Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) who is the author of a comprehensive TAA bill in the House. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have, 1\1/2\ minutes?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, last week, I introduced a bill, H.R. 3381, for Mr. Camp, other members of the Michigan delegation, and myself, that would clarify that certain bonds issued by local governments should be treated as tax-exempt. This issue has particular importance to local governments in Michigan. In Michigan, counties collect real property taxes to fund their school systems. To facilitate the collection of delinquent real property taxes levied for local school districts, the counties issue bonds (General Obligation Limited Tax Notes). The counties have been doing this since 1973. Until 1987, interest on the bonds was treated as tax exempt. In 1987, a cloud was cast upon the tax exempt status of these bonds due to issues unrelated to the bonds. Michigan counties have continued to issue bonds under the delinquent property tax program, but since 1987 the bonds have effectively not been treated as tax-exempt, costing the counties millions of dollars per year. This bill would restore the valuable General Obligation Limited Tax Notes program to a tax-exempt status, reducing borrowing costs, and providing badly needed support for education in the State of Michigan. While it would be highly beneficial to local schools, the Federal revenue cost of this bill would be negligible. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this bipartisan bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by just saying a word to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), to all of my colleagues, for their work on this. I am not sure how many constituents have ever written to them about this, but they felt there was a need here, a deep human need, and the three of them and others led the way. The gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and I and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) are proud to join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and others in doing what we said we would do and that is to get this legislation to the floor. I rise in strong support of this legislation because I think it will help ensure that diamonds sold in our country have not funded civil war in West Africa or funded agents of terrorism. It is a good first step towards addressing a serious issue. As mentioned, the countries that have been named, rebel groups have been funding their activities through trade in diamonds. Hundreds of thousands of people, I was asking Viji Rangaswami, who has worked so hard on this, do we know how many of the hundreds of thousands of people have died? We do not, but it is many. Many have died from the activities of these groups. Many millions more have been displaced, and there have been the worst kinds of atrocities. As has been cited earlier, it has been reported recently that al Qaeda has reaped millions of dollars from the illicit sale of diamonds. We have to put a stop to this. This bill will allow the President to ban the import of diamonds from countries that are not taking ``effective measures'' to stop trade in conflict diamonds. The bill is supportive of international efforts to end trade in conflict diamonds. It abides by criteria derived from the U.N. Security Council resolutions. This week the so-called Kimberley process is moving forward, and I believe this bill will provide important momentum to this process. It is consistent with our international trade obligations. This issue is a demonstration of the globalized and interconnected world we live in, where the purchase of an engagement ring in one country can contribute to civil war in another. It shows the need, as I see it, to shape the rules of trade. Trade is not a panacea. It does not resolve all problems and sometimes, as shown in this bill, unfettered trade creates new problems. By shaping these rules as we do today, and this is an effort to shape the rules of trade, we help ensure that American consumers, that our consumers are not unwittingly trading lower prices for human rights abuses abroad, and we help ensure that the benefits of trade flow to the countries involved in legitimate diamond trade rather than rebels and terrorists. So I close, again, to say to the leaders of this effort that I hope they are proud of it. It may not score lots of political points, but it is going to save human lives, and in that sense I think the people who have worked on this have discharged their responsibilities with the highest honor. I am glad, in a small way, with my colleagues, with the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and others on the committee, to join them. I hope we will overwhelmingly, indeed unanimously, pass this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), my friend.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), a very distinguished colleague. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDERMOTT), my very distinguished colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. I support renewal of APTA. It will help promote economic development and growth in the Andean countries. It is the most valuable way that we can assist them and combat the grip of illegal drugs on their economies. I also support a reasoned, balanced expansion of the products under APTA, to include textile and apparel products. The trade issues are multi-dimensional. We must strike the right balance by taking into account the impact on other countries and very vigorously the impact on our country, our workers, our businesses. Last year, when we passed the African and Caribbean bills, we struck an appropriate balance. We crafted a bill to build on the complementarities between the textile and apparel industry in those countries and in ours. Regarding APTA, the committee staffs were working to craft a bill that would expand it while recognizing the multi-dimensional nature of trade. There was agreement, and I point this out, on duty free treatment for the following Andean apparel products: unlimited quantity of apparel made from U.S. fabric and made from two specialty regional fabrics, and limited quantities of apparel made from regional fabrics and yarn. Then on short notice, the chairman of our committee called a markup. He eliminated the requirements relating to use of U.S. yarn in U.S. fabric, and he doubled the cap on apparel made from regional fabric and yarn. He proposed substantial changes in the textile and apparel caps and quotas within the Caribbean and African bills, bills which have been in place for only a year or little more, and bills where the textile and apparel provisions were reached only after long and hard negotiations. I asked at the markup what the impact of these new provisions would be on American jobs, but no one had an answer. There clearly is a need for serious re-examination of the proposed formulas in this bill for textile and apparel, both in the Andean nations and for CBI and AGOA. There also remain outstanding questions on the implementation of the international core labor standards. One of the core aspects mentioned of this bill is that it addresses the issue of labor-market standards and trade. It has strengthened the labor market criteria previously applicable to APTA. These provisions have particular current relevance to the situation in Colombia where large numbers of labor leaders have been murdered. The government of Colombia recently sent a letter to us describing Colombia's commitment to core labor standards and discussing in some detail programs to combat child labor and for the protection of union leaders. Because we are now in the process of trying to complete discussions with the Colombians on implementation of these programs--by the way we need the involvement of our administration--and because of the need for further work on the proposed changes relating to apparel and textile