Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this agreement indeed is an important one. It is important in terms of national security. Jordan is important in the quest for peace and security in the Mideast. This agreement is important economically. A healthy Jordanian economy is important in and of itself, and for Jordan to play a constructive role in the Middle East. This agreement is important because it addresses essential ingredients of the economic relationship between our two nations. It is important because it recognizes that included in that economic relationship are labor and environmental standards. This agreement is so important that it should have been presented to this House for approval many months ago. The delay was because some did not like the provisions relating to labor and the environment. That position was and is misguided. Domestic labor markets and environmental standards are relevant to trade and competition within a nation and competition and trade between nations. That has become increasingly true as the volume of international trade has increased dramatically and as nations with very different economic structures trade and compete with one another. Recognition of that reality is simply inescapable in this era of trade. It is not a political question, it is a matter of sheer economic reality. The Government of Jordan was willing from the start, and I emphasize that, to address that reality. Some in the United States were not. As a result, after several different notions have been suggested, there has been an exchange of letters between the two governments. They do not amend the agreement, they do not forego any of its provisions; they say what their intention and expectations are as to implementation of all the provisions in the agreement. Both nations have strong practices on labor and environmental standards. The governments say in the letters that if either fails to meet their commitments to enforce such standards, or any other provisions of the agreement, and I emphasize that, any of the other provisions of the agreement, they do not expect or intend to use traditional trade sanctions to enforce them. That was unnecessary and unfortunate. It is unwise to say that regardless of the violations of a trade agreement, the expectation is that any method of enforcement will not be used. Trade sanctions are always a last resort, but to set a precedent in any agreement that under no circumstances is there any expectation that they may have to be used as to any provision is a mistake, an unwise precedent. It was unnecessary because the agreement carefully sets up a framework for all kinds of consultations and mediation over a long period of time before either party could use sanctions, and only after recurring violations affecting trade, and only with appropriate and commensurate measures. I support our approving this agreement because of the importance of the U.S.-Jordanian relationship and because the agreement within its four corners still stands. But cutting corners on the important issues of labor and environmental standards and trade agreements is a step backwards for future constructive action on trade. But today, to proceed on Jordan is important, and we should do so. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to other speakers, but I want the Record to be clear: I was in meetings with the Jordanian Government from the outset, at least in discussions with this body, and the King said they were willing to negotiate on labor and environmental standards. Do not talk about shoving this down somebody's throat. It is not true. Secondly, imposition of our standards? Nonsense. When it comes to core labor standards, these are ILO standards that most nations have already agreed to. Child labor? Forced labor? The ability of workers to associate and organize? That is imposing our standards? These are international standards. Are we imposing our standards when we insist on intellectual property or on subsidies in agriculture? The gentleman uses a different standard when it comes to one or another. Environmental standards. The President withdrew from Kyoto because developing nations were not in the Kyoto Accord, and now someone comes to this floor and says because we want countries to enforce the environmental standards, in this case, their own, it is a domestic agenda or it is a political agenda. It is not. This relates to the terms in competition of countries, and there are some basic standards that need to be applied and to be implemented. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I join in opposition to this resolution, and I support the waiver for another year. We should be clear what is before us today. This waiver relates to the availability of export-related financing from OPIC and Ex-Im and the Department of Agriculture, and not broader than that. Last year's vote in favor of the resolution was 93 and opposed 332. It was a bipartisan vote, with 23 Democrats voting in favor of it. I do not see any reason why we should step back. I do not think there is any rationale for moving backwards instead of sustaining this approach. Our relationship with Vietnam, as we all know so well, has been a very complicated one. The war was indeed a bitter one and a deep and bitter experience for this country. We had very difficult relations with Vietnam for good reasons. Then, in the nineties, a decision was made to lift the trade embargo that had been in place for 20 years, and in 1995 we opened a U.S. embassy in Hanoi, and it was in 1998 that the waiver of this nature first occurred. Since then, the waiver has been upheld. There has been some progress, progress in terms of missing in action issues that are of deep concern to us. Recently nine Vietnamese died helping us in the search for U.S. MIA's. There has also been some improvement in emigration. It is far from perfect, but I do not think anybody would say the situation today is the same as it was 4 or 5 years ago. I think that we need to find, as we did last year with China, a combination of engaging and pressuring of Vietnam, and it seems to me that to pass this resolution does not find at all the right combination. We are endeavoring to help promote a free market economy in Vietnam. There are some steps in that direction. We are going to be considering, as the chairman said earlier, a bilateral trade agreement in the Committee on Ways and Means this afternoon. That was negotiated about a year ago, and has only recently been submitted to us for action. In that bilateral trade agreement, we will be considering a number of issues. It does not, in my judgment, address all the issues that need to be considered in our economic relationship with Vietnam. At some point there is going to be a desire to negotiate a textile and apparel agreement. As I have expressed to the administration and to colleagues on my committee, and will express again this afternoon, it is vital as we go forth in our relationship with Vietnam that we consider all of the relevant economic