ORGANIZED LABOR, BECAUSE WHERE ARE THEY?
           I HEARD FINALLY -- FINALLY -- BACK TO TOWN CAME THE LEADER, MS.
           HE HAVELY DUBREAUX. SHE IS THE BEST OF THE BEST. SHE WON THE
           PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL HERE LAST MONTH AND I CONGRATULATE HER. SHE
           HAS BEEN OUTSTANDING OVER THE MANY, MANY YEARS. AND MAYBE IF I
           CAN EXPLAIN THIS BILL LONG ENOUGH, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PICK UP

           SOME VOTES. NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, I DO SEE SOME OTHERS WAITING. I
           SAID I WOULD TAKE AT LEAST 15 MINUTES, BUT MY GOOD FRIEND FROM
           MINNESOTA WHO REALLY HELD THE FORT ON YESTERDAY HAS BEEN TRYING
           TO BE RECOGNIZED AND SAY JUST A FEW WORDS. I YIELD THE FLOOR.

           MR. WELLSTONE: MR. PRESIDENT?
           I -- MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA.
           

           MR. WELLSTONE: I SEE THE SENATOR FROM OHIO IS HERE, AND I WOULD
           SAY TO MY COLLEAGUE, MAYBE WE COULD, IF IT IS ALL RIGHT, COULD
           I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO FOLLOW THE SENATOR FROM OHIO?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION. THE SENATOR FROM OHIO
           IS RECOGNIZED.
           

           MR. DEWINE: I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM MINNESOTA FOR THE
           COURTESY. AND JUST FOR HIM AND THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA, I
           PLAN ON SPEAKING ABOUT 1 MINUTES. MR. PRESIDENT, YESTERDAY --
           ABOUT 12 MINUTES. MR. PRESIDENT, YESTERDAY I FILED AN AMENDMENT
           TO H.R. 434 THE AFRICA GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT WHICH
           AMENDMENT WOULD IMPROVE OUR NATION'S ABILITY TO RETALIATE
           AGAINST ILLEGAL TRADE PRACTICES BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. DESPITE

           EFFORTS TO REDUCE EUROPEAN TRADE BARRIERS AGAINST AMERICAN
           AGRICULTURE, DESPITE RULINGS BY INTERNATIONAL TRADE BODIES THAT
           EUROPEAN TRADE BARRIERS ARE ILLEGAL -- REPEATED RULINGS --
           THERE STILL, MR. PRESIDENT, REMAINS A FORTRESS EUROPE
           MENTALITY. A FORTRESS EUROPE MENTALITY AGAINST FREE AND FAIR
           TRADE. THE AMENDMENT THAT I HAVE OFFERED AND HAVE FILED IS
           DESIGNED TO STRENGTHEN THE ONE AND ONLY ALLOWABLE WEAPON IN OUR

           ARSENAL AGAINST W.T.O. NONCOM IPS PLINS. THE ONLY WEAPON THAT
           -- NONCOMPLIANCE. THE ONLY WEAPON WHEN A COUNTRY IS FOUND IN
           VIOLATION OF THE W.T.O. AND REPEATEDLY REFUSE IT TO COMPLY, THE
           ONLY WEAPON WE HAVE, THE ONLY METHOD OF ENFORCING COMPLIANCE,
           IS TARIFF RETALIATION. MR. PRESIDENT, THE AMENDMENT I FILED
           ENJOYS WIDESPREAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. IN FACT, THE BILL THAT I

           FILED THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE AMENDMENT HAS NOW 24 SPONSORS AND
           IT IS BIPARTISAN. THIS BILL -- THIS AMENDMENT -- HAS STRONG
           BACKING BY OUR VERY DIVERSE AGRICULTURE COMMUNITY. AND THIS IS
           CERTAINLY NO SURPRISE. ASK ANY CORN GROW WE ARE ORCA TELL
           PRODUCER OR PORK PRODUCER; THEY KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR
           WELL-BEING DEPENDS ON EXPANDING OUR EXPORT MARKETS. WE HAVE THE

           GREATEST AGRICULTURE IN THE WORLD. WE DO IT MORE EFFICIENTLY
           AND CHEAPER AND BETTER THAN ANYONE EVER HAS IN ANYONE DOES IN
           THE WORLD TODAY. AND ALL OUR FARMERS SAY IS, GIVE US A CHANCE
           TO SELL. GIVE US A CHANCE TO COMPETE. AND THAT IS WHAT THIS
           AMENDMENT IS ABOUT. IT IS MY HOPE, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT THE
           SENATE, BY ADOPTING THIS AMENDMENT, WILL TAKE A STAND FOOUR
           FARMERS AND OUR RANCHERS AND SEND A STRONG SIGNAL TO THE
           EUROPEAN UNION THAT THEIR GROSS VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL

           TRADE LAW SIMPLY MUST STOP.
           
