trade rules, but those 
countries that do not support the change are not bound by the new 
rules. Finally, while the WTO charter provides for special 
circumstances in which a three-fourths supermajority can require the 
adoption of rules by all WTO members, nations retain the option of 
withdrawing from the WTO.
  In practice, it must be realized that the United States has the 
largest economy in the world. It would be entirely contrary to the 
interests of our trading partners to try to compel us to accept a 
change with which we do not agree, as it could precipitate our 
withdrawal from the WTO. Indeed, there are numerous provisions in the 
accord that preserve the United States right to withdraw with 6 months' 
notice.
  While a full review of the Uruguay round lent significant credence to 
those who claim that the WTO cannot threaten U.S. sovereignty, a side 
agreement negotiated by Senator Dole with the President provides 
further safeguards. Under this agreement, a panel of five retired 
Federal judges will review WTO dispute settlements on an ongoing basis. 
If the panel finds that the WTO has acted arbitrarily or in violation 
of its charter on three occasions over the course of a 5-year period, 
any Member of the Congress will be able to initiate action aimed at 
obtaining America's withdrawal from the WTO. If the Congress passes a 
resolution calling for U.S. withdrawal and either wins Presidential 
consent or overrides a Presidential veto, the United States would quit.
  This agreement has been painstakingly negotiated over an 8-year 
period by three Presidents--Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton--and 
has the support of all three. It has been supported by 9 past Chairs of 
the Council of Economic Advisers, by 11 past Secretaries of the 
Treasury, and by 7 past U.S. Trade Representatives, along with each of 
their current counterparts. With the most recent Dole side agreements, 
I am fully persuaded that adoption of the Uruguay round provisions is 
in the best interests of our nation. I will cast my vote today in 
support of this agreement.

                                               Robert H. Bork,

                                     Washington, DC, May 26, 1994.
     Ambassador Michael Kantor,
     Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Ambassador: I understand that opposition to the 
     Uruguay Round agreements has focused on the creation of the 
     World Trade Organization (WTO). The claim, which was also 
     made with respect to NAFTA, is that the WTO is a threat to 
     the sovereignty of the United States.
       It is difficult to resist the conclusion that some of those 
     who make this claim are actually opposed to the lowering of 
     tariff and non-tariff barriers in international trade. The 
     protectionist impulse is strong but it is contrary to the 
     best interest of American business, workers, and consumers.
       The sovereignty issue, in particular, is merely a 
     scarecrow. Under our constitutional system, no treaty or 
     international agreement can bind the United States if it does 
     not wish to be bound. Congress may at any time overside such 
     an agreement or any provision of it by statute. (The 
     President would, or course, participate as the Constitution 
     provides in the enactment of such a statute.) Congress should 
     be reluctant to renege on an agreement except in serious 
     cases, but that is a matter of international comity and not a 
     loss of sovereignty.
       The same observations apply to the Dispute Settlement 
     Understanding (DSU). A mechanism for settling trade disputes 
     is essential if the aims of the Uruguay Round agreements are 
     to be achieved. It is extremely unlikely that any country 
     will agree with all recommendations as to the resolution of 
     the disputes in which it is involved. There is no dispute 
     resolution process anywhere that can achieve that result. 
     Once again, however, recommendations made under the DSU do 
     not bind Congress and the Executive Branch unless those 
     departments of government choose to be bound.
       Protection of U.S. sovereignty, however, does not depend 
     solely on the undoubted ability of our political branches to 
     nullify or modify agreements or recommendations. The WTO 
     itself contains numerous safeguards concerning procedures 
     which protect not only the sovereignty but the interests of 
     all nations, including the United States. It appears that 
     these safeguards are either the same as or stronger than 
     those already existing in the GATT, under which we have 
     operated successfully for decades.
       In sum, it is impossible to see a threat to this nation's 
     sovereignty posed by either the WTO or the DSU. 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.
           Yours truly,
                                                   Robert H. Bork.
                                  ____

                                          George E. Bushnell, Jr.,


                                     American Bar Association,

                                   Chicago, IL, November 17, 1994.
     Hon. Tillie K. Fowler,
     U.S. House of Representatives
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Fowler. As you know, the Congress will 
     be voting in the next few weeks on legislation to implement 
     the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, including U.S. 
     membership in the new World Trade Organization (WTO). In that 
     connection, you have heard questions raised concerning the 
     extent to which the Uruguay Round dispute settlement rules 
     and World Trade Organization decisions impact U.S. 
     sovereignty.
       We are writing to convey our view that neither the new 
     rules nor U.S. participation in the WTO will adversely affect 
     U.S. sovereignty. Rather, the Uruguay Round agreements 
     represent an important extension of the rule of law to 
     international trade relations, a position to which the United 
     States has long subscribed. We strongly urge that Congress 
     approve the Uruguay Round implementing legislation.
       We enclose two brief issue papers outlining the bases for 
     our conclusion concerning both the functioning of the WTO and 
     the new GATT dispute settlement procedures. If you have any 
     further questions about either of these matters, please do 
     not hesitate to contact Claire Reade, Chair, ABA 
     International Trade Committee (202/872-3719), Ken Reisenfeld, 
     Governmental Affairs Officer, ABA Section of International 
     Law and Practice (202/393-3502), or Rozann Stayden, 
     Legislative Counsel, ABA Governmental Affairs Office (202/
     331-2205).
           Sincerely,
     George E. Busnell, Jr.,
       President.
     Jay M. Vogelson,
       Chair, Section of    
       International Law & Practice.
                                  ____


The Uruguay Round Dispute Settlement Rules Reflect Strong U.S. Efforts 
                   To Strengthen Their Effectiveness

       The U.S. has been an active and successful participant in 
     GATT dispute settlement. USTR statistics show:
       The U.S. has won 80% of the cases it has brought since 
     1947. The GATT average is 64%.
       The U.S. also has won the majority of the cases brought 
     against it. The GATT average win rate for respondent 
     countries is 36%.
       However, for years, the U.S. has been frustrated by the 
     weakness of, and delays in, GATT dispute settlement 
     proceedings and enforcement.
       For example, U.S. farmers suffered greatly from the 
     European refusal to abide by several GATT panel rulings on 
     agricultural products and the lack of effective GATT 
     enforcement rules.
       This frustration with the GATT's weakness led Congress to 
     demand change. In the 1988 Trade Act, Congress' first 
     specific negotiating objective for the U.S. was the 
     strengthening of GATT dispute settlement procedures.
       As Section 1101(b)(1) crisply states, Congress wanted 
     ``more effective and expeditious resolution of [GATT] 
     disputes and . . . better enforcement of United States 
     rights.''
       U.S. negotiators met these Congressional objectives in the 
     Uruguay Round agreements. The new Dispute Settlement 
     Understanding (``DSU'') will improve procedural fairness and 
     increase other countries' respect for U.S. international 
     rights, because:
       No country can block the formation of a dispute settlement 
     panel to hear a claim; the panels will rule within a fixed 
     time period; an aggrieved party has a right to appeal, which 
     also must be resolved within a fixed period; no country can 
     prevent the panel from issuing an official decision and 
     recommendations; and an injured country will be able to 
     obtain WTO authorization to apply limited ``self-help'' trade 
     measures, if its trading partner does not agree to settle the 
     dispute in some other manner.
       While the American Bar Association believes that 
     improvement still is needed in the transparency of the 
     dispute settlement process, the total secrecy of the old GATT 
     process has been changed. Parties to DSU disputes must now 
     provide non-confidential versions of their submissions which 
     the U.S. can make available to interested U.S. citizens and 
     groups.
       When the U.S. is a defendant in dispute settlement 
     proceedings, panel decisions will not overturn U.S. law.
       Only the U.S. Congress has the power to change U.S. laws; 
     the WTO and DSU do not.
       Since an unfavorable DSU decision cannot be blocked, the 
     U.S. generally will decide to negotiate a satisfactory 
     settlement of some kind. The U.S. has been very successful at 
     this in the past.
       However, if national interests are at stake, the U.S. has 
     the full domestic power to refuse to implement the decision. 
     In this case, the U.S. likely would accept the limited 
     withdrawal of trade benefits by its trading partner. In the 
     worst case, of course, the U.S. could decide instead to 
     withdraw from the WTO.
       GATT procedures have played a considerable role in past 
     U.S. trade diplomacy successes. The WTO improvements meet 
     Congressional objectives to enhance these successes and 
     should be given vigorous support.
                                  ____


    The World Trade Organization Does Not Threaten U.S. Sovereignty

       Both Democratic and Republican administrations have pushed 
     for stronger and clearer international legal procedures in 
     trade matters. The Uruguay Round agreements accomplish many 
     of these goals.
       The proposed World Trade Organization (``WTO''') is 
     designed for a limited purpose--to administer and coordinate 
     the various agreements reached in the Uruguay Round 
     negotiations by its member countries.
       These agreements, and the WTO's rules, create international 
     obligations for the U.S. and other nations. They do not 
     override domestic U.S. law. Only the U.S. Congress has the 
     power to make U.S. laws.
       Following the decades-long practice under the existing 
     General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (``GATT''), WTO 
     decisions are likely to be made by WTO member country 
     consensus.
       The 120 diverse GATT countries have recognized the 
     fundamental political and economic reality that consensus is 
     necessary to create effective policy on trade matters.
       Therefore, for the last thirty five years, the GATT voting 
     rules have never been used to create a new substantive 
     obligation. There is no reason to believe the WTO will act 
     any differently.
       Nonetheless, at U.S. initiative, voting safeguards have 
     been built into the WTO, in the event that WTO voting rules 
     ever come to be invoked. The WTO voting rules protect the 
     U.S. more than the GATT voting rules did. For example:
       Certain fundamental trade rules cannot be changed unless 
     there is unanimous agreement.
       A two-thirds vote of all members is required to approve 
     amendments which make other substantive changes.
       Even with a two-thirds vote favoring a substantive 
     amendment, the change will only apply to countries who agree 
     to it.
       In special circumstances, a three-fourths supermajority can 
     require other countries either to (i) abide by a change 
     agreed to by two-thirds of the members, (ii) withdraw from 
     the WTO, or (iii) explain convincingly to the WTO Council why 
     the country should not have to comply with the change. 
     (Practically speaking, it may prove difficult, if not 
     impossible, to achieve these supermajority requirements.)
       Other decision procedures in the WTO, such as waivers or 
     interpretations, likewise protect members by supermajority 
     requirements.
       Despite these safeguards, if a WTO decision is 
     fundamentally at odds with U.S. interests and the matter 
     cannot be resolved through negotiation, the U.S. can withdraw 
     from the WTO on six months' notice.
       This will exert a very practical curb on WTO 
     decisionmaking, since the size and importance of the U.S. 
     economy make U.S. participation in the WTO critical to its 
     success. Other nations will have a strong incentive to 
     negotiate a mutually agreeable solution to avoid forcing the 
     U.S. to take such a drastic step.
       In short, the WTO does not create a supranational 
     government with the power to impose its will on the United 
     States. The U.S. will retain the power to make its own laws 
     and act in its national interest.

  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of GATT. Quite 
simply, I believe that the GATT agreement is an historic opportunity to 
expand the American economy and create jobs.
  There are several reasons why I believe GATT will be good for 
American businesses and our economy as a whole:
  First, the agreement will greatly expand export opportunities for 
American companies. By lowering or eliminating tariffs and other trade 
barriers, the GATT will bring the rest of the world in line with our 
already low tariffs. As a result, GATT will open new export markets for 
many American products while only making the U.S. market slightly more 
vulnerable to imports. The result will be a boon for American 
exporters.
  Next, the Uruguay round agreement finally establishes a mechanism for 
resolving trade disputes that has teeth. Over the years, the United 
States has been frustrated time and time again in its attempts to 
prosecute illegal trade practices by a weak and ineffective dispute 
resolution procedure established by previous GATT agreements. The new 
agreement resolves this problem by creating a binding arbitration 
process that will help the United States gain fair resolutions to trade 
disputes. As a result, the new agreement will help the United States 
end unfair trading practices which hurt American exporters.
  Finally, the agreement wins important concessions that will help 
vital American industries. For example, the agreement applies free 
trade rules to trade in services for the first time. As a world leader 
in service industries, the U.S. stands to benefit greatly from the 
agreement. The agreement will also force nations to provide copyright 
and patent protections for the first time--which will help American 
software, music, and film producers slow the flood of piracy which 
limits their success in overseas markets. These and other concessions 
won in the GATT negotiations will greatly enhance the export position 
of the United States in the coming years.
  Of course, I know that the agreement is not perfect. Like many of the 
opponents of GATT, I am concerned about some provisions of the 
agreement, especially the fact that the agreement gives substantial 
power to the new World Trade Organization--which may threaten U.S. 
sovereignty. However, my fears on this subject have been allayed by the 
recent agreement to include language which would allow the Congress to 
pull the United States out of the WTO if a panel of Federal judges 
finds that three WTO decisions have been unfair to the United States I 
was further reassured when I read section 102 of the GATT legislation, 
which states:

       No provision of any Uruguay Round Agreements * * * that is 
     inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have 
     effect.

  In other words, the WTO will have no direct power to force the United 
States to change its laws.
  In short, I know that the GATT is not perfect, but I also believe 
that we should let the perfect by the enemy of the good. On net the 
GATT is good for America--good for American jobs and good for the 
American economy. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
on the GATT agreement.
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
legislation implementing the Uruguay Round of the GATT.
  As usual, I find the black and white statements of both proponents 
and opponents to be exaggerated. This enormously complex agreement 
embodies difficult and often perplexing choices. In many cases, the 
outcome of an issue depends on other policy decisions to be made in the 
future by the Congress and the Administration.
  There is no question but that implementation of the GATT will have a 
favorable impact on the prices of goods and services to American 
consumers. Simply put, cutting tariffs on imports of all kinds will 
give consumers better choices at lower prices, thereby increasing their 
standard of living. Similarly, thousands and thousands of businesses 
throughout the United States will find markets open for their products 
in places around the world where those markets do not currently exist. 
These businesses will in turn hire new workers to help fill the orders 
that will result from this agreement. Driven by the choices of 
consumers around the world, these businesses are therefore precisely 
the type of enterprises that will insure American industry a leading 
role in the world economy of the future.
  But these positive developments come with a price. The pressures to 
compete in this new global, intensely price conscious environment 
undoubtedly exert downward pressure on the wages and benefits of 
workers. This is particularly true when the competition to American 
workers increasingly comes from developing nations with a low wage 
base.
  The fierce global competition also threatens countries such as the 
United States that have chosen to adopt high standards for worker 
safety and environmental concerns. Each time the government imposes 
upon a business a new regulatory standard, we are imposing a cost that 
must be passed on in the price of that company's product. If we choose 
to impose such higher standards, then it is unfair to the companies 
affected by the standards to ask them to compete on a playing field 
against foreign competitors who do not have similar costs. As someone 
who supports the effort to reach high worker safety and environmental 
standards, it is easy to see how the downward pressure on prices will 
result in lowering standards, with the world racing to reach the lowest 
common denominator.
  But the question before us today is what impact enactment or 
rejection of the Uruguay Round will have on our nation's economy. The 
most important observation that honest commentators have made is that 
the impact of this agreement operates only on the margins. Indeed, even 
the most optimistic projections suggest a positive increase in the 
United States gross domestic product of $100-200 billion per year, a 
small fraction of our $7 trillion annual economy. More importantly, 
perhaps, trade agreements such as GATT are but a minor factor in the 
globalization of markets. As other commentators have pointed out, more 
important factors in the globalization of the economy include cheap and 
instant telecommunications and computing that ease the formation of new 
commercial relationships, the diminishing transportation costs that 
make international trade cheaper and easier, and the development of 
more uniform consumer preferences as a result of international 
advertising and mass media penetration. Additionally, the emerging 
democracies of the world are bringing on line the largest new 
capitalist markets in the history of the world. The drive of these 
governments and their people to seek prosperity through trade will not 
be diminished simply by the rejection of this agreement. The only thing 
that will be accomplished in these countries by rejecting the agreement 
is that they will turn to countries other than the United States to 
furnish the goods and services the people desire. These factors tending 
toward globalization of trade will accelerate whether or not Congress 
approves this agreement. It follows, therefore, that the threats to our 
environmental and worker safety standards previously referred to will 
also accelerate regardless of what we do here today.
  The remaining question is whether the GATT might exert some 
ameliorating impact on these concerns. It is on this question that the 
fiercest arguments have raged. Some argue that the proposed World Trade 
Organization, with its system of one nation, one vote and its ability 
to sanction retaliatory actions by nations who are determined to have 
been the victim of unfair trading practices, will exacerbate these 
problems. But it is equally possible that the existence of an 
international organization such as the WTO will provide a forum for the 
hearing of disputes on issues such as environmental worker safety that, 
if properly focused, could result in the nations that follow high 
standards pulling up the laggards more promptly and more efficiently. 
Indeed, since an overwhelming vote of the member nations of the WTO is 
required to permit the imposition of sanctions against a country, an 
ample opportunity exists to make the case for raising the standards of 
the world, not lowering them. And when the United States is among those 
making the case for higher standards, its economic influence in the 
world can help lead the way.
  On balance, therefore, the Congress should approve this agreement. 
But if the Congress and the Administration stop here, and fail to exert 
the power of the United States in the international debate to come over 
worker and environmental standards, then we will be short changing all 
of our constituents. With the hope that the United States will choose 
to lead the way on these issues, but with the certainty that rejection 
of this agreement will not solve the problems of which the opponents 
complain, I will cast my vote for the agreement.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. After carefully studying the 
GATT and its implementing legislation, I believe this trade agreement 
is right for America. A year ago, I stood in this chamber to voice my 
opposition to a very different trade agreement, the North American Free 
Trade Agreement [NAFTA]. Unlike NAFTA, I believe GATT will create jobs 
for Americans by fostering trade in an international and competitive 
marketplace.
  I voted against NAFTA because it primarily focused on expanding 
America's trading opportunities with Mexico, a large, underdeveloped 
country. Because the United States already operated under a free trade 
agreement with Canada, there was no mechanism to balance the surge of 
Mexican imports and value added products that have proven to infiltrate 
our domestic market. NAFTA did nothing more than create and export 
platform economy in Mexico. Because Mexico borders the United States, 
NAFTA allowed American companies to set up shop in Mexico to 
manufacture goods with raw materials produced in the United States. 
Furthermore, NAFTA allowed American companies to take advantage of the 
low labor standards and wages of Mexican workers thereby creating 
greater corporate profits. I feel strongly that American workers lost 
on NAFTA, but I do not feel the same threat of American companies going 
abroad exists under the new GATT. I assure my constituents back home 
and my colleagues in the House that I would not vote for this agreement 
if I felt like it was going to have the same effects on American 
workers and our economy as NAFTA. the GATT agreement will significantly 
liberalize our trade with more than 100 different countries, but more 
importantly, the agreement brings with it a balance of trade in an 
expanding global marketplace.
  If the new GATT is approved, it will boost United States exports, 
expand our economy, and create jobs, because there is a balance of 
trade. The new GATT brings the rest of the member nations into 
compliance with many of the higher standards and rules of trade under 
which the United States has worked for many years. This agreement makes 
the global market more of a level playing field. Because the United 
States has been playing by these higher standards and will now have the 
opportunity to trade in a much more equal and open global market, I 
believe the United States has the most to gain from GATT.
  Critics argue that many of the developing countries that are a part 
of the GATT will be able to produce and export goods into the United 
States, drastically below the cost of American manufactured products. 
The new GATT establishes rules under which member nations are permitted 
to impose import restrictions, or ``safeguards'' when imports surges 
cause or threaten to cause serious injury to a domestic industry. GATT 
would also continue the practice of allowing all member countries, 
including the United States, to maintain laws against the ``dumping'' 
of exported goods into another country when the export price of those 
goods is less than their price in the domestic market.
  I strongly feel GATT will encourage developing countries to continue 
to foster better labor and environmental standards. The implementing 
legislation would require the inclusion of nongovernmental and 
conservation organizations on the federal advisory committee that 
issues opinions on the impact of trade agreements on the environment. 
The bill also would require the president to seek establishment within 
the World Trade Organizations of a working party on the linkage between 
trade and internationally recognized workers's rights, and to report to 
Congress within a year of enactment on progress toward establishing the 
working party.
  In recent months, many people have voiced their concern to me over 
the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its impact on our nation's 
sovereignty and its laws. The WTO will not affect or change the 
authority of the United States and state governments to adopt and 
enforce their own laws and regulations. Many of the changes in the way 
GATT will be implemented, including the WTO and its dispute settlement 
process, were introduced by the United States, because the changes put 
our country in a better position to trade equally and fairly with 
member nations of GATT. In addition, several provisions have been 
included in the implementing bill to further protect United States 
sovereignty including a mechanism to allow for our nation's withdrawal 
from the WTO.
  It is very important to realize the World Trade Organization is not a 
court. The WTO cannot change or order any change in our nations's laws. 
That is so even if a WTO dispute settlement panel would find that the 
United States is not in compliance with its obligations. Only Congress 
or a State Legislature can change a statute in the United States, and 
nothing in the WTO agreement alters that fact. The WTO dispute 
settlement system is designed to facilitate the settlement of disputes, 
not impose solutions. The settlement of any dispute is up to the 
countries involved and cannot be imposed by the WTO.
  Under the WTO agreements, if a country is found to have reneged on 
its promises to open its markets, and the countries involved in the 
dispute cannot settle their differences in another way, the complaining 
country can withdraw some of its own trade promises to restore the 
balance of trade benefits, but the country or the WTO cannot force any 
change in our nation's laws which serve as a standard to the entire 
world.

