[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 149 (Thursday, December 1, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: December 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
now resume consideration of H.R. 5110, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5110) to approve and implement the trade 
     agreements concluded in the Uruguay round of multilateral 
     trade negotiations.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the order, there shall be 9 hours of 
debate remaining under the statutory time limitation with 2 hours under 
the control of the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan], 2 hours under 
the control of the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], and 5 
hours under the control of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood].
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Mr. Moynihan, the Senator from New York, 
is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as may be 
required to make an opening statement on, as Reverend Halverson said, 
this last day of the 103d Congress and the momentous--as I see it and 
many do--decision we will make at the end of this day and at the end of 
this Congress, which is the decision to ratify or not the legislation 
that will put into effect the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade culminating 60 years of American trade policy that 
began with Cordell Hull in 1934.
  The Washington Post has an editorial this morning which, in the view 
of this Senator, sums up the case with great clarity and force. I would 
take the liberty, sir, of reading it to the Senate.
  It says:

       Until the Soviet Union collapsed, the military threat was 
     the glue that held the rest of the world together and 
     enforced political cooperation. Currently, it's beginning to 
     look as though trade is going to be the next organizing 
     principle, with trading relations and institutions becoming 
     the transition lines of political influence. Americans can 
     take great pride in the work that their country has done in 
     the past 50 years to bring stability and prosperity to a 
     dangerous world. Some dangers have now vanished with the end 
     of the Soviet Union, but others are appearing. Both for its 
     own interest and the world's, the United States has to remain 
     the central force in the world's trading system.

  I think we would all agree on that, even if we disagree on the 
particulars of the arrangements of the institutions, the facilities, 
that we put in place. But the great point about our decision today is 
to consult our experience as well as our hopes and not simply our 
feelings.
  Trade is always an area that arouses concern among citizens, and ever 
has done as far back as our Republic goes. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton, 
in his report on manufacturers, made a powerful case but a case that 
had to be made that, no, it would not be enough for the United States 
simply to remain a rural agricultural nation; that we had to be a 
manufacturing and trading nation. We have been so ever since, never 
more so than now.
  This is the expanding sector of our economy, the one that brings--and 
I think it is fair to say, as the Washington Post observed it--not 
necessarily more jobs, but a lot of better jobs, jobs with higher value 
added, higher wages, and better, longer term prospects.
  That, sir, is what brings us here on this final day, an era which we 
can see as having begun in the depths of the Depression, with the 
recognition of strong, able leaders--Franklin D. Roosevelt, Cordell 
Hull--that we had to change what had been a pattern set for many years 
of protectionism and take the gamble which in the end has succeeded. 
And, having done so, I say this is the moment of decision.
  I met today with my colleague and dear friend, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Packwood], who is necessarily delayed for a few moments.
  I saw my friend from South Carolina visit the Chamber. He is here 
now. I cannot believe that he will not return in force and with great 
vigor.
  But, for the moment, it falls to me to welcome him this morning. I 
made some opening remarks, and perhaps the Senator from South Carolina 
would like to do so the same.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings].
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I always enjoy the comments and 
expression, and literally the education, I receive from the 
distinguished Senator from New York. He has a profound sense of 
history.
  What happens is that America should continue to lead in the trading 
system. Therein, in and of itself, is our difficulty. We are not 
leading; we are losing. Yes, we set the example in a losing fashion 
over 45, almost 50 years. It was almost like the Golden Rule: ``Do unto 
others as they would do unto you.''
  And we tried to set the good example of Adam Smith and David Ricardo 
of comparative advantage, open markets and free trade, which we all 
believe in. This Senator voted for free trade with the Free Trade 
Agreement with Canada. I strongly support the proposed free trade 
agreement with Chile, which we will be visiting in a few weeks, because 
we have relatively the same standards of living, the same systems of 
open markets--David Ricardo--comparative advantage. But the 
competition, according to Alexander Hamilton or Friedrich List, is 
measured not by a cheap shirt or what you can buy but what you can 
produce. Decisions are made that weaken or strengthen the economy.
  Interestingly, Mr. President, that is the example being followed 
today in Eastern Europe. You only have to read this week's special 
edition of Business Week. Romania, Hungary, and all the rest of these 
Europeans now are not going for old David Ricardo and Adam Smith. They 
are going for Friedrich List, as the Germans long since have with their 
interlocking directives and Japan with the Keiretsu, of course, out in 
the Pacific rim. And so now, after the 60 years, which the 
distinguished Senator points out, the change that has taken place with 
the fall of the wall is that we should no longer sacrifice our economy 
to keep the alliance together. Yes, the editorial is correct, we kept 
the alliance together. It worked and it deserves praise. But with this 
change, now is the time to rebuild the economy of the United States; 
and the reality is that we are in decline. Everyone knows that. 
Everyone knows that. That is, the people of America know. That is what 
the election was about, and the stupid politicians here in Washington--
we politicians--cannot recognize it. That is the frustration of the 
American voter.
  The American worker, yes, the most productive American worker, who is 
the most productive in the world, is taking home 20 percent less pay 
than what he was 20 years ago. His wife is having to go out and work to 
make up for that loss of income. And then you have the latchkey 
children, and we politicians run around saying, ``I am for the family, 
and we have to get the children and mothers back together.'' We are 
separating them with this GATT. Can they not see it? Can they not 
understand where the crime begins in the inner city of New York, with 
93,000 garment workers down there who will now lose their jobs, which 
will flee to the Pacific rim? Everybody knows. Rather than creating 
enterprise zones, what we are doing here today at 6 o'clock is taking 
the enterprise out of the zone. Leading? That Americans should continue 
to lead the world's trading system--I wish they had politicians and 
newspapers made overseas. Washington would be out of business and long 
gone. They make everything else offshore. If we could only get 
politicians and newspapers manufactured offshore, this crowd would 
learn quickly.
  Mr. President, the President went out there just a couple of weeks 
ago to Indonesia, and every one of those countries in the Pacific rim 
was at the meeting. We have a deficit in the balance of trade. Who is 
leading? Is the United States leading? They rebuffed us. The head of 
trade in Malaysia and the head of trade in Indonesia said, ``We are not 
going along with this.'' To keep face, they want, of course, this 
particular GATT, because this opens up the United States, as Senator 
Brown from Colorado pointed out. This opens us up entirely, but it does 
not open up the Keiretsu or the closed markets of the Pacific rim. None 
whatsoever. The GATT proponents defend the WTO rules. Do not worry 
about the WTO rulings, they do not have to be obeyed, they say. But if 
nobody changes the laws in the United States, in the debate, ergo, they 
do not change the laws of Japan or the Keiretsu. They cannot have it 
both ways.
  So the President is out there with a $150 billion deficit. They keep 
talking exports, exports, exports. Fine. I export regularly from South 
Carolina. We built the ports there and we are proud of it. But look at 
the entire picture, not like a CPA coming in and looking at your 
expenses and not your income. You are faulty on income here in this 
case. Your imports far overshadow--$150 billion worth--your exports. 
There is the President with a $150 billion hole in his pocket and a tin 
cup begging the Japanese. Tell me about the fears of inflation. They 
keep writing all those articles about inflation. But I asked Mr. Felix 
Rohatyn at the GATT hearings that we had in the Commerce Committee and 
he said, ``Yes, that is a good part of it.''
  I said, ``Mr. Rohatyn, is it not a fact that we have depended on the 
Japanese, until recently, to buy 30 percent of our Treasury instruments 
to finance our debt? Is that not a fact? Now, is it not a fact that 
they are threatening us every time we go there and tell them to open 
the markets?''
  Who is the Trade Representative? Ambassador Kantor or Secretary 
Bentsen? Everybody with common sense knows it is Secretary Bentsen, 
because he has to finance our debt. So we give in and we have meetings 
with the Japanese and praise each other and agree to negotiate, as with 
financial services, and we will come back again. Just like services 
themselves. We have to negotiate those still. You have to go back to 
the WTO. Senator Brown read the agreement.
  But the reason for that tin cup in the hand is we have now subjected 
our economy and economic future to the whims of the Pacific rim 
financing our debt. We are in decline.
  Heavens above, wake up, Washington. My friend John F. Kennedy wrote 
the book, ``Why England Slept.'' They all say, ``Hollings is just for 
textiles.'' I have been in textiles, yes, but I have been in an entire 
picture for 28 years up here. I testified before I got here in the 
fifties before the International Tariff Commission. I want to write the 
book called ``Why America Continues To Sleep.''
  Yes, we have a special session. I never intended it. I never thought 
the President, not calling us back for a lame duck for health care, or 
for welfare reform, and not calling us back for all the other issues we 
are interested in, such as the information superhighway, would call us 
back for GATT. We have until July 1995 on this one. No industrial 
country has adopted it, none. So we could easily debate it next year. 
We debate complicated treaties. SALT I, SALT II, the ABM treaties. We 
can put in reservations. We cannot do the same with this one, except, 
of course, for the distinguished minority leader, soon to become 
majority leader, who goes to the White House and, as we read in a 
newspaper, in a dignified fashion got his amendments. The Finance and 
Ways and Means Committees have a right to amend. We will look at the 
gift to the Washington Post later.
  We will look at these other things later. We will get like 10 New 
York doctors on Carter's little liver pills. Under the agreement 
between the President and the future majority leader, we will get four 
or five court judges to make up their minds for us to see whether or 
not we will have reservations.
  They get amendments. I do not know what amendments they agreed to. We 
do not. It is scandalous the way this Congress operates and this 
Government in Washington. Nothing has changed. They are wheeling and 
dealing. They are saying: I will take your budget-buster for GATT. You 
take mine later on for capital gains. Do not be telling me about a veto 
on capital gains, Mr. President, because it loses $25 billion. I am 
taking a loss of $31 billion for you today to save your political hide.
  Nothing has changed. Come on. And our country is in decline and 
better wake up and not lose. Start leading by rejecting this agreement 
and getting a good competitive trade policy.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that the time not be allocated to either side.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is there time allotted for the Senator from New Mexico?

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is time under the control of the 
Senator from New Mexico. If the Senator opposes the point of order the 
time is under the control of Mr. Packwood.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am sure that the Senator from Oregon 
[Mr. Packwood], would wish the Senator from New Mexico to have as much 
time as he requires.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. How much time does the Senator require?
  Mr. DOMENICI. About 15 minutes, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be recognized for not to 
exceed 15 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Moynihan.
  Mr. President, for some it must have seemed like this day would never 
come. Hundreds of people, both here and abroad, have worked on the 
Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations for the past 8 years; 
125 nations began the negotiations in Punta del Este in September 1986. 
On April 15, 1994, 111 signed the final act in Marrakesh, and thus we 
are here. By signing that final act those 111 nations committed to 
bring the results before their respective legislatures for 
ratification.
  Several countries have ratified this agreement, the United Kingdom, 
Greece, and Belgium among them. France and Canada are very close and 
will ratify this agreement this year. Japan will soon follow. The 
United States through the U.S. Senate in this Senator's humble opinion 
should also vote to ratify this agreement.
  My colleagues from the Finance Committee have ably spoken to the U.S. 
Senate and the Senators herein regarding the benefits to trade and 
national welfare that the GATT agreement will afford to our country and 
our people, and I concur with those remarks.
  I especially congratulate the soon-to-be chairman of the Finance 
Committee for his eloquent remarks. I have listened to them. I openly 
commend him for his explanation of what trade means to American jobs 
and what GATT could mean to American workers and American prosperity.
  That is not to detract from other excellent statements to the 
American people and to the Senate that have been made here on the 
floor.
  The merits of the Uruguay round agreement have not been nearly so 
controversial as the issue that I will speak about here today--how the 
agreement affects the Federal budget. By far the largest budget effect 
is the loss of revenues from reduced tariffs. The Congressional Budget 
Office has estimated that the net revenue loss amounts to $11.5 billion 
over the first 5 years and $31.8 billion over 10 years.
  This Uruguay round agreement cuts overall U.S. tariff collections by 
15 percent from what they otherwise would be. Everyone should 
understand, because of Budget Act points of order, consideration of 
this implementing legislation requires 60 votes in the U.S. Senate. I 
will explain this shortly.
  It has been very difficult for the U.S. Congress to wrap its arms 
around the deficit. We tried at the 1990 summit conference, but at that 
time we did not have a GATT agreement in mind. The Chair, the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, was an active member of that 
budget summit.
  We came up with a concept, aside and apart from GATT, and it is 
called pay-as-you-go. It says, if a policy results in lower revenues, 
you must make up the loss somewhere else with new revenues or with 
entitlement cuts. Now, frankly, that is very new, that 60-vote point of 
order for pay-go. It is very new to American legislation and certainly 
to the body of the Senate and our processes.
  I, for one, believe it is among one of the five or six good new 
concepts for budget control. It is easy to understand. It resonances 
nicely--pay-go. Everybody thinks that is right. You ought to pay as you 
go. But the truth of the matter is that it is all based on estimates 
and all based on assumptions. What paygo does, in a sense, is put a big 
picket fence around the deficit.
  But I must suggest we left a nice gate in the fence. There is a 
little gate in this fence. And the gate is a hard gate to get through--
60 votes, supermajority. I submit that is precisely why we put that in 
and it finds itself right here on the floor.
  When there is something of paramount American importance, you open 
the gate and you say, ``Look, these rules are good, but these rules are 
not impeccable. These rules are not things that cannot be violated.'' 
And if the GATT agreement is good for America, it appears to this 
Senator that you ought to open that gate in the fence. And that is why 
I support waiving this point of order and opening that gate in the 
fence.
  Now I want to continue on to make sure that my constituents and those 
who are interested in the views of somebody who has been working on the 
budget for a long time and understands all this estimating, understands 
the big current argument about dynamic evaluation of activities versus 
static. I am not one that jumps to the tune of either one, as if the 
rhythm is absolutely mandatory.
  From my standpoint, I am looking for accuracy in these two apparently 
opposite systems of static versus dynamic. And that is at play here 
today. For those who would like me to say you do not need a waiver 
because if this was estimated with a dynamic model there would not be 
any revenue loss, I am not prepared to do that yet. We are going to 
have a joint hearing with the House and Senate Budget Committees on the 
dynamic versus static issue. For the first time in the history of both 
bodies, both budget committees are going to have hearings to let the 
public understand that.
  But for now, I do not choose to say there is no effect on the 
deficit, but I do choose to say it is rather minimal. And let me 
proceed to discuss that, having discussed that opening in that fence 
with the gate that requires 60 votes to get around this wall.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, as a result of 
this agreement, there will be following the results: In agriculture, 
there will be a savings of $1.5 billion over the first 5 years and $5.2 
billion over 10 years. Now that means we will spend less on agriculture 
because of this agreement.
  The overall net cost of the agreement to the Treasury before any 
offsets is $10 billion over the first 5 years under the current way of 
estimating. Over 10 years, the cost is $26.6 billion. However, the 
administration and Congress worked together to structure a package of 
offsets. The entire agreement, offsets included, increases the deficit 
by $1.7 billion over 5 years, I say to Senator Moynihan, $1.7 billion 
over 5 years and $12 billion over 10 years.
  Now I am not one that excuses spending because it is a small amount. 
But I must put this one in perspective. This increase in the deficit 
represents two-tenths of 1 percent, I say to Senator Packwood, two-
tenths of 1 percent of the total projected deficit for the next 5 
years, five-tenths of 1 percent of the total projected deficit for the 
next 10 years--if, in fact, the numbers are right; if, in fact there is 
no positive influence on America starting out in the 6th, 7th, 8th year 
by getting rid of tariffs which have to work in our favor. I have heard 
everyone speak to that. It is unequivocal that getting rid of tariffs 
works to our advantage.
  So last May, Congress wrote a budget for this country by the adoption 
of a budget resolution which set a floor for revenues and a ceiling for 
outlays. The GATT implementing legislation, on its own, reduces 
revenues below that floor and, therefore, as I indicated heretofore, 
violates the budget resolution. The Budget Act defines this in section 
311(a) and talks about a point of order. It takes 60 votes to waive, as 
I have just indicated in my general explanation of the pay-go 
provisions, which I think have generally been very good.
  This same budget resolution modified the pay-as-you-go point of order 
established last year. Our pay-go enforcement makes it out of order to 
consider legislation that, combined with all legislation enacted since 
August of 1993, would increase the deficit for any one of the following 
three periods: 1995, 1995 to 1999, or 2000 to 2004. So I say to my 
friends in the Senate, we are now out there in the 2000 and 2004 part 
of this.
  Incidentally, that was not even the law a year and a half ago. We 
went out 10 years, I say to Senator Moynihan, and heretofore we had 
only gone out 5. So, in a sense, we are burdening GATT with a very, 
very stern test when we are very tough on the evaluation of these 
activities in terms of estimates.
  So, based on the CBO scoring, it is obvious that GATT violates this 
pay-go point of order, this fence around expenditures or loss of 
revenues for the last two thresholds and is subject to this point of 
order.
  I urge that the Senate vote to waive this point of order. And, as I 
have indicated, generally I do not do that lightly but I believe the 
60-vote point of order was there clearly intended to give us the 
opportunity to not have to comply with pay-go when we find it is in the 
national interest to do otherwise.
  The administration knew the budget effects of this agreement and knew 
precisely what they would be. They proceeded to try their hardest, as I 
can determine, to find ways to offset the costs and it was not their 
wish to run into points of order over GATT. People worked tirelessly 
here in the Congress and in the administration for months to work out a 
funding package for this agreement.
  I can remember 8 months ago talking to both Senator Moynihan and 
Senator Packwood about that. So we have been all busy doing it. We 
could accomplish it mutually and we had to do it with the 
administration and the Congress.
  Since the agreement with all the offsets will still increase the 
deficit, this point of order lies. And so we are confronted with the 
facts as I have described them with this rather small effect if it all 
works out that way, and do we have a GATT or do we not based upon those 
rather small and almost insignificant budget effects.
  Mr. President, our budget rules are tough. They are very tough. They 
were meant to be. And I think of the rules, as I have indicated before, 
are like a fence with a gate. We have this small gate, but we are 
penalized when we use it and we have to get 60 votes. I support waiving 
this Budget Act for purposes of considering the GATT implementation 
language and we simply have too much to lose if we miss this 
opportunity.
  In the field of economics that is known for diverse answers to the 
same question, there is a remarkable agreement on the benefits of GATT 
to our people. So where economists differ on many things there is 
almost a unanimous concurrence that GATT is good for American workers 
and for our future. So, if we fail to waive, we are letting all that go 
down the drain because of a 60-vote point of order that I have done my 
very best to describe in terms of its impact.
  Incidentally, the United States is not the only winner. Reducing 
trade barriers is not a zero sum game where some countries benefit at 
the expense of others.
  The positive, overall effects of GATT are long term and accrue to all 
countries participating. With free trade--and free trade causes 
investment and capital formation--workers become more productive, the 
economy grows, and jobs increase. Household incomes rise.
  While we do not score the future expected economic growth for budget 
purposes, in this case we can be pretty sure it is going to happen. 
This is one of the cases where we need to crack the gate open, as I 
have indicated, and fit this legislation through it and waive the pay-
go.
  In my mind, this is not a vote on whether we increase the budget 
deficit. It is a vote for free trade. So for those who are using the 
budget waiver as an excuse, or for their justification, the truth of 
the matter is this is not a budget vote. It is a free-trade vote. Those 
who oppose free trade clearly can use any reason they like. But I 
believe the view is very shortsighted that predicates a vote against 
GATT on budget and budget activities.
  Mr. President, I ask for 5 additional minutes.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. I yield the Senator 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). The Senator may proceed for 5 
additional minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Frankly, this GATT agreement will do more for the long-
term economic growth and for our people's prosperity than anything else 
passed in the 103d Congress. And I believe that. Most of what we did 
has some very measurable impacts and much of it has both negatives and 
positives. GATT, as an instrument of change in the way the world 
markets work, is the most significant legislation that we will pass 
here in the whole 103d Congress, and I stand on that and I believe 
that.
  Before I conclude, I would like to briefly address a couple of 
important issues that citizens in my State and many others have brought 
to our attention. They are legitimate, valid concerns and deserve 
attention.
  First and foremost, the GATT agreement does not threaten U.S. 
sovereignty. Let me repeat. I know people in New Mexico, many of them 
good, solid friends of mine, have been talking about sovereignty. In 
this Senator's opinion, the GATT agreement does not threaten U.S. 
sovereignty. All living Presidents, former Secretaries of State, all 
former Trade Representatives of the United States, as well as many 
constitutional scholars, including Robert Bork, are convinced that this 
agreement does not impede U.S. sovereignty.
  Among all of those people, would any of them want to deny our 
sovereignty? I do not believe so. I do not believe this Senator wants 
to, and I do not believe the 61 Senators who hopefully are going to 
vote for waiver really want to deny our sovereignty.
  Simply put, the World Trade Organization cannot change U.S. law. The 
WTO cannot change a U.S. law because only the U.S. Congress can change 
a U.S. law. Therefore, even if the World Trade Organization made a 
ruling that would go against an existing U.S. law, the U.S. law could 
not automatically be changed to conform to the World Trade Organization 
ruling. A U.S. law can only be changed if the U.S. Congress votes to 
change the law.
  A final safeguard to U.S. sovereignty is that if at any time the 
United States becomes dissatisfied, it can withdraw from the World 
Trade Organization after giving 6 months' notice. That is a pretty good 
escape hatch. In the event the WTO becomes arbitrary or capricious, we 
get out.
  Another important concern has to do with why should we do this in 
this session; why should it not be delayed? Many of my constituents are 
asking that. The answer is, this is not a ``rush'' to approve an 
agreement. The GATT has been negotiated for over 8 years by Presidents 
Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. The Congress has had ample time to review 
carefully the specifics of this multilateral trade agreement, and it is 
time to make a decision one way or another.
  There are Senators who have read much of this. There are some who 
have read every word in it. And one of the overriding reasons why we 
need to make this decision sooner rather than later is that delay in 
approving this means that other nations will continue to impose high 
tariffs on U.S. goods. This is costly to each and every American. The 
United States should protect its valued business interests and jobs. 
According to some estimates, a belated passage of GATT implementing 
legislation could cost us as much as $7 billion in lost production over 
1 year alone, as well as thousands of jobs. Given these onerous costs, 
I believe the time is now. I submit to people around the country and 
people in the State of New Mexico that we have had plenty of time, over 
three Presidencies, to work on this and get it where it is. I do not 
believe it needs to be delayed any longer.
  Another important concern some have in our country, and in my State, 
is that this agreement appears to be a treaty and, thus, requires a 
two-thirds vote by the U.S. Senate. It is important to point out this 
is not a treaty. It was not negotiated as such. It has always been 
considered an executive agreement by all parties involved. As such, 
GATT is about the issue of commerce with foreign nations, and under 
Article I of the Constitution, the Congress has the power to regulate 
commerce with foreign nations. Hence, only a majority vote in both 
Chambers of Congress is required. If it were considered a treaty, then 
the U.S. Senate would be required under the Constitution to pass it by 
a two-thirds vote. However, this is not the case, and I believe the 
constitutionality of this kind of executive agreement is well 
established. I do not choose to go into the legal opinions, but I 
believe it is established.
  A final question of special concern is that GATT requires that every 
United States citizen receive an identification number at birth, and 
that this matter is unrelated and irrelevant to matters of trade. The 
answer is that this requirement is included in the implementing 
language of GATT; it is not part of the GATT itself. This language was 
included in the implementing legislation because to ensure accurate 
assessments of income taxes, improper deductions on tax returns must be 
minimized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. It is the Social Security number.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Social Security number, that is right. As a 
consequence, this section is designed to reduce tax cheating by people 
who claim children they do not have, which has the effect of reducing 
their taxes. This is important because it has a significant effect on 
the amount of tax revenue collected, which directly correlates with the 
overall net cost of the agreement to the U.S. Treasury. Therefore, the 
United States has decided that it is critical to maintain an accurate 
accounting of its taxable population.

  Mr. President, as I stated earlier, I believe this legislation is 
extremely advantageous for our long-term economic growth and our 
American prosperity. It is as fiscally disciplined as it can 
realistically be. It is something we must pass to achieve better 
standards of living in our own country and around the world. I have 
reviewed this agreement carefully, and I am satisfied that it is in the 
best interests of our citizens. I am, therefore, confident that the 
GATT should be approved.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon, the Chair is 
informed, has 4 hours and 38 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Four hours and 38 minutes remaining? I thank the Chair.
  I ask that only for this reason. Senator Grassley is here ready to 
speak. Does Senator Hollings have any objection?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Go right ahead. No.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. I am going to give him 15 minutes. But I will say this. 
I have 17 speakers left who have said they wanted to speak. I just know 
what is going to happen as they begin to get here in the afternoon. 
They are going to want 10 or 15 or 20 minutes with 2 hours to go, and I 
will say, for those who want to speak, if they will come over now they 
are more likely to get 10 or 15 or 20 minutes than they are this 
afternoon.
  With that, I will yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, will my friend from Oregon allow me just 
one moment to say that in our case, we are in yet more straitened 
circumstances. We have 1 hour 55 minutes. The leader will have to have 
some time. Probably no more than 10 Senators, at most, can be 
accommodated. There will be a limit of 10 minutes. I hope those who 
wish to speak will let us know.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Iowa for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
waive the budget point of order and to support the GATT.
  As my colleagues know, I yield to no one in this Chamber in my desire 
to cut spending and reduce the deficit. The National Taxpayers Union 
recently rated my voting record as one of the three most fiscally 
conservative in the Senate.
  I believe it is important that we have the fiscal discipline to pay 
for tax cuts with reductions in spending or increased revenues.
  That is why I joined several of my colleagues in signing a July 15 
letter to President Clinton asking that the administration provide the 
necessary spending cuts and revenues to make up for the tariff revenues 
that will be lost under GATT.
  The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] estimated at that time that 
implementation of GATT will mean a loss of approximately $12 billion in 
revenues over the next 5 years. The administration's proposed spending 
cuts and revenue increases would limit this loss to only $2.5 billion 
over the next 5 years according to CBO.
  I am pleased that the July 15 letter was effective in forcing the 
administration to greatly limit the amount of lost revenues. I am 
disappointed that the administration did not show the leadership to 
provide the spending cuts necessary to avoid a budget point of order.
  However, the $2.5 billion in lost revenues is dwarfed by the costs of 
delaying GATT and attempting to find the additional funds. The 
Department of the Treasury has estimated that postponing the 
implementation of GATT will cost the United States $70 billion in lost 
production over the next 10 years.
  The Department of the Treasury also estimates that a 6-month delay in 
implementation will reduce U.S. employment by an average of 25,000 a 
year over the next decade. These costs greatly overshadow the $4.5 
billion in lost revenue.
  The Department of the Treasury numbers are supported by what I'm 
hearing from my fellow Iowans. In Iowa, many business men and women and 
especially farmers tell me that they need GATT now. It is my 
understanding from them that 100's of millions of dollars are at stake 
for Iowa companies and workers. Enormous grain sales could be lost to 
unfair EC subsidies if we fail to pass GATT now.
  Due to this year's bumper crop, there are now mountains of corn in 
Iowa. It is imperative to Iowa's economy that this corn reach overseas 
markets. Iowa State University estimates that GATT will mean a net 
increase in farm income of $225.5 million in Iowa by 2002.
  In considering my vote on this waiver, it was necessary to weigh the 
long-term impact. While the budget deficit is a top priority for me, 
there is no question that GATT will be a tremendous boon to our 
Nation's workers and the economy. GATT will especially benefit 
agriculture in our Nation--good news for farmers and for Iowa. A 
growing economy is crucial if we are going to successfully address the 
deficit.
  The budget shortfall is half-a-billion dollars a year. While the 
budget aspect should be a serious concern, an even more serious concern 
is growth, prosperity and competitiveness. The flow of exports from 
Iowa and the United States to greater markets will help bring us these. 
We can't let half-a-billion dollars a year get in the way of that. It 
would be like building a beaver dam to stop up the Mississippi. It 
would do nothing but no good.
  As my colleague Senator Domenici, the incoming chairman of the Senate 
Budget Committee, made clear earlier today, the authority to waive the 
Budget Act was put into the law by design to provide the Senate a gate 
to disregard the budget rules when it is in the best interests of the 
American people. GATT is certainly a case where we must crack open that 
gate in the budget rules. GATT is without question in the best 
interests of the American people.
  I have voted in the past to waive the budget rules when I believed it 
was in the long-term interests of the American people. In 1992, I voted 
to waive the budget act to allow for an extension of emergency 
unemployment benefits. Given the state of our Nation's economy at the 
time, I thought it was important that we provide additional benefits to 
families in need.
  Similarly, it does not make sense to me now to jeopardize the 
tremendous benefits to working families across America and throughout 
Iowa from free trade because of the administration's failure to provide 
sufficient spending cuts.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
budget waiver so we can pass this landmark, worldwide agreement.
  Mr. President, very soon we will be voting on the GATT implementing 
legislation, one of the most important pieces of economic legislation 
since the end of World War II. It is also one of the most 
controversial.
  Many opponents of the agreement have bombarded the American people 
with the claims that they have nothing to gain and a great deal to lose 
from implementation of this agreement: U.S. sovereignty will be 
sacrificed they say; our environmental and sovereignty will be 
scarified they say; our environmental and health standards will be 
endangered; and unemployment will soar.
  These are frightening prospects, and if they were true I would be the 
first to oppose this agreement. But all the ranting from soapboxes 
doesn't make the opponents arguments true. In fact, these predictions 
are about as accurate as the one about the giant sucking sound NAFTA 
was supposed to produce, which has proven to be demonstrably false.
  This is not meant to suggest that the concerns expressed by my 
colleagues during this debate are without merit. I share many of these 
concerns, such as the use of child labor in many countries, and will do 
whatever I can to correct these problems. But I believe we can address 
these problems more effectively as the most influential member of the 
international trading community, as opposed to rejecting this agreement 
outright.
  For each of us however, the failure to secure certain more parochial 
concerns should have no impact on our decision whether to support GATT. 
Simply put, the removal of trade barriers generally will promise global 
competitiveness and greatly improve the standard of living both here 
and abroad.
  A look at GATT shows it is an economic winner for the United States. 
Economists, both Liberal and Conservative, agree that ratification of 
the agreement will add $100 to $200 billion to the U.S. economy each 
year, and create thousands of jobs, particularly in the high value-
added, high-productivity, high-wage industries that produce the types 
of jobs our economy needs.
  Let's look at the sectors of our economy that will benefit from this 
agreement:
  Foreign tariffs on telecommunications equipment and wood products 
will be lowered and tariffs on agricultural machinery, construction 
equipment, pharmaceuticals, toys, and furniture will be phased out, 
thereby bolstering exports of these products. High-Technology goods 
will be especially helped.
  The aircraft industry will benefit from lower subsidies to its 
foreign competitors.
  Stronger protection of intellectual property will help those 
industries that have suffered from piracy or product counterfeiting, 
costing us billions of dollars in lost revenue every year.
  And especially important to Iowa, exports of agricultural products 
will rise because of reductions in export subsidies and tariffs in 
Europe, as well as requirements for minimum import access in all 
countries.
  My colleagues have discussed the positive impact GATT will have on 
other sectors of the economy, so I would like to focus on the benefits 
of implementing the Uruguay round to Iowa agriculture. Perhaps the most 
significant accomplishment of the Uruguay round is the reduction in 
tariffs and export subsidies for agricultural products. The tariff 
reductions will lead to increased access to foreign markets for U.S. 
commodities--leveling the playing field in the world market for trading 
agricultural goods. The reduction in export subsidies will force our 
foreign competitors to cut their support for agricultural exports--
again, leveling the playing field for U.S. producers.
  How will these liberalized trade rules benefit agriculture? Although 
the United States is currently running a trade deficit, we enjoy a 
healthy trade surplus in agricultural goods. So even though our foreign 
trading partners erect high barriers to U.S. agriculture imports and 
heavily subsidize their own exports, the United States still exports 
more agricultural commodities than it imports. This is a result of the 
U.S. farmer being the most efficient producer in the world. Because of 
the wide advantage in productivity enjoyed by the U.S. farmer, we will 
be able to export even more agricultural products when worldwide 
barriers and subsidies are lowered.
  The importance of exports to the agriculture sector and the 
individual farmer cannot be overstated. In any given year, the United 
States sells about 70 percent of its wheat, 40 percent of its corn and 
60 percent of its soybeans in the world market. This year, exports take 
on increased significance. The harvest of 1994 has resulted in record 
supplies of corn and soybeans. According to the USDA, the U.S. corn 
crop could exceed 10 billion bushels for the first time in history and 
soybeans should set a record at about 2.5 billion bushels. There are 
literally mountains of grain in Iowa that need to be moved to market. 
However, the demand for grain in the United States is not sufficient to 
liquidate these supplies. Therefore, exporting this grain to foreign 
markets is essential to the viability of the family farmer.
  Clearly the family farmer and farm-related workers will benefit from 
GATT. Consider some projections regarding Iowa farmers, for example. 
The center for agricultural and rural development at Iowa State 
University has concluded that Iowa producers of corn, soybeans, pork, 
and beef all benefit to a large degree under the Uruguay round. As a 
result of increased trade in these commodities, Iowa State economists 
project cash receipts of corn to increase $184 million, receipts from 
hogs will increase $110 million, soybean receipts will rise by $83 
million and, finally, cattle cash receipts are expected to increase $92 
million. The bottom line is that Iowa net farm income is projected to 
rise over $200 million per year from 1995 to 2002. I want to stress 
that these figures are just for Iowa farmers alone. The impact on the 
U.S. agricultural economy is just as dramatic. Cash receipts for 
agriculture products are projected to rise $5 billion by the year 2002 
with net farm income rising $1.4 billion per year from 1995 and 2002. 
Although these figures are dramatic, my intent is not to befuddle the 
American public by citing a number of estimates and projections. The 
basis for these projections is simple: Increased access to the world 
marketplace will increase agricultural exports which, in turn, will 
increase the net income for the American farmer and those associated 
with farming.

  And in regard to the budget issue that has been raised by some of my 
colleagues, in agriculture alone there are a number of budgetary 
consequences that are receiving little or no attention. For example 
without new export markets opened by GATT, U.S. surplus farm production 
will cost the Government more in storage costs, create higher 
deficiency payments and require export subsidies to continue the 
agricultural subsidy battle with the European Union. So rejecting GATT 
could hurt, not help efforts to reduce the budget deficit.
  Let us not forget that the United States has the lowest tariffs in 
the world, so GATT will mean that tariffs of other countries will come 
down. So GATT is more in our interest than that of other nations. When 
foreign tariffs are brought down, the playing field will be level. And 
as the most productive nation on Earth, we can compete with anyone and 
win.
  In the final analysis, my support for this agreement is based on the 
fact that GATT is good for America; GATT is good for Iowa; and GATT is 
good for world prosperity.
  I would now like to deal with some of the arguments that have been 
filling the airwaves lately, that come close to predicting the end of 
the world as we know it if GATT passes. The bone of contention for 
opponents is the provision in GATT that creates the World Trade 
Organization and gives it the authority to arbitrate and settle 
disputes between international traders. Opponents claim the WTO would 
infringe upon U.S. sovereignty making the laws of the land subservient 
to an international tribunal. They have created the impression that the 
WTO was foisted on the United States by countries who want nothing more 
than to invalidate our laws. The arguments ignore the plain facts. The 
WTO was suggested and fought for by the United States out of 
frustration with 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 
enforcement rules. Under the WTO procedures, countries that 
discriminate against U.S. products can no longer ignore adverse 
rulings. And it is worth noting that the United States has won 80 
percent of the cases it has brought to GATT since 1947.

  With regard to U.S. sovereignty, I can state without fear of 
contradiction that no Member of Congress is going to vote against the 
sovereignty of our Nation. This Senator certainly will not do that. But 
this argument is as false as all the others. Let me quote from the 
implementing legislation which states that ``nothing in this act shall 
be construed to amend or modify any law of the United States, including 
any law relating to the protection of human, animal, or plant life or 
health, the protection of the environment, or worker safety.'' The 
legislation also provides in section 102 that ``no provision of GATT * 
* * that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have 
any effect.'' So the implementing legislation emphasizes Congress' 
commitment to ensuring that the United States and not the WTO will 
determine the primacy of U.S. laws.
  And the opponents conveniently overlook the fact that if we don't 
like what's happening with the WTO, we can withdraw at any time by 
giving 6 months notice. And thanks to Senator Dole, we will have 
another withdrawal option, given to Congress, if a review panel decides 
that WTO decisions against the United States have been arbitrary or 
capricious. And if that is not enough, there is a provision in the 
agreement that gives Congress the right to review our situation under 
GATT after 5 years and if we don't like what we see we can withdraw at 
that time. With all these safeguards, it is hard to see how our 
sovereignty is at stake.
  The plain truth is we are the greatest economic power on the planet, 
and our influence will be respected. In fact, the WTO will operate 
under the first rule of international trade: Do unto others as you 
would have them do unto you. If that principle is ignored, then the 
opposite rule will take effect: He who has the gold, rules. We will 
dominate the WTO by that simple fact alone. Simply our threat to 
withdraw will be enough, because who can imagine a WTO without the most 
prestigious and largest member of the International Economic Community.
  Let us bear in mind that membership in GATT is not a lifetime 
commitment. It is, in fact, a voluntary association which we benefit 
from because it will require other countries to play by the same rules 
we have been playing by for years. There is simply no basis to the 
argument that our sovereignty is in danger, and I want my constituents 
to know that this argument is not valid.
  Another argument that has people in an uproar is the one that says 
Congress should not deal with such an important issue during a lameduck 
session. Well, Congress has dealt with many matters of enormous 
importance to the Nation in post-election sessions.
  Since 1950, there have been six post-election sessions. In those 
sessions, Congress has passed well over 150 bills, resolutions and 
conference reports involving matters of national security, economic 
policy, foreign policy, and Government spending. During these sessions 
Congress has ratified treaties, approved a budget and budget 
resolutions, approved major environmental measures, passed a mass 
transit bill and authorized numerous appropriations.
  Every Member in this body was duly elected by his or her constituents 
to serve in the 103d Congress, so any suggestion that this post-
election session lacks ``standing'' or ``legitimacy'' is not legally 
supportable. This is the argument one makes when he knows he can not 
win on the merits. It is simply a smokescreen for delay to give the 
opponents of GATT more time to appeal to people's fear and insecurity.
  Americans have always had a high view of our Nation. We think we 
stand for something important, and that its worth offering the world. 
And the world is listening, as more and more countries try to emulate 
us. When you are No. 1, the only superpower, the only Nation with a 
globally appealing ideology, when you want to keep America first, that 
is the time to promote free trade to open markets to American products. 
GATT does that, and we should pass it now.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado, Senator Hank Brown, 
is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President. I simply wanted to thank the 
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee for entering into the 
Record yesterday, following my talk, the portion of the cost of GATT 
that the United States now pays which is a little under 15 percent. Our 
share of GATT's cost is based on our share of international trade. In 
my statement yesterday, I mentioned the U.S. contribution could be as 
high as 25 percent. This was from an understanding that we may shift to 
a formula used by the United Nations which is based on a member 
country's portion of the total world GDP, and from other proposed 
changes in the assessment of members' contributions to the World Trade 
Organization [WTO] that may take place soon.
  According to the State Department, the size of a member country's 
economy will be a consideration in calculating its contribution to help 
pay for the new WTO. It is likely that some modifications will be made 
in the contributions to the WTO based on each member's portion of the 
total world GDP. Our current portion of the total world economy is 23 
percent.
  Also, beginning in 1996, each GATT member country's contribution will 
reflect its share in international trade in goods, services, and 
intellectual property. Thus, the U.S. contribution to WTO will 
significantly increase because we have the largest trade in service and 
intellectual property in the world.
  The chairman's figures are exactly correct that we currently pay 14.6 
percent of GATT's costs. I appreciate very much him taking the time to 
enter them into the Record to set it straight.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I express my great admiration for 
the graciousness and thoughtfulness of the Senator from Colorado, who 
is meticulous in these matters. If there is any one of us in this 
Chamber who has not had some statistics go awry from time to time, I do 
not know who that would be. I do very much appreciate his remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Oregon for yielding time to me.
  Mr. President, after undertaking a careful review of the Uruguay 
round, I am convinced the GATT agreement provides an unprecedented 
opportunity to benefit the United States, create new high-paying jobs, 
and strengthen our economy. The Uruguay round is the most comprehensive 
trade agreement in history. It breaks down foreign trade barriers and 
opens markets to U.S. goods, services, and agricultural products. Since 
the United States already has the most open market in the world, this 
means more export opportunities for our side.
  Mr. President, in looking at the agreement and being in meetings with 
colleagues, talking to administration and former administration 
officials, I have assimilated a body of information which I am pleased 
to share with the Senate in writing. I have labeled this information, 
that I ask be printed in the Record, ``GATT Agreement Facts.''
  We have heard a lot of rhetoric, we have heard a lot of fears, we 
have heard a lot of arguments, and we have heard a lot of speculation. 
What the Senate needs to focus its attention on right now are the 
facts. I asked my staff to try to sift through all of this information 
that we have accumulated during this process and to put down on paper 
what the facts are. The facts are overwhelmingly persuasive, in my 
view, in favor of approval of this agreement, and in waiving the so-
called ``budget rule'' to accomplish the approval of this agreement.
  I am going to highlight just a few of these facts in the brief time 
that is available to me, and then ask it all be made a part of the 
Record.
  The United States accounted for almost 12 percent of all world 
exports in 1992. We are the world's largest exporting country. We sell 
more of what we produce in the international marketplace than any other 
country.
  Trade represents approximately one-fourth of our gross domestic 
product. Over the last 5 years, U.S. exports accounted for half of our 
total U.S. economic growth.
  The reason these facts are important to me is very obvious. If we are 
able to lower barriers to our trade throughout the world, then those 
growth numbers are going to be even higher in the years ahead, above 
what are already projected to be opportunities for more growth in 
exports.
  It benefits us more than any other country to lower barriers and to 
remove unfair barriers to our trade. This agreement will cut tariffs on 
manufactured goods by over one-third, the largest cut in history.
  The agreement will bring important areas such as services, 
intellectual property, and agriculture under international rules for 
the first time. Why is that important? Because agriculture is one of 
our largest industries. If you add production agriculture with the food 
processing and transportation industries, almost one out of every five 
jobs in America depends upon agriculture, food processing, 
transportation, and the rest.
  Being able to export more from this sector of our economy is a 
tremendous advantage to the United States, and agriculture subsidies 
are brought under GATT for the first time under this agreement. 
Increased agricultural exports will mean higher prices for U.S. 
farmers, along with increased export-related jobs.
  At the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that a roster of the Agriculture for GATT Coalition be printed 
in the Record. This is a list of all of the members of this coalition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
   Mr. COCHRAN. To give you an idea, the Senate should notice there are 
three single-spaced pages of names of organizations and producer groups 
in agriculture that support this agreement.
  Another fact that I am including is that in my State of Mississippi, 
just as an example, we recorded exports of $803 million in 1993, nearly 
80 percent greater than the $354 million in 1987, just 6 years before. 
Exporting and sales in overseas markets is a growth industry in my 
State, as it is in many other States, and much of that is related to 
the exporting of food, food products, timber and timber products, and 
other manufacture products as well.
  Mississippi boosted export sales of a wide range of manufactured 
products over the 1987-93 period. Rapidly expanding export categories 
included furniture and fixtures, up over 1,000 percent; rubber and 
plastic products, up 600 percent; food products, 502 percent; textile 
mill products, 330 percent; fabricated metal products, 154 percent; and 
transportation equipment, 123 percent.
  The agreement contains important provisions to open foreign markets 
and reduce tariffs on many of Mississippi's largest and fastest growing 
export products, leading to economic growth and job creation for the 
State.
  Mississippi expects rapid growth in overseas sales by Mississippi 
manufacturing industries such as furniture, rubber and plastics, 
fabricated metals, and transportation equipment.
  Exports to the State's fastest growing markets--Latin America--stand 
to realize significant benefits under the GATT Agreement.
  Stronger patent and intellectual property protection under GATT and 
harmonization of foreign tariffs at lower levels will benefit 
Mississippi's top export--chemical products.
  The agreement's elimination of tariffs on paper goods, wood, and many 
furniture products will enhance the State's exports.
  Under the agreement, the European Community nations will 
substantially reduce tariffs on many of the State's exports of 
industrial machinery and electronics.
  The WTO does not endanger U.S. sovereignty.
  The World Trade Organization would be the governing body of 
international trade disputes. It provides a forum to resolve trade 
disputes and investigate the issues of tariffs and other trade 
barriers. The WTO cannot directly override U.S. laws or require any 
action to do so. The United States will only be bound to obligations it 
has accepted and Congress has voted on. In comparison to the current 
situation, the WTO would have expanded powers. It would be able to 
exercise indirect powerful pressure upon countries to change its laws 
that contain more rigid requirements on foreign producers than domestic 
producers, regardless of whether the discrimination was intended or 
not. A panel decision will no longer be able to be blocked as under the 
existing GATT. WTO would allow counties aggressively to go after other 
countries through international trade measures.
  According to R. William Ide III, president of the American Bar 
Association, and I quote:

       In particular, the Uruguay Round dispute settlement 
     provisions leave U.S. domestic legal powers totally intact, 
     just as they were under the old GATT rules. Likewise, the WTO 
     simply provides an updated procedural framework for dealing 
     with GATT trade issues. It gives the U.S. more, not less 
     procedural protections than the old GATT. Finally, none of 
     these changes permits GATT rules to override U.S. domestic 
     law, so U.S. sovereignty remains intact.

  Robert H. Bork concurs, I quote:

       In sum, it is impossible to see a threat to this nation's 
     sovereignty posed by either the WTO (World Trade 
     Organization) or the DSU (Dispute Settlement Understanding). 
     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.
  In considering the GATT implementing legislation, a budget waiver is 
justified.
  Under congressional budget rules, the implementing bill must include 
provisions to offset the loss of tariff revenues under the trade 
agreements. Estimates of lost revenues are about $12 billion for the 
first 5 years and as much as $40 billion for 10 years. The bill 
includes about $1.7 billion in savings available from previously 
enacted legislation, another $2.2 billion in savings from nontax 
writing committees--including the controversial pioneer preference 
provisions--and $7.3 billion in a wide variety of relatively small, 
unrelated provisions. Most of the sections are tax provisions, but one 
on tax section pertains to reform of the Pension Benefit Guarantee 
Corporation. If a budget rules waiver is needed in the Senate, 60 votes 
will be needed to pass the waiver.
  A study by the Joint Economic Committee Republican staff, using 
several independent estimates of economic growth under the agreement, 
found that on average, the agreement will raise nearly $30 billion in 
new revenue over the first 5 years. After accounting for the expected 
$12 billion revenue lost to tariff reductions, the agreement still 
comes out ahead on revenues by an average of nearly $18 billion. When 
the total fiscal impact is considered, every study of the GATT surveyed 
by the staff showed a net reduction to the Federal deficit.
  According to Representative Jim Saxton, of New Jersey:

       We are all aware of the PAYGO rules which threaten to hold 
     up the GATT legislation. In general, the PAYGO rules are 
     helpful in preventing new and wasteful spending. However, in 
     the case of free trade in general and the GATT in particular, 
     such rules fly in the face of virtually all the available 
     evidence. The purpose behind the GATT is to improve economic 
     performance. Virtually all economists agree it will have this 
     effect. * * *
       There are some valid concerns about the GATT, but 
     objections to this free trade agreement over its fiscal 
     impact are hollow. The GATT will not reduce Federal revenues, 
     and in all likelihood, it will substantially increase them. 
     The Congress should start governing smarter, and the GATT 
     presents a marvelous opportunity to do so.


                    background information--history

  The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT] is a multilateral 
trade agreement, entered into force in 1948, to promote freer trade 
among member countries. GATT provides a forum for negotiating trade 
issues and a framework of principles guiding the conduct of trade. 
Central features of the GATT framework are: nondiscriminatory trade 
treatment; reliance on tariffs, rather than nontariff barriers, when it 
is necessary to protect domestic producers; adherence to negotiated 
tariff rates, at fixed maximum levels; and, settlement of disputes 
through consultation and conciliation. The membership of GATT includes 
123 countries, accounting for over four-fifths of world trade.
  Prior to the Uruguay round, signatory countries had conducted seven 
rounds of trade negotiations. Despite the significant accomplishments 
of these rounds in removing barriers to trade, many observers 
maintained that important reforms were needed to improve GATT rules and 
procedures, to strengthen the codes negotiated in the rounds, and to 
expand the coverage of the GATT to new areas of international trade. A 
conference in Uruguay in September 1986 launched a new round of 
multilateral trade negotiations.
  Trade officials from over 100 countries signed the closing documents 
of the Uruguay round in Marrakesh, Morocco on April 15, 1994. They 
endorsed the Final Act, a 22,000 page document that includes rules on 
trade in goods, trade in services, intellectual property rights, and 
dispute settlement.


                               provisions

  The agreement would produce significant changes in the world trading 
system.
  World Trade Organization.--The agreement establishes a new structure 
for the administration of world trade rules. The umbrella body with 
oversight of this structure will be the World Trade Organization [WTO]. 
WTO will administer agreements on goods, services, and intellectual 
property rights, and will oversee the dispute settlement understanding. 
WTO will also administer the trade policy review mechanism, which will 
regularly examine countries' trade policies and practices. Countries 
will have to sign on to all of the new trade structure or none of it, 
thus eliminating the free rider problem where a country gains the 
benefits of an agreement without accepting the obligations.
  Tariff reductions.--Developed countries agreed to cut tariffs on 
industrial products by an average 38 percent. Tariffs would be reduced 
to zero for the following: construction equipment, agricultural 
equipment, medical equipment, steel, beer, distilled spirits--not all 
kinds--pharmaceutical, paper, toys, and furniture. Tariffs would be 
reduced by 50 to 100 percent on electronic items, and they would be 
harmonized at reduced rates for chemicals. Most tariff reductions would 
be effective after 5 years, except for certain sensitive products, 
which would have tariffs reduced over 10 years.
  Agriculture.--Countries agreed to cut export subsidy outlays by 36 
percent and the quantities exported with subsidies by 21 percent--1986-
90 base--over 6 years for developed countries and over 10 years for 
developing countries.
  Nontariff barriers to imports, such as quotas, will be replaced by 
tariffs. All tariffs will be reduced by an average 36 percent--24 
percent for developing countries--with a minimum cut of 15 percent; 10 
percent for developing countries, for each tariff item.
  Internal support programs, that distort trade will have to be cut by 
20 percent--1986-88 base. Credit will be allowed for cuts already 
undertaken since 1986. Action will not be taken against export 
subsidies and internal support measures that meet the above reduction 
commitments. Imports, however, will be subject to countervailing duties 
except in certain circumstances.
  Sanitary and phytosanitary measures.--Countries also agreed to 
several provisions on sanitary and phytosanitary measures; health and 
safety measures related to people, animals, and plants. They agreed 
that each country has the right to set its own standards. Standards 
should be based on scientific principles and can be more stringent than 
international standards. States and local governments are expected to 
abide by the Uruguay round framework, but do not have to lower their 
standards if the standards are scientifically based.
  Textiles and apparel.--Countries agreed to a 10-year phaseout of the 
current quota system under the multifiber arrangement and full 
integration of textiles and apparel into the GATT. During the 10-year 
period, a safeguard mechanism will be allowed to protect domestic 
industries against import surges; special provisions on 
transshipments--shipments through a third country--are included. Quotas 
will be eliminated in three stages over 10 years, with the importing 
countries having wide discretion over which products are freed from 
quotas at each stage.
  Developed and developing countries have agreed to market access 
commitments, both for tariffs and nontariff barriers. Trade remedies 
are allowed if a country does not meet its commitments.
  Safeguards--protections against import surges that threaten to harm a 
domestic industry.--The safeguards section includes some incentives to 
use the multilateral safeguards process rather than unilateral 
measures, and it places tighter controls on how safeguard measures are 
used. For example, existing voluntary restraint agreements; agreements 
where the exporting country voluntarily limits its exports, will be 
phased out over 4 years, except for one allowed exception that will be 
phased out by the end of 1999. The reason for imposition of safeguards 
will be publicly explained, and any safeguards will be phased out over 
a maximum term of 8 years.
  Antidumping.--The agreement consists mostly of relatively minor 
clarification and expansion of existing provisions. Changes include: a 
standard of review, greater transparency and due process in antidumping 
investigations, de minimis dumping and import volume margins, sunset of 
antidumping orders, cumulation of injury, and recognition of 
anticircumvention practices.
  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.--The agreement adopts 
substantive changes in the subsidies and countervailing practice. It 
(1) introduces modified subsidies disciplines for developing countries; 
(2) defines ``subsidy''; and (3) categorizes subsidies as: prohibited--
specific subsidies--to individual enterprises--and export performance-
conditioned subsidies; actionable--countervailable--those causing 
injury, impairment of benefits, or serious prejudice, subsidies that 
exceed 5 percent; cover operating losses, or forgive debt; and 
nonactionable--provisions expire in 5 years--for industrial research, 
up to 75 percent of cost; precompetitive development activity, up to 50 
percent; regional development, or one-time adaptation of facilities to 
new environmental requirements, up to 20 percent; and introduces 
modified subsidies disciplines for developing countries.
  Trade-related investment measures.--The agreement establishes, for 
the first time, rules on investment measures that distort trade. It 
includes a list of measures that are prohibited, including local 
content and trade balancing requirements. The phaseout period for 
eliminating prohibited investment practices would be 2 years for 
developed countries, 5 years for developing countries, and 7 years for 
the least developed countries. As practices are phased out, a country 
can impose similar requirements on new entrants into their market in 
order to reduce any disadvantages on already established firms. A 
review of this section will be required within 5 years.
  Services.--For the first time, countries agreed to international 
rules and market access commitments to cover trade in services. These 
provisions are in the newly established General Agreement on Trade in 
Services [GATS]. Also for the first time, disputes concerning the trade 
in services will be covered by multilateral dispute procedures.
  The GATS includes a broad framework of principles that include most-
favored-nation [MFN] treatment, nondiscrimination among foreign 
services or service providers; national treatment, nondiscrimination 
between domestic and foreign services or service providers; 
transparency, publicly available information; and access to markets.
  Intellectual property rights.--The agreement establishes, for the 
first time, rules for trade-related intellectual property rights [IPR] 
and brings these issues under a multilateral dispute process.
  Countries agreed to observe the major copyright treaty, the Berne 
Convention, and they agreed to important copyright protections for 
computer bases, motion picture makers, and sound recordings. They 
agreed to greater protection under both process and product patents and 
to some limits on compulsory licensing of patents; however, U.S. 
pharmaceutical companies oppose the long lead-in time for developing 
countries to change their laws. Other protections in the agreement 
cover trademarks, trade secrets, integrated circuits, industrial 
designs, and appellation of origin--product names specific to a 
geographical region.
  Dispute settlement.--The final act greatly strengthens the dispute 
procedures. It provides that dispute procedures shall apply to the 
areas of goods, services, and intellectual property rights, and allows 
cross-retaliation; that is, retaliation in one are to address a 
violation in another.
  Several changes are expected to strengthen the dispute settlement 
process; establishment of a dispute panel upon request, automatic 
adoption of panel reports, a time limit on implementation of a panel 
finding, and automatic approval of retaliation if a country refuses to 
implement the finding, unless a consensus agrees otherwise. A country 
will not be forced to change its practices if it loses a case, but if 
it does not implement the panel finding, it might face retaliation by 
the other party to the dispute. It is uncertain how the use of 
unilateral U.S. measures, section 301, might change with this stronger 
dispute process, but many experts have said that there might be less 
need to use unilateral measures with stronger multilateral rules.
  Government procurement.--The government procurement agreement 
provides for open information on bids, minimum deadlines for bids, 
notification of bid outcome, procedures for protest of bid decisions, 
and a tie-in to the multilateral dispute procedures. It covers, for the 
first time, government procurement in services. The agreement sets a 
threshold for procurement to be covered, and it expands the types of 
procurement covered by adding sub-federal procurement, limited mostly 
in public utilities. There is some difference in concessions from 
country to country, depending upon the concessions offered by each 
country.
  Other trade provisions.--Several other important provisions are in 
the final act. The section on import licensing procedures includes a 
minimum notification period if licensing procedures are changed, limits 
the time to process licensing applications, and requires that countries 
instituting new licensing procedures must provide detailed 
notification. The section on customs valuation includes changes related 
to investigation of customs fraud and developing country obligations. 
The section on preshipment inspection includes rules related to the use 
of preshipment inspection companies, which often are employed by 
developing countries for customs-related work, and dispute provisions. 
The section on rules of origin includes disciplines on such rules and 
requires that a 3-year work program be undertaken to try to harmonize 
the rules of origin among signatories. The section on technical 
barriers to trade deals with how counties set technical standards and 
how they determine conformance with those standards. Several provisions 
relate to miscellaneous GATT articles such as balance-of-payment 
problems, state trading companies, and preferential trading 
arrangements.
  The environment.--Environmental issues were included in the final act 
as modifications to language in the preamble and sections on technical 
barriers to trade, sanitary and phyto- sanitary measures, and dispute 
settlement. An environmental work program was formulated and it was 
agreed that an environmental committee in the WTO will be established 
to carry out the work plan. Environmental groups are split on the 
outcome of the round: some support the increased participation that the 
environmental committee provides; others are concerned about the 
potential of the WTO to reduce environmental standards and want a full 
negotiation of environmental and trade issues. Attention will focus on 
how environmental goals and objectives might be outlined in the 
implementing legislation.
  Worker rights.--The United States pushed strenuously for discussion 
of worker rights during the months between conclusion of the round and 
the Marrakesh signing. Although the United States was unsuccessful in 
having a permanent committee on worker rights established in the WTO, 
it did have the issue placed on the agenda for the preparatory 
committee. What this means is that worker rights will be one of the 
topics considered for possible inclusion on future agendas.
  Mr. President, based on all of these facts and comments that I have 
been able to elicit from present administration officials, from the 
Bush administration and the Reagan administration officials, it is as 
clear as anything can be that the approval of this agreement and waiver 
of the budget rules are the things for the Senate to do today.

                               Exhibit 1

                         Ag for GATT Coalition


                         national associations

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


                      STATE/REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

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


                         companies/cooperatives

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

  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  If I might, Mr. President, I have 16 speakers left, and if we go 15 
minutes apiece, I will use up more time than I have. If we can hold it 
to 15, I would appreciate it.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the debate we are having today is not 
new; it has raged in this century and those before--here and in the 
Parliaments of Europe. For most of the Victorian Age, England, the 
greatest economic power of the 19th century, held to a policy of free 
trade and prospered. At the turn of the century, an ``Imperial 
Preference'' plan was proposed to divide the world in two. Crown 
colonies would enjoy free trade with England, while all other nations 
would be walled off by stiff tariffs.
  The Imperial Preference was as controversial then as GATT is today. 
England's greatest statesman, Winston Churchill, was then a back-
bencher in the House of Commons. He had followed in his father's 
footsteps in support of free trade, and as a Conservative Party member. 
But on the Imperial Preference, Churchill refused to follow his party 
leaders towards protectionism; he crossed the aisle to join the free-
trade liberals, stating that protectionism is a:

       Policy to shut the British Empire up in a ringed fence. Why 
     should we deny ourselves the good and varied merchandise 
     which the traffic of the world offers, more especially since 
     the more we trade with others, the more they trade with us.

  This week, as we debate whether our country should continue to be 
part of the economic community of nations, we should listen to what the 
lessons of history from abroad and from our own former Presidents teach 
us.


                                history

  First, we need to remember Calvin Coolidge, a plain-spoken American. 
He said, ``the business of America is business.'' Our national identity 
is not wrapped up in a historic monarchy. Our Nation is about freedom 
to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. To succeed in that pursuit, we 
need jobs--and the paychecks that follow. We need employers and 
workers, raw materials and factories, customers and suppliers.
  With our abundant resources and educated work force, we produce more 
than we consume. We cannot have the business and jobs we have today 
without trade with other countries.
  Shortly after President Coolidge left office, Congress passed the 
Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Under Smoot-Hawley, tariffs on imports rose 
to the highest level in history. In 1932, tariffs averaged 59 percent--
nearly doubling the cost of imported raw materials and finished goods. 
Smoot-Hawley pushed us into the depths of the depression; we did not 
fully recover until after the Second World War. Under authority 
delegated from Congress, the Roosevelt administrations were able to 
reduce these tariffs through a series of international agreements.
  Following the war, the United States and eight other countries agreed 
to a provisional GATT--15 other nations soon joined. Six rounds of 
negotiations and agreements followed the initial agreement--the first 
five concentrated on tariff reduction. Other rounds concentrated on 
reducing nontariff trade barriers and coordinating antidumping laws. 
The Uruguay round agreement is the latest step in a continuing series 
of agreements that have reduced tariffs and other barriers to 
international trade.


                    former president's contributions

  As we debate the GATT bill, we need to remember the contributions to 
two former Presidents--Presidents Reagan and Bush. Under their 
leadership, the Uruguay round went from an idea--to expand trade 
agreements beyond tariff reduction to trade in services, trade in 
agriculture products, intellectual property protection, and reducing 
government subsidies--to near completion.

  Without their unshakable belief in American competitiveness and the 
free market system, and their faith in the eventual resolution of the 
talks to the benefit of the United States, we would not be on the 
threshold of a new chapter in world economic growth. President Reagan 
said:

       America doesn't need to hide behind trade barriers. Given a 
     level playing field, Americans can out-produce and out-
     compete anyone, anywhere on earth. That's why it's the policy 
     of this Administration to open markets abroad, not close them 
     at home.

  President Bush's leadership and understanding of North American 
economics probably did more for free trade than any other modern 
President. By successfully completing the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement, President Bush showed that freeing countries from trade 
barriers could do more than just create jobs and increase trade. Trade 
creates good neighbors and solidifies friendships.


                              trade policy

  Despite the efforts of Presidents Bush and Reagan, the Uruguay round 
talks were a marathon. Internal politics in Japan and France prevented 
a resolution of agricultural issues, and delayed completion of the 
round for almost 2 years. Despite claims that foreign rice was unfit 
for consumption, the Japanese Government agreed to end its ban on 
imports of rice. By the year 2000, rice imports in Japan will be 8 
percent of the market. French farmers also held up agricultural 
negotiations--and traffic in Paris--until a worldwide deal on oilseeds 
and other issues were reached.
  We have delays here in the United States, too. After years of 
negotiations we made important new agreements with over 100 other 
nations. But the Clinton administration put passage of this 
legislation, and our participation in the WTO, at risk by delaying this 
bill in order to push new international environment and labor 
standards. Congress flatly refused to allow this by refusing to include 
new fast track negotiating authority for the President in this fast 
track bill. New negotiating authority should be fully considered on its 
own, in amendable legislation.
  That brings us to the present. I have been in a dilemma over GATT 
because there are serious questions and serious consequences for voting 
either yes or no. I want to discuss a few of the serious issues.


                                  wto

  Much of the concern over the agreement has focused on whether the WTO 
is a threat to the sovereignty of the United States. I have thoroughly 
reviewed this issue. I have concluded that the implementing legislation 
contains adequate safeguards against ceding our authority to a 
multinational body.
  Under our constitutional system, no treaty or international agreement 
can bind the United States if we do not wish to be bound. At any time, 
Congress can override such an agreement by statute. Similarly, the WTO 
Agreement states that any amendment changing the rights or obligations 
of a member country is not binding unless it is agreed to by the 
member.

  Changes in existing trade agreements--which will include the Uruguay 
round agreements if they go into effect--require a two thirds vote of 
the WTO. If a member refuses to accept a change, it can be asked to 
withdraw from the WTO by a three-quarters vote. But such a sanction 
could not reasonably be imposed on the United States--member countries 
would not eject their largest customer for their imports from the low-
tariff trading community. but if it were imposed, ejection would simply 
put us where opponents want us--out of the WTO. So this argument is 
without foundation; in sum, it is ``we shouldn't join the WTO because 
we could get thrown out.''
  No less a constitutional scholar than Judge Robert Bork has concluded 
that the sovereignty issue is a ``scarecrow'' raised by opponents of 
lowering trade barriers. Bork found that many of the safeguards in the 
WTO agreement are either the same or stronger than those already 
existing in the GATT, under which we have operated successfully for 
decades. Under the new agreement, changes to the WTO dispute settlement 
rules--the rules for challenges by one member to another's laws or 
practices--now require a unanimous vote of all members; under the GATT, 
they could be changed by a two-third vote.
  The GATT has existed for almost 50 years as a multilateral trade 
agreement, and an ad hoc body to administer the agreements. But in 
order to make sure that the best interests of the United States are 
protected, Senator Dole and the Clinton administration reached an 
agreement last week to pass legislation next year that will establish a 
``WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission'' of five Federal appellate 
judges.
  Under the Dole agreement, if there are three commission 
determinations in 5 years that a WTO panel unfairly hurt the United 
States interests, any Senator or Congressman could introduce a 
privileged, expedited joint resolution disapproving of United States 
participation in the Uruguay round agreements. If the resolution is 
enacted by the Congress and signed by the President, the United States 
will commence withdrawal from the WTO.
  Senator Dole's agreement establishes a procedure for expedited 
consideration of withdrawal from the WTO if the WTO does not 
effectively serve the United States best interests. Because of the 
improvement made in the agreement, I believe that joining the WTO will 
not harm the sovereignty of the United States.


                               financing

  I remain, however, severely disappointed with the administration's 
financing plan.
  While some of the revenue increases in the bill are good--I certainly 
support denying the earned income tax credit to prisoners and illegal 
aliens--others are irresponsible. For years, savings bonds have been 
the soundest, most accessible investment for many Americans. Why are we 
eroding the public's trust in savings bonds and the Government by 
repealing the mandatory 4 percent floor on savings bond interests?
  Cuts in tariffs are tax cuts--they reduce tariffs on imports. Tariffs 
are unkowingly paid to the Government by consumers as part of the sales 
price at the check-out counter. Cutting tariffs reduces prices--
not only on imports, but through competition on U.S. products, too. 
Lower prices mean consumers have more money to spend that goes to 
producers, instead of to the Government, which means more sales, more 
sales revenue, and more jobs. It also means that economic activity 
increases--which creates higher, not lower, total Government revenue.

  Despite this, the administration insisted that the tariff cuts be 
offset for the first 5 years--they don't believe tax cuts change 
consumer behavior. OMB went so far as to say that ``we do not believe 
it is necessary to sacrifice budget discipline'' to pass GATT. But they 
fell $2.5 billion short in their offsets, and came up with a budget 
gimmick--counting past tax increases that were already used for deficit 
reduction--for a second time.
  After insisting on a static model estimate for the first 5 years, the 
administration argued that Senators should vote to waive the Budget Act 
because cutting tariffs will raise revenue over years 6 through 10. So 
offsetting the first 5 years became unnecessary in the Senate--we need 
a Budget Act waiver anyway.
  The administration could have: Used spending cuts as offsets; 
recognized that the static model does not compensate for consumer 
behavior; or fully offset the entire agreement instead of using budget 
gimmicks.
  Instead, they ask us to believe one prediction method for the first 5 
years, and a second for the second 5 years.
  All I can say in response to such inconsistency is that when 
consumers have money in their pockets instead of the Government's, they 
either save or spend it--and both help the economy and raise revenue 
more than higher taxes do. When Republicans are in the majority, I hope 
the administration will recognize that we expect honest accounting. We 
may not agree on methods, but there should be no more shell games of 
switching estimating models after 5 years or recounting past tax 
increases as an offset.


                              consequences

  So that brings me to the consequences of passing or not passing this 
bill. Some have tried to pin jobs lost in America to trade agreements. 
That is wishful thinking on the part of Members of Congress looking for 
the trees and missing the forest.
  Jobs have left America because Government regulation, litigation, and 
taxation makes it too expensive to do business in America. If our 
businesses can not compete, it is not because our workers are paid 
more. All the statistics show our workers make up for their better 
wages by being more productive and efficient than workers in foreign 
countries.
  When our businesses can not compete, its because over-regulation and 
litigation drive up their production costs, and taxes drain their 
capital. GATT is a first step towards leveling the playing field 
because it reduces other countries trade barriers. We must take that 
first step now, and next year we must take another step towards 
leveling the playing field by passing regulatory and litigation reform 
here at home.
  Over time, reducing trade barriers has benefited America. In the 
early 1950's, most countries tariffs on imports averaged 40 percent. 
Once the new agreements are fully implemented, tariffs will average 
less than 4 percent. Our gross national product in 1947--expressed in 
today's prices, for better comparison--was $231 billion. Today, our 
national economy is almost $7 trillion a year. This is more than a 30-
fold increase since we first joined the GATT.

  Obviously, GATT has been good for America, and for the world economy. 
Reducing tariffs from 40 to 4 percent has created jobs here, and jobs 
abroad. I am sure it has created more jobs in developing countries than 
any foreign aid money ever has.
  GATT will also be good for my home state of Texas. The GATT agreement 
opens new foreign markets by lowering other countries' tariffs on 
chemicals, computers, semiconductors, construction equipment, and steel 
that is produced in Texas, and in many other States. Agriculture will 
benefit from increased access to world markets--feed grain, cotton, 
beef, and poultry exports are expected to increase.
  Most important, GATT will benefit consumers; the Treasury estimates 
that lower prices from GATT will result in savings of $1,700 for every 
American family of four. That is a tax cut which provides needed help 
for every person--it will mean more food, clothing, books, and 
education savings for children all over America. People will choose 
where their money is spent, instead of being forced to fund 
bureaucratic spending programs from Washington.
  Our experience with NAFTA is a resounding success. We're enjoying a 
``Surge in Trade,'' according to one recent newspaper article. Exports 
to Mexico are up 22 percent in 1994. These exports support thousands of 
jobs in the United States.
  For example:
  Because of cuts in tariffs under NAFTA, the Miles, Inc. chemical 
company has closed its plants in Mexico. Because the plants in Mexico 
are no longer protected with high tariffs, they cannot compete with the 
productivity, efficiency, and skills of American workers. Miles now 
exports to Mexico from its plant in Baytown, TX.
  In El Paso, a new plant that manufacturers Wrangler jeans has created 
450 new jobs this year to meet demand from NAFTA-related trade.
  Even though newsprint tariffs do not go down until 1997, the improved 
business climate with Mexico has more than doubled newsprint exports to 
Mexico in the last year.
  We can continue to increase our exports under GATT, and increase 
employment throughout America.
  So to conclude, while I am troubled by part of this agreement, my 
choices do not include amending it. My choice is to vote yes--or no. 
Because of its benefits for American workers and American consumers, I 
will vote ``yes'' for the implementing bill, and for the motion to 
waive the Budget Act.
  Winston Churchill said that the price of greatness is responsibility. 
It is our responsibility to act now for the benefit of American workers 
and for our country's future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that the time be charged against the three 
parties in charge of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, yesterday I used the example of 
agriculture as an industry, and I use the term ``industry'' in the best 
sense of the word, that is able to compete worldwide when given a level 
playing field.
  In response, my good friend from South Carolina, the junior Senator, 
Senator Hollings, said, well, what would you expect from an industry 
that is the most subsidized industry in the world and no wonder they 
can compete?
  I would like to respond to that as follows: As far as my State of 
Oregon is concerned, wheat is our largest agricultural export. At the 
moment, we export about 85 percent of all the wheat we grow. At the 
moment, the export price in Portland is $4.50 to $4.60 a bushel. Which 
is above the target subsidy price set in the 1990 farm bill. Therefore, 
these wheat farmers are getting no GATT-illegal subsidy. They are 
competing on the worldwide market without a penny of any GATT-illegal 
subsidy.
  In order of export, our next biggest crops are vegetables, 
principally processed vegetables, fruits, peaches, cherries, all kinds 
of fruits, and then grass and vegetable seeds. Oregon has become one of 
the largest seed-growing areas in the entire world, both grass seeds or 
vegetable seeds. Neither vegetables, fruits nor seeds are subsidized at 
all.
  So we are competing throughout the world without subsidies and 
beating the world.
  Yesterday I called John Deere to recheck my facts, and I said, what 
does a large combine cost? They said, $145,000 to $150,000. What does 
the large tractor cost? And this one surprised me--$120,000 to 
$130,000.
  I guess I am old enough. I was thinking of the old-style tractors. 
These are immense new tractors that are pulling these combines.
  You say to yourself, how can a farmer pay $150,000 for a combine and 
$140,000 for a tractor--and that is not all the equipment they need--
and compete with the farmer someplace else that is using an ox and a 
wooden plow?
  You know the argument that is raised--30 cents an hour, 30 cents an 
hour, clean conditions, child labor. How does a husband, wife and maybe 
a couple kids and maybe or maybe not a hired hand beat the world? And 
the answer is productivity.
  At the turn of the century a farmer could feed seven people in the 
United States. Now, a farmer can feed about 80 people, and I will wager 
that by the end of this century a farmer will be able to feed about 100 
people in this country.
  Agriculture is the most stunning example, more than manufacturing, 
more than services, of our success in productivity. But we can do it in 
manufacturing and we are starting to. We can do it in services, and we 
are doing it. We have an immense surplus in our balance of trade in 
services.
  I just wanted to set the record straight that at least as far as 
Oregon is concerned the products we are competing with throughout the 
world are mostly agricultural products that are not GATT illegally 
subsidized, that are very, very capital intensive and that we are 
winning that war and we can continue to do it and GATT will make it 
even easier to do it.
  I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally against the parties.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wofford). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the chairman yielding and hope that I might 
have 5 additional minutes if I need it at the end.
  Mr. President, I take no great pleasure in being on this floor on the 
opposing side of this GATT issue. I think it was Mark Twain who was 
once asked to debate and he said, ``Fine, give me the opposing side. 
That will take no preparation.''
  I would prefer to be here on another side of this issue. But the fact 
is, we are presented with these trade agreements under a fast-track 
procedure and we are told that you cannot amend them. It is this way or 
no way. So we only have one option here. We either accept or reject 
these agreements.
  I also take no pleasure in this because this President, President 
Clinton, and this Trade Representative, Ambassador Kantor, have 
exhibited real guts as compared to many others in the past 20 years. 
They have stood tall on bilateral negotiations with Japan and Canada 
and others, and they have done things other administrations would not 
even think of trying to do. So I support them very much in their 
initiatives on trade.
  But our trade strategy, in my judgment, that brings this GATT 
agreement to the floor is a bipartisan failure and has been for a long 
while. It moves us in precisely the wrong direction.
  This year our Nation's trade deficit will be the largest in American 
history. If you are not persuaded that the current trade strategy, 
which helped produce the largest deficit in history this year, is the 
wrong direction, what on Earth will persuade you?
  We have accumulated a trade deficit of $1.2 trillion since 1980. What 
on Earth does it take to be persuaded that this is the wrong direction?
  I just heard someone refer a moment ago to the United States of 
America as the dominant figure in world trade, leading the way. And I 
was thinking of reading to my son the other night about Gulliver's 
travels and this behemoth Gulliver laying there on the ground tied up 
by the Lilliputians. That is the way we are in trade.
  Yes, we are large. We are the largest economy in the world. That is 
why we are the biggest market for cheap imports, displacing American 
jobs. There is no substitute for the American marketplace anywhere on 
this globe. And that is why in every corner of the Earth there are 
interests, and especially the international corporations' interests, 
who want to produce where it is cheap and then sell not in Libya, not 
in Nairobi, not in Kenya, but in the American marketplace.
  Why? Because they can compete in the market with very cheap labor, 
displace American jobs, and injure this country's economy, and under 
the new GATT they can do so with no restrictions, no admission price at 
all.
  Under the rules of the new GATT, companies are free to produce shirts 
somewhere overseas in some factory using 6-year-olds or 10-year-olds 
working 12 hours a day and making 12 cents an hour, and then ship them 
to Cleveland, ship them to Fargo, ship them to New York to be sold in a 
store under a designer label name and have the American consumer 
purchase the products of labor of 12-year-olds. The admission price to 
our marketplace should be higher than that.
  Free trade is just fine, as long as it is fair competition. And the 
plain fact is, this trade strategy is not fair, it is not fair to our 
country, it is not fair to our workers, and it is not fair to our 
businesses who produce here and try to compete here and around the rest 
of the world.
  This is supposed to be a time of change and new policy, a period of 
fresh air in public policy in Washington. And, do you know what? We 
come back to this Senate floor after the recent elections and engage in 
the same old, worn out, failed trade policies that have put this 
country deep in debt. The same old policies. There is no change here.
  I read yesterday, and I think I will read again, some of the debate 
from our consideration of the Tokyo round trade agreements in 1979. 
That was the last time we debated a new GATT agreement here.
  Here is what the proponents of the 1979 agreements said. Now, just 
close your eyes and imagine. Is it 1979 or 1994?
  ``These agreements offer new opportunities for all Americans. For 
American farmers, the agreement expands world markets for American farm 
products. For American workers, the agreement offers more jobs, higher 
incomes, and more effective responses to unfair foreign competition.'' 
That is the argument made here in 1979.
  What happened? GATT was passed. Those were the promises. Well, U.S. 
agriculture exports did go up 5 percent. In 14 years, agricultural 
imports into this country went up 32 percent. Is that not something?
  How about the American workers? Since the Tokyo Round Agreement, the 
United States has seen a net loss of 3.3 million manufacturing jobs.
  Higher incomes? Oh, no. Most Americans out there in the American 
households understand that average household incomes has declined since 
1979.
  So how on Earth can the people who gave us the promises in the last 
round have any credibility at all?
  The central point here is that U.S. living standards are being 
sacrificed to a bunch of failed policies and a slogan called ``free 
trade.''
  I know that when you stand on this floor and speak as I speak, you 
are immediately categorized as some protectionist. Protectionist. Lord, 
it is an awful word, I guess, that you would want to protect the 
economic interests of our country. I do not know when that became 
unfashionable, but I regret that it did. I should think it would be 
fashionable for people to stand here and protect the economic interests 
of America.
  Protect us against imports? No, not at all. I want our consumers to 
have the widest choice.
  Protect us against unfair competition that would move our jobs 
elsewhere? You better believe I want to protect us against that.
  Protect us against policies that will erode and have eroded the 
income of the American family? You bet I want to protect us against 
that. Just chalk it up and mark me down as a protectionist. If we are 
talking about protecting American income and protecting American jobs, 
you are darn right that is something I want to protect. If being called 
a protectionist is the price for doing that, then count me in.

