
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, July 1, 1994                   TAG: 9407010077
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A16   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

FREER TRADE

DEMOCRATIC liberals in the U.S. House of Representatives are continuing efforts to delay congressional approval of the newly revised General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

For the good of the country, and to continue worldwide momentum toward freer trade, President Clinton must explicitly challenge his fellow Democrats' bogus arguments.

Some 55 members of the House, mostly Democrats who also opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement, have sent a letter to Clinton asking to delay a vote on GATT until next year.

What harm, they ask, would a little time do?

Well, the longer a vote is put off, the greater the opportunity for protectionists and special interests of all stripes to pick on this part and that of the agreement, until the whole thing falls apart.

The pact is flawed, the critics contend.

Well, of course. Any trade agreement negotiated over seven years by 120 countries is going to have flaws. The revised GATT fails to cover financial services and Hollywood movie exports, for example. But these can be added in, with time.

Meanwhile, GATT will lower tariffs worldwide, affording a tremendous boost to international commerce in general and U.S. exports in particular.

Creation of a World Trade Organization, as part of the new GATT, will impinge on U.S. sovereignty, the critics warn.

But anytime we sign a treaty, we are agreeing to limit our actions in accordance with the treaty's provisions- just as other signatories are. That's no infringement on sovereignty.

What really has some of the critics worried is the loss of ability to impose unilateral trade sanctions to protect a few industries from competition - at everybody else's expense.

Speaking of which, consumer champion Ralph Nader is opposing GATT just as he did NAFTA. Never mind that freer trade offers consumers increased competition, greater selection and lower prices. (The Consumers Union, to its credit, strongly endorses the new GATT.)

Congressional critics say the revised GATT's price is too high - $14 billion in lost tariff revenues over five years.

But the revenues resulting from economic stimulus and expanded exports should more than make up for that. And also worth considering are the potential costs of sliding into isolationism, recession and trade wars if GATT is not approved.

Against protectionism, compelling arguments are available. But President Clinton needs to use them.

by CNB