[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 135 (Friday, August 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12523-S12524]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before the leader leaves the floor, if I may 
have the attention of the distinguished leader. I just came to the 
floor because I heard the distinguished leader mention my name in 
connection with the bill to establish a commission to review the 
dispute settlement of the reports of the World Trade Organization, and 
for other purposes.
  May I say to the leader that this is a matter about which I know very 
little. I am not on the committee that has jurisdiction over this 
legislation. I was asked this afternoon about this. I was asked if I 
would give consent. I understood that the leader wanted to get 
unanimous consent to adopt this bill this afternoon. I think it is too 
much of a bill to pass by unanimous consent on the last day before we 
go out. Mr. Kantor called me and I said, ``Is there 

[[Page S 12524]]
an urgent time factor here or something that is about to expire? Is 
there a reason why this has to be done today, after everybody is 
gone?'' I was against the GATT. I voted against it. I have a feeling 
that the leader feels about like I do on some of these trade bills. It 
was said that the leader would consider this a personal favor. I said I 
would like to do a personal favor for the leader. I would like that. 
There have been some things I have wanted from time to time that he has 
agreed to. But for this kind of a bill to be passed by unanimous 
consent on the last day, setting up a commission of this kind, I do not 
think we ought to do that. I think it is something we ought to study 
and debate, or at least have people back here who know more about it 
than I do. It was for that reason that I objected.
  I certainly do not want to do anything that gets in the way of the 
leader or hurts his feelings. But I just cannot see the urgency of 
passing a bill of this size on the last day before we go out for 3 
weeks. Why can we not do it when we come back? It still has to go to 
the House; it has to go to conference. I tried to study this hurriedly. 
I am not on the Finance Committee, as I say. I may very well support 
this; I may not. But it sets up a commission composed of five members, 
all of whom shall be judges, Federal judiciary judges. That is just one 
thing that caught my eye. Why should we appoint a commission of this 
kind made up of the membership of judges of the Federal circuit courts? 
Why should business not be represented? Why should labor not be 
represented?
  Perhaps there are some good answers. But I do not know them. I am 
sorry if the leader has taken umbrage to my objection, but I do not 
feel that something of this importance should be whipped through on the 
last day before a 3-week recess by unanimous consent. I hope the leader 
will not feel any ill will toward me. If he wants to hold up a 
nomination, that is his right. I am not doing this for any political 
reason. I do not oppose this for any political reason. I think my 
President supported it. The White House wants me to remove my 
objection. Mickey Kantor wants me to remove it.
  I am not objecting, may I say to my good friend, for any partisan 
reason. I am not doing it for any reason to incur his ill will. I am 
sorry. But he mentioned my name on the floor, and I felt that I should 
come and explain this for the Record so that all Senators will know why 
I have objected, when they get back.
  I have no objection to taking it up when all Members of the Finance 
Committee on both sides are here. And when we get back, if they want to 
agree to it by unanimous consent, I might also. I would like for 
somebody to explain to me why we have to have five members of the 
circuit courts of this country on this commission.
 It seems to me they are too busy. This would appear to be something 
like a full-time job. Why are they so specially competent? Surely 
someone should answer those questions.

  As I say, there may be good answers to the questions. Once I hear 
them--Mr. Kantor tried to give me some answers. I was not convinced. 
Perhaps I can be convinced.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  I need to go, but I will say this has been around about 8 months. It 
should not come as any great surprise. It is not major legislation. 
Many pieces of major legislation start by consent.
  It is drafted by--almost by the administration. It has been in the 
Finance Committee. We have had hearings on it. We did not bring it to 
the floor without hearings. It is a promise made to me. Maybe they do 
not--maybe promises do not mean anything by the President of the United 
States and by the trade representative.
  They did not guarantee it would get through the Congress. It may not 
get through the House. I did not know anybody had an objection. It has 
been around here for 8 months and everybody knew at the time--at least 
most everybody last November--when I appeared with the President in the 
Rose Garden and said I would support GATT if they would make these 
changes.
  We thought they were necessary so we would not have a faceless, 
nameless bureaucrat in Geneva deciding what the future might be for 
American jobs. So we pursued it.
  Certainly the Senator has a right to object, and we will be back here 
in September, but I must say when the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, tells me today, well, we have 
taken care of that for you, I assumed it was done. Any Member has a 
right to object. I could object to all the nominees, but I did not 
pursue that course.
  The Senator is within his rights. I hope that he will look at it 
carefully and maybe decide it is not so bad after all.
  Mr. BYRD. As I say, I may be easily convinced of that, but I am also 
convinced that I have a higher responsibility than just approving 
something that the administration says is okay on a Friday afternoon 
before we go out.
  It may have been around 8 months. I did not see this bill until this 
afternoon. I did not vote for GATT. I am naturally suspicious of 
legislation dealing with that subject to which I was opposed when it 
passed the Senate. I am sorry that the majority leader feels the way he 
does. There is no personal or political or partisan reason for my 
objection.
  I just--there is no big hurry about this. I heard the leader say that 
the House might have some objections, and if the House may have some 
objections, perhaps there is something wrong and we ought to take a 
look at it.
  I am doing what I think is right, and I am sorry that the majority 
leader appears to feel hurt about it. It is not my desire that he feel 
hurt. I am doing what my conscience directs me to do under the 
circumstances. I will live with that.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________