  But, do not ever confuse protecting the economic interests of our 
country with efforts to put a wall around America. A wall is not our 
intent. It will always be my intent to fight for a world in which we 
have broader, expanded trade but trade which is fair and trade in which 
there is an admission price to enter a developed marketplace. We fought 
for 50 years for safe working conditions and fair living wages and 
protection of air and water against dumping pollutants and chemicals 
and toxic waste into water and air, and the admission price into our 
marketplace must reflect our determination to maintain those 
accomplishments for the American people.
  That is exactly what this debate is about.
  Interesting. I had a debate yesterday with some people from the U.S. 
Trade Representative's office. They were alleging that these new 
agreements are going to help us with Japan. Total bunk. Nonsense. This 
will do nothing with respect to Japan. We have a $60 billion trade 
deficit with Japan. It is a shame, a shame that we have that 
circumstance in our bilateral relationship between us and Japan.
  Yes, Japan is a good friend but they have taken advantage of us for 
decades. We ought not have a $60 billion trade deficit with Japan, and 
this GATT agreement will do nothing to resolve it. The only thing that 
will resolve it is bilateral negotiations that are tough, assertive, 
strong, with some nerve, and will on our part say to them, ``You cannot 
do that. If you expect to ship your goods to the United States of 
America, then you better expect to have your markets open for our goods 
to be shipped there. We are going to hold up a mirror and look in the 
mirror because what you see is what you get. You treat us fairly, we 
treat you fairly.''
  That is the way reciprocal trade ought to work.
  China? China is not even a part of the new trade agreements; another 
outrage. Their trade deficit with us has gone from $9 billion, to $12 
billion, to $18 billion--this year to $28 billion. Our trade strategy 
with China is not working. The deficit is draining American jobs. That 
should not be hard to understand.
  I just heard a Member of the Senate talk about jobs leaving America, 
saying that the exodus is not because of cheap labor elsewhere, but 
because of Government regulation. I do not know how you could come to 
such a conclusion. You have a choice in this country if you are a 
producer. You can produce with the same money: Hiring one American, or, 
instead, 20 Filipinos; or 40 from India; or, 80 Chinese.
  Under those conditions, producers go outside this country and use 
cheap labor to produce their products; ship American jobs there, and 
then ship their goods back here. That means we lose. It is a process of 
accessing cheap labor to injure our marketplace.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask the Senator for 5 additional minutes?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Two?
  Mr. DORGAN. Two is fine. I had wanted to speak about child labor and 
about agriculture.
  Regarding agriculture, the Senator from Oregon made the point about 
farmers. I support it fully. While we disagree on the end strategy 
here, I support his point about agriculture. But the fact is, you take 
a look at what happens in agriculture. We negotiate to reduce export 
subsidies and, guess what? We lose every single trade negotiation. The 
European Community will end up with three times as much allowable 
export subsidies on wheat, for example, as our country will be allowed 
to use. That is fair? Of course it is not fair.
  Think of this as an Olympics. We have an Olympics and we put uniforms 
on Americans and we put ``USA'' on them. We all sit on the edge of our 
couch hoping that we win. This is an economic Olympics of sorts. The 
fact is the winners are going to be the recipients of new jobs, 
expanded opportunities, and economies that provide new growth.
  The losers are misguided nations who believe what matters is not what 
you produce, but what your consume. It is called the British disease: a 
shrinking economy, shrinking base, shrinking job opportunities. The 
fact is, what matters is what you produce. That is the genesis of 
economic health, the genesis of jobs and income.
  This is an international Olympics of sorts, and the fact is we have 
somehow been embarrassed to support our team. We have somehow not been 
concerned about our winning. The only important element at the end of 
this debate when all the dust settles on all the issues that are raised 
is this and only this: Have we done something that increases--no, not 
trade exports, not GDP--have we done something that increases the 
standard of living of people who live in America? If not, then we have 
lost. And, on that basis, this GATT trade agreement is a loser for this 
country.
  There is a much better way, with open trade, expanded trade, and 
better opportunity for the entire world; a way that I support. That is 
free trade with fair competition between us and other countries of the 
world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota 
for his fine statement, and I appreciate his comments, especially about 
the importance of incorporating basic internationally-recognized human 
rights standards into our trade policy.
  Let me start by quoting from the Calgary Herald of the other day.

       This past Friday the preparatory committee for the new 
     World Trade Organization, WTO, rejected any formal 
     institutional arrangement subjecting the new body to any 
     human rights scrutiny whatsoever.

  This was this last Friday. This was the last effort to have some kind 
of linkage to human rights in this trade arrangement, and it failed. I 
would like to just follow up on what the Senator from North Dakota 
said. He said he did not have a chance to go to child labor and human 
rights issues. I want to do so now. And if a picture is worth 1000 
words, let me start out with a picture.
  The first picture here is of three sisters, age 6 to 16, working in 
an incense factory in Nagpur, India. They roll 20,000 incense sticks 
per day for less than $1.65. Children working all day, for a total 
income of $1.65.
  Next picture. Young children who work in a carpet factory in Nepal, 
for long hours under strict production quotas that they must meet to 
avoid abuse by their employers.
  Next picture. Children who are forced to work because of debts owed 
by their parents, in India--in virtual indentured servitude.
  Mr. President, while some on this floor have downplayed this issue, 
facts are stubborn things. There are an estimated 200 million children 
in the workplace worldwide, working under dangerous and unsafe 
conditions in violation of international human rights standards. In 
Bangladesh, children as young as 8 years old make up 25 percent of the 
work force in the garment industry.
  In Brazil, 4-year-old children--4-year-old kids--work up to 10 hours 
a day harvesting cotton. Mr. President, here again we are talking about 
children who work for little pay and who are subject to abuse by 
employers when they do not meet their harvesting quotas.
  I start out this way because I really believe that the promotion of 
internationally-recognized human rights standards should be a part of 
what the United States of America should be about in our foreign and 
trade policies. There should be some kind of linkage in our trade 
agreements. I felt that way in relation to most-favored nation status 
for China. I felt that way in relation to our policy toward Indonesia. 
I felt that way in terms of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. 
And I most definitely feel that way when it comes to the new WTO.
  And I am concerned because I do not believe, despite the tireless 
efforts by international advocates for children, that enough is known 
about the horrible abuses in this area all around the world. I know 
that come this Christmas, when parents buy toys for their children, it 
may not occur to them that in many cases the toys they buy for their 
children were made by children in other countries even younger than 
their own kids, for $1.35 a day under the most harsh, exploitative, 
awful working conditions. I know that when people buy carpets for their 
living room they do not want to buy carpets that are produced by 
children working under these kind of conditions.
  And let's not try to fool anyone that this issue is going to be 
vigorously pursued within the World Trade Organization. As I said 
earlier, it was just last Friday that we had the final formal rejection 
by the WTO preparatory committee of any kind of human rights scrutiny 
by the United Nations, any kind of linkage to child labor or other 
social development issues under this agreement.
  I have been in the Senate now for 4 years and I have learned a 
lesson. This is a respectful disagreement with other colleagues. That 
is the way we have to be, in respectful disagreement.
  And one of the things I have learned is that if you do not have some 
kind of framework, some kind of intellectual and philosophical 
framework that you stay true to, you just sort of get buffeted about on 
the basis of who can yell the loudest, who can exert the most pressure 
and all the rest. Now some argue that in order for developing countries 
to become more democratic, and better able to extend basic civil and 
political rights to all of its citizens, you have to have the trade 
liberalization and the economic expansion first. And there is an 
element of truth to that argument. In some countries, it has worked out 
that way. But you are much more likely to get progress in human rights 
if pressure is maintained by major trading partners for such progress, 
and if everyone--all trading nations--have agreed beforehand on at 
least a few basic minimum standards.
  If history has taught us anything, it is that the only way that 
happens is when the United States and other major countries take the 
lead and insist on some kind of linkage, and use our leadership as a 
democracy to encourage and pressure other countries to live up to these 
basic standards.
  I wanted so much for there to be some kind of basic human rights 
formulation built into this agreement, and have pressed for that. I 
have not been able to support either the GATT or NAFTA, as much as I am 
an internationalist by birth, partly for these reasons. I am the son of 
a Jewish immigrant from Russia. My mother's family was from the 
Ukraine. My father taught me that we ignore the world at our own peril. 
But I believe from head to toe that human rights and child labor 
conditions must be a part of such an agreement. Instead, this linkage 
was formally rejected.
  Mr. President, as we move forward in this debate, let's not forget 
that there is a linkage between the working conditions of these 
children in these pictures and this agreement. These kids' lives do 
matter. Commercial logic is not the only logic; they do matter. There 
is a linkage between the conditions of their lives and what happens to 
our work force as well. As Senator Dorgan said, it is very difficult 
for workers to compete, for citizens in our country to compete, against 
children who are getting paid $1.35 for a whole day.
  When I take together the human rights questions, which are compelling 
questions to me, the child labor questions, which are compelling 
questions to me, and I realize that this agreement does not acknowledge 
these conditions and makes no effort to begin to address these 
conditions, it saddens me. Combined with concern that the WTO, which 
makes important trade decisions that crucially affect the quality of 
the lives of citizens in the United States of America, does not meet 
publicly and is not publicly or democratically accountable, it gets 
even worse. And then when you consider that some of the legislation my 
State and others have passed in consumer protection, in environmental 
protection, health and safety over the years might be put at risk by 
WTO decisions, this agreement does not make the grade. All of that 
legislation could be challenged as GATT-illegal and our country, 
therefore, made subject to economic retaliation.
  Though I am an internationalist, and would have loved to have had an 
opportunity through amendments to have improved this agreement, that is 
not possible under the fast-track procedures. I would have loved to 
have had the opportunity through amendments to have built in some 
linkage to human rights and child labor, to have built in some 
protection for democratic procedures and decisionmaking, to have made 
this trade agreement more accountable.
  But I do not have that opportunity. This is on fast-track procedure, 
which I voted against, and, therefore, I cannot in good conscience--and 
I emphasize the word ``conscience''--I cannot in good conscience view 
this trade agreement as a step forward. I cannot view this trade 
agreement, though I want to, as one which will lead to the uplifting of 
the living standards of peoples in our nations. I believe it is a step 
backward.
  I know some of my colleagues disagree. But that is my rigorous 
analysis, that is my honest assessment, that is my view and, therefore, 
I will vote no.
  I yield the rest of my time.
  Mr. PACKWOOD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, when we consider that over 20 percent of 
America's economy is dependent upon trade--when we consider that over 
the past four decades, trade-related jobs in our country have grown 
three times faster than overall American job creation--when we consider 
that open markets and free trade mean new jobs for American workers--we 
realize how important this debate is.
  Not only are we considering an historic trade agreement--an agreement 
some 7 years in the making--but an agreement that can go a long way 
toward providing jobs and security for Americans.
  Of course, Mr. President, I wish I could say that this is a perfect 
agreement--that it would be immediately and universally advantageous to 
all Americans. But such is not the case. The fact is that long-term 
growth seldom comes without change and change is sometimes disruptive 
and even painful. There will be real challenges in the short term.
  Some will be less than others as this agreement is to be phased in 
over a number of years, but from the beginning we must be aware of 
those men and women and families whose lives and livelihoods will be 
affected by this agreement.
  We must also be aware of concerns felt by others regarding the 
creation of the World Trade Organization. Personally, I am satisfied 
that--as Robert Bork and other distinguished scholars have said--the 
GATT and the WTO will not interfer with American sovereignty. America 
cannot be bound by an international agreement or treaty if it does not 
wish to be bound.
  As Judge Bork has said, ``Congress may, at any time, override such an 
agreement or provisions * * * by statute.'' Despite this assurance, we 
must continue to be vigilant and certain that now and in the future 
America remains first among equals in its international relationships.
  The key to that future will be borders that are open for imports and 
exports--trade that is free and fair. As the great historian Will 
Durant pointed out, tariffs that restrict trade in the name of 
protectionism are little more than civilized piracy--piracy that 
strangles commerce and internationalizes poverty.
  If we are to realize the potential of our future, we must have 
international agreements that break down these barriers. I believe the 
agreements that emerged from the Uruguay round of trade talks is a step 
in the right direction.
  Let me tell you what this agreement can do for Delaware:
  In my State, exports have grown 27 percent since 1987 to $3.5 billion 
in 1993. The Port of Wilmington and the longshoremen that work there, 
Delaware's farmers, our workers at chemical, pharmaceutical, and auto 
plants have all seen their exports grow. This agreement will further 
increase these exports and create even more jobs by reducing and 
eliminating tariffs and nontariff barriers to trade.
  In Delaware, our farm sector is of vital importance, but our farmers 
are often on the short end of the stick when it comes to exporting to 
our trade partners like Canada. This agreement will move us toward 
correcting such inequity. Not only in Delaware, but across the Nation, 
our farmers, who exported over $40 billion last year, will finally see 
some relief from the subsidy and other unfair trade policies that have 
plagued world agricultural trade for far too long. We are the world's 
largest agricultural exporter and will be a major beneficiary of 
liberalized trade in this critical area.
  This agreement will also strengthen intellectual property rights and 
improve trade rules that protect Delaware and American industries 
against unfair trade practices. The intellectual property rules alone 
will be critical to eliminating the piracy of U.S. intellectual 
property that are essential to our pharmaceutical, software, and 
chemical industries, to name a few. Each of these industries is 
important to Delaware, and piracy of intellectual property costs our 
economy billions of dollars each year.
  For these, and other, reasons, Mr. President, I will support this 
agreement. I encourage my colleagues to do likewise. With them, I 
understand that this agreement will not be completely painless to all 
Americans. Change is often difficult.
  But if America is to maintain its leadership in the global 
community--if we are to have the bright and prosperous future that is 
possible--I believe we need this agreement.
  We need it because our Nation's economic health is dependent upon the 
global economy. We need it because it is in our fundamental interest to 
have an international trade regime that is built on three pillars: 
openness and cooperation; predictable rules of fair play; and 
mechanisms to make sure the rules are upheld. Creating these conditions 
has been the essential purpose of the GATT, particularly this Uruguay 
round. That is why I will vote for this agreement.
  Mr. President, I would like to now explain more in depth my analysis 
of the Uruguay Round Agreement and my reasons to support it.
  Mr. President, we are now considering whether to approve an historic 
trade agreement--the Uruguay round. It was negotiated under the aegis 
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, otherwise known as the 
GATT, which has served as the foundation for global trade since 1947. 
The negotiations leading to this historic agreement were initiated by 
President Reagan, almost concluded by President Bush, and finalized by 
President Clinton. The agreement has been over 7 years in the making, 
and has had strong bipartisan support throughout.
  Before us is the legislation that is needed to implement our 
obligations under the Uruguay round. It is a momentous decision in many 
respects. It will determine the future course of our trade relations 
with other nations. It will have a substantial impact on jobs and 
economic growth here at home. It will say a lot about our Nation's 
confidence in facing the economic challenges and opportunities ahead. 
There should be no illusions about if--this decision is a defining 
moment for America and the rest of the world.
  The Uruguay round was concluded last December, and, over the past 
several months, Congress has worked with the administration on the 
legislation that is needed to implement it. What has emerged is not a 
perfect trade agreement, and some serious questions have been raised 
about it, such as those regarding the new World Trade Organization 
[WTO] and its affect on U.S. sovereignty.
  Likewise, the implementing legislation is not perfect, and the 
implementation process has not gone as smoothly as it could, or should, 
have. The final legislation and the Statement of Administrative Action 
were introduced very late in the congressional session. Although, as a 
member of the Finance Committee, I had a chance to review most of the 
draft bill before it was introduced, many of my colleagues did not have 
such an opportunity, and they should have been given more time to 
review it. While the special session has afforded more time to examine 
the final details. A lame-duck session is certainly not the best 
congressional process for deciding the final fate of such an important 
issue facing the Nation.
  Nevertheless, after careful examination of the trade agreement, the 
legislation to implement it, and the concerns that have been raised, I 
believe that, on balance, we must approve the Uruguay round. I am 
convinced that to do otherwise would be a grave mistake and a detriment 
to the people of Delaware as well as to folks throughout the country.
  My decision to support the Uruguay round is based on the recognition 
that our Nation's economic health is dependent upon the global economy 
and that it is in our fundamental interest to have an international 
trade regime that is built on three pillars: openness and cooperation; 
predictable rules of fair play; and mechanisms to make sure the rules 
are upheld. Creating these conditions has been the essential purpose of 
the GATT, particularly this Uruguay round. In a sense, creating these 
conditions has been our Nation's objective. For this reason, the United 
States has been the prime mover behind the GATT's creation and 
evolution. For decades, we have viewed the international trading system 
as an opportunity, not as a threat, and I believe that this is a view 
our Nation should maintain.


        importance of global trade to delaware and u.s. economy

  I have often said that whether we like it or not we cannot shut 
orselves off from trading with the rest of the world; this is more true 
today than ever before. We are the world's largest trader. Last year we 
exported $465 billion in manufactured goods and agricultural products, 
$650 billion in you add services. Over 25 percent of our economy is 
trade-related and millions of our jobs depend on trade. In my State of 
Delaware, exports have grown 27 percent since 1987 to $3.5 billion in 
1993. The Port of Wilmington and the longshoremen that work there, 
Delaware's workers at chemical, pharmaceutical, and auto plants, as 
well as poultry growers, just to name a few, have seen their exports 
grow. Over the last 5 years, in fact, 50 percent of U.S. economic 
growth has been due to exports.


                some key benefits from the uruguay round

  The GATT has been a critical reason for the enormous expansion of 
world trade since the post-World War II era and the economic growth 
that has accompanied it. Through seven so-called rounds of negotiation, 
we have eliminated tariff and other barriers to trade in goods and have 
negotiated predictable rules to help facilitate this trade. And that is 
what is at the heart of the Uruguay round, the eighth round of trade 
talks held under the GATT. It is an integral part of our Nation's 
longstanding trade policy to open markets to our exports, and to 
establish a transparent, rules-oriented trading system which eliminates 
the law of the jungle.
  The Uruguay round, in fact, goes much further than previous GATT 
negotiations in opening trade. it will cut tariffs worldwide by one-
third, by almost $750 billion. Tariffs really are no more than a tax 
that is imposed at the border. A global tax cut of $750 billion will 
lower consumer and producer costs and will be a huge stimulus to 
economic growth here at home and abroad. All studies of the agreement 
have shown major economic benefits. According to some estimates, the 
agreement could add as much as $100-$200 billion annually to our 
economy once fully implemented, and create as many as 1.4 million new 
jobs.
  Aside from this huge tariff cut, the Uruguay round improves existing 
GATT rules and principles, creates important new ones, and tackles 
nontariff trade barriers that the United States has been battling for 
decades. For the first time ever, we will have international trade 
rules to protect intellectual property rights, to reduce distortive 
agricultural subsidies, and to govern trade in services. Our workers, 
farmers, industries, and firms excel in each of these areas and we will 
reap enormous benefit from these new agreements. In one fell swoop, 
over 120 countries are expected to agree to these rules, something 
which would take much longer to achieve if we were to negotiate one-on-
one with each of these countries.

  The new rules on intellectual property rights, for example, will 
finally raise standards worldwide to protect U.S. copyrights, patents, 
trademarks, and other critically important intellectual property. We 
have, for years, been trying to eliminate the piracy of our 
intellectual property, which costs the U.S. economy billions of dollars 
each year. Our computer software and pharmaceutical producers, among 
other industries, spend millions creating their innovative products and 
rely on strong intellectual property protection for their competitive 
survival. Anyone spending millions on R&D to create a new product 
obviously cannot compete for long against another company that has 
simply copied the product at little cost by stealing patents and 
ignoring copyrights. Few dare to do that in the United States because 
of our strong laws protecting intellectual property, but the same is 
not true in many markets overseas, particularly in developing 
countries. The Uruguay round will help reverse this situation.
  In agriculture, our farmers, who exported over $40 billion last year, 
will finally see some relief from the subsidy and other unfair trade 
policies that have plagued world agricultural trade for far too long. 
The Uruguay round agreement on agriculture will move us down a path of 
fairer and freer trade. Although it does not go nearly as far as I 
would have liked, we are the world's largest agricultural exporter and 
will be a major beneficiary of liberalized trade in this critical area. 
The Department of Agriculture estimates that the Uruguay round could 
expand farm exports by as much as $8.7 billion, create as many as 
190,000 farm-related jobs, and add as much as $2.5 billion in net farm 
sector income.
  There is one area of the agricultural trade that must be further 
addressed by the administration as soon as the agreement goes into 
effect. This, of course, is making sure that Canada upholds its free 
trade commitments to us by eliminating all tariffs to trade, including 
poultry products. Now that the Uruguay round commits Canada to 
converting its very restrictive quota regime for poultry into tariffs, 
it must now agree to eventually eliminate them altogether. We have had 
a free-trade agreement with Canada since 1989, but in my opinion that 
free-trade agreement is not completely free until Canada eliminates the 
restrictions it places on United States poultry products. The time has 
come for our administration to start paying more attention to resolving 
this problem.


                       concerns over sovereignty

  I would like to turn to two of the issues that have captured the most 
attention in the debate on the Uruguay round: The impact of the WTO and 
the strengthened dispute settlement rules on U.S. sovereignty. I have 
examined these important issues very closely and they have been an 
active part of the Finance Committee's implementation process. Based on 
my review, and the safeguards that Congress has required in the 
implementing bill, I have concluded that U.S. sovereignty remains 
intact under the WTO, the GATT's successor regime.
  That is not to say that a major international cooperative agreement, 
such as the Uruguay round, does not entail obligations on our part. It 
certainly does, but it is an exercise in sovereignty in agreeing to 
adhere to them voluntarily because, on balance, we believe they are in 
our best national interest.
  There are important safeguards in the actual implementing legislation 
that address the concerns that have been raised and clear up some of 
the misunderstandings about the agreement's effect on U.S. sovereignty. 
For example, the bill clearly states, in section 102, that if there is 
any conflict between United States law and a Uruguay round agreement, 
only United States law applies. The only changes to U.S. law as a 
result of the Uruguay round are those that are contained in the 
implementing bill we are now considering. After that, any future 
decision on whether and how to change United States law in relation to 
any possible inconsistency with our Uruguay round commitments can only 
be made by Congress. The WTO cannot change U.S. law; only the Congress 
can do that. What we are considering here is not a self-executing 
agreement which has the direct force-of-law.
  The implementing bill also addresses the State-related concerns that 
were expressed earlier by establishing elaborate Federal-State 
consultation procedures regarding possible obligations and dispute 
settlement proceedings affecting State laws. Both the Governors and 
Attorneys General Associations, as well as other State organizations, 
have endorsed this approach as meeting their concerns. The Governors 
Association unanimously endorsed passing the GATT agreement this year.
  In looking at the WTO and the new dispute settlement rules, it is 
very important to keep in mind that they essentially build on the 
existing GATT, which has been in place since 1947. Article 9 of the WTO 
explicitly provides that the decisionmaking process will continue the 
GATT practice of operating on the basis of consensus. The last time 
there was a vote on a policy issue was in 1959. As under the GATT, 
voting procedures can be used in the absence of consensus, based on a 
one-country, one-vote process, but they are now more protective of our 
interests than they were under the GATT. Most importantly, we do not 
have to accept any future amendment affecting our fundamental rights 
and obligations if we choose not to.
  There are other important safeguards in the bill. One is that both 
Congress and the private sector will have a much greater role in 
providing input and oversight on the general operation of the agreement 
and on any future dispute settlement panel. There is also a built-in, 
expedited procedure for a congressional vote on whether to continue 
U.S. participation in the WTO 5 years after it goes into effect, and 
every 5 years after that. Our future majority leader, Senator Dole, has 
also devised an earlier review process of the new dispute settlement 
rules, which could lead to our withdrawal from the WTO sooner than 5 
years. We can, of course, withdraw voluntarily at anytime after 6 
months written notice.
  I believe these and other provisions will ensure that the new WTO's 
operations do not impinge on our sovereign powers. While no one can 
predict precisely how the new WTO will work in practice, if the new 
system does indeed harm our sovereign interests, I do predict that we 
will not remain as members for very long.


                            budgetary impact

  Before concluding my statement, I would like to make just a couple of 
points on the budgetary impact of the agreement. The first point is 
that Congress gave little or no thought to major trade-liberalizing 
agreements when the latest budget rules were enacted, because if it 
had, I am convinced that these agreements would have been the exception 
to the rule. It is an historical fact that lowering tariffs and 
eliminating trade barriers have major positive, dynamic economic 
effects which ultimately lead to increased revenue. Lowering tariffs 
are not a cost to the taxpayer, they are a decrease in producer and 
consumer costs. This agreement goes much further than any previous GATT 
agreement in cutting global tariffs by almost $750 billion. It will put 
more money in consumer pockets and will be a boon to the United States 
and world economy.
  That is what the economic studies of the agreement show. The 
Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee recently surveyed 
eight of these studies and found that the GATT's total fiscal impact 
could lead to new revenue as high as $115 billion over 5 years.
  Regardless of these economic and revenue benefits, the Uruguay 
round's tariff cuts do fall within current budget rules requiring that 
any lost revenue be offset, and the implementing bill includes funding 
provisions to offset the $12 billion in lost tariff revenue that is 
expected during the first 5 years of the agreement. Some of these 
proposals have been controversial, including the ``pioneer preference'' 
provision. But the recent agreement between Senator Dole and the 
administration on this provision should eliminate the concerns that 
have been expressed about it. Unfortunately, however, the bill cannot 
be changed at this point and, while I do not support these extraneous 
and controversial funding provisions, the agreement should not be 
defeated because of them.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, the time to move forward is now. It took 7 long years 
of negotiation to conclude the Uruguay round. The agreement itself was 
finalized almost 1 year ago. There has been ample time to examine its 
contents. The Finance Committee alone has held 25 hearings on one or 
more aspects of the agreement.
  It is essential that we approve this precedent-setting trade 
agreement. Current GATT rules are antiquated and have not kept pace 
with the rapid changes in the global trading system. The GATT also does 
not cover many areas of critically important trade to the United 
States, such as services and intellectual property rights. And the 
current GATT leaves in place major tariff and nontariff barriers that 
slow down or prevent the expansion of U.S. exports. We export well over 
$600 billion of goods and services and we need the Uruguay round's 
trade rule improvements and greater worldwide market openings to 
further our export and economic growth. A stable, predictable and open 
global trade regime is in our Nation's best interests.
  Failure to approve the Uruguay round through procedural points-of-
order maneuvers or by voting against the implementing bill itself would 
be a blunder of historical magnitude and would set our Nation's trade 
agenda in a harmful, backward direction. I cannot believe that this 
body would choose that direction. I hope that it moves along the same 
path it did when it considered the last major GATT negotiation--the 
Tokyo round. It passed the Senate overwhelmingly by 90 to 4. I hope 
this latest agreement garners the same level of support, and I urge my 
colleagues to strongly support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I yield 15 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The Senator from Ohio is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the passage 
of the GATT because I think it is a bad deal for America. I think it is 
a bad deal for American workers. I think it is a particularly bad deal 
for the children of America. Unquestionably, one of the most prodigious 
and well-respected magazines in all the world is the Economist. The 
Economist in its April 9, 1994, issue had a picture of a child carrying 
heavy cement blocks in India. The editorial is ``Free trade or foul.''
  I believe the significance of that magazine, so totally well 
respected throughout the world, addressing itself to the subject to 
which I addressed myself yesterday is important for people of this 
country to know about.
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire editorial be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From the Economist, Apr. 9, 1994]

                          Free Trade or Foul?

       It was supposed to be a sunny coda to end years of 
     discordant haggling. Now it seems that next week's gathering 
     of world trade minister in Marrakesh, Morocco, may be a 
     darker affair. They are meeting to sign the agreement 
     hammered out during the seven-year Uruguay round of world 
     trade talks. But the prospects for world trade have become 
     clouded since the final negotiating session in Geneva in 
     December. This cloud, no bigger yet than a man's hand, is 
     growing fast.
       In recent weeks America and France have been pressing for 
     an addition to the declaration from Marrakesh. Their demands 
     are unclear, but at a minimum they want a promise that the 
     new World Trade Organisation (the successor to the GATT) will 
     examine how labour standards and workers' rights ought to 
     affect trade rules. The proposal sounds innocuous, even 
     benign. Yet it has caused anger in the developing world. 
     India's prime minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao (whose efforts to 
     liberalise the Indian economy were difficult enough already, 
     said this week that such moves could become ``an alibi for 
     raising protectionist trade barriers''.
       Peter Sutherland, the GATT's director-general, hopes that a 
     compromise (Japan proposed a vague reference to ``social 
     conditions'' in the Marrakesh communique) will allow the 
     celebrations to go ahead. But the subject will not go away. 
     The charge that developing countries are engaged in ``social 
     dumping''--competing unfairly by denying their workers basic 
     rights and decent conditions--is potent. It appeals equally 
     to rich-country self-interest and self-righteousness. The 
     competitive threat from third-world exports is likely to 
     increase over the next few years; as it does, social dumping 
     will challenge environmental protection as the issue most 
     likely to force radical change on the global trading system.


                    crude disguises and flying pigs

       Some complaints of social dumping hardly deserve to be 
     taken seriously. Those who regard it as ``unfair'' for 
     Chinese workers, say, to be paid less than American ones, and 
     who call for tariffs to redress the balance, are in truth 
     opposed to all trade between rich and poor countries. This is 
     extreme protectionism in the crudest possible disguise. When 
     its advocates claim as well to have the best interests of 
     developing-country workers in mind, they are surely 
     hypocrites too. Countries cannot pay their workers more 
     merely by deciding to do so. They must first produce more, 
     and the best way to spur growth is to trade.
       What goes for wages applies as well to other labour costs. 
     To insist on a levelling of ``working conditions''--closer 
     equality in hours worked each week, standards of health and 
     safety in the workplace, entitlements to holidays, health 
     care, sick-pay, pensions and so forth--would be in every case 
     to insist on a standard of living that poor countries, being 
     poor, cannot afford. Legal rights over such terms of 
     employment may exist in most industrial countries, but rights 
     under the law (which are freely modified as circumstances 
     dictate) should not be confused with more basic human rights 
     (which are not).
       Other concerns, however, cannot be so easily dismissed. 
     Slavery, which is wicked, is still practised in some 
     developing countries. Children should be educated, not sat at 
     looms or made to carry bricks all day. Workers should have 
     the rights of assembly and free speech--which, in some 
     developing countries, they are denied. In cases such as 
     these, basic freedoms are at stake. You do not need to be 
     rich to outlaw slavery or grant the rights of free speech and 
     assembly; education is costly, but curbing the cruellest 
     sorts of child labour is widely affordable. Therefore, is it 
     not right to put pressure on offending third-world 
     governments to change their ways? If there is a reasonable 
     chance that the pressure will work, and if it does not put 
     other interests at risk, the answer is Yes.
       Granting that pressure may sometimes be justified, why not 
     let trade policy be the means? Free-traders, such as this 
     newspaper, would like to answer that pressure of this kind 
     never works. In fact, it often does. Against large countries 
     and small, America has often got its way by threatening trade 
     restrictions. The case against such a policy is not that it 
     cannot achieve its narrow objective, but that it puts other 
     interests--America's own, as well as those of the rest of the 
     world--in jeopardy.
       The difficulty can be stated simply enough: governments 
     cannot be trusted with trade policy. If, as trade-policy 
     activists implicitly assume, governments were competent and 
     dedicated to the public good, there would be less to worry 
     about. The case for trade policy in pursuit of basic human 
     rights would be more persuasive (though low-flying pigs would 
     be a terrible nuisance). The institutions that liberal 
     democracies use to rule themselves are needed precisely 
     because governments in the real world are often incompetent 
     and always subject to demands from narrow, organised 
     interests. The GATT is one of these needed institutions--an 
     especially necessary one, because trade policy is an area in 
     which governments, left to themselves, are especially 
     unreliable. The GATT was created in the first place because 
     its founders understood that the pressure to protect 
     producers is intense; without an occasional exchange of 
     multilateral trade concessions, governments would find 
     liberal trade impossible to achieve.
       They were right: only consider how close the Urguay round 
     was to collapsing last year, or the ferocity of opposition to 
     the North American Free-Trade Agreement, or the sharp rise 
     during the 1980s of new forms of non-tariff protection. 
     Liberal trade is under perpetual attack. To beat it back, 
     governments need to strengthen the GATT and at every 
     opportunity undermine its enemies.
       If industrial countries insist on bringing labour-related 
     rights into the multilateral trade task, they will do the 
     opposite. The GATT will be weakened because its agreement-by-
     consensus approach cannot accommodate such controversial 
     issues. At the same time the GATT's foes will be strengthened 
     by each new admissible ground for trade restrictions. For 
     instance, a trade rule on child labour might keep countries 
     in which that practice is common (whether or not legal) out 
     of the WTO; on the other hand, if a country joined the WTO 
     after signing up for the rule, but was then unable to enforce 
     it, it would be prey to every species of rich-country 
     projectionist, henceforth equipped with new grounds to seek 
     trade sanctions. In the battle between liberal trade on one 
     side and the protectionism that helps to keep poor countries 
     poor on the other, the balance would have shifted decisively 
     in the wrong direction.
       Those who truly seek to advance the cause of human rights 
     in the third world should weigh this carefully--and 
     reluctantly conclude that the costs of pressing for new links 
     between trade and basic human rights outweigh the likely 
     benefits. They should call for diplomatic pressure instead; 
     and tell rich-country consumers about human-rights abuses, 
     then let them make up their own minds about whose goods to 
     buy. That is bound to strike many as inadequate. But in 
     reality most lobbyists seek to use human rights as just 
     another way to raise old-fashioned barriers against poor 
     countries' exports, caring little for human right, caring 
     nothing for the plight of the third world's poor, caring 
     nothing for the freedoms of industrial-country consumers. The 
     argument is ugly--but it will run and run.

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I had spoken yesterday at some 
length about the whole issue of child labor and products pouring into 
the United States. Today I will not repeat those arguments. But I will 
talk about my other concerns with GATT.
  I am frank to say that I wish I could support the agreement. I 
believe in and I want to support expanded trade. I believe that 
international trade agreements can be beneficial both to America and to 
the entire world. But I believe that free trade must occur between 
equals. I do not believe that you can mix countries and markets of 
unequal status and unequal standards and expect all to benefit. Just 
look at our own trade deficit. The whole idea is that NAFTA has been 
such a wonderful thing. That is just not true. We keep entering into 
trade agreement after trade agreement and our trade deficit continues 
to increase. Last year our trade deficit was $130 billion. We are 
making a lot of progress. This year it is expected to exceed $160 
billion, and GATT will only increase that deficit.
  Our recent experience with the NAFTA agreement further confirms the 
problems of trade among unequals. Since the enactment of NAFTA, during 
the first 6 months of 1994, our trade surplus with Mexico has declined 
by 50 percent. Sixty percent of Mexico's new capital is coming from the 
United States to build factories in order to make products which will 
be sold back into the United States markets.
  In addition, the jobs that NAFTA was going to create just have not 
materialized. The administration claimed that 100,000 jobs would be 
created by NAFTA. But so far only 500 have been created. Over 30,000 
workers have already filed for trade adjustment assistance because they 
claim they lost their jobs by reason of NAFTA. Walk into any store in 
America, in any of the shopping centers or in the smaller communities 
of America, wherever, the larger communities. It is nearly impossible 
to find products made in America anymore. Shoes from Brazil, clothes 
from China, India, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Taiwan, tools from Mexico and 
Taiwan, TV's and computers from Japan and Korea. Instead of entering 
into endless free trade agreements that help our corporate community 
but decimate our labor force, we should be investing in our own 
industries to create American products and American jobs.
  The GATT agreement will only accelerate the demise of American 
production. The average American has not the slightest idea what this 
agreement is about. Walk down the streets of any town, be it Dayton, 
OH, or Cody, WY, or Natchez, MS, or Eugene, OR. Ask the first person 
you meet. ``What is GATT about? Are you for GATT or against it? Explain 
to me in one sentence or two sentences or a paragraph.'' He or she does 
not have the slightest idea, but the professionals who are interested 
in our passing this bill have some idea what it is about.
  But if the average citizen knew what was in this bill, they would be 
skeptical that American workers will benefit from some international 
trade agreement about which they know practically nothing. We have an 
obligation to explain this major international agreement to the 
American people. But we have no chance to do that. We must act within 2 
days. Great. I am in favor of always moving forward as promptly as we 
can. But that means that the average American will not know what it is 
all about until he or she gets her termination notice. I am realistic 
enough to know that if this matter were debated for 2, 3, or 4 more 
days more, that would not change the facts.
  Unfortunately, however, this agreement is flawed in many ways.
  The biggest problem is what is not in this agreement.
  This agreement contains no protections for workers.
  We should be considering international working conditions together 
with trade.
  It is basic common sense that if trade is based primarily on price 
without any other standards, America will lose out.
  Labor, capital, and raw material costs determine the price of most 
goods and services. And if American labor receives on average $15 an 
hour, and Korean, Indian or South American labor receives only $1 an 
hour, it is obvious what is going to happen.
  The only way for America to compete against dramatically different 
labor costs is to have significantly better quality. And some would 
argue that is the way we solve the problem. We produce better products. 
But many foreign products are not that inferior to American made 
products. Whether it is clothing, toys, games, radios, TV, tools, or a 
host of other products, it is difficult even without GATT to buy 
American made products. With GATT we will only exacerbate the problem.
  Blindly opening up American trade to the cheapest price without any 
labor protections will only force countries to lower their labor costs, 
not raise them.
  American wages in real dollars, have declined almost 10 percent over 
the past 20 years when adjusted for inflation.
  In large part what Americans were worried about during this past 
election cycle was the problems they face in their working lives.
  Most Americans do not see that their working lives are getting 
better.
  Americans are working longer hours for less pay.
  They are watching their standard of living erode.
  There is a relationship between increased international trade and 
declining American wages.
  We must look at these issues together.
  Unfortunately, too many who negotiate trade agreements know nothing 
about wage and working conditions.
  And I do not say that to slight any particular individual or group. 
Too many know about trade and trade only.
  The only two places that working conditions are even mentioned in the 
GATT legislation are on pages 14 and 70. That is 2 pages out of more 
than 2,000 pages. And the words on these two pages do not help American 
workers.
  On page 14 it states that--

       Nothing in this act shall be construed to amend or modify 
     any law of the United States relating to worker safety unless 
     specifically provided in the act.

  American workers need help. They need protection. GATT does not do a 
single thing for them in that statement. It actually only addresses 
itself to worker safety.
  There are a whole range of labor laws that protect American workers 
in addition to worker safety.
  Does this mean that our minimum wage and civil rights laws are not 
protected under GATT?
  Or our child labor laws?
  Our labor relations laws?
  Our antidiscrimination laws?
  The sad fact is that this statement is stated the wrong way.
  It should not just be that GATT does not undo other Federal laws.
  We should affirmatively state that all of our labor laws are 
protected as part of GATT.
  Pages 70 says the President shall seek the establishment of a working 
party to explore the relationship between internationally recognized 
worker rights and GATT.
  It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is 
meaningless mumbo jumbo. What is a working party? And what does it do 
after it explores this relationship?
  The reality is the United States and France already tried to get a 
committee on workers' rights and were rebuffed by India and most of the 
South American countries.
  A lot of Third World countries do not want to raise the wages of 
their workers nor improve their working conditions. Their ruling elites 
want to keep the benefits of trade for themselves.
  But as long as we do not bring the working standards in these 
countries up, they will continue to bring American workers' wages down.
  If we could not get a committee on workers rights before GATT, 
imagine trying to get a committee after GATT becomes a reality.
  It is disgraceful that a 2,000-page trade agreement contains barely 2 
pages even mentioning worker rights.
  We need an international trade agreement but one that improves the 
lives of working men and women, not one that undermines it.
  There is too much that we do not know about how this agreement will 
be applied and much to be feared.
  And quite honestly, I cannot help but conclude that the GATT 
agreement will undermine our framework of environmental laws.
  Last fall, when the European automakers such as Mercedes, Ferrari, 
and Jaguar objected to U.S. CAFE standards, a GATT panel recommended 
that the United States bring CAFE regulations into conformity with the 
treaty's free trade obligations.
  The CAFE standards law had been on the books since 1975.
  It was passed in the grips of an oil shortage, when auto emissions 
were rapidly deteriorating our air quality.
  And in spite of that the panel concluded that this energy 
conservation law was a thinly disguised restriction on trade.
  Quite frankly, this is just a shot across the bow for our 
environmental laws.
  And I only wonder how other laws protecting the air, water, and 
environment will fare if the GATT treaty is approved.
  Finally, too many of the financing provisions for this agreement 
smell of corporate pork.
  This bill contains sweet deals for the Washington Post, Cox 
Enterprises, Omnipoint Communications, GM, Ford, and Chrysler as well 
as public utilities.
  In 1986, I stood on the Senate floor exposing and stopping dozens of 
tax breaks hidden in the Tax Reform Act for individual American 
corporations.
  Now the same type of shenanigans are going on again--only this time 
in an unamendable bill.
  Why do good companies do this? They do not need these special breaks.
  This agreement would raise even more revenues if it did not contain 
such special deals.
  It undermines our credibility and that of these companies when they 
seek unnecessary special breaks.
  It is especially shocking when the beneficiaries of these deals 
include some of the newspapers that generally editorialize against 
congressional pork and special perks.
  I was shocked to learn that the final GATT bill included the so-
called pioneer preferences deal for the Washington Post, Cox 
Enterprises which owns the Atlanta Constitution, the Dayton Daily News, 
and Omnipoint Communications.
  The administration cut a deal with these companies. They will receive 
communications licenses for a total of $400 million even though the 
fair market value of the licenses is estimated at $1.2 billion.
  Under the Dole negotiations, it is my understanding that there is 
something about they might be able to reopen and rediscuss the subject 
at some later point. Do not hold your breath.
  The FCC had been planning to auction the licenses on the open market 
this December where they were estimated to sell for a total of $1.2 
billion.
  But at the last minute, the administration and the companies cut a 
back room deal to sell the licenses for a total of $400 million. Who 
pays?
  The American taxpayer gets ripped off for $800 million.
  There are other secret deals in this bill as well.
  Senator Danforth extended an expiring provision to permit companies 
such as McDonnell Douglas in his State to transfer workers' pension 
moneys to pay for health benefits. The Danforth provision permits 
companies to drain their pension funds jeopardizing both the workers' 
pension and health benefits. What does this provision have to do with 
international trade? Nothing. And it does not belong in this bill.
  The bill also contains a variety of pension law changes to speed up 
pension funding by underfunded pension plans.
  These pension changes have no place in a trade bill. We should use 
pension reforms to provide better pension benefits to retirees, not to 
pay for a trade bill.
  Furthermore, some companies got special exemptions from the new 
pension funding rules.
  GM, Ford, and Chrysler negotiated special rules so that they do not 
have to fully fund their pension plans.
  And Senator Packwood put in a special deal for public utilities 
exempting them for 3 years from having to pay increased PBGC insurance 
premiums. He specifically provided that utilities need not pay 
increased pension premiums for 3 years unless the utility gets the 
money through a rate increase from taxpayers. Again, this provision has 
no place in GATT and was never included in previous pension bills.
  It is outrageous to include these deals for big business in an 
unamendable trade agreement that will shortchange the American worker.
  This is not what the fast-track process was meant to be about.
  These are exactly the types of insider deals that give the 
administration and us our bad reputation. It amounts to buying votes 
with taxpayer dollars.
  In closing, I regret that I cannot support this agreement.
  A vote ``no'' on the budget waiver is right--right for America, right 
for balancing the budget, right for our economy, and right for millions 
of children around the world.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Madam President, I want to respond to two things the 
Senator from Ohio said. I have talked with Senator Moynihan, and he has 
a response, and Senator Nickles will be speaking next for about 15 
minutes.
  The Senator from Ohio mentioned two issues. One was the so-called 
pioneer preference and the other was the regulated utilities and 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC]. I will explain what 
happened on both of those, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
first.
  About 20 years ago, we set up the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation. We were worried about companies promising pensions to 
workers and going bankrupt or going out of business and leaving the 
pension plans underfunded. Workers of 20, 30 years of experience 
suddenly had no pension. The PBGC was to collect premiums from 
companies, put them into a fund, so that if some company went bankrupt 
and could not pay, the Government the--PBGC--would have a fund to pay 
from. This is similar to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for 
banks which has by and large worked well over the years.
  We are aware that any number of companies have underfunded pension 
plans. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation advised us from time to 
time that not enough money is going into the fund to pay the promised 
benefits. So in this bill the administration suggested, and we agreed, 
to revamp that so that the companies with the highest level of 
underfunding will pay more to the PBGC fund. None are going to pay 
less. They would pay more into their funds to guaranty the solvency of 
their pension funds.
  Among the companies that we directed to increase their payments were 
a number of regulated utilities--electric, water, transportation, and 
sewage companies. The one problem with many regulated utilities is that 
their prices are regulated by State law. So that if we increase a cost 
to the utility, they cannot immediately collect the money to pay it. 
They have to go to the local public utility commission and say: The 
Federal Government said we have to pay more money into the PBGC, and we 
petition you to raise the rates to get the money to pay.
  That is why we gave a 3-year grace period to the regulated utilities. 
They are different from other companies because they cannot go out and 
automatically increase their rates to recoup the premium costs. There 
is a company in Oregon that is so affected, and this came from a list 
that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation gave us. There were five 
in Ohio on the list that were similarly affected. There are several 
scores of these companies around the country that also benefit from 
this provision. It is not a rifle shot for a company in Oregon.
  Second, there is pioneer preference. This is an unusual situation. I 
can understand the frustration of the Senator from Ohio. But let me 
explain what happened.
  Up until a few years ago, the Federal Communications Commission used 
to issue licenses on comparative applications, and if they had a radio 
frequency to give out--and nowadays there are wireless communications--
they would give a frequency that your company could have to use for 
wireless communication, and you had what you called comparative 
applications. A number of companies would apply for a frequency. And 
these applications were very expensive. You had to be a pretty well-
financed company to even apply, by the time you got all of your 
technical experts and lawyers and say why you are better than some 
other company to get this. The Tom, Dick, and Harrys of this world 
simply could not afford to get into the competition.
  So after a number of years at congressional direction, we said this 
is not fair. We are getting into the area of wireless communication, 
and only the giants should be able to afford to even compete. So we 
said, instead of doing that, we want you to give these licenses by 
lottery, so everybody could apply. It does not cost much to apply if 
you do not have to prove you are fit or unfit. Minimal qualifications. 
If you win the lottery, you get a license. One unusual thing happened 
that we did not foresee. Actually, there were two. A lot of very clever 
lawyers in this country, who were knowledgeable in the ways of the 
Federal Communication Commission, began to prepare scores of 
applications for the licenses. It did not cost a lot to file. They 
actually began to syndicate a piece of the application. Say you are a 
mechanic, a garage mechanic in Steubenville, you can put up $50 or $100 
to get a piece of the application. If the lottery hit your number, 
there is a big payoff. But the little guy did not get it anyway. As 
soon as somebody won the lottery, one of the big giants went and bought 
it up from the person. So the mechanic who put up $50, $100, or $150, 
hit the jackpot. The big company bought it up. There was an after-
market in these licenses.
  So the Congress said this is ridiculous. If the big boys are getting 
it anyway, why do not we at least go back and have them auctioned off 
by the FCC and we will get the money?
  Now, while this process was going on, before it got to Congress 
saying we think we do not want these lotteried off anymore, we want 
them auctioned off, a number of large companies came to the FCC and 
said, ``We have some very innovative ideas that are going to cost us 
millions of dollars to develop. We are prepared to put up millions of 
dollars of research and innovation if our chances of getting a license 
are not based on lottery. Why should we put up $40 million to come up 
with something innovative and no hope at all other than winning the 
lottery of getting the license?''
  So the FCC said, all right. We will make you a deal. We will have a 
pioneer preference and here are the standards. The FCC set up a bunch 
of standards, and there were competitive applicants for these pioneer 
preferences. A lot of companies put up a lot of money on research. And 
the FCC picked three and they said: We think what you have shown is 
justifiable, and research is good, and we think it is innovative and is 
going to advance the communications of this country, and we award 
these.
  Three licenses. Interestingly, some people did not like the process. 
Their application did get picked in pioneer preference. They are now 
complaining.
  At this stage there was never any talk of paying for these licenses 
because if you won a license in the lottery, you did not pay for it 
either. You got it for nothing.
  So when we said to pioneers, if you put up millions of dollars and if 
you will come up with something innovative, you get a license, we did 
not think of charging them. We were not charging anybody for any 
license, whether they won in the lottery or otherwise.
  But then Congress said to the FCC, change your practice, do not 
lottery them off anymore; auction them off. At that stage the Federal 
Communications Commission had already said to these pioneers, if you 
put up a lot of money and do research and meet our standard as to what 
is innovative, we will give you a license even though Congress said 
auction.
  Then, the Federal Communications Commission felt somewhat honor bound 
to go ahead and award some of the pioneer licenses. The FCC awarded 
three even after Congress told them to auction the licenses off. And 
one of them happens to be a company that is 70 percent owned by the 
Washington Post and another is Cox Communications and another is 
Omnipoint.
  The big flap came around the Washington Post. Why does the 
administration cut a deal with the Washington Post, and what is going 
on?
  The administration did not cut the deal. Think of the sequential 
situation. We lottery off all these licenses and you pay nothing for 
them. We say to the pioneers, well, the chance of winning the lottery 
is not very great. If you put up a lot of money we will give you a 
license. We do not charge anybody for licenses anyway. So we will not 
charge you. Then Congress says charge and the Federal Communications 
Commission says it is not fair. These companies put up all this money, 
we will give them three free licenses. This occurred on about December 
1993.
  A couple months later the Federal Communications Commission, after a 
lawsuit was filed, changed its position and said, no, we are not going 
to give or even let these pioneers have these licenses for nothing. We 
are going to charge them a certain amount.
  At this stage one of the three companies sued and said, ``You 
violated the contract. You promised this. We relied on it. We put a lot 
of money in for research. Now you are changing the rules for us.''
  The case is in the court of appeals. It has not yet been decided. For 
the moment the court has simply remanded it to the Federal 
Communications Commission and is holding it to see what Congress and 
the Federal Communications Commission are going to do because as of yet 
the Federal Communications Commission has not charged them. They said 
we are going to charge you, they have not done it yet. So from the 
standpoint of the court, the case is not what you call ripe. It is not 
quite ready for decision.
  But if this company wins the case in court, then the Government gets 
nothing, and none of the three companies will have to pay us anything--
if they win. This case has not been decided.
  This is a common situation with lawyers in court. Do you go ahead, 
take your case to the jury and take your chances, win or lose, zero or 
a hundred, or do you settle and not take the chance of possibly losing 
everything?
  So the administration worked out arrangements with these three 
companies and said, all right, let us reach a settlement. You pay us a 
minimum of $400 million plus interest, a minimum. It may be more than 
that because it is going to be based upon a percentage of the auction 
price of these new licenses. And the auction starts on December 5 and 
goes for about a month. It is going to be based upon a percentage of 
that auction price, but in any event they will pay $400 million plus 
interest. And if they accept that offer they have to drop the lawsuits.
  They accepted the offer. So now the Government is guaranteed at a 
minimum of getting $400 million plus interest. We might get more if the 
auction price is a lot more, but no one knows what the auction price is 
going to be. That is the trouble with pioneer licenses.
  You can argue whether we ever should have had the policy, or the 
Federal Communications Commission was right or wrong in what they did. 
You can argue whether standards were correct or not correct. But at the 
time they set it up, they set it up because people were not going to 
put up millions of dollars for research and innovation in 
communications if the chance of getting a license was based upon the 
lottery with 60,000 or 70,000 applicants in the lottery. That is it.
  Was this a sellout to the Washington Post? No, it was not a sellout. 
It was a settlement, a settlement in the hopes of getting some money, 
and a settlement of avoiding the risk of getting no money and having to 
justify these three licenses anyway.
  The administration has now agreed, and Senator Dole got them to 
agree, that after the new Congress comes in they will reconsider this, 
and the Federal Communications Commission may have the power to undo 
this. I am not quite sure what happens to the lawsuits in that case, 
but we have to see when we get there. Apparently it is going to be 
reconsidered in the next Congress. There certainly was not any malice 
by the Federal Communications Commission or by Ambassador Kantor or 
President Clinton or the Washington Post or anyone else in how this 
arrangement was arrived at.
  I thank the Chair. I believe Senator Moynihan wanted to say something 
and we will then go to Senator Nickles.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I thank my friend and future chairman.
  Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may require, and it is 
not much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I regret the tone in which I will have to speak, but it 
is one of sincere regret.
  There is not a more honorable Member of this body than the Senator 
from Missouri, Senator Danforth. The idea that there is any provision 
in this measure that is put there as some kind of backroom deal for 
Senator Danforth is completely unfounded. Senator Danforth has been 
interested for some time in the use of excess pension assets to fund 
retiree health benefits. It is a perfectly logical, reasonable case to 
make--that where moneys are not needed for this employee benefit, they 
may be used for this other employee benefit. He persuaded us 
completely, and it stands, in my view, and I am sure the Senator from 
Oregon shares it--it was the entirely proper proceeding as open as the 
morning sky.
  I am sure the Senator from Ohio did not mean anything personal in 
this regard. I see he is standing, and I yield to him.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, the Senator from Ohio pointed out 
the deals not as a reflection upon either Senator Packwood, Senator 
Danforth, or any individual Member. I think everybody's conduct is 
entirely above board and I have no fault with it at all.
  My point of reference is that these measures do not belong in the 
GATT treaty, and it is in that respect that I criticized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. That is a perfectly legitimate argument, Madam 
President, and yet the paygo provisions required us to pay. The 
provision in question raises substantial revenue.
  May I also say with respect to the idea there was some backroom deal 
with respect to the Washington Post or such, in no sense can it be so 
described in my view.
  My friend from Oregon, the future chairman--who has the distinct 
advantage of having attended the New York University law school, and 
therefore is a far more formidable man in this regard--spoke that the 
Government was faced with the prospect losing a court challenge and 
getting no money at all.
  I wonder if he would not agree from the point of view of a lawyer, 
because I have distinguished attorneys here, we have many of them with 
the Finance Committee--Mr. Joseph Gale, our chief tax counsel--I know 
what his view is, that it was not a risk. It was a probability about 
how a court would decide.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Whether it was a probability, a possibility or a risk, 
there is no question but what the court of appeals was sitting on this 
case and was going to wait to see what we did or what the Federal 
Communications Commission did. But had that case gone to conclusion I 
am not sure but what a court would not have said, ``If the FCC said you 
do ABC you get a license for nothing,'' and you did ABC-plus, you might 
have a pretty good case.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Now we have, if there is anything--I hesitate to say 
this at this point in the debate--if there is anything involved here, 
it might just possibly be an abuse of Government authority. It is 
certainly not a backroom deal.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Will the Senator from Oregon yield for a question?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Yes, I yield for a question.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Who won in the lower court?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. There was no lower court decision because you appealed 
directly from the Federal Communications Commission to the court of 
appeals, so there has been no decision yet. The court of appeals is 
just holding it pending further action by the Federal Communications 
Commission, because as yet the FCC has not charged them. So they do not 
really, exactly, have a pending case.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Would the Senator from Oregon, who I know is a fair 
man and scholar, agree that this matter, as well as some of the other 
matters that are in the bill, do not really belongs in a GATT treaty?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Let me answer this question this way. They are not 
exactly in the GATT treaty.
  In other words, the pioneer preference was not negotiated in Geneva 
in the GATT treaty. The administration and Congress will come up with 
money to pay--and we have a number of provisions in here--by raising 
money. And I think anybody can probably say that most of the things 
that are in here to raise money really have no relation to trade.
  So, are they related to trade? No. Are they in the treaty? No. Did we 
have to come up with some money under our scoring rulings to pay? Yes, 
we did. And this was one of the ways we come up with some money.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Before turning to Senator Nickles, Senator Wallop has a 
statement. I think it is about 1 minute long.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oregon. As he 
will recall, last summer during the Finance Committee consideration of 
the administration proposals for changes to antidumping and 
countervailing duty law, we considered an amendment to deal with 
situations of ``no supply.'' This amendment would have created a 
procedure to allow for temporary and quantity-limited relief from 
orders where a particular product needed by U.S. industry is not 
available domestically.
  The amendment did not pass. However, during the consideration of the 
amendment the Department of Commerce submitted to the Finance Committee 
an explanation of authority to consider the lack of domestic 
availability in deciding issues that would come before the Commerce 
Department and the International Trade Commission in antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters be printed 
in the Record at the appropriate point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, November 17, 1994.
     Hon. Michael Kantor,
     U.S. Trade Representative,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ambassador Kantor: During the Finance Committee's 
     consideration of the GATT implementing legislation this 
     summer, I proposed an amendment to the antidumping and 
     countervailing duty laws to establish a procedure for ``no 
     supply,'' under which the Commerce Department could 
     selectively waive the application of dumping or 
     countervailing duties in cases where domestic producers were 
     unable to meet domestic demand for a particular product. A 
     considerable coalition of American manufacturing companies 
     strongly supported this amendment. The Administration, for 
     reasons that are still unclear to me, vigorously opposed the 
     amendment. As a result, it did not pass.
       However, during consideration of the amendment, the 
     Department of Commerce submitted to the Finance Committee a 
     carefully worded explanation of its current authority to 
     consider the lack of domestic availability in deciding issues 
     that come before the Commerce Department and the 
     International Trade Commission in antidumping and 
     countervailing duty cases. A copy of this explanation is 
     attached.
       I would very much appreciate your consulting with the 
     Secretary of Commerce, and others whom you consider 
     appropriate, to inform me if the Administration concurs that 
     the Commerce Department has the authority to consider lack of 
     domestic supply in proceedings under the antidumping and 
     countervailing duty laws, as outlined in the attached paper 
     from the Commerce Department. I would greatly appreciate a 
     response prior to the Senate's vote on the GATT, given the 
     relevance of this issue to my consideration of the GATT 
     implementing legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Malcolm Wallop,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____

                                    The U.S. Trade Representative,


                            Executive Office of the President,

                                Washington, DC, November 30, 1994.
     Hon. Malcolm Wallop,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wallop: Thank you for your letter of November 
     17, 1994 concerning the ``no supply'' amendment that you 
     proposed during the Senate Finance Committee's consideration 
     of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Your letter asks for 
     confirmation of the statement provided by the Department of 
     Commerce on the exclusion of products from an investigation 
     or order.
       After consulting with the Department of Commerce, I can 
     confirm all of the information provided in the statement. In 
     particular, I can confirm that the lack of domestic supply 
     may motivate interested parties to request that Commerce 
     consider the scope of an investigation or order or conduct a 
     changed circumstances review. The Department has the 
     authority to define the scope of an investigation and to 
     clarify the scope of an order to exclude products where 
     coverage would not serve the purposes for which the petition 
     was brought. In a changed circumstances review, the 
     Department has the authority to revoke an order in part if 
     maintaining the order as issued is no longer of interest to 
     the domestic producers.
       The lack of domestic supply is relevant to the 
     International Trade Commission's injury determinations in 
     initial investigations as well as sunset reviews. As noted in 
     the Department's earlier statement, the fact that a product 
     is not made in the United States is reflected in the 
     Commission's determination of whether the imports are a cause 
     of injury to the domestic industry.
       The Clinton Administration recognizes the importance of the 
     upcoming vote on the Uruguay Round Agreements Act to you and 
     your constituents. We are fully prepared to answer any 
     further questions about the proposed implementing legislation 
     as quickly as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Michael Kantor.
                                  ____


          Exclusion of Products From an Investgation or Order

       There are mechanisms under current law by which a product 
     can be excluded from an order without undermining the overall 
     effectiveness of the antidumping and countervailing duty 
     laws. Proposals have been made from time to time to depart 
     from this structure to create discretion to waive application 
     of antidumping and countervailing duties. It is the 
     Administration's view, given the existing provisions, that 
     such authority is inappropriate, would undermine the 
     effectiveness of the law, and would result in undue 
     discretion to favor different industries.


                        Investigation Procedures

       Throughout the investigation, the administering authority 
     has the ability to define and clarify the scope of the case 
     to exclude products where coverage would not serve the 
     purposes for which the petition was brought. In addition, in 
     making the injury determination, the ITC must define ``like 
     product'' based on consideration of whether the 
     characteristics and uses of the domestic production are 
     similar to those of the imported product. The fact that a 
     product is not made in the United States will be reflected in 
     the ITC's determination of whether the imports are a cause of 
     injury to the domestic industry. If petitioning companies are 
     not producing a competing product, there will be no lost 
     sales, or adverse price impact with respect to the particular 
     merchandise and this will be a factor taken into account in 
     making the overall injury determination.


                         Post Order Procedures

       After an order is in effect, the administering authority 
     can clarify the scope of an order. If a product has 
     substantially different characteristics or uses than the 
     merchandise covered by the order and it is unclear whether 
     the order included the specific product at issue, it can be 
     declared outside the scope of the order. Furthermore, the 
     Department will continue to have the authority, based on a 
     changed circumstances review, to revoke an order in part when 
     maintaining an order as issued is no longer of interest to 
     the domestic producers.
       Finally, an order will not continue indefinitely if it is 
     not continuing to provide a needed remedy to the domestic 
     industry. Under the new sunset review procedures required by 
     the GATT, if injury is not likely to continue or recur, the 
     order will be revoked. The goal of defining the scope and 
     duration of orders through these procedures is to ensure that 
     the petitioning industries are provided an adequate remedy 
     while not unnecessarily inhibiting trade.

  Mr. WALLOP. Based on this information, a number of Senators may have 
concluded that the current authority of the Commerce Department and the 
International Trade Commission to address no supply situations was 
adequate and that further authority was unnecessary. Specifically, 
under that antidumping and countervailing duty law, the nonavailability 
of a product from a domestic source is a relevant factor that the 
Commerce Department may consider in defining the scope of an 
investigation, in clarifying the scope of an order, and in deciding 
whether to revoke an order, in whole or in part. The fact that the 
domestic industry is unable to supply a particular product is a good 
indication of lack of domestic interest in including that product in 
the scope of an investigation or order. In addition, nonavailability is 
a relevant factor in situations such as the International Trade 
Commission's like product, injury causation, and revocation 
determinations.
  So my question, Senator Packwood, is, do you concur that the Commerce 
Department and the International Trade Commission possess the authority 
to consider the nonavailability of merchandise and antidumping and 
countervailing duty investigations and orders?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. I confirm, Senator Wallop, that the antidumping and 
countervailing duty statute authorizes the Department of Commerce to 
consider a number of factors in deciding the issues you have had 
described, and that among these is whether a product is available from 
a domestic producer. For example, the Department of Commerce or the 
International Trade Commission may consider unavailability of a product 
in clarifying the scope of an investigation or order in making like 
product and causation determinations and considering whether an order 
should be revoked in whole or in part. There is little sense including 
within an antidumping or countervailing duty remedy products that U.S. 
users cannot get from domestic producers. I expect that the Commerce 
Department will exercise this authority when appropriate.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I thank the Senator for his response.
  I point out one last thing: That even the greatly protectionist 
European Union included the no supply provision in its application.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. I now yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, first I wish to congratulate Senator 
Packwood, the future chairman of the Finance Committee, and also 
Senator Moynihan, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for an 
outstanding job on this piece of legislation. And also my friend and 
colleague, Senator Wallop, who will be casting his last vote later 
tonight in the Senate. His service for the last 18 years to the Senate 
has been a real asset, not only to the State of Wyoming, but also to 
this country as well.
  Madam President, I rise today in support of GATT. But first let me 
say I do not rise in support of a lot of things that are happening in 
this process. I strenuously object to the fast-track process. I object 
to the fact that we are having implementing legislation that we are not 
able to amend. It is 600-some-odd pages and it touches several things. 
The Senator from Ohio raised some of those issues and I think Senator 
Packwood addressed them very well. But I would like to have the 
opportunity to amend them. We do not have that opportunity now but we 
will next year. I have some problems with some of the provisions in the 
implementing legislation.
  I might mention, too, Madam President, as far as the GATT, the trade 
agreement itself, that is not amendable. I know even one of our major 
newspapers in my State said, ``Let's put it off until next year. 
Congress can amend it next year.''
  Well, that is not possible. We signed an agreement with 123 nations, 
a trade agreement to reduce tariff and nontariff barriers. I think that 
is positive. It is probably not perfect. Anything that is thousands and 
thousands of pages long leaves a lot to be desired. The fact that it 
has a general reduction in tariff and nontariff barriers I think is 
very positive. But I do not like the process.
  Also, I compliment the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, 
who delayed this somewhat and caused some concern amongst the 
administration. I think he is to be complimented. Because of his action 
we did have more hearings. I think we needed those hearings.
  I am also critical of the administration, because this trade 
agreement was agreed to on December 15, 1993. It took the 
administration until the last week that we were in session to say we 
want to pass it this year. I think that is one of the reasons GATT has 
had some trouble. It is one of the reasons it had some trouble with 
this Senator. I do not like this process. I do not like being told that 
we cannot amend the implementing agreement, and I do not like being 
told we have to pass something very quickly. As a matter of fact, I 
probably would have voted against it if they had tried to pass it in 
the last 3 or 4 days of the session, just because I do not like being 
railroaded. I do not like being forced into action without having a 
chance to review it.
  Well, we have had a month or so and Senator Hollings has had 
significant hearings that, I think, exposed some of the strengths and 
some of the weaknesses of the underlying agreement.
  I also think it has taken too long to get here. The GATT process 
started in 1986. Basically, it started under the Reagan administration 
and continued during the Bush administration. I compliment the Bush 
administration because it made significant gains. They included 
agriculture. Many countries did not want agriculture to be included in 
GATT, and it had not been in the past. They had all kinds of 
restrictions. But they were successful in November 1992 in including 
agriculture in the GATT agreement. I think it is a very positive thing 
for agriculture, and any agriculture State needs to look very closely 
at this. It has a lot of positive things. So I compliment the Bush 
administration for its success in that.

  But that was in November 1992. This administration took another year 
to finalize the agreement, all the way to December 15, 1993. Then it 
has taken us now almost a full year to get to where we are voting on 
it. I think that is too long, and I regret the fact that the Clinton 
administration waited until the last few days of the session.
  But it does not change the fact we are voting on GATT. And we are 
also voting on the implementing legislation. We cannot separate the 
two. Some of us may not like some of these provisions, either, to 
finance this package, as was mentioned. Special provisions dealing with 
pioneer preferences; we can reopen that. Senator Dole has already made 
mention of that, and has an agreement with the administration to do so 
if it is determined that those prices were too low. I think that was a 
step in the right direction. I was concerned about that, so I agree.
  But I look at the overall thrust of the agreement of GATT, a 
reduction in tariffs and nontariff trade barriers, and I support that. 
I support that wholeheartedly. I think that is a positive move for our 
country. I think it is a positive move for other countries.
  Some people say, well, other countries will benefit more than the 
United States. I disagree. Trade is a two-way street. We do not compel 
anybody to trade in this legislation. Trade is a voluntary effort. If 
somebody wants to sell a product, they can sell it. If somebody else 
wants to buy it, they will buy it. It will be mutually beneficial. It 
is not one winner and one loser, or somebody wins and somebody loses.
  That is not the case in trade. Trade can be and should be mutually 
beneficial. If you get Government barriers and tariffs out of the way, 
then you are allowing free individuals to be making those decisions and 
I think that is positive.
  I also think it is real positive that agriculture now has access. I 
notice in my State--the cattle industry is probably our biggest 
agriculture commodity--the National Cattlemen's Association supports 
GATT, the Farm Bureau associations support GATT, the Wheat Growers and 
the Grain and Feed Associations support GATT, mainly because they see 
this as increasing markets. And that makes sense. We produce a lot more 
than we can consume in my State and in this country. We are a very 
productive country in agriculture, and we should be proud of that. We 
can compete with anybody in the world.
  So this general agreement with 123 countries says we are going to 
tear down some of those barriers. The barriers are a lot higher in 
those countries than they are in our country, so they have a lot more 
to reduce. That is to our gain, and I think it is to the gain of the 
other countries as well. I think it is mutually beneficial. And that 
means that people in the cattle industry, the wheat industry, or people 
in the high-technology industries in my State, California, or Oregon, 
are going to be able to sell more. And that creates jobs, and those are 
good jobs. Exports do create thousands of jobs. GATT is estimated by 
some to create 700,000 jobs; some estimate 1.4 million jobs. I do not 
know which is correct, but I do know increased trade will increase 
jobs. This will increase jobs, and I think that is positive. The 
reduction of tariffs is positive.
  Some people say they have had reservations about it. I have had 
reservations about it. I have had reservations about the sovereignty 
provision because many people said this infringes on our sovereignty. I 
do not want to do that. I will not do it. Am I an expert in that area? 
No.
  I did notice this letter by Robert Bork. I will just read the first 
sentence or two. He writes:

       This letter is in response to opponents of the ratification 
     of the Uruguay round agreement, the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade, who argue that GATT undermines U.S. 
     sovereignty by creating the World Trade Organization. The 
     opponents' charge is simply false.

  I respect Judge Bork.
  I also look at the implementing legislation, and on page 14 it says:

       United States laws to prevail in conflict. No provision of 
     the Uruguay Round of agreements, nor the application of such 
     provisions to any person or circumstance that is inconsistent 
     with any law of the United States, shall have effect.

  That is pretty plain. It is pretty simple. They cannot overturn U.S. 
laws or State laws in GATT.
  Some people have alleged that, and I even read it in one of the 
newspapers today. That is not the case.
  Again, maybe the implementing legislation will be changed, but I know 
that is one provision that will not be changed, so I feel comfortable 
with that.
  Some people said, well, they are going to support the agreement but 
they do not support the budget waiver because they do not want to 
increase the deficit. I respect that statement a lot. I probably voted 
to object to waiving the budget as many times as anybody on the floor. 
I do not want to waive the budget order that allows us to increase 
deficit spending. But, likewise, Madam President, I think we should 
take into account the economic consequences of our decisions.
  Some people have estimated that we are going to be increasing trade 
by GATT. Again, I do not know if this is factual or not. I have not run 
this through computers and so forth. But they estimated that by passing 
GATT, we are going to be increasing trade, to the benefit of the United 
States, by a $100 billion to $200 billion increase in economic activity 
every year. That is going to create jobs. That is going to have people 
paying taxes. There will tax revenue generated.
  I think we should take that economic effect into consideration, and 
at least give it some credit. We do not give it any credit right now. 
We analyze budgets with a static model instead of a dynamic one. And I 
think GATT will have a positive impact and probably produce far more 
revenue than it would lose by a small reduction in these tariffs.

