those sectors where USTR has negotiating authority because of some countries’ expected opposition to further tariff reductions. At Singapore, proposals are expected for WTO members to begin work on the next generation of trade issues. However, because these issues include areas heretofore outside the scope of detailed trade negotiations—environmental protection, investment rules, competition policy, labor standards, and bribery and corruption—it is unlikely members will reach consensus on the WTO’s role. Of these issues, only environment is on the WTO agenda already, but members have not decided how to reconcile environmental concerns with trade objectives. USTR strongly supports discussing labor standards as part of the WTO agenda. USTR may begin to address bribery and corruption issues indirectly as it seeks to expand participation in the Agreement on Government Procurement. However, many other members are just as strongly opposed to including these two issues. On the other hand, the United States is not yet prepared to agree to a negotiating program for competition policy and would prefer discussions on investment policy to take place primarily in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In earlier testimony we noted that it will take time and resources to (1) completely build the WTO so that members can address all its new roles and responsibilities; (2) make members’ national laws, regulations, and policies consistent with new commitments; (3) fulfill notification requirements and then analyze the new information; and (4) resolve differences about the meaning of the agreements and judge whether members have fulfilled their commitments. It is critical that USTR monitor implementation of the agreements to ensure that other WTO members are honoring their commitments and thus that the agreements’ expected benefits are being realized. USTR and the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture have created specific units to try to monitor foreign government compliance with trade agreements, including those of the Uruguay Round. created some new bodies; however, these bodies address new areas of coverage, for example, the Councils for Trade in Services and for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Other bodies, such as the WTO Committee on Antidumping Practices, were “reconstituted” from previous GATT committees but were given new responsibilities by the Uruguay Round agreements and now have broader membership. The WTO Secretariat, headed by its Director General, facilitates the work of the members. The work of the bodies organized under the WTO structure is still undertaken by representatives of the approximately 123 member governments, rather than the Secretariat. Early meetings of some WTO committees were focused on establishing new working procedures and work agendas necessary to implement the Uruguay Round agreements. The ministers will be judging the progress of members in implementing numerous agreements to date, based on information collected from the many notification requirements placed upon member governments. These notifications are aimed at increasing transparency about members’ actions and laws and therefore encourage accountability. Notifications take many forms. For example, one provision requires members to file copies of their national legislation and regulations pertaining to antidumping measures. WTO committees began reviewing the notifications they received from member governments in 1995. The information provided allows members to identify general problems with implementing the terms of the agreements, as well as monitor each others’ specific activities and, therefore, to enforce the agreements. Limitations in members’ reporting may make it difficult for the ministers to assess progress in some areas. The WTO Director General noted some difficulties with members’ fulfilling their notification requirements in his report in December 1995. Some foreign government and WTO Secretariat officials told us in 1995 that the notification requirements had placed a burden on them and that they had not foreseen the magnitude of information they would be obligated to provide. The WTO Secretariat estimated that the Uruguay Round agreements specified over 200 notification requirements. It also noted that many members were having problems understanding and fulfilling the requirements within the deadlines. While developing countries reportedly faced particular problems, even the United States missed some deadlines for filing information on subsidies and customs valuation laws. To address concerns about notifications, WTO formed a working party in February 1995 to simplify, standardize, and consolidate the many notification obligations and procedures. This working party may make recommendations for changes for the ministers to consider. The WTO dispute settlement mechanism is intended to be a central element in providing security and predictability to this multilateral trading system. Through it, members have a system to resolve disputes that result from violations of WTO obligations or impairment of benefits from WTO agreements. The new dispute resolution mechanism incorporates several objectives that were particularly important to the United States—time limits for each step in the dispute settlement process and elimination of a country’s ability to block the adoption of resolutions from dispute settlement panel reports. The new Dispute Settlement Understanding established time limits for each of the four stages of a dispute: consultation, panel review, appeal, and implementation. Also, unless there is unanimous opposition in the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, the panel or appellate report is to be adopted. Further, the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body can neither add to or diminish the rights and obligations provided in the Uruguay Round agreements nor directly force members to change their laws or regulations. However, if members choose not to implement the recommendations and rulings, the Dispute Settlement Body may authorize trade retaliation. From January 1, 1995, to August 30, 1996, formal WTO dispute settlement procedures have been invoked in 53 instances. Most of the cases are still in progress—35 are either in the consultation phase, under panel review, or on appeal. Of the 18 closed cases, 16 have been settled or abandoned, and 2 have been closed after a final appeal. The United States has availed itself of the dispute settlement mechanism more than any other member. The United States has initiated 17 cases on a variety of issues including patent protection in India, Portugal, and Pakistan; meat import restrictions in South Korea and the European Union (EU); and restrictions on the importation of magazines into Canada. There are currently four pending cases against actions or measures taken by the United States—two involve import restraints concerning textile and apparel products, one relates to an antidumping investigation of tomatoes from Mexico, and the other concerns the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996. As of the end of August 1996, dispute settlement panels have reached decisions involving five cases. The two closed cases, which were combined into a single panel, involved a challenge by Venezuela and Brazil to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation setting forth the methods by which importers of gasoline were to determine characteristics of gasoline imported and sold in the United States in 1990. The panel found that the regulation was inconsistent with a GATT 1994 provision concerning national treatment of imported products. On appeal, the dispute settlement Appellate Body modified the panel’s report but upheld the panel’s conclusion. The other three cases, also combined into one panel, were brought by the United States, Canada, and the EU against Japan’s liquor tax. The panel found the Japanese tax to be inconsistent with GATT 1994, on national treatment grounds. Japan has filed an appeal, which is currently pending. It is unclear to what extent the ministers at the WTO Singapore meeting will analyze the implementation of the new dispute settlement process and what criteria they would use to do so. USTR officials view this process as a success, in part because complaints can be resolved even before a panel hears the case. In addition, USTR has recently testified that the new mechanism is proving to be a very effective market-opening tool. However, it may be difficult to objectively evaluate the results of a dispute settlement process. We observed in our previous work on 5 years of dispute settlement under the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CFTA)that it may take many years before a sufficiently large body of cases accrues to permit statistically significant observations about the process. In that report we focused on the possible effects of panelists’ backgrounds, the types of U.S. agency decisions appealed, and the patterns of panel decision-making. We learned that any effort to evaluate the functioning of the dispute settlement process presents significant analytical challenges. example, increase market access in key sectors and improve protection of intellectual property rights. Under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, textile quotas are to be phased out over a 10-year period beginning in January 1995. Because of the 10-year phase-out, the effects of the textiles agreement will not be fully realized until 2005, after which textile and apparel trade will be fully integrated into WTO and its disciplines (practices). Integration is to be accomplished by (1) completely eliminating quotas on selected products in four stages and (2) increasing quota growth rates on the remaining products at each of the first three stages. By 2005, all bilateral quotas maintained under the agreement on all WTO members are to be removed. During the first stage of product integration (1995 through 1997), virtually no quotas were removed by the United States and other major importing countries. The United States is the only major importing country to have published a list of products to be removed from quota for all three stages; other countries, such as the EU and Canada, have only published their integration plan for the first phase. Under the U.S. integration schedule, 89 percent of all U.S. apparel products under quota in 1990 and 67 percent of textile and apparel products combined will not be integrated into normal WTO rules until 2005. Importer and retailer representatives have expressed concern about the delay in lifting the majority of textile and apparel quotas until the end of the phase-out period.