[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 18, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5497-S5498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 1073. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to ensure that United 
States industry is consulted with respect to all aspects of the WTO 
dispute settlement process; to the Committee on Finance.


            world trade organization enforcement act of 1999

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, developing trade policy that will 
increase Americans' competitiveness in the 21st century must be a 
priority of this Congress and of the administration. That is why I rise 
today, joined by Senators Daniel Inouye, Chuck Grassley, Conrad Burns, 
Pat Roberts, Chuck Hagel, and Mike Enzi, to introduce the World Trade 
Organization Enforcement Act of 1999. It is a bill that will increase 
transparency and give the public more input into the dispute settlement 
process of the WTO. It is analogous to a ``Sunshine Law'' for the WTO.
  The United States plays a major role in leading the world and shaping 
its economy and must continue to do so. We must be leaders, not simply 
participants. Our leadership as a country will be effective only if our 
trade policy is clearly defined and is based on the vital interests of 
the American people, because if Americans do not accept our leadership 
on trade policy, neither will the rest of the world.
  Our success of more than 200 years has been because American is a 
nation dedicated to We the People. We are a nation whose greatness 
flows not from government, but from the creativity and ingenuity of the 
American people. Our service providers, manufacturers, retailers, 
farmers and ranchers, and investors are top notch compared with their 
competitors, and it is time for us in public service to lay aside the 
values and priorities of Washington, D.C., and promote the values and 
priorities of the American people.
  As I have traveled around Missouri, one thing is clear: citizens want 
America to be defined today as she was 100-plus years ago. We have been 
known as a land of ascending opportunity, that every generation in 
America has more opportunity than the previous generation. This is a 
definition of America that we must maintain--``the best is yet to 
come.''
  Already, U.S. companies are first-class in their production, 
processing, and marketing at home and abroad--always responding to the 
challenges of our competitive free-market system. While the United 
States can produce more goods and provide more services than any other 
country, we account for only five percent of the world's consuming 
population. That leaves 95 percent of the world's consumers outside of 
our borders--this is an astounding statistic when we put it in terms of 
creating opportunities.
  For example, nearly 40 percent of all U.S. agricultural production is 
exported, but in September of last year, American farmers and ranchers 
faced the first monthly trade deficit of U.S. farm and food products 
since the United States began tracking trade data in 1941. Our farmers, 
or any other sector, simply will not succeed if they face descending 
opportunity. With manufacturing productivity increasing and with the 
consuming capacity of the world largely outside of our borders, our 
companies need equally increasing access to foreign demand. The 
prosperity of the next generation of Americans is tied to our current 
competitiveness in global markets.
  We must develop policies that will shape opportunities for the 21st 
century--opening new markets, ensuring that our trading partners live 
up to their commitments, and to the greatest extent possible avoiding 
sanctions that hurt only our market opportunities abroad.
  I still believe we must make a concerted effort to pass fast track 
trade negotiating authority. Because fast track has languished, U.S. 
businesses are increasingly being put at a competitive disadvantage. 
While Canada has already concluded a free trade agreement with Chile, 
and Mexico is expanding its free trade arrangement with Chile, the 
United States lags behind. Our companies clearly are being put at a 
competitive disadvantage in our own hemisphere. America must lead, not 
follow--in our back yard and around the world.
  As we approach the next round of negotiations in the WTO, fast track 
is crucial to U.S. businesses. Clearly, trade negotiations designed to 
reduce or eliminate barriers and trade distorting practices have 
benefited our companies and our economy, and we need to continue our 
leadership role in multiple trade fora.
  However, support for fast track and new negotiations is tied in the 
public mind to the benefit they receive from existing trade agreements. 
It is of utmost importance that the United States closely monitor and 
vigorously enforce our trade agreements. The private sector must be 
able to rely on U.S. agreements to be productive and long-lasting.
  Opening foreign markets looms before us as a brick barricade. With 
the same will and authority of President Reagan before the Berlin Wall 
when he said--``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall''--we must face 
head-on the barricades before our exporters. It's not an easy task, but 
then again, neither was dismantling the Evil Empire. As John Wayne said 
in ``The Big Trail'': ``No great trail is ever blazed without hardship. 
You've got to fight. That's life.''
  Just last week, the Europeans stood on their massive wall of 
protectionism built across the trail of free trade and simply rejected 
U.S. beef, even in the face of having lost the WTO case. We've got a 
trail to blaze--the Europeans cannot be allowed to make a mockery of 
the competitive spirit of our cattle ranchers. In this case, results, 
not words, count the most.
  Failing to implement agreements already negotiated creates an 
environment of descending opportunity. It is imperative, therefore, 
that the Administration follow through with enforcing the decisions the 
U.S. has won in the WTO. What good is winning a case if we are unable 
to enforce the judgment?
  It is clear that the most contentious issues ever to be brought 
before the WTO--whether it is negotiating new agreements or suing the 
dispute settlement process to enforce existing ones--have been about 
the agricultural policies of the United States and the European Union.
  One of the significant changes in the dispute settlement process in 
1994 was that panels would be set up and panel

