[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 6, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7750-H7754]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING WTO ROUND OF NEGOTIATIONS IN 
                              DOHA, QATAR

  Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 262) expressing the sense of 
Congress that the President, at the WTO round of negotiations to be 
held at Doha, Qatar, from November 9-13, 2001, and at any subsequent 
round of negotiations, should preserve the ability of the United States 
to enforce rigorously its trade laws and should ensure that United 
States exports are not subject to the abusive use of trade laws by 
other countries.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 262

       Whereas members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have 
     expressed an interest in improving and clarifying antidumping 
     provisions contained in the Agreement on Implementation of 
     Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
     (commonly referred to as the ``Antidumping Agreement'') and 
     subsidy provisions contained in the Agreement on Subsidies 
     and Countervailing Measures at the Fourth Ministerial 
     Conference of the WTO to be held in Doha, Qatar, from 
     November 9-13, 2001;
       Whereas the recent pattern of decisions by WTO dispute 
     settlement panels and the WTO Appellate Body to impose 
     obligations and restrictions on the use of antidumping and 
     countervailing measures by WTO members under the Antidumping 
     Agreement and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
     Measures has raised concerns; and
       Whereas Congress is concerned that WTO dispute settlement 
     panels and the WTO Appellate Body appropriately apply the 
     standard of review contained in Article 17.6 of the 
     Antidumping Agreement, to provide deference to a WTO member's 
     permissible interpretation of provisions of the Agreement, 
     and to a WTO member's evaluation of the facts where that 
     evaluation is unbiased and objective and the establishment of 
     the facts is proper: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the 
     President, at the WTO round of negotiations to be held at 
     Doha, Qatar, from November 9-13, 2001, and at any subsequent 
     round of negotiations of the WTO, should--
       (1) preserve the ability of the United States to enforce 
     rigorously its trade laws, including the antidumping and 
     countervailing duty laws, and avoid agreements which lessen 
     the effectiveness of domestic and international disciplines 
     on unfair trade, especially dumping and subsidies, in order 
     to ensure that United States workers, agricultural producers, 
     and firms can compete fully on fair terms and enjoy the 
     benefits of reciprocal trade concessions; and
       (2) ensure that United States exports are not subject to 
     the abusive use of trade laws, including antidumping and 
     countervailing duty laws, by other countries.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H. Con. Res. 262.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, the WTO negotiations in Qatar later this week are 
going to be enormously important. They are going to create an 
opportunity to move the world trading system in a direction which will 
allow us to provide not only freer trade but also fairer trade. We see 
an opportunity for a new agenda to emerge for the WTO out of this 
discussion, a new round which we think will yield positive results for 
America as well as the balance of our trading partners.
  But as we move forward and see that agenda take shape, it is very 
important that the United States Congress weigh-in particularly on one 
issue which should not be included on that agenda and has been long 
negotiated and long established. Here I am referring to the antidumping 
code.
  As we engage in a new round of global trade talks, we do not want to 
see a reopening of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws which 
have already been negotiated to a conclusion through the WTO.

