[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 26, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H6440-H6452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               UNITED STATES TRADE RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT ACT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3283) to enhance resources to enforce United States trade 
rights, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3283

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``United States Trade Rights 
     Enforcement Act''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) United States producers that believe they are injured 
     by subsidized imports from nonmarket economy countries have 
     not been able to obtain relief through countervailing duty 
     actions because the Department of Commerce has declined to 
     make countervailing duty determinations for nonmarket economy 
     countries in part because it lacks explicit legal authority 
     to do so;
       (2) explicitly making the countervailing duty law under 
     subtitle A of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1671 et seq.) applicable to actions by nonmarket economy 
     countries would give United States producers access to import 
     relief measures that directly target government subsidies;
       (3) the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the 
     Department of Homeland Security has encountered particular 
     problems in collecting countervailing and antidumping duties 
     from new shippers who default on their bonding obligations;

[[Page H6441]]

       (4) this behavior may detract from the ability of United 
     States companies to recover from competition found to be 
     unfair under international trade laws;
       (5) accordingly, it is appropriate, for a test period, to 
     suspend the availability of bonds for new shippers and 
     instead require cash deposits;
       (6) more analysis and assessment is needed to determine the 
     appropriate policy to respond to this and other problems 
     experienced in the collection of duties and the impact that 
     policy changes could have on legitimate United States trade 
     and United States trade obligations;
       (7) given the developments in the ongoing World Trade 
     Organization (WTO) negotiations relating to trade remedies, 
     Congress reiterates its resolve as expressed in House 
     Concurrent Resolution 262 (107th Congress), which was 
     overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives on 
     November 7, 2001, by a vote of 410 to 4;
       (8) the United States Trade Representative should monitor 
     compliance by United States trading partners with their trade 
     obligations and systematically identify areas of 
     noncompliance;
       (9) the United States Trade Representative should then 
     aggressively resolve noncompliance through consultations with 
     United States trading partners;
       (10) however, should efforts to resolve disputes through 
     consultation fail, the United States Trade Representative 
     should vigorously pursue United States rights through dispute 
     settlement in every available forum;
       (11) given the huge growth in trade with the People's 
     Republic of China, its impact on the United States economy, 
     and the complaints voiced by many United States interests 
     that China is not complying with its international trade 
     obligations, the United States Trade Representative should 
     place particular emphasis on identifying and resolving 
     disputes with China that limit United States exports, 
     particularly concerning compliance with obligations relating 
     to intellectual property rights and enforcement, tariff and 
     nontariff barriers, subsidies, technical barriers to trade, 
     sanitary and phytosanitary issues, nonmarket-based industrial 
     policies, distribution rights, and regulatory transparency;
       (12) in addition, the United States Trade Representative 
     should place particular emphasis on trade barriers imposed by 
     Japan, specifically the Japanese trade ban on United States 
     beef without scientific justification, the Japanese sanitary 
     and phytosanitary restrictions on United States agricultural 
     products, Japanese policies on pharmaceutical and medical 
     device reference pricing, insurance cross-subsidization, and 
     privatization in a variety of sectors that discriminate 
     against United States companies;
       (13) the fixed exchange rate that the People's Republic of 
     China has maintained until recently has been a substantial 
     distortion to world markets, blocking the price mechanism, 
     impeding adjustment of international imbalances, and serving 
     as a source of large and increasing risk to the Chinese 
     economy;
       (14) such behavior has effectively prevented market forces 
     from operating efficiently in the People's Republic of China, 
     distorting world trade;
       (15) in a welcome move, the People's Republic of China has 
     now begun to move to a more flexible exchange rate, and it 
     should continue to so move to a market-based exchange rate as 
     soon as possible;
       (16) in light of this recent positive development, the 
     Secretary of Treasury should provide to Congress a periodic 
     assessment of the mechanism adopted by the Chinese Government 
     to relate its currency to a basket of foreign currencies and 
     the degree to which the application of this mechanism moves 
     the currency closer to a market-based representation of its 
     value;
       (17) in addition, Japan's policy of intervening to 
     influence the value of its currency and its prolific barriers 
     to trade create distortions that disadvantage United States 
     exporters;
       (18) this adverse impact is magnified by Japan's role in 
     the global marketplace, combined with its chronic surplus, 
     weak economy, deflationary economy, low growth rate, and lack 
     of consumer spending; and
       (19) accordingly, the United States Trade Representative 
     should have additional resources in the Office of the General 
     Counsel, the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement, the Office 
     of China Affairs, and the Office of Japan, Korea, and APEC 
     Affairs to address a variety of needs that will best enable 
     United States companies, farmers, and workers to benefits 
     from the trade agreements to which the United States has 
     around the world.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES TO NONMARKET 
                   ECONOMY COUNTRIES.

       (a) Amendments.--
       (1) Countervailing duties imposed.--Section 701(a)(1) of 
     the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671(a)(1)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(including a nonmarket economy country)'' after 
     ``country'' each place it appears.
       (2) Definition of countervailable subsidy.--Section 
     771(5)(E) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(5)(E)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentences: ``With respect 
     to the People's Republic of China, if the administering 
     authority encounters special difficulties in calculating the 
     amount of a benefit under clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of 
     this subparagraph, the administering authority may use 
     methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy 
     benefit which take into account the possibility that 
     prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be 
     available as appropriate benchmarks. When applying such 
     methodologies, where practicable, the administering authority 
     should adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before 
     considering the use of terms and conditions prevailing 
     outside China.''.
       (b) Prohibition on Double Counting.--In applying section 
     701(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by subsection 
     (a), to a class or kind of merchandise of a nonmarket economy 
     country, the administering authority shall ensure that--
       (1) any countervailable subsidy is not double counted in an 
     antidumping order under section 731 of such Act (19 U.S.C. 
     1673) on the same class or kind of merchandise of the 
     country; and
       (2) the application of section 701(a)(1) of such Act is 
     consistent with the international obligations of the United 
     States.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply to any petition filed under section 702 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671a) on or after 30 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and the provisions 
     contained in subsection (b) apply to any subsequent 
     determination made under section 733, 735, or 751 of such Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 1673b, 1673d, or 1675).

     SEC. 4. NEW SHIPPER REVIEW AMENDMENT.