           SPECIFICALLY: THE EUROPEAN UNION, MR. PRESIDENT, DESPITE YEARS
           OF EFFORT TO FIND A FAIR SOLUTION, CONTINUES TO DEFY THE WORLD
           TRADE ORGANIZATION'S RULINGS AGAINST ITS BAN ON U.S. BEEF
           IMPORTS AND ITS BANANA IMPORT RULES. BOTH CASES, MR. PRESIDENT
           -- BOTH CASES -- ARE IMPORTANT, NOT JUST TO THE SPECIFIC
           PRODUCERS AND THE DISTRIBUTE TORS WHO ARE IMPACTED ON THESE TWO
           CASES. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERY AMERICAN BUSINESS,

           PARTICULARLY SMALL BUSINESSES WHO SEEK A FAIR SHOT AT THE
           EUROPEAN MARKET. NOW MR. PRESIDENT, TO APPRECIATE THE MAGNITUDE
           OF UNION EUROPE'S CURRENT ACTIONS AGAINST AMERICAN AGRICULTURE,
           IT IS IMPORTANT TO PUT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF RECENT HISTORY.
           BOTH THESE SPECIFIC TRADE CASES TOOK SEVERAL YEARS TO WORK
           THROUGH THE W.T.O. AND WERE UNDERTAKEN AT GREAT EXPENSE TO THE
           UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND THE PRODUCERS IN THE BUSINESSES
           THAT ARE AT THE HEART OF THIS DISPUTE. HERE, MR. PRESIDENT, ARE

           THE ESSENTIAL FACTS. THIS IS THE STORY. THE E.U. FIRST IMPOSED
           THEIR BONN ON BEEF WITH GROWTH PORE E. HORMONES IN 1985 AND
           OFFICIALLY BANNED ALL BEEF IN 1989. WHEN THE U.S. SOUGHT
           RULINGS ON THIS BAN EITHER THROUGH THE W.T.O. OR THE GENERAL
           AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE PROCESS, THE RESULT WAS THE
           SAME. THE E.U.'S BAN WAS FOUND TO BE WITHOUT MERIT, AND IN
           VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE RULES. THAT WAS THE RULING --
           REPEATEDLY, TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME. FIRST, MR. PRESIDENT,

           THROUGH THE GATT PROCESS, AND THEN THROUGH THE W.T.O. THE
           RESULTS WERE THE SAME. IN OTHER WORDS, THE W.T.O. AND BEFORE
           THAT THE GATT, FOUND FENCE THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR VIOLATING
           TRADE LAWS. HOWEVER, MR. PRESIDENT, IN SPITE OF THESE RULINGS,
           THESE REPEATED RULINGS, THE E.U. HAS REFUSED TO COMPLY AND TO
           THIS VERY DAY, THIS HOUR, THIS MINUTE, THEY CONTINUE TO REFUSE
           TO COMPLY. IN SPITE OF THE RULINGS THE E.U. HAS REFUSED TO

           CHANGE ITS PRACTICES. IN SPITE OF THESE RULINGS, THEY CONTINUE
           TO THUMB THEIR NOSE AT THE W.T.O. DECISION. THE REAL QUESTION,
           MR. PRESIDENT, IS WHETHER OR NOT THE W.T.O. RULINGS ARE
           ENFORCEABLE. DO THEY MEAN ANYTHING?
           AND I THINK WE ALL HAVE -- EVERY NATION -- AS A MEMBER OF THE
           W.T.O., HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN MAKING SURE THAT THE RULGTS
           ARE ENFORCEABLE; THAT THEY DO MEAN SOMETHING, THAT THEY DO
           MATTER. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IS ABOUT. NOW, MR.

           PRESIDENT, IN THE FACE OF NONCOMPLIANCE BY THE E.U., THE U.S.
           ONLY HAS THE ONE REMEDY, AND THAT REMEDY IS TARIFF RETALIATION.
           WE HAVE NO OTHER WAY TO GO. THIS IS PRESCRIBED. IT IS ALLOWED.
           IT IS PROVIDED FOR IN THE W.T.O. RULES. THIS IS THE ONLY
           RECOURSE A COUNTRY HAS WHEN ANHER COUNTRY REFUSES TO COMPLY.
           MR. PRESIDENT, UNDER CURRENT W.T.O. RULES THE U.S. CAN
           RETALIATE AGAINST THE BEEF BACK BY IMPOSING TARIFFS ON EUROPEAN