  Again, keep in mind our trading partners are reducing their tariffs 
much, much more than we are. So I think that is positive.
  Some of the other provisions that were mentioned--Senator Metzenbaum 
mentioned one concerning pioneer preferences. I listened to Senator 
Packwood's analysis of that. He has done a lot of homework on it. I 
compliment him. Maybe what is in the implementing legislation is just 
right but it may not be right, so maybe we will have to take a look at 
that next year. We are willing to do that. We can do that. We cannot 
reopen GATT and rewrite GATT. We cannot call the 123 countries that 
have been working on this since 1986 and say let us do this all over 
again, we do not like one provision. That is not possible. Several 
countries have already signed on. But we can review the implementing 
legislation and if we do not like something in it, or if it is not 
enough, or if it is not fair, let us review it. We can do that. We will 
review it and Congress can do that and hopefully we will.
  Madam President, I think it is important that we pass GATT. It is 
also important we do not fail to pass it. What would happen if we fail 
to pass it? Some people say wait until next year. I do not think we 
can. I do not think we can rewrite GATT. We can rewrite the 
implementing legislation. We cannot rewrite GATT.
  What would happen if we do not pass it? All the other countries have 
been looking to the United States to be the leader of the free world. 
We have been espousing free trade for decades, and especially during 
the Reagan-Bush years. They were the leaders. They were the ones. 
Reagan and Bush were telling everybody we want to tear down barriers. 
So we passed the Canadian-Free-Trade Agreement, we passed a free trade 
agreement with Israel. Now we passed NAFTA. In every case we have 
increased trade. It has been to the mutual benefit of all countries to 
do that.
  If we do not pass GATT I am afraid the opposite will happen. A whole 
lot of those countries that have been looking to the United States for 
leadership will start moving back and say, ``Wait a minute, we are not 
going to do that. We are going to close our doors to agriculture.'' So 
South Korea is not going to allow us to sell beef or rice there, or 
into Japan. Or in France, where they have made restrictions time and 
time again on various agriculture exports, they would start building 
those walls. You can see this happen, country by country. Again, that 
would happen because the United States, which is supposed to be the 
leader in world trade and free trade, failed to ratify an agreement 
that we have been negotiating for 8 years. I think it would be a 
serious mistake.
  So for the above reasons I hope my colleagues, one, will vote to 
waive the budget and, two, vote to pass the GATT agreement.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I yield to my friend, the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona, 10 minutes to speak to the 
momentous question before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Moynihan, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Packwood, ranking 
member, and compliment them on the work they have done on trade matters 
over the many years I have been here with them.
  Madam President, I followed the Uruguay round negotiations of GATT 
over the past 7 years with great interest, and I have been very pleased 
with some results, and very displeased with others. I have carefully 
considered the implementation legislation before us today. This is a 
vote which will have great implications for the future of our economy. 
Though there are many areas which trouble me, in weighing the pros and 
the cons, I have to come down in favor of voting to waive the Budget 
Act and vote in favor of the legislation to implement the Uruguay round 
agreement.
  I believe the GATT has served our Nation and the international 
economy well since we became members in 1947. It has opened up 
international markets, brought down trade barriers and reduced tariffs, 
from an average of 40 percent in 1947 to an average of 4.7 percent 
before the Uruguay round. In short, by bringing rule and order to the 
international trading system it has allowed international trade to 
flourish. It is not a perfect system. There have been rulings against 
the United States with which I did not agree and which deeply troubled 
me. But as the largest economy in the world, I believe the United 
States has benefited greatly from the GATT.
  One of the failings of the current system is that, prior to the 
Uruguay round, sectors greatly important to the United States, such as 
services, agriculture and intellectual property, were not included in 
the GATT rules. While there are provisions in the Uruguay round where I 
had hoped the United States would get a better deal and there are 
provisions in the implementing legislation which deeply concern me, 
overall I believe being a member of the World Trade Organization and 
implementing the Uruguay round agreement is far more beneficial to the 
United States than remaining outside this system.
  Failure of the United States to join the WTO and the unraveling of 
GATT would have disastrous consequences. An international trade 
environment not governed by comprehensive agreements would leave 
individual countries to put up trade barriers at will, set tariffs 
arbitrarily and force individual industries to scramble around the 
globe to cut deals with every country in which they wanted access. This 
would be a chaotic system which, I fear, would bring international 
economic growth to a grinding halt.
  I am supporting the implementing legislation not because I believe 
the Uruguay round agreement is perfect in all respects but because 
overall I believe this trade agreement will lead to economic growth for 
our country by opening foreign markets to American goods and lowering 
tariffs on American goods sold abroad. The agreement will be good for 
American workers whose products will be more accessible overseas, will 
help U.S. exporters compete for Government infrastructure projects 
overseas and will help American consumers by lowering the tariff on 
goods they purchase.
  Lower tariffs is one of the significant achievements of this 
agreement. Tariffs will be reduced to zero on many important items such 
as construction, agricultural and medical equipment and pharmaceuticals 
and will be reduced 50-100 percent on electronic items. Overall, 
tariffs will be cut by one-third. In essence, this is a huge tax cut 
which will stimulate new opportunities for American products abroad and 
will allow American consumers to pay less at home for goods and 
services.
  One tariff in which I had a particular interest during the Uruguay 
round negotiations was on refined copper products, in which Arizona is 
a world leader. I pushed for zero tariffs on refined copper products. 
While Ambassador Kantor worked hard to get zero tariffs, the Japanese 
were unwilling to go to zero on this product. In the end, however, 
significant tariff cuts were made which will allow expanded access to 
the Japanese copper market which will benefit Arizona and United States 
copper in general.
  In agriculture, another area important to my home State, this 
agreement does much to allow American farmers to compete globally as 
the GATT for the first time addresses trade in agriculture. U.S. 
farmers have long been hurt by countries which limited imports and 
subsidized exports. This agreement cuts export subsidies and internal 
agricultural supports, both of which distort trade and have hurt 
American farmers as the Europeans have subsidized their farmers higher 
than the United States. This cut in subsidies, along with provisions 
which will allow the use of funds for the Export Enhancement Program to 
enhance exports, will greatly help American farmers including Arizona 
cotton growers. Arizona citrus growers will greatly benefit by lower 
tariffs by Japan and Thailand, among other countries and by the 
reduction in export subsidies by the European Union.
  In addition to agriculture, another important element of this 
agreement is the fact that it covers trade in services for the first 
time. The service sector represents 60 percent of U.S. output and 70 
percent of U.S. jobs.
  It is enormously important that the service sector was brought into 
GATT for the first time with the Uruguay round.
  The agreement provides that countries not discriminate among foreign 
service providers, and that foreign service providers be treated the 
same as domestic providers.
  As I mentioned, there are areas of the agreement which concern me. I 
share the concerns of some about the World Trade Organization. In 
particular, I am troubled by the meetings of dispute panels in closed 
sessions and that the panel deliberations will be confidential.
  In addition, I am troubled by the idea that U.S. laws designed to 
address environmental concerns or child labor concerns could be 
challenged--and I say could be--as trade barriers by the WTO members. 
At the same time, however, I believe that the WTO also improves upon 
previous dispute settlement practices by achieving a more effective and 
expeditious dispute settlement mechanism. Furthermore, no WTO decision 
can affect U.S. law unless the Congress of the United States changes 
the law.
  Since historically the United States has brought more cases to the 
GATT than any other country and we have seen many rulings favorable to 
the United States be blocked, the WTO procedures could well work to our 
advantage.
  Another area where I have had strong concerns is in the area of 
intellectual property. My concerns are the lack of national treatment 
and recognition of contractual rights with certain copyright revenue, 
exclusion of plants and animals from patents, pipeline protection for 
pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals and shortening the 
transition periods. Certain countries, especially in Europe, impose 
levies on the sale of blank audio and visual recording media and 
equipment which can be used to make private, unauthorized copies of 
motion pictures and sound recordings and they do it for millions and 
hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
  The problem is that the U.S. right holders do not share fully in the 
revenue distribution. This is not a fair deal for the United States 
copyright industries. However, having said that, there are benefits for 
the United States in this agreement in that area. These include 
establishing minimum standards for the protection of intellectual 
property rights which was not there before; ensuring procedures to 
enforce those rights; procedures for dispute settlement regarding 
members' obligations to establish minimum standards and mechanisms to 
enforce those procedures.
  While I am concerned about those areas I mentioned above, the 
agreement does address the $15 to $17 billion loss in 1993 by the U.S. 
computer software, motion picture, music, recording, and book 
publishing industries due to piracy worldwide. This is a big black 
market which needs to be shut down.
  While the TRIPS measures are not perfect, they will reduce the piracy 
now devastating American companies. And these companies are vital to 
the United States. In value added to GDP, the copyright industries 
contribute more to the U.S. economy than most any other industrial 
sector.
  I also have concerns about the revenue provisions of the implementing 
legislation. I am troubled by the fact that the implementing 
legislation does not contain offsets for the loss in tariff revenues 
for the full 10 years.
  I am troubled by the fact that the implementing legislation does not 
contain enough revenue but I have been around here long enough--for 18 
years--to realize what has to be done to pass this trade agreement, and 
I am willing to do it. It is not something that I do easily, because I 
have been out on this floor arguing for a balanced budget amendment and 
other reductions in Federal expenditures. I am confident that in the 
long run the agreement will result in gains to the Treasury, not 
losses.
  I am also concerned about the inclusion of the so-called ``pioneer 
preference provisions'' in the GATT implementing legislation that was 
argued a few minutes ago. I do not believe these provisions concerning 
FCC licenses belong in this legislation.
  Other financing provisions which concern me are the pension 
provisions, which has also been discussed here this morning. Why this 
is part of the implementing legislation is just beyond me and almost 
brought me to the conclusion not to vote for it. I hope that in the 
future we would not have these kind of things put in a trade agreement.
  But despite these concerns which I cannot minimize, I share the view 
of leading economists that in the long run, implementation of the 
agreement will bring much more to the U.S. Treasury than reduction in 
tariffs will cost the Treasury. It is estimated by the Treasury that 
the Uruguay round will raise money and holds down the deficit by $60 
billion over the next 10 years and the agreement will add $100 to $200 
billion to the U.S. gross domestic product when fully implemented. That 
is impressive, and I think that is the most important part of this 
debate.
  Madam President, I weighed this decision carefully. This agreement is 
not perfect. Nobody will stand here and say it is, but our economy, our 
workers, and our consumers will be much better off with the Uruguay 
round agreement than without it. The Uruguay round helps us to continue 
to open markets for U.S. goods, stimulate economic growth at home and 
create jobs for Americans.
  It is for these reasons that I will vote for waiving the Budget Act 
and vote for the implementing legislation and the agreement this 
evening.
  I thank the Senator from New York.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Breaux). The Senator from South Carolina.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend. Mr. President, I should note, in 
listening to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, how much I have 
enjoyed serving here with him. Senator DeConcini and I have ancestors 
from the same part of northeastern Italy, we have served as prosecutors 
in our States before coming here. We both came from the prosecutor's 
office to the U.S. Senate. We were good friends before we were in the 
Senate. We remained good friends throughout our Senate tenure and will 
continue to be in the years to come. He has been a voice of reason and 
concern for his part of the country and the country itself in service 
as a Senator from Arizona, as chairman of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, and all the other areas that he has served. I have been 
proud to be associated with him in the U.S. Senate, and I am going to 
miss him when he leaves.
  Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to vote on implementing the 
Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, I do have 
grave concerns about this agreement. I said in October that I expect 
that I would have to oppose it, and I will oppose it.
  I have also listened carefully to the Senate debate on whether to 
waive the Senate budget rules. I had grave concerns about the budget 
waiver and after listening to the debate, I feel it is inappropriate to 
vote in favor of the budget waiver to assure the passage of the Uruguay 
round agreement. I believe it is going to add billions of dollars to 
our deficit.
  I am concerned because in the past 2 years, President Clinton and the 
Congress have made great strides in getting our fiscal house in order. 
In fact, President Clinton is the first President since Harry Truman to 
preside over a budget that 2 years in a row has decreased the Federal 
budget deficit. In fact, as a share of our gross domestic product, the 
deficit has been cut in half from 4.9 percent in 1992 to a projected 
2.4 percent in 1995.
  Our strict Senate budget rules have helped in that, and that is why I 
cannot vote to waive the Budget Act in this matter. If GATT passes, as 
many now predict it will, it will have some benefit on the U.S. 
economy. I am going to be the first to admit that. By lowering tariffs 
worldwide, the agreement should allow U.S. companies to compete and win 
anywhere in the world. These tariff cuts should stimulate U.S. exports 
by making U.S. goods more competitive, and they are going to add high-
wage jobs here at home. I also hope that the minimum in intellectual 
property protection that has been included in this agreement can 
benefit our computer, entertainment and other copyright industries, 
although I continue to have concerns in those areas.
  But despite these benefits, despite the work and the herculean 
efforts by Ambassador Kantor, one of the finest trade negotiators I 
have ever seen in any administration, Republican or Democrat, I am 
convinced that this is a fatally flawed agreement. I believe that GATT 
is fatally flawed for a number of reasons, and I say this as one who 
believes in free trade, as one who has encouraged international trade 
to create jobs in the United States.
  I am one who believed in NAFTA and strongly supported NAFTA. But I do 
not believe in GATT. It is not what GATT does, it is what it fails to 
do that creates a problem.
  GATT fails to provide fair rules for our dairy exports--a billion-
dollar industry in my home State of Vermont. Under this agreement, we 
will export fewer dairy products, and import more subsidized dairy 
products. I am unwilling to expose Vermont dairy farmers to these 
risks. We could have worked that out. Senator Jeffords and I made every 
effort to work with the administration to provide U.S. milk producers 
with the tools they need to be successful in a post-GATT world. But the 
administration decided it did not want to, and an agreement that does 
not provide increased access to foreign markets for Vermont dairy 
farmers is not free trade for Vermont.
  As I stated, I believe in fair trade. I voted for the North American 
Free Trade Agreement, and I did it willingly and with enthusiasm. It 
has been an overwhelming success across the country and in Vermont. In 
fact, in the first 9 months since NAFTA went into effect, United States 
exports to Mexico jumped 22 percent. NAFTA has been an economic boon to 
Vermonters. It opened up markets and spurred Vermonters to add more 
high-quality jobs to their payrolls.
  I wish GATT was more like NAFTA, but GATT is not NAFTA. The two are 
totally different. GATT, unlike NAFTA, does not adequately address 
labor, environmental and food safety concerns. I am one Vermonter who 
is concerned about these areas, and in today's global economy, the 
interaction between trade and these issues cannot be ignored. We can 
never ask U.S. citizens to jeopardize their standard of living in the 
name of free trade.
  Unfortunately, GATT moves away from the crucial link between trade 
and the labor environment and food safety issues we fought so hard to 
forge in NAFTA. We were able to do it there. We were unable to do it in 
GATT. I am unwilling to support this trend. We need to go back, learn 
the lessons from NAFTA, and incorporate them into GATT.
  President Clinton and others have hailed GATT as an engine for our 
economic growth for the rest of this decade and into the 21st century. 
I hope they are right. I know that President Clinton has been more 
dedicated than any President I have known in his efforts to create jobs 
and encourage our trade worldwide. I believe GATT's tariff cuts should 
stimulate U.S. exports and add U.S. jobs. But there are still too many 
unanswered questions. I really wish we could go back and close the gap 
in these areas. Then I could support this agreement. Unfortunately, the 
gaps are still there.
  So I must oppose this agreement not for what it is, but I oppose it 
for what it is not.
  I also ask unanimous consent that a statement of mine given as a 
member of the Judiciary Committee be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy on Section 514 of the Uruguay Round 
                             Agreements Act

       As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been 
     involved with Senators DeConcini, Biden, Hatch, and others in 
     working on the intellectual property provisions contained in 
     title V of the bill. Among the more controversial provisions 
     is section 514 of the bill, amending section 104A of the 
     Copyright Act, which ``restores'' copyright protection for 
     foreign works that are not in the public domain in their 
     country of origin but not currently protected in the United 
     States.
       Ownership of the restored copryight vests first in the 
     author or in the initial rightholder of the work as 
     determined by the law of the country of origin. Such initial 
     rightholder could be, for example, the producer of a sound 
     recording or the producer of a motion picture where rights 
     are vested therein by foreign law. Those that had acquired 
     these rights through contract would also be recognized as 
     rightholders.
       In attempting to achieve a degree of fairness, we include 
     protection for reliance parties, those who have relied on the 
     foreign works having fallen into the public domain. These 
     protections extend to those who are successors, assignees or 
     licensees of ``significant assets'' of a reliance party which 
     assets could include multiple copyrights, several titles, a 
     back list, imprints or tangible inventory, even if less than 
     all of the holdings of the company or of a division of the 
     initial reliance party.
       We have also tried to ensure fairness for those who 
     continue to exploit ``derivative works''--as that concept is 
     used elsewhere in the Copyright Act and its case law--based 
     upon foreign works subject to restored copyright protection.
       Section 514 of the bill also makes clear that section 412 
     of the Copyright Act applies to actions for infringements of 
     restored works. The meaning of ``commenced'' is intended to 
     be governed by existing case law under section 412 without 
     the addition of any new element or test.
       This is among the more complicated set of changes to our 
     law. It is being proposed in order to ensure that others will 
     treat U.S. works similarly within their countries and grant 
     them the copyright protections to which they should be 
     entitled.

  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if someone had asked me a year ago what my 
feelings would be in debating the GATT Uruguay round agreement and 
looking toward its potential passage, my guess is I would have said 
that this would be one of the high points of my career in the U.S. 
Senate. I am a firm believer in trade. I believe trade is critically 
important to job creation and to freedom and independence.
  While I am going to vote for GATT today, and while I am going to vote 
to jump the procedural hurdle that stands in the way of GATT today, I 
would have to say that the irresponsibility of this administration, the 
arrogance and irresponsibility of the Clinton administration in the way 
it has structured the debate, the way it has written the enabling 
legislation, and the way it failed to deal with budget requirements, 
has made it very difficult for me, and very difficult for a lot of 
other people who normally would have been for GATT, to be strongly 
supportive and to be excited about it.
  The bottom line of the debate is, however, that despite what I 
believe has been the arrogance of the administration and the 
irresponsibility of the administration on GATT, the GATT agreement is 
critically important to the future of the people who do the work and 
pay the taxes and pull the wagon in Texas and in America. And while you 
can find a lot of reasons to be against it, there is one overriding 
reason to be for it. That reason is that it is the right thing to do 
for America and for its people.
  I want to try to address very briefly some of the issues that have 
been raised. Let me start with the whole sovereignty issue. It is a 
fraudulent issue. Anyone who understands the American constitutional 
system understands that the Congress of the United States, even in 
concert with the President, cannot give up sovereignty. The 
Constitution is very clear on this point. Nothing we can do, alone or 
in concert with the President, can change the Constitution or can limit 
American sovereignty.
  If anything, based on a study of the whole World Trade Organization 
provisions of the Uruguay round agreement and looking at the existing 
GATT agreement, the new agreement has more built-in protections of 
American sovereignty than the current trade agreement we are operating 
under. If you are driven only by concerns about sovereignty, this new 
agreement is an improvement over the current GATT, an improvement over 
the trade agreement that we have operated under since the Second World 
War. Not only am I saying this, but no less of a constitutional 
authority than Judge Bork has concluded the same thing.
  I also want to thank Senator Dole. As I have said, I personally 
believe that there is not a sovereignty problem with GATT. But there 
are many Americans who are concerned about it, and I think an important 
step to take in dealing with an agreement like this is to allay 
people's concerns. Senator Dole sought to do that. He has reached 
agreement on a mechanism involving a panel of Federal judges to monitor 
the process and to report to the Congress. And he provided for 
triggering mechanisms. I think in terms of guaranteeing Americans that 
they are not going to lose sovereignty in this agreement, that is a 
good proposal.
  I will have to say that, like any other proposal, it holds out some 
potential for mischief. That is something that we are going to have to 
watch very closely. Every greedy special interest in America that wants 
to steal from the American consumer is going to come here and argue 
that somehow America is being hurt because Americans are being allowed 
to buy goods competitively and under price competitive conditions.
  So I want to thank Senator Dole. I am going to watch the mechanism to 
see that it does what we set out for it to do. But I think, again, if 
your concern is sovereignty, this agreement, especially with the Dole 
provision, is a dramatic improvement over current procedures and 
practice.
  Second, in terms of the budget waiver, let us be very clear what we 
are talking about here. We are talking about an agreement that every 
reasonable budget authority, every financial planner, and every 
economist in the country that is not on the payroll of some special 
interest group has concluded is going to promote more trade, more job 
creation. And, since the Government, like a leech, can draw more blood 
out where the heart is pumping strongly, this agreement is going to 
mean more revenues coming into the Federal Treasury because it will 
mean a stronger economy.
  We are debating a budget waiver here only because OMB, in its 
projections, and our Congressional Budget Office, act as if trade, job 
creation, and consumer behavior have nothing to do with the revenues of 
the Federal Government.
  Second, in their initial estimate, the administration did pay for the 
provisions of the bill for the first 5 years. Moreover, if we were 
voting on lowering the capital gains taxes, if we were voting on 
repealing the earnings test for Social Security, I would vote to waive 
the Budget Act on those issues. I will vote to waive it today because 
basically it is the same fundamental issue.
  In terms of extraneous matters, let me say the Clinton administration 
has been totally and absolutely irresponsible on this bill. I am not 
aware that in the past has an administration ever included matters in a 
trade bill that clearly had absolutely nothing to do with the trade 
bill. I believe that in the process that the Clinton administration has 
probably killed the fast-track process as we know it. I think we are 
going to have to write a new fast-track process that will have a clear 
rule against extraneous matters and that will set out in the most 
minute detail the requirement that never again will a President put 
extraneous matters in a bill that is dealt with under special 
procedures where those extraneous provisions cannot be changed.
  I think the fact that in this bill we are extending Super 301 of the 
trade bill, which is a rotten provision and which has absolutely 
nothing to do with GATT, is outrageous. I think the fact that we are 
even getting into a question about settling a court case on licensing 
fees for communications is something that has nothing to do with GATT 
and should have never been in this agreement and should have been dealt 
with in legislation next year or dealt with through the courts.
  The provision on rules of origin on textiles was nothing more than a 
provision that was meant to buy votes for this agreement. It is an 
outrageous provision which is going to steal billions of dollars from 
working families in this country who are going to pay more to put 
clothing on the backs of their children. That extraneous provision was 
put in this bill which should never have been in here. Under no 
circumstances would I ever support it if it were a freestanding 
measure.
  Let me tell you why today I am going to take a deep breath and look 
beyond the outrageous and irresponsible manner with which the 
administration has dealt with GATT. I am going to do that because we 
are talking about something that is vitally important. I take trade 
very seriously. The growth of world trade, which we promoted as a 
matter of American foreign policy beginning in earnest under Eisenhower 
and Kennedy and under every President, Democrat or Republican, since 
that day, was the great engine which tore down the Berlin Wall, which 
won the cold war, which liberated Eastern Europe, which transformed the 
Soviet Union, and which freed more people than any victory in any war 
in the history of mankind.
  We created a wealth machine with trade that rebuilt Europe and 
rebuilt Japan after the war. We created a wealth machine that created 
vast amounts of productive capacity in places like Taiwan and Korea 
that had never known prosperity. And America benefited every step of 
the way. No country in the world has benefited more by the growth of 
trade than has the United States of America.

  We are talking about more than jobs, more than growth, more than 
opportunity. We are talking about freedom. Does it not abridge my 
freedom when my Government, in protecting a special interest, imposes a 
tax or sets a quota that stops me from buying goods which are better 
than the goods I could buy on the domestic market, or cheaper? If the 
objective is not to raise revenues to pay for essential Government but 
instead to limit my right to buy goods because some politically 
powerful special interest in America is for limiting that right, does 
that not infringe on my freedom? I say it does.
  So there are not many issues, Mr. President, I say in conclusion, 
that are important enough that they would induce me to accept all of 
these extraneous add-ons, the arrogance of the whole approach that has 
been followed by an administration which does not support trade as much 
as I do. There are very few issues that are important enough that I 
would look beyond all these problems in this bill, but trade is one of 
those issues.
  Let me say to the few colleagues that are undecided on this. This is 
one of those issues that comes along once in awhile where all the 
politics is on one side and all the right is on the other. It would be 
a great tragedy for America if this bill failed today.
  We could blame Bill Clinton. We could point out all this stuff he put 
in this bill. We could point out his arrogance in the whole process. We 
could do all those things. We could dump this baby right at his 
doorstep. But the baby would be dead, and we love the baby ourselves.
  In fact, it is our baby. We created this baby. Six of the 8 years of 
negotiations occurred under Republicans, and except for this one 
provision that the Clinton administration put in on green-light 
subsidies--which again is a bad provision, which I am not for--this is 
a good agreement.
  So I want to urge my colleagues when they are getting all these 
telephone calls about sovereignty, when they look at all the politics, 
when they are outraged about the way the Clinton administration has 
handled all these issues, I simply ask them to look at what would 
happen if we rejected the GATT Uruguay round.
  If I thought we could reject this agreement, kill all these 
extraneous matters, get rid of these green-light subsidies, and do this 
bill again 2 years from now when there is a Republican in the White 
House, I would do it in a heartbeat. But I do not think we can get 
Humpty-Dumpty back together again. I think if we reject this agreement, 
no other major country in the world will approve it.
  We all know how much protectionist sentiment we have right here in 
this body, in our own country. It is strong all over the world, and it 
is something that people who understand trade, on a bipartisan basis, 
have to stand up to. Today I am joining those who have stood up to it. 
I am going to vote for this agreement. It is important that it be 
adopted.
  I say to my colleagues that, in the next few days, the next few 
weeks, a vote for this bill will probably be unpopular, but I believe 
that a year from now or 5 years from now or 10 years from now you will 
be able to look back and say, ``I did the right thing.'' I do not want 
my children, 20 years from now, to be looking through some 
Congressional Record and see my name down as voting against trade and 
say, ``I wonder why my dad was such an ignoramus.''
  Let me tell you, this is important to the future of America and to a 
free people, and that is why I am for it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I first express to the Senator from Texas my 
admiration for what he said, and to say that the Senator from New York 
has nothing like the competence as a economist that he has. But I share 
more of his reservations than he might know, or I might be willing to 
admit. But I am absolutely, firmly with him. It would be a tragic 
mistake.
  Sixty years of American trade policy--which really got energized 
under Eisenhower, but it began with Cordell Hull--is at issue and will 
be resolved at 6 o'clock tonight. This is a momentous vote. It is a 
great way to end up the century.
  Now I have the great pleasure to yield 10 minutes to my friend from 
Mew Mexico, Senator Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, thank you, and I thank the Senator from 
New York for his leadership on this issue as well as on many others and 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. President, the main goal we should have in considering the GATT 
is maintaining and increasing the number of high-wage jobs in the 
United States. Increased trade with other countries can help us to do 
that. But in order for us to grow new high-wage jobs, we must be able 
to maintain some balance in our trade relationships with the rest of 
the world, and we must be allowed to export to other countries the 
products and services in which we have a competitive advantage.
  The question is whether going forward with GATT at this time helps us 
or prevents us from maximizing the high wage job creation that we want 
in future years.
  Our trade deficit is the largest in the world. It appears to be on 
the rise and primarily it is caused by two large unaddressed problems:
  The first is imported oil, and the second is imported manufactured 
products from the Far East, which are not offset with sufficient 
exports by us to those Far Eastern countries.
  The imported oil problem is of our own doing. We have lacked the 
national will to pursue energy independence and the chronic deficit 
that we carry in oil and petroleum products is the obvious result of 
that lack of national will. GATT will not address this problem.
  The imbalance in trade with the industrializing countries of the Far 
East--Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia--
is both our own fault and the fault of those we trade with. It is a 
direct result of those countries pursuing policies of export promotion 
and import restraint and also the direct result of our own country's 
maintaining a policy of relative free trade while those countries are 
engaged in this persistent import restraint. In my view GATT will only 
marginally address this problem as well.
  Under U.S. law today there are tools available to the administration 
to achieve more equitable trade treatment from these countries; 
antidumping laws, counterveiling duties, section 337, section 301. 
Unfortunately, however, either those tools are inadequate or no 
administration in the 12 years I have been in Washington has been 
wiling to use them effectively. The consequence has been the continued 
unfair treatment we receive at the hands of these governments and their 
key industries and the growing trade deficit we suffer with these 
countries.
  Mr. President, I understand that we should not expect to have 
perfectly balanced trade with each country, but we cannot allow the 
imbalances with certain countries to become so great that they cannot 
be offset for by trade elsewhere. That is precisely what we have 
allowed to happen with these Asian countries.
  The proponents of GATT are running television ads which say that GATT 
will require over 120 countries to trade by the same rules we do. My 
own reading of GATT indicates that it will reduce tariffs but that it 
will not prohibit other countries from continuing to play by their own 
rules in most important respects. For example, it will not prevent 
Japan from maintaining a distribution system for its domestically 
manufactured cars that is closed to foreign manufactured cars. 
Similarly, it will not prevent cartels of foreign manufacturers from 
remaining in effect, and it will not prevent foreign governments from 
providing generous financial support to their domestic companies to 
support their efforts to export.

  Those countries have made it clear they will not play by our rules, 
and GATT does not require them to. Rather, the real question for us as 
a country is not whether other countries will play by our rules; 
whether we will have the clear-headedness, the pragmatism, and the 
courage to begin playing by some of the rules which the rest of the 
world has adopted and still insist on. Those rules include creating tax 
incentives for domestic manufacture of products to be sold in domestic 
markets, supporting government industry partnerships in strategic and 
targeted industries, aggressively supporting efforts by domestic firms 
to export, and most importantly, taking any and all steps necessary to 
produce reasonable balances of trade with other huge world economies.
  That is the real challenge we face in a post-GATT world and I 
conclude that the adoption of GATT will do little to help us in meeting 
this challenge.
  Whether the adoption of GATT will prevent us from maximizing the 
high-wage job creation we want in future years is another question 
altogether. In fact, subject to key assurances and assumptions, I agree 
with proponents of GATT who say that it will not prevent us from 
achieving our job creation goals.
  Mr. President, on balance I have concluded that adoption of GATT at 
this time by the Congress is the responsible thing to do. The 10 years 
of preparation that have gone into this agreement and the leadership 
role this country should play in world trade make it imperative that we 
move ahead.
  On balance, I believe that GATT is also a responsible choice for New 
Mexico. Like the Nation as a whole, New Mexico will have losers and 
winners. I believe, however, that the potential for increased exports 
is great in New Mexico. In 1992, New Mexico exported $247 million in 
goods. In 1993, this figure jumped to $397 million, an increase of 
approximately 60 percent. GATT can help sustain this trend in 
exporting, and support good, high-wage jobs in New Mexico. Our leading 
export industries, which include electric and electronic equipment, 
industrial machinery and computers, and refined petroleum products, are 
all likely to reap the benefits of lower tariffs abroad.
  In reaching this conclusion I believe that certain assumptions and 
assurances are critically important. My vote in favor of GATT today is 
only being cast based on assumptions and assurances in four major 
areas:

  First, my vote is based on the assumption that the United States will 
still have the ability to retaliate against unfair trade practices for 
activities not specifically covered by a rule in GATT;
  Second, my vote is based on the assumption that the United States 
will continue to resist the admission of China to GATT until China 
agrees to be bound by the rules that apply to other industrialized 
nations; and
  Third, my vote is cast with the expectation that if the new World 
Trade Organization operates in ways that are inimical to U.S. interests 
we can, and in fact will, exercise our right to withdraw.
  And finally, my vote is based on assurances from the President that 
he shares my concern about the enormous trade deficits we currently 
have with Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, and 
Indonesia and that he will work with me over the coming days to find an 
effective way to review the cause of those deficits and their impact on 
the retention and creation of high-wage jobs in this country, and to 
come up with specific action steps we can take to deal with that very 
real problem.
  Mr. President, let me just show one chart to my colleagues here to 
make the point which I have tried to make here in my statement about 
the growing imbalance in trade deficits with Far Eastern countries.
  This chart shows in 1983 the combined trade deficit we suffered with 
the seven nations that I have cited was $32 billion. Ten years later, 
in 1993, it was $105 billion. This year it is anticipated to be $117 
billion.
  I point out to my colleagues that the ability of China to manufacture 
for export is just now developing.
  We have a serious problem in this area, Mr. President. I have 
discussed it with the Trade Representative and I have discussed it with 
others in the administration, and I believe strongly that after GATT is 
adopted--and I believe it will be adopted today by the Senate--we need 
to give attention to this growing trade imbalance with Asian countries.
  This is a problem that is not going to fix itself. It is not one that 
is going away. It does impact on those working families in this country 
which are trying to maintain their standard of living and hope for 
better wages in the future.
  First, my vote is based on the assumption that the United States will 
still have the ability to retaliate against unfair trade practices for 
activities not specifically covered by a rule in GATT.
  One area of concern which I share with many others relates to the 
ability of signatories to GATT to pursue unilateral retaliation for 
trade practices not required by a GATT rule to be handled by a dispute 
settlement body. According to a July GAO report, the European Union 
takes the position that governments that subscribe to GATT commit not 
to use trade retaliation except as authorized through the WTO legal 
system.
  I have raised this issue directly with Trade Representative Kantor, 
and he assures me that the GAO report does not reflect the correct EU 
position on the issue. He further assures me that this administration's 
position is solidly to the contrary, that is, the administration's view 
is that practices and policies of other GATT members which are not 
specifically covered by a GATT rule can be retaliated against by the 
United States and that all U.S. trade laws remain in effect even under 
GATT.
  In my opinion the main trade obstacles we face are not covered by any 
GATT rule, and accordingly it is vitally important that we maintain the 
ability to act unilaterally against unfair trade practices which we 
believe require retaliation.
  Second, my vote is further based on the assumption that the United 
States will continue to resist the admission of China to GATT until 
China agrees to be bound by the rules that apply to other 
industrialized nations.
  Although the chronic trade deficit we run with Japan is clearly the 
largest single country component of our overall trade deficit, another 
cause for alarm is the enormous increase in our trade deficit with 
China in recent years. In 1989, the first year of the Bush 
administration our trade deficit with China was $6.24 billion. By 1992, 
at the end of President Bush's term it had risen 193 percent to $18.26 
billion. Last year in 1993, it grew to $22.77 billion and this year it 
is expected to reach over $28 billion.

  Experts point out that the cause for these increases are many, 
however, it is indisputable that one of those causes is the conscious 
policy of the Chinese Government to limit imports, and promote exports. 
The growth of Chinese exports in excess of imports is primarily into 
the United States market. And a particularly troubling fact is that 
even with those large exports, only a small fraction of China's GDP is 
devoted to exports today. To put it bluntly, we are on our way to 
importing even more from China than we import from Japan by the end of 
this decade.
  Again, this is a concern that I have raised with Trade Representative 
Kantor. He has assured me that he shares this concern, not only about 
the size of our trade deficit with China but also about the Chinese 
policies and practices that have partially caused that deficit.
  He has also assured me that this administration will block the 
admission of China to GATT until China has shown credible evidence of 
its willingness to abide by the rules that apply to other industrial 
nations. Blocking China's admission to GATT will not solve the problem 
we have today in trade with China, but it will help to maintain a focus 
on their unfair trading practices, until those practices are corrected.
  Third, my vote is cast with the expectation that if the World Trade 
Organization operates in ways that are inimical to U.S. interests we 
can, and in fact will, exercise our right to withdraw.
  Many have pointed out the potential problems that exist in the 
structuring of the WTO. The U.S. economy accounts for about 25 percent 
of world trade today, but under the proposed WTO we will have the same 
voting weight as those countries with the least amount of world trade. 
This is a serious problem which will only be alleviated if, in fact, 
the WTO can operate on a consensus basis as the GATT has in recent 
years. Time will tell whether this arrangement is a fatal flaw in the 
WTO which will require us to withdraw. But we need to put all countries 
on notice that the possibility is real, and I may well support such 
withdrawal if the need arises.
  Finally, my vote is based on assurances from the President that he 
shares my concern about the enormous trade deficits we currently have 
with Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, and Taiwan and 
that he will work with me over the coming days to find an effective way 
to review the cause of those deficits and their impact on the retention 
and creation of high-wage jobs in this country, and to come up with 
specific action steps we can take to deal with that very real problem.
  Mr. President, it is my view that the approval of GATT will not 
dramatically improve our ability to export, although it will result 
in tariff reductions over a period of time. GATT neither solves our 
major trade problems nor significantly impedes our ability to solve 
them in coming years. Without trying to criticize or demean the 
importance of GATT, I see it largely as secondary to the central trade 
issue which we confront.

  The central trade issue which cries out for attention is this large 
and growing trade deficit with Asian countries. In 1993 when you add up 
the cumulative trade deficit the United States ran with the seven Asian 
countries of Japan, China, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, and 
Indonesia, it exceeds $105 billion. Our trade deficit with all nations 
by contrast was only $116 billion. American workers see downsizing and 
streamlining and plant closings and they see more and more of the 
manufactured products bought by Americans being produced abroad. That 
increase in imports from abroad can be accepted as long as the jobs we 
lose are being replaced with jobs of equal worth in sectors of our 
economy which are exporting. But the existing trade imbalance reflects 
a job creation imbalance as well. And even though the U.S. economy has 
been successful at creating many new jobs in the last few years, too 
few of those jobs are high-wage jobs committed to export.
  Japan has built the world's second largest economy by pursuing a 
policy of manufacturing for export. This has worked to Japan's benefit 
but has harmful effects on our own ability to retain manufacturing 
jobs. And now other Asian countries are following the model of Japan. 
The United States cannot remain strong and U.S. workers cannot maintain 
their standard of living if we continue indefinitely as the one truly 
open market for Asian manufactured goods, and Asian retains a maze of 
impenetrable barriers to our own exports.
  My concern about this crucial trade problem has prompted me to urge 
the President to work with me over the coming days to find an effective 
way to review the causes of these deficits and their impact on the 
retention and creation of high-wage jobs in this country. That review 
would result in recommendations of specific steps we should take to 
reverse the adverse trends in our trade relations with these countries 
and to bring our trade relations into reasonable balance by the turn of 
the century in such a way that we maximize the creation of high-wage 
jobs in the United States. It is my hope that this review could provide 
the basis for real progress in the 104th Congress in dealing with the 
challenge we face of making trade support our efforts to create a high-
wage economy here in the United States.

  Mr. President, before concluding, let me also address the arguments 
that U.S. ratification of GATT will cede U.S. sovereignty to others or 
will inundate U.S. laws in the areas of environmental and consumer 
protection. My reading of the agreement and the implementing 
legislation lead me to conclude that these arguments are soundless. If 
an adverse decision is rendered against the United States under GATT, 
this does not invalidate any Federal, State, or local laws. The result 
is rather that the successful complaining country will be authorized to 
take retaliating action against us. Of course any country has that same 
option at the present time.
  In conclusion, based on the assumptions and assurances I have just 
outlined, I will support the GATT with my vote today. But the approval 
of GATT by the Congress should not be interpreted as an indication we 
believe that all is well in world trade. I believe the trade deficit we 
are experiencing as a nation are intolerable and I hope that the 
approval of GATT and the other steps I refer to above will lead us 
toward a resolution of this problem. For only a reversal of these trade 
deficit trends will allow the working men and women of this country to 
hope once again that they will have access to the high-wage jobs that 
can produce more prosperous and economically secure lives than they 
have today.
  So in conclusion, Mr. President, I will support GATT with my vote 
today. But the approval of GATT by the Congress should not be 
interpreted as an indication that we believe all is well in world 
trade. I believe the trade deficits we are experiencing as a nation are 
intolerable. I hope that the approval of GATT and the other steps I 
have referred to will lead us toward a solution to the problem. For 
only a reversal of these trade deficit trends will allow the working 
men and women of the country to hope once again that we will have 
access to the high-wage jobs that can produce more prosperous and 
economically secure lives than they have today.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for 
a compelling case. May I say that the caveats he suggested about would 
the United States be able to retaliate for trade practices not covered 
in the GATT, the answer is yes. We have section 301 and we will 
continue to do so.
  But I note that 60-percent increase in exports over 1 year. That is 
the prospect we have in America. And those are good jobs.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I certainly agree. Again, I thank the Senator from New 
York for yielding me the time.


              substantial understatement penalty amendment

  Mr. RIEGLE. I would like to ask the distinguished Chairman for a 
clarification on section 744 of this legislation, which amends section 
6662(d) of the tax code. Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, that this 
amendment is not intended to alter the definition of a tax shelter for 
purposes of the substantial understatement penalty?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. RIEGLE. And is it the understanding of the Chairman that, under 
current law, only those entities or other arrangements that have as 
their principle purpose the avoidance or evasion of Federal income tax 
are considered tax shelters?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. That is my understanding.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Am I therefore correct that an entity, plan, or other 
arrangement that has as its purpose the claiming of tax benefits, such 
as the low-income housing tax credit under section 42 of the Code or 
the credit for producing fuel from nonconventional sources under 
section 29, in a manner consistent with the statute and Congressional 
purpose is not considered a tax shelter for purposes of the substantial 
understatement penalty and will not be affected by the proposed 
amendment?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. RIEGLE. I thank the Chairman for this clarification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. PACKWOOD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bradley). The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for free 
trade and the proposed $750 billion reduction of tariffs around the 
world. I know that the American worker, the American farmer and 
professional, can compete with anyone in the world, and I am confident 
that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade would make a major 
contribution to economic growth in the United States and around the 
world.
  If I could vote for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
without voting for the budget waiver and without voting for the World 
Trade Organization, I would do so without any hesitation. But I cannot 
do that.
  While I strongly support free trade and a reduction in world tariffs, 
I am also determined to do everything I can to protect the sovereignty 
of the Federal Government and our 50 states. Despite the acknowledged 
economic benefits that will result from GATT, I have carefully weighed 
the evidence and I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the WTO 
threatens to do more harm than good. Let me be specific. I am convinced 
the voting arrangements for the World Trade Organization will 
jeopardize the sovereign right of our State governments and the Federal 
Government to affect the lives of Americans. While the agreement will 
not change our governments' right to make laws, it will, in my view, 
create a situation that puts pressure on State governments to change or 
repeal their laws and regulations to abide by WTO mandates. And within 
the WTO, our vote will be equal to the vote of Rwanda, Cuba, or Fiji. 
This voting arrangement and the enforcement powers given to the WTO 
lead me to the conclusion that this agreement poses far more risks than 
benefits to the American way of life.
  Under the current GATT procedures, trade disputes are settled by 
consensus among the relevant parties. While this system has not worked 
well every time, it has preserved the U.S. ability to veto GATT 
decisions contrary to our interests. Under the Uruguay round of GATT 
now before the Senate, this veto power will be lost.
  If passed, the World Trade Organization would replace the current 
GATT consensus structure. In a letter to President Clinton, Harvard Law 
Pro. Lawrence Tribe stated ``the proposed WTO would have authority to 
impose major financial sanctions on jurisdictions whose laws, either 
national or local, are found by WTO tribunals to restrict trade in 
unacceptable ways.'' The WTO is clearly difficult from the current GATT 
structure.
  More specifically, under the dispute resolution powers given to the 
World Trade Organization, a WTO panel will meet, in secret, to settle 
trade disagreements. During the panel's deliberations, the U.S. 
Government will be represented by an official from the U.S. Trade 
Representative's office. Although a state law may be challenged by the 
WTO panel, the affected state will not be allowed to defend itself 
before the WTO panel. In addition, the decisions of the WTO panels will 
be binding and the United States has no ability to veto these 
decisions. In the event that a WTO panel rules against the United 
States we are left with three options: change the offending law, reject 
the WTO ruling and suffer trade retaliation or pay compensation to the 
offended parties. Under this system it seems likely that the certainty 
of trade retaliation or penalties will lead the U.S. Government to 
pressure a state to change a law that the WTO considers an impediment 
to trade.
  Concerned about the ability of the WTO to pass mandates onto the 
States, 42 State Attorneys General contacted President Clinton, in 
July, about GATT. They stated that they had concerns about how some of 
our State laws and regulations would fare under the WTO and its dispute 
resolution panels. The Attorneys General noted some countries had 
identified U.S. State laws that they intend to challenge under the WTO. 
The Attorney General from Idaho, Larry Echohawk, signed that letter.
  At the end of July, after several meetings with the USTR and a few 
changes to the GATT agreement, several of the Attorneys General sent a 
letter to Ambassador Kantor announcing their support for GATT. The 
Attorney General from Idaho did not sign this letter. In fact, Mr. 
Echohawk stated in an August 1 letter to me that ``the GATT agreement 
still raises serious concerns for the rights of states in our federal 
system of government.''
  Mr. Echohawk acknowledged that the changes negotiated between the 
USTR and the Attorneys General were significant. However, he went on to 
state that ``they are all in the nature of damage control after-the-
fact. None of the changes provides the kind of protection that is due 
to a sovereign state under the federal form of government guaranteed by 
the United States Constitution.'' I agree and I believe States should 
be concerned. In the same letter to the President on GATT, Professor 
Tribe stated that ``the basic thrust of the Uruguay Round is that it 
would empower international tribunals effectively to override state 
laws protecting local workers, consumers, or the environment on the 
ground that those laws interfere with world trade.''
  In addition, in a letter I received today, the Idaho State Tax 
Commission stated ``we believe that the dispute resolution process to 
be effected by the World Trade Organization risks a serious diminution 
of traditional state sovereignty.'' Moreover, the Commission recognized 
the importance of the changes brought about by the negotiations between 
the USTR and the Attorneys General. However, the Commission stated that 
``these protections * * * do not change the main fact that GATT 
represents a significant shift of sovereign authority away from State 
and local governments.''

  The Idaho State Tax Commission and the Attorney General of Idaho have 
identified numerous State laws that the WTO might call impediments to 
trade. For example, the Idaho legislature has enacted an investment tax 
credit which allows companies to deduct plant investments. It is not 
hard to imagine a WTO panel determining that this investment tax credit 
favors Idaho industries over foreign competition. Likewise, the State 
of Idaho has sent the United States Trade Representative 350 pages of 
Idaho laws that might be challenged by the WTO as trade impediments.
  The United States economy is one of the largest markets in the world. 
Currently, the size of our market gives us increased clout in trade 
disputes with other countries. Under the one-nation one-vote formula of 
the WTO, our influence will be dramatically reduced. This reduced 
influence poses a direct threat to the sovereignty of State laws. 
Indeed, many of the health regulations, worker protection laws, 
including child labor laws, and environmental protection enacted by the 
various states might be challenged as trade impediments by the World 
Trade Organization.
  As a United States Senator for the State of Idaho, I understand the 
impact of allowing others to control a State's destiny. This great 
Nation of ours was formed by a collection of sovereign states and we 
should reject any agreement or treaty that proposes to cede power and 
authority to a world organization.
  I believe that this agreement should be considered by the Senate as a 
treaty, which is amendable and, under the U.S. Constitution, requires 
the support of two-thirds of the Senate body. Harvard Law Professor, 
Lawrence Tribe, also believes that this agreement should be voted on as 
a treaty. Speaking on the treaty question, Professor Tribe has stated 
``GATT, as presently structured, would entail so substantial a shift of 
sovereignty from State and local governments to the proposed WTO that 
the agreement requires Senate ratification as a treaty.''
  I am also troubled by the proposal to waive the Budget Act to make up 
for the lost revenue that would result from enactment of the GATT 
agreement. The Congressional Budget Office originally estimated that 
over 10 years GATT will cost the Federal treasury around $30 billion. 
The administration has now put forward some offsets that are said to 
pay for all but $15 billion of the lost GATT revenue. But these offsets 
are questioned by a number of opponents of GATT. In addition, even with 
these offsets every Senator will be asked to add $15 billion to our 
national debt if he or she wants to support the Uruguay round of GATT. 
I cannot go back to my State and tell the people of Idaho that I just 
voted to increase our deficit by over $15 billion.

  If this agreement is as good as its supporters suggest, then we ought 
to pay for it up front. That is why I joined a small number of my 
colleagues to sign a letter to President Clinton urging him to pay for 
all of the lost revenue that would result from the passage of GATT. But 
this request was not agreed to. I also wrote to Senators Mitchell and 
Dole requesting that the Senate vote on the budget waiver if the 
President would not pay for all of the lost revenue from GATT. As we 
all know, our first vote on today will be concerning this budget 
waiver.
  In conclusion, I would like to just quote from that letter I received 
yesterday from the Idaho State Tax Commission. They say in their 
closing paragraph:

       One of the historic and traditional roles of the U.S. 
     Senate is to represent and protect the interests of state in 
     our federal system of government. It is unfortunate that this 
     legislation is before the Senate under rules that require an 
     all-or-nothing vote. The laudable goals of free trade and 
     reduced tariffs are made inseparable from the more lamentable 
     dispute resolution procedures provided by GATT.

  They say it very clearly. I wish I could vote for GATT but vote 
against the World Trade Organization.
  The United States must continue to be a leader in GATT. The 
administration and Congress should continue to reduce tariffs in the 
United States and urge their reduction around the world. However, I 
strongly believe that United States participation in the WTO is a 
detriment to our 50 States and this Nation, and I oppose passage of the 
GATT-WTO agreement.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may assume 
under the direction of Senator Moynihan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the new GATT 
agreement and in support of the jobs and prosperity that it will bring 
not only to the United States but also to my State of Louisiana which I 
proudly represent. Today's vote is a vote between--and a choice 
between--old versus new. It is a question of whether we want to return 
to the days of the Smoot-Hawley or whether we want to march into the 
21st century. It is a question of whether we build walls around the 
United States or whether we tear down the walls around other countries 
of the world.
  The international trade train of tomorrow is leaving the station and 
the question is whether we will be on it or whether the United States 
will be left at the station, surrounded by walls of protectionism. Some 
say we should reject GATT because it is too risky. They say our 
sovereignty is at risk, our jobs are at risk. These are the same people 
who see a half-filled glass of water and say it is half empty. While 
this agreement may not be perfect--and it is not--I know it is a much 
better agreement than one that is only half full. It is as close to 
full as an international trade agreement can ever be.
  For example, how else are we going to get an agreement with over 120 
countries of the world that expands Louisiana farmers' ability to sell 
their products abroad by limiting foreign Governments from unfairly 
subsidizing their own crops? How else are we going to get an agreement 
with over 120 countries of the world to open their markets to Louisiana 
chemical manufacturers, our industrial machinery, our processed foods, 
lumber, wood products, and, yes, our textile industries as well? How 
else are we going to get an agreement with 120 countries of the world 
to respect and pay for the use of Louisiana's creativity, found in our 
music, our movies, our computer software, our medical drugs, and our 
inventions?
  Under current GATT rules, a country that closes its market to 
Louisiana products and goods can thumb its nose at a GATT ruling 
against it. But under this new agreement, our exporters can get 
deserved relief and Louisiana jobs will grow accordingly. As the world 
changes and the economic power of other countries grow, international 
trade rules will become more and more important. While we should not 
and will not give up our ultimate market leverage to resolve trade 
disputes as a country established under the rule of law, we should not 
fear the new trade rules. We will, instead, use these rules to our 
advantage.
  Fruit Of The Loom, the largest employer in the State of Louisiana, 
Avondale Shipyards, Riverwood International, Procter & Gamble, Dow 
Chemical, the Louisiana Farm Bureau, the Port of New Orleans and other 
ports of Louisiana and countless other Louisiana employers and 
employees support this agreement as a positive step to improve the 
standard of living in Louisiana, and so do I.
  This agreement is not a final answer to our economic prosperity. A 
level playing field is only as good as the players on that field. But, 
by leveling the playing field we can now focus our attention on 
improving the quality of our players as well.
  During the 1980's, U.S. companies paid the price to become 
competitive in the global markets. Now we are ready to seize the 
opportunity of expanded world trade.
  Finally, this effort is an example of how Government should work. It 
is bipartisan. It is Ronald Reagan, it is George Bush, and it is Bill 
Clinton working together over two decades to reach the same agreement: 
GATT.
  It is Mickey Kantor and James Baker, it is Ron Brown and Jim Miller, 
it is Tom Foley and Newt Gingrich and George Mitchell and Richard Armey 
and also, to their great credit, Pat Moynihan and Bob Packwood, all 
together in support of the same package.
  At the same time it is an all-American solution which benefits all 
Americans. It says to Mr. and Ms. America that you are going to win one 
for a change.
  Our choice is very clear: Old versus new. Build a fence around 
ourselves or knock down the fences of other countries and sell our 
products overseas. The Senate should pass GATT.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I thank the distinguished Senator 
from Louisiana for his comments, generous personal comments. May I ask 
him, Louisiana continues to be an important rice producer, does it not?
  Mr. BREAUX. We are one of the largest in the United States.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. And will be larger, because for the first time ever, in 
this agreement rice imports are open--in Japan, in Korea, and all parts 
of Asia. They do not like it one bit, but it is about time and you will 
have helped bring this about.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the chairman for his comments. It is something we 
have been working on for over 25 years and now we can obtain that goal.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Twenty-five years. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask the time reserved for me, 10 minutes 
under the time allotted to Senator Hollings, be enacted at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a copy of a 
Washington Post editorial be printed at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Breaux). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the question before the Senate is an 
important and difficult one. Should the Senate approve or disapprove or 
delay the implementing package to the agreement reached under the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade? Like all pieces of legislation, 
this bill has its good features and its bad features. Unlike other 
bills which come before the Senate or the House, the so-called fast-
track rules, Members of both bodies are prevented from seeking to 
remedy the shortcomings of this legislation or to enhance its good 
features because amendments are not allowed.
  In my view this process and the implementing legislation is a mixed 
bag. I have spent a great deal of time in committee hearings, 
discussions and study of the details.
  First, I would like to discuss and acknowledge the very good features 
of this agreement. The proposed GATT agreement does advance important 
U.S. priorities, including better protection of intellectual and other 
property rights, including some protection for leadership in advanced 
technology.
  I applaud our trade negotiators for this achievement. It is an area 
in which I have long sought change.
  In the area of financial services, it is generally agreed that this 
new GATT agreement is a success. Trade in financial services is one of 
America's strongest suits. Progress in this area bodes well for the 
American banking, financial and insurance industries.
  There are clearly some improvements and some measure of success for 
some of our agricultural producers. Others are not likely to fare well 
at all.
  Mr. President, these important successes have been weighed against 
what I consider shortcomings of the GATT agreement. My long-held 
concerns are manyfold. My hopes of receiving satisfactory explanations 
and assurances from administration officials and colleagues strongly 
supporting approval have failed. The more I study it, the more 
convinced my conscience dictates ``no.''
  The structure of the World Trade Organization [WTO] is a serious 
problem. Granting an international organization of 130 foreign 
countries the authority to object to any Federal, State, or local law 
by filing a trade violation charge and seeking counterbalancing tariffs 
is no small matter.
  It is a loss of power, or sovereignty, when our law could be found to 
be contrary to GATT and the subject of the WTO trade sanctions.
  I am very concerned about the structure of the new World Trade 
Organization and its methods of dispute resolution. Under this new 
organization, member nations agree to subject their laws to the view of 
the WTO. The proponents don't want to concede this. If negotiations 
between nations fail, a dispute between the two countries, say the 
United States and Bangladesh, would go to a three member panel for 
experts to review.
  If for example, the United States loses before that panel, the panel 
could approve trade sanctions by Bangladesh against the United States 
in an amount equal to the injury caused by the offending United States 
law. The three-member panels meet in secret and their decisions are 
binding unless the entire WTO membership--and I emphasize entire-- 
including the country who filed the action unanimously agree to 
overrule the panel decision. Such a structure will clearly stack the 
deck against the United States, since most countries want unlimited 
access to the coveted U.S. market. Virtually every country will have an 
invitation to challenge indirectly U.S. law which impedes any imported 
products.

  Yes, as the proponents preach and preach and preach again, only the 
United States can change its laws in response to a WTO dispute 
resolution. But it must also be said that only the WTO has the power to 
determine if another country is justified in imposing trade sanctions 
against the U.S. law. This they do not preach. My concerns about the 
dispute resolution and decisionmaking process procedures are both about 
sovereignty and fairness.
  Another structural problem with the WTO is its decisionmaking process 
above and beyond dispute resolution. Under the new agreement, decisions 
will be made on a one country, one vote basis.
  Contrary to that, in the United Nations, the United States has an 
effective veto power over major actions of the United Nations because 
it is a member of the security council. In the World Bank and the 
International Monetary Fund, the United States has voting power 
weighted toward its financial contributions to these institutions. The 
United States will likely contribute 20 percent of the WTO budget and 
will bring the largest and most important consumer market to the world 
trading system, but will have a vote in that organization only equal to 
the smallest nation.
  It is interesting to note that when President Eisenhower proposed 
another form of the WTO, it included a security council-type body which 
took into account market size. There is none of this balance in the 
proposal before us.
  I must also observe that it is, if nothing more, ironic that the 
presumed Senate majority leader of the next Congress, swept into power 
by promises of deficit reduction and a reduced government, asks that 
his party members in the Senate waive the budget act; support the 
creation of a new international bureaucracy and later support a new 
Federal bureaucracy to watch over the international bureaucracy.
  This legislation, over the next 10 years, handles the $30 billion 
loss in tariff revenues by raising the Government's take by $15 billion 
and raising the national debt by $15 billion.
  I have serious reservations about the agriculture portions of this 
agreement. While many farm groups support passage of this agreement 
it seems we have been down this road before. The promise of a pot of 
gold for American farmers in foreign markets has been a promise 
unfulfilled. I am troubled that even after the adoption of this 
agreement, some of our European competitors will still have higher 
domestic subsidies than the United States. Yes, this agreement is 
progress, but faulted.

  There are several other nonhighlighted potential problems, 
such as the provision that allows our competitors to employ higher 
subsidies by the use of so-called mix and remix of agricultural 
subsidies.
  Mr. President, it is my best judgment that my constituents are 
probably evenly split on this proposal.
  The largest number of corn, hog, cattle, and milo producers support 
it. They believe, as they always have, that foreign markets are the 
real chance that they have to escape low commodity prices. They have 
always believed that they can produce their way to prosperity. They are 
under serious financial stress. I feel for them. Their investments are 
high and their returns are low and frequently below the cost of 
production.
  The Farm Bureau is in support. The Farmers Union is opposed. The 
soybean producers are opposed. My wheat producers are generally 
opposed. The milk producers are opposed since they know that, for some, 
GATT is near the end of their troubled road. I have not heard a great 
deal from our sugar beet producers but GATT surely is a dead end for 
some of them.
  Mr. President, these are all good folks. They are hard pressed. I 
wish I could agree with all of them. Given the circumstances, it is not 
possible.
  I am fearful passage of this trade agreement will give opponents of 
agricultural and rural programs one more arrow in their quiver to fire 
in the heart of American farm families. Mark my words, during 
consideration of the 1995 farm bill, some of the most innovative 
reforms will be met with protestants that reform is ``GATT illegal.'' 
Note the editorial of November 30, 1994, from the not-so-farmer-
friendly Washington Post which is printed following my remarks. As a 
veteran of many congressional battles for family farmers, I predict 
passage of this agreement holds nothing but peril for the new 5-year 
farm bill that must be passed in 1995.
  Mr. President, every trade agreement involves a give and take. 
Unfortunately for many years the United States gave and gave and gave 
of its rich consumer market. The United States has allowed the near 
destruction of some industries in the name of free trade. That is not 
fair trade.
  For the last 20 years working Americans have seen their standard of 
living slip or remain static. In spite of the recovering economy, 
Americans feel less secure in their jobs. The idea that children and 
grandchildren will have a better life than their parents is an open 
question.
  I think cheap foreign labor puts Americans jobs at severe risk. It 
should not be applauded. It should be condemned.
  The proponents of this agreement will try to portray the opponents as 
protectionist. The choice is not between the World Trade Organization 
and Smoot-Hawley. There are a number of other options.
  America is already the world's most open market. GATT opponents do 
not advocate unilaterally closing the American market. We should simply 
insist that the rest of the world catch up or risk their access to the 
American market. This was the idea behind the 1988 Trade Act. I believe 
that it is no accident that with this tough message, the U.S. trade 
deficit declined in the several years following the enactment of the 
1988 Trade Act. The downward trend in trade deficit was reversed with 
the current GATT-mania. The trend I talk about from 1988 up to now, was 
reversed by the GATT mania.
  Trade should not be the only value the United States holds dear. 
There are other values--decency, dignity, fairness and conservation of 
the resources which may and should take precedence over unfettered 
international trade. Our Nation's abhorrence of tyranny, child labor, 
and environmental destruction should not be subordinated to the GATT 
principle of the least trade restrictive measures.
  How many Americans and Nebraskans know this agreement prohibits 
exports of goods made by prison labor but allows exports made by 
children of, say, 12 years of age working for 50 cents per hour. Now 
that is something that we all can be proud of. We protect criminals but 
not the kids.
  In closing, let me say that the free trade gurus that live in the 
world do not seem to understand where the treatment of workers starts 
and when we should leave workers to their own volition to do what is 
right. I do not apologize for being concerned about the Nebraska 
apparel workers, sugar beet growers in the panhandle, and workers in 
small and large factories throughout the State. They are real live 
Nebraskans and Americans all. I represent them too.
  I am profoundly troubled with the way GATT enthusiasts view low wage, 
low skill workers as disposable. I remember an America where hard work 
would earn a decent wage. Today, hard work and good will do not seem to 
go as far as they once did. The depiction of low skill workers by some 
GATT supporters demeans the hard work of many Americans. These workers 
are the families that so many politicians laud. Here is a chance to 
vote for them. Who's listening?
  It is interesting that this same Congress just passed a massive crime 
bill and the next Congress will consider welfare reform. It is often 
said there are few of our social ills which could not be solved with a 
good job. Thousands of entry level jobs will be in peril with this 
agreement. But lest we forget, they don't vote.
  The problem with the fast track procedures is that the Senate has no 
way to change the bad parts of this agreement. If we had more time, 
perhaps next year, absent the fast track we possibly could correct it. 
But as is, it is an all or nothing proposition. Having carefully 
weighed the benefits with the risks, I have concluded, Mr. President, 
that I can not lend my support to this agreement.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I reserve the remainder of my time.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 30, 1994]

                         Next Year, a Farm Bill

       A major task of the Clinton administration and the 
     Republican Congress next year will be to write a new farm 
     bill. It's a huge undertaking; here will come a five-year 
     bill involving billions of dollars in likely subsidies and 
     other forms of support to an entire sector of the economy at 
     the start of a new era in world trade. But this time the 
     problem is compounded. The administration has no discernible 
     farm policy, has never developed one and seems most unlikely 
     to do so now, when it has been politically weakened and will 
     shortly lack even an agriculture secretary. The Republicans, 
     perhaps particularly in the House, are likewise untested. 
     It's clear enough that they want to cut federal spending and 
     regulation, but not so clear that they want to cut farm 
     spending and regulation--not the elaborate regulatory 
     structures that prop up prices, at any rate.
       The major farm support programs are trade-offs of price and 
     income supports for production restraints. The strongest 
     believers in free markets among the Republicans would do away 
     with them. Majority leader-to-be Richard Armey has been among 
     this group in the past. Some urban Democrats have also tried 
     to kill or cut back some of the lesser programs, though for 
     different reasons. There's likely to be a revival of such 
     talk this time around, particularly if Republicans, who tend 
     to be strong in farm states, also pass a balanced budget 
     amendment and begin to make heavy cuts in other spending. If 
     only for political reasons, members not from farm states will 
     try to force them to cut farm spending, too.
       The farm state members of both parties can be expected to 
     resist. They have already indicated they will once again try 
     to do no more than make some modest further reductions in 
     support levels. But that, too, can eventually lead to a 
     dissolution of the system, because as support levels drift 
     below break-even points, farmers will be inclined to withdraw 
     from the programs rather than submit to the production 
     limits.
       That will be the broadest battleground--how much and how to 
     cut the principal programs. There will also be some lesser 
     battles. Dairy price supports have become dysfunctional; what 
     helps one region hurts another. The system has been so 
     patched over the years that the price of milk is now almost 
     entirely a federal artifact. A truly deregulatory Congress 
     would strike the system down. It would do away with such 
     anti-competitive constructs as the sugar program as well, in 
     which import and now even domestic marketing limitations are 
     used to keep U.S. prices artificially high.
       The farm bill also presents environmental issues. What 
     happens next to the conservation reserve program, in which 
     farmers are paid to idle supposedly fragile land? To what 
     extent will either the administration or Congress seek to use 
     the farm bill to make pesticide and/or clean water or 
     wetlands policy?
       The administration may not propose a bill. Instead, it is 
     said to be considering a statement of principles, mostly of 
     the steady-as-you-go variety, the effect of which would be to 
     leave the writing of the bill to Congress, which has the 
     power anyway. That would be a bow to political reality as 
     well as a way of preserving the president's options and 
     avoiding blame, all of which might be shrewd. But it still 
     wouldn't constitute a farm policy.

  Mr. PACKWOOD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 6 
minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the Senate will shortly be voting on 
H.R. 5110, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT] 
implementing legislation. As my colleagues know, I have always 
encouraged and supported international trade and will continue to do so 
in the future. Expanding and developing export markets will not only 
give Vermonters, but all Americans, the opportunity to gain access into 
world-wide markets.
  As a firm believer in free and fair trade, I regret that I am unable 
to support the GATT agreement. On first inclination, I am prone to 
support this agreement which has such worthy goals and intentions. 
There is no doubt, our economic future depends on the ability of this 
Nation to compete in the international marketplace. But this agreement 
is flawed. Upon detailed review of the sections pertaining to the dairy 
industry, the potentially devastating impact of GATT is clear.
  Vermont's dairy farmers have for too long suffered at the expense of 
our trade policies. This agreement removes protections for Vermont 
farmers and puts them in direct competition with foreign farmers who 
receive massive government subsidies, making fair competition an 
impossibility.
  There are few States that take advantage of international trade 
opportunities more than Vermont. This is a statistic which I think we 
should be quite proud of, and one which I will work to increase.
  Still, this issue is far more complex than just simply reviewing 
State trade statistics. Back in 1991, we took up the issue of so-called 
fast-track authority for negotiating the GATT agreement. I opposed this 
authority because dairy interests have been routinely ignored in trade 
negotiations. Once again this is true, our trade negotiators have given 
away the farm on GATT, and I am afraid Vermont's dairy farmers will be 
the ones to pay for it.
  Within GATT, section 22 protections for dairy farmers are eliminated. 
In addition to that, a 5-percent minimum on food imports is mandated, 
domestic farm programs, including Federal dairy programs are reduced, 
and our domestic food safety laws are weakened. So what do we get in 
return? Canada is dragging its hooves on opening its dairy markets, and 
the Europeans are only required to scale back their exports by the same 
percentage we do.

  This may be fair on its face to anybody who does not know dairy, but 
the Europeans have been massively subsidizing their exports while the 
USDA seems to regard dairy exports as a nuisance.
  Senator Leahy and I tried to work with the Clinton administration to 
make GATT fair to Vermont's farms and all dairy producers. I commend 
Senator Leahy for his efforts in working with me on a dairy export plan 
to be included within GATT. This plan was supported by most farmers who 
could see the benefits of creating worldwide markets for their 
products.
  On numerous occasions, I urged the Clinton administration to give our 
farmers a fair chance in a market open to so many countries and include 
our export plan. Unfortunately, the President denied our request to 
include our export plan onto the enabling legislation of the worldwide 
agreement.
  Mr. President, I also have concerns on the effects the GATT agreement 
will have on the world's environment. Primarily, arguments have been 
made that GATT will undermine implementation and enforcement of our 
domestic environmental protection standards. But just as importantly, 
GATT will interfere with international efforts to protect the 
environment, potentially reducing the effectiveness of international 
environmental treaties.
  Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed that the President does 
not value the interests of the U.S. dairy farmers within the world 
market, along with supporting our strong environmental standards, as I 
do. Therefore, I cannot accept a trade agreement that will further 
burden our dairy farmers, weaken environmental standards and limit 
child labor protection.
  I think it is time for the President to stand up for the U.S. dairy 
industry and value the importance of these farmers to our Nation. He 
has done it for cattle, and he has done it for wheat. It is high time 
he pay attention to dairy as well.
  Whatever happens here today, I plan to go home having supported the 
environment and dairy farmers, in Vermont and throughout the Nation. 
Fairness demands nothing less, Mr. President. For these reasons, I will 
not vote for this agreement.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from New Jersey who has the distinction, among many, of having 
been a member of the study committee on the GATT in the mideighties.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, we have been debating the Uruguay round 
agreement for nearly 20 hours now. I believe the proponents of this 
legislation have made a compelling case.
  I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that America's 
prosperity depends on our vote. Failure to pass this legislation would 
be a profoundly self-destructive act. It would close us out of world 
trade and deny us the export engine for economic growth and remove our 
voice from the councils that will shape the 21st century and national 
economic system.
  Failure to pass the agreement would be a vote of no confidence in our 
own future. I think it is trite but true to say that the only constant 
in the world today is change. Our vote is an indication of how we will 
react to change. We can seize it and shape it to our advantage. That is 
the response of a self-confident, vigorous nation, and that is the 
traditional American response. Or we can put our heads in the sand in 
the vain hope that change will pass us by.
  That is the response of a nation without a future.
  It is about that future that I would like to talk today. For even as 
we debate the Uruguay round, we should look ahead to the next round of 
negotiations that will move the international trading system to the 
next level.
  The world economy did not stand still while our negotiators hammered 
out the Uruguay round. It changed in ways unimagined by the ministers 
who first gathered in Punta del Este in 1986. For example, the end of 
the cold war combined with broad acceptance of the capitalist model in 
the developing world introduced billions more consumers and competitors 
into the global economy. The liberalization of capital movements led to 
an explosion in foreign investment and unleashed daily currency flows 
that dwarf trade in goods. The information revolution both changed the 
way we create and measure value, and increased the importance of 
intellectual property rights. Meanwhile, our environmental problems 
continued to mount as an unintended consequence of our economic 
dynamism.
  When we ratify this today, we need a new round, sooner rather than 
later, to adapt the world trading system to these and other 
transformations shaping the global economy. I see five major areas for 
a new round to address:
  First is trade in services. Advanced economies rely on service 
industries for new growth. We have made progress in disagreement but 
there is much more to do.
  These already produce over 53 percent of American GDP and provide 70 
percent of U.S. jobs. We exported about $200 billion in services in 
1993, with a surplus of $68 billion. The new round should address 
services. It should return to the issue. We have not exhausted it in 
this agreement.
  Second is investment. With the increase of capital mobility and the 
triumph of market economics, foreign investment has exploded. This 
matters because investment is essential to economic growth, and because 
trade follows investment. For example, studies indicate that over 20 
percent of American goods exports are made to foreign affiliates of the 
American exporter.
  The Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures, TRIMS, is a tiny 
first step toward bringing investment under the disciplines of the 
world trading system. APEC and the OECD are working on this issue now. 
The next trade round should use their thinking as a basis to advance 
beyond the TRIMS agreement, or the current investment policy of this 
particular bill.
  Third is competition policy. Some of the fiercest debates in the 
Finance Committee, as in Geneva, where over the dumping and subsidies 
rules. Our ability to make sense of unfair practices and counter them 
is severely hamstrung by the disconnect between trade policy and 
domestic competition policy. These two sides of the same coin currently 
receive separate treatment, leading to the illogical result that 
competition within borders is treated differently than competition 
across them. The next round needs to look at ways to integrate 
competition and trade policies into a more effective whole that 
recognizes that business activity now takes place in a global market.
  Fourth is labor rights. Improving worker rights has been an objective 
of U.S. trade policy for over a century. However, we are still groping 
to understand the connection between humane labor practices and trade. 
Trade policy must not deny developing countries their natural advantage 
in cheaper labor. At the same time, we cannot condone practices that 
violate basic human rights. We all want workers to reap the fruit of 
their labors, but we do not yet agree on where to draw the line between 
human rights and protectionism.
  We need more work to help us understand which labor practices 
constitute human rights violations, which afford unfair trade 
advantages, which represent legitimate comparative advantage, and which 
are simply the result of underdevelopment. The OECD is doing some work 
on this issue. We need to do more and integrate the findings into the 
international trading system.
  Finally, there is the environment. We now find ourselves in the 
untenable position of developing two parallel trade/environment 
structures. On the one hand, we have our environmental commitments, 
such as the Montreal Protocol, the Global Climate Change Convention, 
the Biodiversity Convention, and our obligations under the Stockholm 
and Rio Declarations. These all have trade effects. On the other, we 
have our GATT/WTO commitments, which have an impact on the environment.
  These structures intersect in many places. They contradict in others, 
as demonstrated by the problems we have had with the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act.
  Arthur Dunkel once told me he thought the next GATT round would be a 
green round. Clearly, we need to build a conceptual framework to bring 
together environmental policy and trade policy. The next round must do 
so.
  I have listed a number of issues, identified a number of problems, 
and provided no answers. That pretty well reflects the current state of 
thinking. It is incumbent upon the first Director General of the WTO, 
whoever he may be, to follow Arthur Dunkel's example and, as his first 
act, appoint a new eminent person's group to lay the conceptual 
framework for a new round, just as we laid the conceptual framework for 
this round in the 1985 group.
  In order to participate in new negotiations and meet these new 
challenges, we must renew the President's fast track negotiating 
authority. We must make a fast-track bill one of the first priorities 
of the new Congress. There are many contentious issues to work out, but 
with a vote in favor of free trade this week we will have the 
foundation to work out an acceptable negotiating famework.
  Still, Mr. President, these are issues for tomorrow. The task at hand 
is to pass the legislation before us implementing the Uruguay Round 
Agreement. Before we can move ahead on these issues for the future, we 
must reaffirm our own commitment to the international trading system.
  Some say that we are not ``the'' economic superpower. Japan is. If we 
turn down the Uruguay round, that may become a selffulfilling prophesy. 
If we approve this Agreement, continue our efforts to bring the budget 
deficit under control, provide worker education, fix our pension 
system, and retain our leadership in the world trading system, the 
United States will remain what it now is--the world's largest, most 
productive economy.
  In the NAFTA debate, a number of my colleagues began their 
statements, ``I'm a free trader, but * * *'' Some said, ``* * * but 
we'll hear a giant sucking sound as jobs go south.'' Others said, ``* * 
* but the Mexicans aren't democratic enough.'' Although I disagreed 
with them on NAFTA these were legitimate concerns, given complexity of 
the commitment we were undertaking.
  Well, the returns are coming in, and they show that NAFTA was a good 
deal for America. There has been no sucking sound of jobs going south, 
and we have an adjustment program in place for the 10-15,000 workers 
who could be displaced by NAFTA this year. Instead, the main sound has 
been the steady ``whoosh'' of goods, services, and profits crossing our 
borders in all directions.
  Gary Hufbauer, of the Institute for International Economics, 
estimates that, because of lower import prices NAFTA will put $600 
million into the pockets of American consumers. American business will 
have more in gross margin to cover their fixed costs.
  In my state of New Jersey alone, a recent study has found that NAFTA 
has already led to $287 million in increased exports and over 5000 net 
new jobs. And the Uruguay Round dwarfs NAFTA in economic size.
  NAFTA also served as an anchor to the Mexican political and economic 
system when it was shaken by the assassination of the ruling party's 
presidential candidate. It created new economic and financial 
constraints on the ability of old-style politicians to fix the 
election. As a result, Mexico ran the cleanest presidential election in 
its modern history and is poised to do even better next time.
  There are no ``buts'' in the matter before us. We have a clear choice 
between prosperity and stagnation. We have a choice between enjoying 
the benefits of a developing international trading system, or 
retreating into autarky, poverty, and irrelevance. We have a choice 
between national self-confidence and national decline.
  I hope that we will pass this GATT agreement. Opponents have made a 
number of arguments, one of which is low wages; all the jobs will go to 
low wage countries. If that were the case, Mr. President, Bangladesh 
would be an economic superpower. Clearly low wages are not the only 
criteria for investment around the world.
  They have also made the point that we have the problem of child 
labor.
  Mr. President, if there is a problem of child labor in this country, 
child labor of illegal immigrants in our own country in factories 
across this land, we have a law now that says if an employer hires an 
illegal immigrant, whether that is a child or not, he should had been 
fined and sanctioned.
  We do not fund adequately employer sanctions and because we do not 
fund adequately employer sanctions there are literally thousands of 
illegal immigrant children at work in this country today. So those who 
come to this floor and puff about child labor, let us make sure that we 
fund the economic sanctions that are already in law.
  An estimate is that they require an additional 10 times what we are 
now funding to enforce economic sanctions under the immigration law. We 
have $28 million to do that. Estimates are it would cost $280 million 
to $300 million.
  So those who are concerned about child labor in Bangladesh or China 
or somewhere else why not be concerned about child labor in your State, 
in your town, because it is there today with illegal immigrants and if 
you want to stop child labor stop it in the United States first.
  GATT is a good agreement. We are the most open economy in the world 
and we will benefit the most from opening other economies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my colleague from 
Oregon.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the debate over the GATT and the legislation 
before us today has raged for many months now. I have been following 
this very closely both in the public debate and the debate in Congress 
and the debate in homes and coffee shops and community centers around 
the country. It is clear that this is an issue that has raised 
passions, as well as fears, among a large segment of our population.
  The arguments on both sides of the debate have been presented 
forcefully and extensively as they have here. I have listened to the 
objections of those who oppose the agreement, and I think I have 
considered each one of them very closely. I would like to take just a 
moment to review those objections.
  First is the budget implication of this bill. Opponents argue that 
this bill will increase the Federal budget deficit by tens of billions 
of dollars over the next decade. If that were the case, I would be 
voting today against the budget waiver and against the bill. The bottom 
line, however, is that the charge is simply not true. It is based on 
static budget assumptions which fail to take into consideration the 
huge impact the new GATT will have on our Nation's economy. By lowering 
tariffs worldwide, the agreement will result in hundreds of billions of 
dollars of added economic activity. It is not a zero sum game. It is 
not just slicing up the pie different. It is slicing up a larger pie.
  That agreement that we will approve today, I hope, will generate 
significant new tax revenues, which will almost certainly reduce, 
rather than increase, the deficit.
  A second argument that continues to be raised in opposition to this 
agreement is that it creates a new World Trade Organization which will 
give unfair power to tiny foreign countries, to tiny dictatorships, and 
which will have the power to overturn U.S. laws. Again, I have looked 
at these charges carefully. If they were true, I would be down here 
today arguing strongly against this agreement. It is clear to me, 
however, that they are not true. The WTO is a new organization that the 
United States pushed for to give the GATT more muscle to resolve trade 
disputes and enforce settlements. The reason we pushed for it is 
because we are the country which most frequently brings complaints 
before the GATT. Since we are the ones most often asking for relief, it 
makes sense to ensure that the GATT has the ability to make its 
decisions stick. Too often it has been the U.S.A., our farmers, our 
export workers, our creative producers who have been the losers when 
GATT did not have the clout to stop unfair practices directed at us. It 
is time we had a stick instead of a wet noodle to enforce those 
agreements. This agreement makes a major stride in that direction.
  Many opponents have suggested that the United States will find itself 
on the losing end of a trade dispute--perhaps as a result of many 
smaller countries ganging up on us in the WTO--and that we will be 
forced to forfeit our sovereignty by modifying our laws or lowering 
health and safety standards. I simply do not accept that. That is not 
true.