       (a) Suspension of the Availability of Bonds to New 
     Shippers.--Clause (iii) of section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)(iii)) shall not be 
     effective during the 3-year period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Report on the Impact of the Suspension.--Not later than 
     2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Commerce, the United States Trade Representative, and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, shall submit to the Committee 
     on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means 
     of the House of Representatives a report containing--
       (1) recommendations on whether the suspension of the 
     effectiveness of section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act 
     of 1930 should be extended beyond the date provided in 
     subsection (a) of this section; and
       (2) assessments of the effectiveness of any administrative 
     measures that have been implemented to address the 
     difficulties giving rise to the suspension under subsection 
     (a) of this section, including--
       (A) problems in assuring the collection of antidumping 
     duties on imports from new shippers; and
       (B) burdens imposed on legitimate trade and commerce by the 
     suspension of availability of bonds to new shippers by reason 
     of the suspension under subsection (a).
       (c) Report on Collection Problems and Analysis of Proposed 
     Solutions.--
       (1) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     consultation with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs 
     and Border Protection and the Secretary of Commerce, shall 
     submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a 
     report describing the major problems experienced in the 
     collection of duties, including fraudulent activities 
     intended to avoid payment of duties, with an estimate of the 
     total amount of uncollected duties for the previous fiscal 
     year and a breakdown across product lines describing the 
     reasons duties were uncollected.
       (2) Recommendations.--The report shall make recommendations 
     on additional actions to address remaining problems related 
     to duty collections and, for each recommendation, provide an 
     analysis of how the recommendation would address the specific 
     problem or problems cited and the impact that implementing 
     the recommendation would have on international trade and 
     commerce (including any additional costs imposed on United 
     States businesses and whether the implementation of the 
     revision is likely to violate any international trade 
     obligations).

     SEC. 5. COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE BY THE 
                   PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA WITH ITS 
                   INTERNATIONAL TRADE OBLIGATIONS.

       (a) Intellectual Property Rights Compliance.--
       (1) In general.--In accordance with the terms of the 
     Agreement of WTO Accession for the People's Republic of 
     China, subsequent agreements by Chinese authorities through 
     the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), 
     and other obligations by Chinese officials related to its 
     trade obligations, the United States Trade Representative and 
     the Secretary of Commerce shall undertake to ensure that the 
     Government of the People's Republic China has taken the 
     following steps:
       (A) The Chinese Government has increased the number of 
     civil and criminal prosecutions of intellectual property 
     rights violators by the end of 2005 to a level that 
     significantly decreases the current amount of infringing 
     products for sale within China.
       (B) China's Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's 
     Procuratorate, and Ministry of Public Security have issued 
     draft guidelines for public comment to ensure the timely 
     referral of intellectual property rights violations from 
     administrative bodies to criminal prosecution.
       (C) The Chinese Ministry of Public Security and the General 
     Administration of Customs have issued regulations to ensure 
     the

[[Page H6442]]

