[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 21, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4787-H4814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD 
                           TRADE ORGANIZATION

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 528 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 528

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 90) withdrawing the approval of the 
     United States from the Agreement establishing the World Trade 
     Organization. The joint resolution shall be considered as 
     read for amendment. The joint resolution shall be debatable 
     for two hours of debate equally divided among and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Ways and Means, Representative Paul of Texas, and 
     Representative DeFazio of Oregon or their designees. Pursuant 
     to section 152 of the Trade Act of 1974 and section 125 of 
     the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend

[[Page H4788]]

his remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Committee on Rules met and 
granted a closed rule for H.J. Res. 90, a bill to withdraw the approval 
of the United States from the agreement establishing the World Trade 
Organization. The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago this body passed legislation known as the 
Uruguay Round Trade Agreements. The legislation established the World 
Trade Organization, or WTO, which replaced the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, with a more comprehensive and workable 
trade agreement.
  In ``Democracy in America,'' Alexis DeTocqueville wrote that ``in 
democracies, nothing is more great or more brilliant than commerce.'' 
In our great democracy, this United States is the world leader in the 
global marketplace, affecting the lives and quality of life of millions 
of American workers, farmers and businesspeople who depend on open and 
stable world markets. The United States is the world's leading exporter 
and importer, trading over $2 trillion worth of goods and services each 
year in the international marketplace.
  While the underlying measure would not necessarily provide for the 
President to withdraw from the WTO, it would call the United States 
global future into question. Without a solid defeat of this measure, 
Congress will send the wrong message to the other 135 member countries. 
U.S. participation and strong leadership in the WTO is an integral part 
of the success of the stable trade environment the organization is 
creating.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Ways and Means reported this bill 
unfavorably on June 12. The committee reasoned that continued U.S. 
participation in the global trading system is vital to America's long-
term economic and strategic interests, continued prosperity and 
strengthening the rule of law around the world. In reporting the bill 
unfavorably, the committee reinforced a fundamental fact that this is a 
Nation of leadership, not of isolationism.
  The WTO provides a forum to lower tariffs and other barriers to 
international trade. This is not the time for the U.S. to move away 
from the global economy by sending the wrong message to its trading 
partners. Additionally, through the World Trade Organization, member 
countries have established multilateral rules for trade that provide a 
stable environment for businesses and farmers who export their 
products. The WTO plays a vital role in enforcement and resolution of 
trade disputes. In fact, the WTO has been much more effective than its 
predecessor, GATT, in providing timely resolutions to global trade 
disputes. Finally, the WTO provides a forum for ongoing negotiations to 
reduce trade barriers and advance global trade.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is that U.S. exports have increased in the last 
5 years under WTO. Our growth in international trade stimulates greater 
capital investment, higher productivity, technological innovation and 
more American jobs. American goods, crafted and innovated by the skill 
and labor of America's workers, are second to none. But our success in 
selling those goods and services in a global marketplace is assured 
only through free and open markets. The WTO continues to advance and 
create those freer and more open markets. We must keep our commitment 
to our workers and our businesses by allowing the U.S. to continue to 
be a leader in the global marketplace. Through that leadership and our 
success, our economy will continue to grow and more jobs will be 
created. Even more important, we will demonstrate our continued faith 
in the quality and the productivity of American workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and oppose the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule but in opposition to H.J. 
Res. 90, the resolution that it makes in order. This rule provides 2 
hours of general debate and the time is divided equally between the 
proponents, the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, and the opponents, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.  DeFazio) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). This rule is necessary, Mr. 
Speaker, because of a provision in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
that authorized the President to accept the United States' membership 
in the World Trade Organization. Sections 124 and 125 of this act 
require that the President every 5 years report to the Congress on 
United States participation in the World Trade Organization.
  The purpose of this report, according to the Committee on Ways and 
Means, is to provide an opportunity for Congress to evaluate the 
transition of the GATT to the WTO, and also to assess periodically 
whether continued membership in this organization is in the best 
interest of the United States. After receipt of this report, Mr. 
Speaker, any Member of Congress may introduce a joint resolution to 
withdraw congressional approval of the agreement that establishes the 
WTO. That resolution is on a fast track which requires committee action 
within 45 days and up to 20 hours of floor consideration within 90 days 
unless a rule establishing debate is enacted prior to that time. This 
is the rule that we are working on.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not support withdrawal of the United States from 
the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization and its 
predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, have 
opened many foreign markets for U.S. goods and services around the 
globe, particularly for farmers and for business. While I have 
expressed opposition to the WTO's opening of its membership to 
countries such as China, I believe it would be a mistake for the United 
States to leave this organization and to isolate itself from the 
world's other industrial nations.
  I think most would agree that overall the benefits of the WTO 
outweigh the costs. However, having said that, there is much room for 
improvement in the way the WTO operates. The 5-year report by the 
President to Congress serves to highlight areas where improvements 
could be made. A significant portion of our current booming economy is 
due to increased trade abroad through the rules of the WTO and GATT. 
But this organization needs to be about more than just trade and 
tariffs.

                              {time}  0915

  It needs to expand its thinking and its priorities and its rulemaking 
to the quality of life for those populations it has attempted to serve. 
The WTO policy needs to focus on improving working conditions, not 
simply global trade but increased worker protection, increased 
environmental protection, and respect for human rights.
  Mr. Speaker, these issues need to be part of any meaningful trade 
discussions or negotiations, and any rules regarding these areas need 
to be vigorously enforced.
  One of the most important changes would be to lift the veil of 
secrecy under which the WTO functions. This organization operates 
almost entirely behind closed doors, and such a policy has only served 
to heighten the mistrust of those who already question the WTO. This 
mistrust can be minimized only, only if there is an opening of the 
agenda and opening of the minds of the membership on the WTO.
  There is an urgent need for public access, as well to public input 
into the WTO. We must address the current makeup of the World Trade 
Organization and particularly the total absence of representatives from 
labor, the total absence of representatives from the environment, and 
total absence from people representing human rights groups and from any 
other WTO advisory groups.
  These entities should be given more access to this organization as it 
develops its policies and rules that ultimately impact in all of these 
areas. Enforcement of actions that have been negotiated by the members 
of the World Trade Organization must be tightened.

[[Page H4789]]

  The creation of the World Trade Organization was, in part, an effort 
by the GATT to legally bind member governments to GATT's rules.
  American trade negotiators have been successful in winning trade 
disputes and other violations, but, unfortunately, the enforcement to 
correct these cases has not been satisfactory. Agreements that have 
been reached must be enforced for all involved parties.
  Whether we like it or not, Mr. Speaker, the world is changing. We 
truly are moving towards a global economy. The World Trade Organization 
currently has a membership of 135 nations, with another 32 who seek to 
join this organization.
  I think it would be very detrimental to the United States to pull out 
of the World Trade Organization at this time. But that does not mean 
that we should turn our backs on those people and those issues that 
desperately need to be part of the World Trade Organization's agenda. 
We can probably do more than any nation to see that these critical but 
overlooked matters become top priorities with our trading partners.
  Mr. Speaker, let us pass the rule, but let us defeat H. Res. 90.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, who is not only an expert, but a global authority 
on trade issues in the WTO.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that is kind of a frightening introduction, 
and I hope it did not offend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) here.
  Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding me the time; and I 
rise, first of all, to compliment my friend, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul). The gentleman clearly shares my view that we need to do 
everything that we possibly can to diminish barriers that allow for the 
free flow of goods and services throughout the world. In fact, the 
gentleman and I were discussing this issue yesterday, and we both 
agreed that we very much want to diminish those barriers.
  I wish that there were not a single tariff that existed in the world, 
because we all know that a tariff is a tax; and we, as Republicans, 
were born to cut taxes.
  If you go back to 1947 and look at the establishment of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, it came following the Second World War, 
and we all know that protectionism played a role in exacerbating both 
the Great Depression and, I believe and most economists agree, 
establishing the hand of Adolph Hitler.
  Following the defeat of Naziism in the mid-1940s, we saw world 
leaders come together and establish the GATT. They had one simple goal 
they put forward. What was it? To decrease tariff barriers. So with 
that as a goal, the GATT worked for years and years and years, decades 
in an attempt to bring down those barriers through a wide range of 
agreements; and as my friend from New York pointed out very well in his 
statement, we today have the World Trade Organization.
  Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago it was established; and it was established 
again with the continuation of that goal of trying to decrease tariff 
barriers. There are not 135 nations that belong to the World Trade 
Organization, and I am not going to stand here and argue that the World 
Trade Organization is the panacea to all of the ailments of society. I 
am not going to say that there are not problems within the WTO. And I 
know that my friend from Houston will clearly point those out; but I am 
one who has concluded that we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of 
the good, because clearly the goal of the WTO is to cut taxes, to 
decrease those tariffs.
  I think that it is the right thing to do. I am very pleased to have 
my friend from South Boston, the distinguished ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Rules (Mr. Moakley) join in support of continuation 
of the WTO; and in his statement, he correctly pointed out, that when 
this was established 5 years ago, there was a provision in the 
implementing legislation that said that we could have a resolution 
offered that would allow us to have the debate which we are going to 
have today dealing with the question of whether or not the United 
States should maintain its membership in the WTO.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that if we look at the past 5 
years, since we saw the WTO established, it has been an overwhelming 
success; and I think that the wisest thing for us to do is to point to 
the economy of the United States of America and the economy of the 
world.
  Today we have the lowest unemployment rate, the strongest economic 
growth, low inflation. We have very positive economic signs. I believe 
that that is in large part, not totally, but in large part due to the 
fact that we have worked to try to diminish those barriers. We very 
much want to find opportunities for the United States to gain access to 
new markets around the world. We, time and time again, stand here and 
point to the fact that 96 percent of the world's consumers are outside 
of our borders; and as such, we want to do what we can to try and find 
new opportunities for our workers.
  We know that the United States of America being the world's global 
leader has understood the benefit of imports. We allow the rest of the 
world to have access to our consumer market, and that benefits us. That 
is a win-win for us. It allows us to have the highest standard of 
living on the face of the earth. So what we need to do now is recognize 
that the WTO is the structure through which we are able to gain access 
to other countries around the world.
  I believe that we have a great opportunity here in a bipartisan way 
to send a signal that we believe in reducing taxes. We believe in 
reducing those tariff barriers so that we can allow for that free flow 
of goods and services, and so I urge support of the rule that would 
allow us to go ahead and have very vigorous debate. And then as my 
friend from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and my friend from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley) have said so well, we need to overwhelmingly defeat this 
resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule. I supported the bill. 
When the WTO was first proposed, it was deemed unconstitutional. And I 
believe today if it was put under a microscope, it would be 
unconstitutional; but Congress made it mainstream. To me that is 
unbelievable. But my question today is what is happening and, even 
worse, what has happened to America.
  American troops are often under the command of foreign generals. Just 
think about that. The United Nations now wants to levy a world tax, the 
same United Nations that uses Uncle Sam like a policeman. And Uncle 
Sam, as a policeman for the United Nations, saves monarchs and 
dictators who then screw America by raising oil prices.
  Mr. Speaker, then we look at Japan. Think about it. $60 billion a 
year every year, 20 years in trade deficits, every President from Nixon 
to Clinton threatened Japan with sanctions if they did not open their 
markets. Evidently, Japan never opened their markets, and we have done 
nothing about it. Now, let us look at the big one. China's taking $80 
billion a year out of our economy, buying missiles and nuclear 
submarines with our money, aiming the missiles at our cities and 
telling America keep your hands off Taiwan and do not question China's 
military policies.
  What has happened to America and what happened to Congress, beam me 
up, we pledge an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United 
States, not to the charter of the United Nations, and certainly by God, 
not to the World Trade Organization that has ruled against us every 
single year, from Venezuelan oil to Chinese trinkets.
  This is not a matter of trade. This is not a matter of exclusion. 
This is a matter of American sovereignty. And by God, I think some 
common sense should infuse itself into the Congress of the United 
States who is acting like world citizens who took an oath to the United 
Nations.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).

[[Page H4790]]

  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is true that I believe in low tariffs, because it 
means low taxes. When we had that problem facing us at the time of the 
constitutional convention, we were able to correct that problem in one 
sentence, no tariff barriers between the States, and it has been very 
successful. That is not what we are talking about here today.
  We are talking about a very complex treaty, an illegal treaty, an 
unconstitutional treaty. This is the size of the treaty. This is the 
size of the agreement. This has nothing to do with trying to reduce 
taxes. As a matter of fact, when this was passed in 1994, the thought 
was and the statement was made on the House floor that it would lower 
taxes; and that I would support.
  The truth is, there was an offset for every tax that was lower. Even 
with NAFTA, one gentleman told me that he immediately benefitted from 
NAFTA, because the tariff barriers went down. But do you know what 
happened, there was a reclassification of his product, and his tax went 
back on because he was a little guy, but the big guys got the benefits.
  So there is something very unfair about the system. It is an 
unconstitutional approach to managing trade. We cannot transfer the 
power to manage trade from the Congress to anyone. The Constitution is 
explicit. ``Congress shall have the power to regulate foreign 
commerce.'' We cannot transfer that authority. Transferring that 
authority to the WTO is like the President transferring his authority 
as Commander in Chief to the Speaker of the House.
  We cannot do that, and we cannot give up our responsibilities here in 
the House and relinquish it through a very complex treaty arrangement. 
Now, even if we had passed this as a treaty, it would not be legal, 
because we cannot amend the Constitution with a treaty, and that is 
essentially what is happening here.
  What is happening here is the people have lost control and they know 
it, and that is why the people are speaking out. They are frustrated 
with us, and they are going to the streets. That is a bad sign. That is 
a bad sign that we are not representing the people.
  The WTO represents the special interests not the people. Why is it 
that the chairman of the board of Chiquita banana decided in the last 3 
years to give $1.6 million to the politicians? Because he will have 
access to the U.S. Trade Commissioner. Now, it is not us who will vote, 
but it will be the nonelected officials at the WTO who will fight the 
battles in an unelected international bureaucracy, the WTO, which acts 
in secrecy.

                              {time}  0930

  There is something wrong with that. We only have a chance every 5 
years to debate this issue. The original bill allowed for 20 hours of 
debate. That is how important the issue was thought to be. Realizing 
how difficult that would be and the odds against that happening, I was 
quite willing to agree to 2 hours of debate. But that really is not 
enough, because this is a much more important issue than that.
  I know the opposition, those who believe in international managed 
trade through the World Trade Organization, would not like to have this 
debate at all, because I think deep down inside they know there is 
something wrong with it. I think that they do not want to hear the 
opposition.
  I am absolutely convinced that truth is on our side, that we will win 
the debate, disregarding the vote. But we have a greater responsibility 
here than just to count the votes. We have a responsibility to try our 
best to follow the law of the land, which is the Constitution; and 
quite clearly we do not have the authority to transfer this power to 
unelected bureaucrats at the WTO.
  The WTO has ruled against us, stating that the Foreign Corporation 
tax sales credit is illegal; and we have promised by October 1 to 
rescind this tax benefit, and unfortunately we will. I would like to 
know from the Committee on Ways and Means when this is going to happen, 
how we are going to do it, because it is going to be a $4 billion 
increase on our taxes. This will be passed on to the people. At the 
same time the European Community is preparing to file a case against 
the U.S. in the WTO to put a tax on international sales.
  In Europe there is a tax on international sales. If you buy software 
over the Internet, you are charged a sales tax. The Europeans said they 
will absolutely not reduce that tax. In America we do not have that 
tax, which is wonderful. So for the Europeans, what would the logical 
thing be? If you can transfer value over the Internet, they buy their 
software from us. That is good. Since they refuse to lower their taxes, 
they are going to the WTO to get a ruling. Well, maybe they will rule 
against us. They may well call it a tax subsidy. What will we do? We 
are obligated, we are obligated under the rules, to accommodate and 
change our laws. We have made that promise. Some will say, Oh, no, we 
still have our sovereignty. We do not have to do it. What happens? Then 
the complaining nations go to the WTO who then manages a trade war. 
They permit it. This results in a continual, perpetual trade war 
managed by the WTO, something we need to seriously challenge.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  This debate is going to be constrained today in the House. It is 
being held at an unusually early hour, with little notice to Members, 
except at 11 o'clock last night; and the debate itself is constrained 
by this rule to 2 hours, although the legislation which passed this 
body, a lame duck Congress, I might add, without any amendments 
allowed, was to have up to 20 hours of debate.
  This should be an important debate, with the United States running 
this year probably a $300 billion-plus trade deficit, something that we 
cannot do forever without dire consequences, although the gentleman 
from California spoke eloquently earlier about how wonderful it is to 
import things. Of course, if you import more than you export, you are 
losing jobs and you are running up a tab with foreign nations, and the 
U.S. is running up a tab at a record rate, $300 billion a year, 
probably $80 billion with China this year. We are helping to finance 
their military expansion and other things that the dictators are doing 
over there with our addiction to their extraordinarily cheap exports. 
But there are problems that come with those cheap exports, in addition 
to the loss of U.S. jobs.
  But what particularly concerns me here today is the fact that the 
debate is constrained; it is at an early hour, and this follows a 
pattern. The original adoption of the legislation that bound the U.S. 
to the WTO was passed in a lame duck Congress, when the Democrats had 
just lost the House of Representatives, and it was brought up under 
extraordinary procedures that allowed no amendment.
  Luckily, that law has not been renewed, the so-called fast track 
legislation, allowing a President to negotiate an incredibly complex 
agreement and then bring it to Congress and say oh, you can't change 
anything, because if you change it that is the end of it and the U.S. 
will be an isolationist. That is what we are going to hear again today, 
you are either for an isolationist or you are for engagement. I am for 
engagement with the rest of the world and for trading with the rest of 
the world, but just not under these rules, not under the secretive WTO 
organization, not under an organization that resolves disputes between 
parties in secret tribunals.
  Now, when I first brought this up during the original deliberations 
under GATT to then Mickey Kantor, the President's special Trade 
Representative, I said, You know, how can the U.S. bind itself to an 
organization that will resolve disputes in secret tribunals with no 
conflict of interest rules, to intervenors, not public scrutiny? How 
can the U.S. bind itself to that, and they can overturn our laws?
  He said Oh, you don't understand. They can't overturn our laws. All 
they can do is fine us in perpetuity if we want to keep our laws.
  I said, Oh, that is an interesting and subtle distinction.
  But that is the way it works. And there a list of U.S. laws, thus far 
ones most people apparently do not care a lot about, Marine Mammal 
Protection

[[Page H4791]]

Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act.
  But now there is one on the radar screen. They want us to change our 
tax laws, $4 billion-a-year subsidy. Now the Europeans have won the 
decision against the United States that would mandate that the United 
States change its tax laws, a $4 billion-a-year subsidy to the largest 
corporations in America.
  Now people are getting a little bit excited about this process, 
Marine Mammal Act, you know, sea turtles, you know, Endangered Species 
Act, Clean Air Act. It did not register on the radar screen downtown 
with the Clinton administration. It would be different if we had a 
Democratic administration, I guess. But when it is a tax break for 
foreign corporations, now they are pulling out all stops.
  Of course, the U.S. has had some victories. The U.S. banana growers, 
wait a minute, we do not grow bananas in the United States. Well, a 
large political contributor who owns control of the company that grows 
bananas under U.S. corporate ownership won a major decision against the 
Europeans, which is decimating the small growers in the Caribbean. The 
U.S. has forced the Europeans or is now penalizing the Europeans or 
fining the Europeans for not letting in hormone-laced beef. These are 
the kinds of decisions we are getting out of the WTO.
  Now, this process needs to change. Even the President says it needs 
to change. He wants labor included. He wants environmental things 
included in the future in the WTO. But, guess what? This organization 
is not very likely to change. It would require a two-thirds or maybe a 
three-quarters vote, the rules are not quite clear, to change the 
charter in those ways, and, as we all noticed, the whole Seattle round 
fell apart just because the U.S. was asking that we might have a 
meaningless, nonbinding working group on labor rights or environmental 
considerations in the future.
  This organization needs dramatic change. Unfortunately, the only 
choice we are going to be given here today is not to vote to begin a 
process of the U.S. pressuring the WTO for change or amending the WTO 
agreement itself, but an up or down vote under very constrained debate 
on whether or not the U.S. will be in the WTO.
  I regret those conditions, and will urge Members to vote for the 
resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about internationalism. Many of us who 
have been critical of some aspects of the World Trade Organization and 
in particular have been critical of an international economic policy 
which consists entirely of freeing restraints on capital and paying no 
attention to the problems it can calls for worker rights and for 
environmental problems, we have been accused sometimes of not caring 
enough about poor people overseas.
  Well, I think it is time to focus on the question of who is trying to 
alleviate poverty overseas in its fullest, because, without question, 
the single most important thing that this Congress will consider, 
dealing with poverty overseas, grinding, abject, life-threatening 
poverty, is international debt relief.
  Last year the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, on 
which I serve in a bipartisan way, brought forward legislation that 
created a framework within which the United States could grant debt 
relief to the poorest countries in the world, countries, in some cases, 
that had been run by thugs and crooks who had indebted their countries, 
and these are now countries where people are going without the basic 
necessities of life because of the need to make debt payments. So a 
very impressive coalition of religious and charitable and welfare-
oriented and private sector groups have come together to press for 
international debt relief.
  Unfortunately, the Committee on Appropriations last year grudgingly 
voted only some the money that was necessary. This year we were hoping 
that we could, within the legislative authorization that is already 
there, get enough money to complete debt relief, debt relief that is 
being urged by the Pope, by every major religious organization, by 
every group internationally that cares about alleviation of poverty and 
fighting disease.
  What have we gotten from the majority party? Basically, not very 
much. The appropriations process is going forward, and so far the 
result has been an unwillingness to vote the funds for debt relief.
  So we ought to be clear. We have people among us, and I am not saying 
I have not heard from the business community, from all the 
internationalists, who wanted the World Trade Organization, who wanted 
permanent trade with China, I have not heard from them. So I have to 
ask the question, do we have people for whom internationalism and 
concern for others means a chance to make some money?
  Now, making money is a good thing. It helps the people who make it 
and it helps the rest of us. But when people are internationalists only 
because they are looking for a chance to increase their profit margins 
by trade with China, and they are silent when debt relief for 
desperately poor people in Africa and Asia and elsewhere is denied, I 
have to say that my guess is we are talking about self-interest, rather 
than internationalism and concern for the poor. Self-interest is not a 
bad thing. What is bad here is not the actual motive, but the pretense.
  So I would hope that in the spirit of internationalism, I would hope 
that this spirit of internationalism turns out to be more than a 
license to make some more money in China. I would hope that the spirit 
of internationalism does not turn out to be an understanding of the 
attractiveness of low-wage, non-environmental, no-OSHA type activities 
as a place to invest. I would hope it would show as a genuine concern 
for sharing the vast resources of this country and other wealthy 
countries with poor people. But so far that is not what is happening. 
So far, the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations just voted, and 
essentially voted virtually nothing, I think 20 percent of what was 
needed for debt relief.
  Now, this is poverty alleviation. This is a case of people who are 
desperately hungry, children who do not have food or medical care, 
people who do not have shelter; and if the majority party's 
appropriation goes forward, what little revenue these people are able 
to get will be extracted for debt payments, debts contracted in many 
cases by thugs working with irresponsible financial institutions.
  So we will have a test over the next month of internationalism. Right 
now we have a very incomplete internationalism. The rest of the world, 
poor countries as a venue in which to make money, then we are all for 
it. And as I said, I think in and of itself making money is a good 
thing. But when a request for relieving these people of debts, which 
are grinding them into poverty, debts which are dysfunctional in their 
impact on these economies, when every significant religious leader, 
every international-oriented organization, every group concerned with 
health care and child welfare and food says our highest priority is 
debt relief, and the majority party responds by saying, Oh, sorry, not 
this year, then internationalism does not look very good.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Massachusetts 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as a new Democrat, I rise in strong support of fair 
trade, not unfettered free trade, and I also rise in support of the 
rule, but against the underlying bill.
  As a fair trader, as a new Democrat who believes that the trade 
deficit that we seem to build month by month by month is becoming a 
bigger and bigger problem, but also as a Member of Congress who 
believes that we need to pry open and penetrate new markets overseas so 
that we can export products, not jobs, we need a working, viable, 
reformed, modernized WTO.

                              {time}  0945

  Now, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my good friend, said we 
need dramatic change in the WTO. I agree. I agree with that statement. 
I think where we differ is that I believe we need dramatic and 
fundamental

[[Page H4792]]

 change in the WTO to emphasize human rights, to emphasize labor law, 
to enforce and implement the trade laws that we in the United States 
have on the books to protect our jobs in the Midwest and throughout the 
country, but we do not want to blow up the WTO, and that is what this 
vote is about. We do not want to mow it down, we want to modernize it. 
We want to improve it, not remove it.
  The WTO needs to do a much better job of enforcing the trade laws 
that we have, whether that be the 1995 South Korean automobile trade 
law that I do not think is well enforced from an American perspective. 
The WTO needs to do a much better job of implementing trade laws, of 
insisting on the rule of law and transparency in our trade laws. 
However, Mr. Speaker, when we had the debate for the last 4 or 5 years 
about the United Nations, most of us said with respect to the United 
Nations, let us change the bureaucracy and get rid of some of it; let 
us change what we contribute; we contribute too much today to the 
United Nations; let us leverage some of our aid to the United Nations 
to get them back to their original mission, but let us not blow up the 
United Nations. They do some wonderful things to help the poor, for 
food relief; and, as Kofi Annan said, one in five people, one in five 
people in the world live on less than $1 per day. One in five people do 
not have access to safe drinking water. We need the United Nations, but 
we need to reform it.
  With the WTO, we need a working, viable, modernized, revolutionized, 
reformed WTO; but this vote would remove the WTO. So let us work 
together to get dramatic change. Let us work together to put more 
emphasis on labor law and human rights, on enforcement and 
implementation. Let us pass the rule, and let us defeat this underlying 
bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we enter the 21st century, we see that the American 
dream is still alive. America is still a place where an honest day's 
work can get one an honest day's pay. But we see that it is beginning 
to be challenged. It is being challenge because America is giving up 
its sovereignty to foreign bureaucrats, because we are losing control 
over our own laws. It is being challenged because America is giving up 
its democratic principles to a secret multinational trade organization 
that does its work behind closed doors. It is being challenged by 
workers in other nations who cannot enjoy the same freedoms and 
benefits American workers receive.
  Foreign workers who work for pennies a day, foreign workers who work 
in dangerous and hazardous conditions, foreign workers who work without 
health benefits, foreign workers who are forced to live in dirty 
environments, breath dirty air and drink dirty water, foreign workers 
who cannot organize and speak out for fair wages and fair benefits. 
Foreign workers who, because of such conditions and through no fault of 
their own, turn out cheap products and dump them in the United States 
of America.
  It is unfair for American workers to compete with foreign workers on 
an unfair playing field. It is also unfair for foreign workers to have 
to work every day in such miserable conditions.
  In this world, in this type of global economy, where labor and 
environmental safeguards are not in place, where the majority of the 
World Trade Organization members continue to stall and delay and fight 
against real reform, all workers will continue to suffer while 
corporate profits skyrocket.
  Remember that the American dream is just not for Americans; it is 
also something that is sought by many people around this world. It is a 
hope for a better life for workers and their families. Unfortunately, 
for many in this world, it will be a hope that will never become a 
reality.
  A number of my colleagues here in this body have urged the WTO to 
establish real reform and put labor and environmental safeguards into 
place. So far, that has fallen upon deaf ears. That is why I plan to 
vote for H.J. Res. 90. In its current form, the WTO only ensures 
economic prosperity for the elite multinationals and leaves millions 
and millions of workers behind. We need to send a signal to the WTO 
that if they do not get serious about reform, we will push even harder. 
We have only begun the fight.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we need real reform of WTO. We need real 
reform that will bring the American dream to everyone, so workers 
around the world can have a real hope of achieving happiness.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The WTO provides a forum for ongoing negotiations to reduce trade 
barriers and advance global trade. The fact is that U.S. exports have 
increased in the last 5 years under WTO. Our growth in international 
trade stimulates greater capital investment, higher productivity, 
technological innovation, and more, I repeat more, American jobs. 
American goods crafted and innovated by the skill and labor of 
America's workers are second to none. But our success in selling those 
goods and services in a global marketplace is assured only through free 
and open markets. The WTO continues to advance and create those freer 
and more open markets.
  We must keep our commitment to our workers and our businesses by 
allowing the United States to continue to be a leader in the global 
marketplace. Through that leadership and our success, our economy will 
continue to grow and more jobs will be created. Even more important, we 
will demonstrate our continued faith in the quality and the 
productivity of the American workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and oppose the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 343, 
nays 61, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 298]

                               YEAS--343

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook

[[Page H4793]]


     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--61

     Berkley
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Costello
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gutierrez
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     McGovern
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Strickland
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Barton
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Burton
     Campbell
     Carson
     Clayton
     Cook
     Cubin
     Engel
     Ford
     Fossella
     Jefferson
     Largent
     Martinez
     McIntosh
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Moran (VA)
     Packard
     Porter
     Roybal-Allard
     Smith (NJ)
     Sweeney
     Vento
     Wexler
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1015

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas and Messrs. STRICKLAND, LEACH, and PALLONE 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay''.
  Ms. GRANGER changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea''.
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 298 I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on the vote for H. Res. 528, I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 298, rule for H.J. Res. 90, I 
was detained due to the malfunctioning of my office electronic voting 
signal equipment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 528, I call up 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 90) withdrawing the approval of the 
United States from the Agreement establishing the World Trade 
Organization, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of the House Joint Resolution 90 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 90

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,  That the 
     Congress withdraws its approval, provided under section 
     101(a) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, of the WTO 
     Agreement as defined in section 2(9) of that Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
528, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), and the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 90.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 90, a 
resolution to withdraw congressional approval of the agreement 
establishing the World Trade Organization. The Committee on Ways and 
Means reported this resolution with an adverse recommendation by a vote 
of 35 to nothing.
  Put simply, the consensus in the committee was that it would be 
unthinkable and illogical for the United States to withdraw from the 
WTO.
  The WTO stands apart from many other international institutions in 
that it functions on a day-to-day basis almost completely in favor of 
American interests. In setting international rules for trade, the 
United States has had to make relatively few concessions in exchange 
for having open access to consumers in 136 other countries.
  The WTO system is fundamentally American-based rules of the road for 
commerce that limit discriminatory trade barriers and damaging 
sanctions. Because of the strength of U.S. leadership since World War 
II, our trading partners have been willing to accept the structure of 
fair trade rules and principles.
  Congress has been heavily involved in the development of these rules 
and principles since the establishment of the GATT in 1947. At the same 
time, the WTO cannot prevent the United States from establishing 
whatever level of food, safety, or environmental protection on imports 
that we see fit to impose. The WTO system of fair play only requires 
that we apply the same standards to both foreign and domestic 
producers.
  Since its inception in 1995, the WTO has functioned effectively, 
aiding our efforts to increase job-creating U.S. exports. The best 
engine for our impressive economic growth has been expanding 
international trade under the oversight of the WTO.
  Since 1995, exports have risen by $235 billion. When we increase 
exports, in particular, we are increasing the number of high-wage high-
tech jobs in cities and towns across America. There is absolutely no 
better strategy for improving living standards than to pry away trade 
barriers and grow foreign markets for U.S. products. Nearly 12 million 
high-wage American jobs depend directly on our ability to export under 
predictable rules.
  Rules without a mechanism for enforcement would not mean much. The 
WTO dispute settlement system succeeds in encouraging the resolution of 
hundreds of trade conflicts through amicable consultations. In the 27 
cases where the U.S. filed a formal challenge to foreign practices, we 
prevailed in 25. Our victories have won millions of dollars in 
increased sales for U.S. firms and workers.
  In establishing the WTO dispute settlement system, Congress insisted 
on a mechanism with moral authority, but with no power to compel a 
change in our laws or regulations. Any decision to comply with a WTO 
panel is solely an internal decision of the United States. In the 
difficult WTO case against U.S. Foreign Sales Corporations that we are 
struggling with now, neither the European Union nor the WTO can impose 
any course of action on the United States.
  As the world's leading exporter, the United States benefits 
enormously from the common sense ground rules of

[[Page H4794]]

 the WTO, such as national treatment, nondiscrimination, and due 
process. This is not a perfect organization by any stretch, but to pull 
out now would mean reverting to a dark time 60 years ago when 
international trade was governed by political whim and a dangerous 
absence of rules and fair practices.
  I urge a no vote on H.J. Res. 90.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow a nonmember 
of the Committee on Ways and Means to control the balance of the time 
yielded to me until I am able to return to the Chamber.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it would be irresponsible for us to support this 
resolution and to withdraw from international trade community, and I 
certainly oppose this resolution. But let me point out, I think we can 
do a better job in this body in monitoring our participation in the 
World Trade Organization.
  Let me just point out a couple points if I might. First, we could 
improve our antisurge provisions in our own trade laws, our antidumping 
and countervailing duty provisions in our section 201 relief.
  Last year, we had a surge of steel, cheap steel, subsidized steel 
into the United States which costs us many jobs around our country. We 
could have done a better job. In fact, we did a better job with the 
recently negotiated agreement with China. We have a better provision in 
our current law. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) was 
instrumental in incorporating that into statute in the legislation that 
we approved the permanent NTR. So we could do a better job with all of 
our trading partners in protecting our industries from illegally 
imported subsidized products.
  Secondly, we could do a better job on the review process. A 5-year 
review without much preparation and advance is not the way we should be 
reviewing our participation with the WTO.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, I filed legislation, and I would like my 
colleagues to review it and hopefully join me in supporting, that 
incorporates the suggestion of Senator Dole and supported by the USTR 
that would set up a commission composed of five Federal appellate 
judges to review the WTO dispute settlement reports and to make a 
report to Congress. This Commission would, if they found that the WTO 
exceeded its authority, affected our rights under the Uruguay Rounds, 
acted arbitrarily or decided a case outside of the applicable 
standards, if that happened, and it has happened that the WTO has made, 
in the view of legal experts, decisions that do not hold with the 
precedent and the laws and the obligations under the WTO and Uruguay 
Rounds, they would make that report to Congress.
  Any one of us could file a joint resolution requesting the President 
to negotiate dispute resolutions within the WTO that address these 
concerns. If there were three such adverse rulings in a 5-year period, 
any one of us could file a joint resolution of disapproval of 
participation in the WTO.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that is a more effective way to deal with the 
review than voting on this every 5 years, when it would be 
irresponsible to vote in favor of it. If we did that, I think we are 
showing the WTO that we are watching their decision making very 
carefully and expect that their decisions will be in compliance with 
the international standards and the obligations that every Nation with 
the WTO has agreed to. It would be a more effective review process for 
us to decide whether we want to continue in the WTO.
  I urge my colleagues to support that approach and to reject this 
resolution.
  Today the House will consider H.J. Res. 90, a resolution to withdraw 
Congressional approval of the Agreement establishing the World Trade 
Organization (WTO). I voted against this measure in the Ways and Means 
Committee, and I urge you to join me in voting against this resolution 
today on the floor. The United States' role as the clear leader in 
advancing the cause of free and fair trade demands our continued 
participation in the WTO.
  At the same time, there are serious problems in the operations and 
deliberations of the WTO that we should seek to address. Toward that 
end, I ask today that you join as a co-sponsor on legislation I have 
prepared which would create a WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission.
  The need for this legislation is clear. Over the past several years, 
we have witnessed too many instances in which unfounded interpretations 
of international trade law have led to WTO decisions that adversely 
impacted U.S. workers and industries. Specific cases involving lead 
bars, Korean DRAM's, and Japanese film all raised serious issues 
regarding the processes and conclusions of WTO actions. We need to 
provide a process by which these decisions can be reviewed by an 
impartial, nonpartisan panel that has the responsibility to inform the 
Congress and the American people of its findings.
  In 1994 the United States Trade Representative (USTR) wrote to then-
Senator Bob Dole to endorse the establishment of a WTO Dispute 
Settlement Review Commission. The bill I am introducing would revive a 
proposal made by Senator Dole to create a mechanism to provide that WTO 
decisions are carefully reviewed to assure the fair and sensible 
application of the rules of international trade.
  The Commission would consist of five federal appellate judges, and 
would review all final and adopted WTO dispute settlement reports. The 
Commission would review adverse WTO findings, using the following set 
of four criteria to determine whether the WTO panel: (1) demonstrably 
exceeded its authority or its terms of reference; (2) added to the 
obligations, or diminished the rights, of the United States under the 
Uruguay Round; (3) acted arbitrarily or capriciously, engaged in 
misconduct, or demonstrably departed from established panel or 
appellate procedure in the applicable Uruguay Round Agreement; and (4) 
deviated from the applicable standard of review, including in 
antidumping cases, set forth in the 1994 GATT agreement.
  The Commission would issue its determination within 120 days after 
the report is adopted. Upon the 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 and 
considered under expedited committee and floor 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, again using expedited procedures.
  While we may disagree on the appropriate remedy for responding to an 
adverse WTO panel decision, we all agree WTO panel decisions must treat 
American economic interests fairly. The Review Commission would raise 
the visibility of important WTO decisions that have a profound effect 
on the economy of the United States. I hope that the Commission would 
also reinvigorate the Congressional oversight role regarding trade 
policy, and encourage Members of Congress to seriously reflect on WTO 
decisions and their impact on the United States.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to vote to get 
out of the WTO. We joined the WTO in 1994 in a lame-duck session 
hurried up because it was fearful that the new Members would not 
capitulate and go along with joining the WTO. The WTO was voted by the 
House and the Senate as an agreement, and yet it is clearly a treaty. 
It involves 135 countries. It is a treaty. It has been illegally 
implemented, and we are now obligated to follow the rules of the WTO.
  This is the size of the agreement that we signed and voted on in 
1994. Now, if that is not an entangling alliance, I do not know what 
could be. It is virtually impossible to go through this and understand 
exactly what we have agreed to. But this is it, and this is what we are 
voting on today. If my colleagues vote against the resolution, they are 
rubber stamping this. That is what they are doing.
  Some argue that, yes, indeed the WTO is not quite perfect. But we 
need it. We need the WTO to manage this trade. But at the same time, 
they have no options. We cannot change the

[[Page H4795]]

WTO. This is our only opportunity to vote and dissent on what is 
happening.
  The people of this country are being galvanized in opposition to 
this. They never opposed GATT. GATT did not have the same authority as 
WTO. But now the WTO is being found to be very offensive to a lot of 
people around this country.
  It is said that the WTO has no control over our sovereignty. That is 
like saying the U.N. has no control of our sovereignty. Yet what body 
in the world directs our foreign policy? Where do we send troops around 
the world? Why do we put our troops under U.N. command? Where do we get 
authority to march into Kosovo and Somalia? From the United Nations. 
The WTO is the same.

                              {time}  1030

  It is the same sort of thing. It is incrementalism. People say we can 
always oppose it. That is sort of like saying in 1913, The income tax 
is not all that bad; it is only 1 percent placed on the rich. We don't 
have to worry about it. But before we know it, it is out of control. 
There is incrementalism here to be concerned about.
  To the issue of whether or not we are obligated to follow the WTO 
rules, Congressional Research Service on August 25, 1999, did a study 
on the WTO. Their interpretation is this:
  ``As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in 
accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It is legally 
obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.''
  That is why we will be very soon changing our tax laws to go along 
with what the WTO tells us to do. In an article recently written by D. 
Augustino, he says:
  ``On June 5, WTO Director General Michael Moore emphasized the 
obedience to WTO rulings as not optional. Quote, the dispute settlement 
mechanism is unique in the international architecture. WTO member 
governments bind themselves to the outcome from panels and if necessary 
the appellate body. That is why the WTO has attracted so much attention 
from all sorts of groups who wish to use this mechanism to advance 
their interests.''
  Indeed, this is a treaty that we are obligated to follow. It is an 
illegal treaty because it was never ratified by the Senate. Even if it 
had been, it is not legal because you cannot transfer authority to an 
outside body. It is the U.S. Congress that has the authority to 
regulate foreign commerce. Nobody else. We will change our tax law and 
obey the WTO. And just recently, the European Union has complained to 
us because we do not tax sales on the Internet, and they are going to 
the WTO to demand that we change that law; and if they win, we will 
have to change our law. The other side of the argument being, We don't 
have to do it. We don't have to do it if we don't want to. But then we 
are not a good member as we promised to be. Then what does the WTO do? 
They punish us with punitive sanctions, with tariffs. It is a managed 
trade war operated by the WTO and done in secrecy, without us having 
any say about it because it is out of our hands. It is a political 
event now. You have to have access to the U.S. Trade Representative for 
your case to be heard. This allows the big money, the big corporations 
to be heard and the little guy gets ignored.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. We have heard 
already that this organization only has moral authority, no power to 
change U.S. laws, they cannot impose any action. That is not true. It 
is patently not true. If the secret tribunal with no conflict-of-
interest rules which does not allow intervenors other than the nation 
states involved, no interest groups, no one else whose laws or 
interests might be in jeopardy loses a decision, then the complainant 
nation can impose penalties on you if you do not change your law.
  So we are saying, there is no power to change our laws. We can pay to 
keep them. If we had wanted to continue to protect sea turtles, we 
could have paid the foreign shrimpers who want to kill sea turtles at 
the same time they catch shrimp. We could have paid off Venezuela 
because they wanted to import dirty gasoline if we did not want to 
allow it to be imported. But no, we changed our laws.
  Now, for anybody to say that they do not have leverage, that they 
cannot make us change our laws is patently untrue unless you are adding 
the little proviso, U.S. taxpayers can pay for our laws. Well, that is 
not right.
  There are other problems with this. The gentleman from Maryland 
talked about how we need to improve the antidumping provisions. The 
antidumping provisions are on the EEC hit list. The European Economic 
Community has chosen a number of areas of U.S. laws they are going to 
appeal in the WTO to try and get binding penalties against the U.S. 
unless we repeal those laws.
  They include the restraint of foreign investment in or ownership of 
businesses relating to national security. National security. So the 
Chinese could come in and buy up Lockheed Martin. The 1916 anti-U.S. 
dumping act is in contradiction with the WTO agreement. They intend to 
file complaints against that. We have a gentleman saying, and I think 
with great merit, we need to make it stronger, but it is on the target 
list. If we lose the decision, we have to pay to keep out dumped 
foreign steel or other goods. The EU is going to go after Buy America 
provisions. They say those are WTO illegal. Finally, the small business 
set-aside. It is outrageous the things that are being ceded under this 
agreement.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) quoted from a 
Congressional Research Service report and he indicated the U.S. 
sovereignty was imperiled through membership in WTO.