  Our negotiators have ensured that World Trade Organization voting 
rules, should they ever be invoked, will safeguard our country's 
interest even more than at present by raising the majorities required 
for important decisions.
  In the case of amendments to the WTO agreements, no change in 
substantive rights or obligations will bind us until we have agreed to 
it. Key provisions, such as most-favored-nation obligations, decision-
making rules, and the amendment rule itself, can only be changed when 
all WTO members agree to the change, and no changes can be made to the 
dispute settlement system except by consensus.
  In order to ensure that the World Trade Organization cannot change 
the deal we negotiated by issuing interpretations of the WTO 
agreements, the United States has had the rules changed to require a 
larger majority, three quarters of all members, to issue an official 
interpretation. This larger majority was implemented to insure 
interpretations cannot be used to undermine the WTO's rules on 
amendments.
  In the GATT implementing legislation, Congress has also required the 
United States Trade Representative to consult with appropriate 
congressional committees before any WTO vote on an action that could 
affect our nation's rights and obligations under the WTO agreement. The 
United States Trade Representative will have to make available each WTO 
report promptly after it is circulated to WTO members. Each year, the 
United States Trade Representative will also have to submit a report on 
the structure of the WTO and any dispute panel actions involving the 
United States.
  In analyzing the GATT agreement, I think it is crucial to focus on 
the benefits our nation and its people will receive as a result of a 
world-wide reduction in tariffs. For the first time, GATT will cut 
trade-distorting foreign subsidies and import barriers in the 
agriculture sector. For the 19th Congressional District, this means 
farmers will finally have access to expanding foreign markets, 
increasing U.S. agricultural exports by as much as $4.7 billion in five 
years. That is why the Illinois Farm Bureau, the Illinois Corn Growers, 
the Illinois Pork Producers, and many other agricultural organizations 
in Illinois overwhelmingly support this agreement. I would like to 
enter into the Congressional Record a letter from the Illinois 
agriculture community on GATT.
  GATT also means the possible creation of a new market for the coal 
industry in my district and across the nation. Since the implementation 
of the Clean Air Act, thousands of coal miners have lost their jobs. By 
taking advantage of new foreign markets, GATT is an opportunity for our 
domestic coal industry to increase production and put coal miners back 
to work. In recent weeks the National Coal Association has expressed to 
me its support of the GATT agreement, and I would like to enter into 
the Congressional Record a letter from the National Coal Association.
  In addition to coal and agriculture industries, the state of Illinois 
will benefit in a wide range of export sectors as a result of reduced 
foreign tariffs, strong intellectual property protection, and improved 
trade rules protecting domestic industries against unfair trade 
practices. As the sixth-leading exporter of merchandise, many sectors 
of Illinois business will benefit greatly from more open foreign 
markets as a result of GATT including chemicals and allied products, 
construction and farm equipment, pharmaceuticals, and 
telecommunications equipment. Already the state of Illinois has seen a 
$10.1 billion increase in exports since 1987, and I believe this 
increase will continue to grow if we implement the GATT.
  I believe GATT is an historic opportunity for Americans. By lowering 
tariffs and reducing trade barriers throughout the world, we will have 
the opportunity to create jobs for Americans by dramatically increasing 
the global marketplace for goods and services produced by the most 
efficient and skilled workers in the world, Americans.

                          Illinois Agriculture

     To: Illinois Congressional Delegation
       Illinois agriculture will benefit greatly from the 
     implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement of the General 
     Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). We urge you to support 
     the GATT implementing legislation and the effort to bring it 
     to a vote before the 103rd Congress adjourns.
       The expanded trade brought about by the new GATT agreement 
     will be good for America. The agreement will reduce prices 
     for U.S. consumers and help to lower inflation. Expanded 
     trade will mean increased U.S. exports. Increased U.S. 
     exports will mean more opportunities for U.S. workers.
       The agricultural portion of the agreement will cause highly 
     subsidized foreign competitors to operate in the marketplace 
     closer to the way American farmers compete. The agreement 
     requires: Reductions in subsidized agricultural exports, 36 
     percent in budgetary outlays and 21 percent in volume over 
     six years; cuts in aggregate import protection by 36 percent 
     over six years and a requirement that non-tariff barriers be 
     converted to tariffs or tariff-quotas; reduction of 20 
     percent in some trade-distorting internal supports; 
     establishment of a code to prevent the use of sanitary and 
     phytosanitary regulations as trade barriers.
       USDA projects these provisions will increase U.S. 
     agricultural exports $5-$14 billion and increase U.S. farm 
     income approximately $4 billion between now and the year 
     2000. In addition, a letter from Acting Management and Budget 
     Director Alice Rivlin and USDA Secretary Mike Espy 
     accompanies the agreement expressing support for various 
     agricultural programs that should be retained after the GATT 
     legislation is passed.
       Last fall you had the opportunity to vote on the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The results of the 
     bold Congressional action on NAFTA are coming in and they are 
     extremely positive. Your support of the GATT implementing 
     legislation will help to build upon this foundation of 
     economic growth for agriculture and our Nation.
       Your support of the GATT legislation, voted upon in this 
     session of Congress, would be appreciated.
           Sincerely,
         Terry Bogner, William R. Lemon, Jamie Willrett, Bob 
           Fitzpatrick, Jim Disney, Ron Warfield, Roger Brown, 
           Mike McElvain, Don Ahrens.
                                  ____



                                    National Coal Association,

                                                November 29, 1994.
     Hon. Glenn Poshard,
     House of Representatives,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Poshard: On behalf of the members of 
     the National Coal Association, I urge you to support GATT 
     Uruguay Round implementing legislation.
       Opening international markets for U.S. goods and services 
     helps spur economic growth and creates American jobs. The 
     Uruguay Round, the most comprehensive trade agreement in 
     history, could increase the U.S. economy by $27 billion 
     annually by the year 2002 according to the Organization for 
     Economic Cooperation and Development. Coal, as the feedstock 
     for over 57% of our Nation's electricity, will benefit from 
     this economic expansion.
       The U.S. is poised to take advantage of the gains the GATT 
     offers. Therefore, our Nation's interest would be well served 
     to have the agreement implemented on a timely basis.
           Sincerely,
                                                Richard L. Lawson.

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, two Republican administrations and the 
current Democratic administration have worked for 7 years to fashion a 
new global trade agreement that opens markets and lowers barriers to 
trade among nations. The result is the so called Uruguay round of the 
General Agreements on Trade and Tariffs, or GATT.
  Today, the House of Representatives has a historic opportunity to 
bring this agreement into existence by passing the legislation needed 
to implement it. After considering the arguments, particularly those 
that have been raised against the new GATT agreement, I'm convinced it 
will be good for American workers, consumers, and businesses.
  Let me begin by explaining why GATT is a clear winner for the United 
States.
  The GATT agreement represents a monumental breakthrough by the United 
States in world trade policy. In essence, the GATT agreement is a 
decision by the world community to take a major step toward free, fair, 
and open trade, with fewer barriers and less protectionism. As the 
country that has been most disadvantaged by the trade barriers erected 
by protectionist nations such as Japan, the United States has the most 
to gain from dismantling those barriers.
  Trade objectives that we have sought for almost a decade to achieve, 
such as the reduction of agricultural subsidies and the protection of 
intellectual property rights, will be achieved by the new GATT. The 
agreement extends free trade rules to new industries like banking, 
information services, and entertainment--all areas where the United 
States is the clear global leader.
  And to provide the most effective mechanism yet to enforce the 
international rules against illegal trade barriers, the new GATT sets 
up a new World Trade Organization, or WTO, to administer the trade 
obligations contained in the agreement. This improved dispute 
settlement system will benefit America more than any other country, 
since it is we who have brought more complaints against the unfair 
policies used by other nations to protect their markets from our 
competitive products.
  In considering the merits of the treaty, the most important question 
to ask is: What difference will it make in the lives of ordinary 
Americans? First and foremost workers will benefit. The agreement will 
create jobs--hundreds of thousands of new, well-paid American jobs--as 
American companies expand their production to sell goods and services 
in nations where they have been excluded by protectionist policies. And 
the new jobs will be good ones; jobs that are created by merchandise 
exports pay on average 18% more than the average U.S. wage.
  American consumers will also benefit. The reduction of tariffs on 
goods coming into America will be equivalent to a huge international 
tax cut. The average American is likely to save hundreds of dollars 
annually in lower costs of food, clothing, and other important goods.
  There have, of course, been objections to the GATT agreement. It is 
only after examining these objections that I've concluded that the 
agreement is in the best interests of the United States.
  The chief concern that has been raised is that the World Trade 
Organization would somehow compromise Federal laws and undercut the 
authority of our national and state governments. But under the GATT 
agreement, the WTO could never act as a substitute for Congress or our 
state legislatures. Only Congress or a state legislature may change a 
law in this country. This implementing legislation explicity provides 
that, if there is any conflict between American law and the GATT, only 
American law will apply. The bill also provides that WTO dispute 
settlement agreements will not be binding on American courts. The 
decisions of the WTP ultimately depends on the consent of the nation 
whose trading laws are in dispute.
  A nation can withdraw from GATT if it is unwilling to go along with a 
WTO finding. So if the United States is subject to any systematic 
discrimination in WTO decisions, we can simply leave. As a practical 
matter, however, the world trading community well understands the 
central place of the United States in world trade, and it would be 
quickly self-defeating for any majority of WTO members to conspire 
against us.

  Critics of the agreements have also expressed concern that America's 
strict environmental, health, and worker-safety standards could be 
attacked before the WTO as unfair attempts to keep out products from 
other countries that don't meet those standards. But in reality, the 
new GATT agreements more clearly than ever before create an 
international recognition of true health, safety and environment 
standards. Nations will be able to set environmental or product-safety 
standards as high as they want so long as the standards are 
scientifically based and don't discriminate against foreign products. 
Only those standards that are really protectionist rules and 
regulations disguised as health, safety and environmental standards 
will be subject to successful challenge. And it is those false 
standards put up by other countries that the United States has long 
challenged as barriers to our exports.
  Another objection to GATT has been to the inclusion in the 
implementing legislation of a provision that would benefit American 
Personal Communications, a corporation 70% of which is owned by The 
Washington Post (which, like hundreds of other American newspapers, 
endorsed the pact). The GATT implementing legislation does recognize a 
``pioneer preference'' telecommunications license to American Personal 
Communications, but the GATT legislation now requires the company to 
pay the federal treasury 85% of its market value, while the Federal 
Communications Commission had originally awarded that license for free. 
So this is in reality a revenue-producing provision, to offset some of 
the loss in federal revenue as the United States joins other countries 
in reducing tariffs on imported goods.
  The new GATT agreement is not perfect, or all that the United States 
wanted. For example, it does not yet provide proper offset for the 
economic advantages enjoyed by countries with grossly unfair labor 
practices (although the United States did win an agreement to have the 
WTO continue to work on that issue).
  But overall, the United States is uniquely positioned to benefit from 
the GATT trade agreement and the new world trade system it will create. 
The American economy is now integrated into the global economy. Where 
we once bought, sold and produced almost entirely at home, we now 
participate fully in the global marketplace.
  We are the world's largest trading nation with the world's most 
dynamic economy, and we will be the biggest winner from the GATT 
agreement. Last year, the United States exports accounted for more than 
10% of the our gross domestic product. Under GATT these figures will 
grow even larger. As we expand our sales abroad, we will create new 
jobs at home and expand the economy.
  Because expanded and fairer international trade will benefit us, the 
United States led the world effort to prepare this GATT agreement. For 
the same reason, Congress should now pass this legislation to implement 
the agreement.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT].
  I did not arrive at this decision easily. Initially, I was inclined 
to vote for GATT. A worldwide reduction in tariffs, and the inclusion 
of agriculture in the Uruguay round agreement are positive steps. 
However, over the last 20 years, as we have developed GATT and similar 
trade deals, our trade deficit has spiraled upward. Trade reciprocity 
and fair trade should be our goal in trade agreements. GATT, as 
presently designed, fails this test.
  Millions of American workers have already suffered greatly from the 
damaging effects of unfair and inequitable trade. Even proponents of 
the Uruguay round admit that for many workers the agreement will mean 
enormous economic disruption and job loss. It is expected that as a 
result of GATT more than 1 million workers are likely to lose their 
jobs in the textile and apparel industries alone.
  The Uruguay round also places major U.S. industries at risk by 
expanding access to the U.S. market with no commensurate improvement in 
U.S. export opportunities. In the case of dairy, the agreement allows 
the European Union to subsidize the export of 30 billion pounds of 
milk, while limiting U.S. support levels at 1.5 billion. Overall, the 
GATT is expected to mean a farm income loss of $600 to $825 million per 
year for U.S. dairy farmers and restricts its ability to counter this 
unfair competition.
  Many questions regarding this proposal remain unanswered. The 
question of national sovereignty has not been resolved to the 
satisfaction of many. I don't believe the voters would approve of 
another international bureaucracy, more distant and unresponsive than 
even our own United States Government. In addition, this vote does not 
just approve a trade treaty, but also approves over 650 pages of 
implementing legislation containing sweetheart deals worth billions of 
dollars for private companies. To shove this through on a lame duck 
vote is simply more business as usual. The recent election demonstrated 
the voters' demand for changing the way we conduct the Nation's 
business. Passing a 2,000 page trade treaty, in 4 hours, with a lame 
duck Congress, when there is no overwhelming reason to move so quickly, 
is not changing the way we do business.
  Some have called this the most important vote of the decade. I urge 
my colleagues to reexamine the way we are considering such an important 
vote. I see no reason why we cannot postpone the vote on GATT until the 
104th Congress. Its time we end business as usual, and begin the 
process of regaining the trust and confidence of the American people.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, after extensive review, I have come to 
conclude that GATT Uruguay is in the best interests of Oregon and the 
Nation.
  As a Member of Congress, I have worked hard to protect American 
workers. I am convinced that GATT is very different from NAFTA. I was 
concerned NAFTA placed American jobs and the environment at risk by 
creating an entirely new economic order with a neighboring, low-wage 
country. GATT is not the giant step into the unknown that NAFTA was; it 
is about continuing the rules which have guided global trade for nearly 
the last 50 years. Moreover, unlike NAFTA, GATT opens lucrative markets 
in Europe and the Pacific rim.
  After a number of meetings on this important issue, I am convinced 
that the economic, environmental, and sovereignty concerns I had with 
the NAFTA--and still have--do not apply to GATT. GATT has been our 
ruling order of free trade for nearly the last 50 years, and includes 
125 countries. The agreement before us today is the work of 8 years of 
negotiations, and will not force American workers into the serious 
labor disadvantage that NAFTA created.
  Only the United States will be able to change U.S. law. The World 
Trade Organization can make recommendations, but it is up to the United 
States Congress and Executive Branch to accept, reject, or ignore their 
advice. Conversely, the United States also has the power to flex its 
economic power through the World Trade Organization on countries which 
are uncooperative.
  Health and safety trade restrictions, if scientifically-based, will 
not be altered under the GATT. Wildlife protection treaties and 
international agreements which currently exist will continue. I have 
been assured that future GATT talks, and multilateral and regional 
trade agreements will seek to expand environmental protection across 
the globe.
  Clearly, the benefits for Oregon under GATT are tangible and sizeable 
for our State's economy. The economy of Oregon's first district 
produces many family-wage jobs in the high tech industry. Last year, 
Oregon's largest manufactured export items were computers and 
industrial machinery, over $1 billion. Under GATT, world-wide 
technology-based manufacturing and software development tariffs will be 
cut an average of 38 percent to 50 percent. More importantly, markets 
in Europe will cut their tariffs on computers by 80 percent, and 
electronic components by 88 percent. Reductions of this magnitude will 
mean enormous job growth in Oregon and benefits for the entire region. 
In addition, GATT is consistent with work I have done to boost exports 
of Oregon's environmental technology industry, ultimately aiding our 
global environment.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support GATT.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, today we are voting on H.R. 5110, 
legislation implementing the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. As many of you know, I have had serious 
concerns over the implications of this agreement and have studied it 
closely. Today, I can only conclude that the economic implications of 
this agreement are clear and positive for America.
  At this time, exports account for 12 percent of U.S. economic output 
and more importantly 50 percent of U.S. economic growth. One in six 
U.S. manufacturing jobs are dependent on exports. Exports from my home 
State of Texas totalled $35.6 billion last year. This agreement will 
cut 85 percent of tariffs. Reducing tariff barriers will increase 
exports and generate economic growth that enlarges America's economy by 
at least $500 billion. In addition, it will reduce the deficit by more 
than $150 billion. On economic grounds the case is clear. Ralph Nader, 
the Sierra Club and the AFL-CIO are wrong. GATT means jobs. Jobs for 
Americans.
  However, this vote today is not just about economics. This vote today 
is not just about jobs. This vote today is just not that simple. Today 
we are not merely voting to lower tariffs, we are voting to establish a 
mechanism for mediating trade disputes called the World Trade 
Organization [WTO]. The very name of this organization raises the 
concern that it may have authority to threaten our sovereignty.
  America has paid a high price for its freedom. A price paid from the 
cliffs of Normandy to the isle of Okinawa, from the beach at Inchon to 
the desert of Kuwait--these heroes did not make the greatest sacrifice 
to see freedom sold.
  I have pledged to the people of the 23d district of Texas that I will 
not vote for any international agreement that threatens or reduces the 
sovereignty of the United States. I was one of only a dozen Members of 
Congress to repeatedly vote against setting the precedent of placing 
U.S. troops under U.N. command in Somalia and will never hesitate to 
stand up for America's independence.
  Last month, I voted against the rule because I believe a lame-duck 
Congress should not make this important decision. We lost that vote and 
so today's vote is on the agreement itself not the timing of the vote. 
Let me repeat, today's vote is not a vote on whether a lame duck 
Congress should vote on GATT, today's vote is a vote on the agreement 
itself.
  Before you cast your vote today you cannot forget that we must never 
put a dollar value on our freedom. I have spent the last month closely 
studying this agreement. I intend to remain true to the legacy of 
Valley Forge and have concluded that I must vote for this agreement 
because it makes America stronger and in no way sells our freedom and 
independence to the WTO or any international or foreign organization.
  The WTO is a bad name, nothing more, nothing less. If there is one 
thing I know, it is that America has nothing to fear from a name. I 
have reached this conclusion after addressing the following concerns I 
share with many fellow Texans:
  First, will the proposed World Trade Organization ``legislate'' for 
the United States?
  Under our Constitution, the Congress has the sole authority to 
regulate U.S. trade. Only the U.S. Congress can legislate for the 
United States. Only Congress will decide whether and how to change U.S. 
laws to carry out our commitments to the WTO agreements. Neither the 
WTO agreements themselves nor any change to them will have any effect 
on U.S. law unless and until the United States agrees and the U.S. 
Congress decides to implement them.
  Second, will the WTO be the Global Supreme Court of trade disputes?
  The WTO is not a court. The WTO can't change--or order any change 
in--U.S. laws or impose any other remedy on us. That is so even if a 
WTO dispute settlement panel finds that the United States is not in 
compliance with its obligations. Only Congress can change United States 
laws, and nothing in the WTO agreement alters that fact. The WTO 
dispute settlement system is designed to facilitate the settlement of 
disputes, not impose solutions. The settlement of any dispute is up to 
the countries involved and can't be ``imposed'' by the WTO.
  Under the WTO agreements, if a country is found to have reneged on 
its promises to open its markets--and the countries involved in the 
dispute cannot settle their differences in another way--the complaining 
country can withdraw some of its own trade promises to restore the 
balance of trade benefits. Both the Congress and the administration 
made the inclusion of this provision in the WTO a top priority in the 
negotiations.
  It means we can use the threat of closing our market--the world's 
largest--to ensure we get the benefits we bargained for. Since we have 
the world's largest market, our ability to close that market will make 
sure countries think twice before violating their commitments. That is 
of vital importance to us as the world's leading exporter.
  Third, will developing countries be able to change the rules of 
the game and avoid their obligations by voting on amendments and 
waivers in their favor over U.S. objections?