     timely transfer of intellectual property rights cases for 
     criminal investigation.
       (D) The Chinese Ministry of Public Security has established 
     a leading group responsible for overall research, planning, 
     and coordination of all intellectual property rights criminal 
     enforcement to ensure a focused and coordinated nationwide 
     enforcement effort.
       (E) The Chinese Government has established a bilateral 
     intellectual property rights law enforcement working group in 
     cooperation with the United States whose members will 
     cooperate on enforcement activities to reduce cross-border 
     infringing activities.
       (F) The Chinese Government has aggressively countered movie 
     piracy by dedicating enforcement teams to pursue enforcement 
     actions against pirates and has regularly instructed 
     enforcement authorities nationwide that copies of films and 
     audio-visual products still in censorship or import review or 
     otherwise not yet authorized for distribution are deemed 
     pirated and subject to enhanced enforcement.
       (G) By the end of 2005, the Chinese Government has 
     completed its legalization program to ensure that all 
     central, provincial, and local government offices are using 
     only licensed software and by the end of 2006 has extended 
     the program to enterprises (including state-owned 
     enterprises).
       (H) The Chinese Government, having declared that software 
     end-user piracy is considered to constitute ``harm to the 
     public interest'' and as such will be subject to 
     administrative penalties nationwide, has initiated civil and 
     criminal prosecutions of software end-user violators.
       (I) The Chinese Government has appointed an Intellectual 
     Property Rights Ombudsman at the Chinese Embassy in 
     Washington, D.C., to serve as the point of contact for United 
     States companies, particularly small- and medium-sized 
     businesses, seeking to secure and enforce their intellectual 
     property rights in China or experiencing intellectual 
     property rights problems in China.
       (J) The relevant Chinese agencies, including the Ministry 
     of Commerce, the China Trademark Office, the State 
     Intellectual Property Office, and the National Copyright 
     Administration of China have significantly improved 
     intellectual property rights enforcement at trade shows and 
     issued new regulations to achieve this goal.
       (K) Not later than June 30, 2006, the Chinese State Council 
     has submitted to the National People's Congress the 
     legislative package needed for China to accede to the World 
     Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet treaties.
       (L) The Chinese Government has taken steps to enforce 
     intellectual property right laws against Internet piracy, 
     including through enforcement at Internet cafes.
       (M) The Chinese Government, having confirmed that the 
     criminal penalty thresholds in the 2004 Judicial 
     Interpretation are applicable to sound recordings, has 
     instituted civil and criminal prosecutions against such 
     violators.
       (N) The Chinese Government has initiated civil and criminal 
     prosecutions against exporters of infringing recordings.
       (2) Dispute settlement proceedings in wto.--If the 
     President determines that the People's Republic of China has 
     not met each of the obligations described in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (N) of paragraph (1) or taken steps that result 
     in significant improvements in protection of intellectual 
     property rights in accordance with its trade obligations, 
     then the President shall assign such resources as are 
     necessary to collect evidence of such trade agreement 
     violations for use in dispute settlement proceedings against 
     China in the World Trade Organization.
       (b) Access for Exports of United States Goods.--In 
     accordance with the terms of the Agreement of WTO Accession 
     for the People's Republic of China, subsequent agreements by 
     Chinese authorities through the U.S.-China Joint Commission 
     on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), and other obligations by 
     Chinese officials related to its trade obligations, the 
     United States Trade Representative and the Secretary of 
     Commerce shall undertake to ensure that the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China has taken the following steps:
       (1) China has taken steps to ensure that United States 
     products can be freely distributed in China, including by 
     approving a significant backlog of distribution license 
     applications and by preparing a regulatory guide for 
     businesses seeking to acquire distribution rights that 
     expands on the guidelines announced in April 2005.
       (2) Chinese officials have permitted all enterprises in 
     China, including those located in bonded zones, to acquire 
     licenses to distribute goods throughout China.
       (3) The Chinese Government has submitted regulations on 
     management of direct selling to the Chinese State Council for 
     review and taken any additional steps necessary to provide a 
     legal basis for United States direct sales firms to sell 
     United States goods directly to households in China.
       (4) The Chinese Government has issued final regulations on 
     direct selling, including with respect to distribution of 
     imported goods and fixed location requirements.
       (c) Access for Exports of United States Services.--In 
     accordance with the terms of the Agreement of WTO Accession 
     for the People's Republic of China, subsequent agreements by 
     Chinese authorities through the U.S.-China Joint Commission 
     on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), and other obligations by 
     Chinese officials related to its trade obligations, the 
     United States Trade Representative and the Secretary of 
     Commerce shall undertake to ensure that the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China has taken the following steps:
       (1) The Chinese Government has convened a meeting of the 
     U.S.-China Insurance Dialogue before the end of 2005 to 
     discuss regulatory concerns and barriers to further 
     liberalization of the sector.
       (2) The Chinese Government has made senior level officials 
     available to meet under the JCCT Information Technology 
     Working Group to discuss capitalization requirements, resale 
     services, and other issues as agreed to by the two sides.
       (d) Access for United States Agriculture.--In accordance 
     with the terms of the Agreement of WTO Accession for the 
     People's Republic of China, subsequent agreements by Chinese 
     authorities through the U.S.-China Joint Commission on 
     Commerce and Trade (JCCT), and other obligations by Chinese 
     officials related to its trade obligations, the United States 
     Trade Representative and the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     undertake to ensure that the Government of the People's 
     Republic of China has taken the following steps:
       (1) China has completed the regulatory approval process for 
     a United States-produced corn biotech variety.
       (2) China's Administration of Quality Supervision, 
     Inspection and Quarantine has implemented the 2005 Memorandum 
     of Understanding between the United States and China designed 
     to facilitate cooperation on animal and plant health safety 
     issues and improve efforts to expand United States access to 
     China's markets for agricultural commodities.
       (e) Accounting of Chinese Subsidies.--In accordance with 
     the terms of the Agreement of WTO Accession for the People's 
     Republic of China, subsequent agreements by Chinese 
     authorities through the U.S.-China Joint Commission on 
     Commerce and Trade (JCCT), and other obligations by Chinese 
     officials related to its trade obligations, the United States 
     Trade Representative and the Secretary of Commerce shall 
     undertake to ensure that the Government of the People's 
     Republic of China has provided a detailed accounting of its 
     subsidies to the World Trade Organization by the end of 2005.
       (f) Reports.--
       (1) Biannual report.--Not later than six months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and every six months 
     thereafter, the President should transmit to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate a report that contains--
       (A) a description of the specific steps taken by the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China to meet its 
     obligations described in subsections (a) through (e) of this 
     section (other than obligations described in subsections 
     (a)(1)(A) and (G), (b)(1), (c)(1), and (e));
       (B) an analysis of the extent to which Chinese officials 
     are attempting in good faith to meet such obligations; and
       (C) a description of the actions, if any, the President 
     will take to obtain compliance by China if the President 
     determines that the Chinese Government is failing to meet 
     such obligations, including pursuing United States rights 
     under the dispute settlement provisions of the World Trade 
     Organization, as appropriate.
       (2) Monthly report.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and every 30 days thereafter, 
     the President should transmit to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Finance of the Senate a report that contains--
       (A) a description of the specific steps taken by the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China to meet its 
     obligations described in subsections (a)(1)(A) and (G), 
     (b)(1), (c)(1), and (e);
       (B) an analysis of the extent to which Chinese officials 
     are attempting in good faith to meet such obligations; and
       (C) a description of the actions, if any, the President 
     will take to obtain compliance by China if the President 
     determines that the Chinese Government is failing to meet 
     such obligations, including pursuing United States rights 
     under the dispute settlement provisions of the World Trade 
     Organization, as appropriate.

     SEC. 6. REPORTS ON CURRENCY MANIPULATION BY FOREIGN 
                   COUNTRIES.

       (a) Report on Currency Manipulation.--Not later than 60 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report that--
       (1) defines currency manipulation;
       (2) describes actions of foreign countries that will be 
     considered to be currency manipulation; and
       (3) describes how statutory provisions addressing currency 
     manipulation by trading partners of the United States 
     contained in, and relating to, section 40 of the Bretton 
     Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286y) and sections 3004 and 
     3005 of the Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy 
     Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5304 and 5305) can be 
     better clarified administratively to provide for improved and 
     more predictable evaluation.
       (b) Report on Actions by China.--
       (1) In general.--In light of the recent positive 
     announcement by the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China with respect to increased exchange rate flexibility, 
     the

[[Page H6443]]

     Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report that examines the mechanism 
     adopted by the Chinese Government to relate its currency to a 
     basket of foreign currencies and the degree to which the 
     application of this mechanism moves the currency closer to a 
     market-based representation of its value.
       (2) Deadline.-- The initial report required by this 
     subsection shall be submitted to the appropriate 
     congressional committees not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and subsequent reports 
     shall be included in the report required under section 3005 
     of the Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy 
     Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5305).
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate 
     congressional committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 141(g)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(g)(1)(A)) is amended by striking clauses 
     (i) and (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) $44,779,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       ``(ii) $47,018,000 for fiscal year 2007.''.
       (2) Rule of construction.--The amendment made by paragraph 
     (1) shall not be construed to affect the availability of 
     funds appropriated pursuant to section 141(g)(1)(A) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations for the Office of the 
     General Counsel and Certain Other Offices.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Office of the United 
     States Trade Representative for the appointment of additional 
     staff in or enhanced activities by the Office of the General 
     Counsel, the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement, the Office 
     of China Affairs, and the Office of Japan, Korea, and APEC 
     Affairs--
       (1) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       (2) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
       (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the enforcement of United States rights and of 
     obligations of United States trading partners under trade 
     agreements has gained such significance that the United 
     States Trade Representative should determine which of its 
     current positions is most responsible for carrying out these 
     important enforcement duties and should assign that position, 
     in addition to any other title, the title of Chief 
     Enforcement Officer.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES 
                   INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 330(e)(2)(A) 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(e)(2)(A)) is 
     amended by striking clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) $62,752,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       ``(ii) $65,890,000 for fiscal year 2007.''.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a) shall not be construed to affect the availability of 
     funds appropriated pursuant to section section 330(e)(2)(A) 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Study and Report on Trade and Economic Relations With 
     China.--
       (1) Study.--
       (A) In general.--The United States International Trade 
     Commission shall carry out a comprehensive study on trade and 
     economic relations between the United States and the People's 
     Republic of China which addresses China's economic policies, 
     including its exchange rate policy, the competitiveness of 
     its industries, the composition and nature of its trade 
     patterns, and other elements impacting the United States 
     trade account, industry, competitiveness, and employment.
       (B) Requirements.--In carrying out the study under 
     subparagraph (A), the United States International Trade 
     Commission shall undertake the following:
       (i) An analysis of the United States trade and investment 
     relationship with China, with a focus on the United States-
     China trade balance and trends affecting particular 
     industries, products, and sectors in agriculture, 
     manufacturing, and services. The analysis shall provide 
     context for understanding the U.S.-China trade and investment 
     relationship, by including information regarding China's 
     economic relationships with third countries and China's 
     changing policy regime and business environment. The analysis 
     shall include a focus on United States-China trade in goods 
     and services, United States direct investment in China, 
     China's foreign direct investment in the United States, and 
     the relationship between trade and investment. The analysis 
     shall make adjustments, where possible, for merchandise 
     passed through Hong Kong.
       (ii) An analysis of the competitive conditions in China 
     affecting United States exports and United States direct 
     investment. The analysis shall take into account, to the 
     extent feasible, significant factors including tariffs and 
     non-tariff measures, competition from Chinese domestic firms 
     and foreign-based companies operating in China, the Chinese 
     regulatory environment, including specific regulations and 
     overall regulatory transparency, and other Chinese industrial 
     and financial policies. In addition, the analysis shall 
     examine the specific competitive conditions facing United 
     States producers in key industries, products, services, and 
     sectors, potentially including computer and 
     telecommunications hardware, textiles, grains, cotton, and 
     financial services based on trade and investment flows.
       (iii) An examination of the role and importance of 
     intellectual property rights issues, such as patents, 
     copyrights, and licensing, in specific industries in China, 
     including the pharmaceutical industry, the software industry, 
     and the entertainment industry.
       (iv) An analysis of the effects on global commodity markets 
     of China's growing demand for energy and raw materials.
       (v) An examination of whether or not increased United 
     States imports from China reflect displacement of United 
     States imports from third countries or United States domestic 
     production, and the role of intermediate and value-added 
     goods processing in China's pattern of trade.
       (2) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the United States International Trade 
     Commission shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of 
     the Senate a report that contains the results of the study 
     carried out under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EXPANSION OF MEMBERSHIP 
                   IN THE AGREEMENT ON GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT OF 
                   THE WTO.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Nondiscriminatory, procompetitive, merit-based, and 
     technology-neutral procurement of goods and services is 
     essential so that governments can acquire the best goods to 
     meet their needs for the best value.
       (2) The Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) of the 
     World Trade Organization (WTO) provides a multilateral 
     framework of rights and obligations founded on such 
     principles.
       (3) The United States is a member of the GPA, along with 
     Canada, the European Union (including its 25 member States: 
     Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, 
     Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, 
     Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, the Netherlands, 
     Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, 
     and the United Kingdom), Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, 
     Korea, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands with respect to Aruba, 
     Norway, Singapore, and Switzerland.
       (4) Albania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Jordan, the Kyrgyz 
     Republic, Moldova, Oman, Panama, and Taiwan are currently 
     negotiating to accede to the GPA.
       (5) The People's Republic of China joined the WTO in 
     December 2001, signaling to the international community its 
     commitment to greater openness.
       (6) When China joined the WTO, it committed, in its 
     protocol of accession, to negotiate entry into the GPA ``as 
     soon as possible''.
       (7) More than 3 years after its entry into the WTO, China 
     has not commenced negotiations to join the GPA.
       (8) Recent legal developments in China illustrate the 
     importance and urgency of expanding membership in the GPA.
       (9) In 2002, China enacted a law on government procurement 
     that incorporates preferences for domestic goods and 
     services.
       (10) The first sector for which the Chinese Government has 
     sought to implement the new government procurement law is 
     computer software.
       (11) In March 2005 the Chinese Government released draft 
     regulations governing the procurement of computer software.
       (12) The draft regulations require that non-Chinese 
     software companies meet conditions relating to outsourcing of 
     software development work to China, technology transfer, and 
     similar requirements, in order to be eligible to participate 
     in the Chinese Government market.
       (13) As a result of the proposed regulations, it appears 
     likely that a very substantial amount of American software 
     will be excluded from the government procurement process in 
     China. The draft software regulations threatened to close off 
     a market with a potential value of more than $8 billion to 
     United States firms.
       (14) United States software companies have made a 
     substantial commitment to the Chinese market and have made a 
     substantial contribution to the development of China's 
     software industry.
       (15) The outright exclusion of substantial amounts of 
     software not of Chinese origin that is apparently 
     contemplated in the regulations is out of step with domestic 
     preferences that exist in the procurement laws and practices 
     of other WTO member countries, including the United States.
       (16) The draft regulations do not adhere to the principles 
     of nondiscriminatory, procompetitive, merit-based, and 
     technology-neutral procurement embodied in the GPA.
       (17) The software piracy rate in China has never fallen 
     below 90 percent over the past 10 years.
       (18) Chinese Government entities represent a very 
     significant portion of the software market in China that is 
     not dominated by piracy.
       (19) The combined effect of rampant software piracy and the 
     proposed discriminatory government procurement regulations 
     will be a nearly impenetrable barrier to market access for 
     the United States software industry in China.