       As a member of the WTO the United States does commit to act 
     in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It is 
     legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict 
     with WTO rules.

  Not quoted, however, in this quote from Congressional Research 
Service is the remainder of what was contained in that which states:

       However, the WTO cannot force members to adhere to their 
     obligations. The United States and any other WTO member may 
     act in its own national interest in spite of the WTO rules. 
     The WTO even recognizes certain allowable exceptions such as 
     national security.

  That is a direct quote from the Congressional Research Service World 
Trade Organization background and issues, August 25, 1999. Membership 
in the WTO is not a surrender of U.S. sovereignty but its wise 
exercise.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe).
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue.
  I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. Supporters of it 
would have us believe that the United States would be better off if we 
withdrew from the World Trade Organization, but I believe that nothing 
could be further from the truth. Political leaders and statesmen who 
created the WTO and its predecessor, the GATT, did so for good reasons. 
They had lived through some of the darkest days in the history of the 
world, famine, poverty, war that dominated the lives of millions of 
people around the world.
  Protectionism and economic stagnation put millions of Americans out 
of work. Factories closed, homes were lost, families were destroyed. 
They witnessed the havoc which trade wars and military wars and the 
protectionism that comes from trade wars can bring. And they vowed not 
to let it happen again. So they created an organization whose sole 
purpose was to open up closed markets, promote economic growth, provide 
a forum for the peaceful resolution of trade disputes. This was the 
GATT, the predecessor to the WTO. And it worked. Since World War II, 
the world has experienced unprecedented economic growth. Millions of 
people around the world have been pulled from economic poverty.
  But the system certainly was not perfect. So, we tried to correct 
some of the deficiencies of the past by creating the WTO which would 
further liberalize trade and provide for an even stronger dispute 
settlement procedure. Again, I believe the system has worked, 
especially for the United States.
  In the first year of implementation, U.S. exports rose 14.4 percent, 
seven

[[Page H4796]]

times greater than the GDP growth in that same year. When fully 
implemented, it is estimated that the agreement establishing the WTO 
will add somewhere between 125 and $250 billion each year to the GDP of 
this country.
  I agree that it is still not perfect, it is an evolving institution. 
But what is it supporters of this resolution disapprove of? Tariff 
cuts? Opening export markets? Peaceful dispute resolution? Economic 
growth? Full employment? And if this is what they disapprove of, what 
exactly is the alternative that they propose? It is easy to criticize, 
it is easy to point fingers, to lambaste, but what is the proposed 
alternative? I have yet to hear anyone that can prove to me that there 
is a better way than to proceed with the WTO.
  We will be hearing a lot today about how our antidumping laws are the 
cornerstone of U.S. trade policy, critical to our economic growth, that 
they are responsible for the prosperity we experience today. I say 
baloney to that. Our antidumping laws are more often than not little 
more than special interest protectionism for select U.S. industries, 
protectionism that costs every single American.
  Take a look at the recent editorial in the Washington Post, not 
exactly a conservative newspaper, entitled ``Steel's Deal.'' It says:
  ``The theory of antidumping cases is that foreigners are protecting 
their markets, allowing firms to make huge profits at home and sell at 
a loss to Americans. Even where this is the case, it is not obviously 
bad. Cheaper steel helps the U.S. carmakers and other manufacturers 
that buy the stuff, and these firms employ far more American workers 
than do U.S. steelmakers.''
  Mr. Speaker, I could not have said it better. The WTO may not be 
perfect, but it is the best that we have. I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the Washington Post editorial in its entirety:

                              Steel's Deal

       Sometimes the administration sings anthems to free trade. 
     But last week, faced with a study documenting the steel 
     industry's efforts to hobble foreign competitors, the 
     Commerce Department felt obliged to defend protectionist 
     policies. Rather than concede the obvious facts, a department 
     official pleaded that the U.S. market is relatively open and 
     complained that the study was ``totally ridiculous and 
     absurd'' because it was paid for by foreign steel makers.
       It is true that the tariffs and quotas that once excluded 
     foreign steel are mostly gone, thanks to international trade 
     deals. But the new battle has shifted to anti-dumping suits. 
     Whenever foreign imports surge, U.S. makers allege that steel 
     is being ``dumped'' on the U.S. market at prices lower than 
     it would fetch in its country of origin. If the U.S. side can 
     convince a special tribunal that its business is damaged by 
     such dumping, the Commerce Department imposes punitive 
     tariffs on the dumpers. The steel industry uses this device 
     so aggressively that about 80 percent of steel imports from 
     Japan are subject to anti-dumping tariffs or investigations. 
     As of last December, steel accounted for 103 of 250 punitive 
     orders in effect across the economy.
       The theory of anti-dumping cases is that foreigners are 
     protecting their markets, allowing firms to make huge profits 
     at home and sell at a loss of Americans. Even where this is 
     the case, it is not obviously bad: Cheaper steel helps the 
     U.S. car makers and other manufacturers that buy the stuff, 
     and these firms employ far more American workers than do U.S. 
     steel makers. But foreign protectionism occurs less often 
     than U.S. industry claims, and these claims get too little 
     scrutiny. Because of pressure from the steel caucus in 
     Congress, the dumping tribunal tends to side with U.S. firms; 
     just last week, a House committee refused to appropriate 
     funds for the tribunal's budget because members disliked one 
     of its recent findings.
       In addition to pushing up U.S. prices, anti-dumping actions 
     weaken America's ability to lead the world toward trade 
     liberalization. One reason for the failure of November's 
     Seattle trade summit was that the United States had refused 
     to put its dumping rules on the table. Most countries rightly 
     regard anti-dumping law as a cover for protectionism. In the 
     only test of this suspicion so far, the World Trade 
     Organization's dispute-settlement panel found against a U.S. 
     claim that South Korea's computer-chip ``protectionism'' 
     warranted anti-dumping action.
       America's steel industry accounts for a tiny proportion of 
     the national economy. But its lobby fills the campaign 
     coffers of both parties and can distort trade policy. Most 
     American workers, employed in competitive industries that 
     depend on open markets, suffer from this quiet corruption.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am opposed to this resolution. In a word, globalization is growing. 
It is here to stay. The question is whether and how we are going to 
shape it. If you vote yes, I guess you are saying, Don't try to shape 
it; throw up your hands, retreat from the process. I think the answer 
instead is to pursue, to persevere, to roll up our sleeves, to 
understand the strengths of the WTO; and where there is a need for 
reform to get in there and work for those reforms.
  The WTO provides a rule-based foundation for growing international 
trade. There is no alternative but to have some kind of a global rule-
based system. The alternative is anarchy, and that is not in the 
interest of the U.S. as the largest world trader. The World Trade 
Organization has also provided a means for us to attack nontariff 
barriers in addition to the traditional barriers to trade, tariffs, et 
cetera.
  It is far from perfect. We continue to press Japan in terms of their 
nontariff barriers. We have made some progress through the WTO in 
certain areas. It also has addressed the new technologies as they 
evolve in the world. But there are other ways that the WTO has not 
adapted to change. Now its rulings are binding. They were not under 
GATT. That means that the procedures have to be more open than they 
are. We have to eliminate the secret procedures. We should be in there 
and this administration has been in there fighting for those changes.
  Also, more and more globalization includes the evolving economies. 
That means there are new issues, issues of labor, of worker rights, 
labor market issues, issues of the environment. The World Trade 
Organization needs to address these issues. With the help and support 
of some of us, the administration has been endeavoring to do that.
  So, in a word, it seems to me this is the question: If you vote yes, 
what are you saying? You cannot be saying reform. You cannot reform an 
organization that you say withdraw from. What you need to do is to get 
in there and to work at it. That is why I believe there needs to be a 
no vote.
  Let me just say a word about some of the arguments that are used, for 
example, sea turtles and the Venezuela ruling. What the World Trade 
Organization said in those cases was the U.S. has to apply the same 
laws to others as we apply to ourselves. That is not a radical 
proposition.
  Let me comment briefly on what the gentleman from Arizona said. The 
WTO does not endanger American antidumping laws. Period. The way the 
Uruguay Round was structured, our antidumping laws can persevere and we 
can pursue them.
  Mr. Speaker, I think to vote yes on this sends the wrong message. It 
is the message of retreat. It is the message of withdrawal. A yes vote 
if shaped correctly, and I think we need to do it, says to the world, 
we are going to be part and parcel of a global organization. Where it 
has strengths, we will support it vigorously.

                              {time}  1045

  Where it has weaknesses we can work actively to change it; that is 
what we have been doing these last years. That is what we need to do 
with even greater energy and endeavor. I urge a no vote on this 
resolution.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) has 25 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. It is said that we 
do not have to listen to the WTO, but they threaten us with sanctions. 
They do not give us incentives. It is a threat, and we capitulate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho, (Mrs. 
Chenoweth-Hage).
  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. 
Res. 90, which would officially withdraw the United States from the 
World Trade Organization and would fully restore our sovereignty, and I 
think that is the heart of the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, as the recent debacle in Seattle clearly demonstrated, 
the United States has absolutely no business in a bungling 
international organization that can unconstitutionally raise our taxes 
and threaten our sovereignty. The Seattle meeting was touted to be an 
opportunity for nations to openly and freely discuss multilateral trade 
agreements.
  In truth, this was simply a charade, and most of the meetings were 
closed door or secret, where certain bureaucrats and countries were 
allowed to negotiate while others were left at the

[[Page H4797]]

doorstep. For instance, some of our own Members of Congress, who are 
constitutionally responsible for the U.S. citizens they represent, were 
denied access to these meetings. And all of this happening while 
protesters were being gassed and shot with rubber bullets by law 
enforcement.
  What a circus, Mr. Speaker. This is not the way that we should 
conduct trade. This is certainly not the way our Founding Fathers 
envisioned how we should conduct trade. When the Founding Fathers of 
our country drafted the Constitution, they placed the treaty-making 
authority with the President and the Senate, but the authority to 
regulate commerce was placed with the House and the Senate. As 
governmental units cannot treaty away authorities they do not have, for 
example, those reserved only to the States, our Constitution left us 
with a system that made no room for agreements regarding international 
trade that does not involve treaties or specific actions by Congress.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution certainly does not give the 
authority to international entities to tax the American people. Yet, 
this is exactly what the WTO has done. The WTO recently ruled that $2.2 
billion of United States tax reductions for American businesses 
violates WTO rules and must be eliminated by October 1 of this year.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution requires that all appropriation 
bills originate in the House and specify that only Congress have the 
power to lay and collect taxes. Taxation without representation was a 
predominant reason for America's fight for independence during the 
American Revolution. Yet, now we face an unconstitutional delegation of 
taxing authority to an unelected international body of international 
bureaucrats.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that we do not need the WTO to 
maintain free and fair trade. Trade negotiations occurred with great 
success millennia before the existence of the WTO. So let us return to 
a system of negotiating trade that is constitutionally founded.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, although, I do not think that withdrawing from WTO is 
the best course of action right now, the organization must be 
dramatically reformed to continue to enjoy U.S. support.
  In addition to incorporating labor rights and environmental 
protection, the WTO needs to become far more transparent to operate in 
full public view. Dispute settlement proceedings need to be opened to 
the public. Civil society needs to be allowed into the process. 
Developing countries need to be able to fully participate.
  But lack of transparency is not just a problem in the WTO. It is a 
problem in the U.S. relationship with the WTO. Trade policy in this 
country operated behind closed doors, only a few special interests 
making decisions for the entire country.
  Most of the advisory committees that guide the President of the 
United States on trade policy are made up solely of industry 
representatives. The meetings are closed to the public. The process is 
not transparent. It is not democratic, and it is not right.
  The recent court decision said that two Forest Industry Sector 
Advisory Committees need to include environmental representative. That 
is what the court says in terms of the public's right to know. This is 
progress, but it is not enough.
  There are still too many committees on tobacco, on chemicals, on all 
aspects of trade, that are comprised only of industry representatives. 
And even in a few instances where labor or the environment is actually 
represented, it is simply a token effort.
  Labor, human rights, environmental, and the public need an equal seat 
at the table. Before the U.S. decides to challenge another country's 
health or environmental standards as a barrier to trade, we need an 
open and transparent process. That means before the U.S. lobbies 
against the EU plan to protect kids from toxic toys, there should be 
public involvement. The U.S. agency should not just be doing the 
bidding of industry, they should be representing all Americans.
  That is what transparency is all about. I urge my colleagues and the 
administration to push for greater transparency in the WTO and also in 
our process here at home that leads up to these trade agreements.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, proponents of the WTO and our colleagues, especially the 
gentleman from the State of Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), have indicated that 
supporters of the resolution perpetuate the weakening of our clean air 
rules to implement a WTO-panel decision concerning cleaner burning 
gasoline. And reality is the issue before the WTO was discrimination 
against foreign gasoline producers, not the level of environmental 
protection.
  The regulations allowed U.S. refiners three ways in which to meet the 
standards while giving foreign refiners only one, a clear case of 
discrimination.
  In short, this discrimination gave an opportunity to the WTO dispute 
settlement panel to hear the case on the grounds of this discrimination 
and what their panel considered and what they concluded was the level 
of protection was never an issue rather the U.S., the panel determined, 
is free to regulate in order to obtain whatever air quality it wishes. 
We just cannot have that kind of discrimination between the two.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Trade, and I rise to strongly oppose this resolution. The WTO is the 
keystone of an international trading system that we have belonged to 
and helped shape since the late 1940s.
  This is an essential part of our strategy long term for fair and open 
trade. The WTO is essential to maintaining a rules-based trading 
framework that is critical to the little guy in international trade, 
not just us, and to the small company, participating in international 
markets.
  I have listened to the debate here, and there is no question that the 
WTO needs reform. We need to improve transparency and its decision 
making. We need to address the weak and arbitrary dispute settlement 
process that I have been critical of, but these facts make the case for 
our involvement, not for our withdrawal, any more than a disagreement 
with an individual court decision makes the case for our withdrawing 
from the Constitution. Do any of these individual cases make the case 
for our withdrawal from the WTO?
  We are the greatest economy on earth, and we cannot turn our back on 
the rest of the world where 75 percent of the world economy is. We need 
to play in that arena. And the only way we can do it and shape world 
trade is by participating in the WTO. I have no doubt that some of our 
trade competitors would delight in seeing us withdraw from the WTO and 
create a windfall for them and a clear field for their policies.
  If we are in favor of fair and open trade, if we are in favor of 
involving ourselves in a trading system that will continue to improve 
our quality of life and our economy, it is critical that we engage. I 
have no doubt in the future if we fail to address a need for reform in 
the WTO, that there will be a legitimate case for reassessing our 
involvement, but that case is not been made today. Vote down this 
resolution.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time, and I want to also sincerely thank the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul) for bringing this resolution to the floor. I, for 
one, with the greatest reluctance will oppose it. Because as 
advertised, WTO was to solve many of our problems. It was to be good 
for America. It was to be good for U.S. workers.
  We have heard remarks on the floor today about how our exports have 
gone up over the last 5 years. What has gone up 120 percent over the 
last 5 years is our trade deficit. Before the WTO was implemented, our 
trade deficit was $150 billion. This last year, 1999, it has increased 
to $330 billion. We have heard that the WTO has put money into the 
American economy.

[[Page H4798]]

  I am concerned about putting money in the pockets of American 
workers. And from my perspective, that has not happened. In constant 
1982 dollars, the average American for that average one hour's worth of 
work, not stock options, not benefits, not executive compensation, one 
hour's worth of work is making a nickel less 18 years later, so I do 
not know whose pocket these profits and these renewed incomes are going 
into.
  There has been no progress over the last 5 years, as far as improving 
international environmental standards. There has been no progress over 
the last 5 years as far as improving labor rights.
  And most recently, there has been an abject failure by the President 
of the United States and this administration to use the WTO as 
advertised. It is my understanding that quantitative limitations on the 
import or export of resources or products across borders is violative 
of international trade law. As we debate this moment, OPEC nations are 
meeting in Europe fixing the production of oil, and it is causing a 
crisis for the taxpayers in this country and the President has not 
filed a complaint under the WTO.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, let me remind those who would like to reform the WTO 
that we are helpless, Congress cannot do that. We need a unanimous 
consent vote from the WTO members. So that is not going to happen. Even 
the committee describes what we are talking about as a system of fair 
trade administered by the WTO. Fair trade, fine, we are all for fair 
trade, but who decides the WTO? That is not fair to the American 
citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Paul amendment, and some will 
see that as unnecessary, and they say work with the WTO and it will 
only get better. But what we have seen under the WTO is a tax on our 
environment, our health and safety standards, and we continue to have 
steel dumping here in the United States.
  I am concerned about our American sovereignty. Our democratic form of 
government is threatened by trade agreements like NAFTA, Permanent 
Normal Trade Relations with China, and WTO, that allows claims to be 
made against America's markets. It allows claims to be made against, 
our natural resources without regard to laws to protect the health, 
safety, welfare and environment of our great Nation like our fresh 
water resources.
  Mr. Speaker, I have raised the fresh water resources in the sale of 
the version of Great Lakes water and our natural resources when we have 
debated NAFTA, when we debated WTO, and when we talked about trade with 
China. But the fact remains, once these trade agreements are passed, 
WTO kicks in and the U.S. sovereignty is kicked out. Take the FO 
Corporation from Richmond, Virginia, that wanted to put MMT in Canadian 
gasoline. It is a gas additive. Canada said, no, we want to protect our 
environment. We want to protect the health and safety of our people. We 
do not want this stuff in our gas. They went and they filed suit.
  What happened? Canadian government had do pay them $13 million to put 
the gas additive in, and now, in Canadian gas, we find MMT. Well, let 
us just take the reverse, now we have a British Columbia company trying 
to put MTBE, another gas additive, here in the United States. We banned 
MTBE in California, because of our environment. We are banning MTBE in 
the Committee on Commerce in which I sit because of a threat to the 
health and safety of the American people.