  U.S. negotiators ensured that WTO voting rules, should they ever be 
invoked, will safeguard U.S. interests even more than at present, by 
raising the majorities required for important decisions--and increasing 
our ability to mobilize a blocking minority.
  In the case of any amendments to the WTO agreements, no change in 
substantive rights or obligations will bind us until we have agreed to 
it. Key provisions can only be changed when all WTO members agree to 
the change. No changes can be made to the dispute settlement system 
except by consensus.
  In order to ensure that the WTO can't change the deal we negotiated 
by issuing interpretations of the WTO agreements, the United States had 
the rules changed to require a larger majority--three-quarters of all 
members--to issue an official interpretation. And interpretations can't 
be used to undermine the WTO's rules on amendments.
  We also strengthened the requirements for issuing waivers that allow 
countries to escape some of their obligations. Any waiver of the new 
WTO obligations that are being phased in--such as those protecting U.S. 
patented products sold abroad--can only be granted by consensus. That 
means we can prevent our trading partners from voting themselves a free 
ride in key areas of importance to us.
  Fourth, will the WTO be controlled by developing countries that vote 
against the United States in the U.N. General Assembly?
  The major players in the WTO will continue to be the United States 
and other developed countries, just as they have been in the GATT. They 
will continue to have the biggest say over the budget and the 
management of the WTO through their power of the purse-strings.
  Countries may vote their politics in the General Assembly, where a 
vote often has no economic consequences. But they follow their 
pocketbooks in the GATT. Developing countries have been on our side in 
the Uruguay round on many issues--for instance, agriculture, where both 
we and developing country exporters wanted to stop the European 
Community's predatory export subsidies.
  Fifth, will challenges to U.S. laws be decided in secret by closed 
tribunals of international trade bureaucats? WTO panels do not have the 
power to make decisions or impose solutions. Panels will issue reports 
containing their views on the dispute and a recommendation to the 
disputing parties.

  Under the WTO, panelists will be selected by the parties in the 
dispute and will be drawn from both the private and public sectors. if 
the United States is a party, we will participate fully in the 
selection of any person who sits on the WTO panel. No panelist will be 
appointed over the objection of a party to the dispute.
  The administration will make all U.S. briefs to a panel available to 
the public immediately after they are submitted and will distribute 
summaries of the arguments made by other countries. All written 
submissions and oral statements made to a panel will be fully described 
in the panel's report. And the report will be made public promptly 
after it is submitted.
  Sixth, are article X amendments to the WTO agreements binding on all 
members even if one-third of them object?
  The WTO amendment provisions in article X state that any substantive 
amendment takes effect for a member only if that country consents to 
it. Key provisions, such as most-favored-nation obligations, decision-
making rules, and the amendment rule itself, can only be changed when 
all WTO members agree to the change. No changes can be made to the 
dispute settlement rules except by consensus.
  The only case in which an amendment could go into effect for all 
members when it is accepted by two-thirds is if three-fourths of all 
members agree that the amendment isn't substantive. Even in these 
cases, which would not substantively affect U.S. trade interests, the 
burden will be on the country proposing an amendment to round up the 
votes of three-fourths of the members. The United States, if it 
objects, can put together a one-quarter blocking minority of like-
minded countries.
  Seventh, will the United States wind up paying for the costs of a new 
international bureaucracy?
  The WTO won't create a new international bureaucracy. The existing 
GATT secretariat--which is quite small relative to many U.N. agencies--
will provide technical and support services for the WTO. U.S. 
contributions to the GATT last year were less than $10 million.
  Eighth, what if other problems develop, and the WTO acts against 
America's interests?
  The U.S. retains the right to withdraw from the WTO at any time if 
the WTO acts contrary to America's interests. Other nations must 
understand that congressional approval of this GATT agreement is 
totally contingent on this fact and that America will not hesitate to 
withdraw from GATT and the WTO if it is in America's national interest.
  In simple language, the WTO is the referee in the very serious game 
of international trade. As in any game, all players benefit from an 
impartial and fair referee. It is in the mutual interest of all players 
to accept the referee's rulings. However, the referee has no power to 
impose his will on the players. All players are free to leave the game 
at any time if they choose. We retain the right to withdraw from GATT 
if it is contrary to our interests. That referee, the WTO, only has the 
authority to make sure all trading nations comply with agreements they 
have voluntarily entered. That referee, the WTO, has no power or 
authority to impose its will on the greatest Nation in history, the 
United States.
  We have an historic opportunity to make America stronger. An 
opportunity to help future generations realize the American dream. I 
know the choice Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would have made. 
They would have looked forward, not backward. They would have voted 
yes. They would have said it was a simply choice. We have an obligation 
to make America as strong as it can be. Please join me in voting for a 
strong, vigilant and independent United States. Please join me in 
voting for GATT.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, as one who has consistently promoted an 
increasing presence for American farmers in the world market, it is 
philosophically difficult to cast a ``no'' vote against trade 
legislation. However, as the ranking minority member of the House 
Subcommittee on Livestock, it is incumbent upon me to review the 
Uruguay round with a critical eye on the programs under that 
subcommittee's specific jurisdiction.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, that review leads me to a solitary 
conclusion--the Uruguay round is a bad deal for the vast majority of 
producers and agri-businesses under our jurisdiction. Perhaps there is 
no better illustration of that fact than the adverse impact the Uruguay 
round will have on our domestic dairy industry.
  Under the new GATT agreement, the American dairy industry loses 
section 22, the 60-year-old law which protects our producers against 
imports which undermine our domestic milk pricing system. In addition, 
by the turn of the century, the United States must allow an additional 
1.2 billion pounds (milk equivalent) of foreign dairy products into the 
country annually.
  Making matters worse, our negotiators did not restrict that new 
access to value-added or branded dairy products. Rather, they granted a 
considerable amount of that new access in basic commodities such as 
cheddar cheese, butter, and dry milk. That was a very significant 
decision because our milk pricing system and Government Support 
Programs are premised on basic dairy commodities.
  Under the Dairy Price Support Program, the Commodity Credit 
Corporation must purchase any cheddar cheese, butter, or non-fat dry 
milk that cannot be moved through commercial channels. Similarly, the 
basis for all milk prices in the United States, the Minnesota-Wisconsin 
(M-W) series, is determined by the weekly price of cheddar cheese on 
the National Cheese Exchange in Green Bay, WI. Accordingly, to the 
extent that new imports of basic dairy commodities displace domestic 
dairy products, milk prices will go down and the dairy farmers and 
other taxpayers of this country will end up buying more surplus dairy 
products through the CCC. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office 
[CBO] tells us that the Uruguay round will increase the cost of the 
Dairy Price Support Program by $422 million over 5 years.
  Now, there are those in the administration who tell us that we should 
take solace in the fact that we have gained specific access to the 
Japanese and South Korean markets for our value-added dairy products. 
With due respect, that does not resolve the problem we will have with 
basic dairy commodities.
  They also suggest that the dairy industry is a big winner under the 
Uruguay round because, by the turn of the century, the European Union 
[EU] has to reduce their subsidized exports from 463,000 metric tons of 
butter to 366,000 metric tons, from 386,000 metric tons of non-fat dry 
milk to 243,000 metric tons, from 386,000 metric tons of cheese to 
305,000 metric tons, and from 1,188,000 metric tons of other dairy 
products to 938,000 metric tons. The presumption that the U.S. dairy 
industry will be able to profit from these reductions fails for at 
least three reasons.
  First of all, the American dairy industry, as a whole, is a 
relatively new player in the world market. We don't have a national 
dairy board like Australia or New Zealand that can act immediately to 
pick up the slack left by another player in the market. Our major 
export incentive, the Dairy Export Incentive Program [DEIP] must also 
be reduced one-third under the Uruguay round, and there is no industry-
funded alternative to replace it. Under these circumstances, someone 
other than the United States will benefit from reduced European Union 
subsidized exports.
  Secondly, the Uruguay round doesn't level the subsidized export 
playing field. Rather, it simply freezes it. By forcing all players to 
take the same percentage reduction in subsidized exports, the 20 to 1 
advantage the European Union has over the United States is perpetuated. 
In fact, by the turn of the century, the European Union will still be 
able to subsidize over 1.8 million metric tons of dairy products 
compared with the United States share of 92,000 metric tons. With due 
respect, Mr. Chairman, that's neither free trade nor fair trade.
  Thirdly, even before the ink is dry on the Uruguay round, we already 
know that some players--such as our good neighbors to the north--are 
refusing to play by the rules in an effort to keep American dairy 
products out of their country, while other countries are stretching the 
rules to the maximum in an effort to discriminate against long-time 
American players in the world dairy market.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, the Uruguay round is bad for the dairy 
industry because it takes domestic markets away from our processors, it 
drives prices down for producers, and it treats our historical 
importers inequitably. Quite frankly, those of us who represent 
significant portions of the dairy industry should have simply announced 
last January that we intended to vote against any implementing 
legislation. That would have been the easy thing to do. But, in the 
long run, it would have done little to assist the industry if GATT was 
ultimately implemented.
  And so, in an April 20th hearing by the House Committee on 
Agriculture on the Uruguay round, I asked the industry to get together 
and come up with a series of proposals to minimize any adverse impact 
that the new GATT agreement would have on the industry. To their 
credit, the leaders of this industry, which is famous for its 
divisiveness rather than its solidarity, reported back to us in less 
than 6 weeks with a list of items they unanimously agreed they needed 
to be able to work in a world dairy market governed by the Uruguay 
round. This joint communication was signed by representatives of the 
National Milk Producers Federation, the Alliance of Western Milk 
Producers, the Farmers Union Milk Marketing Cooperative, the Women in 
Farm Economics, and American importers (a/k/a historical licensees).
  Working with the industry, we, then, took the items presented to us 
and put them in legislative form. That package, called the Dairy Export 
Enhancement Act [DEEA], was forwarded to each Member of Congress in 
June.
  Now, there are some nay-sayers out there who question whether GATT 
implementing legislation is the appropriate vehicle to rewrite U.S. 
dairy policy. With due respect, the implementation of the Uruguay 
round, without any legislative intervention on our part, will 
singlehandedly rewrite U.S. dairy policy. The industry proposals 
incorporated in the DEEA would simply give the various segments of the 
American dairy industry the tools they need to be competitive in a 21st 
century world dairy market. The tools it provides can be summarized as 
follows:
  Full Funding of the DEIP Program. Other governments finance the 
subsidies authorized by GATT, and the DEEA would simply ensure that the 
U.S. will also fully fund the dairy subsidies it is permitted under 
GATT;
  Industry Market Development Board. To be competitive, American dairy 
interests need an industry board, like those employed by other 
countries, to help them move dairy products into the world market. The 
DEEA would authorize the Secretary to contract with an autonomous 
industry to do that;
  Studies of GATT Impact on Domestic Dairy Programs. The impact that 
new access for imported dairy products will have on producer income, 
milk marketing orders, the price support program (and related 
assessments), the dairy research and promotion program (and related 
assessments), and the dairy product inspection system is not fully 
known. The DEEA would require that studies be completed as to the 
potential adverse impact that could result from the Uruguay Round in 
these areas as well as to suggestions for potential remedies for any 
such adverse impact;
  Playing by the Rules. The DEEA would require the Secretary of 
Agriculture to hold hearings to ensure that Canada lives up to its 
obligations under the combination of NAFTA and GATT, and, if not, 
further require the President to enter negotiations with Canada to 
achieve compliance with those agreements and submit reports to Congress 
until that compliance is achieved; and
  Equitable Playing Field. Because of the tendency of certain exporting 
countries to discriminate against historical American importers in 
favor of their own preferred importers, limitations and prohibitions on 
certain discriminatory and anti-competitive practices as well as 
certain licensing procedures are included in the DEEA.
  As you can see, these proposals are not intended to circumvent the 
Uruguay round but, rather, to ensure that the American dairy industry 
has all of the competitive tools that foreign dairy industries have and 
to further ensure that other countries are prevented from breaking or 
unreasonably stretching the rule to their advantage.
  After the DEEA was received and reviewed, 26 Members from 12 
difference States agreed to form the Congressional Dairy Task Force on 
GATT whose sole purpose was to have the provisions of the DEEA included 
in GATT implementing legislation. Before going further, I would like to 
thank each member of that task force for their hard work throughout 
this process and for their willingness to put their names on the line 
in this endeavor.
  The DEEA was presented to the House Committee on Agriculture on July 
28, 1994, during their markup at which time it was placed in the 
recommendations the Committee would send to the administration. After a 
long and sometimes difficult staff conference, virtually all of its 
recommendations of the DEEA were forwarded to the administration in one 
form or another.
  Regrettably, Mr. Chairman, almost none of them have come back to us 
in the formal implementing legislation. Indeed, that legislation merely 
extends the DEIP Program to 2001, prohibits the auctioning of cheese 
licenses, and grants two studies--one on Canadian compliance with the 
Uruguay round and another on the impact of new imports on the market 
order system. That is a far cry from what the American dairy industry 
needs to adjust to the Uruguay round.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, it leads me to question whether this 
administration cares about American dairy producers at all. On two 
separate occasions this year, USDA had the opportunity under provisions 
in the 1990 farm bill to significantly assist dairy farmer income. They 
failed miserably both times when they, first, delayed the 
implementation of section 102 of the 1990 farm bill and, second, when 
they blew their chance to make significant reforms in the way that milk 
is priced.
  Let me reiterate what I've said since last January--the Uruguay round 
is a bad deal for the dairy industry. Unfortunately, the implementing 
legislation does virtually nothing to change that conclusion. For those 
dairy farmers and others in the dairy industry who share my 
disappointment with the administration's inaction in this area, let me 
assure you that, if these issues remain unaddressed, we will be 
revisiting them and the solutions contained in the Dairy Export 
Enhancement Act during our consideration of the 1995 farm bill.
  In another area under the jurisdiction of the Livestock Subcommittee, 
that of meat inspection, Mr. Chairman, the Uruguay round will increase 
an existing inequity among small State-inspected meat processors. For 
25 years, meat which is subject to State inspection (which, by Federal 
law, must be ``at least equal to'' Federal inspection) has been 
prohibited from entering interstate commerce. NAFTA further increased 
the inequitable treatment of state-inspected meat by permitting Mexican 
and Canadian meat that conforms to Federal standards to travel in 
interstate commerce. The Uruguay round would extend that privilege to 
the meat products of other countries.
  This only serves to multiply the competitive disadvantage under which 
the small state-inspected ``mom and pop'' processors and meat lockers 
must operate. To remedy this growing inequity, the administration could 
have put the language contained in my bill (H.R. 3646) to permit state-
inspected meat to move in interstate commerce in the implementing 
legislation. Again, however, they failed to do so.
  Finally, the Uruguay round is also troublesome for our domestic sheep 
and lamb industry. In the last year, the industry watched as the Wool 
Act was phased out and imports of lamb increased by almost 50 percent. 
With the repeal of the Meat Import Act, meat products formerly 
protected by that act will be subject to tariffication. Lamb was not 
among the meat products so protected and I am supportive of efforts to 
ensure that lamb imports are treated equitably with other meat imports. 
However, for the third time, we find glaring deficiency in implementing 
legislation forwarded to us by the administration.
  From my perspective and the perspective of my western Wisconsin 
constituents, the Uruguay round creates more problems than solutions 
for those commodities under the jurisdiction of the House Livestock 
Subcommittee. While those problems can no longer be corrected, the 
adverse impact associated with them could have been mitigated to some 
degree. Unfortunately, for reasons known only to them, this 
administration chose to deny the various segments of these industries--
producers, processors, retailers and importers alike--the tools that 
they need to become and remain competitive in the world market of the 
21st century. Accordingly, I cannot support the Uruguay round 
implementing legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5110. I think 
legislation, on balance, is good for American consumers and good for 
American workers.
  I also want to comment on title VIII, which contains an amendment to 
the Communications Act of 1934 that requires the Federal Communications 
Commission to recover for the public a portion of the value of public 
spectrum that has been awarded by the Commission to licensees granted a 
``pioneer's preference.'' This title is based on H.R. 4700, introduced 
by Chairman Dingell, myself, and others. It is designed to guarantee 
that the American taxpayer will get a fair share for the use of the 
radio spectrum by these licensees.
  Under the ``pioneer's preference'' program, certain persons are 
determined by the Commission to have made significant contributions to 
the development of a new telecommunications service or technology, and 
those persons are assured of obtaining a Commission license. The 
Commission developed the pioneer preference program in the late 1980's 
as a means to reward those who invest in technology but who might lose 
out under the licensing procedures in place at the time, namely 
lotteries. That program made sense, because the lottery system made no 
distinction between the serious technology innovator and the casual 
speculator, it gave no incentive to invest in new communications 
technology. Overall, the Commission has awarded 5 ``pioneer's 
preference''--three in the broadband Personal Communications Service 
[PCS]; one in narrowband PCS, and one in local multipoint distribution 
service.
  In 1993, Congress changed dramatically the Commission's licensing 
process. The Licensing Reform Act of 1993, approved as part of the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 [Public Law 103-66, title VI, 
section 6002], largely abolished lotteries, which were a ridiculous 
method to give away a vital Federal resource, and instead put in place 
a system of competitive bidding, or auctions. The auction system 
ensures that the American taxpayer will get paid for its vital 
resources, and that the spectrum will be put to good use.
  Earlier this year, the Commission began to utilize competitive 
bidding, or auctions, as a means of assigning FCC licenses. The first 
auction for narrowband PCS generated over $600 million. Later in the 
year, the Commission will begin auctioning off broadband PCS, and many 
industry analysts predict those auctions will generate billions of 
dollars.
  In light of these events, the committee examined whether pioneer 
preference winners should get their spectrum without having to pay for 
it. Under the Commission's pioneer's preference rules, the spectrum 
being awarded to the pioneers would not be subject to auction, since by 
Commission rule the applications were not mutually exclusive. In 
addition, the committee was concerned that there is substantial 
question about the authority of the Commission to require pioneer 
preference holders to pay. Consequently, the committee sought to 
develop legislation that would ensure that holders of a pioneer's 
preference pay an equitable amount for use of their spectrum, and that 
such payment not be mooted by litigation.
  Title VIII accomplishes that goal by amending section 309(j) of the 
Communications Act of 1934 to require pioneer's preference holders to 
pay a sum equal to not less than 85 percent, on a par population basis, 
of the highest bid for a license that is most reasonably comparable in 
terms of bandwidth, area designation, usage restrictions, and other 
characteristics. The legislation provides that in the context of 
broadband PCS, the 20 largest markets in which no one has obtained a 
pioneer's preference would be most reasonably comparable.
  Title VIII also contains a mechanism to ensure that the Federal 
Government obtains at least $400 million. If the formula described 
above does not generate at least $400 million, though most experts 
think the amount will be closer to $1 billion, then the Commission is 
authorized to impose a payment requirement so that at least that much, 
plus interest, is collectively paid by the three broadband PCS 
pioneer's preference holders.
  Finally, the legislation directs that the FCC to not delay in 
awarding the pioneer's preference and in granting the license, and that 
both of these decisions should be deemed final and not subject to 
further review. The legislation also provides that the pioneer's 
preference holders must begin payment to the Federal Government 30 days 
after the award of the pioneer's preference, and the granting of the 
license, becomes final.
  This provision has been the subject of three different House 
subcommittees, and was the subject of a joint hearing just last month. 
The conclusion from that hearing is the same conclusion that Senator 
Dole and the U.S. Trade Representative reached earlier this week: ``The 
solution [on pioneer preference] worked out in the legislation will 
provide that fair return [to the taxpayers], and it represents a good 
compromise of an extremely complex issue.''
  I think this legislation is necessary because it locks in payment by 
the pioneers, and wipes away the uncertainty, the unacceptable risk, 
that the pioneers would walk away by paying nothing. I also think this 
legislation should end the matter, because I believe the formula will 
yield hundreds of millions of dollars, even a billion dollars, for the 
taxpayer. And consumers will benefit when they begin to see new 
cellular providers offer better quality service at lower prices. This 
legislation is a good compromise that will propel the communications 
industry forward. It deserves your support.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to H.R. 5110, legislation to implement the Uruguay round 
trade agreement under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
[GATT]. I oppose this legislation for a number of reasons, including 
billion dollar giveaways to media giants, like the Washington Post. 
Most importantly, I strongly oppose the GATT Agreement itself, because 
I do not believe that it will benefit American workers and American 
business.
  The final text of the Uruguay Round Agreement, which was concluded in 
December 1993, establishes a world trade organization, with the sole 
power to settle trade disputes between nations who are parties to the 
agreement, and to enforce compliance with the agreement. The World 
Trade Organization will have the power to declare that U.S. laws which 
protect the environment, or human health, are unfair barriers to trade, 
and order the U.S. Government to either change the law, or face trade 
sanctions. We have already seen the potential danger in ceding 
authority to an international trade tribunal in the ruling that the 
Dolphin Protection Act, to prohibit the importation of tuna caught with 
technologies which harm dolphins, which passed Congress overwhelmingly 
a few years ago, was ruled an illegal barrier to trade. It is likely 
that many U.S. laws, governing everything from restrictions on 
pesticide use, to ``Buy American'' provisions, will be challenged 
before the world trade organization as illegal trade barriers. I do not 
believe that Members of Congress, as representatives of the American 
people, can surrender our national sovereignty to an unelected, 
unaccountable, International Trade Organization which does not hold 
public hearings, and does not release public statements of its 
decisions on cases challenging U.S. laws.
  Mr. Chairman, the GATT Agreement also lacks any provisions calling 
for enforcement of internationally recognized labor rights. This will 
place pressure on American business to lower wages, benefits, and 
workplace safety protections to compete with developing nations, rather 
than raising the standards in the developing world up to the level of 
western industrialized nations. I deem it unconscionable that the U.S. 
negotiators abandoned a primary goal of all international trade 
negotiations for the past 50 years in agreeing to the final GATT 
Treaty. That goal, which has been consistently adhered to, regardless 
of which party held the Oval Office, is the recognition and promotion 
of international labor standards. This is an abandonment of standards 
which are rooted in the history of our humane treatment of American 
workers.
  I know that workers in Ohio, and in my Congressional District in 
Cleveland, do not support legislation and a treaty which will lead to 
the erosion of their hard-won pay and benefits. My constituents have 
made it clear that they do not want the U.S. Government to give an 
international tribunal, which is totally unaccountable to the American 
people, the right to void laws enacted by our National, State, and 
local governments. The World Trade Organization could jeopardize laws 
which protect the public health, preserve the environment, and provide 
safe workplaces and good jobs for working Americans.
  Moving beyond the problems in the GATT Treaty itself, the legislation 
submitted by the administration for implementation of the trade 
agreement is packed with numerous egregious provisions which make a 
mockery of the legislative process. First, the bill does not meet the 
Budget Enforcement Act requirements under the pay-as-you-go rules. The 
administration has acknowledged this, and is attempting to obtain a 
waiver of the Budget Act provisions in the Senate. Independent 
estimates indicate that the revenue shortfall over 10 years may add up 
to $40 billion.
  Second, it is intellectually dishonest to publicly argue that the 
GATT Treaty is designed to ``level the playing field'' for American 
companies in the international market, while the legislation to 
implement the agreement is loaded with numerous sweetheart deals for 
influential special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example is 
the provision concerning pioneer preferences in section 801 of H.R. 
5110. Section 801 overturns a fee formula adopted by the Federal 
Communications Commission in August 1994, to recover the fair market 
value of the pioneer preference telecommunications licenses granted by 
the FCC to three large media companies. The licenses were awarded for 
the New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC markets for personal 
communications services. The beneficiaries of section 801 are the 
Washington Post Co., Cox Enterprises, Inc., and Omnipoint 
Communications. This provision gives away between $62 million and $218 
million of Federal money to the owners of the Washington Post, and 
between $561 million and $1 billion to the owners of the Atlanta 
Constitution. Giveaways of billions of dollars of Federal money to 
special interests is outrageous, and has no place in this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the GATT implementing bill we are presented with, as 
well as the GATT Treaty itself, are fundamentally flawed, and should be 
rejected. I urge all my colleagues to stand up for the American worker, 
vote against H.R. 5110, and show their constituents that the 
representatives of the people of this great country will fight to 
preserve their jobs, their benefits, and the well-being of their 
families and communities.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5110, 
legislation to implement the far-reaching trade agreements concluded as 
part of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
[GATT].
  The GATT Agreement makes sweeping improvements to the international 
trade environment and to the ability of U.S. businesses and workers to 
compete in that environment.
  Today, without GATT, U.S. markets are the most transparent and open 
markets in the world. We have the lowest tariffs and the fewest trade 
restrictions. Today, without GATT, we are at a disadvantage because 
while foreign goods and services receive relatively unrestricted access 
to our markets, American products and services face blatant, 
government-sanctioned barriers to trade all over the world.
  My basic reason for supporting GATT is to level the playing field and 
ensure that other countries treat our products the same way we treat 
theirs. Under GATT, for the first time ever, all 123 member nations 
will play by the same rules.
  The result will be the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs and 
the addition of $500 billion into the international economy each year. 
The United States will receive more than one-quarter of this new 
economic activity.
  For California, we are the Nation's leader in exports and we stand to 
gain tremendous economic benefits from GATT. GATT will generate nearly 
250,000 new, high-paying jobs for Californians over the next 10 years. 
GATT will bring an additional $100 million each year to our State's 
semiconductor industry because of the enhanced intellectual property 
rights in the agreement.
  California agriculture will also make significant gains as a result 
of lower foreign subsidies, elimination of trade barriers and access to 
new markets. Beef, rice, wheat, tomatoes, sugar, dairy, wine, pears, 
apples, tree nuts and many other farm commodities will increase exports 
under GATT.
  In addition, GATT represents the largest international tax cut in 
history--$750 billion over the next 10 years. It slashes tariffs in our 
most productive export sectors, protects intellectual property rights 
for some of our fastest growing industries, and reduces foreign 
agricultural subsidies.
  Charges that GATT will undermine our sovereignty are simply not based 
in reality. Only Congress and our State legislatures can change our 
laws. In fact, section 102(a) of this bill provides that if there is 
any conflict between our laws and any provision of GATT, our laws 
prevail.
  Further, the World Trade Organization operates by consensus. There 
has never been a vote by the GATT general assembly to impose penalties 
or sanctions against any country for a trade infraction. Our trading 
partners know that they cannot impose new rules on us and other big 
economic players without our consent. States would still be allowed to 
impose environmental, health and safety laws that are stricter than the 
Federal standard.
  In short, the fundamental tenet of GATT is simply this: as long as we 
treat foreign products the same as domestic products, then our laws and 
standards are GATT compatible and not subject to challenge.
  This agreement and this implementing legislation are perhaps the most 
important economic growth initiative I have had the opportunity to vote 
on during my service in public office. The bottom line is this: GATT is 
good for California; it's good for America, it's good for the 
international community as a whole. It will create jobs, promote 
economic expansion and increase our standard of living on a global 
scale.
  I urge my colleagues to accept the challenge of open and fair 
competition and to embrace a new and better way of doing business 
overseas. I urge you to vote for this landmark legislation.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I have been concerned with the extensive 
extraneous matter included in the GATT implementing legislation. 
Contrary to the spirit of the fast track, which is designed to keep 
legislation clean, the administration has littered this bill with 
unrelated provisions.
  In particular, the pioneer preference provision is wholly irrelevant 
to GATT, and should never have been included in this legislation. It 
has already unnecessarily diverted the course of debate on this 
important bill, and could cost the American public up to a billion 
dollars.
  I've recently received comfort from the administration, which has 
promised to work with Congress next year to correct any potential 
problems with the pioneer preference provision. The following letters 
between Senator Dole and the administration make clear this 
understanding. I believe they would be useful in illuminating the 
debate over GATT.