                              {time}  1530

  The history, Madam Speaker, is quite clear on this point. In a 
previous round, we had an opportunity to negotiate and to compromise, 
and all parties signed off on an antidumping code that establishes 
clear parameters by which domestic antidumping protections can be 
established, administered and moved forward fairly to all parties 
concerned.
  We in America have maintained our antidumping laws well within those 
parameters, and we have every right to do so. We have not only an 
opportunity but also an obligation to maintain strong laws on the books 
that allow us to provide for a level playing field for American workers 
and American companies and insist that international standards be 
followed when it comes to trade practices. We have an opportunity and 
an obligation, in short, to police our own markets, and that is all 
that we have done.
  I went to the Seattle WTO conclave, which unfortunately did not yield 
a new round of talks, and at Seattle my role, as part of the official 
delegation, was to argue against a rising chorus of our trading 
partners who wanted to reopen the antidumping code, who saw the new 
round as an opportunity to water down antidumping and countervailing 
duties, who saw this as an opportunity to open up American markets in a 
way that would provide us with few options if faced with unfair trading 
practices.
  The Seattle Round never materialized, but this weekend we have an 
opportunity in Qatar to see a new round initiated. Once again, some of 
our trading partners have come forward. All too often those trading 
partners, which have a history of having been guilty of dumping on our 
markets, have been found guilty in the past of having engaged in unfair 
trading practices as well as some partners who, we suspect, may simply 
want to muddy the waters, who do not want to go forward on some of the 
issues that are difficult to them, so they want to reintroduce other 
issues to slow down the process.
  So far, the Bush administration has adopted a strong position, and I 
salute them. They have had the courage to say that the antidumping code 
has already been negotiated and it should be left off the agenda of the 
new round. I salute them for their firmness on this point, and I 
propose that the House, through this resolution, join them in offering 
strong support for the notion that the antidumping laws should not be 
included as part of this WTO round.
  As I said, some countries found guilty in the past of dumping in the 
U.S. market are desperately trying to reopen the U.S. antidumping and 
countervailing duty laws despite the best efforts of the Bush 
administration. In my view, this would be counterproductive for the 
United States.
  I urge my colleagues in the House to take the same bold stance as the 
Bush administration by supporting this resolution today. I urge my 
colleagues to put the House on record as strongly opposed to including 
the antidumping and countervailing duty laws on the agenda of a new WTO 
negotiating round. This would send a clear and unambiguous message to 
our trading partners, we will not tolerate unfair trading practices, we 
will provide a level playing field for our workers, and we will not 
leave our markets vulnerable to predatory trade practices.
  Our antidumping and countervailing duty protections are, in my view, 
absolutely essential for allowing this country to participate in the 
world trading system; they are important for policing our markets, and 
they are very important for ensuring that our partners' trade practices 
conform to the international standards that they have agreed to and 
that they play by the rules.

[[Page H7751]]