                              {time}  1100

  But they go to WTO to get them to allow them to sell it in the United 
States. So the British Columbia firm will now be selling MTBE in the 
United States. If not, they want $360 million. That is what WTO gives 
us, a forum, where if they cannot get our resources, then we have to 
pay them. Then, after we pay them, not only do they get their gas 
additives, they have to put it in our gas.
  Who is going to stand up for our environment? Who are the people 
making decisions with the WTO that affect your health, safety and 
welfare? Who is going to be the one to stand up for our water resources 
when the NOVA group wants to ship it or when the Columbia River is 
being attacked, both on the Canadian and the U.S. side, because they 
want the fresh water resources because of droughts in this country? Who 
is going to stand up?
  Who is elected to this WTO? No one here in this Congress knows. We 
have no say in it. I believe that these organizations are subject to 
attack on our environment, our sovereignty, our natural resources, and 
we as Americans have no say in it.
  So before we lose all of our control over our sovereignty, before we 
lose all of our control over our natural resources, before we lose all 
of our control over our environment, the health and safety of our 
people, we as elected representatives should say enough of WTO. Let us 
get out of it while we still can.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1994, supporters of free trade and globalization 
painted a very positive picture of how the Uruguay Round and GATT would 
influence and shape the U.S. and the global economy. They declared it 
would not erode U.S. sovereignty or undermine environmental health or 
food safety policy. It would, they promised, improve labor standards 
worldwide.
  Five years into its implementation, though, it has become clear that 
these promises have failed to materialize. Instead, we have suffered 
through global financial instability, massive ballooning of the U.S. 
trade deficit, and ever-increasing income inequality in the United 
States, and especially in the developing world.
  As we have engaged with developing countries in trade investment, 
democratic countries in the developing world are losing ground to more 
authoritarian countries. Democratic countries, such as India and 
Taiwan, are losing ground to more totalitarian nations, such as 
Indonesia, where the people are not free and the workers do as they are 
told.
  In the post-Cold War decade, the share of developing country exports 
to the U.S. for democratic nations fell from 53 percent a dozen years 
ago to 34 percent today. In manufacturing goods, developing 
democracies' share of developing country exports fell from 56 percent 
to 35 percent. Companies are relocating their manufacturing bases from 
democratic countries to more authoritarian regimes, where the workers 
are docile and obedient and where unions and human rights are 
suppressed.
  As developing nations make progress towards democracy, as they 
increase worker rights, as they create regulations to protect food 
safety and protect the environment, the American business community 
punishes them by pulling their trade and investment in favor of 
totalitarian countries and totalitarian governments, such as China and 
Indonesia.
  The WTO has clearly undermined health, safety and environmental 
standards, human rights and democratic accountability. One of the most 
tangible examples is the WTO's refusal to permit poor nations to gain 
access to low-priced pharmaceuticals, which puts essential medicines 
out of the reach of hundreds of millions of people in poor nations. 
Hundreds of millions of people continue to suffer from diseases that 
are treatable.
  Some governments have sought to use policy tools, including 
compulsory licensing and parallel imports, to make drugs more 
accessible to the poor. Compulsory licensing and parallel imports are 
permissible under WTO rules on intellectual property. Nonetheless, the 
U.S. Government has threatened to impose unilateral trade sanctions and 
the USTR used WTO as a hammer for the American pharmaceutical industry.
  Mr. Speaker, until such time as the administration really does do an 
honest assessment of the WTO, the WTO remains a tool for multinational 
corporations and should not receive our support.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the

[[Page H4799]]

 chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this 
resolution. As the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, I know how 
essential exports are to farmers and ranchers across the United States; 
but, more importantly, the U.S. farmers and ranchers recognize the 
importance of trade to their own success.
  Withdrawing from the WTO would have the effect of isolating American 
producers from the rest of the world. For an industry that exports 30 
percent of its production, a resolution such as this would have a 
devastating impact. If the House supports this resolution, the effect 
will be that the United States will be applying economic sanctions to 
the world; and we know who feels the effect of economic sanctions 
first, it is the American farmer and rancher.
  There are three things that can happen when agricultural sanctions go 
into effect, and they are all bad: exports go down, prices go down, and 
farmers and ranchers lose their share of the world market.
  The 1980 grain embargo on the Soviet Union is one of the examples of 
the effect on sanctions on U.S. agriculture. Our wheat sales were lost, 
while France, Canada, Australia and Argentina sold wheat to the former 
Soviet Union. H.J. Res. 90 can have the same or more devastating impact 
on American agriculture. U.S. farmers and ranchers provide much more 
than is consumed in the United States; and, therefore, exports are 
vital to the prosperity of the American farmer and rancher.
  The WTO is not a perfect organization, and Congressional oversight is 
essential and needed. Nevertheless, it is superior to previous 
organizations, and American agriculture recognizes this. Negotiations 
to further improve access to markets around the world and eliminate 
export subsidies are now going on.
  Since the end of World War II, eight rounds of negotiations have 
reduced the average bound tariff on industrial goods from 40 percent to 
4 percent. Meanwhile, bound agricultural tariffs remain at an average 
of about 50 percent. If agriculture is to catch up, it is essential to 
keep the U.S. a part of the negotiating process to convince our trading 
partners to talk about further reforms in agriculture. U.S. membership 
in the WTO is necessary to continue this progress.
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.J. Res. 90 for the future of 
American agriculture.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Resolution 90, and, in 
doing so, associate myself with those who support the resolution.
  Indeed, the WTO is in need of significant reform. Workers' rights and 
environmental protection are competitiveness issues and should play a 
stronger role in the WTO. However, I do believe we need a rules-based 
approach to international trade which can create a more stable climate 
for U.S. workers, farmers, and businesses who seek to export their 
products abroad.
  The global economy is here to stay. Nowhere is that more evident than 
in my district in San Francisco, Mr. Speaker, which was built on trade 
in the days when the clipper ships sailed the oceans and today is one 
of the gateways to Asia.
  This debate today provides an opportunity for us to get beyond the 
outdated, outmoded, free traders versus protectionist characterization, 
which I believe does a disservice to the trade issue. A new vision is 
needed of a more democratic way to deal with the new challenges posed 
by the global economy.
  The old way of the WTO, of conducting trade negotiations behind 
closed doors, must end, and the people must be allowed to participate. 
We must demand transparency in the WTO. We must insist that the 
administration gives as much weight to workers and the environment as 
it does to corporate America. We must enforce all of these concerns 
with equal vigor. We must see anyone who does not see the connection 
between commerce and the environment is on the wrong side of the 
future. We must all work together to have a WTO organization that is an 
agent for progress and not of exploitation. We must make it work for 
the American workers.
  President Clinton himself has said, ``If the global market is to 
survive, it must work for working families.'' We must apply that 
standard to the WTO.
  In terms of transparency, very specifically, Mr. Speaker, we must 
insist that the WTO bring trade advisory committees to broader public 
concerns, notify the public before challenging other countries' 
environmental or health and labor standards, and give the EPA a 
stronger role in settling trade and environmental policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I myself am voting against this, but I understand and 
appreciate the concerns expressed by those who support it. We must all 
work together to change the WTO.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentleman from Texas. 
This is not an issue of trade. This is an issue of who gets to manage 
and decide whether it is fair trade or not. It is the issue of power, 
whether it is by the environmental bureaucrats or by the U.S. Congress. 
The one thing under this arrangement, the little farmer has very little 
say. He cannot get into the WTO and make a complaint. The great meat 
packers of the country may well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Metcalf).
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. membership in WTO violates our 
Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution 
delegates to Congress the sole authority to ``regulate commerce with 
foreign nations.'' Our membership in WTO transfers authority to 
regulate trade to a foreign body. It removes it from our elected 
representatives, this Congress.
  This Congress does not have the authority to set aside such 
constitutional requirements. In its 1998 decision regarding the line 
item veto, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot divest itself 
of duties delegated to it by the Constitution, unless the Constitution 
is amended.
  The U.S. Constitution has not been amended to allow an international 
organization like the WTO to regulate American trade policies. 
Therefore, Congress cannot divest itself of the duty to regulate 
commerce with foreign nations.
  I believe the WTO is an entirely non-legitimate international 
organization. Many of its member states do not represent the people of 
their country. They represent the single will of the sovereign of their 
country. The American Congress gets its legitimacy from the people of 
the United States. It cannot grant legitimacy to an international body 
over and above that of our own citizenry.
  To suggest by our membership that the WTO is legitimate, we must 
ignore our people, our citizenry, and our Constitution. However, it 
seems that sovereignty or legitimacy are no longer issues that many in 
this Congress want to address. It seems as though the rule of law is no 
longer an issue that many in this Congress want to address. It seems as 
though strictly adhering to the provisions of our Constitution is no 
longer an issue that many in this Congress want to address. Instead, 
economic power and the accumulation of wealth seem to occupy increasing 
amounts of attention these days.
  America's legitimacy rests solely in its citizens' good offices as 
the sole sovereigns of this country. If this Congress does not protect 
American sovereignty, then who will? If this Congress does not reaffirm 
the rule of law, then who will? It is we in this Congress that must 
reassert the constitutional directive that Congress must have the sole 
authority over America's trade with foreign nations.
  Vote yes, vote yes proudly on H.J. Resolution 90. Remove this Nation 
from the unconstitutional jurisdiction of the WTO.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, it has been said on this floor that you 
cannot reform an organization you withdraw from. Well, we forget so 
soon. The very ground we are standing upon to engage in this debate is 
the result of America's Founding Fathers and Mothers who decided to 
withdraw from the control of England. England was in need of reform. 
That is why we broke with them 224 years ago.

[[Page H4800]]

  Remember the words, ``We the people of the United States, in order to 
form a more perfect union,'' ordained a Constitution which established 
representative government and put the Congress of the United States in 
charge of trade, and does not give Congress the right to cede that to 
an international body which attacks American interests.

                              {time}  1115

  The World Trade Organization imposes obligations on State and local 
governments which limit their ability to promote the local economy, 
promote employment, protect consumers, and establish environmental 
standards. The WTO attacks laws which give preference to companies 
bidding for State business if they employ State residents and use 
locally made products. It attacks laws that offer tax exemptions to 
companies to create jobs. It attacks laws that promote investment in 
recycled material. It attacks laws that impose bilocal requirements or 
preferences for State procurement.
  Mr. Speaker, 95 laws in California have been identified as WTO-
illegal, according to the Georgetown University Law Center. Several 
States are facing legal challenges to their laws under NAFTA. 
California's ban of a poisonous chemical, methyl tertiary butyl ether, 
MTBE, is being challenged, and Mississippi is being sued for violating 
NAFTA. The U.S. administration wants the WTO to include NAFTA-like 
investor protections in the future, further undermining local and State 
governments.
  Three key WTO and NAFTA investment chapter principles caused problems 
for State and local lawmaking. The principles include national 
treatment. This is when a State favors a local corporation. It says it 
is discriminating against foreign corporations. So we cannot promote 
local businesses over foreign businesses. I mean, wake up, America.
  Second, general treatment. This principle prohibits State governments 
from regulating business by applying what is called the least 
restrictive trade standard. This standard can be used against State 
laws promoting recycling, minority business development and so on.
  The third principle is expropriation which makes the State 
governments liable for paying damages if a corporation persuades a jury 
or the WTO Settlement Dispute Panel that a State law has caused a 
foreign business losses in even potential profits.
  Now, these principles do not come from the U.S. Constitution, but 
from international trade agreements, which represents a loss in the 
ability of State governments to pass laws in the public interest.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to stand up for America and American interests. 
Vote for this resolution.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
remind my colleague from Ohio that we have delegated responsibility on 
trade issues to our Committee on Ways and Means and, more specifically, 
the Subcommittee on Trade. That is not an unnatural way to proceed, 
because we still retain the option to negate anything we might want to 
do.
  The same principle, I might add, applies to WTO rulings. Any WTO 
ruling could be negated at any time by the United States. If we do not 
like it, we do not have to observe it. We will pay a price if we do not 
play the game according to the rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter).
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 
90. Certainly, passage of H.J. Res. 90 would send a completely wrong 
signal to our trading partners around the world, and it would be very 
much contrary to both the short-term and long-term interests of the 
United States.
  The United States gains nothing from withdrawal from the WTO. We 
would, however, be at the mercy of other countries' desires to erect 
highly discriminatory and prohibitive tariffs and nontariff barriers 
against U.S. exports. The U.S. would not have access to the WTO dispute 
settlement mechanism to challenge these new barriers, but instead, we 
would only have limited and ineffective bilateral defenses. The U.S. 
would have no leverage at all in setting agendas for future trade and 
investment agreements having unilaterally surrendered our seat at the 
table through withdrawal from the WTO.
  The end result of H.J. Res. 90 is hundreds of thousands of lost 
American jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of lost American 
exports for no discernible benefit. Since the creation of the WTO, our 
exports of goods and services have increased over $250 billion. Though 
estimates vary, implementation of the current WTO agreement is 
estimated to boost U.S. gross domestic product by a minimum of $27 
billion per year.
  While there are legitimate concerns about some of the WTO operations, 
the WTO system, certainly they can be and are being improved. Replacing 
this successful rule of law-based system of trade fairness which has 
directly benefited the United States with some undefined form of trade 
anarchy that discriminates against American competitiveness is simply 
reckless.
  Mr. Speaker, to withdraw from the WTO system is, in fact, both 
reckless and counterproductive. It is significantly harmful to our 
short-term and long-term economic and national security. Accordingly, I 
urge strong support for the WTO, our involvement in it, and opposition 
to H.J. Res. 90.
  I would say to the distinguished gentleman from Washington, we are 
not losing sovereignty, this is not unconstitutional; there are no 
significant scholars that suggest it is.
  The Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which legislatively approved the 
United States' membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), 
requires that the United States Trade Representative submit to Congress 
an annual report which includes a thorough analysis of the effects of 
the WTO Agreement on the interests of the United States, the costs and 
benefits to the United States of its participation in the WTO, and the 
value of continued participation of the United States in the WTO. As 
the most recent Report to Congress clearly states, ``The WTO is a 
crucial vehicle for maximizing the advantages from, and managing our 
interests in, a global economy. To ensure that Americans receive fair 
treatment in the global economy, the U.S. has negotiated a framework of 
clear, transparent rules that: prohibit discrimination against American 
products; safeguard Americans against unfair trade; and afford 
commercial predictability. As the world's largest exporter and 
importer, we need such a system more than any other country.''
  Indeed, the consequences of withdrawing from the WTO would be so 
severe as to be unimaginable. As this Member previously noted, since 
the creation of the WTO, our exports of goods and services have risen 
by over $250 billion. The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that 
exports currently represent approximately 12 percent of the entire 
United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Overall trade represents 
one-third of our entire economy. Clearly, the strength of the U.S. 
economy today is due in very substantial measure to our ability to 
competitively sell U.S. goods and services abroad.
  If the United States were to withdraw from the WTO, as directed by 
H.J. Res. 90, then foreign countries would be free to impose whatever 
trade barriers they want on U.S. exports. For example, U.S. 
agricultural exports would face prohibitive tariffs and be allocated 
tiny import quotas, if any at all. Contrast this to the present 
situation within the 136-member WTO system which has offered important 
market access opportunities through the first enforceable commitments 
to reduce barriers, limited the use of export subsidies and established 
science-based rules for any import restrictions pertaining to animal or 
plant health and safety. This Member reminds his colleagues that the 
far-reaching agricultural trade benefits the United States recently 
negotiated with China--the reduction of meat tariffs from 45 percent to 
just 12 percent and the elimination of quotas on soybeans--were within 
the context of China's accession to the WTO.
  A key benefit of participation in the WTO is America's access to its 
multilateral dispute settlement process. A new study released this 
month by the General Accounting Office (GAO) shows that the U.S. has 
won or resolved disputes 92 percent of all cases in its favor--that is 
23 of 25 times since the dispute settlement system was created in 1995. 
In three-quarters of the 25 cases filed by the U.S., other WTO members 
agreed to remove their trade barriers, rather than face an adverse 
judgment, leading to millions of dollars in increased U.S. exports. For 
example, one of the settlements in favor of the U.S. was related to 
Korea's discriminatory standards for food imports. As a result, this 
market is now open to $87 million in U.S. chilled beef and $79 million 
in pork exports.
  As a defendant in 17 WTO cases, the U.S. has prevailed or was able to 
resolve the case

[[Page H4801]]

without an adverse WTO ruling in 11 of 17 cases. The outcome of all of 
these cases had limited or no commercial effect.
  On balance, the WTO settlement dispute process has proven to be a 
powerful instrument in bringing down barriers to American exports. 
House Joint Resolution 90 would eliminate American access to this 
successful dispute resolution mechanism leaving us with only very 
limited and largely ineffective bilateral defenses.
  Contrary to the misleading arguments of protectionists in the United 
States, the WTO has certainly not made America poorer. In fact, during 
the last five years living standards have been rising for all 
Americans, low- and high-income workers alike. More than 80 percent of 
jobs created since 1993 are in occupations that pay above the median 
wage. Many of these jobs are in the high-technology export sector. Yet, 
for example, if the U.S. were to withdraw from the WTO, the U.S. 
economy would no longer enjoy the benefit of the WTO Information 
Technology Agreement, which reduced tariffs to zero for American high-
technology exports to 54 countries. These export opportunities would be 
lost to our European and Japanese competitors at disastrous expense to 
American jobs here at home. This is only one example of the many 
American economic sectors which would be badly damaged by a withdrawal 
of our country from the WTO.
  The WTO has not eroded America's manufacturing base. Manufacturing in 
America today is thriving. It is true that this base is constantly 
evolving as we gain comparative advantage in some sectors and lose it 
in others. However, since 1992, studies show that the manufacturing 
output of the U.S. has risen by 42%, all against a backdrop of record 
imports.
  United States participation in the WTO most assuredly does not have a 
negative effect on the U.S. trade deficit. It is, indeed, 
disappointing, as well, that WTO opponents always reference the U.S. 
trade deficit in terms of manufactured products only, ignoring the 
service sector. Yet, in 1997-98, the U.S. services sector represented 
three-fourths of the U.S. national economic output and employed 80 
percent of the U.S. workforce. In 1998, services exports constituted 
nearly 30 percent of all U.S. exports totaling over $260 billion and 
achieving a trade surplus of almost $80 billion. Among the important 
trade benefits of the WTO system is the Financial Services Agreement 
which covers nearly $60 trillion in banking, insurance and securities 
transactions each year and has opened the doors for U.S. ownership and 
investment in foreign institutions. H.J. Res. 90 would slam that door 
shut.
  Like any new institution, the WTO can and should be improved. There 
is certainly the need for greater transparency and for undertaking the 
other institutional reforms raised during the WTO ministerial meeting 
last December in Seattle, Washington. More expedient, efficient and 
effective dispute resolution is warranted. A new trade round that would 
further open foreign markets to American exports would strengthen the 
WTO system and the American public's understanding of its importance. 
Yet, all of these objectives can only be pursued if the United States 
is part of the rules-based system itself, not a lonely outsider.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, withdrawal from the WTO would isolate the United States 
from the international economy. I oppose the resolution.
  In today's Internet-based, lightning-fast economy, it is critical for 
the U.S. to have the ability to resolve trade crisis through a binding, 
rules-based international system. While there is room for improvement, 
the WTO and its dispute resolution mechanism have served the United 
States workers, farmers, and businesses well. Throughout the existence 
of the WTO, the U.S. has succeeded in winning 25 out of the 27 cases 
that we have initiated in the dispute resolution system.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clinton-Gore years have been prosperous for our 
country. One of the best ways to continue this success is by pursuing 
international markets. The WTO's rule-based approach to settling 
disputes will limit costly, inefficient trade retaliations, and 
international strife. But in today's information-based economy, it is 
critical that the U.S. be able to preserve our place as the world's 
technology leader by protecting our intellectual property.
  While I think the WTO has moved trade policy many steps forward, 
there are reforms that I would like to see. The WTO should increase the 
transparency of its operations and take into account the impact of its 
actions on workers and the environment. It should disclose more 
information, preferably on line. Were the WTO's operations more open to 
the public, I believe many of it critics' concerns could be resolved.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote down this resolution.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The Financial Times does support the WTO, but this is what they said 
after NTR was passed. ``Already, many Washington trade lawyers are 
smacking their lips at the thought of the fees to be earned from 
bringing dispute cases in the WTO against Chinese trade practices. Says 
one, what will China be like in the WTO? It is going to be hell on 
wheels.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. 
McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the World Trade Organization is in need of 
serious reform. Interestingly, while Western economists are proclaiming 
that foreign investment and trade have been a blessing for the world's 
poor, we hear quite a different message coming from the poor 
themselves.
  The recent meeting of developing countries from Asia, Africa, and 
Latin America known as the G-15 saw host Hosni Mubarak say that despite 
assurances early on that globalization would lead to an improvement in 
living standards, instead, imbalance in the world economy is increasing 
instead of decreasing. In fact, in 1999, 45 percent of the world's 
income went to the 12 percent of the world's people who live in rich, 
industrial nations. The three richest Americans own more than the 
world's 20 poorest countries.
  Mr. Speaker, developing countries were sold a bill of goods, but so 
were we. Corporations, with the help of the WTO, have forced workers 
throughout the world into a deadly game of chicken. The WTO should 
protect basic social services and prioritize human rights and the 
environment in an environment that is democratic and transparent. 
Instead, it hurts the poor, benefits the rich at the expense of us all, 
and it does it in secret and in back rooms.
  Mr. Speaker, this is no way to build a new world order. We need to 
put our money where our professed values are: fair trade, democracy, 
respect for workers, sensible environmental standards, and allowing 
poor countries to grow.
  Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the Corporate Code of Conduct Act 
because I do not think that freedom, equality, human dignity and human 
rights are for sale. Unfortunately, the folks at WTO do not agree. They 
have unleashed unbridled corporate excess on all of us. The current 
system is wrong and in need of a serious fix.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I really do not want to withdraw from the WTO. 
We need to be there, but I am voting yes out of frustration.
  There are two problems. At home, the issue is simply whether those in 
this society, the investing class, the managing elite, the venture 
capitalists, the multinational corporations who have so much to gain by 
further globalization will be willing to see a tiny fraction of that 
increased wealth used to help those who would otherwise be caught in 
the prop wash of their incredible prosperity. So far, I see very little 
evidence of that.
  Internationally, the question is simply, who is going to have a seat 
at the table? Now, only the voices of the economic elites are heard at 
WTO. The interests of workers, farmers, and the environment are not 
adequately taken into account. In fact, the incentives present in the 
WTO structure on questions of worker rights and environmental 
protection are in the wrong direction.
  An economic system without moral foundation is not an economic system 
at all, it is a jungle. I cast this vote not because I want to 
withdraw, I do not. I am a committed internationalist. For 10 years I 
chaired the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. But I am casting this 
vote to send a signal to WTO and our representatives to it that they 
have to give more than lip service to the needs of workers, farmers, 
and the

[[Page H4802]]

environment. When you do, give me a call. I will be happy to change my 
vote. Until then, sorry, wrong number!
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, WTO needs reform, not withdrawal. We do have a stake in 
ensuring the effectiveness of WTO because it has helped to eliminate 
trade barriers and improve market access for U.S. goods and services in 
foreign markets, which translates into jobs. But this does not mean 
there is not room for improvement within the WTO.
  Several areas for improvement come to mind. First, we must ensure 
that the WTO dispute settlement system is used to work out genuine 
trade disputes and does not become a forum for other nations to 
challenge U.S. trade laws. It is my understanding that Japan has 
established a government agency specifically for the purpose of 
pursuing WTO litigation against the United States, signaling a 
willingness to continue to challenge U.S. trade laws.
  Secondly, we must counter the disturbing trend of other nations 
challenging U.S. trade laws. Our laws are consistent with WTO rules, 
and not even the most productive U.S. industry can or should have to 
compete against dumped or subsidized imports.
  Thirdly, there must be greater transparency in the dispute settlement 
process. The dispute settlement panel proceedings are conducted in 
almost complete secrecy. We must open up the closed-door atmosphere 
that is present today at the WTO.
  Finally, dispute settlement panels are now made up primarily of 
diplomats, bureaucrats and academics who may not be trained to serve in 
a judicial capacity.