                                              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, multi-state, 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 
     formulae 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


                                       Department of Commerce,

                                Washington, DC, November 23, 1994.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Minority Leader, 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.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the October 5 debate on 
the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5110, the name of one of 
my predecessors, William McKinley, was mentioned. McKinley represented 
much of what is now the 16th District of Ohio in the House of 
Representatives from 1877 until 1883 and then again from 1885 until 
1891. During his tenure as a Member of Congress he did sponsor the 
McKinley Tariff which as enacted in 1890.
  William McKinley was later elected the 25th President of the United 
States in 1896. I would like add to the record a more complete picture 
of President McKinley's views on world trade which had broadened 
dramatically by the time of his assassination in September of 1901.
  In his final public speech on September 5, 1901, opening the Pan-
American Exposition in Buffalo, NY, President McKinley no longer spoke 
of protectionist policies, but rather of open markets and promoting 
exports by U.S. businesses.
  During this speech he stated, and I quote:

       Our industrial enterprises which have grown to such great 
     proportions affect the homes and occupations of the people 
     and the welfare of the country. Our capacity to produce has 
     developed so enormously and our productions have so 
     multiplied that the problem of more markets requires our 
     urgent and immediate attention.

  He stated further, and I quote again:

       The period of exclusiveness is past. The expansion of our 
     trade and commerce is the pressing problem.

  In reviewing President McKinley's papers, I discovered several 
memoranda regarding foreign trade written in the spring of 1901 which 
led to the views he expressed in his last public speech. He sensed that 
the world was changing--that it was becoming easier to communicate and 
travel across borders. He expressed the belief that increased 
competition would lead to even more invention of new ideas that had 
already occurred during the industrial revolution.
  The pace of technological change has increased exponentially since 
the turn of the century during the McKinley presidency. And according 
to recent Commerce Department data, the United States is regaining its 
status as the most productive and competitive nation in the world.
  I must agree with the conclusion reached by President McKinley in 
1901, that the development of overseas markets for our products is 
necessary to sustain our long-term growth and to develop and retain 
good-paying jobs here in the United States.
  Therefore, I have decided to support the GATT agreement which will 
lower tariffs on our exports an average of 35 percent. Since our 
markets have traditionally been more open, our tariffs on imports will 
only be lowered on average by 15 percent.
  I feel confident that the protections written into H.R. 5110 together 
with the recent agreement negotiated by Senator Dole will assure that 
the World Trade Organization does not affect the sovereignty of our 
Nation or of our States. Only the Congress, in conjunction with the 
President, can change a law of the United States. Furthermore, this 
bill provides extensive congressional oversight over and consultation 
with the World Trade Organization.
  In addition, Congress and the President will cooperate to create a 
panel of retired U.S. judges to monitor decisions by the World Trade 
Organization to determine if the rulings are biased against the United 
States. The United States could decide to leave the World Trade 
Organization if there have been three decisions that go against the 
United States in 5 years.
  Although I do not agree with every provision in this legislation, 
such as a number of the financing provisions, and I continue to believe 
that there should be a level playing field in the area of global trade, 
I will support this agreement as a positive step toward providing a 
system of fair trade among nations.
  And, as the Governor of Ohio has publicly stated, Ohio is now ranked 
third in the Nation in the export of manufactured goods, with one out 
of every eight jobs tied to exported goods. I am confident that Ohioans 
will gain many new and well-paying jobs from the increased production 
of goods for export which will be facilitated by this agreement.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5110, 
the implementing legislation for the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade [GATT].
  As a staunch supporter of free trade, I realize how important the 
goals of GATT are. Mr. Chairman, lowering tariffs and other barriers to 
international trade creates jobs and increases the standard of living 
in America. I believe the free flow of commerce offers American 
consumers more and better goods at lower prices. I will continue to 
support free trade.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today involves much 
more than simple tariff reductions. There are many elements that 
concern me. For instance, I fear too much power has been vested in the 
World Trade Organization [WTO] set up under the agreement. All WTO 
decisions will be made by the votes of the WTO ministerial conference 
on the basis of one country-one vote. Developing nations, who often 
oppose the interests of the United States in other international 
forums, such as the United Nations [UN], will have 83 percent of the 
WTO votes. More than three-fourths of WTO member voted against the 
United States on the majority of votes taken at the U.N. in 1993. 
Unlike at the U.N. however, the United States has no power to veto WTO 
decisions.
  I am very concerned that the WTO will be a supreme court of trade 
whose decisions will force the United States to change Federal, State, 
and local laws to conform with those decisions. Supporters of GATT 
argue that the United States is not required to change its laws. But 
article XVI, paragraph 5 of the WTO states ``No reservations may be 
made in respect to any provisions of this Agreement.'' The cost of not 
conforming all U.S. laws to WTO mandates is severe economic penalties 
being imposed on the United states.
  Take the Buy California law, for example. If Sri Lanka decides that 
this law interferes with their ability to export to California, they 
can challenge the California law before the WTO. And if a panel full of 
Third World representatives decides that Sri Lanka has a legitimate 
grievance, the United States will be forced to pay a continuing fine or 
California will be forced to change its State law.
  No State will be allowed to defend its laws against challenges from 
foreign governments since only national governments will have standing 
before the WTO. It is not hard to imagine the Federal Government, in an 
attempt to avoid WTO-imposed sanctions, pressing California and other 
States to voluntarily alter their laws to conform with the decisions 
handed down by the WTO.
  But this possibility is outrageous. Foreign bureaucrats have no right 
to dictate, let alone debate, by what laws Americans should abide.
  Congress, not the World Trade Organization, is given the authority 
and the duty under the U.S. Constitution to make laws. Congress is also 
charged with the constitutional duty to regulate commerce with foreign 
nations. Under the fast track rules by which we consider GATT, no 
Member of Congress is allowed to offer amendments to the agreement, and 
all debate is limited to 4 hours.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the provisions in H.R. 
5110 that would change our patent laws. Under this agreement, patents 
would expire 20 years after an inventor applies for exclusive rights. 
This change would dramatically reduce the length of time many U.S. 
patents are valid and tremendously reduce the royalties owed by 
Japanese and multinational corporations to American inventors. I am 
very concerned that this reduction in our inventors' rights will 
decimate American inventiveness as well as dry up private research and 
development [R&D] funds.
  Again, I support free trade and understand the economic benefits of 
reducing barriers to international trade. But this agreement is opposed 
by ardent free-traders such as Paul Craig Roberts, the Competitive 
Enterprise Institute, and The Ludwig Von Mises Institute.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not need the WTO in order to lower barriers to 
international trade. I support free trade, but I cannot support this 
GATT.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the Uruguay round negotiations on the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade took place over 8 years and 
three administrations. When the negotiations were concluded, the 
agreements addressed many matters within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce including:
  Health and safety standards regarding food safety and the protection 
of human, animal, and plant life (designated ``sanitary and 
phytosanitary standards'' in the agreements and the bill);
  Standards for environmental protection;
  Standards for consumer protection;
  Trade in services, particularly in financial services and 
telecommunications; and
  Partial funding of the implementing legislation through the 
imposition of fees for the award of certain radio licenses.
  Since the signing of the Uruguay round agreements on April 15, 1994, 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce has worked closely with the 
administration so H.R. 5110, the Uruguay Round Agreement Act, would 
appropriately address these matters. We have sought to ensure that the 
act would not only accurately reflect the terms of the agreements, but 
would also fully protect the interests and rights of the American 
people.
  To these ends, the committee obtained commitments from the 
administration to include in the act, or in the statement of 
administrative action that accompanies the act, language that 
specifically addresses these issues.
  One of the areas of greatest concern has been whether the agreements 
override United States or State health and safety, environmental, or 
consumer protection laws. At the urging of this committee, H.R. 5110 
specifically states that nothing in its provisions overrides or 
modifies any of the health and safety, environmental, or consumer 
protection laws of the United States or the States. The statement of 
administrative action further elaborates on and emphasizes this point.
  The committee also obtained inclusion in the bill of a provision that 
requires notice and comment on a decision by a Federal agency to adopt 
international health or safety standards. Further, a new requirement is 
imposed on the Food and Drug Administration that mandates this agency, 
in determining that a foreign food safety measure is equivalent to a 
U.S. measure, to follow the same rulemaking procedures that were used 
in adopting the U.S. safety measure.
  On the general issue of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, the 
committee requested that H.R. 5110 prohibit any Federal agency from 
approving imports that meet foreign health and safety standards unless 
that agency has first concluded that the foreign standard achieves at 
least the same level of protection that the U.S. standard achieves. 
Additionally, Federal agencies must publish annual notices of the 
agendas of international sanitary and phytosanitary standards-setting 
bodies so that any persons affected by matters on these agendas may 
raise issues with the responsible Federal agency.
  As to financial services, the committee has had particular concerns 
because the negotiations on this sector have not been concluded and are 
scheduled to continue until June 1995. Although U.S. financial markets, 
including particularly securities and insurance, are now open to 
foreign competition, U.S. companies are often shut out of foreign 
markets. It is essential that the United States not grant most favored 
nation [MFN] treatment to countries that do not provide fair access to 
U.S. firms. Therefore, at the request of the committee, H.R. 5110 and 
the statement of administrative action set goals for the success of the 
financial services negotiations; require that the administration 
provide a full report of the progress of these negotiations no later 
than April 30, 1995; and provide that MFN will not be granted if these 
goals are not met.
  Similarly, the negotiations on telecommunications have not yet been 
concluded. H.R. 5110 and the statement of administration set out 
standards for success in these negotiations as well as the timeframe in 
which they must be completed.
  Title VIII of H.R. 5110 contains the so-called Pioneer Preference 
provisions of the GATT implementing legislation. These provisions--
which have been distorted by some radio talk show hosts and others in 
the entertainment business--are really quite straightforward. They are 
designed to assure that the American people receive some financial 
benefit from the recipients of the Federal Communications Commission's 
Pioneer Preference awards for broadband PCS licenses.
  Last December, the FCC designated three companies as winners of 
Pioneer Preference awards. At that time, it was the Commission's 
intention to give, without charge, licenses to these companies to offer 
Personal Communications Services.
  In early May, the Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations commenced an inquiry into the Commission's 
decision. In late June, after reviewing the Commission's response to 
the subcommittee's inquiry, Congressman Moorhead and I introduced H.R. 
4700, which would have required the three companies to pay for the 
licenses that the Commission proposed to give away for free.
  In early August, the FCC reversed its earlier decision and determined 
that the recipients of the ``Pioneer Preference'' designation would 
have to pay a discounted price for their licenses. However, nowhere in 
the Communications Act is there explicit authority for the Commission 
to charge a fee in return for a license. The FCC's decision is based on 
a general provision contained in the Communications Act, and it is 
highly likely that the Commission's decision requiring the ``Pioneer 
Preference'' designees to pay will be overturned in court.

