congressional_record: CREC-1994-12-20-pt1-PgE22
Data license: Public Domain (U.S. Government data) · Data source: Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API
This data as json
| granule_id | date | congress | session | volume | issue | title | chamber | granule_class | sub_granule_class | page_start | page_end | speakers | bills | citation | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CREC-1994-12-20-pt1-PgE22 | 1994-12-20 | 103 | 2 | URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT | HOUSE | EXTENSIONS | FRONTMATTER | E | E | [{"name": "Henry A. Waxman", "role": "speaking"}] | [{"congress": "103", "type": "HR", "number": "5110"}] | 140 Cong. Rec. E | Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 150 (Tuesday, December 20, 1994) [Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 150 (Tuesday, December 20, 1994)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [Congressional Record: December 20, 1994] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT ______ speech of HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN of california in the house of representatives Tuesday, November 29, 1994 The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5110) to approve and implement the trade agreements concluded in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations: Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to explain for the record why I am voting against the GATT accord today. At the outset, I want to be clear that I am a free trader and, in the absence of other major concerns, I would be supporting GATT. Certainly, I agree that efforts to promote freer trade are worthwhile. Until NAFTA, I had never voted against a trade agreement. I opposed that accord because I felt that it presented a serious threat to our domestic health and environmental statutes. Unfortunately, the new GATT agreement poses an even greater threat to the health and environmental laws we have fought for decades to put in place here in the United States. In fact, a number of our important American laws are already facing challenge under GATT rules that will remain largely unchanged in the new agreement. The most publicized have concerned the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act designed to protect dolphins from slaughter on the open seas by restricting our import of tuna not caught in a dolphin-safe fashion. In response to challenges from first Mexico and then European nations, GATT panels have twice ruled the U.S. program to protect dolphins violates GATT. Under the existing GATT framework, this ruling means little, since any one nation can block imposition of sanctions. But the new GATT has teeth, and the United States will pay heavily under its terms where our laws are held in violation by future panels. Certainly that bodes ill for the Marine Mammal Protection Act. But, far more is at stake here than dolphins. For example, Venezuela has challenged the reformulated gasoline provisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act--probably the single most effective measure for reducing urban smog in the entire law--and the European Union has challenged the Federal ``CAFE'' standards designed to promote more fuel efficient cars. This is only the beginning. The European Union has published a long list of State and Federal environmental and health laws that it sees as illegal barriers to trade that can be challenged under GATT. These include: the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Enforcement Act; the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act; and numerous food safety laws, including pesticide residue standards and various inspection requirements for fruits and vegetables. In addition, important State laws are subject to challenge, especially in my State of California, where proposition 65 imposes the toughest restrictions in the country against carcinogens in foods and other products. The European Union has already made clear that they intend to challenge prop 65. Another California law almost certain to be challenged is the State's tough tolerance limit for lead in wine. It's not that our laws discriminate against imports. I agree that discrimination should be prohibited under GATT. But under the new GATT, any environmental or health law can be challenged if a GATT panel concludes that its provisions are ``more trade restrictive than necessary''--a phrase that could be interpreted very broadly. Another major problem stems from the fact that the GATT panel that ruled on the Marine Mammal Protection Act concluded that any trade restrictions designed to protect resources beyond a nation's own boundaries are GATT violations. I fear that this ruling, in effect, bars efforts to protect the planet's common resources--our oceans, our stratosphere, our climate-- by the single method that has in the past proven effective: trade restrictions. In addition, our ability to close our markets to products manufactured by oppressed workers, even children, would be undermined. It wouldn't be so bad if these matters were to be resolved through an open process by an unbiased expert panel. But the resolution of GATT challenges is handled by a panel of foreign judges with no familiarity with or commitment to American law or our judicial traditions of fairness, and through a process that experts on all sides of the issue agree is wholly undemocratic. Opportunity for public involvement is nonexistent in GATT proceedings. Hearings are required to be held in secret and, under the terms of the agreement, even our government's own arguments in defense of challenged American laws cannot be made public. Because of these very serious flaws, I am voting against the GATT implementing legislation, despite that fact that I favor reducing restrictions on trade. ____________________ |