[[Page S5498]]

decisions would be adopted but for a consensus against doing so. Also, 
strict time lines were built into the process. Soon thereafter, the 
U.S. took two agriculture cases against the EU through the new WTO 
dispute process--the banana case and the beef case (which had already 
been before the GATT panel). The new dispute settlement changes in the 
WTO worked, and the United States won these two agriculture cases 
without the EU having the ability to block unilaterally the cases from 
moving forward.
  For every triumph, however, the United States has suffered multiple 
defeats. Our most recent triumphs were getting the EU to accept a WTO 
dispute settlement process that is quick and binding, and winning 
agriculture cases against the EU in that settlement process. However, 
the EU is now denying U.S. farmers and ranchers the benefits of the WTO 
cases we won by stalling endlessly in the implementation of those 
decisions.
  If the EU, or any other country, is allowed to use delaying tactics, 
there could be detrimental effects on these agriculture cases and on 
future cases regardless of the sector litigated. Also, the public 
support for the WTO system and its ability to benefit U.S. interests 
will be undermined.
  It is essential that the administration make the EU beef ban a top 
priority. The United States has won this case against the EU numerous 
times, and we are clearly within our rights to benefit from the cases 
we litigate and win.
  We must take the position that if the EU insists on ``paying'' for 
its protectionism, the EU should ``pay'' at the highest levels 
allowable and on products that will hurt it the most. While U.S. 
ranchers can never be compensated fully for the EU's protectionist 
policies, the value of concessions withdrawn from the EU must at least 
equal the value of the beef producers current damage.
  Beef producers in Missouri will not benefit if the level of 
retaliation is not such that will induce the EU to change its 
protectionist policies. A strong response to the EU's treatment of U.S. 
agricultural products is long overdue. We must have reciprocity in our 
cross-Atlantic agricultural trade. If U.S. meat is not welcome in the 
EU, then EU meat should not be accepted in the United States.
  The EU's repeated, damaging actions against America's cattlemen must 
not go unaswered--that is why I have called on the Administration to 
retaliate with authority and that is why I am introducing the WTO 
Enforcement Act.
  The WTO Enforcement Act has two major objectives: ensure that the 
U.S. government affords adequate transparency and public participation 
in the U.S. decision-making process, and begin multilateral 
negotiations with a view toward incorporating more transparency and 
consultation in the multilateral context of the WTO dispute settlement 
process.
  If the farm groups and U.S. companies were to increase their public 
comment in the implementation and post-implementation stages of the WTO 
dispute settlement process, this will heighten the pressure on the 
foreign country to comply with the Panel decisions. Currently, while 
the USTR, Congress, and industry groups consult during the 
implementation stages of Panel decisions, making the comment and 
reporting requirements more established and anticipated will increase 
accountability. The WTO system needs to be given a chance to work, but 
the best way to do so is to increase pressure on those countries that 
would try to circumvent the implementation of panels. This is 
imperative not only for agriculture and our relations with the EU, it 
could affect all sectors that are litigated under the WTO dispute 
settlement process.
  The proposed modifications to U.S. domestic rules regarding dispute 
settlement will prove more effective if the losing party to a WTO 
dispute provides to the winning party its plan to comply with the WTO 
decision and if the winning party is given meaningfully opportunity to 
comment on the plan prior to its implementation.
  The WTO is currently in the midst of a review of the organization's 
dispute settlement procedures. Therefore, under the WTO Enforcement 
Act, the United States must request reforms that would oblige member 
government's to submit a proposed remedy well in advance of the 
deadline to comply to the decision and as well as consult with the 
other parties to the proceeding on the proposal.
  If the WTO Enforcement Act is passed, the U.S. public would be able 
to obtain more information about the foreign government's plans for 
compliance with WTO panel decisions and would be afforded a more formal 
opportunity to comment on how the process is working. If we negotiate 
trade agreements for American citizens wishing to do business in 
foreign markets, they have every right to voice their support for or 
objections to the way foreign governments or the U.S. government is 
making those agreements beneficial.
  It is time for us to enact policies that reflect our support for U.S. 
companies' efforts to reach their competitive potential internationally 
and policies that create ascending opportunity for Americans for the 
21st century so that we can say, with confidence, ``the best is yet to 
come.''

                          ____________________