                              {time}  1130

  Yet they are sitting on panels that are reviewing laws passed by 
legislatures and agreements negotiated between governments. It seems 
appropriate that panels should include more judicially-trained experts 
to ensure due process for the parties involved.
  Rather than withdrawing from the system we have in place, I think we 
need to work to improve it so that we have a rules-based trading system 
that benefits U.S. industry, U.S. jobs, and the American public 
generally. I hope that in the process, we will get action on some of 
these reforms that are sorely needed in terms of our membership in WTO.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint Resolution 90, 
the proposal to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO). The 
WTO represents the current system of rules and regulations that govern 
trade between most nations.
  We do have a stake in ensuring the effectiveness of the WTO because 
it has helped to eliminate trade barriers and improve market access for 
U.S. goods and services in foreign markets. But this does not mean that 
there isn't room for improvement within the WTO.
  Several areas for improvement come to mind. First, we must ensure 
that the WTO dispute settlement system is used to work out genuine 
trade disputes and does not become a forum for other nations to 
challenge U.S. trade laws. It is my understanding that Japan has 
established a government agency specifically for the purpose of 
pursuing WTO litigation against the United States, signaling a 
willingness to continue to challenge U.S. trade laws.
  A recent WTO case filed by Japan challenges the antidumping duties 
that resulted from the hot-rolled steel import case filed at the height 
of the 1998 steel import crisis.
  We must counter the disturbing trend of other nations challenging 
U.S. trade laws. The U.S. trade laws are consistent with the WTO rules 
and are necessary to ensure that domestic producers and manufacturers 
are able to compete on a level playing field. Not even the most 
productive U.S. industry can or should have to compete against dumped 
or subsidized imports.
  Second, there must be greater transparency in the dispute settlement 
process. The dispute settlement panel proceedings are conducted in 
almost complete secrecy. Only government delegations are allowed to 
attend oral arguments and there is no requirement that the panels 
consider written submissions from domestic interested parties. We must 
open up the closed-door atmosphere that is today present at the WTO.
  Finally, dispute settlement panels are now made up primarily of 
diplomats, bureaucrats and academics, who may not be trained to serve 
in a judicial capacity. Yet they are sitting on panels that are 
reviewing laws passed by legislatures and agreements negotiated between 
governments. It seems appropriate that panels should include more 
judicially trained-experts to ensure due process for the parties 
involved.
  Rather than withdrawing from the system we have in place, let's work 
to improve it so that we have a rules-based trading system that 
benefits U.S. industry and the American public.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the resolution, which would 
undermine U.S. markets abroad for billions of dollars of U.S. 
agricultural products.
  Trade is essential to U.S. prosperity, and the WTO makes trade work 
for America. Is it perfect? No. But all of the criticisms that I have 
heard this morning by my colleagues who oppose or support this 
resolution, all of these criticisms can be corrected by the United 
States maintaining a strong leadership role in making the WTO better.
  Academic studies estimate an annual GDP gain for the United States 
from the Uruguay Round of about $32 billion. These estimates do not 
even fully take into account gains due to reduction of non-tariff 
barriers to trade and the growth effects of more open markets.
  The WTO provides member states with a set of rules that open markets 
to U.S. agricultural and industrial products and services. At the heart 
of the WTO rules-based trading system is the WTO dispute resolution 
system, which keeps trade disputes from escalating into trade wars.
  From the agricultural point of view, the WTO dispute resolution is 
working to expand market opportunities around the world:
  There was a recently reported victory on Korean beef that adds about 
$35 million a year in U.S. sales to that country.
  The WTO has sanctioned retaliation of over $300 million against the 
European Union on beef and bananas.
  It has expanded varieties of U.S. fruit exports to Japan.
  It has increased exports of U.S. pork and beef by pressuring Korea to 
modernize shelf life restrictions.
  Dispute resolution has improved the European Union grain importation 
regulations that have benefited U.S. rice exports.
  It has reduced Hungarian export subsidies.
  I can go on and on with significant victories for United States 
agricultural products.
  It ruled, for example, against a Canadian dairy export subsidy scheme 
before it could be copied in Europe.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we need the WTO dispute resolution system 
to keep opening markets for U.S. agricultural products, and we need the 
WTO. A strong vote against Joint Resolution 90 will send an important 
signal to our trading partners that America is ready to lead a new 
round of WTO negotiations.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman from Texas that the 
giant meat packers may well be represented at the WTO, but the small 
rancher and farmer is not. The same people who promote this type of 
international managed trade where we lose control and it is delivered 
to an international bureaucracy are the same ones who fight hard to 
prevent us trading with Cuba and selling our products there.
  Essentially no one here advocating trade, as managed through the WTO, 
supports me in my efforts to open the Cuban markets to our farm 
products. There's a lot of talk regarding free trade and open markets 
but little action. The support by the WTO advocates is for 
international managed trade along with subsidies to their corporate 
allies.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the WTO is a majestic dream that predictably will become 
Americans' worst nightmare. The lure

[[Page H4803]]

of more open trade with hundreds of countries is being used as a 
disguise for an awesome transfer of power and authority that will in 
the long run ill serve the interests of the American people.
  Let us recognize that this is not about whether there should be or 
should not be trade. That is a nonsensical argument. America is the 
world's largest market, and there will always be countries clamoring 
for commerce with the American people.
  The question is, how will we trade and what will be the procedure 
that we trade with these countries? The question is if we, through our 
democratic processes and bilateral agreements negotiated by elected 
officials, people elected by the people of the United States, will be 
setting the ground rules for this trade, or whether it be controlled by 
international boards, commissions, and committees of the WTO.
  Let us admit, yes, Third World countries and developing countries 
will probably have more open markets to American and multinational 
corporations if this WTO goes through and keeps going on. That trade 
potential, let me point out, is minuscule. We are talking about trade 
with a bunch of countries like Rwanda or like tiny countries in Latin 
America, Paraguay, as compared to large developing countries.
  We are going to trade, give up our rights here in this country to 
determine our own economic destiny, to open up the markets of these 
tiny little countries? That is ridiculous. So there is an economic down 
side if we do not go through with WTO, yes. It is a minimal down side. 
But the potential down side in terms of the loss of the ability of the 
American people to control their own destiny is staggering.
  Predictably, the boards, commissions, and the rest of the decision-
making apparatus of the WTO will within a decade or two be dominated by 
the same crooks and despots who now control so many of these Third 
World countries that refuse to open up their markets, and bribery and 
corruption will come with this centralization of power. There is no 
doubt about that.
  If we try to predict that is not going to happen, give me a break. 
Idealistic globalism is today the greatest threat to freedom and 
liberty in this country, for the people of this country. We should not 
be transferring power and authority to an unelected, appointed 
international bureaucracy. That is what the WTO is all about.
  Can one foresee a country like Communist China bribing WTO 
commissioners in the future? How about multinational corporations? Will 
they try to influence decisions that dramatically impact the standard 
of living of the American people, without any protection of our own 
elected officials? We can bet on it. We can also bet that they are 
going to try to just do that, and that we will not have anything that 
we can do about it. Yet, we will have little recourse in this whole 
situation except to quit.
  I oppose PNTR with Communist China now because it is a dictatorial 
system. Now we are being eased into a system that will mandate that 
every despotic regime in the world be treated equally with democratic 
societies. The WTO plan is a blueprint for bolstering tyrannical 
regimes throughout the world. Trade will not turn the hearts of these 
despots, or it will not make honest people out of corrupt officials who 
end up with power.
  Please, I ask Members to support this resolution. Do not sacrifice 
American liberty on the altar of globalism.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that Member after 
Member who opposed this resolution will get up on the floor and agree 
that the WTO is making decisions that destroy the environment, 
endangering the health and safety of the peoples of the world, thumb 
their noses at human rights, but they say, yes, we know all this, but 
we do not want to leave. We want to stay.
  It does not make good sense. It does not make good sense unless they 
simply are doing the business of multinational corporations of the 
world in the interests of making more profits.
  I know a lot about the WTO. I have followed them intimately for the 
last 3 years. I have watched what they have done as they have destroyed 
the ability of small farmers in the eastern Caribbean to earn a living 
from producing and selling bananas to the European Union. Why do they 
do that? One man, Carl Linder from Chiquita Bananas, who gave money on 
both sides of the aisle, who is well-connected politically, simply 
teamed up with Mickey Kantor, who is our United States Trade 
Representative, took the case to the WTO, because he did not like 
competition.
  We do not grow any bananas in the United States, but they took the 
case on behalf of Carl Linder, who grows bananas down in Central 
America and who does a terrible job of protecting the rights of the 
workers, spraying pesticides on them while they till the soil, many of 
them dying and coming up with terrible diseases.
  They took this case on behalf of Carl Linder to the WTO, and guess 
what, we won, because Carl Linder and Chiquita are very powerful 
corporate interests.
  Do Members know what is happening over in the eastern Caribbean? The 
farmers no longer will have the banana crop. Do Members know what will 
replace it? Ganja, marijuana, drugs. It will be a transshipment point 
for drugs into the United States and into our communities. That is what 
the WTO did.
  In addition to that, he created a trade war that is now hurting our 
small businesses because of the sanctions that we have imposed on the 
European Union. It does not make good sense.
  Further, let us talk about the trade-related intellectual properties 
or the TRIPS agreement that provides another example of a WTO policy 
that benefits wealthy and powerful special interests.
  The TRIPS agreement gives patent rights over plants and medicines 
that come from small countries to wealthy corporations, the soybean in 
east Asia, which is patented by a subdivision of Monsanto Chemical; the 
mustard seed that was developed by the people of India has also been 
patented by Monsanto. I could go on and on and tell Members why we must 
get out of the WTO.
  I think reasonable minds will agree that the WTO simply is 
substituting for the responsibilities that we should be exercising as 
elected representatives.
  We have elected representatives in democracies around the world, and 
criminal justice systems in democracies that can resolve problems, can 
negotiate disputes. Yet, we have decided to give up our rights, and 
there is no transparency. They make all of these decisions in secret. 
They make these decisions in secret. We do not know who they are.
  We are beginning to find out that the multinational corporations have 
inserted their people, have gotten them appointed so that they are 
making decisions to protect them and their ability to make money on the 
backs of poor people, on the backs of small nations, on the backs of 
Americans who do not even know who these people are and how they are 
making these decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask support for this resolution. It makes good sense.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to this resolution to withdraw from the WTO. The WTO is critical to the 
United States' interests. It has been instrumental in opening foreign 
markets to our goods and in promoting U.S. values throughout the world.
  The U.S. is the world's largest exporter, and it is not just 
multinational corporations that export, it is small businesses, and 
medium-sized businesses. In fact most of the jobs associated with 
exports are associated with small- and medium-sized businesses. It is a 
job creator, a high-paying job creator, in the towns and cities 
throughout America.
  But because we are the world's largest exporter, we benefit 
tremendously from the WTO's dispute settlement process. In fact, of the 
27 cases that have been brought for dispute resolution, the U.S. has 
prevailed in 25 of those cases.
  Let me make another point about being part of a rules-based system. 
We have had testimony before the Committee on Ways and Means by human

[[Page H4804]]

rights advocates that wanted us to bring China into the WTO explicitly 
because it would for the first time bring them into an international 
rules-based law-based system.
  They made the point that if China has to abide by international norms 
in the economic area, for example protect intellectual property 
rights--that is, our ideas--then it will be easier to get that 
government to also recognize that it must respect the religious 
commitment of their people, too, the human rights of their people.
  Mr. Speaker, spreading a rules-based system to govern economic 
activity is the first and critical step to developing a rules-based 
political system worldwide that respects human rights.
  We cannot afford to withdraw from the WTO because our economic growth 
will be substantially determined by our ability to sell U.S. goods and 
services abroad. Removing ourselves from a multilateral rules-based 
institution will only undermine the tremendous growth the U.S. has 
achieved through the expansion of world trade, and imperil our goods, 
subjecting them to trade barriers by other countries.
  I urge opposition to this resolution. In the long run, we must be 
strong and capable competitors if our people are to have high-paying 
jobs. We cannot afford not to be able to compete, and we cannot afford 
not to be able to spread the concept of rules-based law-based systems, 
both for our economic well-being and for our human rights commitments.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution before us 
today. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) often speaks of the 
flat-Earth society that emerges here on the floor of the House from 
time to time. I fear that we have some Members here today bringing that 
philosophy forward who feel that we could either force our will 
unilaterally on other Nations around the world or that we can just go 
our separate way in the matter of international trade or commerce or 
that somehow we are in danger of being taken over by a faceless team of 
sinister international bureaucrats. All of that is pure and simple 
hogwash.
  We are in a very powerful position today. As has been documented time 
and time again on the floor of this House already, we are in the 
catbird seat. We win the preponderance of the cases that are brought 
before the WTO. We do not have to go along with something that strikes 
us on its face as being unfair and unequitable against the environment.
  In the final analysis, this Congress retains the power, the sovereign 
power, to, on the floor, turn anything that we think is wrong. But in 
the meantime, we have a strong interest in making sure that we have an 
international system.
  The United States was the institution that prompted the evolution of 
the WTO. We benefit the most because we are the largest exporting 
Nation in this world. I agree it is true the WTO is an imperfect 
organization, like the United Nations, like God forbid this Congress 
that continues to treat the citizens of the District of Columbia like 
members of a colony.
  Do not talk to me about somehow the WTO is imperfect. We are holding 
up that same mirror to us. We can talk about lack of transparency in 
this Congress, lack of responsiveness to the will of the people of the 
United States. But we are all here slugging it out trying to do our 
best to move it forward. That is what we should be doing here with the 
WTO.
  Withdrawing from the League of Nations did not make Europe safer 
prior to World War II. Staying in the WTO, exercising our leadership is 
going to hasten the day when it provides the type of transparency that 
we want, the type of leadership. But for heaven's sakes reject this 
resolution.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  (Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul) to remove the United States from the WTO, and I hope 
others in this body will agree with us on that.
  One of my friends and a man I respect greatly, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Combest), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture, said a minute ago that, if we remove ourselves from the 
WTO, the farmers and the ranchers will lose their shirts. Well, we are 
in the WTO, and the farmers and ranchers are losing their shirts. There 
is no reason for me to expect, under the present rules of the WTO, that 
that is going to get a bit better for them without reform.
  It has been odd to me that so many distinguished Members of this body 
have stood up and said, well, we have to stay in the WTO, but it 
certainly does need changing, it certainly does need reform. But we 
just need to stay in there so we can change it or reform it. Well, I do 
not understand that. It requires unanimous consent to make any changes 
inside the WTO today.
  If our leaders in the WTO simply want to try to improve our situation 
for our cotton farmers and they take it to the WTO, I can assure my 
colleagues that China is going to be there to veto that. If our 
representatives in the WTO want to improve our situation for our wheat 
farmers, I can assure my colleagues that France, a nation that 
subsidizes its wheat in order for prices to be low and competitive, is 
going to be sitting in the WTO to absolutely veto that.
  What I would like to do is, some of these very distinguished Members 
who want to stay in the WTO, and every one of them almost have come up 
and said we must reform it, well I am going to stay on the floor and 
listen to the rest of the debate. I would be very pleased if some of 
them would get up and explain to me how we are going to reform the WTO. 
I do not believe it can be done without a great threat and/or removing 
ourselves from the WTO.
  We need to work within an organization; I do not disagree with that. 
We need world trade; I do not disagree with that. But we need to be in 
an organization where we, indeed, have a little more say so about what 
happens to the trade in America.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by some of the earlier remarks by the 
gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from Illinois. They say, well, 
we do not have to go along. In fact, we can overturn anything we think 
is wrong. We reserve our sovereignty. All we have to do is pay for it.
  Well, what kind of logic is that? If we want to have clean air laws 
that discriminate against dirty foreign gasoline, we can have them if 
we want to pay penalties levied against any and all U.S. products 
exported abroad. There does not have to be any relationship. We can 
have consumer protection laws. We can have a Buy America. We can 
purchase any U.S. law we want. All we have to do is pay for it.
  This is an absurdity on its face. My colleagues are right, 
constitutionally, we certainly could not give them the right to reach 
in and overturn our laws, but what we have done is tended to seek 
tribunals before the WTO with no conflict of interest rules, no 
intervenors, no outside scrutiny, the authority to give foreign Nations 
the right to levy fines against any and all U.S. products with no 
relationship to the complaint. We lose on clean air; they can go after 
big jet liners.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, before I start, let me commend the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul) for bringing this to the floor and for the work 
of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for his work on arguing 
this issue before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, a very gifted man once wrote that ``no extraordinary 
power should be lodged in any one individual.'' That man was Thomas 
Paine. It was over 200 years ago, a time when Americans were first 
coming to terms with the question of what it meant to be free, what it 
meant to be a democracy.

[[Page H4805]]

  Well, today our Nation is faced with a very different challenge. New 
technologies, as we have seen and as we have heard on this floor, has 
sent America and the world hurdling into a global economy. We are told 
it is an economy where market forces must be allowed to reign, an 
economy where the law of supply and demand take precedence even over 
the laws of a free people.
  Who will settle these conflicts whose outcome, whose very outcome 
will shape this new global economy? One single body with extraordinary 
power, the World Trade Organization. It is an organization that 
operates in virtual secrecy. An organization that operates without the 
participation of consumers, of workers, of farmers, of people of faith, 
or any other representatives of the communities that its decisions 
affect. Yet, it is an organization whose choices can effectively 
nullify even the hardest-won laws governing worker safety, product 
safety, the environment, and worker rights.
  The WTO has already forced changes in the United States laws 
affecting everything from formulation of gasoline to the labeling of 
canned tuna. There are literally over 100 pending decisions out there 
that could affect decisions and laws that one's State legislatures, 
one's county commissioners, one's city governments have written into 
law.
  It is an extraordinary power for an organization that is 
extraordinarily unaccountable. That is what the demonstrations in 
Seattle last fall were all about, what the demonstrations in Brasilia, 
where 100,000 people came, were all about. It was the privatization of 
the public policy process. That is what is going on.
  While citizens stood out in the rain in Seattle, corporate interest 
enjoyed an open-door access to WTO officials. At one point, listen to 
this, the corporate host of the Seattle ministerial were even selling 
opportunities to dine with the visiting trade ministers, dine, that is, 
if one can come up with $250,000. If one has got a quarter of million 
dollars, one gets to dine with the people who are inside the room. If 
one contributed $150,000, one could still come to dinner, one just 
could not bring as many guests.
  Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we need to rebuild this idea of an 
international trade organization. Of course we need to trade. The 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) is absolutely right. Of course we 
need relations with our allies and friends and even some of those who 
are not our allies and friends around the world. But we need to build 
an international organization that is not able to interfere with the 
laws of our country, our States, and our cities.
  The fact is that the WTO rulings could override the decisions of a 
town council, a county commission to buy only American-made products. 
Is there anybody here what wants to do away with that? I have seen the 
votes on the board. They are overwhelming on Buy America. They are 
almost 400 to 5 or 400 to 6.
  We do not want a WTO that takes a walk on the questions of human 
rights. We have human rights issues debated regularly on this floor.
  What we need to do is to build a World Trade Organization that is as 
committed to promoting human rights and human dignity as it is to 
promoting the interest of large corporations, a WTO where consumers and 
workers and farmers and people who care about the environment are not 
spectators, but are participants. We want a WTO where working families 
are not trapped on the outside looking in, but where all of us have a 
seat at the table.
  But until there is a commitment to begin that process, and it is a 
process, and it will not be happening overnight, and it is going to 
happen eventually, until there is a commitment to do that, I have no 
choice but to vote yes on the gentleman's resolution. I thank him for 
bringing us to this opportunity today.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the 
Record a letter to me from the Emergency Committee for American Trade 
and also a letter to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), our 
distinguished chairman of Ways and Means, from the U.S. Alliance for 
Trade Expansion. Both letters are in very strong opposition to H.J. 
Res. 90. The one to the gentleman (Mr. Archer) contains 4 pages of 
single-spaced type.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I do not object if the gentleman from 
Illinois inserts the letters, but if he reads them, I will say he has 
to claim time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is, if he is using 
the time to read the letters, that is one thing. If he is making a 
unanimous consent and he is not using his time, I will object to 
reading the letters.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I am not reading the letter.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The unanimous consent request 
does come out of the time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the letter to the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Archer) contains four pages of two-column names of businesses 
and associations that also very strongly object to H.J. Res. 90.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I include the letters I referred to for the 
Record as follows:
                                               Emergency Committee