  The United States is the world's largest economy. The goal of every 
other country in the world is to sell as much as possible in our great 
market. They know that they cannot attack us unfairly with impunity. If 
they try, we will retaliate and their economy--not ours--will suffer. 
Furthermore, Congress has put the world on notice that we will monitor 
the WTO like a hawk, and that we are prepared not to comply with an 
unfair ruling, or even to withdraw if necessary. We are unlikely ever 
to see such a situation, however. The GATT has worked over the years by 
operating through consensus. There is every reason to expect that 
consensus will continue to be the rule.
  With regard to the issue of sovereignty, it is just not true that 
this agreement will infringe on our right to set our own laws. The U.S. 
Supreme Court has made very clear that the Government can choose to 
ignore treaty provisions when it desires. Further, the legislation 
itself clearly states that no part of the agreement which is 
inconsistent with U.S. law shall have effect. And finally, we have the 
right to withdraw from the agreement at any time with only 6 months 
notice.
  There has also been much criticism of the wide range of non-GATT 
provisions in this legislation which were included to help offset the 
tariff cut. Many Missourians have called my office to express their 
concern about giveaways of their tax dollars. I have looked at as many 
of these provisions as have been brought to my attention and, although 
I can see how some might oppose the policy behind them, I cannot agree 
that they are a giveaway of our tax dollars. It could be argued that 
the Government could have received more for some of these radio 
spectrum license sales, and that is something the administration has 
agreed to review, but clearly it is not a giveaway to tax dollars.
  After reviewing those concerns, one must then look at the other side 
of the equation--the benefits that would result from approving the new 
GATT accord. In my opinion those benefits will be huge both for the 
United States as a whole and for my State of Missouri.
  This agreement will provide the largest tariff--or tax, because that 
is what a tariff is--reduction in history. That will mean more money in 
the pockets of Americans as well as citizens of other countries. That 
is money that can be saved or that can be spent. Regardless of how it 
is used, it is certain to result in the creation of thousands of new 
American jobs.

  The benefits of GATT can be seen very clearly just by looking at its 
impact upon Missouri.
  The new agreement will be a boon to Missouri's farmers who already 
export a quarter of their output. We know that if you take down the 
barriers they can export more because they are the world's most 
efficient producers. That percentage is certain to surge as other 
countries are forced to lower unfair trade barriers which currently 
keep out Missouri commodities such as rice, corn and beef.
  The largest manufacturer in Missouri--McDonnell Douglas--will benefit 
significantly from rules designed to limit unfair Government subsidies 
to its overseas competitors in the commercial aerospace field.
  Companies like Monsanto, Sprint, Hallmark, Leggett & Platt, and 
Ralston Purina will find it much easier to sell their products 
overseas, as well. The tens of thousands of Missourians who make up 
these companies, and the employees of the small Missouri businesses 
that supply them, will be the true beneficiaries as new jobs are 
created, and existing jobs become more secure due to increased 
worldwide sales.
  But it is not just Missouri's large companies that will benefit from 
GATT. The growing world market will provide tremendous opportunity to 
the thousands of small companies across the state. As we enter the 21st 
century, we are truly entering a global economy, and all companies--
large and small--will have to participate to survive. This agreement, 
which lowers tariffs worldwide and helps to level the playing field, 
only serves to make it easier for smaller companies to succeed.
  The bottom line is that the U.S. economy is inextricably tied to the 
world economy. For that reason, we have to use our power and prestige 
as the largest market and most powerful economy to move the world 
toward more open and fair trade. That is the best way to ensure 
prosperity for the greatest number of Americans.
  Having said that, I would hasten to add that in working for free and 
fair trade, we must be careful not to be played for patsies. We have 
the muscle to see that the game is played fairly and that our interests 
are protected. We must do that and, if we find that others are not 
playing by the rules, then we should retaliate or withdraw from the 
agreement.
  Having considered all of the arguments before us, it is clear to me 
that this agreement makes sense for the United States. We will be the 
biggest beneficiary of its approval. For that reason, I will today 
support the budget waiver and passage of the implementing legislation, 
and I ask my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I do not see anyone else here on either 
side of the aisle to speak.
  Then, I might speak a bit to elaborate further on a point that I 
made.
  When we talk about world trade, there are two kinds of trade. One is 
in merchandise. Merchandise is what we might call goods--cars, 
refrigerators, jet airplanes, nuclear reactors, hard goods for lack of 
a better term. The other is services, insurance, credit cards, and 
tourism.
  The United States is without question the world's leader in services. 
Take credit cards, for example--Visa, Master Charge, American Express. 
These are all American-centered companies, but they sell licenses 
throughout the world to provide these cards. The licensees pay money 
for the license and that money flows back to the United States. We are 
talking dollars, the same kind of dollars you get when you sell an 
airplane. It just happens to be a different kind of business.
  Last year, 1993, we had a $57 billion surplus in services--surplus, 
more coming in than going out.
  In merchandise, the goods, the refrigerators, the cars, we 
unfortunately had a $116 billion deficit.
  Now we exported a lot last year. We exported almost $450 billion, but 
we brought in a lot more.
  So the first question is, why? And I think I can guess why, although 
I cannot prove it.
  At the end of World War II, we were the only major industrial country 
left that was relatively unscathed. Japan was devastated. Up until that 
time, Japan had not been a major factor in world trade anyway. Germany, 
devastated; France, devastated; Italy, devastated; Russia, which never 
had been a factor in world trade, and really not much of a factor 
today, devastated.
  So, after World War II, we could sell almost anything we wanted in 
the world and there was a market. It really did not matter if they were 
good products or bad products; they were the only products. For years 
thereafter, we had a tremendous surplus in the merchandise trade 
sector, the goods sector. It may have been a Caterpillar tractor--and I 
might say Caterpillar today does very well. But it did not matter what 
it was, we sold it around the world. It did not matter if the 
merchandise was relatively shoddy; you either bought ours or you bought 
nothing.
  The service industry, on the other hand, was an industry that almost 
did not exist at the end of World War II. I think most of the people 
listening to me today can remember an era when there were no credit 
cards, period, we did not have any; when insurance was by and large 
local. Other than the maritime industry, there were no large 
conglomerates of insurance companies selling insurance around the 
world.
  But the whole business of services and high-tech goods like computers 
have really grown up only in the last 20 to 30 years.
  Take a company like Intel, which is the largest private employer in 
Oregon. The company was founded in 1969. It was not around during World 
War II.
  Look what happens when you are an older company--and this was true of 
the auto companies, true of the steel companies. They came out of World 
War II having produced tanks and steel and were the only one left in 
the world in business. They had no incentive to change, for one thing, 
and they had no competition for probably 20 years, up until the mid-
sixties.
  Take cars, for example. The only foreign cars that were sold in this 
country of any consequence, probably until 1970, were those little 
Volkswagen beetles, which Germany developed in the mid-1950's. They had 
a small portion of our market, not a large portion. But they had a 
little cadre of people who liked the beetles--I liked the beetles--and 
they had sold a fair number. They did not have a large percentage of 
our market, but they had hard-core followers.
  Then there was also the big imported cars, the Mercedes, Rolls 
Royces, the very expensive cars. We did not make anything in this 
country comparable to the Rolls Royce. Therefore, there was a market 
for them. Again, a small market. They did not have a significant impact 
on our auto industry.
  It was not until really the 1970's that two things happened. One was 
the Arab oil embargo and the sharp increase in the price of oil from 
about $3 a barrel to $12 a barrel in 1973-1974 and then again from 
roughly $12 a barrel to about $35 a barrel in 1979 and 1980. That 
pushed up our gasoline prices tremendously. It was almost coincidental 
that in about 1971 and 1972, the Japanese were starting to introduce 
into this country high-mileage, good, small cars. And I emphasize 
``good.'' They were good. From the standpoint of repair and 
maintenance, they were a superior car to our small cars. It is probably 
coincidental that they were just hitting the market as the oil stock 
and the gasoline prices went up. The result was Americans flocked to 
these cars in droves.
  I can remember when we first passed the mileage standards in this 
country which required cars to get to a certain minimum mileage each 
year. There was tremendous opposition from the American auto industry 
to these standards. They had two arguments. One, it would take them 5 
to 7 years to develop that kind of car and get it on the market; two, 
Americans did not want those kinds of cars anyway.
  Well, 5 to 7 years, this from an industry that in 6 months went from 
cars to tanks in World War II. And pretty good tanks. We did not get 
really into the war until Pearl Harbor and by the summer of 1942 we 
were turning out tanks instead of cars and turning them out in droves.
  But the argument the Americans did not want these kind of cars was 
just fallacious. We wanted cars that got good gas mileage. Amazingly, 
we liked good cars. We liked cars that were dependable and that did not 
take a lot of repair.
  The Japanese stole the market from us. Wrong word; we gave it away; 
gave it away.
  Now, to their credit, American manufacturers are now catching up. The 
Japanese are building cars in this country. I think it will only be 
another 4 to 5 years until they build more cars here for the American 
market than they import from Japan. But Ford, GM, and Chrysler are now 
turning out superior cars, every bit as good as the Japanese, cheaper 
than the Japanese, as good mileage as the Japanese, and Americans are 
buying them.
  But it took competition over 20 years to force American manufacturers 
to catch up.
  If you read the Wall Street Journal yesterday, you will note that 
steel has also caught up. Steel went through the doldrums in the 1970's 
and 1980's. It could not compete with the low-wage Japanese, could not 
compete with the Koreans. Today we are the lowest cost producer of 
steel in the world. We are competitive every where. But it took us a 
long time to catch up.
  Having said all that, what is going to happen and what can we do to 
narrow this terrible trade deficit we keep hearing about?
  First, when you calculate the trade deficit, you have to take the 
merchandise deficit, our deficits in the cars, VCR's, and television, 
and, against that, offset the services surplus. Our trade deficit for 
1993 is about $60 billion when you offset the surplus of services 
against the merchandise deficit.
  Of that $60 billion, $44 billion is oil, imported oil; $43 billion is 
imported cars. You get rid of just those two items, cars and oil, and 
we have a total trade surplus. I should point out, however, that the 
deficit in cars is starting to shrink.
  Now I will pose the question what we should do about oil. I am 
indebted to the Library of Congress for this information. I have to 
say, the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service is the 
greatest research organization in the world. I would not trade them for 
all the rest of the research organizations put together. I only put 
them on this issue yesterday to see if they could find out if what I 
thought was probably true is, and they verified that it is true.
  Now, I am going to make a bold statement. We import oil because it is 
cheaper than making oil in this country out of coal. What do I mean by 
that?
  This country has a cornucopia of natural resources. Japan has no 
natural resources, no oil, no coal, no natural gas, and no great rivers 
to dam up to make electricity. They have to import all of their energy. 
This country has a cornucopia of energy. We have a 400-year supply of 
coal. We have a 200-year supply of oil shale. If you count all of North 
America, including Canada and Mexico--and I will add that we are all 
involved now in this North American Free-Trade Agreement--there is more 
natural gas than we know what to do with and we are finding more than 
we are using. But we are short of oil, crude oil, the kind you bring 
out of the ground in liquid form.
  I say we are short. I am not sure, because every time we think we 
might find some oil, we just have a devil of an environmental argument 
as to whether we should look for it in Prudhoe Bay or in the Outer 
Continental Shelf. Should we drill? Should we even do experimental 
drilling to see if oil is there? The answer from the environmental 
community very often is no. We do not want to look because, if we look, 
we might find, and if we find, then somebody may want to bring it out. 
So we import it instead.
  But let us assume for the moment there is no oil there. What could we 
do? It is what South Africa did for the better part of 30 years, 
because their government had a trade boycott against it and they could 
not buy oil of any quantity overseas. Well, South Africa, which is, 
again, a country rich in natural resources, took to making gasoline out 
of coal. You can do it. Transform the coal into oil, transform the oil 
into gasoline. It is expensive, but it can be done.
  I asked the Library of Congress yesterday and they gave me the answer 
today, could we make coal into oil in this country? Do we have enough 
coal? The answer is, yes, we have more coal than we know what to do 
with. Could we turn the oil into gasoline? Yes. Is it much more 
expensive? Yes, it is much more expensive. How much? And I said put it 
in terms that are understandable to me, the layman. They answered that, 
if we were to take our coal, turn it into oil, turn the oil into 
gasoline, the equivalent price of gasoline, in their estimate, would be 
$3 to $4 a gallon, instead of what we currently pay. In addition, all 
other oil prices would go up equivalently. Whatever you pay for fuel 
oil, whatever you pay for oil to turn the generators to produce 
electricity, all throughout the economy, you would have these price 
increases and inflation. But we could get rid of the $44 billion trade 
deficit in oil.
  Now, the question is: Do we want to do that?
  Coal is a problem. Coal burns dirty. It takes a lot of money to burn 
coal clean. If you are going to turn it into oil it is a lot more 
expensive and a lot dirtier than just pumping it out of the ground. But 
if we are so all-fired worried about this trade surplus, would we be 
willing to get rid of $44 billion of it by making our own oil out of 
coal? If you say to the American public: Yes, this trade deficit is so 
bad that I think we should have gasoline at $3 to $4 a gallon, we 
should have fuel oil for our homes, at whatever the equivalent increase 
will be, we ought to have the inflation it will bring, and the increase 
in bond prices and mortgage interest rates that come with inflation, we 
are willing to have all of that to get rid of this $44 billion 
deficit--that is a fair debate, whether or not we want to trade that 
off. We should not say we cannot do it. South Africa did it. Japan 
cannot do it. They do not have the resources.
  I am going to predict what is going to happen over the years. I do 
not think we are going to turn to making oil out of coal. However, our 
services sector is the fastest growing segment in all of the industrial 
countries of the world. We keep hearing that our manufacturing base has 
disappeared. It has not disappeared. It has become more productive. I 
count agriculture as one of our industrial bases. It is a separate 
category but it is very capital intensive. We put more money per person 
into farm equipment and farming than we do any other industry.
  At the turn of the century it took about one farmer to produce food 
enough for seven people. Today one farmer produces enough food for 
about 82 to 83 people. I would wager by the turn of the century one 
farmer in this country will produce enough food for 100 people. That is 
a tremendous increase in productivity. It is expensive.
  A new combine for cutting wheat costs between $145,000 and $150,000. 
A new tractor to pull that combine is about $130,000. Yet, with that 
combine and that tractor and a lot of other expensive equipment that 
goes with it, a husband and wife and a couple of kids and a hired hand 
can farm a multithousand-acre wheat farm successfully and compete 
anyplace in the world. That is the situation in agriculture.
  The same thing that has happened in agriculture has happened in 
automobile manufacturing and steel manufacturing--especially for the 
last 20 years we have gotten so much better at it that we can turn out 
more cars with fewer people, more steel with fewer people. We have 
learned how to become more  productive. It is not that we are producing 
fewer cars. When people say we have lost our industrial base--we have 
not lost our base. We are producing more cars with fewer people, more 
steel with fewer people. We are producing more wheat with fewer people. 
That is also true in Germany. Not in their agricultural sector which is 
heavily subsidized and inefficient, but it is true in Germany for 
steel. It is true in Japan in cars. It is true in all of the 
industrialized countries of the world. Their manufacturing sector, in 
terms of manufacturing employment in relation to their total 
employment, is shrinking. The number of employed stays about the same 
but their production increases tremendously and the number of employees 
in manufacturing in relation to the number of employees in services 
gets smaller and smaller as a percentage because it is the service 
industry that is growing. And it is the service industry that we are 
the best at.

  Example: 5 years ago the trade surplus in services was $25 billion. 
Five years later it is $57 billion. I will make a bet 5 years from now 
it will be $100 billion in our favor. And the merchandise deficit will 
go down. There will be an irreducible minimum in my judgment below 
which it cannot go if we do not do something about oil. If we want to 
continue to import oil, I do not know if we will ever get to a trade 
balance in merchandise, no matter how hard we try. But to the extent we 
can make up that deficit in merchandise with a surplus in services 
there is nothing wrong with that. Credit cards are not un-American. 
Insurance is not un-American.
  We have almost a death wish fascination with manufacturing, that 
somehow you cannot be a great country unless you are the world's 
greatest producer of things: Steel, autos, refrigerators, locomotives. 
You cannot be a great country because you are the best producer of 
these little computer chips. I held up one yesterday. Intel--I will 
give an example. I mentioned Intel once before. Intel is the largest 
private employer in Oregon. It is a company that was founded in 1969. 
When I was elected to the Senate in 1968, this company did not exist. 
They are now investing close to $2 billion in Oregon--about $700 
million to expand an existing plant and about $1.2 billion to build a 
new plant and turn out computer chips. They are now the world's largest 
manufacturer. They have overtaken the Japanese. They are outselling the 
Japanese around the world. These are chips for export--this counts as 
services--export.
  How can Intel compete with Bangladesh? Oregon is a relatively high-
wage State and a relatively high-tax State.
  Do you know what the answer is? And this is true of all of the high-
tech industries. You ask them what are your floor labor costs? By floor 
labor they mean the production laborers, the hands-on workers, not the 
research and development which they do not plan to move anyplace, nor 
their management. How much of a percent of your total cost is your 
floor labor? Seven percent. Eight percent. They are not going to move 
to Bangladesh where they can pay somebody 50 cents an hour when labor 
is 7 percent of the total cost anyway.
  It is much more critical to them that they have good transportation 
to get their products around the world. It is more critical to them 
they have a clean atmosphere. I was in their plant not 2 months ago and 
you ought to see it now, what they call the clean room. When I started 
my business a clean room was a white smock. In their clean room today 
you would swear you were looking at something out of Star Wars. People 
clothed almost like an astronaut on the Moon. Their breath being 
monitored through a tube and through a recirculator on their backs so 
that their breath does not get on the chips that are being made.
  Immense temperature control equipment to keep these rooms almost at a 
perfectly even temperature. They would have to have these things in 
Bangladesh, and they cost just as much to put them in Bangladesh as 
here. Bangladesh does not make machines like that. They are not going 
to move to Bangladesh.
  So, can we compete? You bet we can compete. And the things that we 
will compete at best are very frankly the things that have the lowest 
percentage of labor cost to total cost. I did not say lowest labor 
cost. Lowest percentage of labor cost to total cost. Those things that 
have a high labor cost we may not be able to compete in.
  One of those is low-end apparel. I do not mean high-cost apparel. I 
think even in this country we can compete in apparel made here that is 
very expensive apparel, but can we compete making a $1.99 T-shirt or a 
cheap men's suit when we have not yet learned how to automate the 
making of a man's suit? I doubt it.
  Japan learned that lesson 20 years ago. Thirty years ago, Japan was 
in the top five in the world in the export of apparel and the export of 
textiles--apparel being the clothing and textiles being the cloth--30 
years ago. Today I defy you to go to a clothing store, look at the 
garments, look at the ``where they are made'' tags, and see if you can 
find one that says made in Japan. Thailand--yes, Bangladesh--yes, 
Singapore--yes, Honduras--yes. Japan? No. Japan got out of the apparel 
business because they figured they do not compete. There was too much 
hand labor. Japan is still in the top five in the export of textiles. 
And the difference? Textiles is a highly capital-intensive business. By 
this I mean it needs machines run by relatively few people. And the 
machines, just like the Intel machines, cost a lot of money. They cost 
just as much to put them in Bangladesh, which does not make them, as it 
does to put them in Kyoto or Tokyo.
  Japan also realized something. If we are going to get Thailand to buy 
our television sets and pay us in yen, they have to be able to make 
something to sell us to get yen. Why do we not let them sell us 
apparel? If we want to sell Boeing 747's, General Electric and 
Westinghouse nuclear reactors, farm products--the biggest single item 
surplus that we have in our trade is agriculture. We have $19 billion 
surplus in agriculture. We are the world's best farmers without 
question. But if Mexico is going to buy wheat, or if Brazil is going to 
buy Westinghouse nuclear reactors, what are they going to pay us with? 
We want dollars.
  To pay us, they have to sell us something that we give them money 
for, so they can buy back what we want to sell them. Mr. President, as 
sure as we are here we are going to win this battle because time and 
tide are on our side. In every country that is the big purchaser of 
anything, it is the services sector that is growing. That is the sector 
where we compete the best. In the merchandise sector we have become 
much more competitive than we were 20 years ago.
  Oil is an ultimate problem and we have to make a decision there as to 
whether we would like to buy oil from Venezuela, Indonesia, Saudi 
Arabia, at $15 to $16 a barrel--which is roughly what the price is 
today--and have a $40 billion to $50 billion trade deficit in oil, or 
whether we want to produce the oil here at the equivalent of anywhere 
from $32 or $33 to $45 a barrel, get rid of the trade deficit, and have 
gasoline at $3 to $4 a gallon. Because those are both fair 
considerations. But for anyone to say that America cannot compete is 
really saying: America, I do not want to compete.
  To my fellow Senators, for better or for worse, we are in a 
competitive world. We may choose not to compete. We can put up the 
barriers. We can make all of our own clothing here, all of our own cars 
here, all of our own video cassette recorders here; sell nothing 
overseas and buy nothing overseas. Consumer prices will be higher. 
Products will be shoddier and America will be poorer. But we will not 
have to worry about competition.
  There is an old saying, ``If you think you can or if you think you 
can't, you're right.'' If we think we cannot compete in the world, we 
will not compete. But if we think we can, then we will develop the 
Intels of the world and all of the equivalent companies that go with 
it, and we will master the world in trade.
  The choice is ours, and the vote on the bill that is before us today 
is perhaps a more significant vote for or against competition, 
depending which way you vote, than any other vote we will make in this 
decade. I, for one, am going to opt on the side that America can 
compete; that we have not scratched the surface of what we can do in 
terms of competition in this world when we are pushed. This bill gives 
us not only the push we need but it also lowers barriers in markets 
overseas that we need to get into. We will never have a better 
opportunity to improve this country.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leahy). Who yields time?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. I yield 11 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from South 
Carolina for 11 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, yesterday during debate on this issue, I 
outlined my opposition to waiving the budget agreement to pass this 
bill. Today, I would like to summarize some of the other parts of the 
GATT implementing legislation that concern me.
  Before elaborating on the GATT agreement, I would like to take a 
moment to talk about how those who oppose this measure have been 
characterized. It has been said that we are against trade; that we are 
isolationists and protectionists. As far as this Senator is concerned, 
nothing could be further from the truth. I support trade because it 
helps increase our employment and provides economic growth. I have 
worked to support efforts which expand our country's exports. However, 
our trade with foreign manufacturers who are subsidized by their 
Governments and who have primitive labor laws and ridiculously low 
wages. Unfortunately, the agreement before us does not address these 
issues and, therefore, places our workers at a major disadvantage in 
the global marketplace. Consequently, I cannot support the passage of 
this bill.
  In addition, Mr. President, significant problems exist that are 
associated with this agreement which go beyond the pure trade 
provisions of the pact.
  For instance, a major concern that I have with this agreement is the 
establishment of a new international body, called the World Trade 
Organization, known as WTO. This supranational bureaucracy will 
adversely affect the sovereignty of our Nation.
  The WTO establishes a ministerial conference and a general council. 
The ministerial conference will meet every 2 years and receive 
decisions on matters covered by trade agreements. The general council 
will govern the WTO on a daily basis. The dispute settlement body, 
which will be established under the general council, will be the 
ultimate arbitrator of trade disputes. The decisions handed down by the 
WTO will be voted on by the member countries.
  Each country gets one vote regardless of the population or the value 
of trade by a country and, unlike in the United Nations, the United 
States will not have a veto power over WTO decisions. Further, the 
United States will finance up to 20 percent of the budget for operating 
the WTO.
  The WTO will be the arbitrator of trade disputes between signatory 
countries. By adopting this bill, we will allow our trade disputes to 
be settled behind closed doors by bureaucrats that are accountable to 
no one. Let me quote what Ralph Nadar said in testimony before the 
Senate Committee on Commerce about how the WTO will work:

       This is a tribunal in which three trade specialists preside 
     over a totally secret deliberative process. The press is 
     excluded. Nongovernmental organizations are excluded. All 
     citizens are excluded, State attorneys general are excluded. 
     Only representatives of national governments that are parties 
     to a dispute are given a role. Furthermore, all submissions, 
     all briefs and materials that must be open in our courts, can 
     be kept secret.

  Mr. President, we should not let trade disputes be settled by 
secretive panels of specialists who are accountable to no one. I want 
to repeat that. We should not let trade disputes be settled by 
secretive panels of specialists who are accountable to no one. Our 
country was founded on a principle of openness. Our Senate proceedings 
are open to public scrutiny. We have sunshine laws that require us to 
have an open and accountable Government.
  At the very least, if the United States is to consider entering into 
the WTO, then this matter should be considered as a treaty. Article 16, 
paragraph 4 of the GATT agreement states that ``each member shall 
ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations, and administrative 
procedures with its obligation as provided in the GATT.'' By changing 
our laws to satisfy this supranational trade organization, we are 
giving away our power to make our own laws. By definition, sovereignty 
is the ability of a country to make and enforce its own laws. When the 
WTO rules against us and then tells us to change our laws, we are 
losing our rights as a country.
  One argument used to justify the WTO is that other countries would 
not impose harsh penalties against the United States since we have such 
a lucrative marketplace. However, I do not think any of us can really 
be sure how the developing nations of the world, which account for 83 
percent of the WTO membership, will vote when a situation arises. 
During 1993, more than three-quarters of the WTO members voted against 
the United States and the other G-7 countries on at least half of the 
votes on matters before the United Nations. What makes us think that 
they will not vote against us in trade related matters?
  Mr. President, those of us who were serving in the Senate during the 
Tokyo round of GATT talks have heard many of the same arguments that 
the Clinton administration is currently making in regard to this 
agreement. The claims regarding the Uruguay round are strikingly 
familiar to those made by the Carter administration at the close of the 
Tokyo round talks in the late 1970's. At that time, we were told that 
the bold new steps which were incorporated into the Tokyo round were 
needed to eliminate our trade deficit and to make America more 
competitive in the global marketplace. Yet, history and our trade 
deficit show that the exact opposite happened. After implementation of 
the Tokyo round, the United States trade deficit grew from $14 billion 
in 1979 to over $115 billion for 1993. Further, we saw a major decline 
in the viability of the steel, textile and apparel, and electronics 
industries. These industries have struggled to survive in spite of the 
closed markets that they encountered in other countries.

  Mr. President, in my travels around the State of South Carolina, I 
get the opportunity to talk to many people. My constituents voice 
concerns about where our country is headed. They realize that they are 
working longer, but their hard work is not showing up in their 
paycheck. Wages are stagnant. They are fearful that their jobs are 
going to be exported. With this fear comes the loss of hope that they 
will ever be able to improve their economic status in the current 
environment.
  According to Department of Labor statistics, no single U.S. job has 
been created in industries exposed to world trade for more than 20 
years. Every job created has been in areas that do not face foreign 
competition, such as health care and retail sales.
  During this debate, many proponents of this agreement will use the 
argument that for each $1 billion of goods exported, 20,000 jobs are 
created. I would then ask how many jobs are lost for each billion 
dollars worth of merchandise trade deficit that the United States 
incurs? Using the same 20,000 jobs and with our current trade deficit 
of over $160 billion in 1994, our country could lose over 3 million 
jobs this year. As I previously stated, with the last GATT agreement, 
our trade deficit has continued to climb. I doubt that this trend is 
going to magically reverse itself with the passage of this bill.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to carefully study this agreement 
before deciding to disregard our budgeting procedures and eroding our 
sovereignty to accept the dubious benefits of this agreement. Further, 
I would ask that they not vote to approve this trade agreement.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that related materials be 
printed in the Record.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               September 14, 1994.
     President Bill Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As advocates for openness in 
     government, we would like to register our deep concern about 
     the dispute settlement process proposed as part of the World 
     Trade Organization agreement. As it now stands, this proposal 
     is riddled with provisions denying access to government 
     deliberations that are an affront to the democratic 
     traditions of this nation.
       This unprecedented secrecy is particularly offensive, given 
     the vast powers to punish and penalize that this body will 
     hold, not over just the federal government, but state and 
     local ones, too. Maximum access should be required in this 
     dispute resolution process for the following reasons:
       (1) The proposed process would have the power to determine 
     the legality of a wide variety of laws at the local, state 
     and federal levels, although officials from all levels would 
     not be able to take part in the deliberations.
       (2) The deliberations affect not only trade issues, but 
     consumer, worker and environmental protections as well.
       (3) Penalties exacted in this process could be severe.
       We urge you to insist that signatories to this agreement 
     understand that when state and federal laws are subjected to 
     an international authority to the extent proposed in this 
     document, that citizens of the United States have a 
     constitutional right to access to those deliberations. Here 
     are some of the secrecy and confidential provisions of the 
     agreement that we hope will be revised to conform with 
     democratic practices and traditions:
       (1) The public and press should be able to monitor 
     deliberations of the dispute settlement panels. Under the 
     present proposal, those sessions would be closed to both the 
     public and the press.
       (2) Documents presented during panel deliberations should 
     be made available to the public as they are in the U.S. 
     judicial proceedings. The decisions of the panels in this 
     process have the force of law, with serious penalties for a 
     non-complying nation, yet the only concession to demands for 
     openness on this point has been a proposal to provide a 
     summary of this information. That falls far short of the 
     public's needs in such critical matters.
       (3) The American public's First Amendment right to petition 
     the government should be made a part of this proposed 
     agreement. As it stands, there are no means of direct input 
     from the people, no right of public comment or amicus briefs.
       (4) Provision should be made for conflict-of-interest 
     disclosure requirements. As the proposal stands, there is no 
     way for the public to determine whether panelists deciding an 
     issue have economic or other interest in that matter. You may 
     recall that the NAFTA dispute settlement panel operates like 
     the one proposed for the WTO, and during a recent timber 
     subsidy case between Canada and the United States it was 
     discovered belatedly that two attorneys on the panel worked 
     for the Canadian lumber industry.
       (5) Documents relating to appeals of WTO panel decisions 
     should be made public. Under the current proposal, all of the 
     appeal process is conducted in secret.
       The First Amendment advocates whose names appear below take 
     no position, as a group, on the World Trade Organization 
     agreement itself. Some may support it, others may oppose and 
     still others may be undecided. But all of us, as a group, 
     urge you and your negotiators to restore democratic openness 
     to this crucial process. To do otherwise would break a sacred 
     pact with the American people.
           Sincerely,
       Paul K. McMasters, National President, Society of 
     Professional Journalists.
       Jo-Ann Huff Albers, President, Assoc. of Schools of 
     Journalism and Mass Communication.
       Paul Anger, President, Associated Press Sports Editors.
       Gilbert Bailon, President, National Association of Hispanic 
     Journalists.
       John Seigenthaler, Chairman, The Freedom Forum First 
     Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University.
       Diana Baldwin, Chairman, Oklahoma Project Sunshine, 
     Oklahoma City, OK.
       David Bartlett, Radio-Television News Directors 
     Association, Washington, DC.
       Maurine H. Beasley, Professor of Journalism, University of 
     Maryland College of Journalism, 1993-1994 President, 
     Association for Education in Journalism and Mass 
     Communication.
       Lawrence K. Beaupre, Editor, The Cincinnati Enquirer, Vice 
     President, Associated Press Managing Editors.
       Susan Bischoff, President, American Association of Sunday 
     and Feature Editors.
       Ron Bridgeman, Editor, The Oak Ridger, Oak Ridge, TN.
       Benjamen Burns, Michigan FOI Committee, Inc., Northville, 
     MI.
       Colorado Press Association, Colorado Freedom of Information 
     Council, Denver, CO.
       Lucy Dalglish, National Chairwoman, Freedom of Information 
     Committee, Society of Professional Journalists.
       Kathleen Edwards, Manager, Freedom of Information Center, 
     Columbia MO.
       Dinah Eng, President, Asian American Journalists 
     Association.
       Gregory Favre, President, American Society of Newspaper 
     Editors.
       The Florida First Amendment Foundation, Miami, FL.
       John R. Foreman, Editor, Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette, 
     Illinois State Chairman for Project Sunshine.
       Terry Francke, Executive Director, California First 
     Amendment Coalition.
       The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, Dallas, TX.
       Joseph E. Geshwiler, Editorial Associate, Atlanta 
     Constitution, President, National Conference of Editorial 
     Writers.
       Loren Ghiglione, The News, Southbridge, MA.
       Bob Giles, Editor and Publisher, The Detroit News, 
     Chairman, The Foundation for American Communications.
       Dorothy Gilliam, President, National Association of Black 
     Journalists.
       Kelly Hawes, Metro Editor, Muncie Star, Muncie, IN.
       William Hilliard, Former Editor, The Oregonian, Portland, 
     OR.
       Max Jennings, Editor, Dayton Daily News, Dayton, OH.
       Ron Johnson, President, College Media Advisers.
       Gary Klott, President, Society of American Business Editors 
     and Writers.
       Bill Kovach, Curator, The Nieman Foundation, Cambridge, MA.
       Linda Lightfoot, Baton Rouge Morning Advocate, Baton Rouge, 
     LA.
       Micheal Loftin, The Chattanooga Times, Chattanooga, TN.
       Bill Loving, President, FOI Oklahoma, Inc.
       Diane McFarlin, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sarasota, FL.
       Robert G. McGruder, Managing Editor, Detroit Free Press.
       Karen Lincoln Michel, President, Native American 
     Journalists Association.
       The National FOI Coalition.
       Ohio Coalition for Open Government, Dayton, OH.
       Burl Osborne, The Dallas Morning News, Dallas, TX.
       Geneva Overholser, Vice President and Editor, The Des 
     Moines Register, Des Moines, IA.
       Peter Prichard, Editor, USA Today.
       Hyde Post, Managing Editor, Atlanta Constitution, 
     President, Georgia First Amendment Foundation.
       Charles Rowe, Fredericksburg Free Lance Star, 
     Fredericksburg, VA.
       Edward Seaton, Editor in Chief, The Manhattan Mercury, 
     Manhattan, KS.
       John Simpson, Editor, USA Today International.
       Timothy Smith, Director, Ohio Center for Privacy and the 
     First Amendment.
       Dick Smyser, The Oak Ridger, Oak Ridge, TN.
       State of Connecticut, Freedom of Information Commission, 
     Hartford, CT.
       Frank Sutherland, Editor, The Tennessean, Nashville, TN.
       William B. Toran, Professor Emeritus, Columbus, OH.
       Georgiana Vines, Immediate Past President, Society of 
     Professional Journalists, Managing Editor, Knoxville News-
     Seninel, Knoxville, TN.
       Pete Weitzel, Senior Managing Editor, Miami Herald, Miami, 
     FL.
                                  ____



                                Children's Advocacy Institute,

                                                November 22, 1994.
     President Bill Clinton,
     White House
     Washington, DC.

     Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole,
     House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich,
     U.S. Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Gentlemen: The Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on 
     Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is coming before the current 
     Congress for a critical vote during the last several weeks of 
     this session. The terms of this Agreement raise serious 
     questions about the plight of children in many nations placed 
     in factories and fields under regrettable conditions.
       Child labor may be cheap, and an international marketplace 
     which functions solely based upon price competition may allow 
     those who most use child labor to have a concomitant market 
     advantage. Such an advantage drives others into similar 
     practices in order to reduce their costs and preserve 
     marketplace. Unless major consuming nations refuse to buy 
     products produced by inappropriate child labor, or 
     international compacts preclude it effectively, competition 
     will drive producers down to the lowest common cost 
     denominator. That may well mean child labor as a 
     competitively pressured alternative.
       In some parts of the world, child labor already means 
     irreparable harm to children. While work is also a part of 
     growing up, some children are now forced into sweat shops 
     which may approximate the worst abuses of slavery. Many are 
     deprived of the lost opportunities that an education can 
     bring. Most lose the simple joys of childhood as we have 
     known them.
       One counterforce has been the possibility of rejection of 
     products produced by abusive child labor practices by 
     consuming nations, particularly the United States. Nations 
     can, individually or collectively, set standards to assure 
     the protection of children from cruelty and abuse, and 
     enforce them with potent pocketbooks.
       But the Congressional Research Service has recently opined 
     in writing that a national statute which bars purchase of 
     products based upon child labor abuses would be 
     ``inconsistent with GATT articles prohibiting quantitative 
     restrictions on imports * * * and that, further, it may be 
     difficult to justify a ban under GATT exceptions.'' 
     [Congressional Research Service, American Law Division, 
     Report to Hon. Tom Harkin, July 15, 1993] The Report 
     indicates that the GATT drafters did not consider child labor 
     issues in the draft agreement now pending.
       As advocates for children within the United States, we are 
     concerned about long standing child labor abuses within many 
     nations selling products. We do not support the reward of 
     child labor exploitation by American purchase. If an 
     international treaty binding the United States does not 
     reliably protect children, we would hope that our nation 
     would not surrender its sovereign right to do so.
       Thus far, the debate on GATT has not involved substantial 
     consultation with those of us who focus professionally on the 
     status of children. We have not had an opportunity to debate 
     fully the momentous implications of this measure as it 
     affects children. We need the time and opportunity to do so.
       We ask that you not vote precipitously on a measure with 
     such far reaching and potentially permanent implications 
     without opportunity for full debate, particularly as to 
     issues affecting children.
           Very sincerely,
     Robert C. Fellmeth,

                                           Executive Director,

                                    Children's Advocacy Institute,
                           California's Statewide Child Advocates.
     Rosalind McGee,

                                           Executive Director,

                                                    Utah Children,
                                           Utah's Child Advocates.
     Eve Brooks,
         President, National Association of Child Advocates, The 
           Nation's Umbrella Organization of State-Based Child 
           Advocates for 37 States.
                                  ____


                     Playing the GATT Numbers Game

       The Clinton Administration and cohorts are promising better 
     returns than the neighborhood bookie as the Congressional 
     vote on the U.S. implementing legislation for the Uruguay 
     Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 
     nears. Before U.S. consumer, labor and environmental 
     protection laws and sovereignty are gambled away to the whims 
     of a secretive, undemocratic tribunal in Geneva, the U.S. 
     public, the press, and Congress should look behind those 
     promises. Let's consider five of the predictions:


          how treasury created $200 billion in gatt gdp gains

       The U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) will increase by $153 
     billion in the tenth year alone of the Agreement, according 
     to the U.S. Treasury Department. To calculate that $153 
     billion, Treasury started with ``static gains'' of $88 
     billion, based on economic models that took for granted 
     improved allocation of resources as a result of GATT. Never 
     mind that most of the model-based estimates were computed 
     before the Agreement was concluded and the final terms known, 
     or that the models assumed full employment and perfect 
     competition. Next, Treasury added $27 billion in ``guesses'' 
     about the GDP impact of nontariff and service trade 
     agreements, an $11 billion estimate for so-called ``model 
     aggregation'' from the Administration's chief GATT 
     cheerleader, $11 billion from the industries most likely to 
     benefit from intellectual property rules in the Agreement, 
     and, to appease the U.S. GATT negotiators, $11 billion for an 
     ``improved'' dispute resolution system. The fantasy was 
     topped off with $53 billion in ``dynamic gains,'' the latest 
     euphemism for supply-side economics. Even the Council of 
     Economic Advisors couldn't swallow the lofty total and 
     demanded a ``cushion'' of a negative $55 billion. (Other 
     estimates range as low as $7 billion in GATT-related GDP 
     gains for the entire first 10 years of the Agreement.)


               gatt is no $744 billion worldwide tax cut

       This Agreement will create a $744 billion worldwide tax 
     (tariff) cut over the next 10 years, according to the U.S. 
     Treasury Department. The estimate assumes that all Uruguay 
     Round reductions in tariff and nontariff barriers would take 
     effect immediately. In fact, the decreases would be phased in 
     over a 10 year period. Additionally, the Administration 
     counts as GATT cuts, tariffs that are lowered or removed as 
     the result of unrelated and unaffected agreements such as 
     NAFTA. According to the Economic Policy Institute, adjusting 
     for these two errors brings the tariff cut down to $200 
     billion, or $3.51 per person per year. The actual cut is even 
     less than $200 billion because the calculations ignore tariff 
     increases that are part of the Uruguay Round Agreement. Even 
     Treasury admits that some of the benefits of tariff cuts will 
     not be passed on to consumers, but will simply line corporate 
     coffers.


     88 percent of gatt funding is unrelated to international trade

       The $12 billion in tariff income lost by the Treasury 
     during the first five years of the Uruguay Round cuts would 
     be offset with increases in revenue and reductions in 
     spending in other areas, according to the Senate Finance and 
     House Ways and means committees. More than half of those 
     offsets generate no money to replace the real dollar tariff 
     losses, but instead rely on accounting gimmicks and PAYGO 
     surpluses. For example, the Congressional committees claim 
     to have created $1.207 billion in additional revenues 
     simply by collecting excise taxes in September, before the 
     end of the fiscal year, instead of October, when the taxes 
     would have been due. According to the Joint Tax Committee 
     of Congress, more than $2.5 billion in PAYGO balances (by 
     law intended to reduce the federal deficit) also will be 
     used to offset tariff losses. (PAYGO balances are 
     generated from past legislation that reduced expenditures 
     or increased revenues.)


          ``no'' vote on gatt won't cause a stock market crash

       Failure to ratify the implementing legislation will cause 
     the stock market to crash. Some GATT proponents have even 
     gone so far as to attempt to generate fear of a crash by 
     comparing GATT to NAFTA. They blame stock price decreases 
     prior to the November 1993 NAFTA vote solely on ``anti-
     NAFTA'' events and increases on ``pro-NAFTA'' developments, 
     even though interest rates, inflation fears, and the release 
     of economic reports had an impact. At the time, a chief 
     technical analyst predicted, ``As soon as the NAFTA vote is 
     done, people will be back to worrying about quarterly 
     earnings and interest rates. The NAFTA vote is just an 
     emotional thing.'' The day after Congress passed NAFTA, stock 
     prices buckled in response to a big retreat in bond prices.


             gatt dispute statistics refute kantor's claims

       The U.S. wins 80 percent of the trade disputes deliberated 
     by GATT panels, according to U.S. Trade Representative Mickey 
     Kantor. In fact, the U.S. has won 80 percent of the time only 
     when the U.S. has accused other countries of GATT violations. 
     When other countries have charged that U.S.laws were GATT-
     illegal, the U.S. has won a comparatively minuscule 21 
     percent of the time. GATT disputes involving the U.S. have 
     tripled since 1980, compared to the previous fifteen years. 
     The EEC has recently published its Report on United States 
     Barriers to Trade and Investment, which will ``serve as a 
     means of monitoring US measures to implement the Uruguay 
     Round agreement.'' At risk are consumer protection rules of 
     the Food and Drug Administration, incentives for small and 
     minority-owned businesses, recycled content requirements, 
     restrictions on purchases of defense products from foreign 
     suppliers, etc.
       The implementing legislation for the Uruguay Round is 
     scheduled for a vote in a lame duck session of Congress next 
     week. Under fast track rules, debate is limited and no 
     amendments may be proposed. The House has even adopted 
     special rules which allow no points of order (such as 
     challenging the use of PAYGO) to be raised. The Senate will 
     need to vote to override its balanced budget requirements. 
     Now's the time for the public, the press and Congress to 
     challenge the GATT proponents' numbers game. Otherwise, in 
     response to false promises and threats, U.S. sovereignty may 
     be surrendered to an international bureaucracy whose 
     operating procedures guarantee that consumer, labor and 
     environmental laws will be reduced to the lowest common 
     denominator.


      potentially gatt-illegal senate bills of the 103rd congress

       Following is a list of bills introduced in the 103rd 
     Congress that are particularly susceptible to successful 
     challenge under the proposed World Trade Organization if they 
     are signed into law. If WTO dispute panels ruled against the 
     measures, the United States would face a cruel choice: repeal 
     the WTO-illegal measure or pay trade sanctions. Just the 
     threat of such challenges would have a chilling effect on 
     legislative initiatives raised by federal and state 
     legislators.
       Buy American bills: S. 1359 Intro. 8/4/93 by Leahy with 
     Harkin, Simon, Moseley-Braun, Wofford, Pryor, Kerrey, Baucus, 
     Johnston; to require the domestic production of food stamp 
     coupons.
       Consumer bills; S. 734 Intro. 4/1/93 by Feingold; to 
     temporarily prohibit the sale of milk produced with hormone-
     injected cows.
       S. 735 Intro. 4/1/93 by Feingold; to amend the FDA Act to 
     require labeling of milk produced by cows injected with 
     bovine growth hormone.
       S. 954 Intro. 5/14/93 By Kohl with Leahy, Feingold; to 
     prohibit the use of bovine growth hormone in domestic or 
     international commerce until equivalent marketing practices 
     are established in other major dairy exporting nations.
       S. 601 Intro. 3/17/93 by Inouye; to require imported fresh 
     papayas to meet the exact requirements imposed on domestic 
     fresh papayas.
       S. 2326 Intro. 7/28/94 by Boxer with Feinstein; to require 
     regulations concerning the use of the term ``fresh'' in 
     labeling poultry.
       S. 2453 Intro. 9/22/94 by Daschle with Leahy; to provide 
     for improved health and food safety through the reduction of 
     meat and poultry pathogens by prohibiting the sale or 
     transportation of meat products that exceed established 
     levels of pathogens.
       Environmental bills; S. 716 Intro. 11/20/93 by Bond with 
     Coats, Cochran, Conrad, Daschle, Dorgan, Durenberger, 
     Feingold, Glenn, Grassley, Harkin, Heflin, Kassebaum, Kerrey, 
     Levin, Metzenbaum, McConnell, Pressler, Pryor, Sasser, Simon, 
     Wells, Wofford; to require all federal lithographic 
     printing to be performed using ink made from vegetable oil 
     and materials derived from other renewable resources.
       S. 818 Intro. 4/22/93 by Hatfield with Packwood, Mitchell, 
     Boxer, Jeffords, Lieberman, Kennedy, Metzenbaum, Kerry, 
     Levin, Harkin, Leahy, Riegle; to require refund values for 
     certain beverage containers.
       S. 822 Intro. 4/27/93 by Breaux; to provide for state 
     management of solid waste and to reduce and regulate the 
     interstate transportation of solid waste, including 
     authorization of waste fees with rates that differ according 
     to the origin of the waste.
       S. 1145 Intro. 6/23/93 by Jeffords with Akaka; to prohibit 
     the use of outer space for advertising and to prohibit 
     imports of products by manufactures that engage in outer 
     space advertising.
       S. 1634 Intro. 11/8/93 by Heflin; to authorize states and 
     certain political subdivisions to control the movement of 
     municipal solid waste generated in or imported into the state 
     or political subdivision.
       S. 1636 Intro. 11/20/93 by Kerry with Packwood; to 
     authorize appropriations for the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
     and improve the program to reduce incidental takings of 
     marine mammals during commercial fishing operations.
       S. 1873 Intro. 2/24/94 by Dorgan; to permit governors to 
     limit the disposal of out-of-state municipal and industrial 
     waste in the states.
       S. 2345 Intro. 10/5/94 by Baucus; to prohibit operators of 
     landfills or incinerators from receiving out-of-state 
     municipal solid waste without explicit authorization from the 
     affected local government.
       Trade bills: S. 301 Intro. 2/3/93 by Daschle with Levin, 
     Johnston; to revive and strengthen Super 301 authority, used 
     by the U.S. Trade Representative to eliminate unfair trade 
     barriers.
       S. 1132 Intro. 6/17/93 by Riegle; to promote fair trade in 
     auto parts by providing for unilateral remedies to certain 
     unfair trade practices and initiation of antidumping 
     investigations.
       S. 1858 Intro. 2/22/94 by Baucus with Danforth; to make 
     permanent U.S. Super 301 powers of unilateral retaliation 
     for unfair trading practices.
       S. 1872 Intro. 2/25/94 by Rockefeller; to expand U.S. 
     exports by requiring the development of objective criteria to 
     achieve market access in Japan.
       Health bills: S. 331 Intro. 2/9/93 by Kennedy; to regulate 
     pesticide chemical residues in food.
       S. 966 Intro. 5/13/93 by Lautenberg with Chafee; to reduce 
     the presence of certain toxic heavy metals that pose public 
     health and environmental hazards in packaging.
       S. 1347 Intro. 8/3/93 by Bradley; to impose an excise tax 
     on lead and lead products, including imports, to create a 
     Lead Abatement Trust Fund.
       S. 1671 Intro. 11/18/93 by Cohen; to require that 
     promotional products for cigarettes bear labels warning of 
     the dangers associated with smoking.
       Human rights bills: S. 189 Intro. 1/26/93 by Helms; to ban 
     imports of goods made in China with forced labor. (GATT only 
     prohibits trade in prison-labor goods; other forced labor, 
     including coerced child labor is acceptable under GATT once 
     China becomes a WTO member.)
       S. 613 Intro. 3/18/93 by Harkin with Grassley, Rockefeller, 
     Metzenbaum, Feingold, Campbell, Dorgan, Riegle, Inouye, 
     DeConcini, Wofford, Levin, Kennedy, Daschle; to prohibit 
     imports of foreign goods produced with child labor.
       Labor bills: S. 1661 Intro. 11/16/93 by Durenberger with 
     Pell; to provide for uniform warnings on personal protective 
     equipment for occupational use.
       Public Safety bills: S. 440 Intro. 2/25/93 by Gorton with 
     Akaka, D'Amato, Thurmond, Kassebaum, Shelby, DeConcini, 
     Breaux, Bryan; to control the diversion of certain chemicals 
     used in the illicit production of controlled substances and 
     to provide flexibility in the controls placed on legitimate 
     commerce in those chemicals.
       S. 680 Intro. 3/31/93 by Gorton with Rockefeller, Bryan, 
     DeConcini, Lieberman, Dodd; bill to protect the safety of 
     small children by requiring warning labels on balloons, small 
     balls and games designed for small children and banning the 
     marketing for small children of toy balls that have a 
     diameter of less than 1.75 inches.
       S. 799 Intro. 4/20/93 by Metzenbaum with Simon; to 
     permanently label four- and six-gallon buckets to warn of a 
     potential drowning hazard to young children.
       S. 1663 Intro. 11/19/93 by Levin with Riegle, Feingold, 
     Kohl; to control the diversion of certain chemicals used in 
     the illicit production of controlled substances.
       S. 1848 Intro. 2/10/94 by Danforth with Bryan, Gorton; to 
     provide disclosure of the bumper-impact capability of certain 
     passenger vehicles and require a 5-MPH bumper standard for 
     such vehicles.
                                  ____


                  [From the USA Today, Nov. 22, 1994]

                       Reject This Flawed Treaty

                            (By Ralph Nader)

       How ironic: USA Today's editorial supports the General 
     Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Organization, but USA Today's 
     reporters would be prohibited from covering any of WTO's 
     secret tribunals.
       These closed courts would be deciding whether U.S. laws 
     challenged by other countries would have to be repealed, or 
     if you, the taxpayer, would have to pay fines to the winning 
     foreign nation.
       You, the readers, would be barred from observing, 
     participating in or appealing any of these tribunals' 
     decisions affecting your health, safety and workplace 
     conditions.
       Fifty-one leaders of the media, led by John Seigenthaler of 
     the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, protested this 
     shutout in a letter to President Clinton in September, but to 
     no avail.
       Should you try to improve conditions by amending our 
     country's laws, the State Department would inform you if it 
     considers your consumer, environmental or labor proposals to 
     be trade-restrictive and thereby illegal under GATT-WTO.
       This chilling effect from Geneva, where WTO technocrats and 
     global corporate lobbyists will gather together, is made 
     colder by WTO's twin mandates:
       One is the supremacy of foreign trade over non-trade 
     practices such as food safety, pollution control, 
     occupational health and tax policies.
       Trade agreements should stick to trade.
       The second is the international harmonization of standards. 
     This would often mean harmonization downward for our 
     generally higher safety conditions.
       Currently, for example, under a similar North American Free 
     Trade Agreement mandate, U.S. and Mexican officials are 
     meeting secretly in Acapulco to harmonize truck-weight 
     standards which in the United States cannot exceed 80,000 
     pounds. Since the U.S. trucking lobby likes the bigger 
     Mexican rigs that have a 175,000-pound ceiling, which image 
     do you think your rear-view mirror will reflect in a few 
     years?
       As a governing regime, the WTO's 123 member-nations are 
     each given one vote. Two dictatorships can outvote the United 
     States, which has no veto. This is why the Bush 
     administration itself opposed this WTO idea before leaving 
     office in December 1992.
       Remarkably, countries that mistreat their workers, 
     consumers and environment (including condoning brutalized 
     child labor) do not violate the GATT-WTO. But our country, 
     with more humane standards than many other countries, can be 
     charged at those secret tribunals with restricting trade.
       That is why the proposed WTO is a ``pull-down,'' not a 
     ``pull-up,'' trade agreement.
       Fifteen years ago, when the prior revision of GATT called 
     the Tokyo round was completed, Washington made similarly 
     inflated promises of more jobs for the United States.
       Since then, our country has suffered from even larger 
     annual trade deficits, including a deficit in manufactured 
     goods.
       Even with a cheap dollar, this year's deficit will exceed 
     $150 billion. That is exporting lots of American jobs from a 
     nation experiencing falling real wages for the past two 
     decades.
       Congress should defeat the GATT-WTO and return it to Geneva 
     for renegotiation under democratic processes and ``pull-up'' 
     standards of prosperity.
       This would also avoiding busting the federal budget and 
     overcentralizing unaccountable power in Geneva, and it will 
     prevent the foreign regulation of America.
       This lame-duck Congress, with more than 90 defeated or 
     retiring job-seekers, needs to hear by next Tuesday from 
     concerned Americans, who may call their senators and 
     representatives at 202-224-3121.

Brief Response to Some Senators Who Employ the Argument That the United 
       States Can Always Get Out of the WTO on Six Months Notice

                            (By Ralph Nader)

       Given the array of power pressing the Congress to get into 
     this World trade pact, consider the unlikelihood that we 
     would ever get the Congress to get out of this Pact. Giving 
     notice and getting out means surrendering 50 years of trading 
     rights with other nations. It is not going to happen in this 
     town.
       Moreover, the U.S. cannot get out of parts of this Pact. 
     Article 16, Par. 5 of the agreement stipulates that no 
     reservations may be made in respect of any provision of this 
     agreement. The U.S. and all other nations are not permitted 
     any exceptions the way the old GATT (now operating) permits.
       Therefore, if exiting the Pact is politically impossible, 
     can we fix the trade pact from inside--regarding the 
     autocratic secretive processes, the one-nation-one vote, no 
     veto etc? Can we amend this agreement given the way the 
     voting power is overwhelmingly stacked against the U.S. and 
     the supramajorities needed for such changes? We have less 
     than one percent of the vote, and shrinking as new large and 
     tiny countries are added to the rolls. Maybe someone can 
     explain how we can fix this agreement, as many Senators have 
     been saying, to try to minimize the disadvantageous 
     provisions that are in the text against the interests of the 
     American democracy and economy. Will any of these Senators 
     stand up and explain the practical points?
       1. Can we really quit the WTO once we are in it?
       2. Can we really fix the WTO, given the voting odds, once 
     we are in it?
       3. And isn't it better to reject the WTO proposal (as a 
     prior Congress\1\ did when it was called the ITO and a 
     renegotiation occurred in 1947) and send it back to Geneva 
     for renegotiation while we have some bargaining power left. 
     For without the approval of Congress, the Pact would have to 
     be renegotiated--our major trading partners have acknowledged 
     this reality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\Congress did not actually vote to reject; its members 
     signalled that the ITO would not be accepted. The White House 
     listened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Please think about this!

         The 118 Nations That Signed the Uruguay Round of GATT

       Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, 
     Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, 
     Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burendi, 
     Cameroon, Canada, Central African Rep., Nambia, Chad, Chile, 
     Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, 
     Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, 
     El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, 
     Fed. Rep. of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala.
       Guyana, Haiti, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, 
     Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, 
     Korea, Rep. of, Kuwait, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Macau, 
     Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, 
     Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Mynamar, 
     Nambia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, 
     Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, 
     Portugal, Romania.
       Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, Senegal, Sierra Leone, 
     Singapore, Solvakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, St. 
     Kitts and Nevis, Gov't of, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, 
     Switzerland, Tasmania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, 
     Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United 
     Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, 
     Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for 
yielding this time. I may not take all of that.
  I just wanted to state for the record that since 1975 when I first 
entered the House of Representatives I have worked assiduously and 
tirelessly on behalf of human rights. The first amendment dealing with 
human rights and foreign policy was in fact an amendment I offered in 
1975 in the House of Representatives.
  I do not believe there is any more pressing issue regarding human 
rights in the world today than the exploitive and abusive use of child 
labor, whether it is in manufacturing, mining, textiles, rugmaking, 
shoes, et cetera. I have a bill pending in the Senate which I will 
introduce again next year, S. 613, which basically would cut off the 
importation into this country of any items that are made by child 
labor.
  For the record, on September 23, 1993 the U.S. Senate went on record 
unanimously with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution supporting that 
legislation. That was just about a year ago. I will read the 
resolution. It says:

       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the economic exploitation of children, especially the 
     practice of bonded child labor should be strongly condemned;
       (2) it should be the policy of the United States to not 
     allow the importation of products made by children who are 
     employed in industry or mining; and
       (3) the President should take action to seek an agreement 
     with governments that conduct trade with the United States 
     for the purpose of securing an international ban on trade in 
     products made with child labor.

  Mr. President, that was just over a year ago when the Senate went on 
record with that resolution. Last year, I funded through my 
Subcommittee on Appropriations a study by the Department of Labor of 
those industries and countries that use exploitive child labor. 
Nineteen of our trading partners were identified. The study documented 
some of the more serious abuses of child labor. There are more than 19 
countries involved in abusive child labor practices. But that was the 
limit of the study.
  The documentation is irrefutable--millions of children 8 to 14 years 
of age, bonded labor, working 10 to 12 hours a day 6 to 7 days a week 
for mere pennies. The facts are clear that as international 
corporations seek low-wage workers they push down the cost of labor to 
the lowest level. The lowest level, obviously, is slavery. But since we 
do not sanction slavery in any country, and to utilize slavery would 
make a country a pariah, slavery is not utilized.
  The next rung up is prison labor. We do not allow prison labor 
either. As the distinguished Senator from Nebraska said a few moments 
ago--I repeat what he was said, it was very, very good--we protect 
criminals but we do not protect the kids. We do not allow the products 
of prison labor to come in but we do of children. So we protect 
criminals but we do not protect the kids. What an odd set of 
circumstances.
  So we have a situation that we have to address. Again, what is 
happening is that so many of these products are now produced overseas.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, an article 
from Harper's magazine, August 1992, entitled ``The New Free-Trade 
Heel.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From Harper's magazine, August 1992]

  The New Free-Trade Heel--Nike's Profits Jump on the Backs of Asian 
                                Workers

                         (By Jeffrey Ballinger)

       Her only name is Sadisah, and it's safe to say that she's 
     never heard of Michael Jordan. Nor is she spending her 
     evenings watching him and his Olympic teammates gliding and 
     dunking in prime time from Barcelona. But she has heard of 
     the shoe company he endorses--Nike, whose logo can be seen on 
     the shoes and uniforms of many American Olympic athletes this 
     summer. Like Jordan, Sadisah works on behalf of Nike. You 
     won't see her, however in the flashy TV images of freedom and 
     individuality that smugly command us to JUST DO IT!--just 
     spend upward of $130 for a pair of basketball shoes. Yet 
     Sadisah is, in fact, one of the people who is doing it--
     making the actual shoes, that is, and earning paychecks such 
     as this one in a factory in Indonesia.
       In the 1980s, Oregon-based Nike closed its last U.S. 
     footwear factory, in Saco, Maine, while establishing most of 
     its new factories in South Korea, where Sung Hwa Corp. is 
     based. Sung Hwa is among many independent producers Nike has 
     contracted with. Nike's actions were part of the broader 
     ``globalization'' trend that saw the United States lose 
     65,300 footwear jobs between 1982 and 1989 as shoe companies 
     sought non-unionized Third World workers who didn't require 
     the U.S. rubber-shoe industry average of $6.94 an hour. But 
     in the late 1980s, South Korean laborers gained the right to 
     form independent unions and to strike. Higher wages ate into 
     Nike's profits. The company shifted new factories to poorer 
     countries such as Indonesia, where labor rights are generally 
     ignored and wages are but one seventh of South Korea's. (The 
     Sung Hwa factory and others like it are located in Tangerang, 
     a squalid industrial boomtown just outside Jakarta.) Today, 
     to make 80 million pairs of shoes annually, Nike contracts 
     with several dozen factories globally, including six in 
     Indonesia. Others are in China, Malaysia, Thailand, and 
     Taiwan. By shifting factories to cheaper labor pools, Nike 
     has posted year after year of growth; in 1991 the company 
     grossed more than $3 billion in sales--$200 million of which 
     Nike attributes to Jordan's endorsement--and reported a new 
     profit of $287 million, its highest ever.
       The words printed on the pay stub are in Bahasa Indonesia, 
     a language created by fusing Roman characters with a dominant 
     Malay dialect. The message, however, is bottom-line 
     capitalism. ``Per hari'' is the daily wage for seven and a 
     half hours of work, which in Sadisah's case is 2,100 
     Indonesia rupiah--at the current rate of exchange, $1.03 per 
     day. That amount, which works out to just under 14 cents per 
     hour, is less than the Indonesian government's figure for 
     ``minimum physical need.'' A recent International Labor 
     Organization survey found that 88 percent of Indonesian women 
     working at Sadisah's wage rates are malnourished. And most 
     workers in this factory--over 80 percent--are women. With 
     seldom more than elementary-school educations, they are 
     generally in their teens or early twenties, and have come 
     from outlying agricultural areas in search of city jobs and a 
     better life. Sadisah's wages allow her to rent a shanty 
     without electricity or running water.
       ``Pendapatan'' is the earnings column, and five lines below 
     the base pay figure for the month (50,400 rupiah) is one for 
     overtime. Sadisah and the other workers in this factory are 
     compelled to put in extra hours, both by economic necessity 
     and by employer fiat. Each production line of 115 workers is 
     expected to produce about 1,600 pairs of Nikes a day. 
     According to the column at left, next to ``OT (JAM),'' 
     Sadisah worked 63 hours of overtime during this pay period, 
     for which she received an extra 2 cents per hour. At this 
     factory, which makes mid-priced Nikes, each pair of shoes 
     requires .84 man-hours to produce; working on an assembly 
     line, Sadisah assembled the equivalent of 13.9 pairs every 
     day. The profit margin on each pair is enormous.
       Here are Sadisah's net earnings for a month of labor. She 
     put in six days a week, ten and a half hours per day, for a 
     paycheck equivalent to $37.46--about half the retail price of 
     one pair of the sneakers she makes. Boosters of the global 
     economy and ``free markets'' claim that creating employment 
     around the world promotes free trade between industrializing 
     and developing countries. But how many Western products can 
     people in Indonesia buy when they can't earn enough to eat? 
     The answer can't be found in Nike's TV ads showing Michael 
     Jordan sailing above the earth for his reported multiyear 
     endorsement fee of $20 million--an amount, incidentally, that 
     at the pay rate shown here would take Sadisah 44,492 years to 
     earn.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Harper's magazine article shows the 
labor cost to manufacturing. For a pair of Nike's made in Indonesia, 
the cost of labor is 12 cents. They sell for $80 in the United States.
  I have here also an article about a rug made in Morocco. The 13-year 
old girl that made it got $19.34. It sold in Macy's for $499. That is a 
little better than the Nike shoe example but not much.
  I just want to read the last sentence of this article. It says 
quoting:

       Someone in Morocco says we cannot compete with them in 
     India because in India they pay with a bowl of rice for two 
     rugs.

  So that is really what is happening. Companies are bidding down the 
price of labor. And as they do that, since we do not sanction slavery 
or prison labor, the next rung up on that ladder is child labor. That 
is what is happening around the world today. It is becoming a more and 
more serious problem. It is not alleviated.
  I am hopeful that we can do something in this country to address the 
child labor issue. The only way we can do it is through our market 
system. We can say to those countries: If you are going to use child 
labor you will not have access to our markets. That kind of provision 
is not in the GATT agreement.
  I have had discussions with Ambassador Kantor and people within the 
administration. They say they are going to work in the WTO preparatory 
committee this month to establish a work program on child labor, labor 
rights. They are going to work with us to get a bill enacted regarding 
imports made with child labor. They are going to work with us to deal 
more effectively with child labor in the GSP, the Generalized System of 
Preferences, which will be up for reauthorization next year--covering 
140 countries, many of them abusing child labor. That is where we ought 
to also attack this issue of the child labor in other countries. And 
they have promised to address child labor in future negotiations on 
regional trade agreements.
  Mr. President, I do know that the U.S. must take the lead in reducing 
and ending exploitive and abusive child labor. Only we can do that 
because of our longstanding advocacy and support for human rights.
  Mr. President, I also want to make a few remarks specifically on the 
budget point of order that is expected to be raised against this 
legislation later today.
  In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that a letter signed on July 
15, 1994 to the President, signed by 19 Members of the Senate, be made 
part of the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 1994.
     President William J. Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Clinton: We write to ask that you join us in 
     opposing any effort to waive provisions of the Budget 
     Enforcement Act for the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
     Trade (GATT) implementing legislation and avoid the 
     requirement that such legislation be fully funded.
       Some of us support GATT, others of us oppose the agreement, 
     and still others of us have yet to make a decision, but we 
     are united in our concern about the precedent waiving the 
     provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act could set, 
     undermining our ability to make further progress in lowering 
     the deficit now and in the future.
       We are confronted on a regular basis with having to make 
     tough decisions on worthy programs because of our budget 
     rules, and rightly so. The federal budget deficit must be 
     brought down.
       That GATT is significant is clear, but the importance of an 
     issue should not determine whether or not it should conform 
     with the budget rules we have set for ourselves. Indeed, the 
     true test of our resolve to bring the deficit under control 
     is our willingness to apply the budget rules to the important 
     issues.
       We recognize your commitment to passing GATT implementing 
     legislation. Your support for making that legislation comply 
     with the budget rules will be all the more meaningful because 
     of that commitment, and we hope you will join us in this 
     effort to oppose any effort to dodge this responsibility.
           Sincerely,
         Russ Feingold, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Chuck Grassley, 
           Jesse Helms, Dirk Kempthorne, Dale Bumpers, Strom 
           Thurmond, Larry Pressler, Dave Durenberger, Lauch 
           Faircloth, Larry E. Craig, Trent Lott, Robert F. 
           Bennett, David Boren, John Warner, Hank Brown, Byron L. 
           Dorgan, Alfonse D'Amato, Herb Kohl.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the letter sent on July 15, 1994 to the 
President was signed by 19 Members of the Senate saying that they 
oppose any GATT implementing bill requiring us to waive the budget 
rules to provide for deficit spending. I will read one sentence. It 
says:

       Indeed, the true test of our resolve to bring the deficit 
     under control is our willingness to apply the budget rules to 
     the important issues.

