(FORTUNE Magazine) – WHILE MOST of the country's attention is focused on what the next Congress will do, the old Congress has a momentous task to perform before disbanding -- and an enormous opportunity to make the world's economies grow. Returning in special session, the House and Senate will vote by early December on whether to accept or reject the implementing legislation of the global trade agreement known as the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It is crucial that they vote to accept. This complex and controversial pact is vital to global growth. Every era of strong economic expansion for the world's leading industrial nations has coincided with an even more dramatic expansion of global trade. Conversely, eras of contraction and stagnation have coincided with an even more severe reduction of trade, the worst in the early 1930s following the imposition of protectionist tariffs in the U.S. and other industrial nations. Global trade shrank 75%, dooming the world to the Great Depression. Now comes GATT, which the Clinton Administration says will add $100 billion to $200 billion a year to U.S. GDP when fully implemented (after ten years). Most private studies project lower but still very substantial gains: The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development comes in at around $28 billion, and Jeffrey Schott of Washington's Institute for International Economics estimates $65 billion. By contrast, a congressional failure to pass GATT would renew trade tensions that have been reduced, or at least delayed, pending approval, and could do much worse harm. It could throw into reverse the nearly 50 years of steady trade liberalization that began when GATT was created. When the process of opening trade is not moving forward, it risks moving backward. Even though tariffs have been stripped from products already on the market, when new products are born, governments are inclined to cover them with the protective shell of tariffs. Also, nontariff obstructions -- subsidies and regulations -- grow like weeds when no one is tending the garden. Trade is not a zero-sum game, even though the battle between, say, an American company and a Japanese rival to sell to a particular customer often makes it seem that one country gains at another's expense. Expanded trade is a positive-sum game, a potential win-win for all sides. Everyone can gain from the greater specialization, economies of scale, and diffusion of new technology that freer trade makes possible. The Uruguay Round began during the Reagan Administration, was kept alive and almost completed under Bush, and has been finalized under Clinton. But the agreement still must clear a few hurdles before Congress ratifies it -- and leading the way down the track is Clinton's job. If Congress passes GATT in the next few weeks, other nations that are holding off until America acts will most likely follow. That wait-and-see group includes most of America's major trading partners, such as the European Community and Japan. The agreement, tentatively approved by 124 nations, is extraordinarily ambitious. It not only continues the well-established practice of lowering tariffs on manufactured goods but also expands the rules to reduce government subsidies and regulations. It extends into sectors that have been exempt before, such as agriculture, textiles, services, and international investment. It strengthens rules covering intellectual property, government procurement, and dumping. And it establishes a World Trade Organization to administer and enforce the agreement. GATT is disappointing in some ways, to be sure, such as its failure to reach an understanding on financial services that would have made it easier for American banks, accounting firms, insurance companies, and others to operate overseas. Also, the agreements in agriculture, textiles, and intellectual property, while important first steps, aren't nearly as strong as they should be. For example, counterfeiters in India and other developing countries who copy drugs invented by American pharmaceutical companies will practice their larceny for years before patent laws are fully enforced.

BUT OVERALL, Americans will benefit enormously. The French and other European governments have faced down the anger of their farmers and agreed to reduce agricultural subsidies, which will open new markets and widen old ones for American farmers. Asian governments will lower the barriers that limit the amount of American meat their consumers can buy. Tariffs on U.S. manufactured goods, including tractors, construction equipment, and specialty steel, will drop by about 40%. So why is GATT in danger? Some critics worry that the U.S. will surrender national sovereignty to the international bureaucrats of the WTO. The fear is overblown. True, those bureaucrats might determine that certain American practices were not sanctioned by international law and in effect discriminated against foreign producers; foreigners would then be entitled to retaliate by restricting American goods. There is no international law, for example, that guarantees a minimum wage. So if Washington were to ban goods just because they were made with cheap labor, the bureaucrats of the WTO might well rule the U.S. out of order. But on balance the U.S. has more to gain than it has to lose from the WTO. If the organization operates as it is supposed to, it will be much swifter and more transparent than GATT's current machinery for processing complaints of unfair trade practices. And most of those complaints are filed by Americans and Europeans. Many Republicans, though ideologically committed to freer trade, have let politics cool their enthusiasm for the Uruguay Round. Some, including Senator Jesse Helms, want to put it off until next year when they control Congress. That would kill GATT. The fast-track procedure that puts trade legislation to a simple yes or no vote will expire with the current Congress. If the legislation is delayed, it could be subjected to endless committee hearings, countless amendments, and filibuster. And if Congress fiddles with the agreement, other countries will do the same. That's why it is so important for Republicans to vote for GATT now. A large number of Democrats, who still control Congress, will have to vote for the measure as well. President Clinton has committed numerous blunders in handling GATT. Preoccupied with pushing his ill-conceived health care reform, he let GATT consideration be shunted aside. He should have made sure, for example, that the fast-track procedure was extended for at least another year. Further, Clinton's proposals that were intended to minimize the short-term budget impact of GATT are not persuasive. The budget law of 1990 requires that any new program that costs the Treasury money be offset by spending cuts or new revenues. GATT will likely reduce tariff income by about $12 billion over five years and $40 billion over ten years. The President's proposed offsets fall short, so he will have to find more. Clinton would like Congress to waive the budget law for GATT, with the legitimate argument that over the years the agreement will make the U.S. economy grow and thus lift tax revenues. That proposal might carry more weight if the Democrats had not repeatedly rejected over the years the Republican case that revenue losses from cuts in the capital gains tax would be more than offset by the growth such cuts would create. Although it took him a long time to get around to it, Clinton eventually did a super job in selling the North American Free Trade Agreement to voters, which helped enormously in obtaining congressional approval. NAFTA's first year seems a great success. In the first half of 1994, U.S. exports to Mexico were up nearly 17%, and Mexico's to the U.S. almost 21%. The number of autos made in the U.S. and Canada and sold in Mexico has soared from 9,500 in 1993 to a projected 55,000 this year. But the President has not done the same educational and sales job for GATT that he did for NAFTA. What he needs to do now is make a television address to the nation or call one of the televised Town Hall meetings that he used effectively when he was running for the presidency. He must defuse the concern about the prospect of the WTO's meddling with American sovereignty, explain how the Administration would respond to such interference, and, above all, point out the benefits of GATT. Clinton has another trade assignment before the year is out. He will go to Miami in December to be host at a summit of Western Hemisphere leaders. He should use the opportunity to advance the vision that Presidents Reagan and Bush had of hemispheric trade integration. The President should clarify whether he wants to expand NAFTA beyond the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to embrace all of the Americas or whether future free-trade agreements with the U.S. will be bilateral. Chile has already asked for a bilateral pact. Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay are likely to be next. My view is that it would be better to expand NAFTA. But it should be a very gradual and orderly procedure. First, we should make sure that NAFTA is living up to its promises. New members should have to pass objective economic tests, such as having free markets. Membership should not be a political prize -- supporting U.S. policy in Haiti, for example. Before the year is out both Congress and the President will be asked to take bold steps to help the U.S. and world economies grow. History will not treat them kindly if they shy away or stumble.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE CREDIT: FORTUNE CHART/SOURCES: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, IMF, WORLD BANK, MADDISON, PHASES OF CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT CAPTION: ECONOMIES AND EXPORTS SURGE TOGETHER