[[Page H6444]]

       (20) The United States trade deficit with China in 2004 was 
     $162,000,000,000, the highest with any economy in the world, 
     and a 12.4 percent increase over 2003.
       (21) China's Premier, Wen Jiabao, has committed to rectify 
     this serious imbalance by increasing China's imports of goods 
     and services from the United States.
       (22) The proposed software procurement regulations that 
     were described by the Chinese Government in November 2004 
     incorporate policies that are fully at odds with Premier 
     Wen's commitment to increase China's imports from the United 
     States, and will add significantly to the trade imbalance 
     between the United States and China.
       (23) Once it is fully implemented, the discriminatory 
     aspects of China's government procurement law will apply to 
     all goods and services that the government procures.
       (24) Other developing countries may follow the lead of 
     China.
       (25) In July 2005, senior officials of the Chinese 
     Government announced at the U.S.-China Joint Committee on 
     Commerce and Trade that China would accelerate its efforts to 
     join the GPA and toward this end will initiate technical 
     consultations with other WTO member countries and accordingly 
     delay issuing draft regulations on software procurement, as 
     it further considers public comments and makes revisions in 
     light of WTO rules.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Government of the United States should strive to 
     expand membership in the Agreement on Government Procurement 
     of the World Trade Organization (WTO);
       (2) the Government of the United States should ensure that 
     the Government of the People's Republic of China meets its 
     WTO obligations as recently affirmed through its commitment 
     in July 2005 through the U.S.-China Joint Committee on 
     Commerce and Trade, to join the WTO Agreement on Government 
     Procurement.
       (3) the Government of the United States should seek a 
     commitment from the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China to maintain its suspension of the implementation of its 
     law on government procurement, pending the conclusion of 
     negotiations to accede to the Agreement on Government 
     Procurement of the WTO;
       (4) the Government of the United States should seek 
     commitments from the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China and other countries that are not yet members of the 
     Agreement on Government Procurement of the WTO to implement 
     the principles of openness, transparency, fair competition 
     based on merit, nondiscrimination, and accountability in 
     their government procurement as embodied in that agreement; 
     and
       (5) the President should direct all appropriate officials 
     of the United States to raise these concerns with appropriate 
     officials of the People's Republic of China and other trading 
     partners.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act, as amended, is a 
compendium of a number of positions that have been expressed in a 
bipartisan way by Members of this House in regard to some of our 
trading partners.
  This bill has been identified as an ``anti-China'' bill. That simply 
is not the case. The provisions to assist us in determining how you 
examine a nonmarket economy and determine whether or not it is carrying 
out practices that are in violation of the WTO is applied to any 
country with a nonmarket economy.
  It is true that there are monitoring provisions dealing with 
agreements that China has voluntarily laid on the table; for example, 
moving away from the Government of China using counterfeit software 
and, therefore, protecting intellectual property rights, and China 
assigned itself the date of the end of calendar year 2005. This merely 
creates a monitoring process to determine how it can be achieved.
  The bill is very timely because it includes another monitoring 
process just recently announced by the Government of China dealing with 
its currency, its desire to unpeg its currency to the U.S. dollar and 
have it move modestly against a basket of world currencies. That also, 
in this legislation, would be monitored.
  I am pleased to say that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) have examined and 
offered a resolution on the government procurement agreement of the 
World Trade Organization urging China to fully participate. That is 
included as well.
  This bill is designed to meet a number of Members' particular 
concerns focused on world trade, not just China. For example, 
additional money is being provided to the United States Trade 
Representative for enforcement purposes. Yes, it includes the Office of 
China Affairs, but I do want Members to know it also includes the 
Office of Japan, Korea, and Asian Pacific Affairs because there are 
several provisions in here monitoring, frankly, the Government of Japan 
based upon its unfair trade practices, most focused on the use of so-
called sanitary and phytosanitary measures as, in fact, nontariff trade 
barriers.
  So this is a compendium of concerns presented at a time that the 
trade issues will be in front of us this week, and leadership felt, and 
I agree as well, that this measure allows us to focus beyond this 
hemisphere, in fact, at major trading partners and behavior that we 
have seen not just in terms of providing tools to enforce U.S. trade 
rights, but to monitor personal individual and voluntary commitments 
made by governments as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we object to the suspension calendar being used for 
political purposes. As most of us know, this calendar is supposed to be 
used to expedite legislation that is not controversial and has no 
substantial opposition. One would hardly believe that this bill is on 
the calendar today for purposes of improving our trade relationship 
with the People's Republic of China.
  Clearly, for those who are following the Central American Free Trade 
Agreement with the Dominican Republic, they know that this is another 
effort to elicit votes for a bill that has not got bipartisan support 
and should have bipartisan support. I think it is bad policy and bad 
politics for our foreign policy and certainly our trade policy to be 
used in an effort to solicit votes or to be done in a partisan way to 
see who won and who lost.
  The chairman of the committee is right that the Democrat side as well 
as working with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) is very 
anxious to clear up the complexities that put the United States at a 
disadvantage as relates to dealing with the Chinese Government. But at 
the same time, we truly believe that these bills should not be the 
Rangel bill with Democrats or the English bill with Republicans, but 
rather a bill that we can say as members of the Committee on Ways and 
Means and as Member of Congress that we have taken it to the 
committees, we have had hearings, and we have come out with a position 
that you do not have to check the party to know whether it is right or 
whether it is wrong.
  There is a substantial difference between the bills that the 
Democrats put in, which certainly deals with the provisions that are in 
the bill before us today, but also it prevents the loopholes that are 
in that bill and provides for other considerations that would make this 
a better bill and improve our relationship with China.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this bill has nothing to do with China and has 
everything to do with an attempt to get votes for DR-CAFTA. We hope 
that a vote against this bill will send a message to Democrats and 
Republicans not to use the procedures of the House for political 
purposes; to not put controversial bills on the suspension calendar, 
and to take them to the committee of jurisdiction where they belong so 
that they can be discussed, debated, and then brought to the floor in a 
bipartisan way so that we can look at it.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope this bill is pulled so that we do not have to 
take a vote on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) would call this bill controversial. Perhaps there may be some 
envy as opposed to who gets credit, and I apologize for mentioning his 
name if that is his concern. What we do not want to do is engage is 
unnecessary bashing, as it has been said.
  This is a responsible bill. Some of the other measures, and we saw 
that in the