  This resolution moves in the direction of providing better fair trade 
for American workers and for American companies at a time when we are 
clearly entering a recession. I hope it will enjoy strong support. It 
already enjoys strong bipartisan support. I want to thank my colleagues 
for that.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I 
regret that it has been brought up with very little notice so that many 
of my colleagues who would like to participate will not be able to do 
that, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for example, who are sponsors of this 
resolution, as well as members in the Steel Caucus.
  I do support it because trade remedy laws are critical to U.S. 
workers and farmers and industry. They are a central pillar of a rule-
based system. They were negotiated in the Uruguay Round. It was a 
product of hard negotiations, of lengthy discussions. The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Houghton) and I were able to be there at the end of 
those discussions, and I can say firsthand that it was very much give 
and take. There was final agreement. We should resist efforts to 
unravel that agreement.
  Trade remedies are really part of a free market system. A free market 
system means that one party should not rig the market to their 
advantage, to distort a free market to their advantage and the 
disadvantage of another. The rules against dumping, the antidumping 
laws, are critical to ensuring that market distortions in one country 
do not undermine another through their exports, through their dumping 
below cost.
  The countervailing duty provisions try to assure that one country 
does not gain an unfair advantage through large subsidies. Subsidies 
undercut a free market. The safeguard rules are there to make sure that 
if there is a major surge, a country is not left without, as the word 
connotes, a ``safeguard.'' And so I think that these trade remedies, 
negotiated through hard discussions with give and take, should not be 
opened up.
  What has happened in recent years, though, is that the WTO rules have 
been undercut by some unfortunate decisions of WTO dispute settlement 
bodies. What they have done, in a word, is to misinterpret in some 
cases the actual language and to impose new and never-agreed-to 
obligations on WTO members. We do not want to make it worse by now 
reopening this very language which was worked out through such hard 
discussions.
  I want to comment, if I might, on a couple of aspects. One is the 
second part of this resolution, paragraph No. 2; it talks about 
ensuring that U.S. exports are not subject to the abusive use of trade 
laws, including antidumping and countervailing duty laws, by other 
countries. I think that is a useful provision. However, I do not think 
in any way paragraph 2 should be used to moderate or modify paragraph 
1. As hard as we negotiate at Doha regarding paragraph 2, I hope in no 
way will it undercut our determination as expressed in paragraph 1 of 
this resolution.
  In that regard, I comment next on the ministerial language that has 
been drafted. It is not acceptable. Essentially what it does is to 
commit the parties to a renegotiation. It may not say that directly, 
but that is the implication. It is the implication because, unlike for 
other provisions where there is first a discussion and then a decision 
on negotiation, the way the present draft language reads, there would 
essentially be a commitment to renegotiation, and that is not 
acceptable.
  I want to close by indicating that while I support this resolution, 
and I very much support it, I do not want anyone to think that it is a 
substitute for clear language in any Fast Track/TPA bill. It is 
important that any Fast Track/TPA have, in unambiguous principal 
negotiating objectives, a statement that there will not be, as far as 
the U.S. is concerned, any renegotiation of the language in the Uruguay 
Round document that we negotiated it in good faith, and we will not 
agree to renegotiate it now.
  The bill that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and others and 
I have presented states clearly among the principal negotiating 
objectives that there will be, as far as the U.S. is concerned, no such 
renegotiation, while the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) does not say that clearly as a principal negotiating objective. 
I think it is important that whatever might come out of Doha, and I 
think it is critical that there be no renegotiation, that we state in 
Fast Track/TPA language what is the position of this Congress. One bill 
does that and another bill, the Thomas bill, does not.
  I rise in support. I hope we will have a strong vote for this bill. 
Again, I regret that some of my colleagues who otherwise would be here 
to speak on this will not be able to do so because they did not have 
notice that it was coming up.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Otter), a strong supporter of this resolution and a strong 
advocate of American interests in trade.
  (Mr. OTTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution 
offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English). This resolution urges Ambassador Zoellick to defend the 
ability of the United States to use antidumping and countervailing duty 
laws to protect against unfair trade practices.
  I am and have always been a supporter of free and fair trade. In my 
previous career, I was an international businessman and traveled to 
some 81 foreign countries. I know that Idaho and all U.S. businesses 
can successfully compete against products from anywhere in the world. 
Government intervention, rather than foreign competition, is the only 
threat to the productivity of my constituents.
  Today, Idaho and U.S. computer chip manufacturers are threatened by 
the Government of South Korea. In violation of international trading 
rules, South Korea is forcing its banks to exchange thousands of 
dollars of loans in Hynix for worthless shares in the company. Hynix 
even gets $500 million in new loans from government-controlled banks at 
much lower rates. Two private banks who are creditors refused to give 
additional credit as they saw the futility of doing so.
  This massive injection of capital into Hynix makes it possible for 
them to undercut the prices offered by other private companies. 
Competitive chip manufacturers within both the United States and 
overseas will be driven out of business by these actions if positive 
steps, such as we are suggesting in this resolution today, are not 
taken to oppose them.
  The ability of the United States to bring antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases against foreign manufacturers is an important 
shield against the actions taken by the South Korean Government and 
others who would try to bail out their failing companies and 
industries. While the World Trade Organization plays a very vital and 
important role in ensuring that international trading nations play by 
the rules, it currently lacks the speed and the flexibility to protect 
nations against unfair trade practices. Our antidumping and 
countervailing duty legislation gives this Nation the ability to 
protect itself from all unfair competition.

                              {time}  1545

  I am pleased to rise before this House and give my full support to 
this resolution. I also offer this warning to those nations who would 
seek to undermine fair trade: this Congress will not stand for and will 
be prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to defend itself 
against economic aggression.
  I will support, nay, Madam Speaker, I will champion, any additional 
authorities that our trade representatives need to defend America's 
workers and industries.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding

[[Page H7752]]

me time, and I rise in support of H. Con. Resolution 262, offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  As thousands of steelworkers have discovered, the United States has 
become the world's steel dumping ground. During the 1998 steel crisis, 
steel imports into the United States exceeded steel exports by a record 
36 million tons. The trade deficit in steel was a record $11 billion 
dollars, accounting for nearly 7 percent of our overall trade and 
growing trade imbalance. The vast majority of these imports were 
subsidized by foreign governments and dumped at below-market prices in 
our country.
  The American steel industry relies on anti-dumping laws as their last 
line of defense against unfairly traded imports. Unfortunately, since 
the Uruguay Round agreements, the steel industry's ability to defend 
itself has been severely weakened.
  At the upcoming World Trade Organization ministerial in Doha, Qatar, 
several nations that export steel to the United States have set the 
weakening of international rules on trade laws as a major priority to 
be negotiated. Robert Zoellick, the U.S. Trade Representative, simply 
cannot be allowed to travel to Qatar and negotiate away the remaining 
safety measures the steel industry has.
  That is why I support this resolution. Many of us are concerned about 
this WTO ministerial. We are, first of all, concerned because of the 
place it is located. It is located in a country which does not allow 
free elections. It is located in a country which does not allow freedom 
of expression. It is located in a country where women are treated not 
much differently from the way women are treated by the Taliban in 
Afghanistan. It is held in a country where public worship by non-
Muslims is banned.
  The message that that sends to people around the world, that the 
trade ministers are meeting in a city and country where public protests 
will not be allowed, where free speech is not allowed, where public 
expression is not allowed, where freedom of worship is not allowed, 
where free elections are not allowed, is troubling.
  It is troubling because all too often our own trade minister, in this 
case Mr. Zoellick, has used in the past language to suggest that those 
of us that do not support his free trade agenda, his agenda to weaken 
environmental and labor standards around the world, that do not support 
his agenda are in some way unpatriotic or somewhat indifferent to the 
counterterrorism efforts promoted by the administration.
  While all of us I believe in Congress support the President's efforts 
to combat terrorism, both domestically and abroad, we do not subscribe 
to the values that Mr. Zoellick and others, and in part of the U.S. 
Trade Representative's office journey to Qatar, tend to suggest.
  That means that we hope coming out of this ministerial, again, even 
though it is located in a place that sends a message not of freedom, 
but of much less than that, we hope that the message that comes out of 
this meeting in Qatar is sort of the opposite of what goes in in terms 
of the message that holding in Qatar means, that we care about labor 
standards, environmental standards, free elections, freedom of worship, 
all the values that we in this country fight for and we in this country 
hold dear.
  That is another reason I think it is important to join the efforts of 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English) in support of H. Con. Res. 262. I ask House 
support for the resolution.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
time; and I also want to compliment the gentleman and my good friend, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who has introduced this 
resolution. The gentleman is the chairman of the Congressional Steel 
Caucus in the House.
  The resolution that we have here before us today is very important 
because the industry, as I think all of my colleagues understand, is 
imploding as we debate this resolution today. I think the first order 
of business is to make sure that we do not backslide in any way, shape, 
or form as far as the existing protections that are put into law.
  Why do we need the gentleman's resolution today? First of all, we 
want to ensure that there is a clear message from the House of 
Representatives to the new administration that preserving our trade 
laws as they exist today is a primary focus and of primary importance 
to us.
  Second, it is clear that some would like to see our antidumping and 
antisubsidy laws changed, and it is important to also send our trading 
partners a clear message that we will not tolerate this.
  Finally, some of our strongest allies, because of travel 
uncertainties, may not be at the WTO conference in the coming week to 
assist us in ensuring that there is no backsliding on this issue.
  But while I am here to congratulate my good friend, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), and to fully support the legislation 
he has introduced, which I am a cosponsor of, I would also use my time 
today to remind our colleagues that the task is not yet finished as far 
as assistance to the domestic steel industry.
  I would point out to my colleagues that Al Tech Specialty Steel 
Corporation of the State of New York ceased operations on June 29 of 
this year. Laclede Steel Company in the State of Missouri ceased 
operation in August this year. I would remind Members that Qualitech 
Steel in Indiana ceased operations on January 26 of this year. I would 
remind my colleagues that Gulf States Steel in the State of Alabama 
ceased operations in this year, the month of January. I would remind my 
colleagues that on May 18 of this year, Northwestern Steel and Wire, 
located in the State of Illinois, ceased operations. I would remind my 
colleagues that CSC Limited in the State of Ohio ceased operations this 
year. I would further remind my colleagues that Trico Steel also in the 
State of Alabama ceased operations this year. Great Lakes Metals, 
Limited, in East Chicago, Indiana, my congressional district, ceased 
operations in July of this year. Edgewater Steel, Limited, of Oakmont, 
Pennsylvania, ceased operations on September 28 of this year, as well 
as Acme Steel Corporation, also of the State of Illinois.
  It is not just companies that have ceased operations. It is not just 
the 10 million additional tons of steel that are no longer melted and 
produced in the United States of America that are important to all of 
us. What is important are the 140 people that lost their job in 
Pennsylvania on September 28. What is important are the 40 people in 
East Chicago, Indiana, who lost their jobs this year. What is important 
are the 320 people in Alabama who lost their jobs this year. What is 
important is the 1,225 people in Warren, Ohio, who lost their jobs this 
year, or the 1,600 people who lost their jobs at Northwestern Steel and 
Wire. What is important are the 1,906 people in Gadsden, Alabama, who 
lost their jobs this year, or the 350 people who used to have a job at 
Qualitech Steel in the State of Indiana, or those who also worked at Al 
Tech Specialty Steel, 790 individuals who lost jobs.
  I would emphasize that these are individual citizens we are here to 
represent, and those are good-paying jobs with good benefits; and there 
are families and households and mortgages that attach to this issue.
  We have jobs, we have people, and we have a national defense issue 
here. Over the last 23 years we have seen 30 million tons of steel 
capacity closed in the United States of America. In the last 12 to 18 
months, we have added another 10 million tons of capacity that have now 
closed. The problem as I see it is we are the only industrialized 
Nation on the planet Earth who cannot produce enough steel now to meet 
our own needs.
  I am very pleased that because of the pressure many of us brought 
with H.R. 808, that the gentleman is also a cosponsor of, that more 
than a majority of the House have cosponsored, the administration has 
initiated an investigation by the ITC.
  The ITC last month found, to no one's surprise, that serious injury 
has occurred to the domestic steel industry. There is a remedy phase, 
and then

