{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-1994-12-20-pt1-PgE22", "1994-12-20", 103, 2, null, null, "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)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 150 (Tuesday, December 20, 1994)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n[Congressional Record: December 20, 1994]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]\n\n                      URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT\n\n                                 ______\n\n                               speech of\n\n                          HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN\n\n                             of california\n\n                    in the house of representatives\n\n                       Tuesday, November 29, 1994\n\n       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of\n     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5110) to\n     approve and implement the trade agreements concluded in the\n     Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations:\n\n  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to explain for the record why I am\nvoting against the GATT accord today.\n  At the outset, I want to be clear that I am a free trader and, in the\nabsence of other major concerns, I would be supporting GATT. Certainly,\nI agree that efforts to promote freer trade are worthwhile.\n  Until NAFTA, I had never voted against a trade agreement. I opposed\nthat accord because I felt that it presented a serious threat to our\ndomestic health and environmental statutes.\n  Unfortunately, the new GATT agreement poses an even greater threat to\nthe health and environmental laws we have fought for decades to put in\nplace here in the United States.\n  In fact, a number of our important American laws are already facing\nchallenge under GATT rules that will remain largely unchanged in the\nnew agreement.\n  The most publicized have concerned the provisions of the Marine\nMammal Protection Act designed to protect dolphins from slaughter on\nthe open seas by restricting our import of tuna not caught in a\ndolphin-safe fashion.\n  In response to challenges from first Mexico and then European\nnations, GATT panels have twice ruled the U.S. program to protect\ndolphins violates GATT.\n  Under the existing GATT framework, this ruling means little, since\nany one nation can block imposition of sanctions. But the new GATT has\nteeth, and the United States will pay heavily under its terms where our\nlaws are held in violation by future panels.\n  Certainly that bodes ill for the Marine Mammal Protection Act. But,\nfar more is at stake here than dolphins.\n  For example, Venezuela has challenged the reformulated gasoline\nprovisions of the U.S. Clean Air Act--probably the single most\neffective measure for reducing urban smog in the entire law--and the\nEuropean Union has challenged the Federal ``CAFE'' standards designed\nto promote more fuel efficient cars.\n  This is only the beginning. The European Union has published a long\nlist of State and Federal environmental and health laws that it sees as\nillegal barriers to trade that can be challenged under GATT.\n  These include: the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Enforcement Act; the\nNutrition Labeling and Education Act; and numerous food safety laws,\nincluding pesticide residue standards and various inspection\nrequirements for fruits and vegetables.\n  In addition, important State laws are subject to challenge,\nespecially in my State of California, where proposition 65 imposes the\ntoughest restrictions in the country against carcinogens in foods and\nother products. The European Union has already made clear that they\nintend to challenge prop 65. Another California law almost certain to\nbe challenged is the State's tough tolerance limit for lead in wine.\n  It's not that our laws discriminate against imports. I agree that\ndiscrimination should be prohibited under GATT.\n  But under the new GATT, any environmental or health law can be\nchallenged if a GATT panel concludes that its provisions are ``more\ntrade restrictive than necessary''--a phrase that could be interpreted\nvery broadly.\n  Another major problem stems from the fact that the GATT panel that\nruled on the Marine Mammal Protection Act concluded that any trade\nrestrictions designed to protect resources beyond a nation's own\nboundaries are GATT violations.\n  I fear that this ruling, in effect, bars efforts to protect the\nplanet's common resources--our oceans, our stratosphere, our climate--\nby the single method that has in the past proven effective: trade\nrestrictions.\n  In addition, our ability to close our markets to products\nmanufactured by oppressed workers, even children, would be undermined.\n  It wouldn't be so bad if these matters were to be resolved through an\nopen process by an unbiased expert panel.\n  But the resolution of GATT challenges is handled by a panel of\nforeign judges with no familiarity with or commitment to American law\nor our judicial traditions of fairness, and through a process that\nexperts on all sides of the issue agree is wholly undemocratic.\n  Opportunity for public involvement is nonexistent in GATT\nproceedings. Hearings are required to be held in secret and, under the\nterms of the agreement, even our government's own arguments in defense\nof challenged American laws cannot be made public.\n  Because of these very serious flaws, I am voting against the GATT\nimplementing legislation, despite that fact that I favor reducing\nrestrictions on trade.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-1994-12-20-pt1-PgE22"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 7.1796460542827845, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}