[[Page H6445]]

hearings that the Committee on Ways and Means has had over China and 
other trade concerns, this bill is backed by hearings notwithstanding 
what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) said. But most of the 
other pieces of legislation in fact violate the very WTO rules that we 
desire China and other nations to follow.
  This bill does not do that. It is a responsible bill responding in 
ways that are appropriate. Inappropriate responses that actually 
violate the WTO rules when trying to make the point that other nations 
should follow them is, in fact, irresponsible.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my 
time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) who has been 
instrumental in producing this bill, and that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English) may control the remainder of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gingrey). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the argument from the other side of the aisle that this 
issue is somehow tied to CAFTA, I think, is particularly striking and 
particularly odd because the underlying bill that we are considering 
today should be on the consent calendar; it should not be controversial 
with the bulk of people in this Congress who care about the American 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House has the opportunity to vote on a bill 
that will take the largest step toward strengthening our trade remedy 
laws in over 15 years. This bill is a comprehensive approach towards 
eliminating many of the inequities that exist in our trading 
relationships, particularly our bilateral U.S.-China trade 
relationship. It holds China and others accountable and creates tough 
mechanisms to ensure compliance with trade agreements and provides 
tools for us to gain compliance should our trading partners, 
particularly China, fail to do so.
  Voting for this bill today will send a strong signal to Beijing that 
Congress will not sit idly by while China's mercantilist trade policy 
injures U.S. employers and costs us jobs. Voting for this bill today 
will send a strong signal to China and every country that this Congress 
will do what it takes to ensure that our trading partners fully abide 
by the rules and are not rewarded with unfettered access to our market 
when they are not prepared to make the tough choices to follow the 
international rules.
  It is clear that voting against this bill will send a very dangerous 
signal that this Congress is willing to turn a blind eye to Chinese 
complacency and we continue with the status quo of unfairness to our 
producers.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a strong, responsible, and comprehensive 
initiative that would close an existing loophole that bars the use of 
the countervailing duty law against nonmarket economies such as China. 
Right now a major tool in our arsenal is unavailable in dealing with a 
nonmarket economy or communist countries. It is ridiculous that when we 
find subsidies in France, Japan, Brazil, or Taiwan, we can use 
countervailing duties to strip the benefits of those subsidies, but we 
cannot do so if we find the same subsidies in China or Vietnam.
  This bill would establish a strong and external system to audit 
China's compliance with trade obligations on intellectual property 
rights, market access, and transparency; and it would place Congress 
strongly on the record as opposing attempts to use the WTO to water 
down domestic trade law protections.
  It would require the Treasury Department to define currency 
manipulation and clarify legal protections against China and other 
countries that manipulate their currency. It would increase funding for 
the United States trade representative to create more trade cops to 
improve enforcement of existing trade laws.
  By replacing current bonds that are used by new shippers in 
antidumping cases with cash deposits, we are dealing with one of the 
biggest loopholes.
  Finally, it would authorize funding for the International Trade 
Commission.
  Mr. Speaker, passage of this legislation is essential for the 
economic future of the next generation, for the future of good-paying 
jobs in places like northwestern Pennsylvania where we make things for 
a living. We need this legislation passed by a Congress willing to come 
together, to put aside its political differences, and certainly not 
vote down this legislation merely for political positioning on another 
trade agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this key legislation. This is the top 
trade vote of this year, and everyone will be counted on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Trade.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, normally the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) 
and I are on the same side when it comes to antidumping and 
countervailing duty bills. Both of us have a strong desire to make sure 
that our antidumping laws and countervailing duty laws are enforced, 
particularly as it relates to our manufacturing industries. We differ 
on this bill.
  This bill purports to move forward and clarify the use of 
countervailing duty remedies against nonmarket economies, but it 
establishes two new loopholes that will make it difficult for industry 
to get relief. It is already difficult for industry to get relief. This 
bill will make it more difficult.
  I find it difficult how people can understand our debate here today. 
These are very complicated issues talking about double counting. I 
would like to have a debate with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English) in regards to problems of double counting. These are complex 
issues. This bill is on the suspension calendar. We cannot even offer 
any amendments or substitutes. We are limited to 40 minutes of debate. 
That is not the way we should be talking about a major issue concerning 
our relationships with nonmarket economies and our trading rules.
  This bill does address some specific issues, but does not address the 
problems. As it deals with countervailing duties, it creates two new 
problems for cases to be filed.
  In regard to currency manipulation by China, an issue that many of us 
have talked about on this floor, what does this bill do, it sets up 
another study by the Treasury Department. We already know what they are 
going to do. They have already reported back to us. We need action.
  In regard to the use of safeguards, no action in this bill.
  International property violations, no action in this bill.
  In regards to the loophole Chinese exporters have to avoid paying 
duties, it provides a temporary 3-year provision rather than 
permanently fixing the action.
  Despite what the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, there is no new 
money in this bill in order to enforce our laws. We have already gone 
through the appropriation process what this bill purports to do through 
the suspension calendar.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be able to consider H.R. 3306 introduced by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). That bill would fix the 
countervailing duty problems we have with nonmarket economies such as 
China. It would allow us to take action against Chinese manipulation of 
currency. It would allow action to be taken in regards to the 
safeguards that we have negotiated with China on the WTO accession 
agreement. It would provide permanent relief in regards to the loophole 
that Chinese exporters are currently using to avoid duties.
  That is the legislation we should be able to consider, at least 
through amendment, but we cannot because of the process that is being 
used here. The bottom line is this legislation actually creates more 
problems in industry being able to bring antidumping or countervailing 
duty actions, and we should not be making it more difficult. It is 
already too difficult for industries to get the type of relief that 
they desire. We should have a full and open debate on our relationship 
with nonmarket economies. This legislation does not allow us to do it. 
I urge my colleagues to reject the suspension.

[[Page H6446]]

  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Trade.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English) for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong support of 
this legislation.
  I first want to recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on 
Trade, for his persistence in bringing this bill to the House floor.
  Today, China continues its emergence as a major global market. As a 
member of the World Trade Organization, China has developed competitive 
domestic industries. However, as a World Trade Organization member, 
China must comply with international standards which promote fairness 
and respect for the rule of law.
  Many in this Chamber, including myself, feel that Beijing can do a 
much better job in demonstrating to the world that its markets are 
transparent and fair both to consumers and exporters to China. At the 
same time, we have to be focused and pragmatic in determining how we 
can be most effective in establishing checks. This is not and should 
not continue to be an opportunity for political rhetoric that I have 
heard here this morning.
  The legislation before us allows for a number of these checks. In 
this bill we create an extensive monitoring of the Chinese market and 
its compliance on a range of issues, such as intellectual property 
enforcement, whether the currency mechanism is being implemented 
properly, market access to the United States goods, and its 
accountability of Chinese subsidies.
  I am pleased to hear the news out of Beijing and the Chinese 
Government that the Chinese Government has decided to float its 
currency against a basket of currencies and has appreciated the 
currency to a certain degree after 10 years. This first step is a 
positive one, but it must not be met without oversight. We must 
continue engaging the Chinese Government on the importance of a 
complete movement toward a managed float of its currency.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a former ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this bill before us, in a word, is a smoke 
screen; and it has so little smoke, let alone any fire, that Members 
can see straight through it.
  At its very best, it is feeble; at its worse, it disguises what the 
real problem is.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) raised the issue why this is 
on suspension. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), I, and others 
introduced legislation, H.R. 3306. And I want to ask the chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), and 
the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), why not put this bill 
not on suspension but regular order? Why not sit down with Democrats, 
including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and others, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and myself, and try to come up 
with a truly bipartisan bill? The other side of the aisle has not done 
that.
  They say they are adding provisions adding countervailing duties, but 
then they add other provisions which make it essentially impossible to 
work. They talk about currency. I say to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), it is more reports. The Rangel bill talks 
about more than reports.
  The Rangel bill has a definition of currency manipulation and the 
ability under 301 to do something about it. The Rangel bill also 
recreates super-301 so we will indeed be able to take action and 
ensures that this administration will take action when China does not 
meet its commitments.