imports, it is regrettable that the majority decided suddenly to bring up this bill with only a day or two of notice. Because APTA expires on December 4, there is a strong argument that on balance it is better for Members who, as I do, have concerns about this bill to vote to move it along, a bill, by the way, which I have not cosponsored, and to focus on working with the Senate and any subsequent conference to address the shortcomings in this bill in its present form. In that regard, I spoke last night with the chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate, Max Baucus. After this conversation, I was reassured that the Senate will provide a meaningful opportunity for consideration of the changes proposed in this bill that were not fully aired in our committee. Also, there will be a chance to fully analyze all parts of it before action. Such opportunity must include a weighing of all the potential impact on the economy, businesses, and workers of this Nation. Consequently, I have decided on balance that the better course is to vote to move along this bill to the Senate. I do so with the intention to continue to be in fullest touch with colleagues in the Senate and to participate as actively as possible in any conference to ensure that the final bill remedies the problems in the bill before us; and if that does not happen, to be able to vote against the bill when it returns to the House for final action. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair give us the time remaining, please.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 68th anniversary of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932 to 1933, which took the lives of at least seven million Ukrainians. It is too little known that 68 years ago leaders of the former Soviet Union deliberately employed the ruthless policies of forced collectivization and grain seizures to suppress and politically neutralize the Ukrainian people. The Soviets hoped to crush the nationalist spirit of Ukraine and replace it with a politically homogeneous Russian realm. Historians have named this the ``harvest of sorrow.'' Harvests in the early 1930s yielded solid crops but the Soviets imposed such harsh levies on the crops that villages were often left with nothing. The situation worsened when border checkpoints were established to prevent starving Ukrainians from entering Russia, and to prevent any food from being brought into Ukraine. More than seven million people were cruelly starved to death because of these repressive measures. Survivors spoke of eating weeds and the bark of trees to survive and of Red Army soldiers confiscating food and livestock from the people. Eyewitnesses reported the depopulation of entire villages. Even today the Ukrainian population has not yet fully recovered. For decades after these events, the deaths were covered up and this man- made atrocity denied by the government of the former Soviet Union. Today we remember. As Ukraine celebrates its 10th year of independence this year, public recognition of the famine is vitally important. A national commemorative service will be held on Saturday, November 17, 2001, at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York. We must remember and do everything we can to prevent similar tragedies from happening again.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I believe we have covered our position well; and, therefore, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I regret that it has been brought up with very little notice so that many of my colleagues who would like to participate will not be able to do that, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for example, who are sponsors of this resolution, as well as members in the Steel Caucus. I do support it because trade remedy laws are critical to U.S. workers and farmers and industry. They are a central pillar of a rule- based system. They were negotiated in the Uruguay Round. It was a product of hard negotiations, of lengthy discussions. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and I were able to be there at the end of those discussions, and I can say firsthand that it was very much give and take. There was final agreement. We should resist efforts to unravel that agreement. Trade remedies are really part of a free market system. A free market system means that one party should not rig the market to their advantage, to distort a free market to their advantage and the disadvantage of another. The rules against dumping, the antidumping laws, are critical to ensuring that market distortions in one country do not undermine another through their exports, through their dumping below cost. The countervailing duty provisions try to assure that one country does not gain an unfair advantage through large subsidies. Subsidies undercut a free market. The safeguard rules are there to make sure that if there is a major surge, a country is not left without, as the word connotes, a ``safeguard.'' And so I think that these trade remedies, negotiated through hard discussions with give and take, should not be opened up. What has happened in recent years, though, is that the WTO rules have been undercut by some unfortunate decisions of WTO dispute settlement bodies. What they have done, in a word, is to misinterpret in some cases the actual language and to impose new and never-agreed-to obligations on WTO members. We do not want to make it worse by now reopening this very language which was worked out through such hard discussions. I want to comment, if I might, on a couple of aspects. One is the second part of this resolution, paragraph No. 2; it talks about ensuring that U.S. exports are not subject to the abusive use of trade laws, including antidumping and countervailing duty laws, by other countries. I think that is a useful provision. However, I do not think in any way paragraph 2 should be used to moderate or modify paragraph 1. As hard as we negotiate at Doha regarding paragraph 2, I hope in no way will it undercut our determination as expressed in paragraph 1 of this resolution. In that regard, I comment next on the ministerial language that has been drafted. It is not acceptable. Essentially what it does is to commit the parties to a renegotiation. It may not say that directly, but that is the implication. It is the implication because, unlike for other provisions where there is first a discussion and then a decision on negotiation, the way the present draft language reads, there would essentially be a commitment to renegotiation, and that is not acceptable. I want to close by indicating that while I support this resolution, and I very much support it, I do not want anyone to think that it is a substitute for clear language in any Fast Track/TPA bill. It is important that any Fast Track/TPA have, in unambiguous principal negotiating objectives, a statement that there will not be, as far as the U.S. is concerned, any renegotiation of the language in the Uruguay Round document that we negotiated it in good faith, and we will not agree to renegotiate it now. The bill that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and others and I have presented states clearly among the principal negotiating objectives that there will be, as far as the U.S. is concerned, no such renegotiation, while the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) does not say that clearly as a principal negotiating objective. I think it is important that whatever might come out of Doha, and I think it is critical that there be no renegotiation, that we state in Fast Track/TPA language what is the position of this Congress. One bill does that and another bill, the Thomas bill, does not. I rise in support. I hope we will have a strong vote for this bill. Again, I regret that some of my colleagues who otherwise would be here to speak on this will not be able to do so because they did not have notice that it was coming up. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.