                                           for American Trade,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2000.
     Hon. Philip M. Crane,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing, as Chairman of the 
     Emergency Committee for American Trade and Chairman of 
     Cargill, Incorporated, to urge you to vote against. H.J. Res. 
     90, withdrawing congressional approval of the agreement 
     establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). Withdrawal 
     of U.S. support for the WTO would undermine the tremendous 
     growth and prosperity that the United States has achieved 
     through the expansion of world trade--an expansion enabled by 
     the WTO and the multilateral trading system.
       With 96 percent of the world's population and four-fifths 
     of the world economy located outside U.S. borders, we cannot 
     sustain economic growth here at home unless we have access to 
     expanding opportunities in world markets. As documented in 
     ECAT's 1998 groundbreaking study, Global Investments, 
     American Returns, and its ``1999 Update,'' world economic 
     expansion and integration have enabled American companies 
     with global operations to make important contributions to the 
     U.S. economy and standard of living that in many cases are 
     greater than those of purely domestic firms. For the past two 
     decades, American companies with global operations have 
     accounted for over half of all U.S. research and development 
     and over half of all U.S. exports. They also have undertaken 
     the majority of total U.S. investment in physical capital in 
     the manufacturing sector. In addition, American companies 
     without global operations pay their workers 5 to 15 percent 
     less than American companies with global operations.
       While American companies have sought opportunities in 
     global markets, they have nearly three-fourths of their total 
     employment in the United States. These American companies 
     have provided an important source of new business 
     opportunities in the United States, as the have purchased 
     from U.S. suppliers over 90 percent of their intermediate 
     inputs for their products, totaling $3 trillion in 1997. The 
     foreign affiliates of American companies also have created 
     significant new markets for U.S. companies, as foreign 
     affiliates account for over 40 percent of U.S. exports. In 
     addition, over 70 percent of the income from the foreign 
     affiliates of American companies is repatriated, thereby 
     promoting greater U.S. economic growth.
       The trade liberalization shaped by the WTO and its GATT 
     predecessor has been the major engine of the global economic 
     growth that is so vital to our prosperity as a nation. Since 
     the founding of the multilateral trading system at the end of 
     World War II, the world economy has grown six-fold, per 
     capita income worldwide has tripled, and hundreds of millions 
     of families around the globe have risen from poverty. The 
     historic liberalization under the Uruguay Round Agreements 
     provided significant new market access through substantial 
     tariff cuts on agricultural and industrial products, 
     reductions in agricultural trade barriers, limits on the 
     use of agricultural export subsidies, and the creation of 
     new disciplines to open up global markets to services 
     providers. This liberalization is expected to produce a 
     $230 billion increase in world GDP and a $745 billion 
     increase in world trade by 2005. This means an additional 
     annual $100 to $200 billion in purchasing power for 
     consumers worldwide.
       Since the Uruguay Round, the WTO has helped to pave the way 
     for continued growth in the 21st century by producing an 
     information technology agreement cutting tariffs on $600 
     billion worth of trade in computers and other high-tech 
     goods, a financial services agreement covering $60 trillion 
     in financial transactions, and a telecommunications agreement 
     opening up 95 percent of the world's telecommunications 
     markets by eliminating monopolies and establishing pro-
     competitive regulatory principles. The 1998 commitment among 
     WTO members to maintain ``duty-free cyberspace'' also has 
     laid the

[[Page H4806]]

     foundation for world economic growth in new areas by ensuring 
     the unhindered development of electronic commerce as a means 
     to promote trade.
       For the United States, this global economic growth has 
     helped the U.S. economy grow from $7 trillion in 1992 to over 
     $9 trillion last year. U.S. unemployment levels are now at 
     their lowest point in 30 years, and U.S. poverty rates are 
     the lowest in two decades. The WTO has helped to ensure that 
     this growth is sustained even in times of economic 
     instability as evidenced by the fact that U.S. exports of 
     goods and services, even with the disruption of the Asian 
     financial crisis, have grown by 55 percent since 1992 to a 
     record total of nearly $959 billion last year.
       WTO membership has grown since 1986 from 90 members to 136 
     members in April of this year, with 30 other countries 
     applying for membership. As a result, the WTO is becoming a 
     truly global system of trade rules in which WTO disciplines 
     have become a key element not only in developed nations, but 
     also in emerging economies in Central and Eastern Europe, 
     Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Achieving China's entry 
     into the WTO and its integration into the rules-based world 
     trading system is vital to this process and will help to 
     ensure that China, the largest emerging economy in the world, 
     develops its economy in accordance with WTO rules. China's 
     WTO accession along with the U.S. extension of Permanent 
     Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to China will help to guarantee 
     that the U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and services providers 
     will reap the full benefits of the historic U.S.-China 
     bilateral WTO accession agreement.
       The United States also has benefited from the strong WTO 
     dispute settlement process put in place as a result of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreement. The United States has used the WTO 
     dispute settlement process to ensure strong enforcement of 
     U.S. rights under the WTO, as the United States has prevailed 
     in 23 of the 25 U.S. WTO complaints acted on to date. It is 
     important to note that while the WTO dispute settlement 
     process is binding, compliance with WTO panel recommendations 
     is voluntary. The WTO has no authority to force a member 
     country to change its domestic laws or policies and therefore 
     does not pose a threat to enforcement of U.S. health, safety, 
     or environmental standards. In cases in which a WTO member 
     chooses not to bring itself into conformity with a panel 
     decision, the affected WTO member countries have the right 
     to request compensation or to retaliate.
       Maintaining strong U.S. support and leadership in the WTO 
     is critical to ensuring full enforcement and implementation 
     of existing WTO agreements, and to carry on the work of the 
     WTO ``built-in'' agenda, including the negotiations on 
     agriculture and services. It is essential that the United 
     States sustain its effort to continue trade liberalization in 
     agriculture and services through the ongoing negotiations and 
     to find ways to build a consensus among WTO members to expand 
     liberalization negotiations to include other areas, such as 
     industrial tariffs, trade facilitation, and transparency in 
     government procurement, and to successfully complete the 
     sectoral accelerated tariff liberalization and information 
     technology ITA II negotiations.
       For the reasons outlined above, especially the benefits to 
     the United States from the operation of the WTO over the last 
     five years, ECAT member companies urge you to vote against H. 
     Res. 90.
           Sincerely,
     Ernest S. Micek,
       Chairman, Cargill, 
     Incorporated and Chairman, Emergency Committee for American 
     Trade.
                                  ____



                                                   U.S. Trade,

                                   Washington, DC, March 31, 2000.
     Hon. Bill Archer,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Archer: On March 2, 2000, the 
     President, pursuant to Sections 124-125 of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreement Act (URAA), submitted the 1999 Trade Policy Annual 
     Report to Congress which included an expanded assessment of 
     the operation and effects of U.S. membership in the World 
     Trade Organization (WTO). Under the law, any Member of either 
     House could introduce a joint resolution that calls on the 
     U.S. to withdraw from the WTO. We are writing to urge you to 
     oppose H.J. Res. 90, introduced by Representative Ron Paul 
     (R-14-TX), which calls on the United States to withdraw from 
     the World Trade Organization.
       Removing ourselves from the rules-based trading system 
     would have disastrous consequences for the American economy, 
     jeopardizing both the longest economic expansion in U.S. 
     history and continued U.S. global economic leadership. The 
     consequences include:
       Agriculture: The WTO Agreement on Agriculture required 
     countries, for the first time, to reduce or cap tariffs, 
     export subsidies and internal support mechanisms, and 
     established new science-based rules for measures restricting 
     imports on the basis of human, animal or plant health and 
     safety. If the U.S. withdrew, American farmers could be 
     excluded from these benefits. Moreover, American farmers 
     would not benefit from further negotiations already launched 
     at the WTO to reduce trade-distorting export subsidies 
     overseas. One-third of American farm production is sold 
     overseas. These exports support approximately 750,000 
     American jobs.
       Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): The enforcement 
     mechanisms now available to the U.S. under the WTO's 
     Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 
     Rights (TRIPs) are critical to American holders of patents, 
     trademarks and copyrights. Total foreign sales of the core 
     copyright industries amounted to an estimated $45.8 billion 
     in 1993. TRIPs implementation has produced the most 
     significant progress to date for protecting pharmaceutical 
     patents in developing countries. We should not make the world 
     safe for pirated American software, pharmaceuticals, and 
     other high value-added products.
       Manufacturing: With $527 billion in exports in 1998, the 
     U.S. is by far the largest exporter of manufactured products 
     in the world--17 percent larger than our nearest competitor. 
     Manufactured products account for 62 percent of all U.S. 
     exports and 72 percent of all U.S. imports. Under the 
     Information Technology Agreement (ITA), 52 countries 
     representing 95 percent of trade in high-tech products 
     eliminated tariffs in a rapidly-expanding $600 billion global 
     market that is critical to U.S. growth. Given these 
     statistics, it should be no surprise that a rules-based 
     international trading system--one that opens markets and 
     protects against abusive trade practices--is more important 
     than ever to American manufacturers.
       Retailing: The U.S. retailing sector employs nearly one-
     fifth of the American workforce, and contributes greatly to 
     the high U.S. standard of living by providing consumers with 
     the wide variety of products they demand at affordable 
     prices. Tariffs are essentially import taxes that, if re-
     introduced as a result of a U.S. pullout, could add 30 
     percent or more to the price of consumer products. As Federal 
     Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has noted on several 
     occasions, imports have also served as a great inflation-
     tamer in a period of rapid economic growth, and contribute 
     substantially to our rising standard of living.
       Services: The WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services 
     (GATS) established a rules-based trading system for services. 
     The WTO rules safeguard American service exports, which were 
     $260 billion in 1998 and resulted in a surplus of $79.4 
     billion. The Basic Telecommunications Agreement represents 91 
     percent of the total domestic and international revenue of 
     $600 billion generated in this sector annually. The Financial 
     Services Agreement represents 95 percent of the international 
     trade in banking, insurance, securities and financial 
     information. Negotiations to further liberalize world-wide 
     trade in services--including the delivery of services via 
     electronic commerce--began in January 2000.
       It's not just the economy that is at stake, but our 
     national security as well. The rules-based trading system 
     that has developed since the end of World War II stands in 
     sharp contrast to the mushrooming trade barriers that the 
     world saw in the 1930s. These policies sent trade flows into 
     a long downward spiral that culminated in the virtual 
     collapse of international commerce, depression and, finally, 
     war. The bitter lessons of the first half of the 20th century 
     provide a map of what roads not to go down in dealing with an 
     integrated world economy--economic nationalism, isolationism 
     and protectionism.
       The WTO is by no means perfect. We, along with other 
     groups, have advocated a range of measures to improve the 
     functioning of the system. At the same time, it is 
     indisputable that the rules-based trading system has been a 
     positive force shaping the world since the end of World War 
     II. It has played an essential role in the transformation 
     of the American economy since the mid-1980s, driven in no 
     small measure by the competition faced both here and 
     abroad. Concerning the alleviation of poverty, trade is a 
     key element in any economic growth strategy worth 
     mentioning in the developing world.
       U.S. membership in the World Trade Organization deserves 
     the support of all Americans. We urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 
     90, which calls on the United States to withdraw from the 
     World Trade Organization.
           Sincerely,
       3M
       ABB, Inc.
       ACE-INA Insurance
       ACPA
       Aerospace Industries Association of America
       AFMA, formerly the American Film Marketing Association
       Agriculture Ocean Transportation Coalition
       Air Tractor, Inc.
       Aitken Irvin Lewin Berlin Vrooman & Cohn, LLP
       Alcan Aluminum Corporation
       Aluminum Association
       America Online, Inc.
       American Apparel Manufacturers Association
       American Assn of Exporters and Importers
       American Bus. Council of the Gulf Countries
       American Business Conference
       American Bus Council of the Gulf Countries
       American Chamber of Commerce in Germany
       American Chamber of Commerce in Slovakia
       American Council of Life Insurance
       American Crop Protection Association
       American Electronics Association
       American Express Company
       American Farm Bureau Federation
       American Forest & Paper Association
       American Institute for International Steel
       American Insurance Association
       American International Group

[[Page H4807]]

       American Int'l Automobile Dealers Assn
       American Iron And Steel Institute
       American Petroleum Institute
       American Plastics Council
       American River International Ltd
       American Textile Manufacturers Institute
       American Wire Producers Association
       Amway Corporation
       Andersen Consulting
       APCO Associates Inc.
       ARCO
       Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
       Associated Industries of Massachusetts
       Associated Industries of Missouri
       Association of Intl Automobile Manufacturers
       AT&T Corp.
       Atlas Electric Devices Company
       Austin Nichols & Company, Inc.
       Automotive Trade Policy Council
       Avon Products, Inc.
       Bank of America
       BASF Corporation
       Bechtel Corporation
       Bestfoods
       Bethlehem Steel Corporation
       Biotechnology Industry Organization
       BMW (US) Holding Corporation
       Boeing Company
       Bretton Woods Committee, The
       Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation
       Business Roundtable, The
       C & M International
       California Council for International Trade
       Cargill Incorporated
       Caribbean/Latin America Action
       Caterpillar Inc.
       Cato Institute
       Celanese Corporation
       Champion International Corporation
       Chase Manhattan Corporation
       Chemical Manufacturers Association
       Chicago Tribune
       Chilean-American Chamber of Commerce
       Chubb Corporation, The
       CIGNA
       Citigroup
       Citizens Against Government Waste
       CNH Global N.V.
       Coalition of New England Companies for Trade
       Coalition of Service Industries
       Competitive Enterprise Institute
       Computer & Communications Industry Association
       ConAgra, Inc.
       CONECT
       Connecticut Business & Industry Assn, Inc.
       Construction Industry Manufacturers Assoc.
       Consumer Industry Trade Action Coalition
       Consumers for World Trade
       Coors Brewing Company
       Copper and Brass Fabricators Council
       Corn Refiners Association
       Council of Growing Companies
       Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers
       Creative Pultrusions, Inc.
       DaimlerChrysler Corporation
       Detroit Free Press
       Diamond Machining Technology Inc.
       Distilled Spirits Council of the United States
       Diversified Trade Company, LLC
       Dow Chemical Company, The
       Dow Corning Corporation
       DuPont
       Eastman Chemical Company
       Eastman Kodak Company
       ECAT
       Edison Electric Institute
       EDS
       Hoffman International, Inc.
       Hogan & Hartson
       Honeywell International Inc.
       Hong Kong Economic & Trade Office
       Hormel Foods International Corporation
       Huntway Refining Company
       Information Technology Assoc. of America
       Information Technology Industry Council
       Ingersoll-Rand Company
       Institute for Int'l Insurance Development
       Intellectual Property Committee, The
       Interactive Digital Software Association
       El Paso Energy Corporation
       Elan International LLC
       Electronic Data Systems Corporation
       Electronic Industries Alliance
       Ellicott Machine Corporation International
       Emerson Electric Co.
       Employers Group
       Enron Corp.
       ERC Wiping Products Inc.
       EREXCORP
       Exxon Mobil Corporation
       Farm Equipment Manufacturers Association
       Fashion Accessories Shippers Association, Inc.
       Federation of Israeli Chambers of Commerce
       FMC Corporation
       Forest City Gear Company
       Foster Wheeler Corporation
       Franklin International, Inc.
       Gateway, Inc.
       Gemmex Intertrade America, Inc.
       General Electric Company
       General Mills, Inc.
       General Motors Corporation
       German Industry and Trade
       Global Customs Advisors
       Global USA
       Greenberg, Traurig, et al.
       Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc.
       Guardian Industries Corporation
       Halliburton Company
       Hardwood, Plywood and Veneer Association
       Hasbro, Inc.
       Health Industry Manufacturers Association
       Hewlett-Packard Company
       High Voltage Engineering Corporation
       Hills & Company
       International Assoc. of Drilling Contractors
       International Business Machines
       International Business-Govt. Counsellors
       International Dairy Foods Association
       International Insurance Council
       International Mass Retail Association
       International Paper
       International Strategic Advisors
       Investment Company Institute
       IPC, Assoc Connecting Electronics Industries
       ITT Industries
       Japan Automobile Manufacturers Assn.
       JBC International
       Jefferson Waterman International
       JETRO
       John B. Shlaes & Associates
       John Hancock Financial Services
       Johnson & Johnson
       Joint Industry Group
       Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
       Kissinger McLarty Associates
       Landegger Industries
       Lincoln National Corporation
       Liz Claiborne, Inc.
       Malichi International, Ltd.
       Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
       Manchester Associates
       Manchester Trade
       Manufacturers Assn of NW PA
       Marconi Commerce Systems, Inc.
       Massachusetts Inst for Social & Econ Rsrch.
       Matsushita Electric Corporation of America
       Maytag Corporation
       MCI WorldCom
       McLarty International
       MD International
       Merck & Company, Inc.
       Merrill Lynch & Company Inc.
       Merritt Tool Company
       Miami Valley Marketing Group, Inc.
       Michigan Manufacturers Association
       Midmark
       Motion Picture Association of America
       Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Assoc.
       Motorola Inc.
       National Association of Manufacturers
       National Association of Wheat Growers
       National Center for APEC
       National Fashion Accessories Association, Inc.
       National Food Processors Association, The
       National Foreign Trade Council
       National Marine Manufacturers Assn.
       National Oilseed Processors Association
       National Retail Federation
       National U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce
       Nationwide
       New York Life Insurance Company
       Securities Industry Association
       Semiconductor Equip and Materials Int'l.
       SFI
       New York Life International, Inc.
       Nordic Group of Companies, Ltd.
       North American Assn of Food Equipment Mfrs.
       Northwest Environmental Business Council
       Novartis Corporation
       NPES The Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing 
     and Converting Technologies
       O'Melveny & Myers
       Optical Industry Association
       Oracle Corporation
       Organization for International Investment
       Owens-Illinois, Inc.
       PACCAR Inc
       Pacific Basin Economic Council-U.S. Committee
       Pacific Coast Council of Customs Brokers & Freight 
     Forwarders Assoc., Inc.
       Pacific Northwest International Trade Association
       Parker Associates
       PepsiCo, Inc.
       Pet Food Institute
       Pet Friendly, Inc.
       Pfizer Inc.
       Pharmaceutical Research and Mfrs of America
       Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
       Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.
       Polaroid Corporation
       PPG Industries, Inc.
       Praxair Inc.
       Precision Metalforming Association
       Princewaterhouse Coopers LLP
       Principal Financial Group
       Pro Trade Group
       Procter & Gamble
       Prudential
       Purafil, Inc.
       Ralston Purina Company
       Reebok International, Ltd.
       Representative of German Industry and Trade
       Ross Manufacturing
       Samuels International
       Sara Lee Corporation
       Sea-Land Service Inc/CSX Corp.
       Seba International, Inc.
       Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles
       Shelby Industries, Inc.
       Siemens Corporation
       SISCORP, Inc.
       Skyway Luggage Company
       Small Business Exporters Association
       Smaller Business Assoc. of New England
       Society of the Plastics Industry
       Sonoco Products Company
       Sony Electronics Inc.
       St. Maxens & Company--Mattel
       Staffing Innovations, Inc.

[[Page H4808]]

       Stern Group, Inc., The
       Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association
       Systems Integrated
       Telecommunications Industry Association
       Telect, Inc.
       Tenneco
       Texas Assn. of Business & Chambers of Commerce
       Texas Instruments, Inc.
       Textron Inc.
       The AIMAC Center for ADR
       The American Int'l Automobile Dealers Assoc.
       The Clorox Company
       The Gallatin Group
       The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
       The Hawthorn Group, L.C.
       The McGraw-Hill Companies
       The Port Authority of NY & NJ
       The Sapphire Group, Inc.
       The Stern Group
       The Trade Partnership
       Timken Company, The
       Toy Manufacturers of America
       TradeCom International, Inc.
       Trans-Americas FSC, Inc.
       Tricon Global Restaurants
       TRW Inc.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce
       U.S. Council for International Business
       U.S. Dairy Export Council
       U.S. Grains Council
       U.S. Wheat Associates
       Underwriters Laboratories
       Unilever United States, Inc.
       United Parcel Service
       United Technologies Corporation
       Universal Fabricators, Inc.
       Unocal Corporation
       US ASEAN Business Council
       USX Corporation
       Valmont Industries
       Warnaco Inc.
       Warner-Lambert Company
       Washington Council on International Trade
       Waste Equipment Technology Association
       Westex International Inc.
       Westinghouse Electric Corporation
       Westvaco Corporation
       Wheat Export Trade Education Committee
       Whirlpool Corporation
       White & Case, LLP
       Wilhelm Resource Company
       William T. Robinson PLLC
       Willkie Farr & Gallagher
       Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering
       Wiring Harness Manufacturers Association
       World Perspectives
       World Trade Center Institute
       Xerox Corporation

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House of Representatives today 
simply says that we should withdraw from the World Trade Organization. 
If my colleagues have listened to the debate today, the question really 
is not whether we should withdraw, the question is how should we reform 
the WTO and what types of reforms we should pursue.

