[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 150 (Tuesday, December 20, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: December 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT

                                 ______


                               speech of

                          HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 29, 1994

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5110) to 
     approve and implement the trade agreements concluded in the 
     Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations:

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to explain for the record why I am 
voting against the GATT accord today.
  At the outset, I want to be clear that I am a free trader and, in the 
absence of other major concerns, I would be supporting GATT. Certainly, 
I agree that efforts to promote freer trade are worthwhile.
  Until NAFTA, I had never voted against a trade agreement. I opposed 
that accord because I felt that it presented a serious threat to our 
domestic health and environmental statutes.
  Unfortunately, the new GATT agreement poses an even greater threat to 
the health and environmental laws we have fought for decades to put in 
place here in the United States.
  In fact, a number of our important American laws are already facing 
challenge under GATT rules that will remain largely unchanged in the 
new agreement.
  The most publicized have concerned the provisions of the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act designed to protect dolphins from slaughter on 
the open seas by restricting our import of tuna not caught in a 
dolphin-safe fashion.
  In response to challenges from first Mexico and then European 
nations, GATT panels have twice ruled the U.S. program to protect 
dolphins violates GATT.
  Under the existing GATT framework, this ruling means little, since 
any one nation can block imposition of sanctions. But the new GATT has 
teeth, and the United States will pay heavily under its terms where our 
laws are held in violation by future panels.
  Certainly that bodes ill for the Marine Mammal Protection Act. But, 
far more is at stake here than dolphins.
  For example, Venezuela has challenged the reformulated gasoline 
provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act--probably the single most 
effective measure for reducing urban smog in the entire law--and the 
European Union has challenged the Federal ``CAFE'' standards designed 
to promote more fuel efficient cars.
  This is only the beginning. The European Union has published a long 
list of State and Federal environmental and health laws that it sees as 
illegal barriers to trade that can be challenged under GATT.
  These include: the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Enforcement Act; the 
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act; and numerous food safety laws, 
including pesticide residue standards and various inspection 
requirements for fruits and vegetables.
  In addition, important State laws are subject to challenge, 
especially in my State of California, where proposition 65 imposes the 
toughest restrictions in the country against carcinogens in foods and 
other products. The European Union has already made clear that they 
intend to challenge prop 65. Another California law almost certain to 
be challenged is the State's tough tolerance limit for lead in wine.
  It's not that our laws discriminate against imports. I agree that 
discrimination should be prohibited under GATT.
  But under the new GATT, any environmental or health law can be 
challenged if a GATT panel concludes that its provisions are ``more 
trade restrictive than necessary''--a phrase that could be interpreted 
very broadly.
  Another major problem stems from the fact that the GATT panel that 
ruled on the Marine Mammal Protection Act concluded that any trade 
restrictions designed to protect resources beyond a nation's own 
boundaries are GATT violations.
  I fear that this ruling, in effect, bars efforts to protect the 
planet's common resources--our oceans, our stratosphere, our climate--
by the single method that has in the past proven effective: trade 
restrictions.
  In addition, our ability to close our markets to products 
manufactured by oppressed workers, even children, would be undermined.
  It wouldn't be so bad if these matters were to be resolved through an 
open process by an unbiased expert panel.
  But the resolution of GATT challenges is handled by a panel of 
foreign judges with no familiarity with or commitment to American law 
or our judicial traditions of fairness, and through a process that 
experts on all sides of the issue agree is wholly undemocratic.
  Opportunity for public involvement is nonexistent in GATT 
proceedings. Hearings are required to be held in secret and, under the 
terms of the agreement, even our government's own arguments in defense 
of challenged American laws cannot be made public.
  Because of these very serious flaws, I am voting against the GATT 
implementing legislation, despite that fact that I favor reducing 
restrictions on trade.

                          ____________________