Opening Statement of Ranking Member Sander Levin at Full Committee Hearing with U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman
(Remarks as Prepared)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is our first public meeting since you announced you will not seek reelection this fall. As I stated when I heard the news: your devotion to public service – and your dedication to your District and to our entire State of Michigan – has been unswerving. You have brought a warm and dignified touch to your leadership, and I look forward to working with you on the unfinished business before our Committee in the coming months.
The notice advising this hearing focused on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), specifically the TPA legislation introduced in January by Chairman Camp and former Senator Baucus. I believe that legislation is deficient, but let me suggest that the focus today should not be on TPA but on the critical ongoing negotiations with Trans-Pacific Partnership countries.
The TPP represents both major opportunities and major challenges. The opportunities stem from the dramatic economic growth in Asian Pacific nations.
We are at a critical stage in those negotiations, but the outcome of a long list of fundamental issues remains uncertain. Some of these challenges reflect that this is the most complicated multi-party negotiation in 20 years in terms of the issues involved and the number of countries that individually present negotiating challenges. For example, the 12 trading partners include Japan, the third largest economy in the world with an export-dependent and notoriously closed market. The Korea agreement was hard – and remains hard with a number of disturbing implementation issues outstanding, and in some cases growing. Japan will be harder. Important markets in Japan are even more closed and its economy is bigger. For the United States, TPP is unique in that there are involved one-to-one negotiations with one of the largest industrial nations and competitors.
The negotiations also include Vietnam, a communist country with a long-standing command economy and a very poor record on labor rights and the rule of law. The Colombia agreement was hard – and remains hard with a deeply troubling record of compliance with the Labor Action Plan. Vietnam will be harder. The fact that the communist government believes it, and not independent labor unions chosen by the workers themselves, represents workers in the workplace creates a new threshold issue. And Brunei, Malaysia, and Mexico also present challenges with respect to the implementation of the labor commitments.
The list of major outstanding issues in TPP is too long to recite or describe here, but includes currency manipulation, environmental protections and labor standards, access to medicines, food safety rules, state-owned enterprises, tobacco controls, cross-border data flows and privacy protections, and investment issues. I hope we can discuss those issues today.
The TPA introduced by Chairman Camp and Senator Baucus would not effectively guide our negotiators to get these outstanding issues right. Indeed, in a number of key respects Chairman Camp’s TPA doesn’t provide a lot of guidance. For example, on currency manipulation, it provides no real guidance, instead leaving it to the Administration to determine what is “appropriate.” There is also no guidance as to how to ensure that Vietnam implements its commitments. On the pricing of pharmaceuticals, the bill calls for the elimination of price controls and reference pricing, but neither the United States nor any other TPP country is supporting such a proposal. And the bill provides little guidance in determining what an acceptable outcome is with Japan on automotive or agricultural market access.
Nor would that TPA bill provide much guidance as to how to improve consultations and transparency in the TPP negotiations. It largely does two things: it codifies the current procedures and requires the Administration – not Congress – to develop new guidelines for consultations and transparency in the future. Indeed, the bill would require the Administration to develop new consultation guidelines four months after Congress passes TPA. That would not help TPP.
I believe that Congress needs to be fully involved right now. Congress needs to be a full partner in these negotiations. My message to our trading partners is clear: the U.S. Congress will support an agreement that expands trade if and when it does so in a way that benefits U.S. workers and business, effectively addresses critical new issues, strengthens our economy and protects our values.
Getting the substance right is what is key now.
I therefore hope we focus this hearing on the wide-ranging substantive issues embedded in TPP. We also need to discuss other important negotiations, including the Trans-Atlantic Agreement and the services agreement. And we need to act on other legislation -- including Trade Adjustment Assistance, the miscellaneous tariff bill, preference programs, and customs enforcement and facilitation.
Ambassador Froman we deeply appreciate your hard work. You have enjoyed some important enforcement successes lately. We welcome your appearance today.
###