                              {time}  1200

  And the best example that has been cited today widely is the need to 
have a more open judicial process that more closely mirrors the process 
that has served us so well in the United States.
  So the question before the House today is really what tactic should 
we take in order to pursue reform. And I would suggest that what we 
should do is stand up and act like leaders; act like leaders, as 
expected by other countries and by the citizens we represent here 
today. What they expect us to do is to take specific action and not 
just simply support some blanket general withdrawal of the WTO.
  So let us begin to debate the specific types of reforms we need to 
undertake, and let us pursue our right in the World Trade Organization 
to lead an effort for a two-thirds vote, to pursue more openness and 
the other types of reforms we have debated today. And let us use our 
time on the floor more wisely. Let us debate how we can expand the 
benefits of trade for everybody, how we can expand the winners circle, 
how we can begin to open up the benefits of trade for more small- and 
medium-sized businesses, so that they too can enjoy the benefits of 
trade.
  And let us get back to debate on what we can do to be an important 
partner with our States and our local governments to fund the types of 
job training and education programs that American workers need today to 
succeed and survive in this global economy. There are tax credits 
available; there are programs we know that can work, that can create 
partnerships between employers and employees so more of the people we 
represent can succeed in this global economy. That is the debate we 
ought to be having today. We ought to defeat this resolution and we 
ought to get back to work.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let me say to the gentleman that reforms are not permissible. The 
Congress cannot reform the WTO. Only they can reform themselves. But 
they work in secret, and they have to have a unanimous vote. Our vote 
is equal to the country of Sudan. So do not expect it to ever be 
reformed. The only way we can voice our objection is with this 
resolution. And there will never be another chance to talk about the 
WTO for 5 more years.
  Let me state that the Congress is required to state a constitutional 
justification for any legislation. The Committee on Ways and Means 
amazingly used article I, section 8 to justify their position on this 
bill. And let me state their constitutional justification. It says, 
``The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, 
imposts and excises.'' But the Constitution says the Congress. But what 
we are doing is allowing the WTO to dictate to us.
  Even those on the Committee on Ways and Means said that they endorse 
this system of ``fair trade administered by the WTO''. Who is going to 
decide what is fair? The WTO does. And they tell us what to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I 
certainly oppose our withdrawal from participation in the World Trade 
Organization, but I share many of the concerns that have been voiced 
here today concerning the way the WTO operates.
  When a dispute arises in the WTO, perhaps over another nation's claim 
that an environmental law represents a discriminatory barrier to 
international commerce, the WTO tribunal acts in a somewhat star 
chamber-type proceeding. The complaint itself may be sealed. The 
hearings are closed. The briefs are confidential. If there are outside 
concerned parties that would file an amicus brief, if a United States 
court were involved, they are denied that right to reflect broader 
policy considerations that might arise from the dispute resolution. And 
conflict of interest procedures are lacking.
  I do not think, given that circumstance, that there can be any wonder 
why conspiracy theorists and why many people, who simply have a 
reasonable and legitimate concern about the environment and human 
rights, are very suspicious about the way that the WTO operates.
  An additional area of the decision-making processes of the WTO 
concerning trade policy, though not relating directly to dispute 
resolution, also fails both to provide openness and adequately to 
involve nongovernmental organizations or other international 
organizations, such as the World Health Organization. WTO reports are 
not being released immediately too much information is being classified 
out of public view.
  I do not believe that this administration has done enough to open up 
the processes of the WTO, nor has the international business community 
worked vigorously enough to open up the processes. The propensity of 
the WTO bureaucracy and many of our trading partners to be consumed 
with secrecy presents much of the problem that we have here today.
  Despite that wrongful secrecy, it should be noted that many of those 
who are basically opposed to more international trade have misstated or 
greatly exaggerated the consequences of WTO decisions. Of the 140 
issues that have been brought before the WTO, only about 10 have 
involved health or environmental concerns, and these have not produced 
the adverse consequences claimed by some WTO opponents.
  I believe we need a trade policy that addresses environment and 
health concerns as much more central concerns. Have a sustained push 
for real reform of the WTO, but we must not follow a course of economic 
isolationism. That latter course would only reduce our economic growth, 
increase consumer prices, and reduce opportunities for more good high 
paying jobs in Central Texas and across the country.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on the 
four sides, please.

[[Page H4809]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) has 8\1/4\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) has 5\1/4\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Crane) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan for yielding me this time.
  I agree with all those who have said it is important for the future 
of America and for our economy to continue to participate in the World 
Trade Organization. It is simply common sense that the nation with the 
most open trade regime in the world would gain from supporting the 
international organization whose purpose is to open up the trade 
regimes of all nations and police those arrangements.
  Many Members today have talked about the faults of the WTO, and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), is in part correct; they are 
many. But we have to keep in mind that these faults take place against 
a backdrop of international agreement and cooperation. We are not going 
to win every case, and sometimes the WTO is simply going to be wrong. 
But that does not mean that we are better off without having a WTO. It 
provides a place to resolve trade conflict that historically can easily 
escalate into more serious matters.
  There are a number of improvements to the WTO that we want and have 
been working to persuade other countries to agree to, and the Committee 
on Ways and Means speaks to that frequently. They involve opening up 
the WTO to public view and input, expanding the scope of trade agenda 
to fit the realities of modern technology and economic integration, 
consistent enforcement of core labor standards, bringing environmental 
considerations more forcefully into the discussion, and certainly 
reaching out to developing countries.
  However, there is something we can do here that is equally important, 
and we need to do it ourselves. In these trade debates, including the 
debate that we recently had over China, and others as well, they are 
infused with a certain cultural elitism that needs to be changed. Those 
who make key decisions in this Nation on trade issues are going to have 
their jobs, for the most part, after the decision is made. But there 
are thousands and thousands of people who believe that they will not, 
and they are scared about it.
  A factory that closes in New England and moves to Tennessee, a merger 
between two companies that leads to downsizing for cost efficiencies, 
and the start-up of new production lines overseas all look about the 
same from the factory floor. While we criticize and support the WTO 
throughout the morning, I would ask Members, Mr. Speaker, to think 
about the job we need to do to talk about trade in such a way that it 
is less threatening and more universally accepted.
  If we cannot change the tone of the debate, if we cannot sell free 
trade to those who are nervous about it, then perhaps we have a lot 
less to say than we thought. And I would predict that if we do not, and 
we simply vote against this resolution and go on our merry way, then we 
are going to have a much bigger problem 5 years from now.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Financial Times, senior WTO staffer: ``The WTO is the place where 
governments collude in private against their domestic pressure 
groups.''
  I would posit that actually the WTO is working very much the way its 
principal authors intended, and its principal authors were the 
multinational corporations who want to be unfettered from the 
restrictions of consumer rights, labor rights, environmental rights and 
protections.
  The WTO does have a few standards. It prohibits slave and prison 
labor. It does not prohibit child labor, bonded child labor. On the 
environment, it does allow cases to be brought on the issue of the 
environment. A case can be brought against any nation's environmental 
laws as not being the least trade restrictive, but there is no 
mechanism to bring a case for having a lack of environmental laws or a 
lack of enforcement of environmental laws, if they exist.
  And then, of course, consumers. Consumers are not part of the 
equation here, except the buying power they might present. This 
organization does not allow nations to have the precautionary principle 
upon which most of our consumer protections and environmental laws are 
based. It sets new standards that they say are scientifically based and 
higher than the precautionary principle.
  We have to prove a substance is harmful before we can prohibit it. 
Thalidomide would have had to be imported into the United States, under 
the WTO rules, until it was proven that it was causing horrible birth 
defects. It was a guess by a person at the FDA that kept it out of this 
country. They did not have a scientific basis. They were applying the 
U.S. precautionary principle. They saved tens of thousands of babies 
from being horribly deformed in this country. But under the WTO we 
could not do that because we could not prove it before the fact.
  Now, I would posit that this is working exactly as was intended. 
People who are well intentioned have stood here and called it a star 
chamber process and said it needs reform. And I think others who are a 
little less well intentioned are up here saying, oh, of course, it 
needs reform. We will go back to the organization. We will go to the 
members and ask them to reform.
  We will go to some of the members of the WTO and ask them to put 
forward reform proposals. I think we are going to ask Cuba to put 
forward reform proposals. Well, no, maybe not Cuba. How about Myanmar, 
that great bastion of human rights abuse. No, I do not think Myanmar is 
going to put them forward. Well, maybe Pakistan. How about the OPEC 
countries, who are constraining trade to drive up gasoline prices in 
the United States?
  I have asked the U.S. to file a complaint at the WTO against them. 
Our Trade Representative says, oh, no, we cannot do that. Well, I am 
not sure why we cannot do it. I think they are violating rules of the 
WTO. Or maybe we just cannot do it because the WTO is really designed 
to protect corporate multinational interests and the profits of 
gasoline companies and the oil companies, which are up 400 to 500 
percent. People in the Midwest are paying up to almost $3 a gallon, and 
we cannot do anything about that in the WTO; but we can stick it to 
consumers, we can stick it to the environment. We cannot protect things 
we believe in, except the multinational corporations.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In 1990, before the WTO, trade protection cost U.S. consumers 
approximately $70 billion per year. Trade barriers hit the lowest 
income consumers the hardest because they have to spend a greater share 
of their paychecks on the everyday products most affected by hidden 
import taxes. I am referring to such things as clothes, shoes, and many 
food products.
  According to the U.S. Trade Representative, the market access 
opportunities culminating in the Uruguay Round amount to ``the largest 
global tax cut in history.'' By the time the WTO agreements are fully 
implemented in 2005, the annual effect will be equal to an increase of 
$1,500 to $3,000 in purchasing power for the average American family of 
four. By giving American consumers more buying power with every dollar, 
the WTO helps to raise the living standards for America's families, 
especially low-income families.

                              {time}  1215

  Moreover, as Americans buy more, the availability of low-cost imports 
has helped to ward off inflation. Holding down inflation helps to keep 
mortgages, car loans, credit card interest, and other credit expenses 
lower.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is vital for our colleagues to pay attention 
to the discussion that is being held here today, to examine the 
evidence, and conclude to vote against H.J. Res. 90.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for closing.

[[Page H4810]]

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair as to who will 
have the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska).
  The majoirty manager, will be the last speaker.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, so the speakers will be in what order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
  (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, as our world's economy makes 
the transition from an industrial-based economy to one that is 
information based, what we are finding increasingly is that geography 
is going to become less important. We are going to find that national 
borders are no longer going to be barriers to the flow of information, 
to the flow of commerce, and to the flow of new ideas.
  What is important for us to understand, as globalization takes hold, 
is that we have these international bodies that can develop the rules 
of the road that can ensure that we can have a level of certainty in 
terms of how international laws related to trade can be effectively and 
equitably implemented.
  There is no country that has more at risk in this endeavor as the 
United States, with our country only having 4 percent of the world's 
population, 96 percent of the world's population outside our borders, 
when we look at the fact that we consume 25 percent of all the world's 
GDP. It is important for us to understand that we have more at risk 
than any country in terms of the opportunities that a consistent set of 
rules that help to guide international trade provide us.
  I also would make a strong case that, for those of us who are very 
interested in seeing how we can advance issues related to human rights, 
how we can advance issues that can elevate labor and environmental 
standards, is that the WTO has the potential to be one of the most 
effective vehicles in order to achieve that outcome.
  Because if we ever looked to see what would be the impact of this 
legislation passing today, it would, basically, leave us without an 
effective mechanism with which the United States can exert its 
influence among a world body.
  And so, that is why I think it is important for us to certainly vote 
against this measure today and dedicate ourselves to continue to have 
the United States provide the leadership through the WTO to advance the 
issues of labor and environmental standards.
  This will make good sense in terms of ensuring that U.S. workers have 
the economic opportunities the global marketplace provides and, also, 
to maximize the influence of the United States in developing countries.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill to call for 
removal from the World Trade Organization.
  Quite simply, the reason for the WTO is that organized, rule-based 
trading is more reliable and more beneficial to all than unregulated 
exchanges. This is what we were talking about just a few weeks back 
when we are talking about permanent normal trade relations with China.
  I think the argument follows that, of course, what is good for 
trading of goods is also relevant to other things we hold important. 
And certainly, the WTO is far from perfect. We need to make some 
improvements with regard to transparency and the information that is 
included in the decision-making and public disclosure, and we need to 
improve the trade and labor working groups and the way the environment 
is considered. But without the organization, we have nothing to work 
with.
  It should be clear that a trade free-for-all is not better than a 
principle-guided trade regime.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, a recent study by the School of Public Affairs at the 
University of Maryland found 93 percent of Americans agree with the 
statement ``Countries that are part of international trade agreements 
should be required to maintain minimum standards for working 
conditions.'' Over 80 want to buy products made by children under the 
age of 15. Seventy-eight percent said labor standards and environmental 
protections should be part of the agreement. Seventy-four percent said 
countries should be able to restrict the import of products if they are 
produced in a way that damages the environment. Seventy-four percent 
said there should be a moral obligation to ensure foreign workers do 
not have to work in harsh or unsafe working conditions.
  Guess what? None of those things are protected by the WTO. None of 
them are allowed to be protected by the current rules of the WTO by us, 
by the United States, enforcing those values in trade.
  We cannot restrict the movement of goods produced under any of those 
problem conditions by child labor, bonded child labor, in an 
environmentally destructive manner, on and on. The list goes on. Labor 
rights. Those are not part of this agreement.
  The gentleman from Illinois talked about American consumers are 
benefiting so much. He might have said the newly impoverished American 
workers that have lost their jobs to unfair foreign trade have more 
buying power. But, of course, that is absurd. Because, since their 
wages have dropped dramatically or have been held steady by the fact 
that we cannot go out and enforce labor rights or higher standards of 
living through these trade agreements, all we can do is chase the 
cheapest labor around the world to the bottom, those people, in fact, 
are not doing so well. We are running huge and growing trade deficits. 
Under this regime there are so many problems.
  This is an indiscriminate tool, and I admit that. But we are never 
allowed to debate this issue on the floor. When we passed it, it was an 
up or down vote on this huge volume that no one had read. Now we are 
told we get 2 hours out of the 20 hours we were supposed to have to 
debate the issue. Again, up or down vote, in or out, trade or no.
  Well, I would suggest that many of the dozens and dozens of Members 
who have come to the floor and said there are problems with this, we 
need to change it, should vote present if they cannot vote no to send 
their concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I rise in support of the resolution to withdraw the United 
States from the World Trade Organization.
  It had not been my intent to do that today, since I do believe in a 
world trading regime with strict, enforceable rules that are inclusive 
of not just capitalists' rights but laborers' rights, environmental 
protection, and the standards of democracy building that all of us 
would hope we could aspire to.
  But today I rise in protest, my vote against WTO will be a protest 
vote. Because in Ottawa, Ohio, right next door to where I live, 
Netherlands-based Philips Components also has announced that it will 
move 1,500 more area jobs to Mexico.
  The firm is going to take the production lines that exist at this 
Ottawa plant and transfer it to Mexico over a 3-year period starting 
now. Work will be moved on making the 25- and 27-inch picture tubes. 
And the spokesman for Philips, which is based somewhere in the 
Netherlands, no one seems to be able to find it, we cannot even get a 
phone call returned, we get a recording when we call the firm in Ohio, 
a spokesman for Philips declined to give any specifics on the Mexican 
facility, even what city these goods will be moved to or what the 
factory is making now.
  Yesterday's announcement had been dreaded in this Putnam County, 
Ohio, community. Now, David Thompson, the Philips' spokesman, said, the 
company maintained that moving production to Mexico was the best 
alternative for the long-term health of the business, so any counter-
proposal for the company to stay had to come from Local 1654, the 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

[[Page H4811]]

  But as the newspaper reports this morning, when John Benjamin of that 
local contacted company representatives several times trying to find 
what areas they felt needed to be addressed in the contract, they 
received no response.
  So today my vote against the U.S. involvement in WTO is a protest 
vote, and it is standing with the workers of our country who have no 
rights in this regime.
  I have tried to get the head of another group of workers in Ohio 
whose jobs had been moved to China to come and meet with these workers 
to help these 1,500 people adjust to the world that they are about to 
face now, and the leader from the other company said he was going 
through a divorce because life has been so hard for them. They have 
lost over 2,000 jobs to China.
  I stand in protest to this regime, which turns its back on the 
working people of our country. It is absolutely wrong. I rise in 
support of this resolution.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind our colleagues that we are the 
biggest export nation on the face of this Earth. Every billion dollars 
in increased U.S. exports translates into roughly 15,000 to 20,000 new 
jobs here in the United States. And those new jobs that are trade-
related jobs pay on average about 17 percent more than jobs simply for 
domestic consumption.
  In other words, trade is one of the biggest benefits economically 
this country has experienced. We are at a point because we have been at 
full employment for almost 5 years now where we are importing skilled 
labor, thousands of skilled workers, because of the shortage of workers 
we have in this country. And there has been some suggestion by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) that there may be 6 million 
illegal immigrants working in the United States that are filling those 
empty slots because we have no opportunities for any increased jobs. We 
are short of labor in this country, just like we are short of virtually 
everything else.
  Let me read a Statement of Administration Policy here for the Record:

       Though its origins date back more than 50 years, the WTO 
     continues to be a critical forum for the United States to (1) 
     assert and advance U.S. interests in the global economy; (2) 
     lower trade barriers and promote new opportunity for American 
     workers, firms, and farmers; (3) advance the rule of law; (4) 
     promote economic stability and peace by giving nations 
     stronger stakes in one another's prosperity and stability.
       If the United States did not participate in the WTO, we 
     would (1) expose ourselves to discrimination by virtually all 
     other major trading nations; (2) weaken our ability to get 
     other countries to abide by trade commitments; (3) threaten 
     U.S. competitiveness and living standards; (4) create 
     uncertainty and risk in the U.S. and world economy.
       U.S. participation and leadership in the WTO is critical at 
     this time. There are more than 30 nations, including some 
     economies in transition, seeking to join the WTO, as well as 
     a number of developing countries that are working to meet 
     their WTO obligations. Withdrawal of congressional support 
     for the multilateral system would send precisely the wrong 
     message to these countries.''

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), 
I totally agree with her statement and she has every right to be angry. 
We do not do a very good job at all in this country of helping those 
who lose from trade, even though I strongly believe that the majority 
of Americans benefit from trade and I concur with what the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Crane) just said. She has every right to be angry.
  But this prescription being proposed, withdrawing from the WTO, would 
not do one thing to help those workers in Ohio or any other workers; 
and, in fact, it would probably make their lot worse.
  What the gentleman, my dear colleague from Texas (Mr. Paul) is 
proposing, would lead us down the road towards trade anarchy at the 
expense of the American worker and the American consumer. It would not 
solve the legitimate concerns that some of the proponents of this 
resolution have. It would make matters much worse for all Americans.
  I hope the whole House will reject this unwise resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 90, a resolution to 
withdraw Congressional approval of the agreement establishing the World 
Trade Organization (WTO). I want to point out that the Ways and Means 
Committee reported this resolution adversely by a unanimous roll call 
vote of 35 to 0.
  U.S. membership in the WTO is clearly in our national interest. The 
multi-lateral rules-based trading system of the WTO, which was first 
established in 1947 as part of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade (GATT), has been vital to global economic growth, peace and 
stability. In its five-year existence, the WTO has helped create a more 
stable climate for U.S. businesses, improved market access for 
industrial goods, agricultural products and services worldwide, 
promoted the protection and enforcement of intellectual property 
rights, and provided an effective means for settling trade disputes. 
More than any other member, the U.S. has benefited from the dispute 
resolution mechanism, winning 23 of the 25 actions it has brought 
against other WTO members.
  It is important to note that while WTO dispute settlement process is 
binding, compliance with WTO panel recommendations is voluntary. The 
WTO has no authority to force a member country to change its domestic 
laws or policies and therefore poses absolutely no threat to 
enforcement of U.S. health, safety, or environmental standards. In 
cases in which a WTO member chooses not to bring itself into conformity 
with a panel decision, the affected WTO member countries have the right 
to request compensation or to retaliate.
  The trade liberalization shaped by the WTO and its GATT predecessor 
has been the major engine of global economic growth and is vital to our 
continued economic prosperity. Since the founding of the multilateral 
trading system at the end of World War II, the world economy has grown 
six-fold, per capita income worldwide has tripled and hundreds of 
thousands of families around the world have risen from poverty. For the 
U.S., this global growth has helped the economy grow from $7 trillion 
in 1992 to $9 trillion in last year. The WTO has helped to ensure that 
this growth is sustained even in times of economic instability as 
evidenced by the growth of U.S. exports of goods and services, even 
with the disruption of the Asian financial crisis, have grown by 55 
percent since 1992 to a record total of nearly $959 billion last year.
  During the first five years of the WTO, the U.S. economy generated 
1.4 million new jobs. Almost 10 percent of all U.S. jobs--nearly 12 
million--now depend on our ability to export goods abroad. Membership 
in the WTO also yields concrete benefits to Texas workers and families. 
Since the WTO was created, U.S. exports have grown by $235 billion, 
creating thousands of jobs for Texas workers. Texas is the second 
largest exporting state in the U.S., totaling more than $78 billion in 
exports in 1998. Texas and the U.S. would lose these benefits if it 
withdraws from the WTO and member countries could, and likely would, 
erect a host of protective barriers to U.S. goods and services. They 
could, in fact, block U.S. access to their markets altogether. Given 
that international trade now accounts for nearly one-third of U.S. 
gross domestic product and one-fourth of U.S. income, Texas and the 
U.S. simply cannot afford to lose access to these markets.