[[Page H7753]]

the administration must make a decision as far as the implementation of 
that remedy.
  We have also seen an improvement as far as changing the existing loan 
guarantee program that was put in place in 1999, increasing that 
guarantee from 85 percent to 95 percent to give qualified steel 
companies who have a good business and a reasonable chance of success 
of making it.
  But the industry also needs financial help. Several weeks ago I 
attempted to have an amendment offered on the House floor to provide 
$800 million a year for 3 years to help ameliorate the problems that 
the industry is facing as far as their legacy costs. My concern is if 
we do not act between now and the middle of December in this body to 
provide this industry with those dollars, it will cease to exist.
  I have five major facilities along the southern shore of Lake 
Michigan. I would not represent to the Speaker or to any of my Members 
that those facilities are going to disappear. But my great fear on 
behalf of the people involved, on behalf of the communities involved, 
and on behalf of our national defense is when they cease to operate, 
foreign investors will buy parts. They will close all of our melting 
capacity. We will no longer make steel in the Great Lakes States. We 
will process steel in the Great Lakes States. I think that would be a 
travesty, and I would use my time allotted by the gentleman from 
Michigan to make that point and implore my colleagues to consider the 
financing that is necessary for the domestic steel industry to solve 
their problems.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership on strengthening our antidumping and 
countervailing duty laws. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English) for his strong leadership in this area.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly support this resolution. We must make sure 
that in negotiating in the next trade rounds, that we do not do 
anything that can compromise our current laws that we have in effect 
that deal with antidumping and countervailing duties.
  Madam Speaker, I must say we even have to go further than that. We 
need to strengthen our laws consistent with our World Trade 
Organization obligations. I think that we need to strengthen those 
laws. It is interesting that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) are both 
cosponsors and sponsors of legislation in order to do that.
  The problem is it takes too long to provide relief to industries that 
have been hurt by dumped products. The steel industry, of course, is a 
classic example. Too many of our steel companies have gone out of 
business because it has taken over 3 years since we have had illegal 
imports for the system to provide the appropriate relief. So we should 
be talking about strengthening those laws, not weakening them.
  I think this resolution makes it clear that we are going to draw a 
line in the sand that we are not going to weaken our current 
protections that we have against illegally dumped steel. It is an 
important statement for us to go on record.
  I applaud my colleagues for bringing forward this resolution and urge 
all my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I believe we have covered our position 
well; and, therefore, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlemen who have participated in 
this debate today, because their presence here has highlighted the 
importance of this resolution in sending a message to the world that 
the United States Congress feels very strongly that the U.S. needs to 
have strong antidumping protections, needs to have a strong trade 
policy, and is fully prepared to take that position and stress it this 
coming weekend in Doha.

