I
105TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 4761
To require the United States Trade Representative to take certain actions
in response to the failure of the European Union to comply with the
rulings of the World Trade Organization.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OCTOBER 9, 1998
Mr. CRANE (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. STENHOLM,
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. WATKINS, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. KOLBE,
Mr. HERGER, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. TANNER, Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska,
Mr. CAMP, Mr. EWING, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr.
RAMSTAD, Mr. COLLINS, Ms. DUNN, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr.
POMBO, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsyl-
vania, Mr. WELLER, and Mr. BERRY) introduced the following bill; which
was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To require the United States Trade Representative to take
certain actions in response to the failure of the European
Union to comply with the rulings of the World Trade
Organization.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Uruguay Round Agree-
ments Compliance Act of 1998’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The European Union unfairly restricts the
importation of billions of dollars of agricultural
products from the United States and other exporting
nations.
(2) Opportunities for increased United States
agricultural exports are undermined by unfair sub-
sidies provided by the European Union to benefit its
own production and by vexing tariff and nontariff
trade barriers imposed on highly competitive United
States agricultural exports.
(3) It is essential to the health of United States
agriculture that the United States seek the contin-
ued elimination of restrictions imposed on United
States agricultural exports by the European Union.
(4) The United States must insist on competi-
tive opportunities for United States exports of agri-
cultural products in European markets substantially
equivalent to the competitive opportunities afforded
to European exports in United States markets, and
on achieving progressively fairer and more open con-
ditions of trade.
(5) The Uruguay Round Agreements, as imple-
mented by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
strengthened the multilateral rules for trade in agri-
cultural products and services. Reflecting a principal
negotiating objective established by the Congress in
the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, the Uruguay Round Agreements obligate
WTO member countries to reduce and eliminate pro-
tection against imports, including discriminatory
practices, and to observe the rules provided in the
Agreements that are designed to prevent damaging
and unacceptable delays in the implementation of
dispute settlement panel reports.
(6) On May 22, 1997, a final report of a dis-
pute settlement panel under the World Trade Orga-
nization found that the banana import regime of the
European Union, as well as its licensing procedures
for the importation of bananas, are in violation of
GATT 1994, the Agreement on Import Licensing
Procedures, and the General Agreement on Trade in
Services. On September 9, 1997, the Appellate Body
affirmed these findings. The Appellate Body report
and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate
Body, were adopted by the WTO on September 25,
1997.
(7) On January 7, 1998, the WTO determined
through binding arbitration procedures that the
compliance period for the European Union to bring
its banana regime into conformity with the Uruguay
Round Agreements is 15 months from September
25, 1997, a period which will end on January 1,
1999.
(8) Instead of taking steps to implement
promptly and completely its obligations, the Euro-
pean Union has pursued a number of dilatory tactics
and has announced a new series of measures to take
effect on January 1, 1999, which will not bring the
European Union into conformity with its obligations
under the WTO but will make only cosmetic changes
to its WTO-illegal scheme. Such measures under-
mine the WTO dispute settlement process because
they delay implementation, forcing the United States
to pursue its rights under dispute settlement once
again. This abuse of the dispute settlement process
cannot be tolerated.
(9) A ban by the European Union on the use
of hormones in livestock production, which took ef-
fect on January 1, 1988, has eliminated about
$97,000,000 of United States red meat and meat
product exports to the European Union annually.
The United States has pursued its concerns regard-
ing the hormone directive in the GATT and the
WTO since January of 1987.