  The WTO is not a perfect organization. While I will vote against this 
resolution, I believe we should open up the WTO to greater public view 
and public input. Recent events have shown us that as trade has 
increased and had greater impact on people's lives, there has been a 
greater desire for knowledge about the WTO and the development of 
international trade rules. Opening the process, by allowing public 
submissions to dispute settlement panels and opening panel proceedings 
to public view will go a long way toward making Americans more 
comfortable with WTO recommendations.
  Trade now represents nearly one-third of our economy. Leaving U.S. 
exports and imports with no effective rules or framework is reckless 
and counterproductive. Withdrawal of U.S. support for the WTO would 
undermine the tremendous growth and prosperity that the U.S. has 
achieved through the expansion of world trade--an expansion enabled by 
the WTO and the multilateral trading system.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the growth of 
international trade and institutional reform and urge a ``no'' vote on 
this resolution.

              [From the Blade, Toledo, OH, June 21, 2000]

               Shift of Philips Jobs Officially Scheduled

       Ottawa, OH.--Netherlands-based Philips Components has made 
     it official: It will

[[Page H4812]]

     move 90 per cent of its television-tube production from this 
     northwest Ohio town to a facility it bought in north-central 
     Mexico, leaving 1,500 area workers without jobs.
       The Ann Arbor-based division of Royal Philips Electronics 
     announced yesterday that production lines from the Ottawa 
     plant will be transferred in phases to Mexico over a three-
     year period, starting in the last six months of 2001. When 
     the move was disclosed in April, the company said it planned 
     for the transfer to start next spring.
       The equipment to be moved from the Ottawa plant will join 
     machinery for two new production lines in an existing 
     factory. Work to be moved from Ohio to Mexico is production 
     of 25-inch and 27-inch picture tubes. A spokesman for Philips 
     declined to give any specifics on the Mexican facility, even 
     what city it is in or what the factory makes now.
       The Ottawa plant will retain 250 to 300 workers to make 32-
     inch tubes.
       Yesterday's announcement, although expected, has been 
     dreaded in this Putnam County town.
       ``It's definitely a hit. But we had tried to run this 
     community like a business, so we've been planning for it and 
     we'll survive,'' said John Williams, municipal director of 
     the village of Ottawa.
       The company said in April and reiterated yesterday that the 
     move to Mexico is part of its strategy to improve the 
     efficiency and cost effectiveness of its manufacturing 
     operations because retail prices in the North American market 
     have declined.
       David Thompson, a Philips spokesman, said the company 
     maintained that moving production to Mexico was the best 
     alternative for the long-term health of the business, so any 
     counterproposal needed to come from Local 1654 of the 
     International Brotherhood of Electric Workers.
       ``We needed to take a look at significant cost-savings in 
     production . . . and the union never came back with a 
     counterproposal, so we finalized our  plans,'' said Mr. 
     Thompson.
       John Benjamin, president of Local 1654, said union 
     officials contacted company representatives several times 
     trying to find what areas they felt needed to be addressed, 
     either in the contract or otherwise, and received no 
     response.
       ``We've seen it at other facilities where workers have 
     given up stuff to secure their future and it didn't work,'' 
     said Mr. Benjamin, a 34-year employee of the plant.
       The current contract expires Sept. 27 and Mr. Benjamin said 
     he has contacted the company about dates to start 
     renegotiating a contract.
       ``We've got to have something in place for people until 
     they find other work,'' he said. He declined to reveal what 
     type of severance package or retraining help the union might 
     be seeking.
       Since the announcement two months ago, the Ottawa plant has 
     lost about 3 per cent of its work force, prompting the 
     company to offer an updated bonus plan to raise production 
     levels. The union's Mr. Benjamin said workers with greater 
     seniority will be allowed to bump into jobs that are staying 
     in Ottawa.
       Severance packages for the 1,300 hourly workers who will 
     lose their jobs will be negotiated. Severance and benefit 
     packages are being prepared for the 200 salaried workers who 
     will lose their jobs, Mr. Thompson said.
       Mr. Williams, Ottawa's municipal director, said village 
     officials contacted legislators and learned that the plant's 
     workers are eligible for displacement benefits under the 
     North American Free Trade Agreement but that will be handled 
     by the federal government.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members that the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has 2 minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has 5\1/4\ minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) has 3 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The gentleman from Illinois just quoted a statement about exports and 
15 to 20,000 jobs per $1 billion. Apparently that is true. But 
unfortunately one cannot just use one side of the equation. One has to 
get to the net. The net is we ran last year a $271 billion trade 
deficit which by his math would mean 4,065,000 jobs were lost. We are 
heading toward more than $300 billion this year, and the administration 
itself admits with the accession of China our trade deficit with China 
and PNTR will grow dramatically. So you cannot just use the side of the 
equation that goes to your argument. It goes both ways.
  We are running a huge and growing trade deficit because American 
workers cannot and should not be competing with bonded child labor, 
with people who work in unsafe conditions, with people who work in 
factories where they dump the toxic waste out the back door. No, that 
is not what the U.S. represents, that is not what we want to drive the 
rest of the world to, and it is not what we should be driving our 
Nation to. We should be demanding more. This organization was set up 
basically so it could not be changed. You are going to get Cuba and 
China and Myanmar and those other great bastions of democracy, workers 
rights, environmental protections to go along with improvements in the 
WTO? I think not. But it is working quite well for their oppressive 
regimes as well as it is working for the giant multinational 
corporations. It is working as designed.
  Every once in a while, once every 5 years we will be allowed 2 hours 
on the floor of the House, if we are still here, to stand up and debate 
this issue; but we will never see a resolution demanding improvements 
on the floor of this House, even though dozens of Members have come 
here and said, it is wrong, it has got to be fixed, we cannot be in 
this organization unless they fix the dispute resolution, unless they 
protect the environment, unless they protect workers.
  If Members really believe that and they cannot bring themselves to 
vote for the resolution, then I urge them at least to cast a protest 
vote for reform by voting ``present.''
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  ``Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling 
alliances with none, I deem one of the essential principles of our 
government and consequently one of those which ought to shape its 
administration.'' Thomas Jefferson.
  Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be aghast at this WTO trade 
agreement. It is out of the hands of the Congress. It is put into the 
hands of unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. I would venture to guess 
even the Hamiltonians would be a bit upset with what we do with trade 
today. I am pro-trade. I have voted consistently to trade with other 
nations, with lowering tariffs. But I do not support managed trade by 
international bureaucrats. I do not support subsidized trade. Huge 
corporations in this country like the WTO because they have political 
clout with it. They like it because they have an edge on their 
competitors. They can tie their competitors up in court. And they can 
beat them at it because not everybody has access. One has to be a 
monied interest to have influence at the World Trade Organization.
  Earlier today I predicted that we would win this debate. There is no 
doubt in my mind that we and the American people have won this debate. 
We will not win the votes, but we will do well. But we have won the 
debate because we speak for the truth and we speak for the Constitution 
and we speak for the American people. That is why we have won this 
debate. It is true there are a lot of complaints about the WTO from 
those who endorse it. I think the suggestion from the gentleman from 
Oregon is a good suggestion. Those who are uncomfortable with the WTO 
and they do not want to rubber-stamp it, and they do not think it is 
quite appropriate to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, vote ``present.'' 
Send a message. They deserve to hear the message. We have no other way 
of speaking out. Every 5 years, we get a chance to get out of the WTO--
that's it.
  We cannot control the WTO. None of us here in the Congress has 
anything to say. You have to have a unanimous vote with WTO to change 
policy. Our vote is equal to all the 134 other countries; and, 
therefore, we have very little to say here in the U.S. Congress.
  Why is it that I have allies on the other side of the aisle where we 
may well disagree on the specifics of labor law and environmental law. 
We agree that the American people have elected us, we have taken an 
oath of office to obey the Constitution, that we have a responsibility 
to them and we should decide what the labor law ought to be, we should 
decide what the environmental law should be, we should decide what the 
tax law should be. That is why we have an alliance.
  But let me remind my colleagues, the American people are getting 
frustrated. They feel this sense of rejection and this loss of control. 
Why bother coming to us? We do not have control of the WTO and they 
feel like they are being hurt. This is the reason we are seeing 
demonstrations. They say if we did not have the WTO we would have 
anarchy? I predict chaos. I predict

[[Page H4813]]

eventual chaos from WTO mismanagement. The trade agreement is 
unmanageable. They would like to do it in secrecy, and they like to 
wheel and deal; but it is unmanageable.
  Let me say there is another reason why we expect chaos in the economy 
and in trade. It has to do with the trade imbalances. Today we are at 
record highs. The current account deficit hit another record yesterday. 
It is 4.5 percent of the GDP, and it is significant. But unfortunately 
the WTO can do nothing about that because that is a currency problem. 
It too causes chaos. Yet there will be an attempt by the WTO to share 
the problem of imbalances. Just think of how NAFTA came to the rescue 
of the Mexican peso immediately after NAFTA was approved; a $50 billion 
rescue for the politicians and the bankers who loaned money to Mexico.
  Quite frankly, I have a suspicion that when the Chinese currency 
fails, that will be one of the things that we will do. China will be 
our trading partner. They are in the family of countries, so therefore 
we will bail out their currency. That is what I suspect will happen. 
Why else would the Chinese put up with the nonsense that we pass out 
about what we are going to do, investigate them and tell them how to 
write their laws? They have no intention of doing that. I think they 
are anxious to be with WTO because they may well see a need for their 
currency to be supported by our currency, which would be a tax on the 
American people.
  This is a sovereignty issue. We do not have the authority in the U.S. 
House of Representatives to give our authority to the President. We do 
not have the authority and we should never permit the President to 
issue these executive orders the way he does, but this is going one 
step further. We have delivered this sovereignty power to an unelected 
bunch of bureaucrats at the WTO.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The WTO has its roots in the decision of this country and others 
after the Second World War not to make the mistakes that we made after 
the First World War, and that was for this country to engage, to take a 
leadership position, to craft international institutions to respond to 
problems, to challenges, and to opportunities. Trade is not win-win. 
There are losers as well as winners. Our challenge is to try to make 
sense out of that dynamic, to try to make sure that in our country we 
come out ahead and not fall behind in terms of the international scene.
  They say send a message. It is the wrong message. It is the message 
of withdrawal. It is a message to tear down. It is much harder to 
build, and it is easy to tear down. Do not tell me the WTO never 
changes. I went to Geneva with others to work to safeguard our 
antidumping laws in those negotiations and we succeeded. If Members 
think the world is unmanageable, if they want to put blinders on, vote 
``yes'' or ``present.'' If they want to roll up their sleeves and make 
this a better world economically for this country and the other 
nations, vote no. Vote no.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard references made to jobs; we have heard 
references made to our trade deficits. The economic concerns involved 
in trade are important, but I think it is important for us to recognize 
that trade plays a critically important role in our economy today, and 
it is because we are less than 5 percent of the world's population and 
the market is beyond our borders and we have bountiful employment. We 
are at the biggest increases in gross domestic production that we have 
experienced in years. In fact, last year over $9.2 trillion was our 
GDP. I think it is important to recognize, too, the studies have 
already discovered that better than 90 percent of job dislocation here 
in the United States is totally unrelated to trade. When we then wonder 
about these increases in U.S. deficits, it is because of the insatiable 
appetites we have; and notwithstanding our incredible productivity, we 
cannot produce enough to meet the demands of the American consumers 
here at home.
  Let me conclude with a point, and this deals with the question of 
sovereignty. U.S. law which approved and implemented America's 
membership in the WTO makes clear that the U.S. reigns supreme.
  The Uruguay Round Agreements Act, URAA, states, ``No provision of any 
of the Uruguay Round Agreements, namely, the WTO agreements, nor the 
application of any such provision to any person or circumstance that is 
inconsistent with any of the United States law shall have effect.''
  Secondly, ``Nothing in this act shall be construed to amend or modify 
any law of the United States, including any law relating to, one, the 
protection of human, animal or plant life or health; two, the 
protection of the environment; or, three, worker safety unless 
specifically provided for in this act of Congress.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential that all Members here recognize 
the importance of this vote. I know we have some honest disagreements. 
I hope that we can move some of our opponents in this debate through a 
presentation of facts and the evidence to a different position. But in 
the interim, I think it is vital that Members recognize that we must 
vote down H.J. Res. 90.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I speak today in strong opposition to H.J. 
Res. 90, which seeks to withdraw Congress's approval of the agreement 
establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO).
  Although I have come to this floor many times to oppose pieces of 
legislation that I believe would damage U.S. interests; few of them 
pose a greater danger than this one.
  Since the failure of the International Trade Organization (ITO) to 
gain recognition by key nations, such as the United States, the world 
has relied on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as a 
temporary measure to help liberalize international trade and promote 
world economic growth. This measure, although imperfect, remained in 
effect from 1948 until 1995 when the World Trade Organization 
effectively replaced it.
  Although the GATT was an effective tool for reducing tariff barriers, 
it was an ineffective instrument when it came to dealing with dispute 
settlement procedures and did not apply to services or intellectual 
property.
  Now, with the WTO, nations, including the United States, have an 
effective international regime in place to settle trade disputes and 
further promote trade liberalization, not just in tariff reductions, 
but in non-tariff barriers as well.
  The United States has played an extremely active role in the creation 
of the WTO and has been an active member. Since the creation of the 
WTO, the United States has won the majority of its cases that have 
reached a final decision. Additionally, the United States has filed 
almost half of the distinct cases considered by the WTO. Clearly, we 
are one of the most active participants in this organization and it is 
responding favorably to our concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, U.S. exports of goods and services accounted for one-
third of U.S. economic growth in the past seven years. We need the WTO 
to safeguard the global trading system to ensure safe and predictable 
trading patterns. This is vital to our economy because it has created 
millions of new jobs for Americans.
  While I understand the concerns of many of my colleagues about some 
of the WTO rulings, such as the shrimp-turtle case, withdrawal from the 
WTO is not the answer. Rather, we must work with other nations to 
ensure our trade agreements consider issues such as the environment, 
worker rights and human rights. The WTO, like any international 
organization, has the ability to grow and adapt. In order to effect the 
future of the WTO in a positive way, as we have the past and the 
present, we must continue to play a leading role.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
resolution. The WTO serves as a forum for negotiations to eliminate 
trade barriers, allowing us to export our goods and services freely 
around the world. It provides the only multilateral dispute mechanism 
for international trade, administers rules to discourage 
discrimination, and ensures greater security on how trade will be 
conducted. For example, stronger dispute resolution procedures within 
the WTO prevent nations from keeping U.S. goods and services out of 
their markets through tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
  Engaging in global trade helps American workers and consumers and 
overall economic progress. Since 1994, approximately one fifth of U.S. 
economic growth has been linked to the dynamic export sector. If we 
choose instead to build trade barriers and ignore the potential of 
consumers in other nations, we will only reverse our incredible 
economic expansion and the subsequent higher standard of living.

  I have heard many allegations that, as a member of the World Trade 
Organization, we

[[Page H4814]]

undermine our ability to determine our own domestic policy and 
compromise our national security. But when we look closely at the WTO 
structure and how it operates, we realize this is not true.
  First, the trade rules by which member nations agree to follow are 
reached by consensus by all members, allowing the U.S. to vote against 
any rules it finds unacceptable. Further, neither the WTO nor its 
dispute panels can compel the U.S. to change its laws or regulations. 
Under the WTO charter, members can enact trade restrictions for reasons 
of national security, public health and safety, conservation of natural 
resources and to ban imports made with forced or prison labor.
  Isolationist policies will only destroy jobs and stifle innovation, 
while at the same time discourage environmental responsibility. I 
encourage my colleagues to vote against this resolution and for 
engagement with the world trade community.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 90. This 
legislation withdraws congressional approval for the agreement 
establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). Its adoption would 
mean that for the first time in 50 years, the U.S., the world's largest 
economy, would not be a member of the world trading system.
  I will be the first to admit that the WTO is far from perfect. 
Despite our efforts, it remains a closed, non-transparent decision-
making body in which anti-U.S. biases are strong and due process is 
weak. Whether it's the dispute with the European Union (EU) over the 
Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC), market access for bananas and hormone 
treated beef, Airbus subsidies, or EU restrictions on U.S. 
biotechnology products, the WTO has either rejected or failed to 
enforce U.S. rights. Nevertheless, turning our backs on the rest of the 
world, as H.J. Res. 90 would have us to, is a wholly unacceptable 
solution to the WTO's problems.
  If we want to trade with the world, we must remain a part of the 
world trading system. And, as a member of the world trading system, we 
must show the rest of the world that, truly, this system can only serve 
the interests of all when it transcends the biases and prejudices that 
now infest it, and it starts rendering honest judgments based solidly 
on the actual language of agreements reached. Fair, impartial and open 
decisionmaking must become the WTO's standard, if it is to promote 
economic efficiency and world prosperity.
  The WTO is far from meeting that standard today. Until real progress 
is made, we should expect that sentiments for the resolution we are 
considering today will become more, not less, prevalent. Let me 
describe some of the major problems facing the WTO.
  Our major trading partners, including Japan, Korea, and the EU, have 
turned the WTO dispute settlement process into a de facto appeals court 
that reviews U.S. trade agency determinations and strikes down our 
trade laws. Japan and Korea have gone so far as to say they will launch 
WTO appeals of every U.S. trade determination that is adverse to their 
interests. Already, WTO decisions are gutting the effectiveness of U.S. 
trade remedies in ways that the Administration and Congress expressly 
rejected during the negotiations on the agreement establishing the WTO.
  In the UK Bar case, the WTO tribunal actually usurped the role 
assigned to the U.S. Commerce Department by refusing to accept the 
agency's reasonable interpretations of WTO agreements. The WTO 
Antidumping Agreement contains a special standard of review which 
recognizes that national authorities (e.g., the U.S. Commerce 
Department) should have the primary role in interpreting the 
complicated and technical WTO rules. A 1994 WTO Ministerial Declaration 
provides that subsidies cases (like UK Bar) should also be subject to 
this deferential standard of review. Despite this fact, the WTO 
tribunals disregarded the WTO Members' intent and said the standard of 
review was ``non-binding''.

  The simple fact is that the WTO dispute settlement process is 
structurally biased against the U.S. Panels are staffed by the WTO 
Secretariat that over the years has demonstrated a bias against U.S. 
fair trade laws. WTO documents, including the WTO Annual Report, reveal 
a hostility to anti-dumping laws. In addition, the actual members of 
the panels are selected from a cadre of foreign diplomats, economists, 
and academics, many of whom have no judicial training and have very 
negative opinions of U.S. trade laws.
  The U.S. must take steps to increase its participation in the WTO 
dispute settlement process. Without even changing WTO rules, the U.S. 
could ``deputize'' counsel for domestic industries so they can hear the 
presentations to the panelists. We should also increase federal support 
by assigning Commerce Department personnel to our country's WTO mission 
in Geneva. The WTO process must also become more transparent by 
permitting panels to consider written submissions from interested 
private parties and by giving private counsels, under appropriate 
protective order, access to all materials in cases considered by 
panels.
  Mr. Speaker, the WTO dispute settlement process needs thorough 
reform. It is to these reforms that we must now direct our efforts and 
not to the abandonment of the world trading system. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``No'' on H.J. Res. 90.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution 
withdrawing approval of the United States in the World Trade 
Organization. Although I have some concerns, the United States must be 
actively engaged in global trade and we need to be forceful, perhaps 
more forceful than we have been, in advocating a rules-based, 
transparent trading system.
  My main concerns stem from the potential for manipulation of the WTO 
by some of our trading partners to challenge our domestic laws to 
address unfair trading practices. These are legitimate tools to ensure 
fairness to American industries and American workers.
  We need a viable dispute resolution process that permits a full, open 
airing of grievances. In a rules-based trading system, the rules need 
to be transparent--everybody needs to know what the rules are. It also 
must address any non-tariff barriers that are erected to inhibit free 
and fair trade.
  The United States must be vigilant to seek openness, access, and 
transparency in international trade. We must also be able to preserve 
our ability to ensure fairness when American producers and workers are 
placed at risk from unfair trading practices.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). All time for 
debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 528, the joint resolution is considered 
read for amendment and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.



                          ____________________