                              {time}  1100

  This bill should be voted down so that we can have an honest 
discussion and debate on this floor about the way to handle this 
problem. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said something 
about WTO violation. The bill that the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) introduced is completely consistent with our WTO obligations. 
So bringing that up is a total dodge.
  This is an effort, I guess, to give some people some cover to vote 
for another bill. We should not be handling our relationships with 
China in that manipulative a way. I urge everybody to vote ``no'' on 
this bill and give this Congress, this House that is supposed to be the 
people's House, a chance to discuss this bill with amendments. This is 
another example of the abuse of power by this majority, stifling 
debate, trying to stuff things through on suspension, 40 minutes, no 
amendment.
  What is going to happen is, I think, that this bill will be voted 
down so that we can take an honest, serious look at this problem on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, perhaps it is the eternal lament of a 
minority within a legislative body to focus constantly on process and 
to share their frustrations with process. But perhaps it is better to 
focus on policy and what this legislation, which I support, will do.
  The 40th President of the United States, the late Ronald Wilson 
Reagan, enshrined these three words as part of American policy: trust 
but verify. The legislation on the floor today deals with verification. 
I say as one who opposed a trading agreement with China that this 
legislation brings the monitoring capacity necessary to understand what 
happens in international trade. Simply stated, Madam Speaker, if you 
want to get in the game, play by the rules.
  While we have seen all sorts of counterfeiting and theft of American 
intellectual property, this legislation takes steps to put that to a 
stop and to monitor the behavior. Trust but verify. Vote ``yes'' on 
this legislation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York 
for yielding me this time. As always, the devil is in the details. 
Ladies and gentlemen, this law guts the countervailing duties 
provisions that we have been living by.
  Check this out: traditionally, the data that we use to determine 
whether or not a subsidy takes place is used by basing that data on 
comparable market economies. So we want to trust, but we want to 
verify. This bill requires the administration to use data from China. 
We are going to be basing our decisions on data that is gathered by the 
People's Republic of China. If China's data says there is no subsidy, 
well, then, there is no subsidy, regardless of what the other 
comparable economies might say. We are going to trust an administration 
that has brought one WTO case since 2001, and we want to try to compete 
with the Chinese?
  Last week in the Education Committee, we cut $11 billion from Pell 
grants. No Child Left Behind is underfunded. We have millions of kids 
living in poverty. Meanwhile, the Chinese graduated 700,000 engineers 
last year. We graduated 35,000. Healthy, educated children and enforce 
international law, that is how you compete with the Chinese.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 
seconds.
  First of all, the last speaker appears to have read the other party's 
bill, not ours. The Democrats' bill is actually weaker than our bill 
because it ignores a recommendation by the GAO to authorize the 
Commerce Department to use third-country information in countervailing 
duty cases against China consistent with China's WTO accession 
commitment. Without this provision, the countervailing duty provision 
would be difficult to use and could be subject to endless court 
challenges. They have simply misread this legislation and done it in an 
egregious way.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.

[[Page H6447]]