           IMPORTS AT A TOTAL AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL PAIN
           BEING INFLICTED ON OUR U.S. BEEF INDUSTRY. THE W.T.O.
           DETERMINED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THAT THE E.U. BEEF BAN WAS
           INFLICTING SLA 116.8 BILLION PER YEAR IN ECONOMIC DAMAGES TO
           U.S. FARMERS. NOW ALTHOUGH THE W.D.O. $116 -- $116 MILLION
           FIGURE IS SIGNIFICANT, OUR OWN CATTLE INDUSTRY BELIEVES THIS IS
           A VERY, VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE. THEY BELIEVE THE ACTUAL

           IMPACT IS CLOSER TO $1 BILLION ANNUALLY. NOW, LET ME TALK FOR A
           FEW MOMENTS ABOUT THE OTHER CASE. THE BANANA CASE. WITH
           BANANAS, THE E.U. IMPOSED QUOTAS IN THE EARLY 1990'S. WHILE THE
           U.S. PRODUCES BANANAS IN HAWAII WE ALSO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
           STAKE IN THE DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF BANANAS DOMESTICALLY AND
           INTERNATIONALLY. SEVEN TIMES -- SEVEN TIMES, MR. PRESIDENT, THE
           W.T.O. RULED THAT THE EUROPEAN UNION'S ATTEMPTS TO OBSTRUCT

           U.S. BANANA DISTRIBUTION VIOLATED W.T.O. RULES. SEVEN DIFFERENT
           RULINGS. THE W.T.O. DETERMINED THAT ITS BANANA POLICY, THE
           BANANA POLICY OF THE E.U. IS RESULTING IN $191.4 MILLION WORTH
           OF ECONOMIC DAMAGE ANNUALLY TO U.S. INTERESTS. NOW AGAIN,
           IMPACTED U.S. COMPANIES BELIEVE THE ACTUAL DAMAGE IS MORE THAN
           A BILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY. AGAIN THE U.S. IN REGARD TO
           BANANAS, AS WAS THE CASE IN REGARD TO BEEF, HAS THE AUTHORITY

           TO IMPOSE RETALIATORY TARIFFS AGAINST E.U. PRODUCTS. LET ME
           RECAP WHERE WE ARE IN THE STORY. BOTH BANANAS AND BEEF, THE
           E.U. HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY IN VIOLATION OF THE W.T.O. RULES. THE
           EUROPEAN UNION REFUSED IN SPITE OF THE RULINGS TO CHANGE ITS
           POLICIES. THE W.T.O. PROCEDURES PROVIDE A WAITING PERIOD OF 15
           MONTHS FOR A NATION THAT IS FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF RULES
           TO COMPLY. IN OTHER WORDS, NOTHING HAPPENS HAPPENS. EVEN AFTER
           THE RULING COMES OUT, NOTHING HAPPENS FOR 15 MONTHS. WHAT

           HAPPENED HERE IN 15 MONTHS WAS NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THE
           EUROPEAN UNION AGAIN CONTINUED FOR THAT 15 MONTH PERIOD OF TIME
           TO NOT COMPLY. NOW IN THE BEEF AND BANANA CASES WE WAITED THESE
           15 MONTHS. THE EUROPEAN UNION STILL DIDN'T COMPLY. SO AT THAT
           POINT, THE UNITED STATES SIMPLY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO IMPOSE
           TARIFFS IN RETALIATION. TARIFFS THAT ARE FULLY ALLOWED UNDER
           THE W.T.O. NOW MR. PRESIDENT, THE PURPOSE FOR ALLOWING THE U.S.
           TO IMPOSE TARIFFS IS OF COURSE TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE

           W.T.O. RULINGS. NOW IT HAS BEEN SIX MONTHS -- SIX MONTHS, MR.
           PRESIDENT, SINCE TARIFFS ON EUROPEAN IMPORTS WERE IMPOSED IN
           RESPONSE TO THE BANANA CASE. AND IT HAS BEEN THREE MONTHS SINCE
           TARIFFS WERE IMPOSED IN RESPONSE TO THE BEEF BAN. SO WE HAD THE
           15 MONTH WAITING PERIOD, WE HAD SOME OTHER TIME THAT ELAPSED
           THEN WE HAD THE SIX MONTHS AND THE THREE MONTHS IN 9 IN THE
           BANANAS BE BEEF CASES. AFTER ALL THIS, ARE THE EUROPEANS MAKING
           ANY EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH EITHER RULING?

