[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 111 (Friday, August 7, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1589-E1590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, AND JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. SANDER M. LEVIN

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 5, 1998

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4276) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kucinich 
amendment.
  Some of my colleagues oppose this amendment because they believe it 
is a fig leaf for protectionist impulses. Others support the amendment 
because they believe it is necessary to preserve basic American values 
from encroachment by an evil international trade bureaucracy.
  These attitudes are typical of the way we debate trade in this town. 
We choose up sides, either as ``free traders'' or as ``economic 
nationalists,'' and throw epithets.
  But it's never that simple.
  This amendment raises a legitimate issue. We visited this issue 
during negotiations on the World Trade Organization. A major impact of 
the creation of the WTO was that the United States, and all of the 
other members, lost what was in essence a veto power over decisions of 
WTO trade panels. At the time, we raised questions about the 
relationship between federal and state law in the context of our 
membership in this trade organization.
  This amendment focuses on the impact of the WTO on state efforts. 
These are not simple issues with simple answers. They deserve our 
thorough and thoughtful consideration.
  But an amendment to a funding bill does not provide an appropriate 
forum for this reasoned discussion. The implication of the amendment is 
that state laws affecting trade and international trade agreements are 
immune from action by federal authorities. While there has never been 
such federal action in the past, it is not wise--without very serious 
discussion--to immunize state laws, whatever their nature, from any 
such challenge in the future. Would our next step be to prohibit the 
use of federal funds to implement the decision of a WTO dispute 
settlement panel perceived to be adverse to federal laws? Doing so 
nullifies our prerogatives for involvement in trade organizations.
  I took a lead position in trying to raise and resolve issues of 
interaction between WTO decisions and our federal and state laws when

[[Page E1590]]

the WTO was being negotiated. We made some progress in protecting the 
integrity of American law, particularly with regard to dumping. There 
still remain a number of gray areas, some of which this amendment sheds 
light upon. But these issues cannot be resolved by simply waving 
banners or invoking slogans, whether ``free trade'' or any other. They 
require and deserve much more than a clash of polarized debate.

                          ____________________