and trade-related issues, including those of labor markets and the economy. The bilateral agreement before us this afternoon does not fully do that, though I favor moving ahead with it, with the proviso I have mentioned. But the issue today before us is whether we should continue this waiver, whether it is a useful and, as I think, important part of the continuing efforts to find the right combination in our relationship with this country. It remains a command economy, there is no doubt about it. It remains a country where there is command by a central party over much of Vietnamese life. There is no doubt about it. Therefore, we have to continue to press on the economic end in a broad way; we have to continue to press in terms of human rights, never give that up. But voting for this resolution today I think misses the best way to do that, and, therefore, while understanding and indeed lauding the concerns of those who support this, I would urge that we continue the path that was set a number of years ago of engaging and pressuring Vietnam. The vote last year was really an overwhelming one, and I think the evidence since then indicates we should continue that approach and not step backwards. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, Vietnam represents another challenge, how we integrate a command economy and a command society into the rule of law. It needs the right combination of engagement and pressure. I do not think trade is a magic wand. It is more than about market access. It is about labor market issues. It is about environmental issues. It is about a widened nature of issues. It is not an either/or proposition. We need to move forward on these issues, not backwards. To vote ``yes'' on this is to vote to move backwards. I think it would be a mistake. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), who has been deeply involved in this issue.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. I do not really look upon this as an exercise in futility. It is an exercise that would have some true irony if this resolution were to pass because, as we know, China has now essentially finished its negotiations with all of the countries, save one perhaps, and with the WTO except for a few outstanding issues. Its accession is now essentially completed. If this resolution were to pass, we would withdraw NTR for a few months and then it would go into effect upon the formal accession of China. So, in that sense, any passage of this would be not only be radical but probably counterproductive. In that sense, maybe it is futile. I think we should look upon this discussion as an opportunity to assess where matters are since we voted for PNTR. In a word, I would say that it is a mixture of changing and staying the same. There has been continuing change in China. It has continued to move away from a state-dominated economy towards a free-market economy. That has been true in industrial sectors, and now more and more it is gaining a foothold elsewhere, both geographically and in other sectors. Also, it has been true in the smaller enterprises as well as the larger. We have also seen a rapid expansion of the Internet. We also have seen the beginnings of cracks in their legal system that has been so dominated by the state. For the first time, we are seeing some successful suits by workers and individuals to redress grievances. It is said soon China will be acceding to the WTO, and that I think everybody would agree is likely to accelerate change. Indeed, one of the issues is how China is going to handle these changes. But in many other respects China has stayed the same. Anyone who thinks increased trade is a panacea that will bring about all kinds of changes in the near future, I think those people are wrong. I think we have seen in the last year continued trampling on the human rights in China, Falun Gong, the repression of Tibet and other ethnic minorities and the grievous detention of scholars and American citizens. We have also witnessed some security issues, including the downing of our airplane. These are troubling issues, and they continue to be. So I think the events of the last year fortify the approach that was taken last year, and that is to combine engagement with China that I think is truly unavoidable in view of its size, its importance, and also the need to pressure China, indeed at times to confront, to engage and to pressure. Last year, the legislation had some provisions relating to engagement. They also did so in terms of pressure. We set up a congressional executive commission. I think that now all of the members have been named. There will be one change in the Senate. I think that within the next weeks, if not few days, that important commission will become operational. It will work on issues of human rights, including worker rights, be an active force to pressure China to move in the right direction. It did not like our creation of that commission, and I think that commission will fulfill its obligations. We asked in that legislation that there be an annual review of China's performance within the WTO. Many were skeptical that could be achieved, but it has been through the negotiations by USTR. We also inserted an anti-surge provision in the legislation that was the strongest inserted into legislation in American history, and that is there as a pressure point. So, in a word, I think that we need to continue the path that we have set, one of active engagement, but also of vigorous alertness and pressure. So, therefore, I oppose this resolution, not only because we would be withdrawing NTR only for it to go back into operation in a few months but because I think on balance the appropriate course is one of continuing engagement and also of vigorous pressure. Mr. Speaker, I think this is the best path to follow, not an easy one, but the one that is most likely to be productive on all sides of the equation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Most likely, this is not the last time we are going to be debating our relationship, including our trade relationship, with China. They were going to go into the WTO with or without U.S. support. So what we did last year was to decide we needed to both engage and pressure China. The assumption was that trade is the important part of engagement, but it is not a magic path. It will not automatically, even over time, bring about democracy. So, in part, we responded by setting up a commission. It will be in operation soon at an executive congressional level. It is charged with submitting to the Congress and the President an annual report with the committee of jurisdiction required to hold hearings, and it is assumed that they will, it says, with a view of reporting to the House appropriate legislation in furtherance of the commission's recommendations. This has been a useful debate. We need to keep the light and the heat on this issue, and we intend to do just that.