Note: The following debate brings to light some very interesting facts about Congress. We have condensed it to just bring out these facts.
AN OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW FROM THIS COMMITMENT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE ONLY TO BE REJECTED
JOINT RESOLUTION
H.J.RES.90 (Major Legislation)
Related Bills: H.RES.528, H.J.RES.89
Latest Major Action: 6/21/2000 Failed of passage in House
Title: Withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 PAUL: 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.
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.
Mr. CRANE. 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 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. CARDIN. 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.
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.
BACK