  Thus the only way to guarantee that the American people are 
compensated for these extremely valuable licenses is to enact the 
provisions of title VIII. Far from conferring a windfall, these 
provisions are necessary to prevent a windfall.
  Some radio talk show hosts and other self-interested parties have 
stirred up a hornet's nest by distorting the effect of the provisions 
contained in title VII. In order to assist my colleagues in responding 
to constituents that have been deceived by that crowd, I would like to 
insert at this point in the Record a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that a 
group of us circulated on October 7. This letter responds to the 
scurrilous and misleading statements that have been leveled against 
these provisions, and I hope that it is helpful to my colleagues.
  The Committee on Energy and Commerce carefully addressed each of 
these specific matters, as well as the others within the committee's 
jurisdiction, in working on the implementing legislation with the 
administration. We worked with a view toward protecting the legitimate 
and important interests of the American people. We have achieved this 
goal on the provisions for which the committee was responsible.
                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                  Washington, DC, October 7, 1994.
       Dear Colleague: In response to a request by the Speaker and 
     the Minority Whip, the Subcommittees on Oversight and 
     Investigations and Telecommunications and Finance of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce convened a joint hearing on 
     Wednesday, October 5, 1994 on the telecommunications 
     provisions contained in Title VIII of H.R. 5110, the GATT 
     implementation legislation.
       The leadership request came in response to allegations that 
     appeared in the press concerning both the substance of these 
     provisions and the process by which they were included in the 
     legislation.
       Over the coming weeks, you will no doubt be questioned 
     about these provisions by your constituents. To assist you in 
     your response, the majority and minority staff of the 
     Committee have jointly prepared the attached document, which 
     we believe fairly and accurately responds to the questions 
     that have been raised.
       If you have any additional questions, please do not 
     hesitate to contact David Leach of the Majority staff (5-
     3147), Gerry Waldron of the Subcommittee staff (6-2424), or 
     Michael Regan or Catherine Reid of the Minority staff (6-
     3400).
           Sincerely,
     John D. Dingell,
     Edward J. Markey,
     Carlos J. Moorhead,
     Jack Fields,
     Ron Wyden,
     Dan Schaefer,
     Michael G. Oxley,
                                  ____


 Questions and Answers About the Pioneer Preference Provisions of H.R. 
                                  5110

       1. Why are these provisions included in the GATT bill in 
     the first place? What do these provisions have to do with 
     trade?
       You're right, they don't have anything to do with trade. 
     However, under the ``pay-as-you-go'' requirements of the 
     deficit reduction laws, any bill that increases spending or 
     decreases revenues has to be accompanied by provisions to 
     neutralize the effect on the deficit. Since the GATT 
     agreement reduces tariffs, thereby reducing revenues to the 
     Government, Congress is required under law to include 
     provisions that offset the otherwise negative effect these 
     tariff reductions would have on the deficit. The pioneer 
     preference provision would generate at least $500 million, 
     and probably much more.
       The alternative--offsetting the revenue loss by increasing 
     trade-related revenues--would require that other tariffs be 
     raised.
       2. What is a pioneer preference?
       The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established the 
     ``pioneer preference'' policy, by rule, nearly four years 
     ago. This policy offered the guarantee of an FCC license to 
     entrepreneurs who successfully developed important new 
     communications services and technologies.
       There is substantial evidence to indicate that the 
     ``reward'' of the license has proven to be sufficiently 
     attractive to encourage hundreds of companies, small and 
     large, to seek innovations worthy of the pioneer grant. The 
     ``reward'' has also encouraged financial institutions to 
     invest in the innovators seeking the pioneer grant. To obtain 
     a pioneer's preference, companies have to risk more than just 
     time and money; they also have to put proprietary design 
     details into the public domain. This public disclosure, while 
     a significant competitive risk, fosters the rapid development 
     and deployment of new technologies which is at the very core 
     of the purpose of the pioneers preference policy.
       The public has already benefited from the pioneers program. 
     Innovations in the areas of low earth satellites, wireless 
     cable, and narrowband personnel communications services (PCS) 
     services have led to the granting of pioneer awards, and the 
     advancement of new services and technologies in these areas. 
     The narrowband PCS auction raised over $650 million for the 
     U.S. Treasury.
       3. Is pioneer preference unique to PCS?
       This FCC policy is not unique to PCS services. For example, 
     pioneer preferences have been awarded for other 
     telecommunications services. The first pioneer's preference 
     was awarded to Volunteers in Technical Assistance (VITA), a 
     non-profit company, for being the first to develop and 
     demonstrate the feasibility of using a low-earth orbit 
     satellite system on VHF/UHF frequencies for civilian digital 
     message communication purposes. The second award was made to 
     Mobile Telecommunications Technologies Corporation (MTEL) 
     for developing and testing an innovative new 900 MHz 
     narrowband PCS technology that will increase spectrum 
     efficiency.
       4. The Federal Communications Commission's order requires 
     the pioneers to pay 90 percent of the average bid in the top 
     10 markets. Isn't Congress undercutting the FCC's decision by 
     giving the pioneers a better deal than the FCC?
       No, for several reasons.
       First, the FCC has no explicit authority to require a 
     licensee to pay a fee in return for the license. In its 
     decision, the Commission claimed that it has implicit 
     authority contained in the general provisions of section 4(i) 
     of the Communications Act:
       ``The Commission may perform any and all acts, make such 
     rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not 
     inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the 
     execution of its functions.''
       While it is risky to predict the outcome of litigation, 
     there is a very strong likelihood that when a court rules on 
     whether or not the Commission can require a licensee to make 
     a payment, the Commission's order is going to be reversed. In 
     that case, the taxpayers will get nothing.
       Second, the Commission's order does not permit the payment 
     of the fee over time, and does not require the payment of 
     interest charges. Because these provisions are included in 
     the GATT bill, the pioneers will actually pay more utilizing 
     the GATT formula than they would if the Commission's formula 
     is upheld in court.
       5. Is this a ``backroom deal'' or did Congress consider 
     this in a deliberate fashion?
       The pioneer preference issue has been thoroughly examined 
     over the past several months by at least three Committees in 
     the House. The Subcommittees on Telecommunications and 
     Finance and Oversight and Investigations in the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee; the Budget Committee and the 
     Appropriations Committee have all examined and/or held 
     hearings on the issue.
       On December 23, 1993 the Federal Communications Commission 
     awarded the pioneer preference to three companies for 
     personal communications services licenses. Under the 
     Commission's decision, the three companies would be permitted 
     to apply for licenses while no competing applications would 
     be accepted by the FCC. The Commission also decided that 
     licenses would be awarded for free to the pioneer companies.
       Last May, the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee 
     on Oversight and Investigations initiated an inquiry into 
     allegations of irregularities in the Commission's decision 
     making process, and whether the contributions of the 
     recipients justified granting a PCS license under this 
     process instead of the auctions that will govern the award 
     of all other PCS licenses. Questions concerning the FCC's 
     process also were raised at the FCC's Appropriation 
     hearing. To remedy the problems the Oversight and 
     Investigations Subcommittee discovered in the Commission's 
     program, Chairman Dingell and Ranking Minority Member 
     Moorhead, Subcommittee Chairman Markey, along with 
     Chairman Sabo introduced H.R. 4700 on June 30. This bill 
     required that the pioneer recipients pay 90% of the market 
     value of the license instead of receiving them for free.
       On August 9, 1994, the FCC revised its policy to require 
     the pioneers to pay an amount comparable to that in the 
     legislation. The Energy and Commerce Committee remained 
     concerned, however, that the Communications Act does not give 
     the FCC explicit authority to compel a licensee to pay the 
     Government in return for a license. It was the Committee's 
     opinion that the FCC decision would likely be overturned in 
     court.
       Around this time, the Administration began negotiating with 
     the House and Senate and arrived at the 85% payment 
     requirement now contained in Title VIII of the GATT 
     legislation. On September 28, 1994 the Energy and Commerce 
     Committee marked up the GATT legislation. Title VIII was 
     discussed at the markup. On September 29, 1994, the Budget 
     Committee held a hearing on the pioneer preference issue.
       6. Critics claim that the pioneers preference amounts to a 
     ``billion dollar giveaway.'' Is this allegation supportable?
       No. This claim is wildly inflated and based on 
     insupportable assumptions. Everyone agrees that the three 
     service areas in question have a total population of 55 
     million. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have determined that the 
     value of a license per person should be calculated at $24 per 
     capita. (While densely populated urban areas obviously have a 
     greater per capita value, the pioneers' licenses awarded also 
     include large, sparsely populated rural areas where the value 
     is much below this figure). Thus, based on this $24 figure, 
     the total potential revenue in an auction without any 
     discount or preference would be $1.32 billion. The preference 
     set out in the GATT legislation requires the pioneer to pay 
     based on a formula of 85 percent of the average per capita 
     cost in the top twenty markets awarded through PCS auctions. 
     By averaging the top twenty markets, the formula avoids any 
     anomalies created by looking solely at the price paid for the 
     other license awarded in the pioneers region. (This issue is 
     discussed in greater detail in Question #7 and 9.)
       Thus, the pioneers are likely to pay $1.12 billion, under 
     this OMB and CBO endorsed model. The ``benefit'' to the three 
     companies, collectively, is $200 million. Based on 
     information provided by the three pioneer preference winners, 
     their investment to date is roughly $100 million. 
     Consequently, the net award is closer to $100 million. And, 
     as noted above, the entrepreneurial efforts, risk, and 
     ``sweat'' equity of these three companies, which the FCC 
     deemed worthy of the pioneer's award will result in the more 
     rapid deployment of the next generation of cellular, PCS 
     technology.
       7. On what basis were these three companies awarded a 
     preference for a broadband PCS license?
       Last December, the FCC awarded a pioneer preference to 
     three PCS applicants, out of more than 100 applicants. In so 
     doing, the FCC guaranteed each of these companies the 
     opportunity to file an application for a license without 
     giving other companies the opportunity to file a competing 
     application. The preference is for one of two licenses to be 
     granted in each of the three markets. If the pioneer fails to 
     build out and operate the system throughout the service area, 
     the FCC may revoke the license. The PCS awarded these 
     preferences based on its determination that their unique 
     contribution to the development of broadband PCS services and 
     technology justified the grant. The three companies which 
     were awarded a preference are:
       American Personal Communications: APC, which is 70 percent 
     owned by the Washington Post, was awarded its pioneer 
     preference principally through two, interrelated 
     developments. First, APC provided the Commission with a study 
     demonstrating that the 1850-1990 MHz band had a sufficient 
     amount of usuable spectrum to initiate PCS service without 
     relocating the many microwave operations already licensed 
     there. As the Commission acknowledges, that study focused 
     attention on the 1850-1990 MHz band by demonstrating that a 
     significant technical hurdle to using this spectrum--the 
     existing microwave users--could be overcome.
       APC's second significant contribution--its FAST 
     technology--is related to the first development. Because the 
     Commission agreed with APC that the 1950-1990 MHz band would 
     be appropriate for PCS service, an efficient technology was 
     needed to allow sharing that spectrum with existing microwave 
     licensees. The FCC determined that FAST meets that need. The 
     technology uses measurements of microwave transmissions at 
     PCS base stations to determine frequencies that can be used 
     for PCS communications without interfering with microwave 
     incumbents. Without this technology, either microwave 
     incumbents would have to be relocated before PCS could begin 
     (a time-consuming and expensive process), or the spectrum 
     that is now being auctioned would be useless for PCS (which 
     would mean little or no auction revenue).
       Cox Enterprises: Cox was the first cable company to apply 
     for an experimental PCS license proposing the use of cable 
     television plant to achieve spectrum efficiency, and 
     centralized modulation and distributed antennas to achieve 
     cost efficiencies. Cox was the first company to demonstrate 
     the technical feasibility of these ideas by testing them on 
     live cable, developing a cable/PCS interface (the Cable 
     Microcell Integrator or CMI), demonstrating centralized 
     modulation, and demonstrating a 2 GHz cell-to-cell handoff 
     with cable connected microcells. These efforts demonstrated 
     that existing cable networks can be used as part of the PCS 
     infrastructure.
       Omnipoint: The FCC granted Omnipoint its pioneer's 
     preference for its significant accomplishment in developing 
     PCS equipment--specifically, its design, development, 
     miniaturization, and deployment of the first 1850-2200 MHz 
     handheld phone. Omnipoint developed this PCS equipment based 
     on a unique implementation of spread spectrum technology; it 
     documented the feasibility of its system; and it demonstrated 
     the system in operation. The technical feasibility of 
     Omnipoint's system was also tested and documented by more 
     parties than any other PCS system and has been independently 
     verified to be capable of coexisting with incumbent microwave 
     users in the 1850-1990 MHz spectrum band, thus minimizing the 
     number of microwave licensees that must relocate.
       8. Why are the markets in which the pioneers received their 
     licenses excluded from the formula? Won't this result in a 
     windfall to companies like the Washington Post and Cox 
     Enterprises?
       First, all predictions about the behavior of bidders at 
     spectrum auctions are entirely speculative. We have little 
     experience on which to base predictions. Earlier this year, 
     when the only auction that is comparable to the PCS auction 
     was held, bidders paid a total of $678 million for 10 
     licenses that Government economists thought were of so little 
     value they didn't even bother to estimate how much was going 
     to be raised.
       Second, while attempting to predict the behavior of bidders 
     is at best speculative, we do know this: The bidding on 
     licenses in markets where pioneers have been awarded another 
     license at a discount is going to be different than the 
     bidding in markets where there is no pioneer license.
       For instance, a case can be made that the winning bid for 
     the remaining license is going to be higher than it otherwise 
     should be, because the supply of licenses available for 
     bidding has been reduced by 50 percent. Since the supply has 
     been reduced, the price is likely to be artificially 
     increased.
       If the pioneers are required to pay an amount equal to 85 
     percent of that artificially inflated price, they could well 
     end up paying more for the license than they would if they 
     simply bid for it at the auction.
       On the other hand, giving the pioneers a discount--either 
     of 100 percent, as originally proposed by the FCC, or 15 
     percent, as contained in the GATT legislation--will confer a 
     competitive advantage of some magnitude on the pioneer. That 
     could have the effect of reducing the amount competitors are 
     willing to pay, and reduce the amount of the winning bid.
       The short answer is this: We know that the bidding in 
     markets where there is a pioneer is going to be different. 
     What we don't know is whether the difference is going to 
     result in higher or lower bids. In order to reduce the risk 
     created by this uncertainty--to the Government and to the 
     pioneers--those markets have been excluded from the formula.
       9. The GATT legislation requires the pioneers to pay 
     according to a formula that is based on the top twenty 
     markets, which ignores the fact that two of the pioneer 
     licenses are the two biggest cities in the country. Doesn't 
     this create a windfall for the pioneers, because the New York 
     and Los Angeles markets are very concentrated and highly 
     lucrative?
       We don't think so. Given the speculative nature of 
     attempting to predict the behavior of bidders at auction, a 
     definitive response is impossible to predict. However, there 
     are several reasons to conclude that there will not be any 
     windfall to these companies.
       First, the serve areas--known as Metropolitan Trading Areas 
     (MTAs) are huge. Sure, the New York MTA includes Manhattan--
     but it also includes North Hero, Vermont, and Elmira, New 
     York. The Southern California MTA includes Los Angeles and 
     San Diego--but also includes Kingman, Arizona and Beatty, 
     Nevada. And the FCC's rules require that the pioneers offer 
     the same services in these remote areas as they do in 
     downtown New York or Los Angeles. If the licenses were 
     limited to the urban areas, there might be some basis for 
     this claim. But as the size of the service territory 
     increases to include vast rural areas and small towns, the 
     differences between the various MTAs disappear.
       Second, the allegation that there is a substantial 
     difference in the values of the very largest markets and 
     other large markets is not borne out by an examination of the 
     existing cellular marketplace. Recent transactions involving 
     the sale of cellular systems do not reveal any price 
     distinction, on a per capita basis, between the very largest 
     cities and other large cities.
       Finally, our limited experience with auctions indicates 
     that when the bidding for the most desirable licenses gets to 
     be too expensive for some of the bidders, they simply drop 
     out of the bidding for those licenses and bid up the prices 
     of the next tier of licenses. To the extent that there is a 
     distinction between the very largest MTAs and other large 
     MTAs (and we don't anticipate that there will be), this 
     behavior will have the effect of drawing up the prices being 
     paid for all MIA licenses.

