[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 122 (Friday, July 27, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1635-E1637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  REMARKS BY AMBASSADOR PETER ALLGEIER

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. GREGORY W. MEEKS

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 27, 2007

  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Madam Speaker, as co-chair of the 
Congressional Services caucus, I wish to call the attention of members 
to an important statement on July 26, 2007 by Ambassador Peter 
Allgeier, U.S. Ambassador to the World Trade Organization, on the Doha 
Round of trade negotiations. Ambassador Allgeier spoke in the World 
Trade Organization's Trade Negotiations Committee. I wish especially to 
call attention to his remarks on Services, one of the three essential 
pillars of the Round.
  Members will remember that talks in Potsdam among the EU, India, 
Brazil, and the

[[Page E1636]]

United States ``G-4'' ended on June 21, 2007 without making progress. 
Immediately WTO Director General Lamy refocused negotiations back in 
Geneva, and the Chairs of the Committee on Agriculture and NAMA were 
instructed to produce draft texts embodying what progress had been made 
in their respective sectors. These texts were tabled last week. No 
progress was made, however, in services, which accounts for 65 percent 
of the global economy and 20 percent of global trade.
  Ambassador Allgeier's statement is important for two reasons. First, 
he states that the United States believes that the agriculture and NAMA 
texts have ``advanced our collective work'' and that the United States 
is prepared to ``continue serious and concerted efforts in September to 
build on these texts.''
  The second reason is that Ambassador Allgeier establishes that in 
addition to making more progress on the agriculture and NAMA pillars, 
``we also must define what is necessary to achieve a level of ambition 
for services that is at least on par with the level of ambition'' for 
agriculture and NAMA. In other words, the United States is insisting 
that progress must be made in services for this Round to be considered 
a success.
  Madam Speaker, no Doha Round result will be adequate or defensible if 
it does not include substantial new market access for U.S. services 
exports. In 398 Congressional districts more that 70 percent of workers 
are employed in services. Every state exports services. The United 
States has a surplus of $73 billion on its services trade, and we can 
expect this to grow substantially--if the Doha Round can succeed in 
knocking down the substantial barriers to these exports in foreign 
markets.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of Ambassador Allgeier's 
remarks be included in the Record.

 Statement by U.S. Ambassador Peter Allgeier at the Trade Negotiations 
                               Committee

                            (July 26, 2007)

       Like others, I would like to thank Ambassadors Falconer and 
     Stephenson for their extraordinarily hard work in producing 
     draft texts. During the past two days we all have been 
     providing our initial reactions--some of which, including our 
     own, have been decidedly pointed and sometimes critical.
       But none of those reactions should be taken as diminishing 
     the significance of the contributions by both chairs, and 
     their dedication to helping us achieve the needed modalities.
       As a general matter, we would first underscore our 
     commitment to work with both of the draft texts in September. 
     While we have serious concern with some of the content in 
     each of the draft texts, we nonetheless believe that they 
     have advanced our collective work, and the United States is 
     prepared to continue serious and concerted efforts in 
     September to build on these texts.
       We also would note our strong agreement with Chairman 
     Falconer that there should be no assumption that the ultimate 
     solution to the issues will lie in simply landing on the mid-
     point of the various ranges that have been put forward. 
     Indeed, given the lack of clarity in some areas of the texts, 
     they are as much snapshots of the current situation as they 
     are suggestions pointing to particular solutions. However, as 
     we achieve greater clarity in these areas, it should help us 
     to narrow our differences.
       In this context, both draft texts serve to underscore what 
     the United States believes is a continuing fundamental--and 
     still unmet--challenge of the Doha negotiations and key to 
     achieving a successful outcome: namely, securing a strong 
     market-opening outcome that will result in meaningful new 
     economic opportunities and trade flows worldwide--in 
     agriculture, industrial goods, and services.


                              agriculture

       As we outlined earlier in the week, our fundamental concern 
     with the Agriculture draft text--and with the state of play 
     within the negotiations--is the uneven treatment across the 
     three ``pillars'' in agriculture. While the domestic support 
     and export competition pillars sections of the text are 
     highly developed, many key topics in the market access pillar 
     remain conceptual at best--with regard to both developed and 
     developing country market access.
       Combined with this uneven treatment is a continued 
     imbalance in ambition across the pillars. Ambition in 
     agricultural market access must match ambition in domestic 
     support.
       This assessment means that our first priority in September 
     must be to fill in the gaps, on Special Products, Special 
     Safeguard Mechanism, Sensitive Product treatment, tariff 
     caps, and other critical elements.
       On domestic support, the text calls for large reductions in 
     U.S. Overall Trade Distorting Support. For those who have 
     called for ``effective cuts,'' it is important to note that 
     U.S. OTDS levels would have exceeded the upper bound of the 
     range in the Chair's paper in 5 of the past 8 years. And we 
     would underscore that, while we have indicated that we are 
     prepared to offer more on OTDS, our ability to make further 
     cuts depends upon securing significant real increases in 
     market access.
       We remain committed to work with Members to ensure 
     treatment for cotton that is consistent with the Hong Kong 
     Ministerial Declaration. However, in our view, the draft text 
     on cotton fails to take into account reductions to cotton-
     specific support relative to other commodities through the 
     general formula. We have stated consistently that one 
     cannot determine the application of the Hong Kong text 
     until one knows the outcome from the basic disciplines. We 
     continue to believe that the only path forward is through 
     that sequence.
       Finally, it is only logical that Members who are in 
     compliance with their domestic support obligations should not 
     be subject to dispute settlement actions over such measures.