  Now I understand that some of the people who signed the letter now 
say they are going to vote to waive the budget rules.
  I want to make it clear that I believe we ought not to be waiving the 
budget rules to provide for the GATT agreement.
  Therefore, I cannot and I will not vote to waive the budget rules to 
provide for deficit spending to enact the GATT agreement.
  There is nothing wrong with bringing this agreement up next year when 
it should be brought up, once the funding is worked out. I believe that 
if we want to, if the people really want to enact a GATT agreement, we 
will find a way to raise the money, to cover the sum of $14.6 billion 
that we will increase the deficit by in the present GATT implementing 
bill.
  Mr. President, I just do not see how Senators can waive the Budget 
Act to provide for deficit spending, to provide for the enactment of 
GATT this year. It should be done next year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask that the time be allocated to each side accordingly.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time 
not be allocated to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll. The time will not be allocated to either 
side.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Am I correct in my understanding that unless otherwise 
agreed to, a quorum call is charged equally against all of those who 
now hold remaining time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The quorum call is normally charged against 
the Senator putting in the quorum call. If a quorum call is not put in, 
it will be charged equally. Of course, that can be changed by unanimous 
consent as it was in this instance. In this instance there was a 
unanimous consent request asking that the quorum call not be charged to 
either side.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that the time of the quorum call be charged half 
to each side and proportionally on the Democratic side equally among 
the proponents and opponents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The time will be charged as requested in the unanimous-consent 
request by the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Half to us and half to them; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is correct.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. BREAUX. I will ask the Chair to inform me of how much time this 
side has remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The side has 1 hour and 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BREAUX. Let me yield to the distinguished Senator from Florida 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, thank you. I appreciate my good friend and 
colleague from Louisiana yielding me time to make a brief comment on 
the matter which is before us.
  Mr. President, I speak strongly in favor of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade and hope that our colleagues will approve this 
historic agreement later today.
  I would like to talk about this issue from two perspectives. First, 
the perspective of my State of Florida, a major export State, and the 
benefits that it will derive particularly in the area of agriculture 
and, second, to the importance of this to relations within the Western 
Hemisphere.
  Mr. President, yesterday there was a press conference held in the 
Capitol. ``Ag for GATT.'' Representatives of the major agricultural 
organizations in America stood together in support of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
  American farmers, as represented by those gathered yesterday, want to 
do what they are best able in the world to do, which is to produce food 
and sell it at competitive prices around the globe.
  GATT will help Florida farmers in three ways. First, it will increase 
access to foreign markets. Second, it will reduce export subsidies. 
Third, it requires countries to base their sanitary rules on sound 
principles of science.
  Florida's $6 billion agricultural industry will benefit under the 
GATT. Florida is expected to gain from the Clinton administration's 
recent pledge of $600 million in additional funding for agricultural 
export programs which are acceptable under the GATT.
  As a result of GATT, U.S. agricultural exports are projected to reach 
$4.7 billion by the year 2000, an increase of $1.6 billion from today. 
Agricultural exports are expected to reach $8.7 billion by the year 
2005. The increased agricultural exports created by the GATT will 
create as many as 112,000 jobs--112,000 jobs--in the United States, Mr. 
President, by the year 2000, and 190,000 jobs by 2005.
  As a specific example, GATT will greatly benefit Florida's citrus 
industry. The European Union, Japan, Korea, Switzerland and Thailand 
have all agreed to lower tariffs on various citrus products upon the 
passage of the GATT.
  Mr. President, there have been considerable statements of concern 
made relative to the World Trade Organization and some of the powers it 
will have. I would concede that a consequence of the World Trade 
Organization is that the United States is going to be less sovereign in 
terms of its ability to control trade. But the same statement is made 
about every other country. They are giving up some of their sovereignty 
and we, Mr. President, have been the targets of some of the 
misapplication of other nations' economic sovereignty.
  As an example, it was not very many years ago that there were 
boatloads of Florida citrus products, particularly grapefruits, tied up 
at a particular Pacific nation's ports, unable to be unloaded because 
that nation was holding that a particular form of treatment which these 
grapefruits had received, a treatment which is applied on a worldwide 
basis, did not meet their sanitary standards. There was no scientific 
basis for that country's sanitary standards. It was an economic effort 
to exclude from that market Florida grapefruit products. The 
consequence of that was that the boatload of grapefruit was lost, the 
economic gain was denied to our farmers, and access to those quality 
products was denied the citizens of that nation.
  It is that type of abuse that the World Trade Organization provisions 
are intended to rectify.
  Mr. President, this agreement will also be especially important to 
Florida and to our many other States which have substantial economic 
interests in what happens within this hemisphere, because the GATT will 
promote better trade opportunities among the countries of North and 
South America and the Caribbean. The potential for economic prosperity 
within this hemisphere has never been fully realized, even though Latin 
America is the only region of the world in which the United States 
currently enjoys a substantial trade surplus. Last year, we had about a 
$3.5 billion trade surplus with the Caribbean and South America. Prior 
to the break up of the Soviet Union, the United States looked upon 
Latin America and the Caribbean primarily as a security concern rather 
than an area of economic opportunity. Now that focus is changing.
  Last year, we passed the North American Free Trade Agreement. That is 
not a book, but rather a chapter in a much larger book of expanding 
economic relations within the Western Hemisphere. Next week, in Miami, 
the summit of the Americas will meet, the first time in over a quarter 
of a century that the heads of Government of all the Nations that are 
democratically ruled in this hemisphere will meet together. A principal 
topic of that meeting, Mr. President, will be economic expansion and 
the particular role which expanded trade will have in increasing the 
economic opportunities of all the people within this hemisphere.
  The United States prospects for trade with the Caribbean and Latin 
America are good today, and with the passage of GATT will be better 
tomorrow.
  Latin America has a need for the technologically advanced products 
that the United States produces. In Mexico, for example, there are 7.3 
telephone lines per 100 people. That compares to the United States 
which has 56.2 telephone lines per 100 people. We have a tremendous 
opportunity to meet those types of needs which not only will utilize 
U.S.-produced products, but will also help build a stronger economic 
infrastructure for our neighbors.
  The fastest growing segment of U.S. trade with the Caribbean and 
Latin America has been in precision equipment, exactly the type of 
equipment which is necessary in order to enhance the economy of that 
region, while also producing jobs and opportunities in the United 
States. This meeting of an identifiable need has already resulted in a 
substantial increase in trade between the United States and the 
Caribbean and Latin America.
  This year, Latin America, including Mexico, will buy 18 percent of 
U.S. merchandise exports. And, according to U.S. Trade Representative, 
Ambassador Mickey Kantor, Latin America will purchase 25 percent--25 
percent--of all U.S. exports, totaling $232 billion by the year 2010.
  Mr. President, within 15 years Latin America and the Caribbean will 
have a greater share of U.S. export than will Europe and Japan 
combined. That is the scale of the opportunity that is available to the 
United States through an invigorated economy in Latin America and the 
Caribbean and our ability to sell effectively into those stronger 
economies. The United States direct investment in Latin America and the 
Caribbean has tripled since 1986 and now accounts for 13 percent of all 
U.S. investment abroad. Latin America is the second-fastest-growing 
economic region in the world with a projected growth of an average of 5 
to 6 percent a year over the next 10 years. Sales to Latin America 
increased by $48 billion between 1958 and 1993. This growth created 
900,000 new jobs in the United States.
  As Latin America becomes more prosperous economically, the demand for 
U.S. consumer goods will grow. The growing relationship between the 
United States and Latin America and the Caribbean can be reciprocal. 
While the United States responds to demands for products in Latin 
America and the Caribbean, that same region can assist in providing us 
with much needed natural resources.
  Latin American countries have recognized an opportunity for improved 
trade with the United States and have begun to dismantle barriers to 
trade and foreign investment. Latin American countries have lowered 
their tariffs on U.S. goods from an average of 56 percent just 9 years 
ago, to 15 percent last year. There is still room for improvement.
  As tariffs remain higher in Latin America than in most developed 
nations, the GATT will further Latin American Governments' efforts to 
deregulate sectors of their economy, reduce subsidies in price 
controls, private state enterprises, establish antitrust and 
intellectual property regimes and institute democratic political 
reforms.
  Mr. President, at this point I would like to indicate that it was 
only a matter of a few years ago that you could count on the fingers of 
your hand the number of democratic regimes in Latin America and the 
Caribbean. Today every nation in the Latin American and Caribbean 
region is a democracy, except for Cuba.
  So, Mr. President, I say in summary that Latin America and the 
Caribbean are a significant but underappreciated sector for U.S. 
economic growth. The GATT will increase Latin America's economic 
prosperity and thus contribute to the economic prosperity of the United 
States and jobs for Americans.
  I urge the passage of the agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Florida has 
expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, the global economy is here and offers 
tremendous opportunities for us.
  I was encouraged to find at the two international trade conferences I 
held in Maine this year that there were literally hundreds of Maine 
businessmen and women who already are succeeding in the world economy. 
Most of these businesses are small and their export efforts often go 
unnoticed, but they are out there. I think it is important to help 
these small businesses to take full advantage of export opportunities. 
Small businesses simply do not have the resources to secure foreign 
sales on their own. The Federal Government, through its export 
assistance programs, has been helping and must continue to do so.
  At issue today is the largest trade agreement in the history of the 
world. It is not something that can be approached lightly. It is 
complex and voluminous. Many legitimate questions have been raised.
  In particular, as was just expressed by my colleague from Florida, 
there is great concern that the World Trade Organization could 
undermine U.S. sovereignty. And that allegation must be taken very 
seriously. Undoubtedly, the WTO will have more power than the existing 
GATT accord, and people understandably are concerned about the WTO's 
power. However, after careful consideration, I am not convinced that 
the WTO poses a threat to U.S. laws.
  The only laws that could be challenged under the WTO are unfair and 
illegal trade barriers. The United States has nothing to fear under the 
WTO because it is other countries, not the United States, that have a 
record of enacting trade barriers thinly disguised as health or public 
safety laws. For instance, Japan has continually justified its ban on 
the United States rice imports on the grounds that our rice poses a 
threat to the health of Japanese population. Of course, this is a 
ludicrous argument. There is no evidence to support this outrageous 
claim, and the WTO would expose Japan's law for what it is--trade 
barrier masquerading as a health law.
  Moreover, it is important to note that the WTO does not have the 
authority to strike down U.S. laws, even if they are found to violate 
trade law. The WTO does not have powers like the U.S. Supreme Court. 
When the Supreme Court finds that a law violates the Constitution, that 
law is automatically declared void. The WTO, on the other hand, has no 
such power. The most severe action the WTO could take would be to 
impose fines on countries that refuse to take down their trade 
barriers. Again, since the United States is already the most open 
market in the world, we have little to fear from the WTO and much to 
gain if it can reduce trade barriers elsewhere in the world.
  Finally, the United States reserves the right to withdraw from the 
WTO at any time after providing 6 months notice. And Congress has the 
ability to vote once every 5 years as to whether or not we should 
remain in the WTO.
  I think, like others who have stood on the floor today and yesterday 
to express their reservations, that while there are areas certainly 
where the GATT could be improved, on balance, I think the agreement is 
in best long-term interests of American workers. Export-related jobs on 
average pay 17 percent more than other jobs. Therefore, we must 
encourage and take advantage of our export opportunities.
  The principle goals of GATT are to open foreign markets to American 
goods and to lower tariffs by one-third.
  In a very important way, the GATT agreement is really about shifting 
power from governments to individuals. By reducing tariffs, money that 
would have been coming to Washington will stay in the pockets of 
consumers. Furthermore, by reducing trade barriers, individuals--rather 
than governments--will decide where they buy their products from and 
where they sell them. The cornerstone of free trade policy is that 
individuals--not governments--should make consumer choices. I believe 
the GATT agreement makes significant progress in this regard.
  In embracing GATT and the global economy, however, we must make help 
those for whom the new economy poses more of a challenge than an 
opportunity. Federal job training programs and other outreach efforts 
are essential to help those in need. The debate over free trade must 
never focus solely on the benefits to the Nation as a whole. We must 
also focus on those who are adversely affected by trade, because if 
trade policies do not in the long term benefit all Americans, there 
will be a tremendous backlash against efforts like GATT in the future.
  So, Mr. President, I am supporting GATT today because I believe it 
will benefit American families over the long term, but I also intend to 
assure that we do not forget those who, as the result of freer trade 
policies, may be adversely affected.
  Let me just conclude by stating that I recently returned from a trip 
to Southeast Asia. To my colleagues, let me say: We are succeeding. We 
are penetrating markets. Barriers are coming down. Products made in 
Maine and elsewhere are now penetrating those markets that previously 
had been barred to United States and Maine-made products. So we are 
competing effectively. We are the most efficient, the most productive 
Nation in the world.
  It seems to me if we want to continue to promote prosperity on a 
worldwide basis, from which we can only benefit, this is an agreement 
that we should support.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. I thank my good friend from Maine very, very much. I am 
must confess when I talked with him yesterday I had some nervous 
trepidations, but I am delighted with his statement today. I thank him 
very much.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and request we charge the time half 
to the Republican side and half to the Democrats.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who 
yields time? From whose time does the Senator from Indiana seek 
recognition?
  Mr. LUGAR. I am a proponent of the bill, so I ask the manager who is 
managing that side to yield me time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Indiana is 
yielded time from that of the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, there should be no doubt about the proper 
course of action for the Senate today: We should approve the Uruguay 
round trade agreements by an overwhelming margin. At a time when many 
people around the world are wondering aloud about the future of U.S. 
international leadership, we have today an opportunity--and an 
obligation--to reaffirm our leading role.
  The Uruguay round will allow the United States to increase our 
exports by as much as $150 billion a year by 2004. It will boost 
economies worldwide, accelerating growth in both developed and 
developing economies.
  Among the most significant achievements of the Uruguay round is the 
agreement on agriculture reached after 7 years of arduous negotiation. 
As incoming chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry, I would like to point out to my colleagues that this 
agreement subjects agricultural trade to rules and disciplines which 
have been the norm for industrial products over many decades, but have 
been applied haphazardly, if at all, to trade in agricultural 
commodities.
  The Uruguay round will require export subsidies to be cut by 36 
percent in budget terms, and by 21 percent in terms of subsidized 
tonnage. This provision helps the United States because for most 
heavily subsidized commodities, we can export at a competitive price 
but our European rivals--the major practitioners of export subsidies--
cannot.
  The round will also require that import quotas be turned into 
equivalent tariffs. The resulting tariff levels--and indeed all other 
agricultural tariffs--must be reduced an average of 36 percent, with 
each individual tariff cut no less than 15 percent.
  Finally, the round also recognizes for the first time the trade-
distorting potential of domestic farm subsidies, and provides new 
disciplines in this area. At the same time, countries will receive 
credit for cuts they have already made; in the United States, having 
indeed made some cuts, we will not be compelled by GATT to make more.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects a rise of up to $4.7 
billion in exports by 2000, along with a gain of 112,000 new jobs and 
an increase of $1 billion in farm income. USDA's projections for the 
following 5 years are even more dramatic.
  Mainstream American agriculture agrees. My colleagues have probably 
received a letter of support for the Uruguay round signed by an 
unusually large and diverse agricultural coalition: about 300 different 
companies, grower association, and other groups.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter and its 
signatories be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  AG for GATT,

                                Washington, DC, November 28, 1994.
     Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
     U.S. Senate,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lugar: Very soon you will vote on the GATT 
     implementing bill, one of the most important pieces of 
     economic legislation since the end of World War II. Passage 
     of the bill will mean more U.S. exports, more American jobs, 
     lower taxes and a real stimulus to our economy. Defeat of 
     this bill would be nothing short of a victory for 
     protectionism both here and abroad.
       The nearly 300 farm groups, associations and agricultural 
     businesses that make up the Ag for GATT coalition urge you, 
     in the strongest terms, to vote for the GATT and for a better 
     future for American farmers, ranchers and their allied 
     enterprises. With record or near record production of nearly 
     all farm products this year, we need the benefits that GATT 
     will bring to our sector and we need them now, not at some 
     unspecified time in the future.
       Agriculture will benefit from expanded export markets, 
     lowered export subsidies and an improved ability to challenge 
     unfair foreign trade barriers. It is estimated that the GATT 
     agreement will increase U.S. farm exports by anywhere from $5 
     billion to $14 billion per year by the end of the transition 
     period. It will also increase net farm income by over $1 
     billion and create over 100,000 new jobs throughout the food 
     chain. Quite simply, without the GATT agreement, more farmers 
     will be forced to leave farming and government expenditures 
     in agriculture will rise.
       The direct benefits to agriculture have been well-
     documented. However, there are two other issues in the GATT 
     debate that we would like to address because they have 
     received a great deal of attention and because they have 
     agricultural implications.
       The World Trade Organization and U.S. Sovereignty--American 
     agriculture has suffered under exiting weak and often 
     ineffectual GATT dispute settlement rules. We support the 
     improved enforcement of international trade commitments that 
     will come with the WTO. We would not support the agreement if 
     it weakened U.S. sovereignty and we are satisfied that it 
     does not.
       The bill itself ensures that U.S. laws and regulations are 
     totally protected. Section 102 reads in part:
       Relationship of Agreements to United States Law.
       United States Law to Prevail in Conflict. No provision of 
     any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of 
     any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is 
     inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have 
     effect.
       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to amend or modify 
     any law of the United States, including any law pertaining to 
     the protection of human, animal, plant life or health, the 
     protection of the environment, or worker safety, or to limit 
     any authority conferred under any law of the United States . 
     . .
       The Budget Issue--A vote against the budget waiver is a 
     vote against the GATT. If the budget waiver is rejected, 
     there will be no vote on GATT and all of the benefits to 
     agriculture from the GATT agreement will be lost.
       It is essential to recognize that a vote for the waiver is 
     not a vote to increase the budget deficit. The GATT will 
     result in increased revenues to local, state and federal 
     treasuries, by stimulating economic growth and creating jobs. 
     In fact, rejecting the GATT could be a budget buster. In 
     agriculture alone there are a number of budgetary impacts 
     that are receiving little, if any, attention. For example, 
     without the new markets to be opened by the GATT agreement, 
     U.S. surplus farm production will cost the government more in 
     storage costs, higher deficiency payments and larger export 
     subsidies to continue the ag subsidy battle with the European 
     Union. These are just a few examples of how rejecting the 
     GATT could hurt, not help, efforts to reduce the budget 
     deficit.
       The following organizations therefore, urge you to vote for 
     the budget waiver and for the GATT implementing bill, to help 
     American agriculture compete in world markets and in the 
     years to come.
           Sincerely,
                                                      AG for GATT.
                                  ____


                         AG for GATT Coalition


                         NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

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



                      STATE/REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

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


                         COMPANIES/COOPERATIVES

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

  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, these groups state in 
their letter that Congressional approval of the Uruguay round ``is 
essential if U.S. agriculture is to remain a growth industry.'' They 
have put their finger on the key benefit of the round for U.S. farmers 
and agribusinesses: It will safeguard our future. That is because it 
will allow the United States agriculture and food industry to use its 
many comparative advantages: The ability to deliver products in large 
volumes; the ability to deliver commodities consistently year-round; 
cutting-edge plant and animal technology and research; the franchise 
value of many American fast-food firms; U.S. advantages in food 
packaging, manufacturing and marketing. At the same time, the Uruguay 
round will bring disciplines in an area where the United States does 
not have a comparative advantage: subsidies. Here, other countries seem 
more willing to transfer wealth from their national treasuries and 
their consumers to their farm sectors. The lesson for the United States 
is not to copy them, but to work for change in their policies so that 
our own market-based advantages will have a chance to work. The new 
GATT accords compel such changes and afford us just such an 
opportunity.
  For my State of Indiana, the Uruguay round offers many benefits 
beyond agriculture. The agreement will reduce tariffs to zero or very 
low levels for important industries like steel, farm equipment and 
chemicals--basic American industries. It will afford new protection for 
the intellectual property of pharmaceutical companies, medical device 
makers and other firms in those allied industries. For insurance 
providers and other services within GATT disciplines for the first 
time, although more work remains to be done here. All in all, the 
agreement promises to be in the economic interest of Hoosier 
businesses, consumers, workers and farmers.
  I do want to express my concern about some of the budget offsets 
included by the administration in this bill. These provisions are not 
necessarily bad policy in every case, but they now come before the 
Senate without any opportunity for amendment, for deletion, or even for 
very much debate.
  As one Senator, I wish we could have a more thorough debate on the 
merits of several of these revenue items: not only the ``pioneer 
preference'' and savings bond provisions that have been mentioned often 
in this debate and about which many of my colleagues have expressed 
concern, but the changes in pension law as well, which will have 
significant effects on some retirees.

  On some of these topics, Senator Dole has obtained useful assurances, 
but I am more concerned about the state of the fast-track process 
generally. I believe this legislation illustrates that over the years, 
the fast-track privilege has come to be seen as a vehicle for side 
deals, special-interest accommodations and provisions of questionable 
merit--none of which can be changed once included in the implementing 
legislation, unless a Senator is prepared to defeat the entire 
agreement, which I certainly am not.
  We will continue to need fast-track authority for future trade 
agreements, but our recent experience suggests we should make some 
changes when we renew this authority next year. First, we should set 
out clear negotiating objectives that must be met before any agreement 
can be submitted under the fast-track privilege.
  Second, we should allow amendments to provisions of fast-track 
legislation that are included only to offset apparent budget costs of 
the trade agreement. In this way, Senators would be able to change 
revenue provisions they did not favor, or even delete them altogether. 
Since these provisions are typically unrelated to the substance of the 
trade agreement itself, there seems to me no compelling argument to 
give them absolute insulation against amendment. However, the total 
time for debate and amendment on a bill under fast-track procedures 
should continue to be limited.
  Third and finally, the President should be allowed to include in 
fast-track legislation only those provisions that are absolutely 
necessary to implement the agreement. Current law allows provisions 
that are ``necessary and appropriate,'' and in the real world the 
latter word constitutes an enormous loophole of which both the 
President and the Congress have taken full advantage.
  These reforms will help build public confidence in our trade policy 
by opening up the fast-track process and making it exceedingly 
difficult to add special-interest provisions. It is essentially these 
aspects of the current process that have drawn the most criticism from 
members of the public. Significantly, much of the opposition to the 
Uruguay round has focused not the specifics of the agreement, where the 
United States clearly stands to gain, but on the allegedly closed and 
corrupt nature of the congressional fast-track process. Opponents have 
exaggerated much, but where they make legitimate points, we should not 
be afraid to make changes.
  Again, I hope to work with my colleagues, especially those who serve 
on the Finance Committee, to introduce or join in the introduction of 
legislation incorporating the principles I have outlined. I welcome the 
reaction of my colleagues and the public to the changes I have 
suggested.
  Whatever the shortcomings of the fast-track process, they do not 
outweigh the manifest benefits of the Uruguay round for our economy. To 
raise questions about some aspects of this agreement is understandable; 
to reject it would be unthinkable. We should vote for it without 
hesitation, for it is a good agreement for the United States as we 
enter a new century in which our Nation must continue to lead.
  I will add, Mr. President, that I am heartened by reports that 
passage of this agreement today will lead to conversations involving 
the President of the United States, President Clinton, and President 
Frei of Chile. Chile, for a long time, has looked forward to either a 
free trade agreement with the United States or accession to the NAFTA 
treaty or to some other way in which the free trade principles espoused 
in both of our countries might be enhanced promptly. I am hopeful that 
stimulus and momentum will continue promptly.
  I commend President Clinton for that intent and, likewise, the 
patience of the Chileans who have waited a long time. I know the 
occupant of the Chair, who has been involved in many such 
conversations, will undoubtedly welcome that momentum also of a 
conference that will occur soon in his great State.
  I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask that the quorum call might be 
deferred and I can go forward with my remarks. I thank my friend from 
Indiana.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the Uruguay round agreements of 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT. This debate, much 
like the NAFTA debate, has been riddled with myth and misinformation. I 
have heard thoughtful arguments against GATT-- indeed I have--as well 
as for it. And I have also heard some alarms which seem to verge nearly 
on the hysterical. One would think that some of us are here preparing 
to bargain away our national sovereignty instead of trying to negotiate 
away foreign trade barriers. But sadly, that is the level of some 
discourse.
  I admire the people on both sides of this issue. There is no one who 
speaks with more passion than my friend from South Carolina, Senator 
Hollings. His position is so clear to us. And the wisdom of our ranking 
member on the Finance Committee, Senator Packwood, has given necessary 
balance to the debate. This has been a very good debate.
  The fine people of my State, like those of any State, are deeply 
worried about their jobs and about the economic future facing them and 
their children. There are, of course, no simple prescriptions available 
to create prosperity. One thing is very clear: Jobs are not destroyed 
by trade; jobs are created by trade. And the more plentiful and fair 
and open that trade is, the more jobs are created here at home.
  We do not--I repeat, not--produce jobs at home by refusing to 
participate in the difficult work of dismantling foreign trade 
barriers. I cannot stress strongly enough that I would never support 
any piece of legislation that would adversely affect the people and the 
economy of Wyoming. The GATT agreement is good for the economy, it is 
good for the people of Wyoming, it is good for the people of America. I 
would not say that it, or its financing mechanism, is perfect, but it 
is far, far preferable to the fallout and lost opportunities that would 
come from rejecting it.
  The United States took a responsible step last year when it approved 
the North American Free-Trade Agreement. That agreement opened the door 
to greater exports to our biggest and best trading partners, Canada and 
Mexico. Exports to these NAFTA partners last year alone accounted for 
almost two-thirds of our export growth. The exports to Canada and 
Mexico surpassed exports to Asia and even Europe, and the benefits of 
this expanded trade are now a matter of record. They are on the record. 
The GATT agreement gives us the opportunity to build on that success 
and extend those principles now around the world.
  I want to commend Mickey Kantor. Ambassador Kantor has been superb. 
He has done a tremendous job. I admire his work. And he has always been 
accessible and receptive to things I have shared with him about issues 
in Wyoming that have to do with grain and agricultural products. The 
U.S. Trade Representative calls the Uruguay round a $750 billion global 
tax cut. That is a direct reference to the tariffs that consumers 
around the world will no longer have to pay.
  Indeed, it is estimated that this trade agreement will be responsible 
for a gain in global income of more than $500 billion by the year 2005. 
This is an important decision for our foreign policy, as well as for 
our domestic economic interests. What sort of a message would the 
rejection of GATT convey to the world? I believe the answer is very 
clear. If we choose to reject GATT, then Germany, France, Japan, China, 
and the rest of Asia will go right back to their old protectionist 
ways, ways that kept U.S. exporters out of their markets. Our export 
opportunities will evaporate before our eyes. We will face the same old 
obstacles to trade as we have in the past.
  We should well remember and recall the stated belief by the Japanese 
that only Japanese downhill skis worked on Japanese snow. I remember 
that one. We in Wyoming knew that not to be the case, especially with 
Wyoming powder. But how about that one? We do not want to go back to 
that. Japan is one of our finest allies, and one of our finest trading 
partners. We do not want to hear any more things like that.
  During the 7 years that the GATT was negotiated I had the opportunity 
to receive the opinions of more than several hundred constituents. My 
constituents are not fainthearted. They discussed GATT. Some of the 
discussion came from individuals who had been fed some fallacious 
information sent to them by individuals with a big stake in defeating 
GATT who had been led to fear for their own job security if GATT is 
passed. I will make a brief comment on those. But first, for the most 
part, I have heard in great detail about the benefits GATT would 
provide to my State.
  Let me just say that all of us are guided often by provincial energy. 
Let me say that I represent a State of 473,000 human beings. My good 
colleague to my immediate left, Senator Patrick Daniel Moynihan, 
represents a State of millions of human beings. I want to commend the 
senior Senator from New York for the work he has done on this issue. He 
has been intrepid, dedicated, and completely forward in his support of 
it. His energies, I hope, will be met with success this evening.
  But in this State of 473,000 people in 93,000 square miles, if we do 
not have the ability to export, we will perish. We are the largest 
producer of trona, which is soda ash, which is in every piece of glass. 
One-third of the world's trona comes from southwest Wyoming. And this 
will reduce tariff barriers in Belgium and France on soda ash which 
will be of tremendous longterm benefit until the end of the reserves in 
that part of Wyoming. This is the greatest benefit to an entire 
quadrant of my State that you could ever have had. That is what it will 
do with the big boys in Brussels and France and the soda ash producers, 
completely reducing those tariffs.
  We are the largest producer of coal in the United States, bigger than 
West Virginia, bigger than Kentucky, bigger than Pennsylvania. This 
will help. We produce pork, beef, sugar beets, lamb, and wool. These 
are things that Wyoming emphasizes; also, chemical and MTBE production. 
These are commodities and goods that GATT will benefit.
  So our whole economy is based on trade. That means fair trade. It 
means the elimination of trade barriers that will continue to exist if 
GATT is defeated.
  We trade in all of these things, including timber, and a great array 
of manufactured goods. We are a State rich, rich indeed, in raw 
materials that amount to far more than whatever we could consume. 
Without access, without these openings, we would dry up and disappear. 
This is our export opportunity. This is our future. This is the way we 
keep our young people in Wyoming to work, and live and play there.
  I believe GATT has made some tremendous advancements toward the 
objective of free and fair trade. Certainly there are key elements that 
are somewhat disturbing. But I think we have had those answered.
  The key is tariffs, reduction in foreign tariffs, either fully 
eliminated or significantly cut on approximately 85 percent of world 
trade including construction, agricultural equipment, even beer--which 
is a very lucrative world market I might add.
  The General Agreement on Trade and Services, which is GATS, will 
assist in opening export markets and ensuring fair foreign investment 
rules for American service companies and professional, business, 
communications, financial, health, tourism, education, environmental 
fields, industries which employ millions of Americans.
  Agriculture will be included for the first time in a GATT agreement. 
Here is the one issue that has messed up international trade for 
decades. Agricultural support systems and the burning of commodities on 
the Champs-Elysees in Paris, getting rid of potatoes here, grain here. 
That is absurd.
  Finally, we deal with that. Finally we get to that. We increase these 
trade opportunities. We are going to reduce agricultural export 
subsidies by a total of 36 percent, which is $8 billion, over half of 
which is accounted for by the European unit.
  Member nations are going to cut $35 billion in support for 
domestically consumed agricultural products; 18 percent reduction. But 
it is going to benefit wheat, barley, beef, pork, sugar. And I will 
have to tell my constituents because somebody has them all worked up 
and giving them erroneous information. I will be very glad to help 
educate them and tell them what we are doing here, and that it is not 
about the loss of sovereignty. It is not about the World Trade 
Organization. I wish they had picked a different name for it. It seems 
to have connotations that led to most sinister references. There is a 
gross misunderstanding about that. Clarifying these misconceptions is 
very important. And I shall do that because they will wonder why I am 
voting and so strongly helping to pass GATT.

  The Uruguay round would also extend significant protection to 
American producers, in the realm of intellectual property. The GATT 
would finally offer some substantial protection for U.S. companies that 
manufacture pharmaceutical drugs, computer programs and games, 
semiconductor chips, books, films, and compact music disks. Not only 
would it provide for recognition of U.S. patents, copyrights and 
trademarks abroad, but it also requires foreign governments to provide 
effective enforcement of them. This is an area of unquestionable 
importance for U.S. exporters. Protections in this area are absolutely 
critical for preserving the global integrity of those industries.
  One issue on which many people have expressed concern is the 
establishment of the World Trade Organization [WTO]. I believe there is 
a gross misunderstanding about that and I would like to try to clarify 
some of the misconceptions as I mentioned earlier, since the formation 
of the GATT in 1948, member nations have renegotiated the global trade 
rules approximately every 5 years. As a result of the Uruguay round, 
the rules have been substantially expanded and extended to most trading 
nations on an equivalent basis.
  Because of this expansion, it has become necessary to formally 
reorganize the current GATT officiating body. The WTO would simply 
replace that current body. The WTO will provide the world with 
procedures for negotiating additional reductions of trade barriers and 
for the prompt resolution of trade disputes between countries.
  I strongly believe that no trade agreement, whatever its economic 
benefits, should be approved if it infringes upon State or Federal 
sovereignty. But provisions in the GATT agreement clearly state that 
U.S. law prevails in every situation under the WTO. There are 
significant safeguards in the implementing legislation--including an 
outright statement that gives primacy to U.S. laws--to ensure that our 
sovereignty is fully protected.
  But let me just read one section of the legislation because we are 
talking about sovereignty. Here it is, section 102(A)(1) of that 
legislation which clearly States this:

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

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Period.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate the emphasis from my colleague from New 
York, ``period.'' There it is. That is it. You cannot say it. It could 
have been a little better syntax, I think. But, nevertheless, in its 
jumbled version it says exactly what people have been concerned about, 
and I think that is very important.

  I believe that this provision fully recognizes the fact that the 
power to create and abolish U.S. law is ultimately reserved to Congress 
and the State legislatures. That power is derived directly from the 
U.S. Constitution and I can assure my listeners that there is no method 
by which those legislative duties will be relinquished to some 
international trade court in Switzerland. Suggestions to the contrary 
reveal only how cynical many have become about the patriotism and good 
faith of those in government, particularly those who negotiated the 
agreement.
  Second, the implementing legislation sets up procedures by which 
Congress will maintain oversight of WTO actions as they relate to the 
United States. It also ensures that the administration will always 
coordinate with Congress in its responses to upcoming WTO voting 
issues. That is a very important element which will ensure that 
Congress--and the public's--voice with regard to U.S. positions on 
international trade is clearly heard. All briefs and decisions made by 
the WTO and dispute settlement panels will be available to public 
inspection. Secret tribunals will not exist nor are they authorized 
under the WTO.
  Furthermore, in the event that Congress becomes dissatisfied with WTO 
decisions at any time, the bill sets up a special, expedited procedure 
by which we can decide every 5 years whether or not to revoke the 
agreements. There is also a safety hatch that allows us to withdraw at 
anytime with six months notice.
  Finally, Senator Dole has negotiated an additional safeguard in the 
form of an agreement with the President to establish a WTO Dispute 
Settlement Review Commission. The Commission would consist of five 
judges appointed by the President and the leadership of both Houses. 
The Commission will review all final WTO dispute settlement reports 
where the report rules against the United States. If the judges 
determine on three occasions that the WTO exceeded its authority or 
diminished the rights of the United States, any member of either House 
could introduce a resolution to disapprove U.S. participation in the 
WTO. Three strikes and we're out of the WTO.
  In order to pass GATT, the Senate is required to waive the Budget 
Act. The budget waiver is required even though most experts agree that 
the benefits of GATT greatly surpass any losses which would result from 
reduced tariffs. Our own budget rules here in the Senate require strict 
deficit neutrality over a course of 10 years as ``scored'' by static 
scoring models--models which do not account for changes in behavior 
which may result from the change in law.
  The $11.7 billion tax cut from the GATT legislation for the first 5 
years is paid for with $11.1 billion of deficit reduction measures and 
$600 million of previously enacted budgetary savings. Moreover, because 
the GATT financing package is mostly outlay reductions, not revenue 
increases, the net effect of the package is to provide for a 
substantial net tax cut for Americans.
  Nonetheless, GATT still requires a waiver of the Congressional Budget 
Act. A failure to approve the budget waiver for GATT will mean that the 
bill is dead. A vote against the budget waiver is a vote against the 
GATT.
  This morning we were at the White House and I wanted to conclude with 
what our leader, George Mitchell, said, if I may paraphrase correctly. 
He said something like this: I thought it was devastatingly 
appropriate. He said: I think everyone will admit that already the 
United States of America is the most open trading country in the world. 
That is a given. We have less restrictions, less tariffs, less games, 
less punishment, less all the things that become tricky in this, and 
countervailing duties, and so on.
  So if we are already the most open trading country on the Earth, and 
GATT is about opening trade, how can we miss? We cannot miss. America 
cannot miss on this. If we are already the most open country on Earth 
and the sole purpose of this legislation is to open trade around the 
world, that is good for America and good for Wyoming. It is plain and 
simple. The agreement will open up important foreign markets for 
Wyoming, and it will reduce hideous tariffs around the world. We have a 
choice to chart a course forward, a fairer and more profitable choice.
  I am proud to make that choice and to support this historic 
agreement.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I congratulate the distinguished Republican whip 
for his thoughtful, analytic, factual statement. If we could hear what 
he has said and extend it to our own States, as is easily done, the 
case has been made. I thank him for his graciousness and his courtesy, 
which is unfailing, and the skilled cowboy knows his international 
trade.
  Now I have the pleasure to yield 10 minutes to my friend and neighbor 
from Massachusetts, the Honorable John Kerry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. I have been listening to a number of my colleagues who 
paint a very grim picture of diminishing U.S. sovereignty; the 
weakening of environmental laws; and the withering away of the U.S. 
manufacturing base that would result if we pass this bill.
  Well, Mr. President, I think those fears, as a number of my 
colleagues have articulated, are misplaced. This agreement will not do 
any of these things.
  Indeed, with respect to the sovereignty issue, it is interesting to 
note that a cross-section of American institutions--the American Bar 
Association, the Consumers Union, and the Heritage Foundation, which I 
think rarely agree on anything--all agree that the Uruguay round will 
not harm the sovereignty of this Nation one iota. The ABA stated, ``In 
particular, the Uruguay round dispute settlement provisions leave 
United States domestic legal powers totally intact.''
  In point of fact, if the WTO did begin to hand down a number of 
decisions adverse to the United States, we would have the ability to 
withdraw from this agreement--by merely providing 6 months' notice.
  A second concern is the impact this agreement will have on the 
environment, but there, too, the GATT recognizes specifically the right 
of each country to protect human, animal, and plant life; and the 
health, the environment and consumers. It allows each country to set a 
level of protection for health, and the environment and consumers that 
the particular government deems appropriate.
  The third concern, and the most important, is that this agreement 
will reduce jobs. However, by forcing other countries to play by the 
same rules of fair play that the United States has always abided by, 
the agreement will increase--by 300,000 to 700,000 over 10 years. 
Moreover, annual U.S. income will increase $100 to $200 billion over 
the same period.
  We are 4 percent of the world's population; 96 percent of the world's 
population is where 90 percent of the development and growth will take 
place over the course of the next years. If we do not pass this 
agreement, we deny ourselves access to that market and we invite our 
most voracious competitors--the French, Germans, Japanese, Taiwanese, 
Singaporese, and a host of others--to rush in where we fear to tread.
  In fact, not only will the passage of the Uruguay round not threaten 
our sovereignty nor our prosperity, but on the contrary, I believe that 
failure to pass it would in fact subject us to these very fears--by 
forcing us to confront the inevitable continued globalization of the 
world's economy, unregulated by a set of multilateral rules.
  Why do so many people oppose this agreement then? I suppose it is 
because so many do not want to acknowledge that continued globalization 
of the world economy that we have witnessed is inevitable. It is going 
to continue whether we like it or not, and whether we pass the Uruguay 
round implementing legislation or not. We cannot turn back the clock.
  In many ways it is good that we cannot. The jobs created by exports 
traditionally pay 17 percent higher than the U.S. average. Eleven 
million people in the United States owe their jobs to exports--one-
quarter of our workforce. This number is expected to increase to one-
third of our work force in the next 10 years.
  This agreement is an opportunity for us to make this change work for 
American workers--by increasing U.S. exports.
  I was just in India, where I met with the Finance Minister, the 
Minister of Telecommunications, and the Foreign Minister. I gave each 
of them a Polaroid camera made in Massachusetts, with two packets of 
film. I said, ``When you finish these packets of film, you will not--
unless a friend brings you more--be able to buy more in India because 
they are kept out by tariffs of 50 percent. Despite the fact that no 
Indian company manufactures these cameras --and therefore there is no 
domestic industry asking for protection--you maintain one of the 
highest tariffs on film in the world.''
  I hope that the Government of India will decide to reduce this tariff 
in the next several months.
  Under GATT, similar tariffs would be reduced, creating enormous 
opportunities for companies like Polaroid, and their employees.
  That, Mr. President, means jobs for Americans. In Fall River, MA, 
there is a company called Quaker Fabrics. They have increased their 
capacity to make textiles in America and sell them abroad. Of the 500 
people they have Hired over the last few years, 300 of them are 
directly related to the increase in export capacity. They support GATT.
  In addition to those examples as to why GATT is important, let me 
just quickly summarize a few others. It is the largest tax cut --by 
virtue of the reduction of tariffs--in world history. It will eliminate 
major foreign barriers to the export of our goods.
  It will permit--and in some cases actually strengthen--the United 
States's ability to enforce its laws against foreign unfair trade 
practices.
  It will protect intellectual property of United States entrepreneurs 
from piracy in world markets.
  And it will boost the currently stalled world economy, thereby 
creating even more export opportunities for U.S. firms.
  The benefits to my home State are especially large. In addition to 
the direct benefits of the jobs I just mentioned, it will eliminate 
duties for medical equipment and printed matter. It will lower 
significantly tariffs on fish and fish products, which are a mainstay 
of Massachusetts.
  It will provide strong intellectual property rights protection which 
will benefit particularly exports of semiconductor manufacturers, 
computers and software.
  Finally, I will say this is not a perfect agreement. No agreement is. 
There are obviously deep concerns that we have about labor standards in 
other countries. There are concerns that we have about the ability of 
those countries to meet some of the environmental standards we consider 
critical.
  Therefore, we must bear in mind that with this vote our job is not 
finished.
  Opening up opportunities in the new global economy is important. But 
we must also prepare all our citizens for the impact of that 
globalization.
  Some of our most vulnerable citizens will be hurt in the transition 
process. It is a tragedy that in this Nation we have not fully funded 
worker training and adjustment programs. As some benefit, it should not 
be at the expense of others.
  Further, we must make certain that we ensure that international labor 
standards are protected and increased through the World Trade 
Organization. This will entail a major effort by the United States, but 
we are obliged to make it.
  We also must do everything we can to ensure that textile markets 
around the world are opened so that our textile manufacturers, who will 
be newly challenged under this agreement, do not find themselves 
relinquishing the protection of the multifiber agreement without 
finding fairness in foreign markets. I am convinced that it is through 
the GATT that we can help them to achieve that equity in the 
marketplace. This agreement will help us to open up those last 
barriers.
  Lastly, we must follow the progress of the new Environment and Trade 
Committee of the WTO to ensure that the goal of sustainable development 
is not relegated to the marketplace in Geneva.
  In all of these cases, if we find that the new agreement and the WTO 
are not working to our benefit and are undermining our labor and 
environment standards, we should be prepared to exercise our option to 
waive.
  These are the tangible steps that we can and must take in order to 
guarantee that GATT is not a hollow victory today and that we continue 
to be concerned for the workers of this country.
  But like NAFTA, Mr. President, this agreement is a good one, and it 
is good for U.S. workers.
  I urge my colleagues to acknowledge the facts, to recognize that we 
are better off with a world community trading by global agreement 
rather than the chaos of individual bilateral arrangements. It is 
precisely those arrangements that have created some of the worst 
inequities in the marketplace today, and it is precisely this agreement 
that attempts to redress that.
  Again, I thank the distinguished chairman both for the time and for 
his leadership on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I congratulate the Senator from 
Massachusetts, first for his enterprise in bringing Polaroid cameras to 
New Delhi and making a very proper neat point.
  I can add that the President of Kodak, which is of course a New York 
firm, has made the point that there are 4 billion people on Earth who 
never snapped a photograph and he would like to sell them cameras.
  I would like to make the point that we surely are heading for the 
moment where a third of our work force will be in export industries, if 
we adopt the GATT. If we do not, remember dollar week, remember 1933. 
That is what Cordell Hull and Franklin Roosevelt tried to take us out 
of on this very important point about displaced workers and there will 
be, and multifiber agreement. It happens I was one of the three persons 
who negotiated for President Kennedy the long-term cotton textile 
agreement in 1962 which made possible the Trade Enhancement Act of that 
year that led to the Kennedy round.
  That was involved. The original cotton textile agreement became 
multifibers. It had been in place 32 years now and we have another 10 
years in this agreement, about half a century, but it also provided for 
displaced workers and that commitment was made and that is when the 
labor movement was behind us then and we have not kept faith with them.
  The Senator's commitment is a very important one which I think we 
should all undertake to keep.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I see our distinguished friend from 
Colorado, and I am happy to yield 10 minutes, if that is agreeable, on 
Senator Packwood's time.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, it is quite clear that this measure is going to pass, 
that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, and others, 
have made an excellent case.
  I rise out of concerns over the GATT, and I want to raise a couple 
specific points that I hope at least in the record of this debate will 
be reflected upon at some point.
  Americans used to take great pride in being called Yankee traders. It 
was an aggressive term. It was one we liked to call ourselves, and we 
think it implied that not only were we capable traders when we were 
involved in the international marketplace, but we were at least savvy 
about the way we did it, as well as that in the trades we put together 
we thought of ourselves of at least capable of holding our own and 
perhaps even at times outtrading everybody else in the world. Perhaps 
that is part of the American mystique. While we are made up of few from 
around the globe, we also pride ourselves in having something a little 
better than the rest of the world.
  How will we evaluate this GATT agreement? Some will say this is 
simply a free trade agreement that benefits all and so the discussion 
needs to end there. I have read many editorials lately that have 
reflected that viewpoint. How could you possibly oppose GATT because 
you ought to be in favor of free trade?
  Mr. President, I am in favor of free trade. I am in favor of reducing 
trade barriers. I do think it is an advantage to our economy and other 
economies around the world. I think it is a plus for consumers.
  But, Mr. President, the issue that is before us is not free trade. 
How can I say that? It is in the agreements themselves, in agreement 
after agreement after agreement, and as I think the distinguished 
Members know there are a number of agreements included in this measure. 
It calls on the United States to open its markets but allows other 
countries to keep their markets closed or exempts them from the 
requirement to open their markets or exempts them from the marketing 
opening provision. Please do not confuse this with the free trade 
agreement that opens both markets. It does not.
  Many of the agreements have a specific provision for countries of the 
free world. What they say is, the United States, you open your market 
but countries in the Third World can keep it closed for 5 years. For 
some it is 7 years and for some it is 8 years. In another agreement it 
goes to 10 years and even one it goes to 12 years.
  Does anybody think that is a good trade? Would anybody be happy to be 
the U.S. Trade Representative and come back and say look what I got 
you; I got you the right to make your concessions immediately, but the 
other ones do not have to match them until a dozen years from now. That 
is not being a Yankee trader. That is being a chump.
  This is not a good agreement. Those who are advocates of free trade 
ought to understand there is more involved than simply slogans, that 
they have to look at the agreements to evaluate them.
  Some will say, ``Well, OK, we will suffer for 5 years or a dozen 
years, but then at least at the end of that time we will have achieved 
something great. We will have opened those other markets, too.''
  Mr. President, everybody who believes that I hope will go down and 
register their name, because we have some real estate in Florida or 
perhaps Colorado we would like to sell them.
  The truth is, what is included in the WTO, included in this 
agreement, is an empowerment of the general council or the ministerial 
conference by a vote to amend the rules.
  Well, some will say, ``Well, Heavens, that takes a supermajority to 
amend the rules.'' Surely no one would come forward after giving those 
special privileges to Third World countries and would waive the 
requirement that they eventually come into line.
  Mr. President, people need to read this agreement. This agreement 
does give that power. There is the ability to amend the rules. What 
does it take? Three-quarters. How can anybody, for such a difficult 
position to defend, assume that you could amend those rules. One reason 
might be that people who vote in the World Trade Organization are going 
to vote for their interests. Most of those countries are not what we 
would call free traders. And, as a matter of fact, if all of the Third 
World countries join in the WTO, they will have 83 percent of the vote. 
Maybe they all will not join. Ninety have joined already. They have by 
now already three-quarters of votes. All they have to do is vote for 
themselves and they will be able to extend these provisions.
  Has anybody talked about it? Yes, they have. There are references to 
extending them.
  Mr. President, this is not a good bargain. And it has nothing to do 
with whether you like free trade or not. It has to do with a lousy job 
of negotiating a contract and making sure that the other side has to 
live by the same rules we live by. If anybody is proud of this 
agreement in terms of negotiation, I hope they will come down and 
defend it. They may be proud of the concept, and I am all with them. 
But when you look at the text of the agreement, they have nothing to be 
proud of.
  Some discussion has been made with regard to the expense of GATT, and 
I want to share this with Members because I want to make a forecast. 
The United States cost to administer GATT has increased 181 percent 
from 1984 to 1993. That is because the GATT expenses have increased 72 
percent. Is it a lot of money? Well, not in terms of the Federal 
Government. But $9 million is a lot to some people.
  What are the chances that it is going to increase? I want to draw the 
Members' attention to a couple of things. Currently, each country's 
share of the total annual expense of GATT is equal to the country's 
portion of total trades in goods and contracting priorities and 
associated governments. In other words, it is a trade figure. We get to 
pay between 14 and 16 percent. Currently it is about 14.6, as the 
distinguished chairman pointed out yesterday, of the cost to operate 
GATT.
  However, there is this change and our source for this change is from 
Focus--an official GATT newsletter published by the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade, Geneva, Switzerland.
  Beginning in 1996, every country's assessment will reflect its share 
in international traded goods, services and intellectual property. 
Therefore, the U.S. contribution to WTO will significantly increase 
because we have the largest trade in services and intellectual property 
in the world. In other words, 14.6 percent is going to go up, not down.
  But, Mr. President, in addition to that, we have been in discussion 
with people from the State Department and they indicate that the 
provisions that allocate costs along with the size of the gross 
domestic product, or the gross national product that incidentally is 
used in the United Nations, is under consideration here. If we do that, 
our share to the WTO will clearly go up to about 23 percent.
  Some will say, ``Well, wait a minute. We have to have votes on that 
first.''
  Let me draw the Members' attention to this question. One, in this new 
agreement it is not spelled out. We have not been guaranteed what the 
allocation will be nor are we guaranteed what the costs will be.
  But, Mr. President, we do know the process. The ministerial 
conference elects the director general. The director general will 
reflect that majority. Keep in mind that the countries that will be 
voting, a majority of them, have voted against the United States in the 
United Nations over 50 percent of the time. This is not a benign group. 
This is a group that has opposed us in policies in the United Nations 
consistently. They will elect the director general, not the United 
States. The director general helps set up the secretariat and the 
secretariat is the one that appoints the people who will be judges. We 
call them panelists, dispute settlement body panelists. But the budget 
is proposed by the director general.
  That budget is then forwarded to the committee on budget, finance and 
administration. Once they have made their recommendation it goes to the 
general council. The general council will have over 80 percent, perhaps 
as high as 83 percent of its members from the Third World. It only 
takes two-thirds to approve budget matters. Does not the Third World 
have the opportunity to skew the budget and to give us a 
disproportionate cost? Absolutely. Do not kid yourself. Do not kid 
yourself. They have the votes.
  Now, would they possibly do that? I have heard Members convey to me 
in private, ``Look, we are so influential on trade matters, no one 
would stick us with a disproportion of the cost.''
  Please take a look at what happens in the United Nations. If any 
Member of this body is comfortable with the share of the costs we pay 
in the United Nations, if anybody feels it is proportional to what it 
ought to be, I would love to have them come forward and say so. It is 
my impression that it is not anywhere near close. We get taken. We pay 
far more than our share of the cost.
  Is that a good trade? Of course not.
  What we have had is a negotiation where the United States gave up on 
most of the key important points and signed a bad deal. And now we are 
going to ratify it. To have bad negotiators go and represent this 
country may not be our responsibility, but if we vote for this measure 
it is our responsibility.
  Americans, Yankee traders, ought to be able to do better than that. 
They ought to be able to do better in a negotiation than have this 
country not get equal access. I think it is fair to insist that we have 
the same access to other countries as they have here. It is not in this 
agreement. It is the opposite.
  I think it is fair for us to have a weighted vote as we do in the 
International Monetary Fund, or vetoes as we in the United Nations, or 
at least something that is proportional. We do not have that in this 
agreement. That is not a good trade.
  Mr. President, the way the courts are administered does not include 
due process. No one claims it does. It has the potential of being very 
abusive to Americans and American interests. That is not a good trade.
  Whether it is the cost of the operation, whether it is the trade 
agreements themselves, whether it is the mechanism that is established, 
whether it is the quasijudicial procedures that are set up, whether it 
is the votes in the general council, this country came out on the short 
end.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and I thank the floor managers for 
allowing me to come in at this time.
  Mr. President, later this afternoon, we will be casting the 328th 
vote, and possibly the 329th vote of this second session of the 103d 
Congress. These will be historic votes not only because they will be 
the last votes of this Congress, but because on these votes, unlike all 
of the other votes we have cast, the entire world is watching and 
awaiting the outcome.
  In reaching my decision, I have tried to balance the positive 
economic components of the agreement against the uncertainties 
associated with the idea of creating a supranational body--the World 
Trade Organization [WTO]--to govern international trade disputes.
  I have always believed that an open trading system is in the best 
interests of citizens of Alaska and the Nation as a whole. And so I 
wanted to give the proponents of the agreement every opportunity to 
make their case and help me overcome my very serious reservations about 
the WTO.
  Many Alaskans have asked me why I have waited until today to make my 
decision on the agreement. The reason I have waited so long is that I 
had very specific concerns about certain aspects of the agreement, and 
how they would affect my home State of Alaska. One of my principal 
concerns was whether Alaska's unitary tax system is protected under the 
new agreement.


                      alaska's unitary tax method

  Many Alaskans have expressed concern that the State's unitary method 
of corporate taxation could be challenged by one of our trading 
partners, and if the WTO ruled against Alaska, the State would either 
have to dismantle its tax system or the United States would face 
retaliatory penalties. Last week, I wrote to the U.S. Trade 
Representative, Ambassador Mickey Kantor, concerning the potential of a 
challenge to Alaska's unitary system. Three days ago, Ambassador Kantor 
responded and assured me that ``Alaska's unitary tax system if fully 
protected under the new Uruguay round agreements.''

  According to Ambassador Kantor, Alaska's unitary tax system is 
excepted from the agreement and ``WTO member countries would have no 
ground on which to suspend Uruguay round trade concessions in response 
to Alaska's unitary tax system.'' In addition, Alaska's Governor has 
examined this issue and reached a conclusion consistent with Ambassador 
Kantor's analysis.
  Although I am satisfied that Ambassador Kantor's interpretation of 
the agreement is correct, nothing precludes another country from 
attempting to challenge the unitary tax systems in my State or the 15 
other States that use this method. I would hope that such a challenge 
would be summarily dismissed.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter to 
Ambassador Kantor, his response, and a letter from John Katz, director 
of State/Federal relations for the State of Alaska, be included in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [See exhibit 1.]
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, what made my decision so difficult is 
the fact that there are clear economic benefits that will flow from the 
agreement. The agreement that was hammered out with our trading 
partners is designed to enhance international trade in industrial and 
high-technology products by cutting tariffs by $744 billion over the 
next decade.
  By some estimates, if the agreement is approved, U.S. exports will 
increase by $150 billion, creating 500,000 new jobs and increasing the 
income of the average U.S. family by $1,700 per year over the next 10 
years, and the agreement could increase our gross domestic product by 
$100 billion to $200 billion a year.


                          benefits for alaska

  For the citizens of Alaska, especially those involved in the fishing 
and wood products industry, the GATT Agreement promises new jobs and 
new export opportunities. As the largest producer of fisheries products 
in the United States, Alaska seafood exports currently account for 48 
percent of total seafood exports, accounting for more than $1.5 
billion. Under this agreement our seafood exports are likely to 
increase because Japan has agreed to cut its fishery duties by 24.5 
percent and South Korea and other Asian nations will cut their tariffs 
by 35 percent.
  Wood products exports from Alaska, which currently account for more 
than $540 million, are likely to increase because the principal markets 
for our wood products--Japan, Canada, Mexico, and South Korea--have all 
agreed to cut their lumber and solid wood tariffs by an average of 28 
percent. In addition, in Brazil, where Alaskan wood products have been 
effectively blocked by tariffs as high as 52 percent, tariffs will be 
cut by three-fourths to 14 percent.
  These potentially positive elements of the agreement are compelling, 
especially when one considers how important international trade is to 
Alaska.


                        ISSUEs OMITTED FROM GATT

  But it should be noted that this agreement falls far short of 
achieving the goals we originally sought when the Uruguay round began. 
We failed to eliminate governmental subsidies for civil aviation and 
agriculture. We failed to establish workable rules that would allow 
free trade in financial services and telecommunications, and were 
unsuccessful in breaking open the European broadcasting and movie 
industry. These are all industries where the United States clearly 
maintains a competitive advantage; yet our negotiators were unable to 
achieve any major breakthroughs with our trading partners in these 
areas.


                                THE WTO

  What is of serious concern to the citizens of Alaska and to me is the 
dispute settlement process authorized by this agreement. I have heard 
from many Alaskans over the last several months who have expressed 
legitimate and serious concerns that the newly created World Trade 
Organization [WTO] could represent a threat to our Nation's 
sovereignty. As all of my colleagues know, there is real concern 
throughout the country that a group of faceless foreign bureaucrats 
whose interests are inimical to the United States will issue rulings in 
secret that will penalize American business and force Congress to 
rewrite our laws to conform to the arbitrary whims of other countries.
  If this agreement were not being considered under the fast track 
procedure, I would certainly offer an amendment to strip out the WTO 
and maintain GATT as the body for governing trade disputes. That, in 
effect, is what our predecessors did in the late 1940's when the Senate 
refused to approve an organization similar in concept to the WTO--the 
so-called International Trade Organization. World trade has flourished 
since GATT was implemented in 1948 and I think it was a mistake for our 
trade negotiators to replace GATT with the WTO. Make no mistake, world 
trade will continue to flourish GATT or no GATT. The world market is 
too competitive to stop now.
  Instead of creating the one-country, one-vote WTO, our negotiators 
should have used the U.N. Security Council as a model for dispute 
settlement. Using the Security Council model, the major trading 
countries--the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Great Britain, 
Italy, and Canada--could have retained a veto over any decision that 
was contrary to their interests.
  Although the Republican leader, Senator Dole, should be commended for 
winning a commitment from the administration to support legislation 
that will create a WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission here in the 
United States, this review commission does not have the authority to 
overturn WTO decisions.
  If the Commission finds that the WTO exceeded its authority in any 
case involving the United States, all Congress can do is adopt a 
resolution calling on the President to negotiate new dispute settlement 
rules. If the WTO issues three such decisions, Congress could adopt 
legislation requiring the United States to withdraw from the WTO. That 
is not totally satisfactory to this Senator.


                           THE BUDGET WAIVER

  Finally, Mr. President, I believe the administration made a 
fundamental mistake when they sent the implementing legislation to 
Congress without fully complying with our budget rules. Since the 
administration has claimed $1.7 billion in savings from unrelated 
legislation passed since the 1993 budget, and since the financing 
package only offsets 5 years' tariff reductions, the GATT Agreement is 
subject to a budget point of order.
  Our Federal debt is approaching $4.7 trillion. Interest to service 
that debt will exceed $225 billion this year. With this extraordinary 
amount of fiscal red ink, it is fundamentally irresponsible for the 
administration to have submitted unamendable legislation that is not 
fully funded. We should not be adding to the debt and the deficit in 
order to finance this trade agreement.
  Instead, the administration should have submitted a series of real 
spending cuts to finance this entire package. We all know the 
significance of the debt and what we are doing here is basically 
additional deficit financing. That is something I abhor.
  I refuse to support any legislation that adds a further debt burden 
to our children and grandchildren.
  In the final analysis this is a vote about winners and losers--
American winners and losers. Depending on who is counting, either the 
winners are in the majority or the losers are. The irony of this loud, 
emotional, and well-meaning debate about free trade is that we lose 
sight of what we do to ourselves regarding free trade. How can we urge 
free trade, presumably urging our trading partners to lower their 
barriers, as we seek entry for our products, when we prohibit by our 
own laws, the export of our products?
  How can we prohibit the export of our own Alaskan North Slope oil for 
20 years and yet plead for fairness from our trading partners.
  In the old saying, we have met the enemy and it is us.
  This would be a very close call on the merits and the issues. I hope 
we will have an opportunity to send this back for improvements, and I 
especially hope we will be honest about paying for the agreement with 
spending cuts before final consideration.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, Nov. 22, 1994.
       Dear Ambassador Kantor: Concerns have been expressed by 
     some individuals in Alaska that under the terms of the 
     uruguay Round GATT agreement, the state's unitary tax system 
     could be jeopardized. In particular, there is concern that 
     the state's unitary tax system could be challenged before the 
     World Trade Organization (WTO), and if the WTO ruled that 
     this method of taxation is inconsistent with the principles 
     of national treatment, the state would have to dismantle its 
     tax system or face retalatory penalties.
       GATT Article XIV, subsection (d) provides that nothing in 
     the agreement prevents the adoption of a taxing system 
     ``aimed at ensuring the equitable or effective imposition of 
     direct taxes in respect of services or service suppliers of 
     other Members.'' The footnote to subsection (d) attempts to 
     define tax measures that are designed to ensure the 
     ``equitable or effective'' collection of taxes. Included in 
     this list are tax systems which ``determine, allocate or 
     apportion income, profit, gain, loss, deduction or credit of 
     resident persons or branches, or between related persons or 
     branches of the same person, in order to safeguard the 
     Member's tax base.'' (FN 6, (vi). Although this definition 
     appears to encompass a unitary tax system, it does not 
     clearly and specifically approve the unitary tax system.
       Because of the uncertainty surrounding this issue and its 
     importance to my state, I would appreciate if you would 
     provide me with a written answer to the following questions 
     before the Senate's scheduled vote next week on GATT.
       1. What is the status of worldwide unitary tax systems 
     adopted by states such as Alaska under the GATT?
       2. Can the state's unitary tax system be challenged before 
     the WTO?
       3. If the WTO determines that Alaska's unitary tax system 
     is inconsistent with the principles of national treatment, 
     what sanctions can be imposed on the state, or kthe United 
     States, as a result of this determination?
           Sincerely,
                                                  Frank Murkowski,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____

                                    The U.S. Trade Representative,


                            Executive Office of the President,

                                    Washington, DC, Nov. 28, 1994.
     Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: Thank you for your letter of 
     November 22, 1994, expressing concerns from some of your 
     constituents that Alaska's unitary tax system might be 
     vulnerable to challenge in dispute settlement proceedings 
     under the proposed World Trade Organization (WTO). I want to 
     assure you that Alaska's unitary tax system is fully 
     protected under the new Uruguay Round agreements.
       As you may know, the two Uruguay Round agreements that most 
     directly apply to taxation measures are the General Agreement 
     on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and the General 
     Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). For the reasons 
     explained below, neither agreement provides a basis for 
     challenging state unitary taxation measures.
       The relevant provisions of GATT 1994 apply to taxes 
     assessed on the goods rather than on income. Thus, GATT 1994 
     could not be successfully used to challenge Alaska's unitary 
     tax system. I would point out that the GATT 1994 rules on 
     this subject are no different than those that have been in 
     effect under the GATT since 1948.
       With respect to the GATS, its relevant provision--the 
     national treatment (nondiscrimination) rule--does apply to 
     income taxes, subject to a broad exception under Article XIV, 
     which you cited in your letter. The United States insisted on 
     the broad carveout in Article XIV(d) and the language in 
     footnote 6(vi) precisely in order to protect both our federal 
     and state income tax systems, including state unitary tax 
     regimes. In addition, we ``reserved'' (that is, specifically 
     excluded) from our commitments under the GATS all:
       ``Sub-federal tax measures which afford less favorable 
     treatment to services or service suppliers of another Member 
     based on the method of allocating or apportioning the income, 
     profit, gain, losses, deductions, credits, assets or tax 
     based of such services suppliers or the proceeds of a 
     services transaction.''
       Accordingly, even if Alaska's unitary tax system were found 
     to treat foreign service suppliers less favorably than 
     domestic service suppliers, it would be protected from 
     successful challenge both by the exception in Article XIV(d) 
     and by this reservation.
       Our negotiators took great pains to ensure that state 
     unitary tax systems, such as Alaska's, will be fully 
     protected when the Uruguay Round agreements take effect. As a 
     result of their efforts, I am pleased that I can respond to 
     your specific questions as follows:
       First, Alaska's unitary tax system is excepted from the 
     relevant provisions of the GATT and GATS;
       Second, Alaska's unitary tax system is protected from 
     successful challenge to WTO dispute settlement proceedings; 
     and
       Third, therefore, WTO member countries would have no ground 
     on which to suspend Uruguay Round trade concessions in 
     response to Alaska's unitary tax system.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Michael Kantor.
                                  ____

                                                  State of Alaska,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                    Washington, DC, Nov. 30, 1994.
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     U.S. Senate.
     Washington, D.C.
       Dear Senator: Thank you for your letter of earlier today 
     regarding the potential impact of the GATT on the State's 
     collection of income tax based on the `unitary tax' method. 
     As you know, the importance to the State of Alaska of 
     maintaining this manner of taxation cannot be understated.
       We have reviewed this question with the Governor's office 
     in Juneau, with the Departments of Law and Revenue, and with 
     the MultiState Tax Commission. Our assessment at this hour, 
     as it has been previously, is consistent with the analysis 
     shared with you by Ambassador Kantor.
       However, notwithstanding a protected status, the United 
     States could be challenged based on Alaska's use of the 
     unitary tax. In such an instance, reliance must be placed on 
     the Federal government in defending its position and upon the 
     World Trade Organization in upholding the reservation.
       If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know.
           Sincerely,

                                                 John W. Katz,

       Director of State/Federal Relations and Special Counsel to 
                                                     the Governor.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the Senator from North Dakota 3 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, during this debate I heard a number of 
people referring to NAFTA, saying the information we received about 
NAFTA is that it is working very well. We have already created 
substantial new jobs. They know that because they have been given part 
of the story.
  Let me give it to you in automobiles. They say we have sent 30,000 
more automobiles to Mexico under NAFTA during the first 9 months of 
this year. That is true. They did not tell the rest of the story, that 
70,000 additional cars came into this country from Mexico. That means 
we lost jobs.
  I asked the Joint Economic Committee to do an evaluation of the net 
job situation between here and Mexico with NAFTA. They said it is hard 
but they put together a staff study. I just got it yesterday. It says 
the following. I want to read the paragraph.

       This analysis summarizes U.S. trade data with Mexico 
     through the first 9 months of 1994. It provides a preliminary 
     and partial perspective on the effects of NAFTA on the U.S. 
     This analysis will show that, while increased exports have 
     created jobs during the period, changes in the overall trade 
     balance with Mexico have resulted in a net deficit of 10,000 
     U.S. jobs since the agreement went into effect.

  The overall trade balance changes have resulted in a net deficit of 
10,000 U.S. jobs since the trade agreement went into effect. So the 
next time someone stands up and says, ``Boy, this NAFTA is really 
working well,'' it is because somebody gave them a part of the story. 
The rest of the story is here. NAFTA, like GATT, means that companies 
can access cheap labor and that is what the next paragraph says:

       This analysis demonstrates that NAFTA has not increased 
     U.S. employment but rather increased global access to 
     Mexico's low-wage labor supply, as reflected in growing 
     shipments of capital goods and production inputs to Mexico 
     from the U.S. and foreign countries and rapidly rising 
     imports of finished products from Mexico to the U.S.

  That is the full story. That is NAFTA. And that is what we are going 
to read about GATT, after this GATT agreement passes.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota for the astute approach that he has made to the problem at hand. 
There is no question with respect to that sucking sound. We can only 
look at the facts with respect to electric machinery, sound, TV 
equipment--since NAFTA was enacted a deficit of $671 million. Optic 
photo medical-surgical equipment, a deficit to the United States of 
$241 million; an 87 percent increase over the same period of last year. 
Vehicles and parts, $218 million.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, that what we have had is 
244 industries apply for adjustment assistance, representing the loss 
of 35,000 jobs. I do not question the Joint Economic Committee study 
about the loss, but we know when 35,000 people lose their jobs, by past 
experience, less than half will get their jobs back. And if they do get 
another job it pays 20 percent less.
  So down to Mexico, they go with their automobile factories. I 
counseled a friend from Michigan. I said, ``Look, there is no question 
about their intent after NAFTA, Volkswagen says they are going to 
expand the plant to produce a million cars to sell in the United 
States.'' You do not have to wait for economic projections. Nissan, 
Ford, Chrysler, General Motors have all announced new facilities. We 
know that recently General Motors has downsized 71,000 jobs. They are 
all moving down there.
  With respect to the productivity, the biggest mislead is when they 
talk about low income, they think of low skill. The fact of the matter 
is, they are very high skilled. J.D. Powers made a study of all 
automobile productivity in the world and found that the most productive 
Ford plant was not in Europe, not in Detroit, but in Mexico right this 
minute.
  So we know, as we can train them to make automobiles productively, as 
we never have done before but now have just started in South Carolina, 
hard common sense says you can do that in Mexico. Fiat has a plant in 
the Ivory Coast and the automobile industry will move around and go 
that way.
  And, incidentally, BMW has moved to our State, and has also announced 
a $180 million new facility investment in Mexico--in Mexico under 
NAFTA. So we have had, yes, an increase in exports of 17,000 cars, but 
we have had imports of cars of 154,000. Since the distinguished Senator 
from Oregon started talking about trucks, the overall we have imported 
176,000 cars and trucks. So there is no question in my mind that that 
sucking sound is there, but, of course, the Fortune Fifth Column in the 
trade war continues to muffle it.
  To try to get into this debate, they said in the Wall Street Journal 
that trade was not an issue in the last election. You could not get 
this to be an issue. You could not get on a program. You could not get 
in a news column. I publicly thank the Christian Science Monitor which 
finally accepted a column from this particular Senator. Now, in my 
hometown, I get one this morning after they have been editorializing 
for the past 3 months against my position; they finally put in an 
article today.
  Now, Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New York talked 
about textiles in the Kennedy round. I want to emphasize that just 
exactly, because in the Kennedy round, we had cotton in the 7-point 
Kennedy program. Before President John Kennedy could institute that 
particular program, we had to get Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg 
and Secretary Dillon from Treasury and Dean Rusk--actually George Ball 
subbed for Dean Rusk over there at the State Department--Luther Hodges 
at Commerce, and our friend Orville Freeman from Agriculture. The five 
of them got together, and I happened to bring a good many of the 
witnesses before them.
  We found that next to steel that textiles was the second most 
important industry to our national security. I pointed out how it 
brings down the crime in the city. Those are good, valid sewing jobs. 
Those are the enterprises that we have in the enterprise zones. People 
do not seem to understand it here: 96,000 of those jobs are in the 
inner city of New York; 63,000 in Watts in Los Angeles. And you pass 
this GATT; yes, those sewing jobs are bound to leave to the Pacific 
rim. And when they leave, you have unemployment, you have unemployment 
compensation, you have increased taxes there, health costs go up, 
welfare costs go up and, of course, the crime rate goes up. We have 
those running around all over the country saying what we ought to do in 
the inner city is get enterprise zones and give businesses more tax 
cuts to get them there, as we affirmatively this afternoon remove them. 
That is the tragedy of this entire debate.
  When it comes to the competition we are in, the best headline is from 
November 23--today is December 1--exactly a week ago: ``Japan Defends 
Plan to Erect Textile Barriers.''
  This is the crowd they are talking about dealing with on free trade. 
This GATT does not open the market in Japan, Malaysia, Korea--you can 
just go right on down the list. Anybody that believes that is whistling 
Dixie. Come on, let us wake up.
  The Senator from Oregon said on Crossfire that we did not have a 
study showing job loss. We put the study in the Congressional Record. 
According to this study, we lose 1,390,000, almost 1,400,000 textile 
jobs, under this GATT. Very, very important jobs. But they say, ``Oh, 
here comes the textile Senator.'' Well, here comes a Senator who is 
interested in those high-technology jobs in the aircraft industry. 
Boeing fired 28,000. Or high technology jobs in computers. Well, IBM 
fired 60,000. But before I get to the high-technology jobs, I want to 
get particularly to some of these things that get passed over.
  With respect to the $500 billion increase to the world GNP, we had a 
hearing--eight hearings, actually--before the Committee on Commerce. 
They started out with an OECD study that said $200 billion. When they 
were told that that meant only .07 percent to the world GNP, they came 
up with $500 billion. Then the Special Trade Representative came up 
with $1 trillion. So you can see how statistics are irresponsibly 
thrown around.
  With respect to the $750 billion tax cut, Mr. President, let us get 
right to that one because what it says is really a $750 billion tariff 
cut. If you cut the tariffs, the Senator from Ohio brought out that 
they are not getting the garments any cheaper. Similarly, with the 
Senator from Iowa, he pointed that out. I pointed it out time and again 
that when Nike moved offshore from the United States and out of Oregon, 
the price of shoes did not go up, the profits went up. So, yes, we hope 
it will give you a cheaper price, but we know that the retailers, part 
and one of the main troops in the Fortune Fifth Column in this trade 
war, are only interested in bigger profits. They are not interested in 
your job and my job or middle America. They are interested in more 
money.
  I want to thank Senator Brown. I am hissing along here. He talked 
with respect to the intellectual property. Yes, but they have 
exceptions in there, for developing countries, of 10 years. On 
agriculture, but the Europeans have subsidies greater than ours. What 
kind of agreement is that? It leaves the United States economy wide 
open and it keeps their particular economies closed.
  Now, with respect to specifically 301, if I was a trade lawyer, I 
would say the whole thrust of this Uruguay round is to eliminate United 
States unilateralism under section 301 and super 301. We know from the 
finding already made by the European commission, and I will read:

       The GATT does not allow for any unilateral interpretation 
     of the rights and obligations of the contracting parties, nor 
     for unilateral action by any one of the contracting parties 
     aimed at inducing another contracting party to bring its 
     trade policies in conformity with GATT.

  Then, of course, on the next page it says specifically:

       Accordingly, for the United States, this means that section 
     301 and its hybrids will have to undergo revision in order to 
     ensure compliance with the new WTO dispute settlement 
     structure.
  They say no laws are changed. But, nevertheless they mentioned here a 
minute ago, the Senator from Massachusetts, the Consumers Union, and 
the American Bar Association--they are wonderful groups. But, 
nevertheless they are not the judges. The World Trade Organization and 
the dispute resolution panels--they are the judges. It is said we 
select them and the opposition selects one, and then WTO. We do not 
have a veto over that deciding party. We do not have a veto over the 
GATT agreement itself and the World Trade Organization. We have one 
man, one vote. Castro cancels us out.
  Article 16, section 4, each member shall ensure the conformity of its 
laws under the obligations of the agreement. That is very simple and 
clear. Oh, it does not change the law automatically, Mr. President. 
But, nevertheless I tell you what it does do. It says you play along 
with this agreement that you signed and confirmed in a national 
Congress or you pay. You pay or play. You pay with sanctions that can 
be cross-indexed to other particular industries not even in the 
particular dispute.
  I asked them in the committee hearings, Mr. Ambassador Kantor, or any 
of them who came up, all of the officials. I said show me the page, the 
line that has the veto. I asked them today on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. Show me the page, the line and do not give me this gobbledygook 
about consensus because they say, yes, it goes to consensus, and the 
next line says you cannot get together by consensus. Then the World 
Trade Organization, one man, one vote, one country, one vote.
  With respect to the budget itself, a moment ago when they talked 
about the $750 billion tax cut. Of course, it is a tax. I mean it is a 
tax increase. Here we have a $31 billion deficit that they are going to 
have a waiver on the point of order, my distinguished colleague from 
West Virginia.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter of 
July 15 by 25 Senators, asking that you join us in opposing any effort 
to waive the provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 1994.
     President William J. Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Clinton: We write to ask that you join us in 
     opposing any effort to waive provisions of the Budget 
     Enforcement Act for the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
     Trade (GATT) implementing legislation and avoid the 
     requirement that such legislation be fully funded.
       Some of us support GATT, others of us oppose the agreement, 
     and still others of us have yet to make a decision, but we 
     are united in our concern about the precedent waiving the 
     provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act could set, 
     undermining our ability to make further progress in lowering 
     the deficit now and in the future.
       We are confronted on a regular basis with having to make 
     tough decisions on worthy programs because of our budget 
     rules, and rightly so. The federal budget deficit must be 
     brought down.
       That GATT is significant is clear, but the importance of an 
     issue should not determine whether or not it should conform 
     with the budget rules we have set for ourselves. Indeed, the 
     true test of our resolve to bring the deficit under control 
     is our willingness to apply the budget rules to the important 
     issues.
       We recognize your commitment to passing GATT implementing 
     legislation. Your support for making that legislation comply 
     with the budget rules will be all the more meaningful because 
     of that commitment, and we hope you will join us in this 
     effort to oppose any effort to dodge this responsibility.
           Sincerely,
           Russ Feingold, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Chuck Grassley, 
             Jesse Helms, Dirk Kempthorne, Dale Bumpers, Strom 
             Thurmond, Larry Pressler, Dave Durenberger, Lauch 
             Faircloth, Larry E. Craig, Trent Lott, Robert F. 
             Bennett, Conrad Burns, John Warner, Hank Brown, Byron 
             L. Dorgan, Alfonse D'Amato, Herb Kohl.
                                  ____

                                Executive Office of the President,


                              Office of Management and Budget,

                                   Washington, DC, August 8, 1994.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pressler: Thank you for your letter to the 
     President of July 15th, requesting that the President oppose 
     any effort to waive the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) for the 
     General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) implementing 
     legislation. The Administration shares your concern about 
     such efforts.
       The Administration firmly believes that the recently 
     completed Uruguay Round accords under the General Agreement 
     on Tariffs and Trade will increase economic growth, here in 
     the United States and around the world. We know that our view 
     is shared by many others in the economic and international 
     trade communities. This Administration has continued to work 
     to bring those negotiations to a conclusion to increase 
     economic growth in the future.
       Nonetheless, we do not believe it is necessary to sacrifice 
     budget discipline to pass GATT in the Congress. In fact, we 
     fear that if Congress were to reverse the progress that has 
     been made on budget discipline over the past few years, we 
     could lose more than we would gain from the GATT accords.
       Instead, I hope that we can work with you and other Members 
     of Congress to find offsets for the costs of GATT 
     implementation.
       Thank you again for your letter. I hope to be working with 
     you soon on these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Alice M. Rivlin,
                                                  Acting Director.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, there it is as the Senators see it, at 
least 20 of them.
  Here we go. Alice M. Rivlin, a letter dated August 8 to Senator 
Pressler. ``Nonetheless,'' says Ms. Rivlin, the Acting Director at that 
particular time, and now the Director of the Executive Office of the 
President Office of Management and Budget.

       Nonetheless, we do not believe it is necessary to sacrifice 
     budget discipline to pass GATT in the Congress.