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, on Wednesday before Thanksgiving 
President Clinton and Senate Republican leader Bob Dole came to some 
agreements on matters of concern that are part of the GATT implementing 
legislation, H.R. 5110. Some of these concerns are integral to the GATT 
agreement and others are totally extraneous. Among these extraneous 
provisions are the amount of money the recipients of certain FCC 
licenses for cellular telecommunications should pay for these licenses 
and the change in the term of U.S. patents.
  So that the record of these agreements is complete I call to the 
attention of my colleagues the following three letters from Leon 
Panetta, White House Chief of Staff, Mickey Kantor, U.S. Trade 
Representative and Ginger Lew, General Counsel of the Department of 
Commerce to Senator Dole.
  I particularly want to note the change of position of the Clinton 
administration on the change made by the GATT legislation in the term 
of U.S. patents.
  The administration has in the past vigorously opposed my position, 
that in compliance with the GATT agreement, the U.S. patent term should 
be 20 years from the date of application or 17 years from the issuance 
of the patent, whichever is longer. Mr. Kantor's letter on page 5 ends 
that opposition, saying with respect to the length of the U.S. patent 
term: ``* * * if the Congress does revisit the issue and reaches the 
conclusion that a change * * * should be made, the administration would 
not oppose legislation to achieve that change.''
  This is a major change--from opposition to no opposition.
  I call on my colleagues to read these letters and join me in 
cosponsoring legislation I intend to introduce in January to fix the 
mistaken patent changes made by H.R. 5110. Based on Mr. Kantor's letter 
I look forward to having President Clinton increase patent protection 
for U.S. inventors by signing a bill making the U.S. patent term 20 
years from application or 17 years from issuance, whichever is longer.
  The letters follow:


                                              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, multi-state, 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 
     formulas 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 statute 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 on 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.
                                  ____

         U.S. Trade Representative, Executive Office of the 
           President,
                                Washington, DC, November 23, 1994.
     Hon. Bob Dole,
     Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: Secretary Bentsen, Leon Panetta, and I 
     appreciated the chance to discuss the remaining issues of 
     concern to you in the Uruguay Round implementing legislation. 
     We believe that your concerns can be addressed in a way that 
     enables you to join us in providing the leadership to bring 
     the Uruguay Round effort to a successful conclusion.
       You have expressed concern about (1) the World Trade 
     Organization (WTO), dispute settlement, and sovereignty; and 
     (2) the change proposed in the term of patent protection. Let 
     me respond on each issue.

                wto, dispute settlement, and sovereignty

       Critics of the Uruguay Round have charged that proposed WTO 
     and the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) would 
     unacceptably infringe U.S. and state sovereignty. I agree 
     that no trade agreement, whatever its economic benefits, 
     should be approved if it infringes U.S. or state sovereignty. 
     But it is clear, as I have testified many times, that the 
     critics' fears concerning sovereignty are without foundation.
       Three Administrations--two Republican and one Democratic--
     steadfastly safeguarded our sovereignty throughout the 
     negotiations. This year, working together on a bipartisan 
     basis, the Administration and Congress established further 
     protections for sovereignty through the implementing 
     legislation.
       A broad range of individuals and groups of diverse views 
     across the political spectrum support the view that the 
     Uruguay Round agreements do not affect U.S. sovereignty. 
     These include Consumers Union, the Heritage Foundation, the 
     American Enterprise Institute, Judge Robert Bork, the 
     National Governors Association, the National Conference of 
     State Legislatures, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the 
     American Bar Association, just to name a few.
       Section 102(a)(1) of the implementing legislation 
     unequivocally reaffirms that U.S. law prevails in every 
     situation over any conflicting provision of the Uruguay Round 
     agreements. Further, Articles IX and X of the WTO agreement 
     make it clear that no substantive right or obligation of the 
     U.S. can be altered or changed unless we agree. Article IX 
     establishes that the WTO will operate by consensus--just 
     as the GATT has. The charge that the United States will be 
     outvoted on important issues in a system where each 
     country has one vote is a ``scarecrow'' in the view of 
     Judge Bork. In its recent report on the WTO, the Heritage 
     Foundation posed the question: ``Does the WTO have any 
     power over the United States that could undermine U.S. 
     sovereignty?'' The Foundation's unequivocal answer was 
     ``none whatsoever''.
       Neither the WTO nor WTO dispute settlement panels will have 
     the power to change, or order any change, in Federal, state, 
     or local laws or regulations. Only we in the United States 
     can change our laws. Longstanding practice of the GATT, 
     continued in the WTO, assures that the disputes, we will only 
     be in front of panelists approved by the United States.
       Moreover, while the dispute settlement process is not yet 
     as open as the litigation process in the United States, it is 
     far removed from being the ``secret tribunal'' that critics 
     allege. U.S. briefs in panel cases will take into account 
     Congressional advice and the views of the public. In addition 
     we will provide prompt access to our submissions, and access 
     to at least non-confidential summaries of other WTO member 
     submissions. Panel reports will be made public as soon as we 
     receive them, and our response to any panel report will be 
     developed with Congress. Also, section 123(g)(3) of the 
     implementing legislation permits the appropriate committees 
     of Congress to vote on whether the United States should 
     comply with a panel report.
       We have fully safeguarded the right of federal, state, and 
     local governments to protect human, plant, and animal health 
     and safety at whatever level of protection we see fit. 
     Furthermore, state governments may impose more stringent 
     standards than the Federal government and we will be free to 
     exceed international standards when necessary to achieve the 
     level of protection we believe appropriate.
       Thanks to extensive consultation with groups of state 
     officials, led by the National Association of Attorneys 
     General and the Multistate Tax Commissioners, state 
     sovereignty is fully protected. This includes the right of 
     the states to participate at every stage of the dispute 
     settlement process if a state law is challenged.
       Finally, while the Administration believes that U.S. 
     interests are fully protected, the WTO agreement permits the 
     United States to withdraw on six months' notice at any time 
     and for any reason. Additionally, section 125 of the 
     implementing legislation provides an expedited process by 
     which Congress can review U.S. participation in the WTO every 
     five years, and revoke approval of the WTO agreement if it 
     so chooses.
       Sovereignty has been the central issue in the debate on the 
     WTO throughout this year. When members of Congress or other 
     individuals or groups have come forward with concerns, we 
     have worked hard, and effectively, to address them. 
     Nevertheless, we recognize that concerns remain, in Congress 
     and around the country, about our sovereignty under the WTO, 
     and particularly the impact of a dispute settlement system 
     where ``blocking'' of panel reports is no longer permitted. 
     We believe that it is important to approve the Uruguay Round 
     agreements with the broadest possible bipartisan support and 
     public confidence. Consequently, the Administration wants to 
     ensure that WTO dispute settlement decisions are fully 
     consistent with the Uruguay Round agreements by providing 
     additional guarantees that WTO dispute settlement decisions 
     will be vigorously monitored to ensure that U.S. sovereignty 
     is not adversely affected.
       To that end, the Administration will support legislation 
     next year to establish a WTO Dispute Settlement Review 
     Commission. The Commission would consist of five Federal 
     appellate judges, appointed by the President in consultation 
     with the Leadership of both Houses and the Chairmen and 
     Ranking Members of the Ways & Means and Finance Committees. 
     Each Commissioner would have a four-year term with possible 
     renewals. Provision would be made for appropriate staggering 
     of the terms of the Commissioners.
       The Commission will review all final (i.e., adopted) WTO 
     dispute settlement reports (by a panel if the panel report is 
     not appealed or by the Appellate Body) where the final report 
     is adverse to the United States. In each such case, the 
     Commission would determine whether the panel or appellate 
     Body:
       1. Demonstrably exceeded its authority or terms of 
     reference or, where the matter concerned the Uruguay Round 
     Antidumping Agreement, failed to apply Article 17.6 
     concerning standard of review;
       2. Added to the obligations or diminished the rights the 
     United States assumed under the pertinent Uruguay Round 
     agreement;
       3. Acted arbitrarily or capriciously, engaged in 
     misconduct, or demonstrably departed from the procedures 
     specified for panels or the Appellate Body in the agreements;

     and whether:

       4. The action in 1, 2, or 3 materially affects the outcome 
     of the report.
       The Commission would issue its determination within 120 
     days after the report is adopted. Three votes would be 
     required for an affirmative determination. The U.S. 
     Government and interested parties would have the right to be 
     heard by the Commission.
       Following issuance of any affirmative determination by the 
     Commission, any Member of each House would be able to 
     introduce a joint resolution calling on the President to 
     negotiate new dispute settlement rules that would address and 
     correct the problem identified by the Commission. The 
     resolution would be privileged. The resolution would be 
     discharged from the Ways & Means and Finance Committees under 
     the same procedures provided in section 125 of the 
     implementing legislation; floor action would be expedited 
     under the same procedures.
       If there are three affirmative determinations in any five-
     year period, any Member of each House would be able to 
     introduce a joint resolution to disapprove U.S. participation 
     in the Uruguay Round agreements under the same procedures set 
     forth in section 125 of the implementing legislation. If the 
     resolution is enacted by the Congress and signed by the 
     President, the United States will commence withdrawal from 
     the WTO Agreement.

                       term of patent protection

       You have expressed concern about the provision of the 
     implementing legislation which would change the terms of 
     patents in the United States. Specifically, you have asked 
     the Administration to support legislation next year which 
     would change the patent term to grant patents for a term 
     beginning on the date on which the patent issues, and ending 
     on the later of 20 years from the date on which the patent 
     application was filed in the United States or 17 years after 
     the date of the grant.
       Under present law, patent rights exist for a term of 17 
     years measured from the date the patent is granted. The 
     legislation would change our current system to provide for a 
     patent term of 20 years measured from the earliest effective 
     filing date of the application that leads to the patent.
       This change, which has the strong, bipartisan support of 
     the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, has been 
     recommended numerous times by expert study groups starting as 
     far back as 1967. One reason the Committees support both the 
     change and the approach taken in the implementing bill is 
     that it will address the problem of ``submarine patents''.
       A ``submarine patent'' can exist when a patent applicant 
     delays grant of the patent, sometimes for years, even after 
     the Patent and Trademark Office has determined that a patent 
     can be granted. In the meantime, an entire industry has built 
     up around the technology, since patent applications are held 
     secret until after the patent is issued. When the patent 
     issues, the inventor often demands high royalties as the 
     price of not suing companies for patent infringement. The 
     proposal of providing a term of the longer of 20 years from 
     filing or 17 from grant of the patent would not address this 
     problem, since there still will be no incentive for the 
     patent applicant to stop delaying patent grant.
       Under the implementing bill, almost all U.S. patent owners 
     will have a longer term of protection than they now have. 
     There are several reasons for this, but the key point is that 
     we included provisions that would add up to five years to the 
     20-year term provided under the implementing bill if there is 
     delay in getting the patent and that delay is not the fault 
     of the patent owner.
       For all these reasons, we believe that the case for the 
     change is compelling, and it will bring great benefits to our 
     patent holders and innovators. The proposed change has 
     extraordinarily broad support in the business and 
     intellectual property communities, ranging from manufacturing 
     and chemical companies, such as 3M, Dow Chemical, 
     Westinghouse, MARS, Exxon Research and Engineering Company, 
     Deere & Company, Bridgestone/Firestone, DuPont, Cincinnati 
     Milacron, Pioneer Hybred, and Fisher-Rosemount to the 
     Intellectual Property Law Section of the ABA, the American 
     Intellectual Property Owners' Association (AIPLA), and the 
     Intellectual Property Owners' Association (IPO).
       We believe that if Congress reconsiders the issue next year 
     it will reach the same conclusion reached by the 
     Administration and the Judiciary Committees over the nine 
     months that we work on the implementing bill. Nevertheless, 
     if the Congress does revisit the issue and reaches the 
     conclusion that a change in accordance with your proposal 
     should be made, the Administration would not oppose 
     legislation to achieve that change.
       Once again, thank you for discussing this matter with us. I 
     look forward to working with you to secure approval of this 
     historic agreement.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Michael Kantor.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
strong opposition to the GATT implementing legislation we have before 
us today.
  I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of a bill which will cost 
American jobs, decrease U.S. sovereignty, and cost U.S. taxpayers 
billions of dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, by passing this legislation, the Congress will be 
putting its stamp of approval on the creation of the powerful, 
unprecedented, far-reaching World Trade Organization [WTO], which will 
allow every country--regardless of population, industrial base, or 
economic policies--an equal voice in formulating global trade laws. 
Despite the fact that the United States leads the world in trade and 
fair labor practices, it will have no more power, authority, or say 
within the WTO than those countries that produce far less and treat 
workers with little or no dignity.
  In fact, third world nations will hold over four-fifths of the votes 
in the WTO. More than 75 percent of WTO members voted against the 
United States at the United Nations over half the time.
  We cannot, Mr. Chairman, allow the United States to be held hostage 
by small, inexperienced, and undeveloped countries that will reap 
benefits and power through the lopsided votes in the WTO and GATT.
  GATT puts millions of American jobs at risk. Over one million textile 
jobs alone will be lost once implementation of the agreement occurs. We 
cannot guarantee that other trade-related positions will experience 
shifts from the United States to other countries. Clearly, the American 
worker cannot afford these prospects.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated 
that GATT will cost $43 billion in lost tariff revenues, while the 
Clinton administration has provided only $12 billion in funding. We 
cannot afford to increase the deficit by spending the remaining $31 
billion on such a questionable proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, this agreement is bad for workers, it is bad for the 
economy and it is bad for the country. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in opposing this legislation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern that we have 
failed to take advantage of a great opportunity in GATT negotiations--
the opportunity to improve worldwide standards for human rights, 
working conditions, and environmental policies--the opportunity to make 
this agreement work for everyone by bringing the rest of the world up 
to our level.
  With a better agreement, America's businesses could have profited 
while jobs were created in this country and throughout the world. 
Working families could have looked forward to a turnaround in their 
prospects for an expanding job market with the promise to employ people 
in the jobs of the future, jobs that pay a livable wage. And those of 
us who are concerned about the future health of our planet could have 
looked forward to a worldwide improvement of environmental standards. 
In short, we could have crafted an agreement that would bring the world 
up to our Nation's standards in terms of working conditions and 
environmental protection, while expanding trade, creating jobs and 
improving our economy.
  Instead, I fear that the current GATT agreement will do more than 
just bring tariffs down. I fear that it will bring nations down to the 
lowest common denominator in terms of environmental and labor 
standards. It is a shame that in an era which desperately needs 
expanded trade and global tariff reduction, we are unable to fight for 
the standards which would make it worthwhile.
  Because of this failure, it is with much regret that despite my 
strong support for expanded trade, I will not be voting for the 
legislation to implement the GATT Agreement as it is currently 
constructed.
  The wage disparities between the United States and many of the GATT 
countries are extremely large. In addition, workplace safety laws, 
collective bargaining laws, and human rights standards are not 
respected by many of our trading partners. Without a mechanism to 
ensure that our workers will not be forced to sacrifice wage levels and 
working conditions in order to compete with the working people of other 
GATT countries, this trade agreement could be more of a danger than an 
opportunity. Until we level the playing field, I cannot support an 
agreement which risks the livelihood of our workers who have already 
suffered so much in recent years. I cannot tell American workers that a 
price reduction in a Mercedes Benz justifies the wage cut which will be 
necessary to compete with cheap labor worldwide.
  I also cannot tell dairy producers and other small family farmers in 
my district that price reductions on foreign goods are worth the cuts 
which GATT could make in their profits. This agreement mandates 
increased imports of farm commodities, which will cut profits for the 
family farms of this Nation. Cheaper foreign goods will not matter to 
farmers whose livelihood could disappear under the new GATT provisions.
  The opportunity to raise worldwide environmental standards also fell 
by the wayside during the latest round of trade negotiations. Under the 
old GATT, our Nation's Marine Mammal Protection Act survived a 
challenge by the Mexican Government, which claimed that dolphin 
protection constituted an unfair trade barrier. The agreement we are 
being asked to vote on today could jeopardize laws such as the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act because of the creation of the World Trade 
Organization, a worldwide body which will have the potential to 
supersede our national, State, and local laws. The district which I am 
privileged to represent, Sonoma and Marin Counties, has some of the 
most progressive environmental protection laws in the country. I do not 
believe that my constituents want to see local environmental standards 
jeopardized by a global trade agreement.
  Not only are we jeopardizing workers' rights and environmental 
standards by rushing to pass this legislation, we are jeopardizing the 
great progress we have made in reducing the deficit over the past 2 
years. Later this week, the Senate will not only cast a vote on the 
GATT Treaty, but on a provision to waive the rule that the cost of GATT 
during its sixth through tenth year must be paid for, meaning that up 
to $20 billion in deficit spending is required to implement the treaty. 
One might argue that a good trade agreement that works for everyone 
deserves a budget waiver, and, that increasing international trade is 
good for our economy in the long run, if the conditions are right. But 
in our efforts to reduce the deficit in the past 2 years, we have not 
given special budget waivers to education programs or crime-fighting 
projects. I do no see special circumstances dictating that GATT should 
be granted this privilege when domestic programs of at least equal 
importance have not been given equal consideration and have fallen 
victim to our deficit reduction efforts.
  These are some of the reasons that calls and letters have come to me 
in opposition to GATT by a margin of 7 to 1. These constituents who 
have taken the time to share their views with me do not believe that we 
must rush into a trade agreement which doesn't work for everyone, and I 
agree with them. We must not sell ourselves short. We can do better. So 
let it be clear that although I am voting ``no'' today, I do so with 
the hope that I will have the opportunity to vote ``yes'' in the near 
future, to vote ``yes'' on an agreement which spurs international trade 
and makes products cheaper worldwide, while bringing the world's labor 
and environmental standards to our level, standards which would make 
this agreement work for everyone.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to GATT. 1994 
has been difficult at best for Montana's farmers and ranchers. Canadian 
grain trucks line up in front of them at local elevators, waves of 
Canadian semis head south through Montana laden with live cattle or 
boxed beef, most likely uninspected using the State as a mere highway 
to other markets. Domestic cattle prices have hit bottom and no sign of 
substantial recovery is seen in the near future.
  Passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] last year 
may have merely extended that highway into Mexico, and soon beyond. 
Farmers felt that they were sold out in these agreements. They've heard 
the promises before, and when the basic agricultural producer has to 
live through the experience of the actual results they hear new excuses 
about ``certain dislocations'' and ``some sectors benefiting more than 
others.''
  Fiscal 1994 imports of agricultural products into the United States 
reached a record $24 billion of October 1993 to August 1994, up 7 
percent from the same period in fiscal 1993. Grain and feed imports 
reached $2.1 billion, 46 percent over the previous year. Wheat imports 
from Canada doubled to 2.6 million tons, contributing to the $668 
million in total grain and feed imports.
  While agricultural imports increased dramatically the export side did 
not fare as well, exports to the European Union [EU] were 14 percent 
lower than last year and exports to Canada rose less than 1 percent 
offsetting gains to Japan.
  Beef imports are 4 percent below the same period in fiscal year 1993, 
although shipments from Canada--103,000 tons of beef--are 32 percent 
ahead of fiscal year 1993.
  United States grain producers problems with Canada may well escalate 
with the passage of GATT. President Clinton was able to negotiate some 
relief for durum wheat producers by threatening to invoke Article 22 of 
the Agricultural Adjustment Act, designed to protect domestic farm 
support programs from unfair foreign trading practices.
  In a June 9 statement to the Canadian press Canada's Prime Minister 
Jean Chretien described the recent wheat deal as a stop gap measure 
until the WTO finds section 22 GATT illegal, ``(a)t the moment, (the 
United States) can use Article 22 and this will not exist next year. 
They can do that under the old GATT rules that are still in 
application. And next June, when they will have passed the GATT rules 
of the Uruguay round, they will not be able to use Article 22.''
  Based on what's happened with the United States-Canada Free Trade 
Agreement and NAFTA, I can only conclude that GATT is more of the same. 
When Montana farmers and ranchers are told that GATT is the ``golden 
goose'' for future American and global economies they get the sinking 
feeling that they are the feed that is going to fatten that goose. They 
wonder if they can keep being pecked at until that goose finally lays 
its first golden eggs, and wonder if those eggs are really gold.
  However, imports are but one threat to Montana's farmers and 
ranchers. The WTO will enable foreign governments to challenge our food 
and environmental safety standards. U.S. food safety standards have 
already been successfully challenged in international trade forums. It 
is indeed telling that the first page of the agriculture bilateral 
agreements of GATT relate to resolution of outstanding issues 
pertaining to United States health and sanitary restrictions on 
Argentine beef.