                                  nama

       The key to a successful NAMA result is the coefficients in 
     the Swiss formula. Unfortunately, the range proposed in the 
     draft text for the approximately 30 developing countries 
     applying the coefficient is too high, and the gap between the 
     developed and the developing coefficients is too wide to 
     achieve our twin goals of creating new market access 
     opportunities for all while adhering to the principle of 
     less-than-full-reciprocity in reduction commitments.
       In terms of both absolute ambition in NAMA and ambition 
     relative to what is under negotiation in agricultural 
     domestic support, the proposed range for the 30 or so 
     developing countries falls short.
       At the end of the day, it is the new tariffs that 
     everyone's businesses will be paying that will help determine 
     whether we have a worthwhile outcome. We all need a result 
     that provides meaningful new market access for our workers 
     and manufacturers. Without such a result, we will not have 
     concluded a truly pro-development Round.
       Therefore, our aim must be to improve the balance of 
     contributions as we ensure a high level of ambition overall.
       The gap between the developed and developing country 
     coefficients is too wide, particularly when one factors in 
     the array of flexibilities available to developing countries. 
     And the proposed range for the developed countries' 
     coefficient of 8-9 is not realistic, given that many rapidly 
     growing advanced developing countries are offering little 
     beyond binding currently applied tariff rates.
       For example, currently, the average applied tariff for the 
     30 developing countries applying the formula is just over 
     twice the average rate applied by developed countries. Under 
     any scenario in this text, this ratio would widen so that the 
     average end rate for developing countries applying the 
     formula would be more than three times the average end rate 
     for developed countries. The pattern is similar for bound 
     rates.
       Furthermore, under any scenario in the draft text, no 
     developed country would have a double-digit tariff anywhere, 
     whereas even under the Chair's most aggressive formulation 
     for developing countries, high tariffs would remain. For 
     example, while the highest U.S. tariff would fall below 8%, 
     several developing countries could maintain tariffs above 
     60%.
       In terms of relative contributions, the developed countries 
     would account for more than 75% of all the duties forgone as 
     a result of the proposed tariff reduction ranges. The five 
     largest developing countries would absorb less than 20%, and 
     all the other formula countries would absorb barely 5%. Of 
     course, the majority of developing countries don't have to 
     apply the formula at all.
       We agree with the Chair's assessment that sectoral 
     arrangements are a key element in the framework to reach the 
     mandate. Sectorals are a concrete way to improve the ambition 
     and balance in this round. They are an effective tool in 
     helping developing countries attract investment that will 
     plug their economies into the global supply networks that are 
     the international business model of today.


                                services

       Services is one of the three critical pillars of the Doha 
     market access negotiations, and an essential element in 
     meeting the development promise of Doha. It simply is not 
     possible to develop a competitive, growing economy without 
     providing access to world-class services in key areas such as 
     financial services, telecommunications, express delivery, and 
     distribution.
       As we focus on achieving agreement on modalities for 
     Agriculture and NAMA, we also must define what is necessary 
     to achieve a level of ambition for services that is at least 
     on par with the level of ambition for Agriculture and NAMA. 
     In our view, that means both binding what already is open as 
     well as making new commitments in services market access.
       We therefore believe it would be important for the Services 
     Chairman to hold consultations in September, including 
     possibly open-ended meetings, with a view to producing a 
     services document at the time that modalities for Ag and NAMA 
     are agreed. Such a document will be necessary to set a 
     timetable for revised offers and final negotiations, as well 
     as to articulate an appropriate level of ambition for 
     services at this stage of the negotiations.
       In the meantime, we all need to be working at home to 
     prepare the groundwork with our domestic regulators and 
     stakeholders for our revised offers.


                               conclusion

       The only way to achieve a Doha success--and the only way to 
     meet the development

[[Page E1637]]

     goals of Doha--is through a result that actually expands 
     international trade. Our aim must remain to achieve a balance 
     that reflects the broadest array of offensive interests 
     across the market access pillars of agriculture, NAMA, and 
     Services. The only way to do this is to attain the highest 
     level of ambition if each.
       For the U.S., there is no higher international trade 
     priority than a successful conclusion of an ambitious Doha 
     Round. For our part, we will come to the table prepared to 
     carry forward our work, fully equipped with the will and 
     flexibility necessary. We ask that our trading partners do 
     likewise.

                          ____________________