  But that is what they are doing, fixing the jury. I have talked to 
the Senators. ``The President just called me.'' That is not what his 
Budget Director said. We do not believe in sacrificing the discipline 
with respect to export jobs.
  Fifty companies in that Fortune 500, the top 50 companies account for 
over half of the total U.S. manufacturing exports. As a result, we look 
to see whether they are increasing as they talk, increasing the jobs.
  Under those export industries, aircraft parts, since 1987 lost 67,000 
jobs, industrial machinery, 284,000, electronic and electrical 
equipment, 694,000, transportation equipment, 278,000.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the list be printed in 
the Record. I can read them all. But I want to make sure that they 
understand that export jobs are not the ones created.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                       JOBS LOST TO THE CHRONIC U.S. TRADE DEFICIT                                                      
                                      [Allocation to States by gross State product Shares; in millions of dollars]                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Merchandise Trade deficit exports, f.a.s./imports,    Trade Related job loss: U.S. Govt. estimates $1 
                                                                        customs                               billion of net exports=20,000 jobs        
                      State                      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      1991         1992         1993      1994 est.       1991         1992         1993      1994 est. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    United States total.........................    ($66,723)    ($84,501)   ($115,568)   ($155,000)  (1,334,460)  (1,690,020)  (2,311,360)  (3,100,000)
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California......................................      (8,953)     (11,338)     (15,506)     (20,797)    (179,052)    (226,760)    (310,129)    (415,945)
New York........................................      (5,580)      (7,067)      (9,666)     (12,964)    (111,609)    (141,346)    (193,313)    (259,271)
Texas...........................................      (4,639)      (5,875)      (8,035)     (10,777)     (92,782)    (117,503)    (160,704)    (215.536)
Illinois........................................      (3,274)      (4,147)      (5,672)      (7,607)     (65,490)     (82,939)    (113,432)    (152,135)
Florida.........................................      (2,991)      (3,788)      (5,181)      (6,949)     (59,826)     (75,766)    (103,621)    (138,977)
Pennsylvania....................................      (2,984)      (3,779)      (5,169)      (6,932)     (59,685)     (75,587)    (103,377)    (138,650)
Ohio............................................      (2,674)      (3,387)      (4,632)      (6,213)     (53,490)     (67,742)     (92,647)    (124,258)
New Jersey......................................      (2,495)      (3,160)      (4,322)      (5,797)     (49,905)     (63,202)     (86,438)    (115,931)
Michigan........................................      (2,221)      (2,813)      (3,847)      (5,160)     (44,423)     (56,260)     (76,944)    (103,197)
Massachusetts...................................      (1,830)      (2,318)      (3,170)      (4,251)     (36,602)     (46,354)     (63,396)     (85,027)
North Carolina..................................      (1,730)      (2,190)      (2,996)      (4,018)     (34,592)     (43,809)     (59,916)     (80,359)
Virginia........................................      (1,702)      (2,156)      (2,948)      (3,954)     (34,046)     (43,117)     (58,969)     (79,089)
Georgia.........................................      (1,684)      (2,133)      (2,917)      (3,912)     (33,683)     (42,658)     (58,341)     (78,247)
Washington......................................      (1,395)      (1,767)      (2,417)      (3,241)     (27,904)     (35,339)     (48,331)     (64,822)
Indiana.........................................      (1,339)      (1,696)      (2,319)      (3,111)     (26,782)     (33,917)     (46,387)     (62,214)
Maryland........................................      (1,312)      (1,661)      (2,272)      (3,047)     (26,234)     (33,223)     (45,438)     (60,941)
Missouri........................................      (1,245)      (1,577)      (2,157)      (2,893)     (24,906)     (31,542)     (43,139)     (57,858)
Minnesota.......................................      (1,211)      (1,534)      (2,098)      (2,814)     (24,223)     (30,677)     (41,956)     (56,271)
Wisconsin.......................................      (1,204)      (1,525)      (2,086)      (2,798)     (24,089)     (30,508)     (41,724)     (55,960)
Tennessee.......................................      (1,182)      (1,497)      (2,047)      (2,746)     (23,638)     (29,936)     (40,942)     (54,911)
Connecticut.....................................      (1,130)      (1,431)      (1,957)      (2,625)     (22,601)     (28,623)     (39,147)     (52,504)
Louisiana.......................................      (1,118)      (1,416)      (1,937)      (2,598)     (22,365)     (28,324)     (38,738)     (51,955)
Colorado........................................        (902)      (1,142)      (1,562)      (2,095)     (18,037)     (22,843)     (31,242)     (41,901)
Alabama.........................................        (867)      (1,098)      (1,502)      (2,014)     (17,342)     (21,963)     (30,037)     (40,286)
Kentucky........................................        (819)      (1,037)      (1,418)      (1,902)     (16,377)     (20,740)     (28,365)     (38,044)
Arizona.........................................        (818)      (1,036)      (1,417)      (1,900)     (16,360)     (20,719)     (28,336)     (38,004)
South Carolina..................................        (779)        (986)      (1,349)      (1,809)     (15,572)     (19,721)     (26,972)     (36,175)
Oregon..........................................        (689)        (873)      (1,194)      (1,601)     (13,788)     (17,462)     (23,881)     (32,030)
Oklahoma........................................        (679)        (860)      (1,176)      (1,577)     (13,580)     (17,199)     (23,522)     (31,548)
Iowa............................................        (657)        (832)      (1,138)      (1,526)     (13,139)     (16,640)     (22,758)     (30,522)
Kansas..........................................        (625)        (791)      (1,082)      (1,451)     (12,494)     (15,823)     (21,640)     (29,024)
Mississippi.....................................        (486)        (616)        (842)      (1,130)      (9,727)     (12,319)     (16,848)     (22,596)
Arkansas........................................        (476)        (602)        (824)      (1,105)      (9,511)     (12,045)     (16,474)     (22,095)
Nebraska........................................        (414)        (524)        (716)        (961)      (8,273)     (10,477)     (14,329)     (19,219)
Nevada..........................................        (391)        (495)        (677)        (908)      (7,814)      (9,896)     (13,534)     (18,152)
Utah............................................        (388)        (491)        (672)        (901)      (7,757)      (9,823)     (13,435)     (18,019)
Hawaii..........................................        (361)        (457)        (626)        (839)      (7,223)      (9,147)     (12,510)     (16,779)
New Mexico......................................        (355)        (449)        (614)        (824)      (7,093)      (8,983)     (12,286)     (16,478)
West Virginia...................................        (340)        (431)        (589)        (790)      (6,804)      (8,616)     (11,784)     (15,805)
Alaska..........................................        (307)        (389)        (532)        (714)      (6,146)      (7,784)     (10,646)     (14,279)
New Hampshire...................................        (286)        (362)        (496)        (665)      (5,723)      (7,247)      (9,912)     (13,294)
Maine...........................................        (272)        (345)        (472)        (633)      (5,450)      (6,902)      (9,439)     (12,660)
Delaware........................................        (249)        (316)        (432)        (579)      (4,989)      (6,318)      (8,640)     (11,589)
Rhode Island....................................        (242)        (307)        (419)        (563)      (4,844)      (6,135)      (8,390)     (11,253)
Idaho...........................................        (223)        (283)        (387)        (519)      (4,466)      (5,656)      (7,736)     (10,376)
Montana.........................................        (169)        (214)        (293)        (393)      (3,381)      (4,282)      (5,856)      (7,855)
South Dakota....................................        (161)        (204)        (278)        (373)      (3,215)      (4,072)      (5,569)      (7,469)
Wyoming.........................................        (152)        (192)        (263)        (352)      (3,032)      (3,840)      (5,252)      (7,044)
North Dakota....................................        (141)        (179)        (245)        (328)      (2,824)      (3,577)      (4,892)      (6,561)
Vermont.........................................        (131)        (166)        (227)        (305)      (2,626)      (3,325)      (4,548)      (6,100)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No reliable data exist for foreign imports by U.S. States. Allocating imports by Gross State Product (1991) shares is one method of driving a very rough
  set of estimates. MBG Information Services and U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureaus of the Census & BEA.                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
Source: MBG Information Services.                                                                                                                       

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we print in 
the Record, the Business Week 21st Century, this weekly edition of 
Business Week entitled ``High-Tech Jobs All Over the Map.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         The Skills Explosion--High-Tech Jobs All Over The Map

       As training and experience in less developed countries 
     rapidly improve, the West's workers may be left behind.
       If any megatrend kindles hopes of producing megajobs for 
     skilled Americans, it is the coming of age of the Information 
     Revolution. U.S. companies are already setting industry 
     standards and pioneering virtually all of the key 
     technologies. Plus, America possesses the wealth of creative 
     talents needed to lead the coming wave of newfangled 
     software, multimedia gadgetry, and ingenious programming. 
     There will be jobs enough, it would seems for anyone with a 
     decent education.
       But trek out to the laboratory of Kenneth Chou in a new 
     business park on the outskirts of Beijing, and you begin to 
     wonder. There 30 artists, software engineers, and computer 
     programmers at Chou's Bilingual Educational Computing Inc. 
     are busily designing interactive CD-ROM programs, complete 
     with voice and animation, for teaching English. Since 1991, 
     Bilingual has sold 50,000 sets of its First Aid English 
     multimedia lessons, now $55 apiece, to institutes from Japan 
     to Germany.
       In fact, practically anywhere you go in Asia these days, 
     local workers can be found doing the same highly skilled 
     tasks you would expect to find in Palo Alto, Boston, or 
     Tokyo. At a Silicon Graphics Inc. joint venture in Bangalore, 
     India, software designers earning $300 a month are developing 
     programs to produce three-dimensional images for diagnosing 
     brain disorders. In a sleek industrial park in Singapore, 
     engineers design future generations of personal digital 
     assistants for Hewlett-Packard Co. In Taiwan, Hong Kong, and 
     South China, research and development teams are at work on 
     multimedia gizmos ranging from digital answering machines to 
     interactive computers for children.
       New World Order. The message is that anybody who still 
     thinks the only competitive edge of developing countries is 
     cheap, unskilled labor has a lot of catching up to do. One of 
     the less-heralded developments in the emergence of a global 
     economy is that there is an increasingly better balance of 
     skills in the world. The worldwide shift to market economies, 
     steady improvements in education, and decades of overseas 
     training by multinationals are all producing a global 
     workforce in fields ranging from product development to 
     finance and architecture that is capable of performing tasks 
     once reserved for white-collar workers in the West.
       What's more, dizzying advances in telecommunications are 
     making these workers more accessible than ever. As a result, 
     just as Westerners learned in the 1970s and 1980s that 
     manufacturing could be moved virtually anywhere, today it is 
     getting easier to shift knowledge-based labor as well.
       Conventional notions of comparative advantage are getting 
     blurred in the process. In electronics, cities such as 
     Taipei, Edinburgh, Singapore, and Penang (Malaysia), which 
     are far away from the end-user and technological 
     breakthroughs, already have emerged as global product-
     development hubs.
       Service providers, too, can now spread across the globe. 
     Citibank taps local skills in India, Hong Kong, Australia, 
     and Singapore to manage data and develop products for its 
     global financial services. Houston-based M. W. Kellogg Co. 
     farms out detailed architectural-engineering work for power 
     and chemical plants it builds around the world to a partner 
     in Mexico. And everyone from law firms to U.S. nonprofit 
     groups cuts costs in managing and analyzing documents by 
     hiring ``outsourcers'' such as International Data Solutions 
     Inc. in Herndon, Va., which employs thousands of workers in 
     the Philippines.
       What makes Third World brainpower so attractive is price 
     (charts). a good computer circuit-board designer in 
     California, for example, can pull down $60,000 to $100,000 a 
     year. Taiwan is glutted with equally qualified engineers 
     earning around $25,000. In India or China, you can get top-
     level talent, probably with a PhD, for less than $10,000.
       Tedious tasks. Where the big savings can come is in the 
     ``back end'' of product development--the painstaking work of 
     turning a conceptual design into blueprints, computer code, 
     or working models and in testing the final product. Take 
     Bilingual's cd-roms. With wages ranging from $75 a month for 
     a Chinese keypunch operator to $400 for a good artist, 
     Bilingual can produce a cd-roms product for anywhere from a 
     quarter to one-tenth of the cost in the U.S. In a business as 
     tough as cd-roms, where the few titles that succeed can have 
     a shelf life of less than a year, keeping costs under control 
     is critical.
       It doesn't matter that few of the staff speak English. 
     Bilingual writes the scripts, the most creative part, in 
     Taiwan. The rest of the work, from, animation to voice-over 
     recording, is done on the mainland. ``When you get down to 
     it,'' says Chou, ``about 80% of the labor in producing 
     software is very tedious.''
       Since marketing and creativity will always be in hot 
     demand, graduates of Stanford University business school or 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology probably needn't worry. 
     Trouble is, the back end happens to be where millions of 
     Americans are employed. And they're well-paying jobs: 
     software designers, bookkeepers, mechanical engineers, 
     draftsmen, libraries. Most require a bachelor's degree or at 
     least a few years in a polytechnic institute. Yet in theory, 
     at least, none of these jobs can be regarded as secure from 
     foreign competition. ``Just as with the move of manufacturing 
     overseas, you're going to see a increasing flux of technical 
     jobs out of the U.S.,'' predicts Intel Corp. Chief Operating 
     Officer Craig R. Barrett. ``We don't have any protected 
     domains anymore.''
       New view. Policymakers have only begun to ponder what all 
     this means for American, European, and even Japanese white-
     collar workers. Until recently, it seemed the impact would be 
     minimal. Groups such as the National Science Foundation have 
     been warning that as the Digital Age makes industries 
     technology-intensive, there will be an acute shortage of 
     technicians in the West. Skilled workers displaced by 
     outsourcing would simply move on to higher value-added 
     sectors.
       But this view is being challenged. In a jarring keynote 
     speech to the annual convention of the Institute of 
     Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in September, Edith 
     Holleman, counsel to the House Science, Space & Technology 
     Committee, warned that exciting new high-tech jobs ``are 
     not reserved for you in the First World.'' What's more, 
     she said, high-tech breakthroughs in the U.S. ``cannot be 
     counted on to spin off into domestic manufacturing 
     facilities providing employment for many engineers and 
     skilled workers.''
       Consider what already has happened to the PC motherboard, 
     the circuit card loaded with chips that runs every computer. 
     Five years ago, most motherboards--regarded as the guts of a 
     PC--were produced in-house by U.S. computer makers. Today, 
     some 60% are subcontracted to Taiwanese companies and their 
     army of 150,000 information-technology engineers. And now, 
     the Taiwanese are becoming a major force in customized 
     computer-chip design and local-area networks. Little wonder, 
     it would seem, that unemployment among U.S. electrical 
     engineers hit a record 5.9% this summer, according to the 
     IEEE, and the situation is expected to get worse.
       Still, a host of factors suggests that the outflow of 
     skilled work to cheap Third World havens is only a temporary 
     phenomenon. For one, the wage gap is bound to close 
     eventually, as technicians and engineers in the developing 
     world command more. Also, the Information Superhighway is a 
     two-way street, allowing U.S. and European engineers to 
     compete for work in Asia as well as the reverse. Moreover, 
     experts fear that education systems in Thailand, Malaysia, 
     Indonesia, and Mexico, among others, are not producing enough 
     skilled workers for those nations to guarantee advancement up 
     the industrial ladder.
       ROBO-TECH. What's more, as factories in the Third World 
     turn to state-of-the-art automation to stay competitive with 
     domestic rivals and meet international quality standards, 
     that automation could threaten Third World job growth. 
     Meanwhile, technological leaps in areas such as text and 
     voice recognition and computer-aided design software that 
     reduce the time-consuming code-writing process will wipe out 
     jobs in service industries.
       But for now, the ground is shaking under skilled workers as 
     Western companies take advantage of big wage disparities. 
     Anyone who has witnessed the exceptional performances of 
     Chinese, Indian, and Vietnamese emigres in U.S. schools and 
     labs knows that developing countries are loaded with talent. 
     The rapid growth of Asia's economies means they can now apply 
     their skills at home.
       A wild card in the global skills game is 
     telecommunications. Consider Hong Kong's Johnson Electric 
     Holdings Ltd., a $195 million producer of micromotors that 
     power hair dryers, blenders, and auto features such as door 
     locks, windshield wipers, and automatic windows. With 
     factories in South China and an R&D base in a Hong Kong 
     industrial park, Johnston is thousands of miles away from a 
     leading auto maker.
       This hasn't stopped the company from virtually cornering 
     the market for the electric gizmos it makes for Detroit's Big 
     Three. ``My customer is right here,'' says Managing Director 
     Patrick Wang Shui Chung, pointing to a videoconferencing unit 
     in the midst of hundreds of engineers. For two hours each 
     morning, design teams ``meet'' face-to-face with their 
     customers in the U.S. and Europe. Concepts are transmitted 
     from R&D centers in North America and Europe to Hong Kong, 
     where 200 engineers on a network of workstations develop the 
     motors using CAD/CAM software.
       Their specifications are programmed directly into Hong Kong 
     production lines. The process is so streamlined that Johnson 
     can take a concept and deliver a prototype to the U.S. in six 
     weeks. To cut that time even further, the company is 
     investing in more advanced telecommunications to link its 
     9,000-worker operations in China. ``Today, your location 
     doesn't matter,'' says Wang. ``It's turnaround time. I want 
     to be the fastest gun in the world.''
       Knowhow. The pioneers in bringing foreign technicians into 
     the global workforce are multinationals such as Motorola, 
     Hewlett-Packard, and Philips Electronics. Originally, they 
     set up plants in Asia chiefly for cheap labor. But many of 
     these assembly shops have gathered so much knowhow that they 
     now do critical design-and-engineering tasks.
       A good example is Motorola Inc. Its paging-device plant in 
     Singapore boasts 75 local engineers and a new $35 million 
     building dubbed the Motorola Innovation Center. There, the 
     Scriptor pager was developed almost entirely by Singaporean 
     industrial designers using Singaporean software.
       Hewlett-Packard has gone even further. It encourages each 
     of its manufacturing sites around the world to become the 
     global base for its product. Penang, Malaysia, has become a 
     global center for many components used in HP's microwave 
     products and is taking over responsibility for computer hard-
     disk drives from Palo Alto. And in Singapore, a plant HP 
     opened in 1970 to assemble keyboards is now the global R&D 
     and production center for its line of portable ink-jet 
     printers. It is also the base for all handheld devices, such 
     as persona digital assistants and calculators.
       Intensive training by multinationals is another reason that 
     skills are rising rapidly. A key training locale is the 
     Penang Skills Development Center, a 360-student 
     polytechnic institute funded by 57 foreign companies and 
     the government for local high school and university 
     graduates. Intel donated a $140,000 microprocessor lab. A 
     20,000-square-foot ``team building park'' for leadership 
     training and a clean room for vacuum technology came 
     courtesy of Seagate Technology Inc., which has a big hard-
     disk plant nearby, Motorola Inc. kicked in $320,000 for PC 
     software training and a bachelor-of-science program.
       India, China, and Russia are closely watching the successes 
     of Malaysia and Singapore. The potential of all three is 
     staggering given the heavy emphasis their schools place on 
     math and basic science. In these countries, notes Intel's 
     Barrett: ``I see a ton of people who are as technically well-
     educated as people in the U.S.''
       India has the second-largest pool of English-speaking 
     scientific talent in the world, after the U.S. This includes 
     100,000 software engineers and technicians and hundreds of 
     companies, many locally owned, that supply software to 
     Western customers. The number of engineers could double by 
     the end of the decade. And a monthly salary of $800 for an 
     engineer with five years' experience is enough to place a 
     worker squarely in India's upper-middle class.
       Central Europe also is peppered with brilliant scientists 
     rapidly being discovered and unleashed. The most promising 
     spots as production bases by 2020, according to a study of 
     404 European locations last year by Cologne-based market 
     researcher Empirica, are Bratislava (in Slovakia), Western 
     Bohemia (in the Czech Republic), Gyor-Sopron (Hungary), and 
     Poznan (Poland).
       Germany's Robert Bosch has been making engine parts in the 
     Czech Republic since last year. ``Czech engineers have the 
     technical competence we require,'' says Heinz G. Grewe, 
     Bosch's head of management systems for gasoline engines. 
     Despite added startup and training costs, industry 
     analysts say, auto-parts makers can still save 30% by 
     outsourcing to Central Europe. Farther east, in Russia, 
     most multinationals have been slow to exploit the huge 
     pool of technologists who worked in the former Soviet 
     Union's defense industries. But pioneers such as Sun 
     Microsystems Inc. and ABB Asea Brown Boveri (Holdings) 
     Ltd., which already employ thousands of Russians, are 
     bullish, particularly about the hard-driving younger 
     generation that is eager to get rich (page 128).
       Well-stocked waters. The deepest pool of untapped skills is 
     in China. Dataquest Inc., the research firm, estimates that 
     there are at least 350,000 information-technology engineers 
     in Chinese research institutes, state companies, and 
     universities. The average salary: about $105 a month. And 
     with the Chinese government placing electronics, 
     telecommunications, and software industries high on its list 
     of priorities, colleges across the country are preparing to 
     train hundreds of thousands more (page 126).
       Multinationals are fishing in these well-stocked waters. 
     Northern Telecom Ltd. just opened a lab at the 10,500-student 
     Beijing University of Posts & Telecommunications that will 
     soon employ 250 engineers. NT will work with faculty and 
     students on cellular phones, multimedia-transmission devices, 
     and software. In the northern city of Tianjin, Motorola will 
     have 3,000 workers making semiconductors and telecom 
     equipment by yearend. Meanwhile, AT&T, which is just getting 
     started in China, plans to link up the telecom plants it has 
     scattered across the country.
       For now, these facilities will focus on the enormous 
     telecom needs of China. But it's only a matter of time before 
     Chinese engineers start playing key R&D roles in products 
     sold globally. ``All of our joint ventures can be technical 
     centers in their businesses,'' says AT&T China Inc. Human 
     Resources Director Albert Siu. ``I've never found people more 
     open to learning. They soak up everything.''
       Many of the lessons companies are learning in high tech can 
     also be applied to the West's other big job generator; 
     services. There, the potential of offshore skilled labor is 
     just beginning to be tapped. For more than a decade, 
     companies such as American Airlines Inc. and Citicorp have 
     been loading tons of ticket stubs, credit-card receipts, and 
     insurance forms onto planes headed for places such as the 
     Dominican Republic or the Philippines, home of low-paid 
     keypunch operators.
       Many experts think high-end services can also be farmed out 
     to overseas workers. Why not let specially trained Filipino 
     accountants do much of the grunt work in preparing tax 
     returns for multinationals? Or how about outsourcing the 
     legal research for expensive product-liability cases? Using 
     CD-ROM libraries, paralegals in India could churn out the 
     mountain of writs and affidavits for such cases at a deep 
     discount. Anupam P. Puri, managing director of McKinsey & 
     Co.'s Bombay office, says such task transfers are long 
     overdue. ``Most of our multinational clients are still very 
     behind in seeing how they can redistribute service work 
     around the world,'' he says.
       Regulatory hurdles remain, of course. But the technological 
     barriers are falling fast. International Data Solutions, for 
     example, scans case and client files for U.S. law firms and 
     transmits them in digital form via satellite to the 
     Philippines. There, workers organize and index the documents 
     so they can be readily retrieved by a computer network in the 
     U.S. International Data employs two full-timers in Virginia--
     and up to 3,000 Filipinas. ``With the Information 
     Superhighway revolution, this trend is accelerating 
     dramatically,'' says International Data President Kenneth R. 
     Short. ``It really doesn't matter where the work is done as 
     long as quality, price, and service are right.''
       Broader View. In the construction industry, Houston's M. R. 
     Kellogg has teamed up with Mexico's Bufete Industrial on 
     contracts to build petrochemical-refining systems worldwide. 
     After developing conceptual drawings on a computer, Kellogg 
     transmits them to Bufete, of which Kellogg owns 21 percent. 
     The Mexicans turn the drawings into detailed blueprints. The 
     arrangement, says Kellogg Manager Robert Salazar, ``makes us 
     competitive all over the world.''
       While this flexibility sounds great for corporations, it 
     could be traumatic for professionals who are not well-
     equipped for a global economy. As gaps between experience 
     levels and wages narrow around the world, skilled workers 
     will compete on a more equal footing. To profit from the 
     emerging trends, workers will require broader training than 
     is now provided by most education systems--in both the East 
     and the West.
       Rather than focus on one discipline, for example, 
     professional workers will need to understand the economics 
     and technologies that are revolutionizing their industries. 
     In the banking world, ``the pure technologist is already 
     dead,'' says George P. DiNardo, Singapore-based chief 
     technology officer for Citibank's Asian consumer business. 
     ``And so is the pure businessperson.''
       In electronics and telecommunications, engineers discarded 
     by Corporate America are taking advantage of cheaper access 
     to data and video networks by forming their own design houses 
     for Asian manufacturers. In many other fields, professionals 
     may have to similarly redefine their jobs in order to prosper 
     from the globalization of work rather than be at its mercy.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the message is that anybody who still 
thinks the only competitive edge of the developing countries is cheap 
unskilled labor has a lot of catching up to do.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon referred to Intel. Well, here 
is what is happening at Intel. ``Just as with the move of manufacturing 
overseas, you are going to see an increasing flux of technical jobs 
outside of the United States,'' predicts Intel Corporation chief 
operating officer, Craig R. Bennett, in Business Week.
  ``We don't have any protected domains anymore.''
  Then it goes on to say,

       ``Consider what already has happened to the PC mother 
     board, the circuit card loaded with chips and runs of 
     computer. Five years ago most mother boards, regarded as the 
     guts of a PC, were produced in-house by the U.S. computer 
     makers. Today, some 60 percent are subcontracted to Taiwanese 
     companies and their army of 150,000 information technology 
     engineers.

  On and on, Mr. President. Dispelling that myth, I read from the 
Business Week of December 17, 1990. Here it is. I quote:

       From all the fuss about the United States becoming more 
     export oriented, hardly any additional industries have joined 
     the exporting sector in the past 10 years.

  Do not keep coming up here talking export jobs.

       Moreover, success overseas is not translating into job 
     creation at home.

  I quote then not reading the entire article, but quoting word for 
word:

       These trends show no sign of abating. Using government 
     employment forecasts Business Week is projecting an increase 
     of 9.6 percent in the size of the exporting sector over the 
     next 10 years, far less than the projected national 
     employment growth of 14.6 percent. True, the exporting sector 
     could expand faster if import competing industries such as 
     machine tools, some domestic industries' machine tools and 
     our tools regain market share in the United States or if some 
     domestic industries learn how to be big exporters. Barring 
     these competitive gains, the proportion of Americans 
     producing for world markets will just continue to shrink in 
     the 1990's.

  Mr. President, why can't we understand what is going on? We are in a 
decline.
  Mr. President, Vermont is due to lose 6,100 jobs this year under 
GATT. The total loss from the trade deficit is 3,100,000 jobs.
  With respect to being in decline, we have none other than Lee Kuan 
Yew, and I quote:

       America is not the surplus country. It is Japan and 
     Germany. It is New York with the expertise but Tokyo and Bonn 
     with the actual cash.

  ``The greatest problem for Americans,'' he said, ``was coming to 
terms emotionally with this shift, accepting in our guts that there is 
a permanent change in competitive position.''
  Mr. President, read this language and listen to it very, very 
clearly. Talking about GATT agreements, ``These agreements, saying it 
word for word, offer new opportunities for all Americans. For American 
farmers the agreements expand world markets for American farm products. 
For American workers the agreements offer more jobs, higher income and 
more effective responses to unfair competition.
  That was none other than Robert Strauss in 1979, the Tokyo round 
under which we are in. What did his Texas colleague and our good friend 
and former chairman of the Finance Committee say in 1987 with respect 
to that particular Tokyo round in 1987? I am reading word-for-word, 
because we never seem to learn. We listen to the same babble, 
technobabble and statistical babble, but we do not look at the reality. 
Here is what Senator Bentsen in the Finance Committee itself reported:

       The Committee is concerned that the Tokyo round trade 
     negotiations and the legislative branch and executive branch 
     actions to implement the Tokyo round trade agreements, have 
     not had the effect of improving the American standard of 
     living as intended. Perhaps worst of all--

  Listing many things.

     the composition of the merchandise trade deficit has changed 
     from mainly an oil deficit--

  Talking about oil jobs, which was bad enough.

     to mainly a manufacturing and agricultural deficit, which 
     strikes at the heart of U.S. export strength.
       Agricultural exports alone have fallen from about $40 
     billion in 1980 to about $25 billion in 1987. And if 
     petroleum prices in 1986 had been the same as in 1980, then 
     the 1986 trade deficit could well have been over $200 
     billion. The mainstays of American trade competitiveness are 
     in trouble.

  This is the now Secretary of Treasury.

       By last year, West Germany surpassed the United States as 
     the world's leading exporter and Japan had 10 percent of the 
     world's exports in 1986, compared so 10.3 percent for the 
     United States, who may well move into second place in 1987. 
     The size and composition of the trade deficit have caused 
     retching adjustments on the American farm and American 
     industry and among American workers. For example, the 
     widening trade deficit reduced real potential GNP by nearly 
     20 percent in 1983 and 1984, according to the International 
     Trade Commission. The National Association of Manufacturers 
     found that 2 million fewer jobs were created as a result of 
     the growth of the trade deficit in this period. The deficit 
     deterioration of American high-wage industrial employment 
     concentrated employment growth this decade in the lower-wage 
     service sector.

  Mr. President, how can you do it any better than that? What happens 
is, as we put in the Record on yesterday from Lars Erik Nelson--and I 
have the entire article. I will read a paragraph:

       The economists keep foisting their theory on the Clinton 
     administration. No proposition enjoys greater unanimity among 
     economists than the idea that free trade will, on net, be a 
     win-win situation, says Bob Shapiro, a nondogmatic economist 
     at the Progressive Policy Institute. This is why, Shapiro 
     says, economists close their eyes to the social cost of free 
     trade. They don't know how to deal with the problem, but they 
     can't give up the economics of free trade. The fact is there 
     are significant social costs.

  That is what the election in November was all about. Here we have 40 
million living in poverty. Their take-home pay is 20 percent less; they 
are working longer hours and being paid less. We have gone from the 
biggest creditor Nation to the biggest debtor Nation. Our 
manufacturing, since 1985, has gone from 26 percent of the work force 
down to 16 percent. And the inner cities are in turmoil with crime and 
drugs and deprivation. Yet, they are telling us we are on ``a rising 
tide,'' as they said in the Washington Post. There is no rising tide. 
We are going out of business, and the social costs are there. Here the 
group that came to town for the middle class, Mr. President, is 
decimating the middle class.
  I heard the Senator from Texas earlier today say if he had a 
Republican President, he would vote for this. Well, on this particular 
trade policy, he has a Republican President, I can tell you this now, 
because we are not protecting the middle class, the jobs, and we are 
not striking out against the social instability caused by the 
unemployment, not striking out against the deficits caused by 
unemployment compensation, increased health and welfare costs, 
increased crime costs, and the like. We are not doing it. We are 
exacerbating it here with this debate this afternoon and with this 
vote.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeConcini). Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On whose time does the Senator seek 
recognition?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I believe the distinguished Senator from 
South Carolina has assured me that I might have 14 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South Carolina yield 14 
minutes?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the time remaining to the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, GATT is a budget buster, any way you want to 
slice it. By itself, GATT would increase the deficit by more than $25 
billion over the next 10 years. To partially offset this deficit 
increase, the pending bill includes a number of so-called ``revenue 
raisers,'' several of which I find very questionable.
  Among those provisions is one which would repeal the 4-percent 
statutory minimum interest rate on U.S. savings bonds. Under current 
rules, a person can lose, at most, one month of interest. Under the 
repeal contained in this bill, a purchaser of U.S. savings bonds can 
lose up to 6 months worth of interest.
  In other words, to help pay for this trade deal, we have gone so far 
as to undermine the U.S. savings bond. That same bond that we have for 
generations given to our grandchildren and to our sons and daughters 
will no longer be quite the dependable, sound investment it has been 
for decades--so that we can pay for GATT.
  While this GATT Uruguay round agreement may arguably be good for U.S. 
businesses, U.S. workers are placed at a competitive disadvantage under 
this agreement.
  For businesses in developing countries, and motivated by a 
``greatest-profits-at-lowest-cost'' mentality, a return to the world of 
Dickensonian sweatshops populated by underpaid, overworked, uneducated, 
and uncomplaining children will be irresistible.
  For example, the export of U.S. jobs overseas has hit my own State of 
West Virginia hard over the years, as U.S. trade liberalization has 
made it more advantageous for firms to move manufacturing and assembly 
jobs overseas while still retaining easy access to the U.S. 
marketplace. While part of this decline is due to improvements in 
mechanization that require fewer workers to produce the same level of 
output, jobs in the coal mining industry in West Virginia have declined 
28 percent just since 1988.
  The once-thriving glassware and pottery industries in West Virginia 
have fallen victim to overseas competition as well. Jobs in the stone, 
clay, and glass products industries have declined 68 percent since 
1960, dropping from 22,400 jobs to just 7,100 jobs in 1993, according 
to the Department of Labor. Tariff reductions will not help those 
companies.
  I am not generally opposed to trade agreements if those agreements 
are good for the United States and its workforce. But let me make clear 
that this country and the U.S. workforce in West Virginia and 
throughout the Nation are this Senator's paramount concerns.
  There is a lot of leeway granted in this agreement to developing 
countries. The aid is to help improve the economies and the standards 
of living in other nations.
  Free trade is fine, but fair trade should be our goal. Yes, our 
workers are among the most productive in the world, but how can they 
hope to continue to compete with workers who are willing to toil for 50 
cents an hour or 25 cents an hour?
  I cannot support the new, slick trend toward one-worldism which seems 
to be emerging with this agreement. It is almost as if some people in 
this country feel that the United States should sacrifice so that other 
nations can grow--that Uncle Sam ought to blush if the United States 
prospers much more than other nations.
  To that point of view I say, beware of the ``idiot who praises with 
enthusiastic tone, all centuries but this and every country but his 
own.''
  Support for this agreement flies in the face of the results of the 
recent election. Look at these poll figures. This poll was taken by the 
Yankelovich Partners survey, November 23 through November 27, 1994.
  Do you favor or oppose passing GATT?
  Fifty-one percent oppose; 33 percent favor; 16 percent not sure.
  What about the budget wavier on GATT? Is it inappropriate or 
appropriate?
  Sixty-seven percent inappropriate; twenty percent appropriate; 
thirteen percent not sure.
  What about deferring GATT over to the 104th Congress?
  Sixty-three percent say defer it to a new Congress; 29 percent say 
let the old Congress do it; 8 percent not sure.
  Then, what about the WTO and U.S. law? Do you think the World Trade 
Organization should be able to override the laws of member nations?
  Seventy-two percent say ``no''; 17 percent say ``yes''; and 11 
percent say ``not sure.''
  So, Mr. President, the people's view is clear. Only in this 
convoluted Capitol City could doing what the people want ever be 
perceived as bad for the President.
  Some Senators have said to me that putting GATT over into the next 
Congress would damage the President if this waiver is rejected. Not 
according to these polls. Not according to these polls. In my view, 
rejecting this agreement as it presently stands would be doing a 
service to the President because it would give him time to go back to 
the table and get a better agreement--one that the people can support, 
as reflected in the poll. Those who support this Agreement now may say 
that they like what they are getting, but they may, in the final 
analysis, not get what they like.
  It is a fig leaf that has been concocted by our distinguished 
Republican leader and the administration. First, the Review Commission 
cannot even review the record of the GATT panels, since the proceedings 
will be secret.
  Mr. President, Members of the Senate who read the Scriptures, and I 
take it that Members do read the Scriptures, will remember Ezekiel and 
the valley of the dry bones. Senators have probably heard sermons on 
that scripture. The spirit of the Lord sat Ezekiel down in the valley 
of the dry bones. The Lord told Ezekiel to speak prophecies unto the 
dry bones and God would put sinews and flesh and skin on them; bones 
would be joined together, the four winds would breathe breath into 
these bones and they would come to life.
  Mr. President, the Lord God kept his promise to Ezekiel. Flesh and 
sinews came upon the bones, and they lived, and stood upon their feet. 
Those old dry bones became an exceeding great army.
  Mr. President, there will be no life breathed into this dry bone that 
has been worked out between the minority leader and the Administration. 
This fix will not work. This miracle will not work. This dry bone is a 
dry bone is a dry bone is a dry bone. And no amount of hocus pocus is 
going to change it.
  Here is the dry bone. Here it is in my hand. Here is the dry bone put 
out by the Bureau of National Affairs containing an explanation of the 
agreement between the Clinton Administration and Mr. Dole.
  Well, this dry bone will only serve as a rhetorical cover for 
Senators to vote for something that is seriously flawed.
  This is an agreement in disguise. It is the Mrs. Doubtfire trade 
agreement. What you see is not necessarily anything like what you may 
get.
  Moreover, the WTO cannot be fixed by the Dole legislation. First, the 
Review Commission cannot even review the record of the panels, since 
the proceedings are secret.
  Second, the idea that we would withdraw from the WTO after three 
adverse decisions in a five-year period flies in the face of a history 
in which we have never withdrawn from any important international 
organization. It would take a resolution passed by both Houses, and 
most probably over a President's veto--a highly unlikely scenario.
  So this is a fig leaf only serving as rhetorical cover for Senators 
to vote for something that is seriously flawed and can be manipulated 
regularly against the best interests of our country and our people.
  This fix is in the time-honored tradition of such legendary promises 
as, ``The check is in the mail.'' It ranks right up there with, ``Yes, 
I will still love you tomorrow,'' and ``Don't call me, I'll call you.''
  Unless one's I.Q. is lower than the air temperature, it should be 
plain that none of these so-called promises can be counted on. Neither 
can the Senate count on this so-called fix.
  Hanging one's hat or one's vote on this so-called future fix may 
produce nothing but future shock. It is like trying to hang one's hat 
on a greasy flagpole. The hat will not stay and the people will not buy 
this fix as a cover for a bad vote.
  The President and others argue that to delay action until next year 
will kill the GATT.
  Here we see this headline on Business Week, ``Delay Will Mean the 
Death of GATT.'' Don't you believe it. Don't you believe it.
  That is a bogus scare tactic. The thing that might really kill GATT 
is scrutiny by 100 Senators and the discovery that it is a mega-turkey. 
The implementing legislation can be introduced again next year, and we 
have until next July to approve it. No other major nation's legislature 
has approved it--everyone is waiting to see what good old Uncle Sam 
will do. So there is no rush.
  We hear the siren song of doom from the rafters of the White House. 
The dead will live again and flourish. Jesus, according to the 
scriptures, brought Lazarus, the brother of Martha and Mary, back to 
life. Jesus brought back to life the son of the widow of Nain. He 
brought back to life the daughter of Jairus. And Elisha breathed new 
life into the child of the Shunammite woman. Let me assure Senators 
that miracles are not over. If this budget waiver is rejected today, 
this matter will only be put over until next year. It will be child's 
play for the spin doctors, for the trading giants to breathe life into 
the treaty. Just you wait and see what happens if we sustain the budget 
point of order. Then the spin doctors will go to work.
  All our major allies will be brought together, those who have all 
been sitting on their hands, like Japan and our European allies, 
waiting to see what we will do. You can bet that if this Agreement is 
so great for everyone, there will be a rush for airline tickets to get 
on planes bound for Geneva. The restaurateurs in Geneva will be putting 
in extra supplies of turkey for the occasion.
  I would also argue that delay is not always bad. It does wonderful 
things for a cheese and and old wines and old violins. Delay will not 
kill this treaty. Delay may well improve this Agreement. I have every 
confidence that our President and our trade negotiators who have 
listened to this debate could then negotiate a better agreement in the 
months ahead.
  The argument that delay until next year would kill the Uruguay 
Agreement is a G-string under the fig leaf of the so-called ``fix'' we 
have all heard about. It is the last argument. If all else fails, 
proponents can claim that a delay will kill this Agreement.
  For these extremely important budget, institutional, and political 
reasons, I believe that the legislation before us today should be 
deferred until the next Congress, at a time when Senators will have had 
the time to study the Agreement more closely, and when there is ample 
time for debate and deliberation. And the way to accomplish this is to 
vote against the waiver.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from South Carolina 
has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, how much time is left on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has 1 hour and 4 
minutes. The Senator from New York has 35 minutes.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I think it was Disraeli, but I would not 
bet the mortgage on that, who once said there are three kinds of lies. 
There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.
  We have heard the statement made over and over that for every $1 
billion of imports, 20,000 jobs are lost. That figure is premised on a 
study that said for every $1 billion of exports, 20,000 jobs are 
created. And those who choose to take that statistic and use it in 
their favor on imports has simply turned it on its head, as if 20,000 
jobs for $1 billion of exports means 20,000 jobs lost with $1 billion 
of oil imports.
  Let me give you just two examples, then I have other points to touch 
on, where this just is not true.
  I have talked several times about the import of oil in this country. 
We imported last year about $44 billion worth of oil. We import this 
oil because we do not have, or have not chosen to look for, in one way 
or another, to get oil out of the ground in this country. We need the 
oil.
  First, the drilling for and the extraction of oil is capital 
intensive, not labor intensive. I doubt that there are 20,000 jobs 
associated with $1 billion worth of oil exports or $1 billion worth of 
oil imports.
  But I want you to think what would happen in this country if we did 
not import $44 billion of oil. Do you think if we did not import it, we 
would create 880,000 jobs? That is 20,000 jobs for every $1 billion of 
imports.
  I will tell you what would happen if we did not import $44 billion of 
oil in this country. We would have an absolutely up- to-your neck 
depression in this country because this country runs on oil. We 
generate electricity with it; our industries run on it; we run our cars 
on it. And we do not have the capacity in this country to produce it 
immediately.
  I had indicated earlier we could produce it if we wanted to make it 
out of coal. We have a 400-year supply of coal, but it is expensive to 
make oil out of coal.
  I had the Library of Congress check for me--and I want to give them 
credit again, the Congressional Research Service, for the extraordinary 
research they do, because I only asked them yesterday.
  South Africa, of course, has produced oil out of coal for years. They 
had a trade embargo when the white-only government was in power and 
they could not import, so they had to produce it. And they have lots of 
natural resources. They produced oil out of coal and gasoline out of 
oil, but it was very expensive.
  The Library of Congress said, yes, we have enough coal to make oil 
out of it. If we did, the Library of Congress' estimate is--and they 
did not want me to hold them too closely to it--that the cost of 
gasoline, if we produced it from coal in this country, would be between 
$3 and $4 a gallon instead of what we pay for it now. And, of course, 
home heating oil would go up equivalently; the oil we use to generate 
electricity would go up equivalently. I have no idea what that would do 
to inflation. I have not asked the Library of Congress to check about 
the impact of an increase in inflation, which would in turn increase 
interest rates, home mortgage rates, and everything else. My hunch is 
that approach is not going to help this country.
  So let us put this bogeyman--that because we are importing $44 
billion worth of oil, we are losing 880,000 jobs--to rest.
  Now, let me move to a study my friend from South Carolina, Senator 
Hollings, has cited over and over and over again. This is a study by 
Charles McMillion. He is a business consultant who testified against 
the GATT before the Commerce Committee. Mr. McMillion took this 20,000 
figure and he calculated, therefore, what every State would lose in 
terms of jobs based upon $1 billion of imports in that State.
  States have customs districts which keep track of imports. Oregon 
imported about $1.6 billion in imports through the Portland customs 
district. Therefore, he multiplied 1.6 times 20,000 and said Oregon 
would lose 32,000 jobs. Mr. McMillion says Oregon will lose 32,000 jobs 
because of imports.
  Well, Portland is the fourth largest importer of cars in the United 
States. Different ports excel at different things. Portland excels at 
importing cars. As a matter of fact, we are also the largest exporter 
for Hondas in the United States. They are made in Marysville, OH, 
trucked to Portland, and off they go throughout the world.
  For the moment, just stick with the imports. Do you think that Oregon 
would have more jobs or fewer jobs in Oregon if we did not import cars? 
We do not make any cars in Oregon, but we do have longshoremen that 
unload cars and we have teamsters that drive the trucks upon which the 
cars are loaded. We have a rather thriving little industry in Portland 
on importing cars. We are not going to lose jobs because of these 
imports. We gain jobs.
  That is the trouble with statistics. So I want to put aside 
statistics and I want to talk about real world cases, if I might.
  Before I do, I want to emphasize the principal thing the United 
States asked out of this trading negotiation. I am going to quote a 
very short sentence from the Trade Act of 1988.

       The principal negotiating objective of the United States 
     with respect to dispute settlement is to provide for more 
     effective and expeditious regulation of the disputes and 
     enable better enforcement of United States rights.

  We bring far more cases in the GATT--we have not yet gotten to the 
World Trade Organization; it is not established yet--complaining about 
overseas trade practices than are brought against us. Say we get into a 
dispute with Germany and we ask a GATT panel to look into it. The GATT 
panel is a group that listens to the two sides and says who is right 
and who is wrong. Under the current GATT arrangement, even if we win, 
it is not enforceable unless the loser agrees.
  Well, the loser never liked us to begin with. That is why we are 
having this dispute panel settle things. So we insisted in the Uruguay 
round negotiations that these panel decisions involving trade disputes 
between countries have some modicum of enforcement.

  Under GATT, and I see no reason it is going to change under the World 
Trade Organization, we won 80 percent of all the cases in which we were 
a complainant. It is no wonder we want them enforceable. And it is 
understandable why we bring more cases. We are a more open country. We 
allow things easier into this country than other countries allow into 
their countries. And we are asking for a level playing field. We want 
in. We want as much access to their countries as they have to ours.
  The reason we brought all these cases in the past is that we have not 
had that access and this trade agreement that we are about to enact--
and I am confident we have the votes to enact it--is going to lower the 
barriers for our getting into these countries. The agreement makes 
these panel decisions enforceable unless all of the countries to the 
panel agree not to enforce it. It is just the opposite of what we had 
before.
  Before you had to have all of the countries that are a part of the 
panel dispute agree to enforce the panel decision. Under this new 
agreement, the panel decision is enforceable unless all of the 
countries disagree. The only reason that would happen is as follows: 
The United States has a case with Germany. We win. And then Germany 
says, ``OK, you win. Now we negotiate some kind of agreement. You have 
won. We concede that, but we really do not want to give up on what you 
have won but we will give you some other trading preference.'' And we 
negotiate and say OK. Then both parties would agree not to enforce the 
panel decision. And that is going to happen from time to time with both 
sides. So we have won in the GATT what we hoped we would win.
  I listened to Senator Byrd from West Virginia talk about industries 
in his State and what is happening. I want to take just a cross-section 
of industries in Oregon. Not necessarily unique, not just timber 
products--we are a big timber producer--but a cross-section, and give 
you an example of what industries big and small can do in foreign 
trade.
  Take Smith Frozen Foods, of Weston, OR. Weston is a town 225 miles 
east of Portland in the modestly populated wheat and cattle section of 
our State. Smith Frozen Foods almost went bankrupt 10 years ago. Then 
the young son of the founder took it over and built it up, now, to 800 
employees. It processes frozen peas, carrots, corn, and beans and what 
not. About 125 of the 800 employees are pretty much directly related to 
the sale of the products overseas.
  I might say, the founder's son is an extraordinary man. In fact this 
body would appreciate his success. He spent 10 years building up this 
business. Then, in 1992, he decided to go into politics and was elected 
to the Oregon State Senate in November of 1992 and took office in 
January of 1993. Perhaps in May or June of 1993 the Republican leader 
in the Oregon State Senate resigned, for whatever reason. And this 
young man, Gordon Smith, was selected as the leader in his first 4 
months in the legislature.
  The Republicans took control of the senate this year and he will be 
the senate president in his second session of the senate. This is an 
extraordinary talent at business and politics. That is Smith Frozen 
Foods.
  Another company is Met One of Grants Pass, OR. Grants Pass is a town 
of 15,000, 260 or 270 miles south of Portland and about 450 miles north 
of San Francisco. Again, here we have a very small town with a small 
airport and a trucking service on the interstate. It is not a major 
metropolitan area. Met One makes indoor pollution monitoring devices, 
especially lab equipment monitoring devices. It has 110 employees, 35 
of them related to sales overseas. This business is growing 
tremendously. As we are becoming more pollution conscious throughout 
the world, both indoors and outdoors, this company is doing very well.
   Medford Steel, of Medford, OR, is another company 300 miles south of 
Portland and about 400 miles north of San Francisco. It makes 
industrial parts for mining and manufacturing and has 135 employees, 40 
of them related to overseas trade.
  Sabroso, I have talked about so often on this floor, is also located 
in Medford, OR, has 160 employees, about half of them involved in 
foreign trade. This company takes fruit and makes a puree out of it. It 
is the largest supplier of the base for baby foods for the three 
principal baby foods in the United States: Beechnut, Heinz and 
Gerber's. I used posters yesterday showing labels from their cans: one 
in Arabic, one in Spanish. They sell all over the world. They look at 
this agreement as an absolute bonanza and an opportunity. Operating out 
of Medford, OR.
  Wing-Lynch makes photo-processing equipment. It is a small company, 
23 employees; 5 of them responsible for foreign trade.
  Enway is one of my favorites. Enway, a 20-employee firm, sells 
everything they make overseas. They make frozen processed potatoes and 
they have found some way--secret or not--of processing them and selling 
them overseas and doing it wonderfully and successfully.
  Then let me mention a couple of lumber companies. North Douglas Wood 
Products in Drain, OR, is 200 miles away from Portland; 65 of their 70 
employees were involved in overseas sales. Starfire Lumber in Cottage 
Grove has a similar experience.
  One of my favorites, though, is Vanport Lumber, because I remember a 
particular circumstance. You have to understand the humor in some of 
this, as to how old-line American industries look at things as opposed 
to newer industries. When I first came to the Senate, elected in 1968, 
one of the big debates we were having with the Japanese and with other 
countries was over what we called size standards. We wanted them to buy 
our two-by-fours. Of course, do not worry they are on the metric system 
and they do not measure the same way we do. Any other normal business 
says, ``What does my customer want? I will make it for my customer.'' 
The American wood products industry wanted Japan to change its 
measuring standards so that they could buy our standard two-by-fours.
  Japan is very conscious about high-quality wood with their post and 
beam interior construction and exposed wood. They do not want bad wood 
and they want it exactly measured. We must have gone through 10 years 
of this debate on size standards.
  Then along comes Adolf Hertrich. I think he was either Swiss or 
German by birth and spoke English with a Germanic accent. I do not 
think he had a background, really, in lumber. I do not know when he 
came to this country or how, but he forms this Vanport Lumber Co. and 
produces lumber using relatively outmoded equipment, as a matter of 
fact, then. He was convinced you could crack this Japanese market and 
he had enough money to last initially 2 or 3 years.
  He would go over there and explain this is what he could do and he 
would show the quality he could produce. Then ``no, they were not 
satisfied yet.'' Finally, in about 1981, he got the Japanese to agree 
they would send an inspector over and look at his plant. He would have 
to pay for it, have to put him up, have to feed him, but the inspector 
would come over and look at his plant and maybe they would buy some 
things if he could do what they wanted. He had a Japanese inspector 
over for a couple of years. Finally, by 1983 he convinced them he 
could, indeed, produce the wood they wanted. They did not have to have 
their inspectors there anymore. And hallelujah, it had taken him 5 
years to get to this place.
  I did not know him at this time. I discovered him in about 1984 when 
he calls me and he has a problem. Bear in mind he has 220 employees and 
is selling all of his product to Japan. He calls me because the 
Internal Revenue Service refused to let him deduct a Japanese tea house 
he had built on his property to show buyers when they came over. IRS 
said this is not an ordinary and necessary business expense. You do not 
need a tea house.
  He says all I do is sell to the Japanese. They use this wood for tea 
houses. I want to show them what we have.
  I went out there. Picture this. Here is Adolf Hertrich, speaking with 
his Germanic English. My chief of staff is an English woman who speaks 
like Eliza Doolittle at the end of ``My Fair Lady'' with very proper 
English. Then there was a Japanese buyer there speaking in sort of 
Japanese English. And me--whatever. We all sit down with our feet under 
the table in the Japanese tea house, and are served tea by a woman 
dressed in the Japanese outfit. After hearing English English from the 
administrative assistant and Japanese-English from the Japanese buyer 
and the German-English, finally the IRS gave up and let him construct 
the tea house. But we had to go through that. But here is an example of 
a guy who says, ``I know I can do it.''
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the Senator yield for a question on my time?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Yes, by all means.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. On what he has been saying about this combination in 
the State of Oregon, you are the largest importer of cars on the west 
coast.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. We are the fourth-largest importer of cars in the 
United States.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. And you export.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. We are the largest exporters----
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. It is a practice that has been in place, understand, as 
long as this Republic. I took the occasion of this debate to read the 
Report on Manufacturers, Communication to the House of Representatives, 
December 5, 1791 from Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury. He 
was saying we cannot, need not remain a simply pure agricultural 
nation. We can manufacture and we can trade. And he spoke the wonderful 
phrase--he had that wonderful language and he was a New Yorker at this 
point, as you know--he spoke of those who would sacrifice the interests 
of a mutually beneficial intercourse to the vain project of selling 
everything and buying nothing. Have we not heard some of that on this 
floor?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. As a matter of fact, that is some people's definition 
of a level playing field. They will buy from us, but we will buy 
nothing from them.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. We will sell to them and we will buy nothing from them.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Take another company, a big company, Tektronics. This 
is a company founded in the 1940's or 1950's by an Oregonian. The 
company invented a state-of-the-art oscilloscope that sold all over the 
world. This is the kind of business you cannot stay still in very long. 
They were up 25,000 employees one time at the top of the market maybe 
15 or 20 years ago. They went way down. Now they have branched into all 
other kinds of things. They have about 4,500 employees, which is big 
for Oregon. It would be big in New York. Two thousand of their 
employees are directly involved in sales overseas in high-tech computer 
products.
  Morale II is a research subsidiary of United Parcel Service. They 
came up with a device to keep track of where packages were in the 
delivery system. I visited them when they were experimenting with the 
device.
  But they thought to themselves, ``Wait a minute, wouldn't this be a 
wonderful thing for police departments,'' or ``Wouldn't this be a 
wonderful thing for any company that delivers to be able to, by 
satellite, communicate up and back and on your screen have an entire 
grid of a city you can push buttons and change the grid and exactly 
tell where your truck is in the city.''
  The police thought it was a wonderful idea. They can tell exactly 
where the police car is. Without even having to call them, you know 
where it is.
  This company has been very successful in moving beyond just products 
for the United Parcel Service. Obviously, navigation equipment is a 
natural.
  Lektro is located in Warrenton, OR, on the Oregon coast, about 110 
miles from Portland. It is a small company with 20 employees. They make 
aircraft towing devices. Those things you see hooked up on the front of 
trucks that drag planes around. They sell these all over the country 
and are involved in world trade. When I first saw them, they were 
operating out of an old airplane hangar. They are very successful.
  Yesterday, I mentioned Denton Plastics. They are a fun company. I 
discovered, by the way, since yesterday, they have 40 employees. Denton 
recycles plastics, such as, the sacks from grocery stores, the sacks 
from dry cleaners, and plastic wraps from frozen food. They put them 
into something like a vat and heat it quickly. They turn it, grind it, 
take all the color out, and it comes out in little black pellets. Then 
they sell them around the world in Korea, in China. People make toys, 
garbage pails, et cetera, out of the pellets. Denton, with 40 
employees, is the biggest company north of Los Angeles and west of the 
Mississippi River in this business. Denton is an excellent example that 
you do not have to be a big company to be, relatively speaking, a giant 
in an industry.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I have learned that.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. This is the amazing thing we all learned in our States. 
I wager the Senator from New York has had the same experience. You go 
around and run across companies you never heard of that are doing very 
well in foreign trade, and they have a handful of employees. They have 
a niche that they are doing well at.
  So when people say America cannot compete, I just look at these 
examples in Oregon of all kinds of different companies. But there is 
almost one thing they all have in common: Brains and patents, 
trademarks or copyrights--intellectual property, as we call them--
things that they have thought up that nobody else thought up and they 
have protected with a patent or a copyright and they are selling it 
around the world.
  If there is any single thing where there is a quantum leap forward in 
this GATT agreement, it is in the protection of what we call 
intellectual property, patents, copyrights, trademarks around the 
world. All it can do is benefit these companies.
  I will make one last comment about these companies. Not a single one 
of these companies is a minimum-wage company. Some of them are not high 
wage, but there is not a single one that is minimum wage. Some of them 
are in the $7 to $8 an hour bracket, some in the $9 to $10, some of 
them more. But how often have we heard on this floor that you cannot 
compete with Bangladesh or India paying $1, $1.50 an hour? Without 
exception, every one of these companies is competing.
  I will use a last example, and then I will close because this is a 
company everyone has probably heard of: Freightliner. They make those 
large trucks and cabs that you see on the highway. Freightliner has a 
large plant in Portland with over 2,000 workers, a large plant in North 
Carolina with over 2,000 workers, and another plant in Cleveland, NC. 
This is high-wage employment.
  In Portland, the plant is unionized, organized by the International 
Association of Machinists. At the high end of their production floor 
workers, counting fringe benefits, earn about $25 an hour. About a 
third of that is fringe benefits, and that is the high end of the 
production work.
  At the moment, there is a 20 percent tariff on trucks going into 
Mexico. So Freightliner packages up its trucks in kit form and sends 
them to Mexico where they are assembled. If you send them that way, the 
tariff does not apply. At the moment, about 10 kits a day are going out 
of the North Carolina plant to Mexico.
  I talked to the president of the company yesterday morning. He said 
the 20 percent tariff is scheduled to come down to zero in the North 
American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico. Around 1998, the tariff will 
be reduced enough where it will be economically justifiable to make the 
entire truck in the United States instead of the kit.
  At that stage, they are going to quit sending the kits to Mexico and 
make the trucks here and send them down in final form. Their U.S. 
workers make $25 an hour. Do not tell me we cannot compete.
  Freightliner just landed a contract with Israel for 800 to 1,200 
trucks which will be made in its North Carolina plant. That is a big 
order, having to compete with trucks apparently made in India or trucks 
apparently made in Brazil, or wherever trucks are made. Do not tell me 
we cannot compete.
  Tonight, in about an hour, we are going to have a chance to vote up 
or down on this agreement. A vote for this agreement is a vote to give 
the green light to the best companies in America--and they are not all 
big, most of them, as a matter of fact, are small--to compete 
throughout this world on a much fairer basis than they have been able 
to compete to date.
  A no vote is a vote to say, no, we really cannot do it when State 
after State, company after company, even under adverse circumstances 
today, are proving they can do it.
  So I say to the chairman, Senator Moynihan, it has been a thrilling 
time working with him on this. There are moments when he and I had some 
fears and trepidations, I think. I cross my fingers; I think we now 
have the votes. For the good of this country, I hope in the next hour 
that overwhelmingly we pass this agreement.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I congratulate my future chairman 
and past chairman for the extraordinarily important exposition of the 
proposition. We are told that the Fortune 500 have not added an 
employee in the last 10 years. That is because American enterprise is 
working. Firms with 20 are going to 30. That is a 50-percent increase. 
And they are working all over the world.
  If I may just one last time invoke that great West Indian, New 
Yorker, Alexander Hamilton, and his report on manufacturers, who talked 
about those misguided nations which sacrificed the interests of a 
mutually beneficial intercourse to the vain project of selling 
everything and buying nothing. It cannot be done. He saw the future, 
and it is here. The future is now. And the future will be ours if we 
seize it this evening. In an hour's time, we shall have the 
opportunity.
  I have the great honor and pleasure to yield 10 minutes to the 
learned, indefatigable--a great citizen, a great citizen of 
Pennsylvania--Senator Wofford.
  Mr. WOFFORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Wofford].
  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, that gentleman from the West Indies and 
New Yorker, Alexander Hamilton, began the Federalist Papers, as I 
recall the first sentence, the first proposition, by saying that it is 
reserved to the American people to determine to prove whether our fait 
accompli must be forever controlled by accident and force, or whether 
it is possible to determine it by reflection and choice.
  I congratulate the Members of this body in these last 2 days of 
debate for making sure that we make this important decision by 
reflection and choice.
  Mr. President, after much thought, I rise in support of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade because I believe that on balance, it is 
good for our country. This agreement is far from perfect. No agreement 
forged in compromise is likely to be perfect, certainly not one 
negotiated with more than 120 nations.
  Some of the arguments voiced by opponents of GATT are strong and 
disturbing. They are right that GATT does not give America enough 
leverage in critical areas such as child labor, human rights, and 
environmental standards.
  Mr. President, I believe it is wrong in trade negotiations for 
economic concerns to supersede all other concerns. It is wrong for the 
conditions of child labor described by Senator Wellstone this morning 
to be ruled out of consideration in any limitations on trade.
  On questions of economic justice, human rights, and environmental 
health, the world should be able to look to America for leadership. We 
have a responsibility to provide that leadership--a responsibility that 
is not given adequate scope in the World Trade Organization provided 
for in this agreement.
  So in the years to come, as we work within GATT and within the new 
World Trade Organization, and as we move forward to negotiate new 
bilateral trade agreements, we must honor that obligation to give 
leadership and work and fight to supplement the trade-only approach of 
GATT.
  Those of us who will be on the outside of government will have a 
responsibility to take action in these matters. For not all of the 
pressure needed to uphold America's ideals should come from government. 
Much of it must come from private citizens.
  When I was head of the International League for Human Rights, I often 
pressed the point that the concept of human rights goes beyond just 
political rights. It must include abuses of human rights in the form of 
the child labor portrayed by the Senator from Minnesota.
  Determined support by private citizens helped change our trade 
policies with South Africa and helped bring about the changes that are 
underway in that nation today.
  So concern about the exploitation of labor and the unfair competition 
that follows from it should not be the province solely of the American 
labor movement. It should be the concern of this Congress and of the 
American people at large.
  Let me add another vital point for the future American agenda.
  While I believe GATT will benefit most industries and most Americans, 
some industries and some workers and their families will suffer, at 
least in the short term.
  In Pennsylvania, the textile and dairy industries--both already hard 
pressed--will lose certain protections on which they have come to rely.
  We should take special responsibility for the fait accompli of such 
industries. This includes a responsibility to help those men and women 
who lose their jobs to learn new skills and pursue new opportunities. 
That will come to the fore when this Congress turns next year to the 
reemployment bill that is before it. These industries need our special 
concern and help.
  Despite these strong reservations that I have just added my voice to, 
I will be casting my vote in favor of GATT for the reasons that have 
been eloquently given in this body already in the last 2 days because, 
on balance, I am convinced it is good for the economy of Pennsylvania 
and good for the American economy, because I believe it will, in not 
many years, prove not to increase our deficit but to reduce it; because 
I believe it would be wrong to go back to the drawing board after so 
many long years of negotiations; and because I have faith in America's 
ability to compete successfully and to provide leadership, leadership 
for human rights as well in the global economy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask that the time be charged equally to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, we are in the 
closing moments now of an epic debate, a defining moment in American 
history. It has been said that the vote we will cast this evening is 
comparable to votes--a half dozen, at most, in the 20th century--such 
as the Marshall Plan, to name but one. We are going to define the 
American future on how we vote this morning.
  We are about to hear from our leaders, after which time the votes 
will commence. It cannot be stated too strongly that we are choosing a 
future for the United States, and the distinguished chairman-to-be of 
the Committee on Finance and I feel confident; we feel ebullient, if I 
may say. Sixty years of American foreign trade policy that began with 
Cordell Hull and Franklin Roosevelt in the depths of our Depression and 
the world depression in 1934, in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, 
culminating now in the Congress--as Cordell Hull called it, a 
``Congress of international trade'' in a speech on the floor of the 
House of Representatives in 1916. It is not a large one. The World 
Trade Organization has 450 employees--the GATT, rather--after 40 years. 
It is contemplated that an additional 15 will be employed now. But a 
world trading system will be in place for settling disputes, for making 
agreements, and for creating a future.
  I am confident that we will make the right choice, Mr. President, 
hugely acknowledged not only by your support but by Members on both 
sides of the aisle. I make the simple point that this measure was 
reported from the Committee on Finance 19-0. I do not know that the 
margin will be quite that emphatic in the next hour, but I hope it will 
be sufficient so that the world will know that the United States has 
not only led the world to this moment, but means to continue to do so.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum, the time to be charged equally to the two parties.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my colleague, Senator 
Moynihan, the chairman of the committee, and Senator Packwood. I have 
been listening to some of the debate, and I certainly know of the 
impact their statements have had.
  Let me say also that we sort of reached the point right now, the 
moment it is going to happen, now, in the next 30 or 40 minutes. It has 
been 8 years in the making, 8 years, a long time.
  I must say, just having come back from a very brief trip to the 
United Kingdom and Brussels, I said to Secretary Bentsen this morning 
at the White House in a meeting with the President and others who were 
undecided on this particular matter--Secretary Bentsen had been telling 
me for some time that the whole world was waiting for America to act in 
a positive way--I said, Lloyd, by ``the whole world'' you mean 
everybody is waiting for the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House to vote on 
GATT? He said yes, nearly the whole world.
  I want to confirm that statement, because while we were in Belgium, 
Brussels, we talked about NATO we talked about Bosnia. But there were 
ambassadors there from countries all over the world. When we were in 
London, we talked with the Prime Minister. I think his first question 
was about GATT. We talked to Margaret Thatcher about GATT. I spoke at a 
meeting last night made up of former Prime Ministers and others, people 
interested in trade, about GATT.
  The point I am making is this is a decision we are making today that 
is going to have impact around the world, a positive impact. And if we 
did not act in a positive way, it would have impact, it would be a very 
negative impact.
  So I would start by saying that I want to thank all of my colleagues 
who are supporting GATT, who are supporting us on the waiver of the 
point of order, that is the critical vote.
  I want to thank Secretary Bentsen.
  I want to thank Mickey Kantor, the U.S. Trade Representative. He has 
done an outstanding job and worked with me and others to resolve some 
of the real differences that we have and it has made a difference.
  I want to thank the President for his efforts, and former Presidents, 
Republicans and Democrats up and down the line, who understand the 
importance of trade and the importance of this particular vote and this 
particular moment, after 8 years.
  There are a lot of countries involved and like any other big trade 
agreement, it was up and it was down, and people thought it was going 
to break down. People walked away, and they came back. But anyway we 
persevered and finally got it worked out, and about the eighth round of 
negotiations finally concluded last December.
  I think it is fair to say, because there are critics--and I have said 
many times we are getting about 2,000 phone calls a day in our office 
opposed to GATT, two or three slip in in favor of GATT--if you took the 
phone calls that this is a measure of support in America, you could say 
there is no reason to bring this matter before the Senate. Many of the 
callers are certainly well-intentioned. Many of the calls are 
orchestrated. Many of the callers have a strong point of view. Many of 
the callers are critical of any of us who even think about even trying 
to fix it, they are just flat against it, they want it killed, they do 
not want any trade agreement, they are concerned about sovereignty and 
other issues that I will discuss later. But I must say most of the 
callers are well-intentioned and they are concerned, concerned about 
their jobs, concerned about their children, concerned about something.
  So I think we need to state for the record this is not a perfect 
agreement. On the way back last night I had a big book, it weighed 
about 10 pounds, briefing material. I did not read the entire document, 
but I read many, many of the arguments on the pros and cons. It is not 
a perfect trade agreement. We never achieve all of our objectives. We 
have to go back and complete the work in some of the areas, especially 
services, including financial services, telecommunications and audio-
visual.
  In addition, Mr. President, the overall economic impact of the 
Uruguay round agreements I think probably has been overstated. But it 
is always the case around here that with each administration, maybe 
overstatements are made from time to time. But in this case there are 
overstatements in both directions.
  To hear some of the supporters you would think this agreement cures 
everything but the common cold, and maybe even the common cold. If we 
just vote yes our troubles are over.
  If you listen to the other stream on the other side, you get a 
different picture.
  We are told this is going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, 
maybe millions of jobs, billions of dollars. And I know for some reason 
Wichita, KS sort of became the anti-GATT capital of the world, and I 
have heard a host of statements and a lot of information, a lot of 
letters from people that I know--a hundred times worse than NAFTA, a 
stealthlike power grab by the bureaucrats, by international 
bureaucrats--and all the other arguments you heard on the floor today 
and before.
  But I believe on balance that this is a good trade agreement. The 
benefits certainly are going to be modest or better, but clearly going 
to be a net gain for the American people. No doubt about it, for if our 
trade policy does not serve the American people, we ought to change it 
or we should not extend it. I am talking about the American people, the 
working family making $20,000, $25,000, $30,000, $35,000, a year, they 
are ones who are concerned, they are the ones who, in many cases are 
calling or going to the meetings. Others have different motives.
  So this creation of a new trade bureaucracy is not our objective. It 
is domestic and economic growth, and increasing the standard of living 
of hardworking American families. Trade should serve the people and not 
the other way around, and I think this does.
  It will be tested. We will find it is not complete in many areas, we 
will find that probably some things will have to change. This is going 
to create jobs and opportunities. I am not going to say how many jobs, 
I will leave that to the experts. But let us face it, we are going to 
be the big beneficiary, the United States of America. Any way you cut 
it, we are the biggest beneficiary.
  It is going to bring down tariffs worldwide, and that is why we are 
going to be the big beneficiary, because our tariffs are already low, 
around 4 percent. And around the rest of the world they are relatively 
high, around 20 percent. One-third cut in global tariffs under this 
agreement certainly means disproportionate benefits to U.S. exports. 
That is what it is all about.
  It means tariffs are going to be lowered, some estimate, $744 
billion. That is a huge reduction in the most tangible barrier to trade 
that exists, the direct tax on imports. That is going to be reduced.
  In some sectors--construction equipment, agricultural equipment, 
steel, beer, distilled spirits, paper, toys and furniture--tariffs are 
not just reduced they are eliminated, they go to zero. And these are 
the so-called zero-for-zero products. These are sectors in which the 
U.S. producers are already very competitive. This trade agreement is 
going to make us even more competitive.
  Overall, U.S. merchandise exports, it is estimated, will be over $150 
billion per year over the next 10 years. So maybe it is not $150 
billion, maybe $140, or maybe it is $160. They are estimates. But they 
are positive estimates. Let me talk about agriculture.
  I met last week, or the week before, I guess, with representatives of 
20 different sectors of agriculture--cattle, hogs, wheat, soybeans, 
farm bureaus, different farm groups, corn growers. There is no doubt 
that the U.S. farmers are the most productive in the world. They are 
going to be forced to compete--or would have been forced to compete--
primarily with foreign treasuries had it not been for some changes in 
this agreement. Because if we lower the subsidies, and we are prepared 
to do that--in fact, our subsidies are already so low it is not going 
to take additional effort from the Americans, it is going to take 
additional effort elsewhere.
  But our subsidies are low compared to other countries. So we are 
going to require not as much as we wanted to do, do not misunderstand 
me, but we are going to level out the playing field, something 
President Bush started and President Reagan announced years ago about 
eliminating subsidies so we could compete worldwide. And if we can 
compete, we will win more than our share of the market. That is what it 
is all about: Market access and market share.
  Market access, as far as agriculture products that are produced in my 
State and nearly every State in the Nation, are going to increase as 
tariffs come down--we are going to expand--as nontariff barriers are 
converted to tariffs and then reduced, and as minimum access levels are 
implemented. These are certainly important goals if you are talking 
about global agriculture and global agriculture trade.
  And, again, these are estimates, but again they are expected to 
increase exports by $4.7 billion to $8.7 billion by the year 2005. 
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, exports of grains and 
feeds will increase $2 billion to $4 billion; cotton by nearly $600 
million; meats, dairy, and other animal products by $1.7 billion to 
$2.5 billion. That is real money. Horticultural products by $200 
million to $400 million; and oilseeds and products by $800 million to 
$1.3 billion.
  What does that mean? It means more farm income. It means that the 
average farm family, whether it is in New York or Kansas or Oregon or 
New Mexico, or wherever, is going to have more income. Some estimate--
and again these are all estimates, and I think this is where much of 
the problem is, because nobody knows precisely where it is--but the 
estimates are it will increase agriculture income by $2.5 billion by 
the year 2005. So we are talking about 190,000 jobs in that same 
timeframe--190,000 jobs. That is a lot of jobs.
  And I think one thing that we have received assurances on--and I 
would like to put this in the Record. My colleague in the House, 
Congressman Pat Roberts, from Kansas, who will become the chairman of 
the House Agriculture Committee starting the next Congress, does an 
outstanding job for agriculture. He is not concerned that agriculture 
may be cut as other programs are cut, but he did not want agriculture 
singled out by saying, ``Well, we will take it all out of agriculture 
and more out of agriculture somewhere else.''
  So at his request, I was able to receive assurances from Leon 
Panetta, the Chief of Staff at the White House, concerning agriculture 
and agriculture programs, important not just to Kansas but other 
States.
  I ask unanimous consent that that material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                                       Washington.
     The Honorable Robert Dole,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: It was good to meet with you on Saturday 
     regarding a number of your concerns about the GATT 
     legislation. Lloyd Bentsen, Mickey Kantor and I felt that we 
     had a constructive discussion and are hopeful that you will 
     be joining all of us on both sides of the aisle who are 
     supporting the GATT legislation.
       You had raised some specific concerns related to 
     agriculture, which I wanted to follow up with this brief 
     note. Overall, as you know, U.S. agriculture is projected to 
     benefit substantially from the GATT agreement. The coalition 
     of some 265 agricultural organizations who are supporting 
     GATT cite the projections that GATT will lead to increases in 
     U.S. agricultural exports by $5 to $14 billion over the next 
     5 years, which will help to create over 110,000 new jobs in 
     the agriculture sector and help to generate $10-$30 billion 
     in related economic activity throughout the U.S. economy.
       One of your concerns was whether the Administration was 
     singling out agriculture programs for spending cuts. I can 
     reassure you that is not the case. The Administration will 
     honor the commitments in this area made by Director Rivlin 
     and Secretary Espy in their September 30, 1994 joint letters 
     to the leadership of the Senate and House Agriculture 
     Committees. Those letters committed the Administration to 
     maintaining discretionary spending on USDA agricultural 
     programs at or above the FY 1995 level in the FY 1996 and 
     1997 Budget requests to Congress. Regarding mandatory 
     programs, the Administration will consider potential spending 
     changes only in the context of its overall reviews of 
     entitlement programs and in the farm bill process.
       You asked specifically about the Export Enhancement Program 
     (EEP) and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). With 
     respect to the EEP program, we are following through on our 
     commitment to use it to the maximum extent allowed, as 
     demonstrated by our recent EEP actions on wheat, barley, and 
     pork. In fact, for the FY 1995 budget just enacted, the 
     Administration requested full funding for EEP and it was the 
     Congress that reduced the funding by twenty percent. We have 
     also decided, as part of the implementation of GATT, to 
     reform EEP to focus on market expansion and promotion, not 
     just for combating unfair trade practices.
       Regarding the CRP, the Administration strongly supports and 
     will propose reauthorization and extension of the CRP in 
     1995. In addition, we will take further administrative 
     actions as needed to support a continuation of the CRP at the 
     fullest possible level. That will be reflected in the FY 1996 
     Budget baseline for FY96 and future years.
       In the context of concerns held by wheat growers, you asked 
     if the Administration is willing to streamline the approval 
     process for EEP decisions. I am happy to report that we 
     already are moving forward on our commitment in the Rivlin/
     Espy letters to do exactly that. As a result, the most recent 
     EEP decisions were cleared in periods ranging from one to 
     four weeks, in contrast to earlier actions which sometimes 
     took six months.
       Finally, you raised questions about how the Administration 
     could aid the oilseed industry. Unfortunately, the funds that 
     you identified to pay for purchases of vegetable oil for food 
     assistance programs have already been included in the GATT 
     legislation to help cover the overall costs of the package. 
     However, oilseed products are specifically included in the 
     additional $600 million of ``greenbox'' export promotion 
     program levels that the Administration proposed to carry 
     forward if the GATT passes. Decisions on greenbox spending 
     will be based on criteria such as the importance of programs 
     in promoting value-added products, additionality, and other 
     criteria to be developed in consultation with the Congress.
       Oilseeds would benefit from further reductions in trade 
     barriers. The U.S. industry took the lead on the oilseeds 
     zero-for-zero initiative in the Uruguay Round, and the 
     Administration, as stated in the Statement of Administrative 
     Action accompanying the GATT legislation, intends to pursue 
     negotiations to achieve duty reduction and elimination for 
     oilseeds. Our negotiations with China are directed in part 
     toward achieving meaningful access for U.S. agricultural 
     products, including oilseeds, to the Chinese market.
       We appreciate the stong support for GATT that the overall 
     U.S. agriculture community has given over the past weeks. I 
     hope that the information I've provided here will reinforce 
     that support and demonstrate the seriousness of our 
     commitments to the industry.
       I hope we will have your support in passing the GATT 
     legislation for the good of agriculture and the whole U.S. 
     economy.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Leon E. Panetta,
                                                   Chief of Staff.