  Questions and concerns about the food supply will increase if food 
safety standards are compromised jeopardizing both American consumers 
and producers.
  The Uruguay round will empower international tribunals to override 
state laws protecting the economy, the environment, workers and 
consumers. While the WTO will not have legislative authority to either 
repeal Federal, State, or local statutes and ordinances it will have 
authority to levy financial sanctions against jurisdictions whose 
national, State, or local laws are found to be GATT illegal.
  National governments alone, would have standing to defend laws 
challenged by the WTO. For example, if a Montana statute was found GATT 
illegal, the State would have no authority to defend its law, the U.S. 
Government would have to see that the law was changed or pay the fine 
assessed by the WTO. I am not convinced that the proposal to establish 
a WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission adequately protects State 
decisionmaking.
  On behalf of Montana's farmers, ranchers, working people and 
conservationists I ask you to join me in defeating H.R. 5110.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, today's edition of the Washington Post 
carries a half-page ad picturing two of our predecessors, Senator Reed 
Smoot of Utah and Representative Willis Hawley of Oregon. It is only 
fitting that we reflect upon their legacy today because we must now 
choose whether to return to the economic policy they advocated more 
than 60 years ago, which was to isolate our industries from 
international competition by raising tariffs, or to adopt a policy 
which will position American businesses to be fierce competitors in the 
21st century by lowering tariffs and removing aritifical barriers to 
trade.
  These two gentlemen, whose intentions were probably good and 
honorable, asked the Members of the 71st Congress to endorse the notion 
that high tariffs could provide economic security for the people of the 
United States. Having the benefit of hindsight, we now know that the 
Congress of 1930 made a disastrous decision. Other nations, effectively 
denied entry to the U.S. marketplace, but still facing competition from 
U.S. manufacturers, had little choice but to counter our high tariffs 
with correspondingly high tariffs. Consequently, world trade collapsed 
and the economies of the world plunged deeper into depression.
  The trade agreement before us rejects the philosophy of Reed Smoot 
and Willis Hawley. It will lower barriers to trade and open new markets 
for American-made goods. If we reject this trade agreement today, it is 
a virtual certainty that other nations will move to protect their 
markets tomorrow. Regional trading blocs will probably form, and if the 
United States does not belong to those blocs, our exports to any of the 
member countries will be jeopardized if not prohibited altogether. The 
likelihood of trade wars and other forms of economic conflict will 
increase sharply. Lower demand for U.S. goods will translate into fewer 
jobs, and our economy will slow. Our meager savings rate will decline 
and interest rates will rise, further exacerbating our economic 
troubles. In short, history will repeat itself and the Congress will 
have demonstrated that we failed to learn from our mistakes.
  My colleagues, the United States benefits enormously from trade. One 
out of every six jobs in this country depends on our ability to export. 
Goods destined for foreign markets constitute nearly 12 percent of our 
gross domestic product. Indeed, the United States is the biggest 
exporter in the world.
  As such, we have more to lose than any other nation. We cannot ensure 
a high standard of living, a low unemployment rate, and economic 
security for the people of this country with a short-sighted, beggar-
thy-neighbor trade policy. We know it won't work. Reed Smoot and Willis 
Hawley showed us it won't work.
  Allow me to make one final point. Some of our colleagues have argued 
that while they support the idea of freer, expanded trade, they fear 
that we may be endangering our sovereignty in the process. Our right to 
govern ourselves is sacred, and I, for one, would not support any 
multinational agreement that impinged upon that most fundamental 
element of our national identity. While I believe that the World Trade 
Organization has been grossly mischaracterized, it would be prudent and 
appropriate to lay these fears to rest before proceeding. As we heard 
last week, Senator Dole was able to obtain a guarantee for the American 
people that their decisions will not be overruled by a foreign body. 
The arrangement he negotiated with the White House provides the needed 
balance to this trade agreement.
  It also frees us from extraneous concerns and allows us to focus on 
the fundamental choice before us: Do we return to the protectionist 
policies of the 1930's or do we prepare for the future by providing an 
unencumbered world marketplace in which American businesses can compete 
and flourish? I ask that you remember the lessons of the past and 
embrace the future.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the 
legislation to implement the GATT Uruguay round. The goal of this 
international trade agreement is to free up the flow of global goods 
and services by cutting tariffs and reducing trade barriers. I am 
voting for the GATT because I believe that, on balance, this agreement 
between 132 nations will benefit the United States and create jobs here 
at home. Some studies indicate that the GATT Uruguay round will create 
between 300,000 and 700,000 additional permanent new jobs in the United 
States.
  We have a more open market than any other country in the world. A 
trip to any store illustrates the ease with which goods flow into our 
Nation from producers around the world. Unfortunately, we often have 
trouble getting our products into the markets of other nations, not 
because our products are inferior, but because other countries erect 
barriers through laws and regulations. This GATT agreement will help to 
open these other markets and give the U.S. recourse to address other 
countries' unfair trade practices.
  One of the most significant provisions of the GATT Uruguay round 
which will have a positive impact in my State of California is the 
heightened protection it will provide for intellectual property. The 
GATT rules will help to protect from piracy a major segment of the 
future of American competitiveness, our intellectual and creative 
products, including semiconductor designs, computer programs, books, 
movies, and music.
  Concerns have been raised about the World Trade Organization [WTO] 
and its relationship to U.S. Federal and State laws. It is important to 
remember that the WTO cannot force the United States to change its 
laws. It is also important to keep in mind that the United States, like 
any other country, can withdraw from the WTO with 6 months notice. The 
administration has also agreed to set up panels of judges to review WTO 
panel rulings. If three WTO decisions adverse to the U.S. are 
determined by the judges to be improper, Congress could start 
proceedings to withdraw from it.
  During the course of the debate on GATT leading up to today's vote, I 
have expressed to the administration my concerns and those of my 
constituents about the possible adverse impact of the Uruguay round on 
the environment and labor standards. I understand that the agreement 
preserves each country's right to maintain sciene-based standards 
stricter than international standards for the protection of human, 
animal, or plant life or health in its territory. While my concerns 
have not been fully addressed, there is some encouragement that during 
the negotiations, other nations agreed to discuss environmental issues 
as a part of any future GATT agreement negotiations. Successfully 
addressing the threats to the environment created by increased 
industrialization worldwide will require a multilateral effort. 
Ambassador Kantor, in his efforts to conclude the GATT Uruguay round, 
has taken a step forward in raising the visibility, the importance and 
the inclusion of environmental issues in a multilateral forum.
  I believe that much more needs to be done. Especially in a world 
where foreign policy is unfortunately determined by commercial 
engagement, the critical issues of environmental protection and workers 
rights must be an integral part of trade negotiations. These issues are 
not confined to this GATT agreement. They must be pursued at all 
opportunities. I will continue to work with my colleagues to promote 
sustainable development, workers rights and human rights in our 
international economic relationships.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 5110, the GATT implementing legislation.
  Through all the political smoke and mirrors that have dominated the 
last few days in the national media, the facts about the benefits GATT 
will bring to this Nation remain visible.
  For my home State of Texas, GATT will create more opportunity through 
a level playing field in many industries.
  The aerospace industry, for example, will benefit from tariff 
reductions that average 72 percent in major foreign markets. With a 
current $28 billion surplus in this industry that will expand under 
GATT, we can see real economic gain.
  For the computer equipment industry, GATT means more trade. The 
European Union, which is the largest market for U.S. computer exports, 
will reduce tariffs by nearly 80 percent.
  For medical equipment, GATT means the virtual elimination of tariffs, 
including those in the largest U.S. export markets such as Japan, 
Canada, the European community and Hong Kong.
  Examples such as these for industries across my State and across the 
Nation.
  The reality is that GATT is an agreement that will benefit this 
Nation. Three Presidents have participated in the negotiating process 
for the agreement, and Congress has been kept informed of the 
developments. The time has come to take action and pass GATT.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of 
provisions of H.R. 5110, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, that deal 
with food safety.
  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. 
Many of these hearings have dealt with the impact of trade agreements 
on U.S. food safety standards.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak a moment now on an issue of special 
interest to me, and that is food safety. Over the past few years, the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection and Competitiveness has 
held many hearings on how trade agreements limit the ability of U.S. 
agencies to enforce 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 Nation's 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, every again.
  At hearings 3 years ago, my subcommittee heard from a U.S. Department 
of Agriculture import meat inspector who testified that the Department 
of Agriculture had cut back its inspection of meat entering the United 
States from Canada as a result of the United States-Canada Free Trade 
Agreement.
  In the name of free trade, the United States changed its meat 
inspection regulations, so that Canadian--not United States--inspectors 
pulled samples for inspection and 9 out of 10 trucks carrying Canadian 
meat did not even stop at our border for inspection. After many 
hearings and investigations by the subcommittee, the Department of 
Agriculture changed its policy to make sure all shipments of Canadian 
meat stop on entering our country and to put inspection back in the 
hands of United States, not Canadian, inspectors.
  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 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.
  What happened with Canadian meat should never have been permitted. 
American citizens pay their Government--not foreign governments--to 
establish and to enforce standards that protect their health and 
safety. Our Government must never give up its responsibility for 
protecting the safety of the U.S. food supply and the public health 
generally, in order to promote trade with other countries.
  Thank you.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
[GATT] is the product of years of negotiations by Presidents Reagan, 
Bush, and Clinton. The resulting bipartisan, multilateral agreement 
reduces tariffs and other trading restrictions for the 120 major 
trading nations who are participating. Fairer, clearer rules will allow 
American workers and American businesses to compete on a level playing 
field and to show that they are indeed the best in the world.
  The results will speak for themselves. GATT is estimated to create 
between $100 million and $500 billion in U.S. economic growth over the 
next decade. It is also expected to create as many as 1.4 million jobs 
in this country over the same period. And, the global tariff reductions 
will benefit U.S. consumers in the form of lower prices.
  In Wisconsin, GATT is likely to build on our success in exporting 
goods and services. My State has experienced a 98 percent rise in 
merchandise exports in the last 6 years, largely on the strength of 
growth in industrial machinery and computers, scientific instruments, 
and electric and electronic equipment. These sectors, and all 
businesses, will benefit from lower foreign tariffs and protection 
against intellectual property infringement.
  Earlier this year, I expressed a number of concerns about this 
agreement. Fortunately, the implementing legislation we will pass today 
addresses these matters to my satisfaction.
  First and foremost, I must comment on the wave of distortions levied 
by opponents of the agreement who say that the World Trade Organization 
[WTO] threatens U.S. laws and U.S. sovereignty. In my judgment, the 
agreement before us today threatens neither. After GATT is on the 
books, what is true today will be true tomorrow: only Congress will 
have the authority to change U.S. laws. Similarly, we have the largest 
economy in the world, and I have serious doubts that our sovereignty 
will be threatened by small nations because our economic retaliation 
might well be enough to thwart challenges to our trade policy.
  My foremost concern about GATT was that the WTO's dispute resolution 
process would occur behind closed doors and at the whim of 
international bureaucrats. I worked with the administration to amend 
the legislation so that the WTO's activities are more open to public 
view. One of my proposals, which became part of the legislation, 
requires the U.S. Trade Representative to open any dispute before the 
WTO involving the United States to public scrutiny by printing it in 
the Federal Register. Another amendment I worked to include in the bill 
requires the U.S. Trade Representative to take the pubic's written 
comments into account in preparing its submissions to the WTO.
  I also sought to ensure that the U.S. Trade Representative does not 
ignore public input during the dispute resolution process. A provision 
was included at my urging which establishes the framework for close and 
continuing consultations between the U.S. Trade Representative and 
interested U.S. parties. Finally, my proposal to require that the U.S. 
Trade Representative make all U.S. written submissions to the WTO 
public was also included.
  The GATT agreement before us also made substantial progress on my two 
final areas of concern, the environment and financing. First, while the 
agreement will not end all environmental problems, it elevates 
environmental considerations to the highest levels of trade policy 
making for the first time. Second, despite the fact that GATT will 
generate tremendous new business revenue and the jobs that go with it, 
current budget rules cannot account for these expected economic 
benefits. Thus, we provided $12 billion in revenue measures to pay for 
the reductions in U.S. tariffs in order for the legislation to be fully 
paid for within the 5 year estimating period required by the rules of 
the House.
  Creating jobs and opportunities for businesses in Wisconsin are two 
of my primary objectives, and GATT is expected to come through on both. 
While I had initial doubts about the agreement, I was able to get those 
concerns addressed during Congressional consideration. Thus, GATT is 
supportable because it is good for America, good for Wisconsin, and 
good for Wisconsin's Fourth Congressional District.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, today, our economy maintains a capacity to 
produce that far outstrips the ability of the roughly 258 million 
Americans to consume. The bottom line: Sustaining our quality of life 
and bolstering economic growth means American companies must trade 
outside our national borders. I know American firms and workers are up 
to that challenge and more than capable of competing with their foreign 
counterparts if given the opportunity to compete fairly. The agreement 
reached in the Uruguay round GATT negotiations and signed in Marrakesh 
can give American businesses that opportunity. But, it isn't without 
risks and it merits thorough deliberation. I strongly supported efforts 
to postpone this vote until next year, but administration officials 
acted with their usual hastiness and have now backed us into a corner 
trying to ensure that the Uruguay Round Agreement doesn't die because 
of their poor planning. I know that many Americans are very uneasy 
about the ramifications of this complex accord. My staff and I have 
been researching and reviewing all of the concerns raised by my 
constituents at town meetings and in their calls and letters. Despite 
weeks of public discussion, I continue to find that many Americans, my 
constituents included, remain uncomfortable with the idea of the WTO. 
They worry, as do I, about who may lose in the economic adjustments 
that will inevitably follow the implementation of the Uruguay Round 
Agreement. They share my alarm about reports of giveaways and pork in 
the financing package. Of course, the paramount concern for me and most 
of the southwest Floridians I represent is whether or not U.S. 
sovereignty would be threatened under this latest GATT Agreement. While 
it is clear that risks and uncertainties remain, I have found that 
there are reasonable and reassuring answers to most of the concerns 
raised. The implementing legislation includes provisions designed to 
safeguard U.S. sovereignty, create a system for congressional 
oversight, provide protection for States' laws and set up a mechanism 
for review of membership in the WTO and possible withdrawal. Given 
these important protections and the provisions in the agreement itself, 
I have been convinced that the implementation of the Uruguay round will 
not threaten American economic interests, American laws or American 
sovereignty. We know the agreement and the implementing legislation are 
not perfect--but we also know they are a necessary step forward in 
opening world markets to American goods and services. The Uruguay Round 
Agreement offers U.S. companies unprecedented access to foreign markets 
in some of our strongest economic sectors and, by most estimates, the 
reduction of international barriers to our merchandise and services 
will increase our benefits from trade on the scale of $100 to $200 
billion annually. This should mean good things for American consumers, 
American businesses and American workers. I will vote--somewhat 
hesitantly--for the legislation.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, today the House has the opportunity to 
conclude the 103rd Congress with a critically important accomplishment 
that enjoys bipartisan support both from the current and future 
leadership of this body.
  As this nation prepares to enter the 21st Century, we face a 
fundamental economic reality. The mercantilist era of competing 
nationalist economies, each seeking advantage in a zero sum game is 
dead and gone. Revolutions in communication and transportation 
technologies are leading the development of a truly global marketplace. 
So called foreign auto makers are opening assembly plants in the United 
States, while traditional ``American'' cars are often made overseas. 
Many U.S. ``imports'' include substantial components that were 
developed or manufactured here. At the same time many ``exports'' 
include substantial foreign content. It is getting difficult, if not 
impossible, to ``Buy American'' in any true sense of the word. This 
phenomena is producing unprecedented world wide economic growth that 
goes beyond the traditional zero sum competition of the past.
  Nothing we do here today will change this fundamental historic 
development. But what we do here today can go a long way to determining 
whether the new global economic competition is played by a clear set of 
rules that treats the competitors fairly, or regresses into a 
reactionary round of competing protectionist steps in a vain effort to 
stem the tide of history.
  If we pass this legislation, world wide tariffs on manufactured goods 
will be reduced by an average of one third. But within this average, 
there is considerable advantage for firms doing business in the United 
States where tariff levels are already low to non-existent. Overall, 
GATT Uruguay round will reduce tariffs by $744 billion over ten years.
  In addition, the agreement provides improved market access for a wide 
range of products produced here, including agricultural commodities. It 
increases protection for intellectual property, a major gain for high 
technology American communication firms. And it limits subsidies for 
industries such as aerospace, which will enhance the competitive 
position of American firms in a field that is increasingly dependent on 
exports.
  Each of these components has particular significance for the state of 
Washington. The markets for our fruit, wheat, forest products and other 
crops will expand substantially as part of an estimated national 
increase in agricultural exports of $5-14 billion over the next five 
years.
  The enhancement of intellectual property protection includes 
requirements for members to seize pirated and counterfeit goods at the 
border and to institute criminal penalties for such actions. This will 
ensure that firms such as Microsoft, Nintendo of America and emerging 
companies in the field of supercomputing and virtual reality in the 
Puget Sound region can fully utilize the competitive advantage that 
their cutting edge developments provide them in the world market.
  The agreement's provisions that subsidies of scientific research and 
development will only be permitted to the point of production of the 
first non-commercial prototype will help Boeing compete against both 
currently subsidies enterprises such as Airbus. They also assure that 
nations now looking to develop aerospace manufacturing will not 
undermine competition with massive subsidies.
  Concerns have been raised with respect to the establishment of the 
World Trade Organization, which is intended to better facilitate 
resolution of disputes on the application of the Uruguay round. These 
concerns are unfounded under the express provisions of both the basic 
agreement and this implementing legislation.
  Section 102 of HR 5110 expressly holds that US law prevails where 
provisions of GATT are inconsistent with it. The agreement provides for 
disputes to continue to be resolved by consensus, and expressly allows 
each nation to establish health, safety and environmental standards 
that are scientifically supported. It would, however, limit the use of 
such standards to block commodity access, as has often happened with 
the Japanese with respect to our food products. Finally the agreement 
allows withdrawal from the WTO on six months notice, the legislation 
provides for Congress to consider continue participation every five 
years, and the President has agreed to establish an independent panel 
of American judges to review any WTO decisions that are claimed to be 
arbitrary, and if there are three such instances in five years a vote 
would be triggered on our continued participation.
  Some argue that we should wait and consider implementing legislation 
next year. Doing so, after expiration of Fast Tract, would open the 
door for adding a laundry list of special interest provisions. It would 
also encourage other signers to respond in kind with their own 
provisions that would undermine the very fabric of the agreement. You 
can't negotiate a tough, comprehensive multinational agreement, and 
then have every national legislature say they want to keep their gains 
but cancel their concessions.
  The transition to a global economy is not going to be easy. There 
will be real pain for many whose jobs become victim to the new economic 
circumstances. The American people will have trouble adjusting from a 
reassuring reliance on paternalistic national companies to multilateral 
organizations that contract with a web like network of enterprises that 
give little notice to national boundaries.
  But putting our heads in the sand and wishing for the ``good old 
days'' will not bring them back and will not save anyone's job in the 
long run. What it will do is lead capable Americans to miss out on 
opportunities for rewarding contributions in the marketplace of the 
21st Century. We made a fundamental transition at the turn of the last 
century from an agriculturally dominated economy to one centered around 
manufacturing. I am confident we can face the challenge of the 
information age with the same success if we focus on proactively 
providing the right kind of investment and training opportunities.
  The analysis of this legislation provided by the Treasury Department 
lays out the choice in very clear terms. If we ratify this agreement we 
can expect $150 billion in increases annual Gross Domestic Product and 
a 300,000 to 700,000 boost to employment in 2004. If we fail we can 
expect a new round of trade wars that could lead to repeat of the 
Smoot-Hawley induced world wide depression of the 1930s. The choice is 
ours and I urge my colleagues to look to the future and vote yes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the GATT 
trade agreement. It would be an economic and political disaster if 
Congress succumbed to the protectionist and isolationist forces opposed 
to GATT by failing to pass it now. GATT is a win-win proposition for 
both consumers and producers in America and for developed and 
developing nations around the world. It will vastly improve America's 
global economic competitiveness and further strengthen our position as 
the world's only remaining superpower.
  Mr. Chairman, the opponents of GATT have lodged a bevy of charges 
against it. They say it will cause the economic sky above us to fall 
while undermining America's sovereignty. Nonsense. The critics of GATT 
fear free trade because they think America is weak. They are wrong. 
America is the 800-pound gorilla of world trade. We are the world's 
largest economy. We will use our economic strength and GATT's mandate 
of consensus-driven world trade policy to ensure that our concerns are 
met whenever contentious issues arise. To say otherwise assumes that 
America is economically feeble and politically timid. Nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  Critics say that the World Trade Organization created by the GATT 
will grow into an unstoppable monster which will take over the United 
States and dictate every aspect of our daily lives. Nonsense. The WTO 
poses no threat to U.S. sovereignty. It will not be a United Nations of 
trade and will not summarily force changes in our domestic laws. Only 
the Congress can change our laws, and Congress can only do so with the 
consent of the American people as our Founding Fathers planned. To say 
otherwise is wrong. GATT is a voluntary economic contract among 
sovereign nations which will sharply cut the foreign tariffs burdening 
U.S. exports. It is not a diabolical plot to end our democracy, as some 
of my isolationist colleagues have suggested.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us and the trade agreement upon 
which it is based are thoroughly bipartisan. The Uruguay round began 
under President Reagan, continued under President Bush and ended under 
President Clinton. The implementing bill was developed with input from 
Republicans and Democrats alike. My colleagues should recognize the 
bipartisan roots of GATT and put their political differences aside to 
support this economic bonanza.
  Mr. Chairman, GATT is about liberalizing trade and improving the 
economic welfare of people here at home and around the world. These 
have been the guiding principles of U.S. economic policy since World 
War II. The economic disaster caused by the ultra-protectionist Smoot-
Hawley Act should have taught us once and for all that protectionism is 
and always will be a destructive dead end. The United States is the 
largest trading nation on earth. Free trade is vital if our economy is 
to continue growing. GATT, while not perfect, means more American 
exports, more and better American jobs, and a faster growing American 
economy. It should be overwhelmingly adopted, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, there is a specific provision 
in this legislation--that dealing with captive production--that I wish 
to address briefly. I have worked for many months on this provision 
with the ranking Republican and soon-to-be Ways and Means Committee 
Chairman Mr. Archer, and I am pleased to understand that this issue has 
been dealt with in this legislation in a way that does not directly 
harm hundreds of my constituents whose employment was threatened by it.
  A captive relationship occurs between sellers of raw materials and 
purchasers of those materials that are controlled by or captives of the 
sellers, and therefore are required to buy their raw materials from the 
controlling seller. USS Posco Industries [USS-Posco], a California 
steel facility that employs hundreds of my constituents, is captively 
supplied with raw steel by its two parent companies. Because one of its 
parent companies is a non-U.S. company, USS-Posco was troubled, and its 
economic viability threatened, by proposed legislative language that 
would have treated captively supplied raw material differently 
depending on its origin. This proposal had no basis in principle, but 
rather was proposed by protectionists who were aiming their funs at all 
foreign producers, regardless of the impact on U.S. companies and U.S. 
jobs.
  Fortunately for free-traders, for USS-Posco and its employees, and 
USS-Posco's California suppliers and customers, this threatening 
provision was modified prior to introduction of the pending bill. I am 
told that the International Trade Commission staff has assured my 
colleagues that the ITC would almost certainly take the same view of 
USS-Posco's captive supply situation under the new law as it did in its 
1993 decision. The maintenance of this legal standard is more important 
to USS-Posco and its employees, my constituents, than to anyone else in 
this Nation.
  I wish to thank the Republican Chairman Mr. Archer for his assistance 
in this effort. I look forward to our continued work together to ensure 
that this provision is implemented as Congress intends.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support 
for the passage of the GATT implementing legislation. My home State and 
city of New York will benefit greatly from the provisions in this trade 
agreement.
  In particular, New York City will realize increased economic activity 
as the global economy picks up due to the high concentration of 
financial services and trade-related and international businesses in 
the metropolitan area. New York is the Nation's second-leading exporter 
of merchandise and accounts for an estimated 11 percent of all U.S. 
exporting establishings. New York State sold exports of $40.7 billion, 
almost 9 percent if total U.S. exports, in 1993 alone. The GATT will 
eliminate many of the duties on important New York exports.
  Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen recently projected that 10 percent 
of the job creation from the GATT will be realized in New York City 
alone and these jobs will be in the high-income export sector. The Port 
Authority of New York and New Jersey estimate a large margin of growth 
in the air cargo and ground transportation sector in addition to gains 
in the finance, business and media sectors of the New York economy.
  Many of my constituents were concerned about the World Trade 
Organization [WTO] and its ability to change current U.S. laws. The 
changes made to the WTO during the committee process have given 
Congress oversight over the dispute resolution proceedings. The U.S. 
Trade Representative is required to consult with congressional experts 
before any significant WTO vote. With this congressional review, 
sovereignty of the United States is not threatened and U.S. laws will 
not be impinged.
  It is imperative to businesses and workers of New York's 13 district 
that the GATT be passed today. This trade agreement will increase our 
export industries, strengthen our local companies and open up high-
wage, long-term employment opportunities to workers. I urge my 
colleagues to consider the benefits their district will experience 
under this trade accord and cast their vote in the spirit of free and 
open trade.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, while the issue of health care security 
in this Congress has consumed much of the attention of the Members of 
this body, I want to also bring to the attention of my colleagues 
another initiative which is aimed at securing people's hard-earned 
pensions. This proposal contained in H.R. 5110, which has been advanced 
by the administration to reform the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation--PBGC--Single-Employer Termination Insurance Program, the 
Retirement Protection Act of 1994, takes an important step in the 
direction of addressing the well-documented problems of the PBGC.
  The PBGC was created in 1974 under ERISA title IV in order to 
guarantee the private pension benefits of employees and retirees in the 
event their company goes bankrupt and leaves their pension plans less 
than fully funded. In PBGC's 1993 financial statement the single-
employer fund established to make up any pension shortfall is said to 
be underfunded by over $2.9 billion. In this Congress, subcommittees of 
both my Committee on Education and Labor and the Ways and Means 
Committee held a number of oversight hearings to determine the true 
extent of PBGC's problems and the remedies that may be required to 
avoid any future need for a taxpayer bailout.
  At these hearings, the U.S. General Accounting Office--GAO--testified 
that the PBGC has made significant progress in financial management in 
the last several years under the leadership of the former PBGC 
Executive Director, James B. Lockhart III. However, the GAO considers 
more important the fact that problems beyond the PBGC's control 
continue to mount, posing multibillion dollar risks, thus creating a 
need for Congress to act.
  For example, the number of PBGC insured plans has already declined 43 
percent, so that only 67,000 defined benefit plans remain in the 
system. This presents an additional challenge to maintaining the 
program on a self-supporting basis that is maintained solely from the 
premiums levied on all covered defined benefit plans, and initially set 
in 1974 at $1 per plan participant, to pay for any PBGC shortfall. In 
fact, per capita premiums have escalated to $19 for fully funded plans 
and to $72 for badly funded ones. These 2,000-plus percent increases 
have not stemmed PBGC's flow of red ink. The increasing risk which has 
to be carefully weighed is that merely increasing premiums on the well-
funded plans may accelerate their exit from the system, thus shrinking 
the tax base on which to levy the premiums necessary to finance present 
and future deficits.
  In response to PBGC's current problems, the reform proposal in H.R. 
5110 targets improved funding security for the participants covered in 
underfunded pension plans. An additional incentive to encourage faster 
funding for underfunded pension plans is included in the revised 
premium structure. By eliminating the $72 premium cap under the bill, 
underfunded plans will pay relatively larger premiums that will well-
funded plans. The core of the legislation is built upon the provisions 
of H.R. 3396 which was passed by our Committee on Education and Labor 
on August 11, 1994.
  As revised, the bill addresses a number of concerns expressed by 
relatively well-funded plans. For example, the provisions in the 
original bill that would have given the PBGC significant discretion to 
intervene in various corporate transactions have been eliminated in the 
final version of the legislation.
  Although these funding reforms appear to move the PBGC in the 
direction of a more sound financial footing, they will have to be 
closely monitored for both their effectiveness and their long-term 
impact on the viability of defined benefit pension plans.
  As I've stated previously, without timely and major reform to the 
PBGC insurance program, the retirement income security provided by our 
private pension system will continue at risk. It is for this reason 
that I consider the ERISA funding provision in H.R. 5110 a necessary 
legislative step, a step set in motion by the previous administration 
and strongly promoted by the PBGC Executive Director, Mr. Martin Slate, 
in the current administration.
  Mr. SLATTERY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
legislation under consideration now to implement the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade.
  I voted to extend the President's fast-track authority in order to 
complete the GATT negotiations in a reasonable manner. I applaud 
Ambassador Kantor and the administration for its efforts to do so. 
Regardless of our individual opinions, I think we all believe that they 
negotiated to the best of their abilities and worked tirelessly to 
bring it to a successful conclusion.
  Hundreds of my constituents have contacted me regarding GATT. Many 
are concerned about the effects of the World Trade Organization on our 
Nation's sovereignty. I have thoroughly studied this issue as I do not 
want the United States to relinquish any of its own governing powers to 
another country or organization. I have concluded that this trade 
agreement is not a threat to our Nation's Sovereignty. The congress 
cannot be forced to change any laws that govern our Nation. For over 
200 years we have governed by democracy. This will not change.
  I am optimistic about what GATT will do for my home State of Kansas. 
From 1989 through 1992, Kansas exports increased by 36 percent. It has 
been estimated that more than 57,000 jobs in my state alone are backed 
by exports, and this number does not include agriculture-related jobs. 
In 1993 Kansas exported $3.1 billion in merchandise. Since GATT will 
help level the playing field by reducing current trade barriers, I 
expect our exports to increase significantly. Kansas is a great place 
to do business. Many businesses which make rubber, plastic, fabricated 
metal, and chemical products along with scientific and measuring 
instruments have all realized major gains over the last few years.