                              {time}  1600

  I particularly want to thank the American Iron and Steel Institute 
for their support of our resolution. I want to thank the Steel Caucus, 
of which I am chairman and of which the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) is vice chairman. I want to particularly single him out for 
thanks for his participation not only in this effort, but in all of the 
efforts of the Steel Caucus and his photo finish appearance on the 
floor today from traveling. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) for his wisdom and his institutional memory. He has been a 
major figure in all of our trade debates of the last few years, and we 
look forward to his major contribution in the coming days to the trade 
debates that are before us.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), my 
friend, who has really been an extraordinary advocate of strengthening 
the antidumping laws, and I have had the privilege of the working with 
him on this issue now in two different Congresses. I also want to thank 
the gentleman from Ohio who spoke earlier for giving me the opportunity 
to correct the record, since he created the impression that this 
resolution was in some way binding the Bush administration, restricting 
the Bush administration and the position they might take in the 
negotiations on the next WTO Round. Nothing could be further from the 
truth.
  Madam Speaker, what is fairly clear from the record is that this 
administration has consistently come out against putting our 
antidumping laws on the chopping block and negotiating them away. They 
have consistently been advocates of a stronger trade policy for 
America. They have been consistently willing to stand up for steel. As 
chairman of the Steel Caucus, I would like to take a moment right now 
to thank them for having the courage to stand up at considerable 
political expense in some circles to themselves and being willing to 
fight for American steel workers, fight for our basic capacity to 
produce our own steel. That is so fundamental to us as a strategic 
asset and our American steel-making capacity, if it survives in coming 
years, will be much through the effort of this Bush administration.
  So Mr. Zoellick, when he goes to Doha, will have a strong record as a 
friend of steel, as a friend of American workers and American 
manufacturers, and also as a strong advocate of a firm U.S. position 
when it comes to the antidumping laws.
  Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I think we all look at the trade issue 
from the perspective of our local communities. I come from northwestern 
Pennsylvania, from a community with the largest concentration of 
manufacturing jobs in our entire State, also the largest concentration 
of export-related jobs in our State. We have seen a winnowing out of 
this manufacturing capacity. Over the last few months, we have lost 
permanently 6 percent of our manufacturing base, and that was before 
the announcement of just a week ago that International Paper is closing 
a plant that has sustained our community as a major source of jobs for 
the last 100 years.
  Madam Speaker, looking at this from northwestern Pennsylvania, we 
know we have neighbors in need. We know we have workers throughout 
America who have had good skilled jobs, whose jobs have been at risk; 
and in many cases, they have recently lost them. Madam Speaker, I 
imagine many of those workers are at home watching this debate; and I 
would like to be able to reassure them, send them a strong message, 
even as we send our trading partners a strong message, that this 
Congress will not stand by while some of our trading partners try to 
get us to negotiate away an important part of the trade protections 
that we are currently allowed to have under international law.
  Madam Speaker, I urge the passage of this resolution to send a 
strong, bipartisan message that this Congress is committed to a strong 
trade policy.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The Chair would remind that 
all comments should be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) that the House suspend the

[[Page H7754]]

rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 262.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________