  Mr. DOLE. So, on the whole, let me say very clearly that we are going 
to be able to demonstrate next year and the year after that and the 
year after that that the GATT agreement did help the American farmer, 
the American producers, the American rancher, and the farm families.
  The GATT agreement also establishes for the first time rules 
governing intellectual property, services, and investment trade. It is 
my hope that coverage of these areas by trade rules will especially 
benefit the United States. We have a big trade surplus, nearly $60 
billion, and I think this is going to help us with that, as we bring 
rules and disciplines to trade in services that allow us to continue to 
be the leader in global services.
  And, again, no country in this case--and I reconfirmed this last 
night; read it time and again to make certain I understood it. Under 
this agreement, as opposed to previous agreements, you are not going to 
have any single country out there be able pick and choose from the 
benefits of the agreement, sort of ``a la carte.'' For the first time, 
the selections on the menu must be taken all or nothing. You cannot 
pick out what benefits you want and leave what does not benefit you. 
You cannot do that anymore. So whether it is on subsidies, antidumping, 
customs valuation, or standards, everyone will have to observe the same 
rules. This, too, will benefit the United States, since we will not 
have to change our practices much, while many other countries will have 
to come into conformity.
  Now, let me say there is one aspect of the agreement that I think we 
have had more phone calls on, more letters, more concern, more 
frustration, than any other, and that is the question of the World 
Trade Organization. It is new. Maybe another name would have been 
better, any other name. When you start talking about world trade, world 
anything, people are nervous. So perhaps here, too, the benefits and 
dangers I think have been overstated. I think, judging from the 
thousands of phone calls and letters we have received, no aspect of 
this agreement is of deeper concern to the American people.
  I have heard from Ross Perot; I have heard from Pat Buchanan; I have 
heard from Ralph Nader; I have heard from Lane Kirkland. They are all 
good people; all feel very strongly that this agreement ought to be 
killed on the spot. Do not fix it. Do not fix it; kill it.
  Well, my intent never was to kill it. My intent was to fix it. If we 
can fix it, and it is good for America, let us fix it.
  So while I have respect for their views and their opinions, I hope in 
fairness they will say, ``Well, maybe you did fix it a little. Maybe it 
is a little better.''
  So there are a couple of major concerns behind the criticism of the 
WTO. One is that the WTO could produce bad decisions that might be 
grossly unfair to U.S. interests. Now, the more I looked at the issue 
and the more I studied the issue, the less likely I feel that could 
happen. But the other is that somehow we are diminishing or selling out 
our ``sovereignty'' if we sign up as a member of the WTO; that the WTO 
represents ``world government.'' And when you talk about world 
government, as I say, you are fighting a lot of people.
  The first concern seemed to me to have some real substance, Mr. 
President. The WTO is not just an international ``watchdog'' 
organization. It will have judicial powers, in effect. What will we do 
if the WTO decides to exercise those powers in an ``activist'' way? 
Here in the United States, our judiciary has a tradition of judicial 
restraint, but no such tradition exists in the World Trade 
Organization. It is a brand new organization.
  Furthermore, decisions by the WTO dispute settlement panels will be 
automatically adopted by the WTO, unless all members, including the 
winning country, agree the decision should not be adopted. This is an 
important change from current GATT practice, which permits any country, 
under present law, to block or veto the adoption of a decision. I 
believe that most of the time, this change will benefit the United 
States since so many times in the past, we have won cases in the GATT 
only to have the losing countries refuse to comply with the rulings 
against them. We win the cases, they do not comply, and nothing 
happens. The Europeans repeatedly refused to comply with the soybean 
decision against them, and Japan thumbed its nose at the GATT on beef 
imports. Nevertheless, in cases where the United States is the loser 
and the WTO dispute settlement panel exceeded its powers or simply made 
an arbitrary decision, it seemed to me important to have additional 
protection.
  And I want to make this very clear. There was a concern here. We 
believed it was real. We understood that people who were calling us 
were concerned about it. They understand it, or someone else understood 
it, and had them call. So we went to work.
  I talked to the chairman about it, Chairman Moynihan. I talked to 
Senator Packwood about it. I talked to Mickey Kantor about it. I said, 
``Mickey, what can we do? How can we fix it? I want to support the 
trade agreement.''
  So they agreed we needed some additional protection against decisions 
by the WTO that go beyond the WTO's authority. And we agreed that next 
year, a dispute settlement review commission would be created to review 
WTO actions and determine whether the WTO exceeded its power and 
authority. After three such cases, Congress would vote on whether to 
withdraw from the WTO. It is as simple as that, Mr. President.
  I know, ``you can withdraw in 6 months,'' but that is the Executive. 
They are not going to withdraw. We wanted Congress to have some say. 
And Congress now has some say. It is going to allow us to get out if 
necessary, if the decision is arbitrary and capricious, and we have 
about 3 other standards. We can get out of WTO if our rights are being 
trampled by dispute settlement panels in Geneva. I would like to have 
printed in the Record at this point the agreement we made with the 
administration in this area.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                    The U.S. Trade Representative,


                            Executive Office of the President,

                                    Washington, DC, Nov. 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 concern 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 in 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. DOLE. That is the first concern and it has merit.
  The second concern in my view has no merit. The World Trade 
Organization is not world government. Our sovereignty is not threatened 
by this agreement or by the WTO. The WTO has no power to force the 
United States to do anything. They cannot make us do anything. It is 
not a world power.
  If the WTO finds that U.S. law does not square with the obligations 
we have assumed under the agreement, we remain totally free to 
disregard that finding. It does not change U.S. law. It does not change 
State laws, as some of the critics have said. The critics should be 
answered, and they have been answered. But they keep coming back with 
the same message.
  I do not know who you could go to, if you want to talk to somebody 
who felt strongly about something and you wanted some conservative 
jurist to give you a legal opinion. So somebody asked Judge Bork to 
address this issue. I know it has been recited on the floor before. 
Judge Bork has a pretty good reputation as being a scholar and 
understanding the law. As he pointed out, our ultimate compliance with 
the agreement is a matter of international comity or accommodation, not 
of sovereignty. We are talking about comity or accommodation--not 
sovereignty. Our legislative and executive branches will continue to 
function exactly as before. Let me quote Judge Bork. I know he has been 
quoted before, but I want to quote him again because I think the well-
meaning people in America who oppose this agreement because of the 
sovereignty issue ought to know about the quote. Maybe they will read 
it. Maybe they will hear it. I would be happy to send them a copy of 
the letter. This is what Judge Bork said:

       The U.S. constitutional framework safeguards U.S. 
     sovereignty by providing the motion recent action by the 
     political branches of the Federal Government supersedes prior 
     laws or international agreements. As long as the United 
     States can relieve itself of any international obligation 
     that conflicts with U.S. law by enacting a subsequent 
     statute, U.S. sovereignty is protected. Arguments to the 
     contrary distort American law and contradict principles 
     recognized by the Supreme Court for more than one hundred 
     years.

  That is not Bob Dole. That is not Bob Packwood. That is not Pat 
Moynihan. That is Judge Bork. He is not infallible, but he has a great 
reputation. So I would say to those who rant and rave about the 
sovereignty issue, I think it has been answered.
  I would also note one of the most vocal critics of the WTO's 
infringement on our sovereignty, Professor Lawrence Tribe, of Harvard, 
recently reversed his position on the issue. He was a critic. He was on 
the other side. He was supporting Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan and Pat 
Choat and Ralph Nader and others who feel strongly about this issue. 
This is the memorandum he sent to me and other Senators dated November 
28, and I quote:

       Although it might be less embarrassing for me simply to say 
     nothing, I regard it as my responsibility, in light of 
     Assistant Attorney General's Dellinger's recent forceful 
     analysis, to say that I believe the Clinton administration 
     has based its position on the Uruguay round agreements on 
     constitutional arguments that are both powerful and 
     plausible.

  Not Bob Dole, not Pat Moynihan, not Bob Packwood--Laurence Tribe.
  So the sovereignty issue is a red herring. And, if our rights are 
being trampled we are going to be able to fix it. We have worked it 
out. We are going to have to pass a law next year and we will have 
administration support, and bipartisan support in the House and Senate. 
Our sovereignty could not be better protected. No one in this Chamber 
is going to stand up and diminish our sovereignty or somehow sell out 
or diminish some of our sovereignty that I know of on either side of 
the aisle.
  Let me finally say this. I know the majority leader is waiting to 
conclude the debate.
  We were also concerned about some of the measures in the implementing 
legislation. Frankly, we thought there were too many things added. It 
was not clean. There were just too many things added to the 
implementing legislation. So a lot of charges have been made that 
millions and millions and billions of dollars are being spent. It is 
almost like a reconciliation bill. You cannot amend it. All you can do 
is debate it and vote it up or down.
  So we raised some of those questions with the administration. I think 
it is clear that one reason the fast track process may be in danger 
from now on is we have to clean up our act. We cannot load up the 
implementing legislation with extraneous provisions that have nothing 
to do with trade because this bill is not subject to the normal rules 
of debate. As I said, you cannot amend it. You debate it and vote it up 
or down. So it has a whole variety of things in there that benefit 
certain people, probably certain interests that should not be there at 
all. And I have addressed those.
  I ask at the appropriate time those letters be printed in the Record. 
One is a pioneer preference provision. I am just trying to find out if 
it is fair. If it's fair that is fine with me. But we are going to 
try--going to review it next year. We have a promise from the 
administration to work next year with the administration to ensure that 
Government is fully and fairly compensated for the licenses in 
question. That is all we want. We are not after anybody.
  So I guess the truth of the matter is, the fast track vehicle is 
carrying a lot of unauthorized cargo. And it is abuse of the fast track 
process and I hope that, if we use the fast track process again, we 
will be able to clean that up. I voted for the fast track extension and 
I think certainly this undermines the process if that is going to be 
approved next year.
  We have another term dealing with patents. This was raised by a 
colleague on the House side, Congressman Rohrabacher. That has been 
addressed. We think the administration now agrees it will not oppose 
legislation, if it is offered next year. I ask that statement by him be 
made a part of the Record. That was from the Trade Representative, from 
Mickey Kantor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, November 23, 1994.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: I appreciate the opportunity to respond 
     to your concerns about the so-called ``pioneers' preference 
     provision,'' which is found in Title VIII of the GATT 
     implementing legislation.
       As you know, this provision serves two basic purposes. 
     First, it prevents the pioneers from obtaining the use of 
     radio spectrum for free. Absent the GATT provision there is, 
     in our judgment, an unacceptable risk that the pioneers will 
     succeed in overturning the current FCC Order which, reversing 
     an earlier order, now requires payment from the pioneers. 
     Second, it rewards the innovation produced by the pioneers 
     who, in the judgment of the FCC, have helped to spur the 
     current interest in the provision of Personal Communications 
     Services. Indeed, we are only days away from the beginning of 
     the broadband PCS auction. The PCS auctions, which were 
     proposed by President Clinton and established in the budget 
     reconciliation act of 1993, are expected by OMB to raise 
     $12.6 billion for the federal government.
       Under the GATT provision, the three pioneers will 
     contribute a significant percentage of the total proceeds to 
     be gained from the PCS spectrum. OMB estimates that, over a 
     five-year period, the three pioneers will pay about $1.5 
     billion to the federal treasury.
       We are aware, of course, of competing estimates that have 
     been made by opponents of the GATT agreement and potential 
     competitors of the pioneers. In general, those assertions 
     attempt to compare mature, small markets for established 
     wireless services that possess a significant customer base 
     with the incipient, multistate, demographically-diverse 
     markets for new PCS services. In our judgment, no known 
     alternative estimate establishes a credible basis for 
     analysis.
       Of course, as the Administration has consistently noted, no 
     one can predict with certainty the outcome of the coming PCS 
     auctions and, therefore, it is impossible to be absolutely 
     sure how much the pioneers will pay under the GATT provision 
     or how much that payment might differ from the alternative 
     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.

  Ms. MIKULSKI assumed the Chair.
  Mr. DOLE. The rest of my statement deals with the budget. I 
understand Senator Packwood made a brilliant speech. I was not here to 
hear it, but I have had people fax me notes on how he explained the 
budget process and the waiver. And I thank him for that.
  But it is pretty clear to me that if we do not waive the budget, we 
are going to doom the whole process. There is no question about it. And 
that is a steep price to pay. So we have addressed it. We think it has 
been addressed as much as we could. And we have to keep in mind, too, 
we are talking about cutting tariffs, going to create more jobs, more 
opportunities--a lot of things are going to happen in the second five 
years. So I think in the long run, increased economic activity which is 
going to result from this trade agreement certainly is going to 
outweigh the losses and obligations caused by the tariff cuts. In other 
words, over time, tariff cuts pay for themselves. In fact this argument 
is reminiscent of an argument we have been making for a long time with 
regard to capital gains rate reduction. I hope next year, as I said in 
my letter to my colleagues, the administration will be receptive to 
this argument in the context of the capital gains debate.
  So, finally, I would just say, Madam President, that I think the 
bottom line is we just cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the 
world. We have to have a big ``open for business'' sign all over 
America. Everywhere in America it has to say we are open for business. 
We want your business in America. He want to create jobs, we want to 
create opportunities in America. We do not want to put a ``closed'' 
sign in America, ``Not welcome in America.''
  We want them to bring down the barriers for our products and our 
services. We are going to lock in this agreement--market opening 
measures pave the way for further measures.
  I have always thought that we could compete with anybody else in the 
world as long as we have access to that market and that we have assured 
access. I think this agreement is going to help us in that regard.
  So, Madam President, I ask any other material I have not included in 
the Record relating to this agreement be printed at this point. And 
again thank my colleagues for their leadership.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            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 
     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 
     Congresisonal 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.
                                  ____



                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                Washington, DC, November 23, 1994.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Bob: I appreciate the work you have done to address 
     the concerns of your constituents and other Senators before 
     making a final decision about the GATT agreement. I am 
     encouraged that the sovereignty issue has been resolved. I 
     believe your announcement today in support of GATT will 
     certainly bring us closer to the 60 votes needed for the 
     budget waiver.
       As the President stated in his press conference Tuesday, 
     the Administration is unwilling to link any conversation 
     regarding capital gains to GATT. But Members of the 104th 
     Congress will no doubt set forth ideas for capital formation. 
     I can assure you that these proposals will be carefully 
     reviewed.
       It would of course be our hope that the work of the 103rd 
     Congress be completed next week with a bipartisan victory, 
     not by a narrow margin, but by a resourcing vote of 
     confidence. You and I have lead important fights in the past 
     to expand economic growth in our country. Few are as 
     important as this one. If we can achieve this, I believe the 
     American people will hold both our political parties in 
     greater esteem. With my best wishes for a Happy Thanksgiving.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Lloyd Bentsen.

  Mr. DOLE. I want to commend my colleagues who are on the other side. 
They feel very strongly about it. I think it has been our hope that we 
could answer some of the concerns they had.
  Some are just flat opposed to it. Some believe there is a conspiracy 
out there. Some believe that some of us are out to do in America. That 
is not my record and I do not think it is the record of anybody else.
  It seems to me we had two choices: Kill it or make it better and pass 
it. In my view we have made it better. It is better than it was, 
because of the cooperation we have had with the administration and 
because they, too, understand that the WTO was causing real concern 
with real people all across America. And now Congress has some say or 
will have some say when we pass the legislation next year.
  So, Madam President, I hope that--we probably cannot have a unanimous 
vote--but let us try for 70 votes, at least 70, on the budget waiver.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. PACKWOOD. I yield the remainder of the time I have to Senator 
Warner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 2 minutes 40 
seconds.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I shall be very brief. I wish to 
associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Republican 
leader. I have counseled with him on this matter from the very 
beginning, and he has laid forth the precedents, the points that I 
shall place in the Record in support of my decision on this measure.
  An easier vote perhaps would have been to vote against the point of 
order, then vote for the treaty. But to me that is not being honest. 
That is not being straightforward, and I feel that as the distinguished 
Republican leader feels, we ought to stand and be counted and vote if 
it is in our judgment this is in the best interest of the United 
States.
  I waited, Madam President, such that all across Virginia calls came, 
as the distinguished leader said, and others, in opposition, in large 
measure. I did not want to cut off the avenue of my constituents to 
reach me with their views, and I forced an open mind. But it is the 
wise counsel of our Republican leader and that of the two managers of 
this bill, the Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, and the Senator 
from Oregon, Senator Packwood, and others, to persuade me this is in 
the best interest of the United States.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 
5110, legislation to implement the Uruguay Round Agreement reached 
under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). After many 
months of closely scrutinizing the agreement, I have come to the 
conclusion that this agreement is in the best interests of Virginia and 
the Nation as a whole. It moves the United States toward free trade and 
positions us to compete vigorously in the worldwide market.
  Virginia recorded merchandise exports in 1993 of $8.2 billion--the 
second largest State total in the South Atlantic region. Nationally, 
Virginia ranked 15th among the States in the value of export sales. 
Over the 1978-93 period, Virginia's merchandise exports rose by 159 
percent--well above the 90 percent increase for the Nation as a whole 
and the 12th largest percentage gain among States. Virginia's top three 
export markets in 1993 were Japan, Canada, and Belgium and 87 percent 
of Virginia's 1993 export sales consisted of manufactured goods. Also, 
it should be noted that Virginia posted substantial export gains in 
virtually all major manufactured product categories over the 1987-93 
period.
  I anticipate that under the Uruguay Round Agreement reached under 
GATT Virginia will experience greater economic expansion particularly 
in the areas of: fish and fish products, maritime industry, household 
and office furniture, renewable energy technology, industrial 
machinery, electronic equipment, tobacco, and high technology exports. 
In the area of agriculture, economic expansion is expected in, among 
others, these areas: corn, soybean, small grains, apples, beef, 
poultry, and horticultural products.
  Those areas listed above are just a few of the areas that will 
benefit under the agreement. The worldwide lowering of tariffs will 
help open other countries' markets, therefore creating markets in the 
future for many other Virginian goods and services.
  Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the World Trade 
Organization (WTO) and its impact on U.S. sovereignty. The WTO will 
have the authority to pass out penalties to member nations that have 
violated the agreement. After reviewing the WTO provisions of the 
agreement I, like many others, was concerned with that aspect of the 
agreement.
  However, I believe that former U.S. Appeals Court Judge Robert H. 
Bork, in a letter to Senator Don Nickles, helped clarify this matter. 
Judge Bork stated that ``the U.S. constitutional framework safeguards 
U.S. sovereignty by providing that the most recent action by the 
political branches of the federal government supersedes prior laws or 
international agreements.'' Judge Bork concluded by saying that ``as 
long as the United States can relieve itself of any international 
obligation that conflicts with U.S. law by enacting a subsequent 
statute, U.S. sovereignty is protected.''
  In addition, incoming Senate Majority Leader Dole reached an 
agreement with the Clinton administration on the matter of the WTO. The 
Dole-Clinton agreement commits the Clinton administration to support 
prompt enactment next year of legislation creating a permanent 
commission of five sitting U.S. appellate court judges, appointed by 
the President in consultation with appropriate House and Senate 
leaders. The commission will review all final WTO dispute settlement 
reports, subjecting them to a three-part test. If the majority of the 
commission believes that the WTO panel did not demonstrate adherence to 
certain guidelines then action could be taken by Congress to request 
that the President negotiate new dispute settlement rules addressing 
the problems identified by the commission. If the commission issues 
three affirmative decisions in a 5-year period, any Member of Congress 
would be able to introduce a joint resolution to disapprove U.S. 
participation in the WTO.
  Mr. President, we must not sit idle and let the world pass us by. We 
are the worlds largest exporter and we can only benefit from a lowering 
of worldwide tariffs that in turn allow us access to more foreign 
markets. The Uruguay Round Agreement does just that and I intend to 
support it.

  Mr. President, in closing I ask unanimous consent that an Op-Ed 
written by Mr. John W. Snow, Chairman, President, and CEO of Richmond, 
Virginia based CSX Corporation and Chairman of the Business Roundtable, 
be included in the Record following my statement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the Richmond Times Dispatch, Nov. 27, 1994]

              Virginia, U.S., Have Stake in Expanded Trade

       Let's cut to the heart of the GATT debate: If America wants 
     more jobs, higher living standards, and lower taxes, then 
     this vital international trade agreement must be approved by 
     the U.S. Congress immediately. Defer action and we lose.
       The latest round of GATT (shorthand for General Agreement 
     on Tariffs and Trade) has been seven years in negotiation and 
     represents the cumulative work of 123 nations to reduce trade 
     barriers and encourage economic growth. It is the most 
     comprehensive trade deal in history and would not have 
     happened without American leadership. Presidents Reagan, 
     Bush, and Clinton have all championed this effort.
       The present ``Uruguay Round''--the eighth in the history of 
     GATT--stands as the latest, best opportunity to continue the 
     process of making American values a fixed part of the 
     international economic system.
       Yet we hear objections. It is argued, without factual 
     basis, that the U.S. will lose control of its destiny. Others 
     say, ``Why rush, let's improve it''--ignoring the years of 
     difficult, step-by-step struggle this agreement represents.
       A lot of this is disturbingly familiar. The road to passing 
     the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was littered 
     with exaggerated dangers and unsubstantiated claims by 
     opponents. In fact, the early report card on NAFTA is even 
     more encouraging than many proponents had predicted.


                     NAFTA Has Benefitted Consumers

       For unrestricted trade to be of benefit, both imports and 
     exports should rise. In the first six months of 1994, the 
     U.S. Commerce Department reports that Mexican exports to the 
     U.S. rose 21 percent, to $23.4 billion, from a year ago, and 
     U.S. exports to Mexico rose 16 percent, to $25.5 billion. 
     Such numbers portend solid growth for American businesses and 
     respectable savings for American consumers.
       GATT, like NAFTA, will be a plus for the American people, 
     because America wins with free trade. The United States is by 
     far the world's largest exporter and the world's most open 
     market. Any agreement like GATT that binds more than 100 
     nations to the same discipline we impose on ourselves can 
     only benefit our economy over the long term.
       It is simply remarkable that anyone would oppose this 
     opportunity for economic growth--particularly in Virginia, 
     where exports have driven and sustained our economy, where 
     from 1987 to 1993, merchandise exports soared by 159 
     percent--way above the national average of 90 percent. Last 
     year alone, Virginia racked up $8.2 billion in export sales. 
     so much a part of Virginia's past, international trade 
     requests our best chance in the future.
       The state's exports touch on many sectors of its economy, 
     from agriculture and livestock, production to manufacturing 
     of products ranging from electronics and computers to 
     chemicals and heavy machinery, and encompass the gamut of 
     large to small employers. A study done in 1987 found that 95 
     percent of Virginia enterprises involved in export trade had 
     fewer than 500 employees.
       Without a doubt, the citizens of the Commonwealth would 
     benefit from overall business growth and creation of new jobs 
     resulting from more open international trade. Several 
     gubernational administration representing both Democrats and 
     Republicans have seen the Value equation in international 
     trade and have worked effectively to market Virginia's 
     exports to the world. The GATT stands to extend those 
     economic benefits will into the 21st Century.
       Since the GATT process began in 1947, world trading nations 
     have cut average tariffs from 40 percent to 5 percent today, 
     thanks largely to U.S. efforts that have once again spanned 
     both Republican and Democratic administrations. The result 
     has been the fastest global economic growth in history. The 
     newest GATT agreement obligates signatory nations to take 
     serious action against discriminatory non-tariff import 
     barriers and to reduce or eliminate tariffs and quotas on a 
     range of products affecting 85 percent of world trade. The 
     result will be a $744 billion reduction in tariffs on world 
     trade, the largest tax cut in the history of the world.
       Implementing the Uruguay Round is expected to cost the 
     United States $40 billion in foregone tariffs over the next 
     10 years. However, for every dollar lost in revenue from 
     tariff cuts, the Clinton administration estimates an 
     additional $3 in new revenues will be generated from 
     increased economic activity. Obviously, one aspect of the 
     GATT debate focuses on how much additional growth the United 
     States can expect.
       The administration estimates that the GATT will pump an 
     extra $100 billion to $200 billion into the U.S. economy 
     every year after the agreement takes full effect in 10 years. 
     This assessment recently was boosted by a study released by 
     the GATT Secretariat showing that the trade accord would add 
     another $122 billion to the U.S. economy by the year 2005.


                       Gains Outweigh Any Losses

       But even the most conservative assessment of the GATT by 
     independent analysts shows that the accord will contribute an 
     extra $25 billion to $30 billion per year to the U.S. gross 
     domestic product. That would be far in excess of the GATT's 
     projected 10-year cost of $40 billion.
       The truth is that more open trade will generate far more to 
     the American economy than it will cost. Right now the biggest 
     danger is that the Congress will fall prey to GATT 
     opponents who are using the complexity of the agreement to 
     urge delay on ratification until next year's formal 
     deadline. Those who oppose free trade expansion know that 
     delay crushes political chances for approval and certainly 
     damages America's standing with its trading partners.
       It is worth repeating that talks began on the latest trade 
     pact more than seven years ago under President Reagan and 
     enjoyed the support of President Bush during the 1992 
     campaign, before being embraced by and concluded under 
     President Clinton. Improving the climate for international 
     trade was, until recent times, a subject that enjoyed broad 
     bipartisan leadership.
       Earlier this month, voters sent a strong message to 
     Washington that they expect more leadership on a host of 
     issues connected to the nation's future direction and a 
     collective sense of well-being for our families and 
     communities.
       The upcoming vote on the GATT agreement is certainly a 
     once-in-a-generation opportunity: for the President to 
     govern, for the Democrats to vote their great hopes for the 
     nation's future, and for the Republicans to show their 
     leadership. Even a delay in considering the GATT agreement 
     could cost future generations of Americans immeasurably, as a 
     number of our political leaders have expressed the view that 
     a delay on the GATT vote will ultimately kill its chance for 
     implementation. Such is the power of America's position on 
     this issue around the world.
       Our representatives in Congress will be asked to 
     demonstrate their bipartisan leadership in the next few days. 
     They will have the opportunity to sow the seeds of future 
     prosperity for our nation and our fellow citizens by 
     approving the GATT agreement.
       In the final analysis, GATT is about change. It's about 
     moving toward the future, not away from it. It's about 
     knocking down barriers to global commerce and allowing 
     economic competition to flourish throughout the world.


                       american products will win

       Congress should approve the agreement, thereby opening the 
     doors, leveling the playing field, and preparing the way for 
     an American victory. America will win with GATT because our 
     workers are the most productive in the world. America will 
     win because our science is better, our products are superior, 
     and our companies are more efficient. America also will win 
     because of the ideas we hold dear. It's really extraordinary. 
     In this decade, the ideological battle between command 
     economies and market-driven economies has ended. The verdict 
     is in. Markets win!
       The worldwide advance of economic liberty is the great 
     victory of the late 20th Century. Freedom has momentum on its 
     side. The U.S. and 17 other Pacific Basin countries--a group 
     constituting half of the world's production and 45 percent of 
     world trade--have just agreed to opening their economies and 
     removing all trade barriers by the year 2020. Other 
     expansions of freedom beckon; the future is promising. But 
     nothing is guaranteed. A defeat of GATT would send the wrong 
     message at the worst possible time.
       Congress must not let that happen. If anything, the recent 
     election affirmed Americans' desire for greater economic 
     opportunity. Now, at a time when the world has come to 
     embrace that same desire, for freedom and prosperity, it 
     would be a sad irony for America to step backward. We should 
     approve GATT now--and I urge Virginians to so inform their 
     congressional representatives.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the decision on how to vote on the 
implementing legislation of the Uruguay Round of GATT has been a 
particularly difficult one for me. I have painstakingly studied the 
bill. I have corresponded extensively with USTR and others to obtain 
clarification of many of its provisions and I have carefully weighed 
the pros and cons of this agreement. There are many strengths.
  This agreement will put in place a set of rules which will allow the 
U.S. to compete on a more level playing field in trade relationships 
with other nations. Overall, I believe progress toward free trade is 
good for the United States. This agreement includes many positive steps 
toward that end.
  First, GATT would create a new international trade framework and 
establish rules to govern international trade. It would also expand the 
number of participating nations from 40 to 123.
  Second, GATT's intellectual property provisions would broaden and 
strengthen the protection of U.S. patents, copyrights and trademarks 
around the world. This would provide new and better protection in world 
markets from piracy of U.S. entrepreneurship, copyright and invention 
in industries such as pharmaceutical, entertainment and computer 
software.
  Third, the Uruguay Round would expand the trading system to include 
services and agriculture for the first time. This includes many 
important U.S. industries such as accounting, advertising, computer 
services, tourism, engineering and construction.
  Finally, this GATT agreement would set forth multilateral trading 
rules for all member countries to abide by, including developing 
nations. Furthermore, it would establish a forum and procedures to 
resolve trade disputes that might arise among trading partners. 
Together, these measures would create a more level playing field in 
international trade than exists today.
  But let us be candid--the Uruguay Round Agreement does not bring 
about free and fair trade. This agreement permits a number of countries 
to continue to engage in blatant protectionism. And as a result, 
certain countries and industries will do better under this agreement 
than others.
  I am deeply troubled by the fact that this agreement continues to 
allow unfair foreign trade restrictions which adversely affect key 
Michigan exports in autos and auto parts. GATT fails to address the 
discriminatory trade barriers of greatest importance to Michigan. I'm 
speaking of Japan's keiretsu system, the collusive and unfair Japanese 
business practice whereby producers and suppliers form strategic 
alliances and effectively block outside competition. Measures to break 
down such non-tariff trade barriers such as these are conspicuously 
absent in GATT.
  Since this GATT agreement does not specifically cover Japan's 
keiretsu system, we would most likely have to fight barriers to trade 
such as this using U.S. domestic trade remedy laws. I specifically 
asked the Administration to indicate how it would deal with Japan's 
keiretsu system under the new GATT agreement. I was assured by the USTR 
that they would continue a firm bilateral approach with Japan in an 
effort to bring about an end to Japan's discriminatory trade practices. 
But this is the same decades-old method that has failed to produce any 
result.
  This agreement could actually make matters worse and weaken remedies 
under U.S. trade law that we can use to retaliate against unfair trade 
practices. I am concerned that the use of quotas and tariffs to 
retaliate against unfair trade practices, such as those contained in 
Section 301 and Super 301, would be in violation of the agreement. 
Under the new system, should the U.S. choose to use sanctions, such as 
Section 301, to respond to unfair and restrictive Japanese trade 
policies not explicitly prohibited by GATT, such as keiretsu, the WTO 
could well rule that such U.S. action violates the GATT agreement and 
such finding could no longer be blocked by a United States veto under 
the new GATT. In my view, this might tend to undermine the credibility 
of a threat to use Section 301.

  In the Statement of Administrative Action, the Administration has 
made assurances that it intends to use Section 301 to pursue vigorously 
unfair trade barriers that violate U.S. rights or deny benefits to the 
U.S. under the Uruguay round agreements. The Administration has also 
stated their intention to use section 301 to pursue foreign unfair 
trade barriers that are not covered by the GATT agreements. The 
implementing legislation specifically identifies two important 
manufacturing industries that face unfair competition policies that are 
not clearly covered under GATT--auto parts and flat glass--to be 
addressed under the revised Section 301 law. The Administration has 
strongly committed to the continued use of U.S. trade remedy laws 
unilaterally when deemed necessary.
  I also have a serious problem with an agreement that reinforces 
Mexico's local content requirements which discriminate against U.S. 
auto parts. These requirements have often resulted in U.S. 
manufacturers locating production in Mexico rather than in the U.S. 
While the Uruguay Round Agreement will eventually eliminate all such 
local content requirements, Mexico is allowed to maintain these 
protections for ten years under the terms of this agreement. Although I 
am glad to see Mexico's local content requirements phased out, I think 
we got a bad deal in this area under NAFTA and now GATT reinforces it.
  The Uruguay Round also allows the European Union to maintain its 
limits on imports of vehicles from Japan for five more years. Because 
the U.S. government has no similar import restraints, and under the 
Uruguay Round we will be restricted from imposing similar restrictions, 
I am concerned that there is the danger that Japan will dump its excess 
auto capacity into the U.S. market.
  On the other hand, the European-Japanese agreement exists now and is 
unlimited in duration. This GATT agreement arguably has the virtue of 
setting a time limit on it.
  The issue is close surely. But a factor pointing toward a ``yes'' 
vote is the impact of rejection of GATT on American leadership in the 
world. If we abandon this hard fought agreement, after eight long years 
of negotiation, with the nations of the world looking to us to lead, it 
will be a blow to America's role in the world.
  On balance, I have decided to cast my vote in favor of the budget 
waiver and the implementation of the Uruguay Round agreement.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
attached letter by John O. Wilson and Robert Kramer be printed in the 
Record.


                                              Bank of America,

                                                  August 10, 1994.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: During your recent meeting with a 
     delegation of California businessmen and women who support 
     passage of the Uruguay Round Agreement, Mark Kadesh asked 
     that Bank of America provide additional information on the 
     impact the Agreement would have on the California economy. We 
     have attached the results of a study of this question using 
     the bank's California macroeconomic model (attachment 1).
       We used the model to project out the likely effects of the 
     Agreement over the next five years on: employment, 
     unemployment rates, exports through California ports and 
     exports originating within the state. Since the Agreement 
     will be phased in over a ten year period not all of the 
     impact is captured by this five year projection, however, the 
     trend is quite apparent. California will benefit 
     substantially from passage of the Uruguay round, and delaying 
     passage could have serious repercussions of the state's 
     ongoing economic recovery (attachment 2).
           Sincerely,
                                                   John O. Wilson,
                        Executive Vice President, Chief Economist.
                                                    Robert Kramer,
                                   Vice President, Policy Manager.
       Attachments.

      ATTACHMENT 1.--IMPACT OF THE GATT URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENT [URA] ON CALIFORNIA ECONOMY--AUGUST 8, 1994     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             1993       1994       1995       1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. California civilian                                                                                          
 employment (thousands                                                                                          
 of jobs)                                                                                                       
    Without GATT Uruguay                                                                                        
     round..............     13,853     14,136     14,077     14,124     14,289     14,465     14,639     14,780
    With GATT Uruguay                                                                                           
     round..............     13,853     14,146     14,250     14,313     14,492     14,698     14,889     15,033
                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Jobs added by                                                                                             
       Uruguay round....          0         10        173        190        203        233        250        253
                         =======================================================================================
II. California                                                                                                  
 unemployment rate                                                                                              
 (percent)                                                                                                      
    Without GATT Uruguay                                                                                        
     round..............       9.20       8.70       9.06       8.73       8.15       7.78       7.64       7.65
    With GATT Uruguay                                                                                           
     round..............       9.20       8.70       7.98       7.64       7.13       6.76       6.63       6.65
                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Percentage points                                                                                         
       added to                                                                                                 
       unemployment rate                                                                                        
       if Uruguay round                                                                                         
       not passed.......       0.00       0.00       1.09       1.09       1.02       1.02       1.01       1.00
                         =======================================================================================
III. Merchandise exports                                                                                        
 through California                                                                                             
 ports (millions of                                                                                             
 current dollars)                                                                                               
    Without GATT Uruguay                                                                                        
     round..............     82,340     88.040     93,870    101,860    112,070    122,270    131,610    141,550
    With GATT Uruguay                                                                                           
     round..............     82,340     88,040     94,000    102,290    113,020    124,010    134,430    145,810
                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Additional exports                                                                                        
       added by URA.....          0          0        130        430        950      1,730      2,810      4,260
                         =======================================================================================
IV. Merchandise exports                                                                                         
 originating in                                                                                                 
 California (millions of                                                                                        
 current dollars)                                                                                               
    Without GATT Uruguay                                                                                        
     round..............     70,320     75,180     80,170     86,990     95,710    104,420    112,400    120,880
    With GATT Uruguay                                                                                           
     round..............     70,320     75,180     80,280     87,360     96,520    105,900    114,800    124,520
                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Added exports                                                                                             
       added by URA.....          0          0        110        370        810      1,480      2,400      3,640
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bank of America Macroeconomic model of California. Contact: John O. Wilson, Chief Economist. The        
  California econometric model captures movements of key economic components of the California economy. It      
  consists of about 20 annually estimated equations for California's important economic indicators such as      
  employment, gross state product and personal income. It is structured for the corresponding U.S. economic     
  indicators and their forecasts (generated by BofA using DRI's U.S. macroeconomic model) to directly drive the 
  California economy. However, significant differences between California and the United States in the ways     
  these indicators vary over time are also carefully specified.                                                 

                             [Attachment 2]

          Impact of GATT on California Economy--August 8, 1994

       After seven years of negotiation, a GATT accord was signed 
     in December, 1993. The U.S. Congress is now debating 
     ratification of the GATT accord, and the outcome of that 
     ratification is far from certain. That outcome will have a 
     very significant impact on the California economy. If the 
     GATT accord is not approved by the United States, the current 
     recovery in the California economy would be greatly weakened.
       GATT establishes the basis for world trade, and the GATT 
     accord emphasizes such important areas to California as 
     gaining greater access to foreign markets in high-tech goods, 
     capital goods, business and computer services, and 
     agriculture. All of these are leading industries in 
     California. Furthermore, GATT will reduce the average level 
     of tariffs by one-third and eliminate many non-tariff 
     barriers over the next ten years. Since California is such a 
     large exporter, the lower barriers will lead to even further 
     gains in California trade and jobs related to trade. 
     Furthermore, GATT, through its new structure referred to as 
     the World Trade Organization, sets up new dispute settlement 
     mechanisms which would prevent trade wars which would be 
     detrimental to California exports.
       California accounts for 15 percent of U.S. merchandise 
     exports, and the value of exports to the California economy 
     has grown significantly during the past several years. As 
     shown in Table 1, the value of California merchandise exports 
     through California ports has increased from $54 billion in 
     1988 to $82 billion in 1993. Some of these exports were 
     actually manufactured in other states, and transported to 
     California for shipment. This creates jobs for Californians 
     engaged in the transportation and shipping, but not the 
     manufacturing of those goods. However, $70 billion of the $82 
     billion shipped out of California ports in 1993 was 
     manufactured or produced within the state, and this 
     represents the greatest source of trade related employment to 
     California. That employment is significant.

                 TABLE 1.--CALIFORNIA MERCHANDISE TRADE                 
                          [Billions of dollars]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Exports                
                                                 through       Exports  
                                               California    produced in
                                                  ports      California 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988........................................         $53.6         $47.8
1989........................................          63.0          53.5
1990........................................          68.6          58.4
1991........................................          73.8          63.1
1992........................................          81.0          68.9
1993........................................          82.3          70.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       The exports which are produced in California account for 
     one million direct jobs. These are jobs that are directly 
     related to the manufacture, production, and transportation of 
     California exports. Another 800,000 jobs support trade 
     employment through the provision of services and support 
     industries. Thus, the total number of jobs created through 
     exports in California is 1.8 million. This represents 13 
     percent of our entire employment of 14 million.
       There have been major changes in the relative importance of 
     California's trading partners during the past several years. 
     While Japan remained the number one export partner in 1993, 
     two neighbors, Canada and Mexico, significantly increased 
     their imports from California during the 1990-93 period. In 
     1993 their combined imports easily surpassed Japans imports. 
     Furthermore, California's exports to China increased a 
     staggering 145 percent during the 1990-93 period. (See Table 
     2)

             TABLE 2.--MAJOR MARKETS FOR CALIFORNIA EXPORTS             
                          [Millions of dollars]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Value of                
                                               California      Percent  
                   Country                      exports,    change 1990-
                                                  1993           93     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan.......................................       $10,501           2.3
Canada......................................         7,689          32.5
Mexico......................................         6,521          39.6
Taiwan......................................         4,718          49.1
South Korea.................................         4,132           9.1
Singapore...................................         3,705          40.3
Germany.....................................         3,511          -3.8
U.K.........................................         3,475           3.5
Hong Kong...................................         3,041          80.6
France......................................         2,247           4.6
China.......................................         1,611         145.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       California's exports consist primarily of high-tech 
     electronic products, computers, transportation equipment, and 
     agriculture products. Since 1991, the growth in these major 
     products has been very large: electronic products (30 
     percent), computers (17 percent), and food products (15 
     percent). Only transportation equipment, primarily aircraft, 
     and petroleum have declined. (See Table 3)

            TABLE 3.--MAJOR COMMODITIES OF CALIFORNIA EXPORTS           
                          [Millions of dollars]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Value of   Percent 
                     Commodity                       exports     change 
                                                       1993     1991-93 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic equipment (except computers)...........    $16,928       29.5
Computers and other industrial equipment..........     16,613       16.9
Transportation equipment..........................      8,486      -15.5
Food products and agriculture crops...............      7,012       14.7
Precision instruments.............................      5,345       14.0
Chemicals.........................................      2,644       13.8
Petroleum.........................................      1,626       -2.5
Fabricated metal products.........................      1,567        3.0
Primary metal industries..........................      1,544       47.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       If it is not ratified, what would the absence of a GATT 
     accord have on trade developments? Globally, we could 
     anticipate the following developments in world trade and 
     growth: (1) a general negative impact on global economic 
     growth due to loss of productivity gains that occur in a 
     free-trade economy; (2) an increase in intra-regional trade 
     such as trade within the European Union, trade within ASEAN 
     in Asia, and trade within NAFTA countries in North America, 
     but a reduction in inter-regional trade between Asia, North 
     America, Latin America, and Europe; (3) a move towards 
     unilateral protectionism in the form of higher tariff and 
     non-tariff barriers which will reduce overall world trade.
       Specifically for California, we could anticipate the 
     following developments: (1) an increase in tariff and non-
     tariff barriers to California exports to Asia, Latin America, 
     and Europe; (2) a reduction in California exports to those 
     regions, and particularly to Japan, China, Germany, and 
     France; (3) little impact on trade with Canada and Mexico 
     which would still be guided by the NAFTA agreement; and (4) 
     an immediate loss of 173,000 jobs in California (1995) 
     growing to a loss of 252,000 jobs by 2000. This would 
     increase the unemployment rate by a full one percent.

                                               John O. Wilson,

                                      Executive Vice President and
                                 Chief Economist, Bank of America.

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, when all is said and done, the GATT 
agreement lowers tariffs by one-third across the board between a 
majority of the world's trading partners. This, without question, is 
good for Florida and the United States and therefore I will vote for 
this agreement.
  This GATT agreement is the result of efforts made during the last 
three administrations. The agreement will mean an expected $100-$200 
billion increase in our GDP by the year 2005. By any accounting, this 
will be a tremendous benefit for our country.
  Expanding trade opportunities is something the United States should 
aggressively pursue. It is one of our most promising opportunities for 
continued economic growth. Our future prosperity lies not in tariff 
wars but in our ability to capitalize on our strengths and export the 
resulting products to the world's markets.
  Over the last few months, I have heard from businesses in Florida and 
from across the country in support of the GATT. They have told me how 
vital this agreement is to their firms and to the people they employ. 
They're right, and we should continue to knock down foreign trade 
barriers for American products. The GATT will allow us to do just that.
  Recent data from the Commerce Department's International Trade 
Administration shows the potential benefits the GATT agreement can 
provide to Florida. Between 1987 and 1993, Florida's exports grew by 
almost $7 billion. Over two-thirds of these exports were from 
industries such as industrial machinery, electric and electronic 
equipment, chemical products, and scientific measuring equipment. With 
the lower tariffs under this agreement, Florida will clearly benefit.
  The Commerce Department also shows Florida as the Nation's eighth 
leading exporter of merchandise, with nearly 10,000 businesses who sell 
goods abroad. What's more, virtually all of these businesses have fewer 
than 500 employees. Clearly, this agreement is vitally important to the 
small businesses that create capital, produce jobs and generate an 
impressive share of this country's economic growth.
  Many countries provide subsidies and impose significant tariffs. 
These trade practices destroy American jobs, and should not be 
tolerated. The American worker is the most productive in the world, and 
has always excelled on a level playing field. The GATT will help level 
the field for U.S. exports.
  There is an additional element in this debate that is important to 
note for both this and future debates. In this legislation, the 
administration has conceded that there are legislative changes which 
will pay for themselves, even if the static accounting models used by 
both the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and 
Budget do not capture the resulting revenue increases.
  In particular, the Clinton administration--and now many in the 
Democratic leadership--acknowledge that the economic growth created by 
the passage of GATT will increase revenues to the Federal Government. 
So despite the loss of some tariff revenue, the economic effects of 
GATT are a plus for the Federal budget.
  This is precisely the same argument that has been made for so long 
about a capital gains tax reduction. Capital gains tax cuts will 
generate revenue increases through economic growth just like tariff 
reductions. I would hope, therefore, that the Clinton administration 
will concede this point next year when Republicans pass a capital gains 
tax cut.
  Like a reduction in the capital gains tax rate, the GATT will create 
opportunities, and stimulate the creation of new jobs and new 
businesses. I look forward to the expansion of the Florida and U.S. 
economies that will follow the passage of this agreement.


           the u.s. must endorse the uruguay round agreement

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for 
the Uruguay Round Agreement reached under the auspices of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
  Among the nations of the world, the United States of America has long 
been the foremost advocate of open trade. The Uruguay Round Agreement 
is the culmination of decades of work--by Americans of all political 
persuasions--to extend that advocacy. And it is that rare example of a 
treaty that allows us to benefit while our neighbors in the global 
community also benefit.
  This agreement consolidates the triumph of political freedom we have 
witnessed in the past few years and extends the philosophy of openness 
to the field of international economics. It continues the process of 
tearing down the barriers that hinder trade among nations.
  Some critics of this measure say it tears down too many walls, and 
exposes America too nakedly to the vagaries of the international 
marketplace. I say, this Nation need never fear fair competition.
  Simply put, we are already the most open Nation on earth. We have 
nothing to fear from further opening the international trading system 
so long as all nations stand on the same level field. More than ever, 
this agreement ensures that our trading partners will extend the same 
openness to us. To deny this agreement would be to deny our national 
heritage, substitute fear for optimism, and forsake the economic 
benefits that will accrue to our Nation from free and fair 
international trade.
  This agreement is first and foremost an indispensable tool for 
facilitating economic growth and job creation in our country. Its 
benefits to American workers in the form of increased incomes and 
better job opportunities will extend from high tech industries in the 
Silicon Valley to farms and ranches in the Heartland to the steel mills 
of Pennsylvania to the furniture factories of the Carolinas.
  But, as beneficial as are the agreement's immediate specific benefits 
to individual Americans, so too are the principles of multilateral free 
trade that it advances.
  One strong advocacy of a free and fair multilateral trading system 
began shortly after World War II with the establishment of GATT. The 
expanded trade resulting from GATT was largely responsible for reviving 
the depressed, war-torn economies of Europe and creating thriving new 
markets for American products.
  That experience demonstrated the benefits free trade bestows upon 
both the United States and its trading partners. Since that time, we 
have been steadfast in our support for GATT, and it has served us well. 
The many trade agreements reached under its auspices have fueled 
economic growth around the world and brought more countries and 
consumers into the international marketplace served by American 
industry.
  Meanwhile, as many are quick to point out, circumstances have changed 
over the years. While the United States still dominates the 
international marketplace, competition for market share is becoming 
fiercer every year. In the face of this new challenge, some have been 
tempted to turn away from multilateral arrangements toward 
protectionism.
  The concerns and frustration underlying that protectionist sentiment 
are powerful. And they are understandable. However, the policy response 
those emotions elicit is myopic. In international trade, our course 
should be charted along the lines of our enlightened self interest, not 
by a visceral reaction to the history of our grievances with other 
nations.
  Closing our markets to foreign goods will close our goods to foreign 
markets. In the long run, that will harm more than help American 
interests.
  By contrast, joining other nations in a multilateral trading system 
on equal terms will expand opportunities for American businesses to 
sell their goods and services abroad. This is truly a case of a rising 
tide lifting all boats.
  There is no dispute about our stake in international trade. Exports 
are vital to the continued growth of the U.S. economy.
  Over the past 5 years, international trade has been the bright spot 
of our economy, generating more new jobs and more economic growth than 
any other sector. International trade represents roughly 25 percent of 
our gross domestic product [GDP], a share that has almost doubled in 
the past 20 years. During the past four decades, new jobs in trade-
related fields grew at three times the pace of overall job creation. As 
a result, export-related industries and companies currently employ over 
10 million American workers.
  The reduction of trade barriers is absolutely essential to the 
continued expansion of the U.S. economy. The Uruguay Round Agreement 
will reduce import tariffs, export subsidies and other trade distorting 
practices. Moreover, it will create a structure that will hold 
signatory countries to their commitments to fair and more open trade.
  The agreement is particularly beneficial to the United States because 
we already have significantly fewer trade barriers than our foreign 
competitors. Cutting tariffs worldwide by an average of 38 percent over 
the next 6 years, combined with standardizing and simplifying customs 
procedures and licensing, will further reduce the cost of exporting 
U.S. goods and services.
  The lower cost of exporting goods and services will encourage more 
U.S. companies to sell their products abroad. Currently, less than 10 
percent of U.S. companies that could export products or services choose 
to participate in the international marketplace. With the Uruguay Round 
Agreement, these companies will have new incentives to develop markets 
around the world. They also will have new assurances that the time they 
invest in developing new markets will not be squandered on trading 
partners that abruptly change their rules and close their markets. Such 
assurances will be especially important to small and innovative 
companies.
  The Uruguay Round Agreement also holds great promise for American 
agriculture, consistently one of our most successful economic 
enterprises in the international marketplace. Experts estimate that 
agriculture exports will increase by as much as $14 billion over the 
next 10 years, creating perhaps 190,000 new jobs in the process. And 
when the agreement is fully implemented, the United States can expect 
an additional $10 to $30 billion of economic activity in agriculture.
  As one who is intimately familiar with the economics of the 
heartland, I can attest that this increased growth is essential to the 
continued prosperity of rural America.
  This new trade environment will be a tremendous advantage for the 
United States. American workers, farmers and entrepreneurs are the best 
in the world. If we make everyone play by the same rules, we will 
continue to excel. The Uruguay Round Agreement is a significant 
landmark in the march toward free and fair trade.
  The projected results of the agreement speak for themselves. Most 
important is the bottom line: the Uruguay Round Agreement is estimated 
to create over 1 million new high-wage jobs in the United States over 
the next 10 years as a result of increased exports of U.S. products and 
services.
  Certainly, this agreement is not perfect. We would all make some 
changes if given the opportunity to draft it on our own terms. But that 
is not the way trade agreements are reached. In fact, when one 
considers the torturous, multiyear negotiating process that brought us 
to this point, it is surprising how favorable the resulting agreement 
is to American interests.
  Before I conclude, Mr. President, I want to address the controversy 
surrounding the World Trade Organization. Many Americans are concerned 
that this new body will undermine American sovereignty. That is a 
serious concern that should not be minimized. And it has not been 
minimized.
  The WTO has been widely mischaracterized as a world regime with 
unlimited jurisdiction that will run roughshod over American interests 
and American laws. In fact, the role of the WTO is limited. It will 
serve primarily to facilitate resolution of disputes over rules to 
which the signatories of the Uruguay round have already agreed.
  In this role, the WTO will help ensure that our trading partners 
abide by the commitments they made when they signed the Uruguay Round 
Agreement. When American companies venture into the international 
marketplace, they will be able to do so with confidence, because they 
will know the rules of the game and they will know that those rules 
will be enforced.
  Critics have charged that the WTO will undermine our worker 
protection, environmental, and food inspection laws. That is not the 
case. The authority to change or make U.S. laws rests solely with the 
Congress of the United States. By the express terms of the agreement 
signed by over 120 countries, even negative rulings of a WTO dispute 
resolution panel are mere recommendations. The WTO does not have 
enforcement powers. This fact is reaffirmed in section 102(a)(1) of the 
implementing language, which explicitly states that U.S. law will not 
be superseded by any provision of the Uruguay Round Agreement.
  While the protections in the agreement and the implementing 
legislation are significant, those who still have doubts about the WTO 
should find reassurance in the recent agreement reached between the 
administration and the Senate Republican leader. The agreement ensures 
that the United States will have the opportunity to pull out of GATT if 
the WTO's decisions are repeatedly inconsistent with American 
interests.
  Mr. President, we cannot afford any further delay. Some of my 
colleagues will oppose this agreement because it violates a 
technicality in the Senate's budget rules. Others will oppose it 
because they would like to change various details in the agreement and 
implementing legislation. I myself am not without some reservations.
  But the simple fact is that the time for equivocation has passed. Too 
much hangs in the balance to back away.
  If we fail to act, we risk setting a dangerous protectionist 
precedent that could nullify all of the gains we have made in market 
access over the last four decades. If we fail to act, we could begin a 
process that will break the world into trading blocs--and cause the 
walls to go once again.
  The Uruguay Round Agreement represents an important continuation of 
our decades-long advocacy of free and fair trade and will serve as a 
building block for future trade agreements. To balk now, after 7 years 
of negotiation under three administrations, would send dangerous 
signals around the world about our commitment to the principles of free 
and fair trade.
  The agreement we consider today reflects the collective bipartisan 
belief of three presidents that an international trading system that is 
both free and fair serves the American national interest. I share that 
assessment.
  Mr. President, on November 8 we experienced a remarkable election. 
While individual members have different reactions to it, the overriding 
message delivered by the voters was unmistakable. The American people 
are tired of what they perceive to be ``business-as-usual,'' partisan 
wrangling among professional politicians. They question our motives and 
relevance in the face of our inability to address very real national 
problems. And they want the Congress and the President to work together 
to deal constructively with these problems and improve the quality of 
their lives.
  While the new congressional line-up does not take effect until 
January, this debate marks the initial post-election test of whether 
Congress learned the lesson of the election and can respond to the will 
of the American people. There will be policy differences between our 
political parties and among individual members. That is inevitable in a 
democracy, and it is healthy.
  Votes are judgment calls, and our constituents elect us to analyze 
facts and make judgments. Americans are, however, becoming less 
tolerant of our penchant for seeking to score political or rhetorical 
points while their concerns go unattended.
  It is time to stop bickering and start governing. This vote, on this 
issue, at this time, will demonstrate that we have heard the voice of 
the people and can work together for the common good.
  My judgment is that approval of the Uruguay Round Agreement is 
important to the future growth of our national economy, and I am 
delighted that the President and the Republican Leader were able to 
work together to reach consensus on the implementing legislation that 
we consider today.
  I urge all my colleagues to approve this historic agreement.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Uruguay 
round agreement.
  In this town, we talk a great deal about winners and losers. We 
wonder who will benefit and who will be hurt by the decisions we make. 
But on the issue before us today, the answer to this question is quite 
easy.
  The typical working family in America would be the true winner if we 
approve this trade agreement. To be sure, American business would be a 
winner, but that's not why we should vote aye. Our standing around the 
world would be strengthened, but that's not why we should back GATT.
  We should back GATT because of what it would mean to working people 
in this country. Although people in some sectors would unfortunately be 
hurt, the gains overall would be impressive. Working people would enjoy 
a major tax cut on many essential products they buy. They could find 
better employment opportunities in a growing export sector. Their 
children would look forward to a brighter future in a competitive, 
vibrant global economy.
  That's what is really at stake here this week. We will hear a great 
deal of ominous talk about a something called a world trade 
organization. We will hear about dolphins and tuna. We will hear 
philosophical discussions about national sovereignty and abstract 
ruminations over international law.
  But when it comes right down to it, GATT is about two things a great 
deal more immediate and a great deal more real to families all across 
this country: better jobs and lower taxes.
  A major boost in family income and a $12 billion tax cut over five 
years for the working people of America. When we get through the pages 
and pages of abstract trade language and the hours and hours of red-hot 
rhetoric, that's what GATT is all about. Better jobs and lower taxes.
  This vote presents us with our first opportunity since the election 
to come together--Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal--on 
behalf of the working families of this country. Passing this trade 
agreement is just about the best holiday present we could give them.


                         u.s. trade leadership

  For almost 50 years, the United States has been the principal leader 
in efforts to expand world trade. After World War II, we vigorously 
pursued trade liberalization not only to increase our own economic 
prosperity but also to bolster the stability of our allies and former 
enemies alike.
  Expanded trade has been the success story of the post-war economy. 
Since the beginning of multilateral trade negotiations, GATT membership 
has increased from 23 nations to 124, and tariffs--which are simply 
taxes on traded goods--have been cut from 40 percent to 5 percent. 
During that time, the global economy has grown faster than during any 
comparable period of world history, and U.S. job creation in trade-
related fields has grown at a rate several times faster than over-all 
job creation.
  Increased trade has also proven to be a foreign policy success. 
Prosperous nations linked together in trade are far less likely to go 
to war. People engaged with each other in commerce are far less likely 
to engage each other in violence.
  It took two world wars to teach us this lesson, and it's as valid 
today as it was half a century ago.


                       where do we go from here?

  Today the nations of the world are linked together in a complex web 
of overlapping trading relations. More than one trillion dollars a day 
is traded in the global markets. And the growth industries in the 
industrialized nations of the world are disproportionately those that 
are succeeding at trade.
  Most have sought these opportunities because the domestic markets for 
their products have been saturated. Their growth--and ours--is 
dependent on increased trade opportunities.
  Recognizing this fact, the past three presidents--Republican and 
Democratic alike--have demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to 
opening markets and expanding world trade. A major step was the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, Already responsible for increasing our 
exports to Mexico at a rate more than three times as fast as U.S. 
exports to the rest of the world.
  The next step is the Uruguay round of GATT, launched under President 
Reagan, advanced by President Bush and completed by President Clinton. 
At the start of negotiations, we enacted legislation outlining our 
principal trading objectives. The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act 
of 1988 established three overall goals: increased market access, a 
reduction of over-all trade barriers and an improved and strengthened 
dispute settlement process.

  The final Uruguay round agreement achieves all of these objectives. 
It will cut overall tariffs by approximately one-third, expand GATT 
discipline to new areas of commercial activity and increase enforcement 
authority for trade violations.


                        world trade organization

  By far, the most controversial part of the Uruguay round agreement is 
the formation of a world trade organization to administer, oversee and 
enforce the conduct of trade relations among participating member 
nations.
  The formation of a governing body with teeth was one of the American 
business community's top priorities during the Uruguay round. Current 
enforcement procedures have proven inadequate. Insufficient deadlines 
for resolving trade challenges have frustrated and delayed decisions 
for years.
  The current reliance on decision-making by consensus has allowed one 
country to block favorable decisions from being implemented. And lax 
surveillance and implementation of final decisions have prevented 
corrective action.
  These deficiencies have disproportionately harmed American 
businesses, which export more products than those from any other 
nation. Since the United States has fewer trade barriers than other 
countries, we have the most to gain by creating and enforcing more fair 
and open international economic playing rules.
  We have nothing to fear from fair competition and an even playing 
field. A team that plays by the rules should have no problem with a 
referee.
  But, as the agreement worked out between the administration and 
Senator Dole last week makes clear, congress can pull the United States 
out of the World Trade Organization if it repeatedly and groundlessly 
rules against us.


                what expanded trade means to connecticut

  My State of Connecticut is already taking advantage of the Global 
economy and is poised to do even more should we pass GATT. Exports have 
been one of the few profit-making and job-creating sectors of 
Connecticut's economy during the recent downturn. The state's exports 
grew by $5.5 billion from 1987 to 1993.
  For years, Connecticut has been one of the most defense-dependent 
states in our Nation. The decline in Federal defense dollars has had a 
severe and lasting impact on our economy. We are fortunate, however, 
that exports helped fill the gap--increasing at approximately the same 
rate as defense dollars declined.
  Connecticut businesses are no longer asking why they should export, 
but how. And they are doing so in greater numbers, thanks to the 
increased level of awareness in the business community heightened by 
the NAFTA debate last year. Connecticut firms and their employees are 
thirsty for trade, and they are anxious to benefit from more targeted 
and coordinated export and financing opportunities.
  The benefits in Connecticut are seen by small and large businesses 
alike. The commerce department reports that 97 percent of all exporting 
businesses in Connecticut have fewer than 500 employees.
  Let me give you just one example of how international trade is 
benefiting Connecticut. Heublein Corportion--which employs 2,000 
Americans, 800 of them in Connecticut--is now selling American-
manufactured Smirnoff vodka in Russia. Smirnoff--produced from a 
Russian recipe by American workers--is a status symbol in Russia. This 
year, Heublein will sell 500,000 cases of Smirnoff, up from zero in 
1990. Most of the vodka is produced in Hartford.
  Heublein has barely tapped this market. The 500,000 cases of vodka 
represent only one-half of one percent of Russian vodka consumption. If 
Heublein can increase Smirnoff's share of the Russian market to just 
five percent, it will see substantial profits, and Connecticut workers 
will hopefully see more jobs.
  The entire New England region--with its large export industries and 
high-technology companies will benefit substantially from the 
intellectual property provisions and increased market access included 
in the Uruguay round.
  Let's take just one example: The pharmaceutical industry, which 
supports 10,000-12,000 jobs in my state alone. While the industry leads 
the world in the development and production of new medicines, it loses 
as much as $5 billion a year through international piracy. A lack of 
recognized and enforced patent protections have enabled foreign 
businesses to easily and inexpensively reproduce U.S. drugs, drugs that 
often take years and millions of dollars to bring to market.
  The Uruguay round agreement will help remedy this problem by 
providing 20 years of patent protection for pharmaceuticals and strict 
enforcement of intellectual property rights, including special border 
measures to prevent the importation of infringing imports. That means 
fair competition for American pharmaceutical firms, and better jobs for 
American workers.


                     western hemisphere free trade

  I hope we will approve this trade agreement, and then look beyond it 
to find other dramatic ways to cut taxes and create high-quality jobs 
for working families through international trade. I believe the first 
step should be a concerted effort to expand trade opportunities in our 
own hemisphere.
  Thirty years ago, John Kennedy proposed a new alliance for progress 
to strengthen our ties to our Latin American and Caribbean neighbors. 
Kennedy implored:

       Let us once again transform the American continent into a 
     vast crucible of revolutionary ideas and efforts--a tribute 
     to the power of the creative energies of free men and women--
     an example to all the world that liberty and progress walk 
     hand in hand. Let us once again awaken our American 
     revolution until it guides the struggle of people 
     everywhere--not with an imperialism of force or fear, but 
     with the rule of courage and freedom and hope for the future 
     of man.

  Three decades later, the political and economic conditions necessary 
to give fruit to these hopes have improved substantially. In my view, 
the hemisphere is ready to move toward free trade and closer ties.
  I believe that we should give the President the authority to 
negotiate a comprehensive and inclusive western hemisphere free trade 
agreement by the end of this century. We should seize the opportunity 
presented by the historic summit of the Americas meeting in Miami as 
the first major step in this direction. If we act with leadership and 
vision, the western hemisphere will enter the 21st century strengthened 
by democracy, warmed by friendship and linked by free trade.
  Latin America and the Caribbean are rapidly becoming larger players 
in the global marketplace, providing promising new markets for American 
exported goods. Since 1989, U.S. exports to the region have grown by 60 
percent. The region is now our third largest trading partner, surpassed 
only by Canada and Western Europe.
  A western hemisphere free trade area would comprise the largest 
single market in the world. It would include nearly three-quarters of a 
billion people and have a gross domestic product of more than $7.3 
trillion.
  A hemispherewide free trade agreement would cement and further recent 
democratic and economic reforms in Latin America. Expanded trade is the 
best tool we have to strengthen the democracies of the region and 
prevent civil strife. And it is the best tool we have to expand markets 
thirsty for U.S. products.
  In addition to expanding market access, our participation in a 
hemisphere-wide accord would strengthen our hand in trade negotiations 
with the Europeans and the Japanese. It would give us more leverage in 
opening up markets around the world. And it would position our economy 
for success in the coming century.


                    caribbean interim trade program

  I want to briefly address another piece of unfinished business 
involving trade in our hemisphere.
  Originally, President Clinton had intended to submit as part of the 
GATT implementing bill a measure that would expand our special trading 
relationship with the Caribbean basin. This provision, called the 
Interim Trade Program (ITP), was intended to encourage trade 
liberalization in the Caribbean region while stimulating a growing 
market for U.S. exports.
  It was--and still is--necessary because of increased pressures on the 
U.S.-Caribbean trading relationship as a result of the North American 
Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay round of the GATT.
  During the past few months, I have been contacted repeatedly by U.S. 
and Caribbean business leaders and government officials who are 
concerned that without the Interim Trade Program trade relations 
between the United States and the region will be slowly undermined. 
Already, there is evidence that Caribbean garment exports to the United 
States have been displaced by exports from Mexico and Asia. Further 
erosion of these trade patterns could have a disastrous effect on 
investment, economic growth and, ultimately, peace and stability in the 
region.
  I understand that the Clinton administration has pledged to resubmit 
this legislation early next year, and that it ``staunchly'' supports 
its enactment as soon as possible. The Caribbean now ranks as our 10th 
largest trading partner, and it is one of the regions with which we 
consistently maintain a trading surplus.
  So I hope my colleagues will join me in urging the administration to 
move quickly on this pledge so we can continue to strengthen our 
mutually beneficial relationship with our Caribbean partners.


                     enhancing u.s. competitiveness

  Expanding trade opportunities--whether in the Caribbean, Latin 
America or elsewhere--is essential to our nation's future prosperity, 
but it alone is not enough. Throughout our trade debates, concerns have 
been voiced about the impact of increased international competition on 
our work force.

  While I disagree with these critics' conclusions that we should turn 
back the clock on free trade, I share many of their concerns. If all 
Americans are to benefit from expanded trade, it is critical that we 
enhance the competitiveness of our nation's work force.
  The American work force is in the process of substantial structural 
change. Increased global economic competition and rapid advances in 
technology have transformed the economy, streamlining manufacturing 
processes and placing a premium on highly-skilled and highly-educated 
workers.
  While the demand for skilled workers has increased, the number of 
jobs available for those lacking skills has declined. According to the 
congressional research service, over the past fifteen years, 
manufacturing jobs--the bedrock of the middle class--declined by 19 
percent, and real wages dropped by 10 percent.
  These trends threaten traditional American middle-class life, and 
they undermine our shared sense of opportunity and experience that form 
the basis for our success as a nation.
  The solution to these difficulties, though, is not to turn back, but 
to confront the obstacles head-on. And we are doing so.
  As a result of the Clinton administration's new investment priorities 
and broad, bipartisan congressional support: 130,000 more children will 
enroll in head start each year, and enter school ready to learn; 
national education standards and goals will help guide student 
instruction for the first time; new school-to-work programs will assist 
students who choose to move directly from high school to work through 
job training programs, apprenticeships and vocational education; 
student loan reform legislation is expanding college access, permitting 
more flexible repayment options, and saving taxpayer dollars through 
direct student lending; our unemployment system is shifting to a 
reemployment system, ensuring that Americans who lose their jobs 
receive skills and job-search assistance to help them find new ones--
not just an unemployment check.
  We must do more--and we will. I look forward to working with 
colleagues in both parties in the Congress ahead to increase the 
security and competitiveness of the American work force.


                               conclusion

  The United States entered the twentieth century as a struggling young 
democracy, and here in the century's closing days we find ourselves the 
world's only superpower. The twentieth century has been correctly 
labelled the American century. If we are to continue our extraordinary 
and unprecedented record of success and leadership, we must embrace the 
future with enthusiasm, strength and foresight.
  The United States has proven itself to be the strongest and most 
resilient nation on earth. Our citizens are our greatest source of 
talent and strength. Time and time again, they have been at their best 
when they have risen to face difficult challenges.
  The American people will face the challenge of the global economy, 
and they will prevail.
  And this Congress will face a decision over whether we will march 
into the economy of tomorrow face first, with our eyes wide-open, or 
whether we will be dragged into it from behind, with our eyes firmly 
fixed on the past.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Uruguay round and cast a vote for 
the working families of America.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will vote for this agreement today, Mr. 
President, because I am convinced that it is a good deal for our 
country, that it will open more opportunities for our workers--the most 
productive in the world today--to sell their products in expanding 
overseas markets.
  But before I explain my decision, I want to say a few words about the 
concerns of those Americans who oppose this agreement.
  If this is such a good deal, why do we hear so many voices raised in 
opposition? I believe that there are real reasons for Americans to be 
concerned about the place of our economy in the world, and concerned 
about the possible effects on our standard of living from increased 
international competition.
  In recent years, American faith in the future, American confidence in 
dealing with the rest of the world, has been replaced with a growing 
anxiety. Before we have had a chance to enjoy our victory in the cold 
war, we now face a world that appears to many of us as a threat to our 
economic wellbeing.
  Mr. President, if you take a hard look at what has happened to our 
standard of living over recent decades, you know why many Americans no 
longer face the future with confidence.
  Two key elements that traditionally supported Americans' faith in the 
future were job security and growing incomes. If you worked hard and 
played by the rules, America was the land where you could make a better 
life for yourself and your children.
  This was the promise, and the reality, of the American economy for a 
whole generation after World War II.
  But in recent years, that reality, that promise, has too often been 
replaced by stagnant wages and declining job stability. In particular, 
middle-class manufacturing jobs have become scarcer, and the security 
of lifetime employment has been replaced by an era of downsizing and 
restructuring.
  In my own State of Delaware, we have worked hard, and succeeded in 
keeping unemployment below the national average, but those trends have 
still hit every key industry.
  In an atmosphere like this, it only makes sense for Americans to be 
concerned about the future, and something that appears as new and 
different as a World Trade Organization as yet another threat to 
American wages and job security.
  For the average working American, wages have not grown for over two 
decades. Families now have to run faster--with both parents working--
just to stay in place. And the jobs that they do find no longer offer 
the promise of security.
  No wonder Americans are skeptical about, even frightened, by an 
agreement that appears to draw us deeper into a world economy, and, 
they are told, ties us to a new international organization over which 
we have no control.
  But these changes that worry us today were not caused by the GATT 
agreement, and rejecting this agreement will not make it any easier for 
us to deal with those changes.
  Other forces have been the source of the changes that rightfully 
concern us. A revolution in technology--led by the United States--has 
transformed virtually every industry in this country. Almost every kind 
of work has been made easier and faster by computers and many other new 
ways of moving and handling information.
  These advances in productivity allow us to make more products with 
less labor. Productivity gains in turn have caused companies here to 
restructure the way they do business, reducing workforces and changing 
the job structure in our country.
  Under these new conditions, we must find new, expanding markets for 
our products if we hope to create new jobs. Those markets exist, 
overseas, but we need agreements like this one to open them to American 
goods.
  Mr. President, if we reject this agreement, we will give up a $700 
billion cut in other countries' tariffs, $700 billion in barriers to 
American products and American job growth.
  If we reject this agreement, we will give up American negotiating 
victories that won us fairer treatment of agricultural and service 
exports. For the first time, these sectors--our most competitive 
internationally--will be subject to fairer rules and will be sold at 
lower prices and higher volume overseas.
  If we reject this agreement, we will give up powerful new protections 
for American intellectual property--the scientific achievements 
embodied in the advanced products and processes we protect with 
patents. Other countries are required for the first time to honor those 
protections.

  That means more jobs here at home, jobs that without this agreement 
will go to countries that will continue to pirate our formulas, 
software, and other American inventions.
  Mr. President, another revolution--against State-controlled societies 
and economies--was led by the United States. The obvious superiority of 
democracy and free enterprise--the lesson America helped to teach the 
world--weakened and then toppled totalitarian systems. Communism 
failed; we won.
  Along with the rise of new, developing, industrial countries, this 
revolution has opened a huge new market to international competition. 
We won the cold war, and our way of life is the most copied and most 
envied on the planet. Now, people in other nations seek their fortunes 
in a global economy in which we are the best prepared to compete.
  Despite the many dangers and evils still abroad in the world today, 
we now see a world less hostile to our way of life, not a world split 
by two irreconcilable visions.
  Mr. President, we are a long way from a world in which everyone 
enjoys the rights and privileges of Americans. And as some of my 
colleagues have argued, there remain far too many countries where wages 
and living standards are low. But in recent years we have seen more 
nations look to the American way as the guide for economic development.
  This is a world in which our workers, our entrepreneurs, scientists, 
and inventors, can compete and win. But to win, we must compete, not 
retreat.
  Just this year, our economy returned to its position as the most 
productive in the world. A world reshaped by our inventions and 
convinced of the superiority of our way of life offers us rich new 
opportunities in expanding markets, if only we will stick to our 
principles of free trade and vote to approve this agreement.
  I have listened to the charges that opponents of this agreement have 
made. They scared me, Mr. President, as they have scared some 
Americans. If I thought those charges were true, there is no way I 
could vote for it. But this agreement is not the cause of the problems 
we face in our economy. In fact, I am convinced that it can be part, 
but only part, of a solution.
  Mr. President, like most of the legislation we pass here in 
Washington, this latest trade deal is neither all its supporters or its 
detractors claim it to be. This legislation is a compromise among many 
different interests, representing something most of us here can agree 
on but that none of us is completely happy with.
  That is also what happened in the years of international 
negotiations, conducted under the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton 
administrations, during which this deal was put together. They produced 
an agreement that is the best accommodation among the one hundred and 
twenty countries that have committed themselves to the world trading 
system.
  And this agreement is just the latest part of a long history of 
international trade agreements since World War II.
  Mr. President, some Americans might gather from some of the 
discussion about this agreement that this is something new for the 
United States, something that will permanently affect our trading 
relations with the rest of the world.
  In fact, this is the eighth round of negotiations we have conducted 
under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade since 1947. As the 
leading market economy in the world, we have consistently pressed 
negotiations with our trading partners to reduce artificial barriers to 
free markets.
  The Uruguay round is a significant step forward, including for the 
first time trade in services and agriculture--areas in which the United 
States has a real advantage, and bringing the frustrating and chaotic 
practices and procedures of the GATT system into a more formal 
structure, the new World Trade Organization.
  As important as those changes are, they are incremental, not a 
radical departure from the past.
  For those citizens whose attention is drawn to trade policy for the 
first time with the debate on this, the eighth round of GATT 
agreements, it is important to put its features into that historical 
context.
  I see this process a little differently, from a perspective that I 
gained in a very different policy area--our arms control negotiations 
over this same period. In some ways, our attempts to lower trade 
barriers is similar to our attempts to reduce the threat of weapons 
around the world.

  From the beginning of the cold war, we recognized that we could not 
achieve our own goal of national security by ourselves. We saw that if 
every nation went its own way, building more and more weapons to match 
the threats of others, no one would be safe.
  Not everyone thought each deal we struck was the best for us--some 
criticized arms control agreements for giving too much to the other 
side, some thought they did not reduce weapons fast enough. But we 
continued to keep the talks going, in the belief--which proved to be 
right--that these complicated issues would only yield to long-term, 
patient negotiation.
  Taking the best we could get at each stage, our arms control policy 
achieved real progress. Today, new, equally difficult negotiations 
continue this process. The alternative--demanding complete capitulation 
by the other side, or abandoning negotiations altogether--will gain us 
nothing.
  International trade negotiations follow this same pattern. Because 
there is no final authority to compel countries to follow any trade 
rules, progress can only be made on those areas in which there has been 
agreement.
  That point bears repeating, Mr. President. The new World Trade 
Organization has authority over trade rules only as long as we agree 
that those rules are in our interest. By the terms of the agreement, we 
can get out of the organization at any time, on six months notice.
  In addition to that fundamental safeguard, we have put into this 
legislation requirements for an annual report on the benefits of this 
deal to the United States, and have scheduled votes every 5 years on 
whether we should stay a member.
  A final, additional safeguard sets up a panel of judges to look at 
any rulings that the World Trade Organization may make affecting the 
United States. If those rulings are not made according to procedures we 
accept, that is grounds for a vote to get out.
  Mr. President, some of my colleagues have argued that we will have 
only one vote in the new World Trade Organization, and claim that will 
put us at an obvious disadvantage in an organization of 120 countries, 
many of which are smaller and less developed than we are.
  But the formal operating rule of the WTO is decision by consensus--
everyone, including the United States must agree before a decision is 
made. Under the current GATT, consensus is used, but only by tradition, 
not by the formal rule required in the Uruguay round before us today.
  If a vote is taken, if consensus fails to produce a decision, no 
important change in our rights or obligations can be made without a 
two-thirds vote, a supermajority in which the influence of the largest 
market and the most productive economy--the United States--will be 
felt.
  But even if we fail to get support to prevent a two-thirds vote, Mr. 
President, any change in rights or obligations will apply only to those 
who vote for it, not to those who disagree. Only by a vote of three-
quarters of the members can change in rights and obligations apply to 
all members, and even then there are provisions for waivers.
  These are hardly the procedures of an organization designed to 
steamroll our country.
  And no action of the WTO has any bearing on State laws, such as 
Delaware's incorporation and other laws that make our State such a good 
place to do business. The Association of State Attorneys General, 
National Governors' Association, and National Council of State 
Legislatures support the Uruguay round agreement because they worked 
closely with the U.S. Trade Representative to get additional protection 
into the legislation we will vote on today.
  This is not the end of the process. It is one more step in a series 
of negotiations to improve the long-term growth opportunities for 
American industries. There are certainly many more barriers and unfair 
practices out there that we want to remove. But there will be other 
agreements, if, and only if, there is a structure that continues to 
serve the interests of the United States.
  Do I like every aspect of the deal? I do not. But I am sure of two 
things: First, with this agreement, American products have better 
access to more markets around the globe than ever before, and 
opportunities are better now for future job creation--in the highest 
paying jobs, in exporting industries.

