Opening Statement of the Hon. Sander M. Levin,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan

Hearing on President Bush's Trade Agenda for 2002

February 7, 2002

It was necessary to launch a new Round at Doha although there were some serious omissions and many vaguenesses. We welcome you here today, Ambassador - your role was clearly important in the launch at Doha, and I commend you for that.

Doha followed several years of hard work and progress on the trade front: Cambodia; CBI; Africa; Vietnam; China PNTR; U.S.-Jordan FTA. It is important to note these efforts for two reasons. One, and very importantly, they were developed in a broadly bi-partisan manner--and that is the only way we can move ahead productively on international trade. That is why I respectfully suggest that it is counterproductive to indicate as you do in your testimony that the "thrust for trade liberalization had been lost" before 2001 ... or, " that it was necessary to restore American leadership." I do not believe that leadership had been lost.

And two, indeed, there had been new energy in 1999 and 2000 on important issues of trade. The negotiations in 1999 and 2000 grappled with the integration - among other issues - of core labor and environmental standards into trade agreements.

The list of successful initiatives is impressive:

• the textiles and apparel agreement with Cambodia, which included positive incentives for the enforcement of labor standards. Our staff was there and reported back it is working;
• the Africa-CBI legislation which expanded trade with Africa and the Caribbean countries, while strengthening the labor provisions and building upon complementarities with the textile and apparel industry of our country;
• the China PNTR legislation - which we worked on for a year and was the key in moving the issue within the WTO - recognized the importance of the trade remedy laws and created a Commission to monitor labor rights in China; and
• the U.S.-Jordan agreement, which included provisions on core labor and environmental standards enforceable in the same way as any other provision in the agreement.

The Fast Track bill that passed the House was a serious step backward from this progress, as was the exchange of letters relating to the Jordan agreement and also the failure to even raise the labor standards issue prior to Doha, and at Doha, the working group on labor.

The Rangel substitute that garnered 161 votes would have sustained the momentum in these areas, as well as addressing other key issues. I expect that its equivalent will be introduced within the next week or so in the U.S. Senate. Unlike the procedure that was adopted here, that did not even allow us to introduce the bill on the floor as a substitute with full debate, there will be ample time to debate that and other proposals in the Senate.

On Monday, Reps Bentsen and Eshoo, along with Mr. Rangel Mr. Matsui, myself and others introduced a bill to renew Trade Adjustment Assistance and improve it. We need those reforms, including a strong health provision. However, improved TAA should not be used as a rationale to pass a flawed fast track bill. We need to get right both trade policy and a safety net for those who are hurt by the impact of international trade. We need to shape trade policy to both maximize its benefits - and there are many - and minimize its detriments - and there clearly are some - and not only help those who lose out.

There are some, and I understand and respect their opinion though I very much disagree with it, who do not believe that we need to shape trade policy in this regard. In a sense, that is the basic issue confronting this country on steel. One approach is to simply let the market run its course, no matter what the consequences, and rely only on a safety net to catch all those who suffer the consequences. My own judgment is that such an approach would be bad for the nation, bad for our nation's economy and bad for the many adversely affected companies, workers and communities.

We have a much better alternative. With a sensible, balanced set of policies, with broadened perspectives and open minds rather than narrow thinking, we can do better--in this case and in general in our approach to trade issues, on a truly bi-partisan basis.

I appreciate that you journeyed over here to talk to Mr. Rangel and to me over the recess. I encourage you to continue to work with us on the specifics of each of the issues as they emerge. I also urge the Administration to exercise its leadership in the legislative process to rebuild a truly bi-partisan consensus on trade policy. It will by no means be easy, but I think that if we confront the tough issues head-on, real progress can be made.