  I would be remiss if I did not mention the agriculture sector which 
is very, very important to my district. Agriculture leaders from across 
the State have discussed the merits of this agreement with me. Kansas 
farmers will benefit from increased market access under GATT. Our 
Nation's wheat farmers should see exports increase by 150 to 200 
million bushels by the year 2005. Beef exports are expected to expand 
by 10 to 14 percent by the year 2005. This is good news for Kansas and 
for the country.
  It is critically important for the United States to remain a leader 
in the global marketplace. Only then will we be able to create the jobs 
we need for workers throughout the country during the next decade.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to share with this Congress my 
thoughts about the GATT treaty and its implementing legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish that we were not considering this legislation 
today. I wish we were instead considering legislation to create good 
paying jobs now and implement a more effective Federal job training 
program to assist the thousands of American workers who have lost their 
jobs from past trade agreements.
  We should be considering health reform legislation that would make 
sure that if a business decides to invest in some other country and 
fires its workers here in America, unemployed families would still be 
able to get the medical care they worked for and need. We should also 
today be considering legislation that would help force countries we are 
competing against to bring their wage and work standards up to a decent 
level so that our small businesses have a chance to survive and 
compete.
  We are not, however, considering such laws today. Instead, we are 
considering legislation to promote free trade. In my opinion, free 
trade will benefit America in the long run only if it is fair trade. 
Fair trade agreements will bring us greater economic prosperity and 
will help show that the Federal Government really does not have the 
average citizen's best interests in mind.
  Still, there may indeed be the huge oceans of economic wealth for us 
around the corner that the proponents of GATT have stated. But what 
about now; what about in the short-term? What have we done in this 
Congress to help working American families survive in a world in which 
trade agreements have already resulted in significant job loss and a 
reduced standard of living?
  I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what have we done to help the average 
textile worker who has spent most of his or her life toiling in a 
dress-making factory get a new job in a region which is losing 
comparable jobs faster than it is creating them? What about the guy who 
used to pump gas, or another who ran a small family farm but a 
conglomerate ran him out of business?
  Today we are doing nothing for them. Ten to fifteen years from now 
they may be helped by GATT; but that does nothing for individuals 
struggling to raise their families right now in every district across 
this Nation. I know about the plight of such families, Mr. Speaker, 
because I have so many of them in my district. The populace of 
northeastern Pennsylvania is made up mostly of lower to middle-income 
persons who work in small factories and small offices in small 
metropolitan areas. The workers of my district will not benefit from 
freer world trade in the short term, but could certainly benefit in the 
short term if we prepared workers and the region as a whole for this 
inevitability.
  What we should be doing today, and what we should have been doing 
this past year before we considered GATT, is passing comprehensive job 
creation legislation, comprehensive job retraining legislation, and 
comprehensive health care legislation. We simply cannot allow the 
present-day needs of our citizens to take a back seat to abstract 
economic theory that may or may not work. It is not what the people of 
this country want us to do.
  The voters no doubt sent a clear message to Congress that it is time 
to address their everyday needs. If we fail to do so, there will be 
retribution similar to what we saw this past November 8. Unfortunately, 
the new majority party in Congress has provided no indication it 
intends to address concerns about job and health security at any time 
in the near future.
  GATT in the short term will no doubt help executives and stockholders 
of international businesses and Wall Street financiers but does little 
for the average worker or small business today. I therefore cannot vote 
for this legislation, which I regret. I would have liked to vote for a 
bill that could eventually have had a positive impact on my district 
and this country.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is another example of our failure to help 
working Americans today. I ask my colleagues, therefore, to reject the 
GATT.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I am casting a vote against the GATT bill 
today in part because of our inability to address the needs of the 
Caribbean. In spite of the fact that the Caribbean Interim Trade 
Program enjoyed broad bipartisan support, it was not included in the 
final GATT legislation that is before us this evening. I am encouraged 
that the administration has indicated that they understand the 
importance and urgency of this program--for both the Caribbean and the 
U.S. business community. While GATT falls short in providing parity to 
the Caribbean, I certainly hope that we will have the opportunity to 
support an ITP program next year.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Chairman, it is appropriate that we have two 
distinguished leaders of this body close this debate. The gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Michel] is loved and admired, I believe, by every 
Member of this body because of his sincerity and his integrity. He has 
really no peer. But I would refer now to the Member to whom I am about 
to yield time. I have served here now for 32 years, and I am proud to 
say that of all the Speakers that I have known and worked with, I think 
that the current Speaker is the tops. He is a man of great personal 
integrity, he is a great leader, he has been very impartial in that 
chair up there, and we really regret to see him leave.
  To close this historic debate, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Foley], the Speaker of the House.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. FOLEY. Madam Chairman, I take the floor for the last time in 
debate, and we will all be casting very shortly the last vote of the 
103d Congress. For some this will be the last vote they will cast in 
Congress. And while I respect deeply the views of those who oppose this 
agreement and their concern about its adoption, I will probably vote 
for the approval of the GATT agreement.
  I do so because I think it is probably impossible to imagine a single 
act of this Congress that can do more to contribute to our economic 
growth. This is a vote of great magnitude. Very simply, GATT sets the 
trading rules for the next several decades. It has taken 7 years and 
three Presidents to reach this agreement, and it will take many more 
years before any new round can promise still further significant 
reductions in trade barriers. And it is generally assessed that 50 
percent of the growth of the U.S. economy in the last 5 years has come 
from exports.
  This GATT holds the potential to spur even greater economic growth, 
and with it more export-related, well-paying jobs. I believe no single 
measure, public or private, offers such a potential for economic 
progress.
  GATT plays to America's strength. It offers the new American 
competitiveness of the 1990's the leverage of more open markets. It is 
that competitiveness, built on high-quality products and an efficient 
work force and an efficient management that offers more assurance of 
profitability and job security by the elimination of trade barriers 
than by any tariff. The United States already has the most open economy 
in the world. The reduction, in many cases the elimination of foreign 
trade barriers under GATT will level the playing field for American 
businesses and enterprises that have often faced the triple threat of 
high tariffs, government subsidized competition, and hostile 
bureaucracies from abroad.
  Much has been made in this debate about the World Trade Organization 
and about the threat offered, supposed threat of the World Trade 
Organization. I believe that the concern about impositions on American 
sovereignty have been effectively answered, not only in this debate but 
by statements form legal scholars of all political persuasion and all 
economic views outside this Chamber. But beyond that, I believe that 
the World Trade Organization will work to America's advantage because 
the United States imposes few direct or indirect barriers relative to 
our trading partners. It is us who will have more cause to use GATT's 
existing dispute resolution mechanism and to try and encourage other 
nations to comply with their trade obligations. That will not change 
with the World Trade Organization and its tougher enforcement will 
offer more protections and thus freer trade to America.

  Opponents will say and have said that GATT represents a risk, that 
some sectors will suffer under its provisions, that tariff revenues 
will decline, and I suppose that in any great undertaking there are 
concerns and risks. Yet, even when our country was founded, those who 
journeyed west to settle the West were told that there were risks, and 
there were, but that spirit that has always typified our country proved 
strong enough to settle a continent and to develop its riches. That 
same spirit exists today in America's agriculture, in America's 
business and American labor. It is a spirit that can be found 
throughout the country in businesses large and small in both labor and 
management and agriculture. It is a spirit that can take advantage from 
risk and will adjust to sectorial weaknesses, and it will boost tax 
revenues, not by tariffs but by export earnings.
  Behind me in this Chamber inscribed on the wall are the words of 
Daniel Webster. They have often seemed to me to offer direction to us 
in our undertakings in this Chamber. That inscription says, ``Let us 
develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its 
institutions, promote all its great interests and see whether we also 
in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be 
remembered.''
  GATT is such an undertaking. Its promise is not only for our day and 
for our generation but also for the prosperity of future generations. 
It will enable us to call forth our powers to greatly expand our export 
trade and development. It can thus serve the interests of this great 
Nation and thereby become something worthy to be remembered by this 
Congress and on this day.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
agreement, to vote ``yes'' on GATT.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to section 151(D) of the Trade Act of 1974, and House 
Resolution 564, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the 
Chair, Mrs. Unsoeld, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on 
the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 5110) to improve and implement the trade 
agreements concluded in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade 
negotiations, pursuant to House Resolution 564, she reported the bill 
back to the House.
  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 
and House Resolution 564, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 288, 
nays 146 as follows:

                             [Roll No. 507]

                               YEAS--288

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Washington
     Waters
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--146

     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bachus (AL)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Bentley
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Bonior
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Chapman
     Clay
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Evans
     Everett
     Fields (LA)
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hancock
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Watt
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1839

  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________