           WE KNOW THE ANSWER AND THE ANSWER IS NO ON BOTH COUNTS. THEY
           ARE STILL ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE AND THEY STILL GIVE ABSOLUTELY
           NO INDICATION THAT THEY ARE GOING TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. NOW,
           MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT BEEF. IT'S VERY
           IMPORTANT. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT BANANAS. IT IS ABOUT WHETHER OR
           NOT THE W.T.O. IS GOING TO MEAN ANYTHING. IT IS ABOUT WHETHER
           OR NOT THE RULINGS OF THE W.T.O. ARE GOING TO MEAN ANYTHING. I
           THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE AND PUT THIS IN
           PERSPECTIVE. WHILE THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE E.U. CONTINUES THIS

           FORTRESS MENTALITY AND THUMBS ITS NOSE THE W.T.O. RULINGS,
           OTHER W.T.O. MEMBER-NATIONS FINDING THEMSELVES ON THE WRONG
           SIDE OF A W.T.O. RULING, HAVE ACTED RESPONSIBLY. MEMBERS OF THE
           SENATE MAY ASK WHAT'S HAPPENED IN OTHER CASES WHEN OTHER
           COUNTRIES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE IN NONCOMPLIANCE, TO HAVE
           VIOLATED THE W.T.O. AND THE RULINGS HAS COME DOWN AND THEY HAVE
           LOST THEIR CASE AND LOST THEIR APPEAL WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?
           THE ANSWER MR. PRESIDENT IS THAT THEY HAVE DONE WHAT YOU WOULD
           EXPECTS THEM TO DO. THEY HAVE COMPLIED. THE UNITED STATES HAS

           LOST FOUR SEPARATE W.T.O. CASES. IN EACH CASE AFTER LOSING, WE
           COMPLIED. CANADA HAS LOSS THE, AND THEY COMPLIED. KOREA LOST,
           AND KOREA COMPLIED. JAPAN LOSS, AND JAPAN -- JAPAN LOST, AND
           JAPAN COMPLIED. EVERYBODY -- EVERYBODY -- BUT THE E.U. ALL OF
           THESE COUNTRIES THAT LOST THEIR CASES CAME INTO COMPLIANCE. IN
           FACT EVERY NATION SOUND IN VIOLATION OF A P.R.W.T.O. RULING HAS

           COME INTO COMPLIANCE. EVERY NATION EXCEPT FOR THE NATIONS OF
           THE EUROPEAN UNION. NOW MR. PRESIDENT, RETALIATION IS THE ONLY
           AUTHORIZED TOOL TO BRING A COUNTRY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH W.T.O.
           RULINGS. THAT'S THE POINT OF THIS AMENDMENT, TO MAKE THIS
           AUTHORIZED RETALIATION MORE EFFECTIVE, AND TO GET THE JOB DONE.
           WHAT IS A NATION TO DO IF ITS CURRENT LIST OF IMPORTS SUBJECT
           TO RETALIATORY TARIFFS IS NOT WORKING TO MOVE THE OFFENDER LIKE
           THE E.U. INTO COMPLIANCE?

           THE SOLUTION, I BELIEVE, IS TO SEEK OTHER PRODUCTS TO TARGET
           AND AT TARIFF LEVELS THAT WOULD IMPOSE THE KIND OF PAIN THAT
           WILL CAUSE THE EUROPEAN UNION TO SEEK COMPLIANCE AS THE RELY
           DIP. THIS IS A PROCESS KNOWN AS CAROUSELING, THAT'S WHAT THIS
           AMENDMENT IS ABOUT. IN BOTH THE CASE WITH BANANAS AND THE CASE
           WITH BEEF, WE CAME FORWARD IN A LIST OF PRODUCTS THAT WE WERE

           RETALIATING AGAINST. AND THE DUTIES WERE IMPOSED. NOTHING HAS
           HAPPENED. WHAT OUR AMENDMENT SAYS, AND I WILL DISCUSS THIS IN
           GREATER DETAIL LATER WHEN I FORMALLY OFFER THIS AMENDMENT --
           BUT WHAT OUR AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR IS THAT IF THE FIRST LIST
           OF ITEMS THAT WE ARE IMPOSING TARIFFS ON TO RETALIATE AGAINST
           THE E.U., IF THE FIRST LIST QUITE CANDIDLY DOESN'T INFLICT
           ENOUGH PAIN TO GET THEIR ATTENTION, THEN WE NEED TO CAROUSEL OR
           CHANGE THE LIST. THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT AT LEAST ONE OF

           THE ITEMS MUST BE CHANGED. PROVIDES TT MANY CAN BE CHANGED, BUT
           AT LEAST ONE HAS TO BE CHANGED. AND THE WHOLE IDEA IS, IN THIS
           ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN GET THEIR ATTENTION, THE ONLY REMEDY THAT
           WE HAVE, THE ONLY TOOL THAT WE HAVE, THE ONLY STICK THAT WE
           HAVE, IS THIS TYPE OF RETALIATION. WE MUST MAKE SURE IT IS
           EFFECTIVE. AND WE MUST MAKE SURE THE CORRECT PRODUCTS ARE BEING
           CHOSEN THAT DO INFLICT THE PAIN TO GET THE ATTENTION OF THE
           E.U., AND THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IS ALL ABOUT. IT IS A
           RATHER MODEST AMENDMENT, BUT IT IS AN
{END: 1999/10/27 TIME: 12-45 , Wed.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}