[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 4284]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  INTRODUCTION OF A BILL THAT WOULD GRANT UNCONDITIONAL AND PERMANENT 
                       TRADE RELATIONS TO UKRAINE

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. SANDER M. LEVIN

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 11, 2004

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today my brother, Senator Levin, and I have 
introduced a bill that would grant unconditional and permanent normal 
trade relations (PNTR) to Ukraine and remove Ukraine, unconditionally 
and permanently, from the application of the so-called Jackson-Vanik 
amendment. The legislation would provide an historic update in U.S.-
Ukraine trade relations. It would strengthen U.S.-Ukraine relations and 
reinforce progress Ukraine has made in many areas. Additionally, the 
legislation would ensure that Congress continues to play an active 
role--with the Administration and with Ukraine--in confronting trade 
disputes and negotiating the terms of Ukraine's WTO accession.
  This legislation is the culmination of a month's long effort, 
involving consultations with the Ukrainian Embassy, Ukrainian groups in 
the United States, other Members of Congress, including some on the 
Helsinki Commission, and other groups that have expressed an interest 
in Ukraine's removal from Jackson-Vanik. I think that it addresses many 
of the concerns that have been raised in a way that will help Ukraine 
PNTR on its way through Congress.
  The legislation expands on a Ukraine PNTR bill that my brother and I 
introduced a couple of years in the 107th Congress (H.R. 4723/S. 3089). 
The bill we are introducing today reflects updates and improvements 
from our previous bill, which we believe will help this one garner the 
broad support necessary to push the issue along.
  I am aware that there are elections in Ukraine later this year, and 
we all know how important it is that those elections be conducted 
transparently and fairly, in accordance with international norms. My 
reasons for supporting PNTR for Ukraine relate to the importance of 
Ukraine and what PNTR can mean for its economic and democratic 
development, not to any individual candidacy.
  It is useful to recall that the Jackson-Vanik amendment was itself an 
amendment to Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, a trade statute. In 
particular, Title IV created a framework for conducting trade relations 
with non-market economies. The Jackson-Vanik amendment, which has been 
an effective tool for raising freedom of emigration and human rights 
concerns, is a key element of Title IV; however, the underlying purpose 
and function of the statute were and remain the conduct of trade 
relations.
  Accordingly, PNTR legislation must address fundamental trade issues. 
Consistent congressional practice is to grant PNTR to a country that is 
subject to Jackson-Vanik only at the time of the country's WTO 
accession, or when negotiations on accession were effectively 
completed. In this way, Congress's vote on PNTR has served as a way to 
signal approval for the country's WTO accession agreement. Under this 
approach, Congress was able to exercise its constitutional prerogative 
to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and the American people 
benefited from the Administration negotiating the strongest possible 
agreement.
  This precedent has led to an important series of successful 
accessions to the WTO, including most notably for China, on terms that 
reinforced the WTO rules-based system, and brought great benefits to 
the people of the United States as well as other WTO countries.
  In the case of Ukraine, WTO accession terms are still being 
negotiated. I believe it is appropriate to depart from that precedent 
and grant Ukraine PNTR now, so long as Congress retains a meaningful, 
effective tool to ensure that U.S. interests are fully addressed in 
those negotiations. And, there are many critical issues that still need 
to be addressed--Ukraine's protection for intellectual property rights, 
commitments to open its auto market, commitments in the services and 
other sectors, to name just a few. Moreover, there have been a number 
of recent trade tensions with Ukraine--including in the poultry sector. 
While these appear to have been addressed, they renewed concerns in 
Congress about trade relationships with Ukraine.
  This legislation ensures that Congress will continue to play an 
active role in addressing trade problems as they emerge and in 
obtaining a strong WTO accession agreement from Ukraine. While giving 
up the precedent of using the PNTR vote as a proxy for approval of WTO 
accession, the legislation allows Congress to consider a resolution 
directly addressing the terms of agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine 
on Ukraine's WTO accession. While in its form, this resolution would be 
non-binding on the Executive, it would provide Congress with an 
important tool to assure itself continuing oversight over the Executive 
as it forms the terms of Ukraine's WTO accession.
  There are two sides to the PNTR coin--the trade issues and the 
``Jackson-Vanik'' issues. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was a historic 
piece of legislation, aimed at addressing a serious problem in the 
former Soviet Union. It set forth important criteria related to freedom 
of emigration necessary for certain countries to obtain normal trade 
relations with the United States. Even from its inception, however, the 
Jackson-Vanik amendment was not only concerned with freedom of 
emigration, but also reflected the American commitment to human rights 
and freedom of religion. This fact is evident not only in the preamble 
of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, but also in the operation of U.S. 
relations with the former Soviet countries for nearly 30 years.
  I think it is appropriate, then, that as we consider graduating 
Ukraine from the Jackson-Vanik amendment, that we place a strong 
emphasis on American values of freedom of emigration, religious 
freedom, and human rights issues. These were the issues at the core of 
the Jackson-Vanik amendment, and continue to be relevant when 
considering termination of this amendment. I am glad that we were able 
to craft a bill that addresses these vital issues in a responsible way, 
rather than giving them ``check-the-box'' cursory treatment or not 
addressing them at all.

                          ____________________