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would strongly support what the gentleman from Nebraska has proposed. As relating to the appropriations for the Congressional Executive Commission on China, currently half a million is appropriated for that Commission. We understand that the gentleman's staff is in agreement that the Commission needs $1.5 million for fiscal year 2002 and that the gentleman, the distinguished chairman, will pursue $1.5 million for fiscal year 2002 in conference.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in respectful opposition to S. 360. Let me make it clear that my opposition to this measure is in no way, shape or form a reflection on Senator Paul Coverdell or his memory. Paul Coverdell was an able Senator and dedicated public servant. He deserves to be honored by the Congress of the United States; indeed, we did so last year when we passed the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act. This was a fitting tribute as Senator Coverdell made the improvement of forensic science services one of his highest priorities. The Congress frequently names buildings, post offices and bridges after individuals. The Peace Corps is different. This organization is the work of thousands of dedicated men and women who volunteer to serve in the most remote corners of our planet. The Peace Corps is the sum of their efforts, not the work of any individual. I received a letter on this subject from one of my constituents who was himself a Peace Corps volunteer. He writes, ``As a former Peace Corps Volunteer, I am requesting that S. 360 not be brought to the House floor as a non-controversial bill. I, along with what I suspect is a majority of former volunteers, am against the idea of naming the Peace Corps Headquarters after the late Senator Coverdell. I have nothing against the late Senator. It's my understanding that he was a good man who did his best as a Senator and a Peace Corps Director. However, the Peace Corps building should not be named after any one single person . . . .'' In the memory of the thousands of men and women, including Paul Coverdell, who have served the Peace Corps, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I do not approve of people burning the U.S. flag. The flag serves as a proud symbol of our country, denoting truth, freedom and democracy. But as offensive as flag desecration is, I do not believe we can protect the flag by weakening the constitution. One of this country's most cherished principles is that of free speech as found in the First Amendment. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, ``The Constitution protects not only freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought we hate, the conduct and action we seriously dislike.'' Should this amendment be approved, it could open a Pandora's box prohibiting other activities. Who is to say restrictions won't be placed on desecrating religious symbols or texts, or even the Constitution and Declaration of Independence? The possibilities are limitless and all would stand in opposition to what the founding fathers intended by giving citizens the right of freedom of speech. Mr. Speaker, I would never condone burning the American flag. But carving out exceptions to the First Amendment is a slippery slope we should not venture down.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a remarkable citizen of Michigan, of our nation, indeed of the world, Heinz Prechter. Like so many, many others, I was deeply saddened and shocked at his death on July 6. 1 did not know Heinz Prechter well enough to know about his inner self. I did not know that he had been fighting the illness of depression for many years. I did know him well enough to have seen firsthand his immense vitality, his grit, his supreme intelligence and his unique curiosity. It was only a few weeks ago that he dropped by the office in D.C. for a chat. He was very tanned, I thought perhaps from playing golf with one or more of the endless luminaries with whom his life was intertwined. But our discussion was very down to earth, which was the hallmark of Heinz Prechter. The day before he had been elected the new Chairman of the U.S. Automotive Parts Advisory Committee. He had agreed to take this post, even though he knew that he had already overcrowded his schedule with a wide variety of other endeavors such as the Global Automotive Institute, work on the board of the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, various projects in the Downriver communities, all in addition, of course, to his day to day business dealings. With enthusiasm he discussed how he intended to pick up the pace on efforts to win for American businesses and workers more equal access to the markets of other nations. On this subject, as was true for so many others in his life, there was no barrier because he was an active Republican talking with a Democratic member of Congress. For him, life was a web of different pursuits with changing alliances. He felt that he had the best chance to get things moving again, using his impeccable credentials in the automotive world and his relationships within the political party to which he was dedicated. When he was leaving, we put our arms around each others shoulders; the last thought in my mind at the time was that I would never see again that ball of fire, that bundle of energy. His life is an example for all--his dedication to human endeavors and relationships. May his death serve not only for us to remember him well, as he so richly deserves, but also to tackle with the kind of energy he possessed the illness, depression, that cost him his life and cost us an invaluable citizen and friend. My condolences reach out to the entire Prechter family.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague Representative Bonior. I urge its passage by the House. There should not be any controversy over this issue. The Great Lakes should not be put at risk just so energy companies can extract a few weeks' supply of oil. It was with a certain amount of disbelief that I learned that Governor Engler and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources had proposed to lift a 1997 moratorium restricting new development of oil and gas drilling under the Great Lakes. I believe this proposal is short-sighted. The Great Lakes are a vital natural resource to Michigan. The Lakes are our State's crown jewels, and the heart of Michigan's multi- billion-dollar tourist industry. In addition, the Great Lakes contain 20 percent of the world's fresh water. Why would we ever choose to place all this at risk? The environmental damage from an oil spill would be catastrophic. The amendment before the House today is only common sense. It would bar any funds in this bill from being used to expand oil and gas drilling beneath the Great Lakes. Mr. Chairman, the Great Lakes are an invaluable resource to the people of Michigan and, indeed, the entire country. The Great Lakes are also part of the environmental legacy we will leave to our children and grandchildren. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for the Bonior amendment.