  And second, I am sure that we have preserved our options--we can 
continue to use the forum of the World Trade Organization to fight for 
American economic interests in the future. Without the organization--
including the stronger rules that we fought for--countries would go 
their own way, back into a system where every nation looks after its 
own narrow interests, and everyone loses.
  Mr. President, that retreat into protectionism will cost American 
jobs, as companies move overseas to beat the tariffs other countries 
raise against products made here. To keep out cheaper imports, we might 
try to raise the cost of products from overseas--by raising tariffs, 
which are taxes on American consumers. We lose jobs, and prices 
increase--this is no answer to the very real problems in our economy.
  If there is any doubt about that, just open your history books to the 
period of the 1930's. That was when we and the rest of the world 
retreated behind protectionism, and we accelerated the slide into a 
world-wide depression. We learned from that bitter experience, and 
after World War II we established the GATT, and have systematically 
pushed back trade barriers ever since.
  Mr. President, my own State of Delaware has been in a great position 
to take advantage of lower trade barriers that we have achieved under 
the GATT. And many of the successes scored by United States negotiators 
in the Uruguay round directly benefit Delaware's key industries.
  At Wilmington, Delaware boasts one of the most important seaports on 
the East Coast, and many of the world's most important high technology, 
chemical and pharmaceutical companies. We stand at the edge of our 
country, and have always looked out to the rest of the world for new 
opportunities.
  The chemical industry is the nation's, and Delaware's, biggest 
exporter--last year, our companies sold $2.3 billion of their products 
overseas, over two-thirds of the State's total exports.
  The Uruguay round cuts tariffs of our most important trading 
partners, widening the markets for Delaware chemical exports. But I 
want us to do more, particularly to bring developing countries under 
the same rules our biggest customers have agreed to. That is why I 
support the creation of a strong organization to continue to press for 
more open markets.
  Our chemical and pharmaceutical companies will also gain important 
protection for their patents--the ``intellectual property'' in their 
formulas and processes. For years, other countries have pirated these 
formulas and processes, but at the insistence of the United States, 
they will now be protected.
  The Delaware Department of Agriculture endorses the Uruguay round 
agreement, because it will increase American exports of poultry and 
other products important to Delaware. United States poultry exports are 
predicted to rise 32 percent over the next ten years under the terms of 
the Uruguay round agreement.
  Not just our biggest companies and industries will benefit from this 
agreement. Delaware has more than 250 exporting businesses. Fully 96 
percent of them are small businesses, with fewer than 500 employees 
each. Throughout our state, jobs are tied to the international economy 
which will continue to grow with the global tariff cuts in the Uruguay 
round agreement.
  Mr. President, this agreement is one step toward a fairer, more 
predictable world trading system, one in which the specific advantages 
of the United States--in the fast growing service sector, in 
agricultural products, in high technology products--receive new 
protection and greater access to the markets of the world.
  Americans are understandably concerned about the changing role of our 
economy in a changing world. In response to those concerns, this 
agreement will open more growing markets to our workers and factories--
the most productive in the world. The agreement will remove $750 
billion in tariff barriers in the international economy, increasing the 
flow of trade in a system where we have the advantage of the biggest 
single market and the most productive workers.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have several concerns with the 
proposed World Trade Organization [WTO] and associated trade 
agreements.
  The latest series of negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade [GATT] was officially completed on April 15 of this year when 
representatives of over 100 countries signed the final act of the 
Uruguay round in Morocco, coming over 4 years after the original 
completion date of December 1990.
  In some important ways, trade barriers are reduced and free-trade is 
enhanced by the most recent GATT. According to the Congressional 
Research Service, tariffs will be reduced an average of one-third on 
thousands of manufactured goods, and it is my understanding that a 
number of improvements have been made in the area of intellectual 
property that may benefit U.S. companies.
  But, Mr. President, there are aspects of the proposed agreement that 
are troubling. There are clearly imbalances in the costs and benefits 
flowing from the proposed agreement, and for certain sectors of the 
economy, the proposed agreement may be a bad deal.
  One of the most important small businesses in my own State of 
Wisconsin, the family dairy farmer, may be particularly hard hit.
  Under the proposed agreement, European nations will be allowed to 
subsidize 30 billion pounds of dairy exports while we will have reduced 
subsidized exports to just 1.5 billion pounds. In addition, we have 
agreed to open our domestic markets to increased dairy imports which 
will, in all likelihood, reduce domestic prices for our own producers.
  A recent analysis of the proposed agreement by Cornell University 
economist Andy Novakovic concluded that the proposed GATT trade 
agreement could lower U.S. milk price by as much as $2 per 
hundredweight.
  In Wisconsin, such a price drop could result in the devastating loss 
of as much as $480 million in annual farm income.
  Mr. President, the economic consequences of such a drop in income 
would extend well beyond the family farms themselves. That kind of blow 
could send many rural areas into significant economic downturns, at a 
time when many are still recovering from last year's floods, and dairy 
farmers are already having to cope with the arrival of bovine growth 
hormone, and the continuing loss of dairy farms to the west and south 
due in large part to a Federal milk marketing order system that 
discriminates against them.
  Mr. President, the potential economic consequences could go even 
further, underscoring my second concern that there may be an effort to 
implement the proposed trade agreement without funding that pact.
  Mr. President, some have argued that we should waive the budget 
rules, and allow the implementing legislation to add to our Federal 
budget deficit. According to a number of estimates, this will amount to 
an additional $40 billion in deficit increases over the next 10 years, 
not including the additional interest that will accrue because of those 
higher deficits.
  Adding such a huge additional burden to the Federal deficit not only 
betrays future generations of taxpayers, it arguably undercuts 
everything we have accomplished in the last year and a half to reduce 
the deficit. By ducking our responsibility on the proposed implementing 
legislation, we will have undone the progress we made to reduce the 
deficit, progress which was so difficult to achieve.
  Waiving our own budget rules in this instance also makes it all the 
easier to do so again whenever finding sufficient funding for a 
politically appealing proposal becomes difficult.
  Making exceptions to tough budget rules will soon render those rules 
meaningless.
  Perhaps even worse than waiving the provisions of our budget rules, 
some are now proposing to change the way we calculate fiscal effects to 
allow controversial assumptions to be made about potential economic 
behavior. The effect of this risky new procedure would be to make it 
much easier for legislative proposals to be considered without being 
fully funded.
  At least a motion to waiver our budget rules is an open, public act, 
for which each Member may be held accountable. Changing the way fiscal 
estimates are calculated is a surreptitious and disingenuous attempt to 
circumvent our budget rules.
  I strongly reject such an effort to sidestep our tough budget rules 
merely to make it easier to promote a political agenda.
  The only way we will continue to reduce the Federal budget deficit is 
to maintain strict budget discipline and fully fund legislative 
proposals with real offsets, not by ``cooking the books'' with 
questionable assumptions.
  If any savings are realized above and beyond those that 
are calculated under the current, more conservative approach, then they 
can be applied to further reducing the deficit.

  Are we now to change the budget rules every time compliance with them 
becomes inconvenient or even difficult?
  Mr. President, we are confronted on a regular basis with having to 
make tough decisions on worthy programs because of our budget rules, 
and rightly so. The Federal budget deficit must be brought down.
  The proposed World Trade Organization is certainly a significant 
matter, but the importance of an issue should not determine whether or 
not it should conform with the budget rules we have set for ourselves.
  Indeed, the true test of our resolve to bring the deficit under 
control is our willingness to apply the budget rules to the important 
issues.
  To those who suggest that we will generate more revenues than will be 
lost, I say, ``all the better.'' Let us fully fund the implementing 
legislation. Then, any hoped for additional revenues we realize will 
reduce the deficit that much further.
  Measure that against the terrible precedent of waiving the budget 
rules, or even worse, of changing those rules to meet our convenience.
  Mr. President, the last concern with the proposed World Trade 
Organization I want to discuss relates to the potential impact it may 
have on how this body, and other democratic policy-making institutions, 
will be affected by our adoption of the proposed agreement.
  Despite a comprehensive set of rules, detailing what trade activities 
are permitted and what are not, as well as a dispute mechanism, the 
world trade system has largely been one of concensus. As the senior 
Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] has pointed out, this is because 
there never has been a formal ratification of what was to have been the 
treaty formalizing our membership in something called the International 
Trade Organization, proposed just after World War II.
  Instead, we have operated in the trade system by unanimous consent.
  Mr. President, this system has worked both for and against our trade 
interests, just as the rules of this body sometimes stymie legislation 
we may want, while also providing individual members and groups of 
members protection against possible abuse of majority power.

  An example where the United States has exercised its effective veto 
power by refusing to consent is the tuna-dolphin issue. Despite 
findings against our Marine Mammal Protection law, the United States 
has not consented to those findings. As a result, we have not had to 
change our Marine Mammal Protection law, nor have we been forced to pay 
compensation, nor have we been subjected to trade sanctions because of 
the findings against us.
  This would not be the case under the proposed WTO. If we were to lose 
the tuna-dolphin dispute as a member of the WTO, and there is every 
reason to suppose that we will, the United States would be put into the 
position of having to choose between changing one of our laws, paying 
compensation, or being subject to trade sanctions.
  We would be faced with these same three options any time we lost a 
dispute with respect to a domestic law.
  Mr. President, responsible representatives of a number of different 
organizations have noted that there may well be a significant impact on 
our current laws and regulations as well as on future policy and 
policy-making.
  The response that some forward--that the proposed WTO and associated 
trade agreements will mean freer trade--is not sufficient reason for 
the Senate to ratify membership in the proposed WTO.
  With respect to our Nation's domestic policies, and aside from the 
noneconomic goals of our country, though free trade may be a priority 
for our economy, no trade agreement should come at the expense of the 
policies that enhance the 90 percent of our economy that is entirely 
domestic.
  Nor is free trade the only goal of our foreign policy.
  Mr. President, a foreign policy that promotes democratic ideals, that 
enhances human rights, that protects the common environment of the 
world in which we live, is certainly also a goal. Two useful methods of 
achieving these goals have been through trade levers and economic 
sanctions.
  The proposed agreement greatly diminishes our ability to use these 
tools, and leaves us with fewer, more perilous alternatives.

  And, Mr. President, as others have noted, in addition to our federal 
laws, our State and local laws would be subject to the oversight of the 
WTO as well.
  The ominous and far-reaching effect of this agreement has been felt 
already. Responding to a number of Members who expressed concerns about 
the effect the proposed agreement would have on our ability to ban 
imports made by child labor, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Kantor, 
in a letter to those Members, conceded that nothing in the proposed 
agreement would change previous GATT rulings that the United States 
could not block the importation of a product made by child labor.
  Of broader concern were Ambassador Kantor's additional comments in 
that letter in which he also conceded that it was likely that the 
administration will oppose legislation they consider to conflict with 
the rules of the proposed new World Trade Organization.
  In fact, this may have occurred already as it is my understanding 
that during the past session the administration voiced their opposition 
to at least one telecommunications reform proposal as being GATT 
illegal.
  Mr. President, because of this very aspect of the pact, some have 
suggested this proposal should be considered as a treaty. Given the 
potential impact our membership may have on our federal, state and 
local laws and lawmaking, and on our ability to promote the foreign 
policy goals I noted earlier, requiring the agreement to be ratified as 
a treaty may be appropriate.
  Mr. President, there have been some recent developments with respect 
to the proposed implementing legislation that I also want address. In 
particular, I know many were interested in the agreement reached 
between the administration and the Republican Leader, Mr. Dole.
  As I understand this agreement, a judicial panel that would advise 
Congress is created to review the WTO dispute settlement process, and 
to determine whether WTO dispute panels exceed their authority or act 
outside the scope of the GATT agreement.
  On the charge given to this proposed judicial panel, I would only 
note that much of the foreboding that surrounds the WTO dispute 
settlement procedures have not been that a WTO panel would act outside 
its scope or exceed its authority, but that the scope and authority 
granted such panels in the first place are enormously broad and overly 
intrusive.

  Beyond that, Mr. President, the creation of a judicial review panel 
to advise Congress on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 
whatever its charge, does not satisfy the concerns I have outlined.
  The creation of a judicial advisory panel does nothing to solve the 
deficit problem created by the GATT implementing bill. Not one more 
penny in offsets is added to the current inadequate level of funding, 
so the implementing legislation still violates our budget rules.
  Nor does the creation of judicial panel correct the gross inequities 
confronting our domestic dairy industry. European nations will still be 
allowed to subsidize 30 billion pounds of dairy exports while we will 
have reduced subsidized exports to just 1.5 billion pounds, with 
potential devastating economic consequences for family farms and many 
rural communities.
  Nor does the creation of a judicial panel change the outcome of any 
ruling by the WTO, nor would it change the impact such a ruling could 
have on our Federal, State, and local laws, or on our ability to 
conduct foreign policy.
  In this respect, the defect in the current agreement, as presented to 
Congress, is that we are asked to choose between increased trade and 
independent democratic institutions. That choice is fundamentally 
flawed, and the creation of a judicial panel does not correct the 
shortcoming.
  Mr. President, I hope we will not decide that, in the name of free 
trade, we should join a new international organization that may 
dramatically alter and even harm the ability of our democratic 
institutions to set trade and non-trade related policies.
  Mr. President, we should reject the proposed pact, and seek a new 
one--one that provides truly free and fair trade for all sectors of the 
economy, one that is fully funded, and one that preserves our cherished 
democratic institutions.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I rise in support of this bill to 
implement the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade--GATT. While this is not perfect legislation, and there are parts 
of this bill that I am deeply concerned about, I believe it is 
important for our Nation's economic future that we pass this 
legislation.
  The Uruguay round opens foreign markets to U.S. goods and services by 
lowering tariffs and non-tariff barriers in foreign countries, which 
will benefit many Michigan industries. For example, it will, on 
average, reduce foreign tariffs on autos by over 50% and on auto parts 
by over 25% by our major trading partners. It will cut foreign tariffs 
on household appliances in our major markets by over 40% on average. It 
will eliminate duties on furniture exports to Japan and the European 
Union as well as strengthen intellectual property protection for 
furniture designs. And it will cut foreign tariffs on machine tools and 
open up foreign government procurement markets to U.S. companies.
  While lowering foreign trade barriers, the legislation preserves U.S. 
trade laws. For example, this bill includes a 1-year legislative 
extension of Super 301. While the provision is not identical to the 
original Super 301 provision I coauthored with Senator Danforth in the 
1988 Trade Act, I am pleased that the administration and the Congress 
have recognized the usefulness of this important tool for overcoming 
foreign trade barriers.
  The bill also includes a provision directing the President to request 
the establishment of a working group on trade and labor rights within 
the new World Trade Organization--WTO. While I would like to have seen 
more on labor rights in this legislation, I believe that such a working 
group is an appropriate first step toward grappling with these issues.
  There are a number of specific issues included in this legislation 
that I would like to briefly mention. First of all, let me point out 
that there are losers as well as winners under this Agreement. One of 
those industries that we face increased pressure under this Agreement 
is the zinc alloy industry. Because of reduced U.S. tariffs on zinc 
alloy imports, this industry is in danger of facing a surge of low-
priced imports.
  I am pleased that the Statement of Administrative Action--SAA--
accompanying this Agreement, which has the force of law, contains a 
provision which I sponsored requiring the administration to monitor 
zinc alloy imports. This monitoring will continue as tariffs are 
reduced for a period of at least 8 years, to determine if there is an 
injury or threat of injury to the industry and to the national 
security. If there is reason to believe that there is either severe 
injury or the threat of severe injury, or injury to national security 
due to imports of zinc alloys, the administration will initiate a 
section 201 or section 232 investigation to halt the injurious surge of 
imports. I hope the administration will be aggressive in its monitoring 
and investigation activities concerning zinc alloy imports.
  A second provision relates to how the anti-dumping laws are applied 
agricultural growers and processors. This problem came to my attention 
in the late 1980's when Michigan cherry growers complained that dumped 
cherry concentrate was causing them injury, even though the domestic 
processors themselves, the concentrators, were not necessarily 
affected. Because it was concentrate, and not cherries, that was being 
dumped, and because not all of the Michigan cherries went into 
concentrate, the domestic growers did not have a remedy under current 
law.
  This is a very complicated problem, affecting many agricultural 
products. The SAA commits the administration to review the issue and 
propose legislation, if appropriate, to solve this problem. Again, I 
hope the administration will be aggressive is addressing this ongoing 
problem.
  There are other provisions in this legislation, specifically in the 
area of anti-dumping and countervailing duties, that continue to 
concern me. One outstanding issue is that of duty absorption. In too 
many cases, importers who have been caught unfairly dumping or 
subsidizing their products are simply absorbing the costs of the duties 
imposed on them. By not raising prices by the amount of the duty as 
they should be doing, the importers continue their unfair practice of 
buying market share even though they may be losing money. The result is 
that the anti-dumping and countervailing duties are not effective in 
stopping the unfair practices.
  This bill takes steps to correct the problem by requiring that duty 
absorption be considered when the International Trade Commission 
undertakes its administrative reviews of a dumping order to determine 
whether those orders should continue. However, the bill does not go the 
next step to require a calculation of the size of the duty absorption. 
Such a calculation as part of the review process would help 
policymakers by showing the extent of the problem. The Administration 
does not need legislation to perform this calculation; nor does the 
legislation prohibit such a calculation. I hope they will take it upon 
themselves to make this calculation.

  I am also concerned over the method used to calculate the exemption 
for start-up costs in an anti-dumping or countervailing duty case. This 
legislation contains a provision clarifying that such an exemption is 
available only for true start-up costs and not for costs such as a 
model year change over in the auto industry. However, the legislation 
allows variable costs, as well as fixed cost, to be excluded from the 
calculation of costs in start-up situations. While fixed costs are a 
legitimate start-up expense, variable costs are an on-going operational 
cost and should not have been included in this exemption. I hope this 
issue will be revisited by a future Congress.
  In addition, I am concerned about the Agreement's new subsidies code. 
Some of my colleagues fear that the new subsidies rules will force the 
U.S. into a subsidies war by allowing only a very limited amount of 
government funding for industrial research. I disagree. The subsidies 
war started long ago, and America has been losing. I fear that these 
new subsidies rules will push us more toward unilateral disarmament 
while not stopping our foreign competitors. An Agreement will not stop 
other nations from unfairly trying to wreck American industries. That 
will take vigorous action by the Federal government in enforcing the 
new rules and in pursuing assistance to industry where allowed under 
the rules. We must continue to do all that we can to promote and 
maintain America's technological competitiveness.


                             gatt and nafta

  Mr. President, I was a strong opponent of the North America Free 
Trade Agreement (NAFTA). I felt, and still believe, that NAFTA was 
fundamentally a bad deal for American workers and the American economy. 
Much of the recent celebratory noises about NAFTA are, at best, 
premature. Shifts in investment and the movement of plants and jobs 
takes years to show up in the statistics. However, the trend is very 
clear. One just has to look at the number of petitions for the special 
NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits to realize that companies 
are already shipping jobs south.
  But the GATT agreement is not NAFTA. At its core, NAFTA was all about 
the economic integration of a developed nation with a developing 
nation. It was a merger between two economies with fundamentally 
different structures and situations.
  I supported the U.S.-Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA). The CFTA 
was essentially a deal between like-parties. The U.S. and Canadian 
economies are similar in their structure and level of development, and 
were already highly integrated. The CFTA was an agreement to set in 
place rules to govern our already intertwined economies. NAFTA was 
designed to put in place rules to force a joining of very different 
economies.
  In that sense, the new GATT agreement is much more similar to the 
CFTA than it is to NAFTA--even though GATT does not go as far as toward 
integrating economies as the CFTA does. GATT is more a deal between 
equals. While the agreement broadens the scope of GATT coverage to 
include more developing countries under its rules, its core is 
comprised of the developed nations--especially the so-called ``quad'' 
of the U.S., Canada, Japan and the European Union.
  Whereas NAFTA was, at heart, an issue of economic integration, GATT 
is, at heart, an issue of lowering foreign trade barriers. The Uruguay 
Round includeds an over 40% reduction in tariffs on the most important 
manufacturing exports to Europe and Japan. It includes large tariff 
reductions in developing nations, such as the rapidly expanding markets 
in Asia and the Pacific. It also includes an important agreement on 
agriculture, including the opening of the Japanese rice market.
  At the same time, unlike NAFTA, the Uruguay Round does not eliminate 
all U.S. tariffs. Under NAFTA, all tariffs on Mexican and Canadian 
goods will be eliminated. Under GATT, some tariffs will be phased out, 
others will be reduced, and yet others will remain in place.
  A look at the dispute settlement process in GATT and NAFTA confirms 
the difference. Under NAFTA as an economic integration process, the 
binational dispute settlement panels can review and overturn decisions 
by the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission in 
cases involving U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws. The new 
WTO dispute settlement panels under the new Uruguay Round agreement 
don't have the power to overturn U.S. decisions. They can authorize 
other nations to seek retaliation, but they have no power directly over 
U.S. decisions. Rather than seeking economic integration, as under 
NAFTA, the Uruguay Round Agreement seeks to set up a mechanism to 
manage the rules of the road on international trade.

  Finally, and very importantly, the issue of investment is treated 
very differently in GATT and NAFTA. NAFTA was, in my view, an agreement 
to make Mexico safe for U.S. investments. One of its major purposes was 
to reduce the barriers to U.S. companies who wanted to set up 
operations in Mexico. The proponents of NAFTA couched this in terms of 
being able to have Mexican plants to serve the Mexican market. I think 
time will show that the results will be to move U.S. plants to Mexico 
to then sell products back to the U.S. market.
  GATT, on the other hand, says very little about investment. To some, 
this is a great short-coming of the agreement. However, I believe that 
the entire issue of the link between investment and trade is one which 
we need much more time to discuss and understand. Had the uruguay Round 
Agreement taken major steps that would have increased incentives for 
U.S. companies to move overseas, I would be strongly against it. But 
the new GATT Agreement, unlike NAFTA, does not include these 
incentives.


                                funding

  One of the areas that concerns me about this bill is the financing 
package. Under the current pay-as-you-go budgeting rules, Congress must 
insure that the bill will be budget neutral. Since implementing the 
agreement involves reducing tariffs on foreign goods sold in the U.S., 
Congress must either raise new revenues or cut spending to replace the 
revenues lost due to these cuts in tariffs. The amount in question is 
almost $12 billion over the first 5 years of the agreement. The bill 
sent to us by the Clinton Administration includes a $12 billion 
financing package, worked out in cooperation with the Senate Finance 
Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.
  Technically, however, the bill does not cover all the revenues lose. 
Under a special Senate rule, revenues offsets are required for a full 
10 years. This rule is separate and beyond the budget deficit reduction 
requirements we have enacted over the years, As I stated earlier, the 
funding package included in this bill covers only the first 5 years. 
Thus, the bill is subject to a point of order under the Senate rules, 
which requires 60 votes to waive.
  I firmly believe that this legislation, by opening foreign markets to 
U.S. goods and services, will promote economic growth here in America 
and will not result in an increase in the Federal budget deficit. 
Therefore, I will vote to waive any budget point of order that may be 
raised with respect to this bill. We should not allow technical 
accounting rules to get in the way of doing what must be done to ensure 
that America remains a strong player in the global economy.
  While I generally do not oppose this funding package, I am opposed to 
one element of it--the provisions concerned with the Pension Benefit 
Guarantee Corporation [PBGC]. I stand committed to ensuring that secure 
retirements are available to the working men and women in this country 
and understand that PBGC reform may be needed. However, the PBGC reform 
proposal included in this legislation has been subject to few hearings 
and almost no formal scrutiny by the relevant committees. I am 
concerned that we may be enacting far reaching changes to the pension 
system in our country without adequate debate or discussion.


                               fast track

  The issue of the PBGC reform proposals highlights my second concern 
over this bill--the so-called ``fast track'' process. Under the fast 
track procedure, legislation to implement a trade agreement proceeds 
under a specific timetable for Congressional consideration with no 
amendments allowed. My concern is not over the timetable for debate. I 
am, however, deeply concerned over the no amendment rule.
  As the PBGC issue illustrates, fast track is being used for more than 
simply trade-specific items coming out of a multilateral negotiation. 
At a very minimum, future Congresses should not allow fast track 
procedures for trade agreements to be used beyond the intended scope to 
enact non-trade legislation. Any future procedure for handling trade 
agreements should allow amendments in general--and must, at least, 
allow amendments to non-trade, non-germane provisions.
  There are those who claim that trade agreements must be an all-or-
nothing vote by the Congress. They claim that to allow amendments to 
such a large agreement, negotiated by so many countries, would result 
in an unraveling of the agreement and its certain death.
  I disagree. The Congress, as the elected representatives of the 
people, should and must have a say in not only the final product of 
such trade agreements but also in the details.
  Even if such a fast track procedure were critical for large, 
multilateral agreements, the same procedure need not apply to bilateral 
trade agreements. Proponents of fast track claim it would be impossible 
to renegotiate an amendment with over 100 other nations. Even accepting 
that, surely it would be possible to renegotiate with a single nation 
over an issue held by the Congress to be important. Our experience with 
the NAFTA side-agreements confirms that such renegotiations are 
possible.
  Likewise, there is no need to extend fast track to the financing 
packages of a trade agreement. Under the current budget rules, any 
amendments to the fund provisions would have to be completely offset by 
a substitute funding provision. Opponents could not kill the agreement 
by amendment, as some fear. Changes in the financing package would not 
require renegotiations of the trade agreement itself. Thus, the 
rationale for fast track does not apply.
  I believe that our experience with this GATT implementing legislation 
should serve as a lesson to future Congresses. When used, if at all, 
fast track procedures should be explicitly reserved for truly 
multilateral trade provisions. They must be clearly restricted to only 
those parts of a multilateral agreement negotiated with other nations. 
All other parts of the bill must be subject to amendment--including the 
right of the Congress to add additional safeguards if necessary. Under 
this process, the rights and obligations of Congress are preserved 
while the negotiated parts of the agreement are not subject to 
amendment and the threat of renegotiation.
  This system I have proposed would, I believe, overcome the flaws that 
have become evidence in the current fast track process, while 
continuing our ability to negotiate trade agreements. I hope future 
Congresses will look carefully at this suggestion when debating any 
renewal of fast track authority.


                     sovereignty and related issues

  While I have concerns over this Agreement, I do not believe that it 
violates U.S. sovereignty, as some have claimed. The rules under which 
the WTO will operate are generally the same as for the current GATT--
something not well understood. In most cases where there have been 
changes to the rules, the new rules have a stricter voting 
requirement--such as increasing the voting requirement from a simple 
majority or two-thirds to three-quarters, or even to requiring a 
consensus. Thus, the fears that the U.S. will be ``out-voted'' are even 
less under the new rules than under the existing system.
  In addition, the WTO, like the GATT, provides a mechanism for leaving 
the Agreement. This is the ultimate safeguard of U.S. interests--one 
that I hope this Administration and future Administrations will use 
wisely.
  There is one change in the rules that has caused legitimate concern. 
Under the existing system, any finding by a dispute settlement panel 
can be blocked by either party. In other words, if we challenge another 
country's trade laws as unfair in the GATT, that country can block a 
GATT finding that their law or practice is an unfair trade restriction. 
Likewise, we can block any finding against us.
  Some have claimed that this means that all U.S. laws are at the mercy 
of foreign governments. This is not the case. First of all, the finding 
of a dispute settlement panel is only that--a finding. Such findings do 
not overturn U.S. laws or regulations. Only Congress can change U.S. 
law.
  If another nation does win a dispute settlement finding against us, 
there are only four things that could happen. First, the U.S. could 
change its law or regulation. Second, the U.S. could give the other 
nation a trade compensation--such as lowering existing tariffs on some 
good exported by that nation to us. Such a compensation must be in the 
same amount as the economic harm to that nation's trade caused by the 
U.S. law. Third, the other nation could retaliate against some U.S. 
export by, for example, raising their tariffs in the same amount as the 
economic harm.
  Finally, nothing might happen. The U.S. might decide not to change 
its law or regulation and not to grant a trade compensation. And the 
other nation might decide not to retaliate, even under WTO sanction, 
for fear of starting a trade war.
  While I reject the claims that the Agreement violates U.S. 
sovereignty, I share the concern that adverse rulings by the dispute 
settlement panel will be used as political pressure to force a change 
in U.S. law. We must keep up our vigilance to ensure that U.S. laws, 
especially those concerning worker rights and health and safety issues, 
are not changed merely to suit the convenience of other nations. I 
commended those who have raised this concern and hope that they will 
continue as strong watchdogs of this Agreement.


                            future of trade

  Mr. President, as all my colleagues know, I share the concern of many 
that for too many years, America has been the patsy of the world when 
it comes to trade. We have opened up our markets while others have kept 
them closed--a situation I hope this Agreement will finally reverse.
  Labor Secretary Robert Reich has coined the term ``the anxious 
class'' to describe the feeling that has afflicted the middle class in 
this country. Wages, incomes and standards of living for working 
Americans stagnated over 20 years ago. Two incomes are now needed to 
maintain middle-class status. At the same time, job security has 
declined as too many companies continue to look upon workers as a cost 
rather than as an asset.
  Recessions have made matters worse; but recoveries have not helped. 
Even now, the benefits of the most recent economic recovery have been 
too few for too many Americans.
  Many are opposed to this Agreement--based on these all to real fears. 
However, rejecting this Agreement will do nothing to advance our agenda 
to create an effective trade strategy. It will only slow us down as it 
forces us to re-open all of the old trade arguments of the past decade.
  Rather than turn inward, we need to continue to insist on a trade 
strategy that opens foreign markets to U.S. goods and services. We need 
a trade strategy that targets our export promotion activities toward 
those markets and those products were we excel. And we need a trade 
strategy that aggressively uses all the tools at our disposal to 
counteract unfair and predatory practices by our trading partners.
  We have the elements of the strategy today. For example, the work of 
the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) within the 
Administration has strengthened our export promotion activities. The 
TPCC has produced and is implementing a strategy to target the so-
called Big Emerging Market and Big Emerging Sectors.
  These efforts need to be backed up with strong efforts to counter 
closed markets and unfair trading practices. We have begun to make 
progress in some cases, such as in telecommunications and government 
procurement in Japan. But much more is needed, especially in the area 
of autos and auto parts.
  Finally, we need to proceed carefully with the next steps of trade 
talks. We should not let the heady rhetoric of global free trade 
obscure the harsh reality of the strategic nature of the global 
economy. We should proceed slowly with grand plans for free trade areas 
in the Asian-Pacific region and Latin American--carefully weighing the 
costs and benefits of such plans. Opening of foreign markets and the 
reduction of trade barriers should be our goal--not the headlong rush 
toward economic integration regardless of the costs.
  I am convinced that we can craft a strategic trade policy for 
America--one that opens markets to U.S. goods and services abroad and 
raises workers' standard of living at home. The first step is to move 
forward, not backward. Adoption of this legislation to implement the 
Uruguay Round Agreement is that step forward. We need to pass this 
Agreement and move on.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today we face one of the most important 
votes in the economic history of this Nation. The job growth and 
expansion opportunities for our country hang in the balance of this 
vote and it is up to us to make the right decision. As the world 
becomes smaller because of the explosion in communications and 
information technologies, we must make the transition to this global 
economy in a way that provides the maximum benefit for these United 
States of America. Will this task be easy--No. Is it possible--Yes. 
Well, how can we get there--By passing the Uruguay Round GATT 
Agreement, the United States can take advantage of our inherent 
competitive advantages in these new global markets.
  Mr. President, our historic debate on GATT, which culminates in a 
final vote today, should answer a number of important questions for the 
American people. In the next few minutes, I would like to pose some of 
those questions and provide some answers.
  What is GATT? Simply put, this agreement sets up a system to help 
govern how the various member countries will trade. With varying 
cultures, customs, and laws, this type of agreement is necessary to 
facilitate open and fair trade among nations. GATT reduces tariffs 
around the world by roughly one-third. Since a tariff is nothing more 
than a tax on exports, this translates into the largest worldwide tax 
cut in history of some $744 billion. Just as the NAFTA agreement has 
helped open markets with our trading partners to the north and south 
and set up a better defined system to facilitate trade, the GATT will 
accrue these same benefits with over 120 countries.
  Is the GATT agreement perfect?--No, few things are. Will every sector 
of our economy win under this GATT?--No, but rejecting this agreement 
on behalf of a handful of industries is hardly equitable for the 
overwhelming majority of our economic sectors that stand to benefit 
greatly by expanded opportunities around the world.
  What does GATT mean for my home State of Arkansas?--It means new 
markets, new jobs and economic growth. Just look at what Arkansas has 
experienced the last few years in terms of exports. In 1987, Arkansas 
exported merchandise worth around $408 million. By 1993, Arkansas 
exports had grown to over $1.1 billion--an increase of 172 percent, 
giving it the eighth largest percentage increase among all the States. 
We have clearly demonstrated our ability to compete in the world and 
this agreement only facilitates more opportunities with new markets.
  Where are Arkansas exports going?--All over the world. In the Pacific 
rim alone, exports from Arkansas totaled some $269 million. In 
addition, we enjoyed approximately $174 million in exports to the 
European union and had sales to Latin America and the Caribbean region 
totaling $107 million.
  What kind of exports does Arkansas make?--Some 95 percent of 
Arkansas' export sales in 1993 consisted of manufactured goods which 
translate into jobs and opportunities for Arkansans. Specifically, $305 
million of these from the food products industry, $185 million from the 
chemical products industry and nearly $122 million from the industrial 
machinery and computers industries, not to mention electric and 
electronic equipment, transportation equipment, and fabricated metal 
products representing over $250 million cumulatively.

  Mr. President, I am confident that America will benefit from GATT. 
But it is also my responsibility to look after the effect GATT or any 
other measure before Congress will have on the State of Arkansas. Mr. 
President, the facts I have just mentioned make if abundantly clear 
that Arkansas will be a major winner under this trade agreement by 
increasing the trade exports that have benefited our State tremendously 
during the last several years. I for one, will not sit back and take a 
pass on an opportunity to increase Arkansas' prosperity.
  If it is true that 95 percent of the world's population is outside 
the United States, then why shouldn't Arkansas and the rest of the 
nation be the ones to sell food, goods and products to these consumers. 
If we don't, someone else will. We cannot afford to allow some other 
country to surpass our position as the world's largest exporter.
  Roughly, 60 years ago, this country turned away from foreign markets 
and sought to build a wall around our country. This legislation was 
known as the Smoot-Hawley Act and helped lead us to our worst economic 
depression. Today, the Congress is again faced with the choice between 
free markets or isolationism. -I believe we should learn from our 
mistakes and not let history repeat itself. We should take advantage of 
the enormous benefits this agreement will bring to Arkansas and the 
rest of the country.
  There have been red herring arguments galore in this debate 
predicting gloom and doom should we pass this legislation implementing 
the agreement. For example, some have argued the very sovereignty of 
our country may be jeopardized. Mr. President, as much or more than any 
member of the Senate, I am concerned anytime our sovereignty may be 
threatened, but this agreement does not. Even the conservative jurist 
Robert Bork has studied this agreement and in his legal opinion GATT 
does not pose a threat to the sovereignty of the United States. The 
Congress of the United States and only the Congress can change any law 
of the United States.
  Mr. President, let us not fall into the easy traps of being against 
change especially when the benefits can be so great. The United States 
needs this GATT agreement and it is up to us to deliver. Let's pass the 
GATT and any procedural votes necessary to do so.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I support the GATT implementing 
legislation. I believe that the GATT Agreement is good for the American 
people, good for our international competitiveness, and good for our 
collective future as a nation and a people.
  The history of expanding trade opportunities has been a history of 
increasing economic growth, both here in the United States and 
overseas. Lowering trade barriers has consistently produced new jobs--
good jobs--here at home.
  Over the last 50 years, the United States has provided an enormous 
market to the countries of the world. At the same time, we have worked 
to gain market access for American products. Both Americans and the 
rest of the world have benefitted. Eliminating trade barriers and 
increasing trade has therefore been a win-win proposition for the 
United States.
  The Uruguay round agreements of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade is designed to continue that ``win-win'' tradition. It opens 
markets and reduces tariff and nontariff barriers, in order to expand 
trade, economic growth and job opportunities.
  The evidence is convincing that this agreement will be good for the 
American people. Over the next 10 years, United States GDP will expand 
by $100 to $200 billion as a result of GATT. It will create hundreds of 
thousands of new jobs. It will increase U.S. productivity, real wages, 
and living standards. In 1992, 10\1/2\ million U.S. workers owed their 
jobs to exports of goods and services. And jobs related to exports pay 
an average of 13 percent more than the national average wage.
  Under the new GATT Agreement, the United States achieved a 40 percent 
average reduction of tariffs that our major trading partners impose on 
U.S. products. In the area of industrial goods, worldwide tariffs on 
construction equipment, farm equipment, medical devices, 
pharmaceuticals, steel mill products, and beer and distilled spirits 
will be eliminated. Tariffs on electronic equipment and scientific 
instruments will be halved.
  These are all areas where U.S. products are of the highest quality in 
the world. What is more, workers who make medical devices and 
construction equipment are well paid. When we sell more of these 
products to the rest of the world, we create high skilled, high paying 
jobs.
  In agriculture, the Uruguay round has been very successful in 
reducing trade-distorting subsidies. The United States Department of 
Agriculture expects U.S. agricultural exports to nearly double from 
$4.7 billion to $8.7 billion in the next 10 years as a result of the 
Uruguay round agreements. Increased exports will raise U.S. farm 
prices, increase farm income, and lower U.S. Government outlays on 
price and income support programs. Agricultural export-related 
employment is expected to increase by as much as 190,000 jobs in the 
next 10 years.
  For the first time ever, the GATT Agreements establish multilateral, 
legally enforceable rules for trade in services. Areas such as 
accounting, advertising, architecture, and engineering services, as 
well as financial services, will come under the General Agreement on 
Trade in Services. Foreign governments' will no longer be able to 
discriminate against U.S. banking and insurance companies. Service 
providers from other countries will receive no less favorable treatment 
than that accorded to local service suppliers. U.S. firms will also 
have the right of repatriate profits.
  Seventy percent of U.S. jobs are in the service sector. The General 
Agreement on Trade in Services provides new international rules that 
will greatly benefit this largest sector of the American economy in its 
effort to compete overseas, and that will mean additional new jobs here 
in the United States.
  In the area of intellectual property, the trade-related intellectual 
property rights agreement establishes enforceable multilateral 
obligations to protect copyrights, patents, and trade secrets. Computer 
software and databases will finally have the same protection as a 
literary work.
  These agreements will have a very positive effect on Illinois, 
because Illinois is a major exporting State. In 1993, Illinois exported 
just over $20 billion of merchandise and services. From 1987 to 1993, 
Illinois exports doubled, and the GATT Agreement will lead to further 
major increases in Illinois exports.
  More importantly, the GATT reduces tariffs imposed by our largest 
trading partners. Illinois exports $4.7 billion of goods and services 
to the European Union. Those tariffs will be reduced an average of 54 
percent. Illinois exports almost $2 billion of goods and services to 
Japan. Those tariffs will be reduced an average of 39 percent.
  This agreement eliminates and reduces tariffs in areas where Illinois 
products are strongest. Illinois exported $5.5 billion in industrial 
machinery. We exported $3 billion in agricultural products. With the 
reduction of tariffs and trade distorting agricultural subsides, these 
numbers will only increase. And that means more Illinois jobs for 
urban, suburban, and rural communities.
  I would like to address some of the concerns I have heard from people 
in Illinois regarding the World Trade Organization, and the new rules 
regarding dispute resolution. Under the WTO, the procedures of 
investigating a trade dispute will be much the same as the current 
process. The difference is that decisions, which are the outcomes of 
these investigations, will be enforceable.
  The United States will continue to be able to reject a decision of 
the WTO. If a decision is made against the United States, and 
subsequent negotiations cannot resolve the issue, the plaintiff can 
retaliate by lifting tariffs back to where they are today. Further, the 
President will support legislation to establish a WTO dispute 
settlement review commission to ensure that the WTO acted fairly.
  I do not believe that the United States will be losing its 
sovereignty by joining the WTO. Quite the opposite, the WTO will ensure 
that the rest of the world practices the kind of fair and open trade 
that the United States has always practiced.
  I would like to take a moment to address the anxiety of labor unions, 
environmental groups, and consumer groups, who have expressed their 
deep concerns bout the GATT agreements. To my friends in the 
environmental movement, I would like to say that I would not support 
the GATT if I thought it would lower American environmental standards. 
I do not believe that laws that protect food safety and air quality 
will be found GATT illegal. As we saw in the recent ruling on cafe 
standards, our environmental laws are legal as long as they do not 
favor domestic producers over foreign ones.
  With regard to labor, I understand the concerns of Americans who 
worry about losing jobs to low-wage workers overseas. I think it is 
worth keeping in mind, however, that fully 40 percent of our overall 
trade deficit is with Japan, a country that pays its workers even more, 
in dollar terms, than American workers earn. Yet Japan not only runs an 
enormous trade surplus with the United States, but with the entire 
world.
  It is also worth keeping in mind that defeating the GATT will not 
protect Americans from low-wage workers abroad. U.S. tariffs are 
already far lower than tariffs in most other nations, and defeating 
GATT would not increase them. Our future depends not on high tariffs, 
but on continuing to do what we are already doing, working much 
smarter, working much more productively, than our international 
competition.
  To take just one example of what I mean, it wasn't very long ago that 
many people were writing off the U.S. automobile industry. U.S. 
manufacturers were steadily losing market share to foreign competitors. 
Now, the U.S. is the place to manufacture. Foreign car companies 
eagerly build plants in the United States because of the advantages of 
manufacturing here, and one of the most important of those advantages 
is the American work force. In one industry after another, Americans 
are demonstrating that we are the most productive workers in the world. 
We can compete--and win--internationally, and that is what we must 
continue to do.
  Mr. President, the Uruguay round builds upon the long U.S. tradition 
of open markets. It increases the volume of trade and investment 
worldwide, which will create jobs at home and abroad. It anchors the 
United States in the family of trading nations, and it sets fair and 
universal standards for us to compete in the global marketplace.
  The GATT agreements are, in essence, about confidence, confidence in 
our future and confidence in our children. I am voting for GATT because 
I am confident that Americans will prosper under the new trading 
regime. Americans are ready to compete and succeed, and GATT will help 
them to be more successful.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, after a careful listening to those on both 
sides of the issue, I have decided to support the implementing 
legislation for the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade [GATT], as well as the motion to waive the budget point of 
order against the bill. I have concluded that the Uruguay Round 
Agreement, on balance, offers a promising opportunity for the United 
States--already the largest and most open market the world--to secure 
its fair share of a growing world marketplace, and more importantly, to 
generate here at home the kind of good-paying, skilled jobs that, in my 
view, give purpose to our efforts to pursue trade reform.
  This agreement, as some of its detractors unfortunately fail to 
mention, is actually the product of nearly 8 years of negotiations 
involving over 120 countries. It is a work that has been many, many 
months in progress, and the subject of numerous hearings and debates in 
Congress ever since this trade round was inaugurated in September, 
1986. This implementing measure would have been voted on months ago, 
except for the procedures governing consideration of the bill which 
specifically provided various committees of the Congress an established 
timetable to examine the bill's provisions and weight its impact. But 
for the fact that a single committee exercised its full rights under 
these procedural timetables, we would have voted on this agreement well 
in advance of this fall's election. Although this bill is indeed a very 
complex piece of legislation, this is not, in other words, a document 
that has been sprung on Congress and the American people without 
notice, without debate, and without the opportunity for challenge. It's 
a sad commentary on the state of civic debate in this country that the 
agreement's opponents have resorted to describing the current situation 
in a manner deliberately intended to fuel public suspicion that this is 
a back-room deal, written in secrecy under the direction of 
multinational corporations at the expense of U.S. workers and 
consumers, presented for rushed, last-minute approval by defeated 
Members of Congress.
  As the largest but already the most open economy in the world, the 
United States has something to lose but certainly much to gain as we 
reduce our trade barriers still further but in turn secure from our 
GATT trading partners, as this agreement does, the obligation to 
provide even greater access to their markets. The vast majority of the 
economic assessments that I have seen point to the agreement's likely 
result in creating more American jobs, boosting national income and 
returning more, not less, to the U.S. Treasury, despite the known 
revenue loss associated with the tariff reductions included in the 
implementing bill.

  The likelihood that this agreement will increase Treasury receipts 
rather than decrease them is the reason why I will support the motion 
to waive the budget point of order against the agreement. This bill, I 
believe, is as clear an example as any why our budget procedures 
rightly provide a limited opportunity for a waiver. Under our current 
budget rules, we are required to acknowledge the known costs of a 
bill--in this case, the revenue losses resulting from the tariff cuts. 
However, those same rules prevent us from assuming--on the ground that 
they are too speculative--the likely gains to the Treasury that most 
studies conclude should result from the increased U.S. employment, 
income, and tax revenue expected to be generated by the pact. I support 
the waiver, in short, because I agree that the Uruguay round is likely 
to lead to increased trade and increased economic activity that will 
offset expected tariff revenue losses, leaving our annual budget 
deficits no worse than currently projected. I believe strongly that 
free trade, fairly conducted, is good for the world economy and 
particularly good for the United States and its workers. From 
agriculture, to services, to technology, to basic manufacturing, the 
U.S. ranks among the world leaders and has the potential, under this 
agreement, to strengthen its position still more.
  A central source of controversy surrounding this agreement involves, 
of course, the proposed new World Trade Organization [WTO] that will be 
established to replace the current GATT body as the forum for 
considering and resolving trade disputes. In my view, this issue 
essentially boils down to one question: Do we favor finally putting 
some teeth into the enforcement of decisions that arise from 
international trade disputes? Or do we prefer to continue the current 
system under which the United States has, on several occasions, brought 
unfair trade complaints against other countries, and prevailed under a 
subsequent GATT review, only to have the offending country ignore the 
GATT decision and snub the United States? I believe the United States 
has much more to gain than to lose by giving meaning to the resolution 
process governing international trade.
  I understand that there is strong concern, quite legitimate, about 
the impact of a WTO finding that may go against the United States. 
Despite considerable misinformation to the contrary, an adverse WTO 
decision could not force the United States to change a Federal, State, 
or local law or regulation. What it would require the United States to 
do, however, is to decide whether to comply with the WTO decision by 
enacting changes in our laws or regulations, or to ignore the decision, 
thus providing the opportunity for the country that prevailed in the 
dispute to impose compensatory tariffs on U.S. exports to that country. 
But it's up to the United States to decide how to comply or whether to 
comply, and possibly face sanctions. In any event, only the United 
States may change its own laws, if that's what we decide to do.

  On the other hand, it must be pointed out, and I believe this is 
vital, that the same risks the United States accepts by becoming a 
member of the new WTO affords the United States, for the first time, 
the assurance that we can obtain redress and compensation if we win a 
fair trade case brought before the WTO. As the largest and most open 
economy already in the world today, it only stands to reason that we 
have considerably more to gain than to lose by agreeing to participate 
in a world market suddenly obliged to adhere to enforceable standards 
of fair trade.
  Although I have reached the conclusion, Mr. Prsident, that this 
legislation, on balance, is good for the United States and deserving of 
strong support, I believe the agreement itself is deficient in some key 
respects.
  For example, nothing in the agreement prompts the United States and 
its trading partners to cooperate in a deliberate way to develop the 
type of environmental and labor standards that we have adopted in this 
country to help ensure that our economic gains do not come at the cost 
of environmental degradation and worker exploitation. Yet, I agree with 
those who espouse the belief that increased trade, and the economic 
activity and jobs it generates, tends to list the living standards of 
those individuals it touches, but I think that as civilized nations, we 
can and should do more. Those who bring fervor and ideological force to 
the argument for breaking down trade barriers should be called upon to 
bring a concurrent commitment to elevating the living and working 
standards of all those who paritcipate, in whatever small part, in the 
world economy. We in the United States should cede no economic or trade 
advantage to another country simply because that country has, for 
example, no Clean Air Act, no Clean Water Act, no child labor 
safeguards, or no wage and hour standards. Such countries enjoy no real 
advantage because they lack such measures, and the United States bears 
no unacceptable burden because it has them. But we should, as a member 
of the WTO, do much more to ensure that all nations engaged in 
international commerce adhere to similar standards. This must be a 
central objective of the trade agreements of the future.
  Finally, Mr. President, I must note that many of those who 
have expressed to me their opposition to this agreement have cited 
their deep-seated concerns about economic concentration in this 
country; the stressful impact of today's changing and uncertain economy 
on struggling workers--especially those families with children; the 
eroding sense of community and company loyalty; and evidence of failed 
domestic policies in such areas as agriculture. In short, they have 
expressed to me their personal anxiety about a rapidly evolving economy 
that they fear--and the operative word is indeed fear--is producing 
more losers than winners.

  I say to these opponents that I understand and agree with these 
sentiments. But an international trade agreement alone will not and 
cannot be expected to overcome the effects of failed domestic policies. 
Those policies deserve our separate but equally focused attention. And 
no new trade agreement will halt the fundamental changes that are 
rocking our economy and are likely to continue apace with or without 
this agreement. But I am confident, and I urge them to consider, that 
one of our best opportunities, as a country, to overcome these 
dislocations in our economy and relieve the anxiety felt by families is 
to build on the strengths of the many U.S. industries that currently 
make up our competitive export sector and employ millions of Americans.
  For all of these reasons, Mr. President, I intend to support the GATT 
implementing bill and urge its adoption.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
legislation to implement the GATT Agreement. The agreement represent 7 
years of hard work by over 100 countries to overhaul a GATT system that 
was not working--that was not imposing the needed disciplines which 
enable countries to work together and prosper in a global economy.
  The new World Trade Organization will enable our country, for the 
first time, to effectively address unfair trade practices by other 
countries. We will no longer have our complaints blocked by an 
offending country. This is major progress. A more effective dispute 
settlement mechanism is something we fought for during the entire 
negotiation process--and we got it. It will not affect our sovereignty. 
It will not force us to weaken our environmental protection laws. It 
will not impose world government. It will help Americans sell their 
goods and services abroad under a level playing field. It will impose a 
discipline which I believe will avoid the pursuit of protectionist 
efforts by other countries as well as to remind our own leaders how 
counterproductive these efforts can be in our own country.
  The Uruguay round agreement achieved significant progress in many 
areas. Agriculture, services, investment and intellectual property 
rights will now be covered under GATT disciplines. Tariffs have been 
cut significantly and important market access goals have been met. 
Improvements were made in the subsidies and antidumping codes. There 
will be fewer standards barriers. There was an explicit recognition of 
the right of all nations to retain their tough health and environment 
standards--unless those standards are imposed solely for the purpose of 
restricting imports. This is important progress for Minnesota as well 
as the whole country.
  The progress we made on tariff cuts alone--a global tax cut of $744 
billion over next 10 years--and on expanded market access to help us 
export more of our Minnesota products and services, is worth a vote for 
the agreement through its implementing legislation. That is progress we 
can all understand.
  We have also achieved major progress on more esoteric areas such as 
subsidies and antidumping. We now have a better system to identify and 
control the use of government subsidies abroad as well as to maintain 
and improve our own tough antidumping laws which have benefited 
industries such as steel. Yet we have attempted to control the kinds of 
changes in our antidumping laws which could result in more dumping 
cases against U.S. companies operating in other countries. I have 
worked with the steel industry in Minnesota throughout my entire career 
in the Senate to help them combat unfair trade practices and to improve 
their own competitiveness. That industry has gone through a very 
painful, but necessary, modernization and restructuring process and 
appears to be well on its way to regaining its competitiveness 
globally. But, it, and all of our other industries, need the level 
playing field of this Agreement to continue to compete.

  The agreement is a definite plus for Minnesota, as an export economy 
which will significantly benefit from lower tariffs abroad as well as 
fewer barriers and further access for Minnesota products. Minnesota 
exported $10 billion in 1993--the 13th largest State exporter. 
Minnesota's exports grew by 80 percent over 1987-93 and will only 
increase under this agreement. Minnesota service companies and 
agricultural producers will now be able to use the disciplines of the 
GATT to ensure that they can trade fairly. Tariff cuts will help many 
of our Minnesota companies cut their costs in order to increase 
competitive opportunities abroad. Intellectual property protection 
abroad is instrumental to Minnesota's huge high tech community.
  In my judgement, agriculture fared very well in the agreement. 
Minnesota's agricultural exports are vital to its economy. Agricultural 
exports in Minnesota increased 25 percent from 1987-93 and totaled $2.8 
billion in 1993.
  The USDA has estimated that the GATT Agreement will boost 
agricultural exports by $5 to $14 billion over the next 5 years. Ag 
subsidies abroad, particularly in the European Union, have been slashed 
significantly, albeit not to the extent we desired. I am pleased that 
so many agriculture interests strongly support this agreement--the Corn 
Growers, Barley Growers, Pork Producers, Cattlemen's Association, the 
Farm Bureau, Poultry and Egg Council, Sugar Industry and many others.
  The dairy industry has protested the market opening which will bring 
dairy imports up to about 1 percent of consumption--but dairy now has 
more access for its exports abroad. The soybean growers wanted lower 
tariffs. The administration is committed to continuing efforts to lower 
tariffs worldwide. The GATT Agreement does not halt that progress.
  To recognize further efforts to help our important agricultural in 
Minnesota, I was pleased to hear that Bob Dole has secured a commitment 
by the administration to propose $600 million in additional greenbox 
programs which will help us export even more agricultural commodities, 
including dairy and soybeans. Further, the administration indicates it 
will not propose ag program cuts in the fiscal year 1996 and 1997 
budgets.
  Minnesota has a long history of support for trade agreements and 
legislation which expands trade opportunities, My record, from my 
support of the Tokyo round implementing legislation in 1979, for the 
two major trade bills we have passed since then, and for the NAFTA has 
been consistent with the interests of my State. I am proud to have 
played a role in each one of these efforts, just as I am proud to have 
been an active promoter of the GATT Agreement.
  Despite opposition from labor, I have been encouraged by estimates of 
job creation due to the GATT Agreement. The DRI-McGraw-Hill study 
estimates an employment gain, over that of normal economic expansion, 
of 1.4 million jobs by the 10th year.

  I was also pleased that soon-to-be majority leader Dole was able to 
work out an agreement with the administration to satisfy some of the 
concerns about the agreement itself, as well as its funding mechanism. 
While I had thought the 6-month notification period in the agreement 
that would enable us to withdraw from the WTO was adequate, the Dole-
U.S. review panel was a positive improvement and should satisfy some of 
the concerns that the WTO panel process could be used unfairly against 
us.
  Mr. President, I am well aware that this agreement is controversial, 
largely because it is not easily understandable by many people. It has 
not received much attention by the press, partly because much of it is 
so technical in nature. I regret the opposition by many of my friends 
from labor unions, from environment groups, from the dairy industry.
  Particularly I regret what has been an unfair characterization of the 
agreement by Ralph Nader and others who have tacked many of the world's 
evils onto this agreement. They are the ones who do not understand the 
agreement--who have not read the agreement.
  I admit that the agreement fell short in some areas. We did not, and 
could never, achieve 100 percent of our negotiating objectives. In my 
judgement, we reached far more of our objectives than other nations. We 
should not delay the agreement. It cannot be reopened next year to 
achieve further progress. That just will not happen--no other country 
would agree to that. So the significant progress we made over 7 years 
will be lost if that happens.
  In addition, the administration communicates that even a 6-month 
delay would cost the united States $70 billion in lost production and 
reduce employment in the United States by 25,000 jobs a year for 10 
years. There is no need to delay. The final agreement has been before 
us for well over a year. We have known our negotiating objectives and 
have had briefings over the last 7 years from our negotiators.
  The budget waiver vote before us is the only real vote on the 
implementing legislation. If we do not waive the Budget Act, the GATT 
Agreement will die.
  Earlier in the year, I joined many of my colleagues to protest what I 
had heard was an intention on the part of the administration to waive 
the full 10 years of the agreement. This was not acceptable, and I 
strongly communicated that to the administration. However, the 
administration was able to waive the first 5 years, and I believe that 
the economic growth this agreement will bring to us will definitely pay 
for the second 5 years. In fact, the Treasury Department reports $100 
to $200 billion in added income per year as a result of the Uruguay 
round agreement progress. As a result, I will vote to waive the budget 
rules, although I am generally loathe to do so.
  Mr. President, we have far more work to do in the area of addressing 
unfair trade barriers and to expand export opportunities for American 
interests. I wish we could have solved all of the problems in the 
Uruguay round, but we didn't. But we cannot scrap 7 years of hard work 
that is significant progress. There will be future trade negotiations. 
There will be efforts to improve the WTO as we gain experience with it. 
There will be discussions in many international fora to focus on the 
unfair labor practices and the need for more environmental protection 
efforts in other countries. We can pursue such issues as CBI parity, 
which is necessary to afford the same benefits to our CBI friends as 
that granted under the NAFTA, again next year.
  We must adopt this progress and move on to develop and pursue future 
trade goals which will bring us even closer to where we should be. I 
believe that as we do move toward implementing the agreement, it will 
become evident to the public that this is a positive and fair 
agreement.
  I urge the support of my colleagues for the implementing legislation. 
I particularly urge support for the waiver of the Budget Act and to 
oppose any constitutional point of order that the agreement should be 
considered a treaty. Trade agreements have never been negotiated as 
treaties, and this one was no exception.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, there has been some controversy about 
section 801 of the GATT implementing legislation, which requires PCS 
pioneers to pay at least half a billion dollars for their FCC licenses. 
Some have questioned whether this provision is the product of some 
unfair sweetheart deal for the pioneers.
  I am intimately familiar with this provision, which was crafted over 
the course of several months in an open fashion. I am also familiar 
with the history of the proceedings at the FCC by which the pioneers 
obtained their preferences. I believe 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 should now be considered closed.
  The FCC promised for four years to guarantee the pioneers a license 
as a reward for their innovative efforts--not 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. Only in August of this year did the 
FCC change its mind. The pioneers have taken the FCC to court, and all 
informed observers believe the pioneers will win. They will receive 
licenses for free--the taxpayers will get nothing.
  The GATT bill guarantees the taxpayers will get payments of 85 
percent of an average auction price from the pioneers. The pioneers 
will make a minimum payment of some $530 million even if bid prices are 
lower than expected. No other company has committed to minimum price. 
And the pioneers have not been granted a ceiling--if the auction yields 
billions, they will pay according to the GATT legislation's formula.
  The GATT implementing legislation's formulation of 85 percent of the 
auction price for the top 20 non-pioneer markets will produce a fair 
return for the American taxpayer. The Office of Management and Budget 
estimates that the GATT bill's formula will bring in $1.5 billion--more 
than the FCC formula, which used a figure of 90 percent of the top 10 
markets.
  Whatever the projection, it is important to remember that the goal of 
the FCC's pioneer preference policy, which we permitted the FCC to 
continue in the 1993 auction legislation, was to provide incentives for 
innovators. Raising revenue was not a consideration. The three 
companies that received preferences created the new PCS technologies, 
and their efforts will benefit the public as a whole. Jobs will be 
created. Tax revenue will be produced. Competition to cellular 
duopolies and telephone monopolies will be created. And consumers will 
pay lower prices.
  It would have been fair for the pioneers to have received their 
licenses without charge. Requiring pioneers to pay an 85 percent 
average auction price is more than fair. The pioneers worked for five 
years to develop PCS and made their research and development available 
to the public so that all could learn and benefit from it. The pioneers 
relied on a ten-times-reaffirmed promise of a free license--a promise 
the FCC broke only after the pioneers had performed their side of the 
bargain. They put millions of dollars at stake at a time when PCS was a 
glimmer in an entrepreneur's eye.

  Some have called for an assessment after the auctions of whether the 
payments from the pioneers made a fair return to the taxpayers. I would 
like to make a few points with regard to this proposal:
  First, everyone agrees that the pioneers should be immediately 
granted their licenses. Section 801 specifies that the FCC cannot delay 
issuing licenses to the pioneers more than 15 days after the 
legislation's enactment. I do not expect the FCC to have any difficulty 
complying with that mandate. The license applications have been pending 
most of this year, and the pleading cycle has been completed for 
months. The Administration's letters to Senator Dole on November 23, 
1994, recognized that the pioneers would be issued their licenses now.
  Second, all of us who are involved in this issue understand that all 
relevant factors must be taken into consideration. These factors, as I 
mentioned before, include the hard work of the pioneers, their 
commitment of high-risk capital, their public sharing of research 
results, their longstanding reliance on the FCC's promises, and the 
extent to which the work of the pioneers created all the auction 
revenues that the Treasury will receive.
  Third, no one involved intends the potential for some future review 
to have a chilling effect on the commercial plans of the pioneers. We 
assume that the pioneers will be turning to investors to fund the 
hundreds of millions of dollars needed to pay the Government for their 
licenses and build out their systems. These investors should not be 
concerned that Congress will ignore the contributions of the pioneers 
and force them into an unfair and retroactive payment scheme. I believe 
that there will be no further legislation. It is my view, and, I 
believe, the view of my colleagues on the Commerce Committee, that 
Section 801 already provides a fair return to the public. This matter 
should be considered closed.
  Finally and most importantly, retroactive legislation to increase the 
price of the pioneers' licenses would be grossly unfair. For years, the 
pioneers were led to believe their licenses would be issued early in 
1994 and would be free. Then the legislative process delayed insurance 
of the licenses and we required the pioneers to pay 85 percent of the 
average auction price for those licenses. Now that the pioneers have 
some finality, we cannot in good conscience enact legislation to 
increase the price again. We should let the pioneers get on with the 
business of PCS. Further retroactive legislation would just be plain 
wrong.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I believe in free trade. I think that 
lowering tariffs, eliminating quotas, and reducing other trade barriers 
is clearly in the best economic interest of the United States. I 
disagree with those who have taken the floor in opposition not just to 
the GATT agreement before us, but to the very principles of free trade. 
In my opinion, the principles of free trade are clear and unwavering.
  For far too long, U.S. exports have not had a real chance to compete 
in many foreign markets. American producers of goods and services are 
not looking for a handout in the international marketplace. They are 
looking for a level playing field. They know that they can compete in 
world markets if they are given adequate access to those markets.
  Free trade is not a complicated proposition. If we lower tariffs 
abroad, American products are less expensive to the foreign consumer. 
It's like a permanent ``sale'' on American products. It is the holiday 
season in America, and any shopper at any store will tell you that 
they're more likely to buy an item on sale. After all, why pay more 
when you don't have to?
  So free trade means more foreign consumers buying more American goods 
and services for less money. Foreign sales means American jobs. That is 
called a win-win agreement. Who could find fault with that?
  Mr. President, if the GATT agreement stopped right there, this 
Senator would be its strongest supporter. I have no qualms with the 
tariff reduction schedules included in the agreement. I have no problem 
with the elimination of non-tariff barriers. But the GATT that we are 
required to vote on today does not stop at that point. It goes much, 
much further.
  The agreement jumps off the free-trade track with the creation of the 
World Trade Organization (WTO). This Senator doesn't believe we need 
another international bureaucracy of any kind. But the WTO is 
particularly offensive, and it should be of grave concern to every 
American.
  The WTO is given substantial legislative, executive and judicial 
authority. Under the WTO, any member nation--and there are 117 of 
them--can challenge another nation's law if they believe that the law 
is ``WTO-illegal.'' ``WTO-illegal'' is a vague term that has far-
reaching implications. Any domestic law that restricts free trade could 
be subject to challenge.
  Challenges would then be investigated by a three member panel. The 
dispute panel--or tribunal--would be staffed by trade experts who would 
not have to adhere to any conflict-of-interest rules. Nor would the 
panels be required to adhere to previous precedents--the cornerstone of 
the judicial system in the United States.

  The tribunal would meet in secret: no press, no citizen groups, no 
industry groups. Only national governments would have standing to 
address the tribunal. Even worse, the final decisions of the panel 
would be binding unless there is unanimous agreement among all WTO 
participants to set aside the findings--a highly unlikely scenario at 
best.
  If a country appeals the decision of the tribunal, the resolution 
process is no better. Instead of an ad-hoc tribunal, the challenge 
would be considered by three people from the seven member WTO appellate 
body. The appellate panel again issues recommendations or findings that 
cannot be reversed except by unanimous consent of the members.
  So let us assume for a moment that among the thousands of state and 
federal laws on the books, one is challenged as a barrier to free 
trade. The initial tribunal is formed and rules that the law is ``WTO-
illegal.'' The United States appeals the decision, and the appellate 
tribunal also rules that the law is ``WTO-illegal.'' What is our nation 
to do?
  Under such circumstances, the United States can: (a) negotiate a 
settlement, or (b) change the offending law, or (c) face fines and/or 
sanctions from the WTO.
  ``None of the above'' is not a choice under the stringent rules of 
the WTO.
  What leverage would be United States have under such a scenario? The 
answer is: none. The dispute settlement procedures under the World 
Trade Organization are clearly and unequivocally flawed.
  Other procedures governing the World Trade Organization are similarly 
defective. Changes to the WTO rules or interpretations will be put to a 
vote unless--again--there is unanimous consensus among all 117 
participating nations. According to article IX of the agreement, ``each 
member of the WTO shall have one vote.'' The United States is not given 
a veto, as it is under the United Nations security council. The United 
States is not given weighted votes, as it is in the World Bank. 
Instead, the United States is given one vote--the same as Cuba, and 
Chad, and Haiti, and Mexico, and on and on and on.
  Mr. President, not all nations of the world are equal trading 
partners, and creating an international bureaucracy to make them equal 
just doesn't make it so.
  There is no reason to believe that--when the votes are cast in the 
World Trade Organization--the outcome will be favorable to the United 
States. Let me give a few examples from the voting record of the United 
Nations:
  Nation and percentage of Votes Against U.S.: India--81.5; Cyprus--
77.6; Morocco--78.1; Sri lanka--78.8.
  The rest of the 117 nations are not much better. In fact, some have 
worse voting records. All told, developing nations will hold 83 percent 
of the votes in the World Trade Organization. When the results are 
consistently anti-American, no one should feign surprise.
  Mr. President, we have a free trade agreement burdened with the ill-
conceived World Trade Organization. But the problems do not stop there.
  In August, 1994, OMB Director Alice Rivlin wrote that: ``We do not 
believe it is necessary to sacrifice budget discipline to pass GATT in 
the Congress.''
  Yet the Clinton Administration is asking Senators to do just that. 
Implementing the GATT is projected to result in a budget shortfall of 
$26.7 billion over the next ten years. Congressional budget rules 
require that $26 billion of this shortfall be paid for by spending cuts 
and/or tax increases.
  The Agreement before the Senate would finance the GATT with $4.7 
billion in tax hikes and $3.1 billion in spending reductions. The 
implementing legislation makes changes in the U.S. Savings bond 
program, pension law, licensing fees and a host of other areas wholly 
unrelated to free trade. And still, the Clinton Administration failed 
to reach its goal. The remaining $18.9 billion will simply be added to 
the national debt.
  That is unacceptable to this Senator. I had looked forward to 
supporting a clean GATT agreement that would move America forward. 
Instead, I will vote against an agreement that takes us two steps back.
  Mr. President, the GATT legislation before the Senate should be about 
free trade, and only free trade. It should not be saddled with the 
weight of an uncontrollable international bureaucracy and unrelated 
domestic provisions.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this agreement so we can support an 
improved GATT next year. That is the only way to achieve an unfettered, 
win-win free trade agreement.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter of 
great importance to the citizens of our United States: The Uruguay 
Round Free Trade Agreement, a bill that needs our immediate attention 
and support in this turbulent era of international trade. Free trade is 
truly the road to economic success, both foreign and domestic. By 
supporting open markets and ensuring our industries have the room they 
need to compete internationally, the United States will remain the 
world's trade leader.
  Conceived under President Reagan, nurtured under President Bush and 
finalized by President Clinton, it is time for the Uruguay Round GATT 
to be implemented. In the United States, lower tariffs and trade 
restrictions mean increased productivity. As our firms are allowed to 
compete globally, our workers will maximize their skills and talents. 
As the demand for U.S. products rises, so too will our Gross Domestic 
Product. We can welcome a net gain in employment and a stronger economy 
due to this dramatic rise in exports. When this happens, we will 
experience the strongest international economy the world has ever seen.
  Shielding and protecting domestic industries can lead to preposterous 
outcomes. The U.S. has come a long way since our protectionist trade 
policy was so strikingly and detrimentally enacted during the pain of 
the Great Depression. What happened, in response to these substantially 
higher tariffs, could be predicted by any first-semester, economics 
student--international trade came to a stand-still, reduced to twenty-
five percent of its pre-tariff level. The Great Depression became even 
greater.
  A combination of the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which 
lowered some tariffs, and World War II, which taught us the power of 
working with our partners and not against them, laid the groundwork for 
the first General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947. Anything less 
than multilateral negotiations for significantly reduced tariffs and 
the practical elimination of trade barriers, would drastically hamper 
the international economy. The original GATT called for this and 
international trade took a huge step towards increased efficiency and 
effectiveness through trading partner cooperation. The original GATT 
agreement and its successors have served us well by expanding world 
trade. However, the current GATT is not enough, we need the Uruguay 
Round Trade Agreement in order to keep pace with our rapidly changing 
global economy.
  Be it stopping tariff wars, clamping down on import quotas, or any 
number of other types of restrictions, international trade needs a 
boost. For example, the U.S. is constantly and unjustifiably accused, 
by other nations, of dumping its exports into their economies--
consistent, specific antidumping laws simply do not exist outside of 
the United States. Secondly, unfair agricultural subsidies have been a 
thorn in the side of U.S. farmers for decades. Fearing U.S. 
competition, nations resort to protectionist economic policies which 
not only hurt their industries, but their citizens as well.
  When the U.S. brings these disputes to the current GATT Council in 
Geneva, years may go by before any settlements are suggested. 
Furthermore, members of the pre-Uruguay Round GATT have been known to 
completely ignore Agreement rules and dispute settlements. Uruguay 
Round GATT provisions and the World Trade Organization can bring order 
to the whirlwind of chaotic bilateral trade agreements and broken 
promises.
  The current system's chaos and inefficiency represent more than mere 
inconvenience; it translates into lost U.S. efficiency, lost U.S. 
competitiveness and lost U.S. jobs. Furthermore, without a World Trade 
Organization, countries who are not members of GATT, who have not 
agreed to lower their trade restrictions, will continue to unfairly 
reap the benefits of trade with members who have lowered tariffs. The 
institution of an organization which efficiently and objectively 
reports on trade disputes and expedites the process through which a 
settlement is reached, will benefit current GATT members and give all 
world traders incentives to play by the rules.
  The Uruguay Round includes, for the first time in history, the 
service sector in a world-wide economic agreement. Members of the new 
GATT, over 100 nations, are making commitments to open their economies 
to business, health, environmental, engineering and construction 
services, to name just a few. This is an incredible boost to the U.S. 
service sector.
  In addition, the agreement strengthens international trade law with 
regard to intellectual property rights. America loses billions of 
dollars each year as everything from CDs to computer circuits are 
pirated in foreign countries. The Uruguay Round GATT would make 
copyrights, patents, trademarks and even trade secrets enforceable 
amongst all trading partners.
  Advances in biotechnology would also be protected by the new patent 
rules. While I believe this is a positive step, I continue to express 
concern over the ethical and moral implications of patenting genes and 
animals, now magnified in the global sphere. My concern is compounded 
by the intrusion of ``use'' doctrines, currently regulated at the 
national or local level. Therefore, I strongly urge the establishment 
of a forum to discuss these issues surrounding the sanctity and essence 
of life, while preserving the beneficial advancement of biotechnology.
  As crucial as this new GATT is to the nation's economy, it runs the 
risk of being lost if we do not pass the budget waiver. With one vote 
the Senate can approve using the PAYGO balance of $1.6 billion and 
waive the Senate's rule requiring the bill to be financed for ten 
years. I have not taken budget waivers lightly in the past, nor do I 
take this one lightly, but we must find the courage to pass this bill. 
The Budget Rule Enforcement Act was not meant to inhibit our 
legislative ability. Every so often, in the name of good legislation, 
an exception needs to be made--this is one of those times. Make no 
mistake, those who preach ``free trade'', but do not support the waiver 
are not friends of free trade--they are signing this agreement's death 
warrant.
  Any fair discussion of the Uruguay Round GATT must clarify the World 
Trade Organization's ``one member one vote'' policy. Some are worrying 
that less developed or communist countries will have as much voting 
power as the United States. It is important to keep this in 
perspective: The United States is the world's largest importer and this 
assures economic and political clout, giving a major player such as the 
U.S. a dominant role in the WTO system; we will take a backseat to no 
single nation or group of special interests.
  It must be emphasized that the WTO cannot change U.S. law and U.S. 
sovereignty is not in jeopardy. Any vote to add an amendment which 
affects certain fundamental GATT obligations, such as Most Favored 
Nation status, the General Agreement on Trade in Services and the 
Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights, requires a 
consensus by WTO members. Moreover, any amendments that change the 
rights or obligations of members, while requiring a two-thirds majority 
to go into affect, affect only those members who vote for the 
amendment.
  While I believe the Uruguay Round satisfies all sovereignty concerns, 
the Administration has assured Senator Dole that if the WTO Dispute 
Settlement Body rules adversely against the United States, even three 
times in a five year period, we will begin withdrawal from the WTO 
Agreement. This is only one part of Senator Dole's efforts to make the 
Uruguay Round GATT more palatable. I congratulate the Republican Leader 
for his courage and foresight in building these safeguards into the 
agreement.
  Finally Mr. President, I want to get specific and discuss how vitally 
important this legislation is to my state. The Uruguay Round GATT 
clears the road for statewide economic growth. Oregon has an export 
economy of over $6.2 billion, during its 1987 figure. While Oregon is 
ranked only 29th in population, it ranks 18th among all states for the 
number of business establishments that export. Oregon's whole economy 
is preparing to feel solid and significant.
  The revised GATT actually provides overlapping benefits for some of 
Oregon's largest industries. For example, in 1993 Oregon exported one 
billion dollars worth of industrial machinery and computers. Under the 
Uruguay Round rules, the European Union, which imports more U.S. 
computers than any other member of GATT, will reduce its tariffs on 
U.S. computers by 80 percent. Not only will Oregon benefit from this 
reduction in trade restrictions, but strengthened intellectual property 
rights will aid the computer industry even more.
  The hi-tech sector is not the only one which stands to gain. The 
paper industry, one of Oregon's largest exporters, would face tariff 
cuts of 100 percent. The U.S. Department of Commerce expects a $2 
billion increase in U.S. paper and allied product exports--this means 
millions for Oregon. Electronic components, industrial and analytical 
instruments and semiconductor manufacturing equipment are other Oregon 
industries that will reap huge rewards if the Uruguay Round passes. 
Agriculture, one of Oregon's mainstays, generates over $1.4 billion in 
economic activity. Over five years, the Uruguay Round GATT would 
increase agriculture exports anywhere from $5-14 billion.
  The Uruguay Round GATT will spur trade on with Oregon's leading 
trading partners. Looking towards the future, it has the potential of 
opening up whole new territories such as Russia, the Far East and the 
markets of developing economies. President Clinton, at the Asia-Pacific 
Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, laid the groundwork for economies to 
be opened and all trade restrictions of Pacific Basin countries to be 
removed by the year 2020. Let the Uruguay Round finish the job so that 
Americans can benefit from the buying power of the Asian nations, 
including Japan.
  The United States Congress found the courage to vote for the North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Since then, we have seen our 
exports to Mexico increase by 20.5 percent and Canada by 11.4 percent. 
NAFTA is working, let GATT work too. This is the time for the United 
States and our trading partners to completely turn our backs on the 
destructive, isolationist and protectionist policies we have seen this 
century.
  Other countries are looking for us to take the lead--it is time we 
did. In the realm of international trade, the United States has no 
choice but to be the leader, but it requires our vote to be a member. 
The best way to be a champion of the U.S. economy is to support free 
trade. Let me have the foresight to pass the Uruguay Round Free Trade 
Agreement.

                          ____________________