[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H4904]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             WE TOLD YOU SO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] is recognized during 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last year, after a long and passionate 
debate, the United States joined the World Trade Organization. The WTO, 
as it is known, is an international body based in Geneva with 120 
nation members. In simple terms, the WTO is the police force of 
international commerce and trade, a mechanism for enforcement of the 
world's trade laws.
  Supporters of the WTO promoted entry as a means toward a fair and 
free trade policy. It was, they argued, a way for the United States to 
knock down other nation's protectionist trade barriers.
  Opponents, who came from all political spectrums, foresaw a different 
world. Citizen's groups predicted a situation where other countries 
would pressure the WTO into weakening America's world-leading 
environmental, health, and safety laws. Economists warned that the WTO 
would penalize the forward-looking United States to the advantage of 
the mercantilist nations of East Asia and of the European Union. 
Nationalists were terrified of an organization that held the United 
States as equal to the other 120 member nations, for we would have no 
veto power, despite our obvious stature.
  Many of us in Congress worked diligently to defeat the ill-advised 
entry into this Organization. I believed then, and still maintain, that 
our sovereignty is endangered by our membership in the WTO. Simply put, 
we are not equal to other nations. We have the world's most powerful 
econony, the world's most desirable markets, and the world's most 
advanced and forward-looking environmental, health, and safety laws. In 
other words, we have the most to lose. Entry into the WTO made no sense 
to us; we saw it as a means toward the demise of our sovereignty, the 
weakening of our standards and laws, and as a means toward the 
subversion of our already precarious trading position.

  Unfortunately for all Americans, we were right.
  The WTO handed down its first decision in January, and guess who came 
out the loser? If you said the United States, you're right. The case, 
which was brought against the United States by Venezuela and Brazil, 
challenged a 1993 EPA rule on gasoline standards. Specifically, the 
rule required America's dirtiest cities to improve their gasoline by 15 
percent over 1990 levels. The two plaintiffs argued that this rule put 
their fuel at unfair disadvantage, that they would be held to higher 
standards than domestic producers because they didn't have adequate 
1990 data. The case was decided by a panel of three trade experts from 
Finland, Hong Kong, and New Zealand, who unanimously ruled in favor of 
the plaintiffs.
  The WTO ruling granted America three choices as retribution: First, 
we can change the EPA rule and let in dirtier gasoline; second, we can 
keep the regulation in place and face $150 million in annual trade 
sanctions, such as tariffs on U.S. exports; or third, we can negotiate 
the terms of the sanctions and perhaps compensate the plaintiffs with 
lower tariffs on their exports. Regardless of which plan we pick, we 
lose. U.S. oil refiners, who have invested millions of dollars to come 
into compliance by producing cleaner fuel and by adequately reporting 
their data, will be forced to compete with dirtier, cheaper gasoline 
imports. Of course, the worse part of the ruling is the establishment 
of the WTO jurisprudence over a wide array of U.S. laws.

  The ruling affirmed the fears of everyone who opposed America's entry 
into the WTO. It deemed our environmental policy too stringent; it 
provided two weaker nations a means to unfairly enter our market; and 
worst of all, the ruling undercuts our sovereignty.
  Our laws and policies are made through a democratic process. And 
although we may not always agree with the laws and rules that govern 
us, we at least have the benefit of representation. Obviously, through 
this process we hope to balance the concerns of all involved parties. 
We hope, ultimately, to maintain a modicum of fairness.
  The WTO ruling has proven to be the antithesis of the democratic 
process. We as a nation have been forced to comply with the decisions 
of a body, whose main interest seems to be the forced opening of our 
markets. The WTO, in their ruling, subverted our laws and our 
legitimate trade barriers. They determined that we as a sovereign 
nation have no right to bar entry into our markets, regardless of the 
merits and regardless of another nation's failure to meet our 
democratically set standards.
  My colleagues, this is dangerous stuff. The WTO's ruling sets a scary 
precedent. It sends a message to the nations of the world that U.S. 
policy can be thwarted, that our democratic process means nothing, and 
that our standards mean even less. Furthermore, the ruling puts our own 
industries at a disadvantage, for they must continue to play by the 
rules.
  They must continue to obey the standards and rules of production and 
dissemination.
  In the end, America is the only loser. Our involvement in this 
Organization creates an unfair advantage for our trading partners, who 
don't have to live up to the same standards as U.S. firms. It forces 
American businesses, who must comply with stricter standards to compete 
with companies from countries with weak policies and a strong entry 
mechanism in the WTO.
  As is becoming the standard with our trade policy, the WTO will 
ultimately force American jobs overseas and force our country to weaken 
our environmental and health standards. This, of course, undermines the 
trust of our trade policy, which should serve as a job creation 
mechanism and as a tool to force other countries to come into 
compliance with out higher standards. Our involvement in the WTO is, 
unfortunately, the explication of all that is wrong with our current 
trade policy.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I am afraid that we will continually be 
forced into inequitable positions by the WTO, that the Organization 
will serve only as a tool for other nation's to bypass our sovereignty. 
America is the only loser in this game, and this, my colleagues is game 
we can't afford to play.
  Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying, this first ruling by the WTO 
forbodes a dark future for our Nation. I ask that we reconsider our 
entry into the WTO.

                          ____________________