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of H.R. 3283. As one who advocated China's entry into the WTO, I am 
concerned and disappointed with China's passage of a law on government 
procurement that incorporates strong preferences for domestic goods and 
services, fostering discrimination against, for example, software 
companies that have made a substantial commitment to the development of 
the Chinese software industry. The combined effect of rampant software 
piracy and the proposed discriminatory government procurement 
regulations will create a nearly impenetrable barrier to U.S. software. 
This at a time when the trade deficit with China is at an all-time 
high.
  Madam Speaker, I call on the Chinese Government to immediately enter 
into negotiations to accede to the agreement on government procurement 
of the WTO as they committed to 3 years ago and to suspend the 
implementation of its law on government procurement.
  I urge my colleagues to vote overwhelmingly for this bill to send a 
very strong message to China on all the fronts the bill covers, not the 
least of which is government procurement. We have the chance to send a 
strong message and take strong action, and this bill will do it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think this discussion, especially the opposition to the Rangel bill 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), just shows the 
complexity as well as sincerity of those people that would like to put 
some checks on the conduct of the Chinese trade people and I think 
emphasizes why this bill should not be on the suspension calendar.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Speaker, we have been here before. Congress has often resorted 
to bills and memoranda of understanding concerning China. But the U.S. 
trade deficit with China has continued to increase. So I am not going 
to stand here and argue process. We can look at the history and the 
fact of the whole architecture of agreements that we have had with 
China, memoranda of understanding, concerns that Members of Congress 
from both sides of the aisle brought to this floor in order to try to 
manage United States trade with China.
  Remember we were told that a memorandum of understanding on prison 
labor with China would remove their competitive advantage and restore 
balanced trade. But the U.S. trade deficit with China worsened.
  Remember the agreement to reaffirm the 1992 market access memorandum 
of understanding. We passed that, but the U.S. trade deficit with China 
grew worse.
  Remember China's agreement to lower tariffs on imports. They cut the 
tariffs from 42 percent to 23 percent, then to 17 percent, then to 12 
percent. But the U.S. trade deficit with China got worse.
  Remember China stopped arbitrary limits on maintaining agricultural 
imports. That was supposed to be a boon for the United States. But the 
U.S. trade deficit with China got worse. That is exactly the story that 
we see with NAFTA and the WTO and, this week, CAFTA.
  Why does the U.S. trade deficit with China keep getting worse no 
matter what we do? No matter what our best intentions are? The U.S. 
trade deficit with China keeps getting worse because labor costs in 
China are so much cheaper.
  Hello? Wake up, America. We are giving away our jobs here, and the 
central issue is the cheap labor in China. You can pass all of these 
agreements you want. They are not going to amount to a hill of beans, 
because the fact of the matter is that the U.S. trade deficit in China 
will continue to grow, it will approach $200 billion, as long as the 
labor costs are cheaper. That is why we are losing jobs. That is why 
the trade deficit is growing. That is why we are losing market share. 
With all due respect to my good friend from Pennsylvania, I do not see 
this bill amounting to anything. Vote against it.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means and an authentic advocate of fair trade.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Madam Speaker, before being elected to Congress, I ran a 
manufacturing business that did a significant percentage of our sales 
outside the United States. I have seen the opportunities of free trade 
and the global marketplace, and I have seen how those opportunities can 
lead to jobs right here at home. We did business in over 100 countries, 
including countries like China. I am convinced that China needs to be a 
strong trading partner with the United States long term. But for China 
to successfully and fairly participate in the global marketplace, they 
must live up to their trade obligations. They must respect and enforce 
intellectual property rights. They must open market access for U.S. 
goods, services, and agriculture. They must not manipulate their 
currency to distort trade.
  The Trade Rights Enforcement Act offers a wide range of measures to 
ensure China abides by its international commitments. Madam Speaker, 
with a level playing field, U.S. businesses can compete with anybody 
anywhere at any time. With 96 percent of the world's consumers outside 
the United States, the global marketplace holds great promise. This 
bill is a strong tool to make sure China abides by the rules of free 
trade and puts U.S. businesses in a competitive position to take 
advantage of those opportunities. I encourage all of my colleagues to 
support the Trade Rights Enforcement Act.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman 
from New York for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation in front of us today as it relates to 
China is about one thing and one thing only: providing political cover 
for those who are reluctant to embrace CAFTA. That is all this is 
about. It is about outing CAFTA. The majority realizes if they simply 
put CAFTA on the floor, they do not have even the muscle in this 
instance to put this legislation through. So what are we doing instead? 
We are offering a veneer to the American people, a ruse, as it relates 
to the problems we are having with our trade practices in China.
  Is there anybody who believes that this is about to alter our trading 
practices with China? We all know it is badly out of balance. And this 
legislation makes the problem worse.
  Currency manipulation in this legislation, no action. Dealing with 
Chinese trade barriers in this legislation, no action. We are going to 
monitor and study. I think that if they put a study in front of this 
House, we all ought to take a test on it in 2 years. Sit down and we 
will all pay attention to the test that they offer. Imagine in a 
serious issue like this, we are going to ask for studies.
  Safeguards, no action. Subsidies, they create more loopholes than 
they address. On customs duties, they have a 3-year, but listen to 
this, temporary measure to deal with the issue.
  This is a sloppy bill. It is going to do more harm than good. When it 
is over, the professors will have their jobs, the trade lawyers will 
have their jobs, the editorial writers across the country will have 
their jobs; but the men and women of organized labor who call this for 
what it is, they know that their jobs are at risk and they are opposed 
to this legislation. It guts trade laws, and it gives more power to 
WTO. It purports to help solve problems with customs enforcement. It 
makes them worse. It does not require China to make meaningful changes 
to its policy of currency manipulation. How much more emphasis can we 
put on that issue in this institution? We need to recalibrate our 
trading relationship with China. This will not do it, and everybody 
knows it. An emphasis on that term, recalibrate our trading 
relationship with China.
  When we get done with this legislation today, and there is some 
question

[[Page H6448]]

as to whether or not they can pass it, I am just going to close on this 
note. We have a highly regarded regular order in this institution of 
the responsibilities of the Committee on Ways and Means, the committee 
that many members of this institution desire to be on. You do not go 
around the committee the way this is being done. You go through the 
committee. You have hearings with a respected tradition in this House 
of Representatives for the Committee on Ways and Means. You do not do 
this through the back door.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), a distinguished advocate of 
fair trade and a member of the Subcommittee on Trade.
  (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I recently hosted roundtables with 
manufacturers in my district. Whether it is currency manipulation or 
unfair subsidies, it is clear that our local employers have long had 
enough of the way China cheats on trade.
  As John Hoskins of Curtis Screw in Buffalo told me, they have ``never 
been afraid to compete globally.'' But this century-old manufacturer 
can only compete globally if they can compete fairly, and they note 
that some of their Chinese competitors have much of the cost subsidized 
by the government.
  ``To put this in perspective,'' he said, ``the only way . . . U.S. 
manufacturers can compete . . . is if the United States Government 
begins to pay for our building, our labor, and employee benefits and . 
. . other costs of doing business.'' That is exactly what the Chinese 
are doing today.
  The United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act will help combat 
illegal subsidies, provide additional funding for enforcement of trade 
laws, and make certain that our products and services have fair access 
to Chinese markets, all critical aspects of our fight to ensure fair 
trade.
  I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) for their hard work on this 
issue, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this legislation.
  As a long-time champion of fair trade and a lead cosponsor of this 
legislation, I rise in strong support of the U.S. Trade Rights 
Enforcement Act.
  When China was permitted to join the World Trade Organization in 
2001, there was an implicit promise made to American businesses, 
workers, and consumers--that we would get a fair deal in our trade 
relations with the Chinese. Yet, in so many areas--intellectual 
property rights, currency valuation, subsidies, trade barriers, you 
name it--we see China failing to uphold its end of the bargain by 
ignoring international trade norms.
  The bill includes a variety of measures that will help bring an end 
to unfair trade practices abroad, and level the playing field for 
American companies and workers. The countervailing duties provision is 
especially important for local manufacturers.
  It's an important instrument for U.S. businesses trying to 
successfully combat illegal subsidies; and it is a big reason why the 
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has expressed its strong 
support for this measure.
  I recently hosted roundtables with manufacturers in my district; and 
whether it's currency manipulation or unfair subsidies, it's clear that 
our local employers have long had enough of the way China cheats on 
trade. As John Hoskins of Curtis Screw in Buffalo told me, they've 
``never been afraid to compete globally.'' But this century-old 
manufacturer can only compete globally if they can compete fairly, and 
they note their Chinese competitors have much of their costs subsidized 
by the government. ``To put this in perspective,'' he said, ``the only 
way * * * U.S. manufacturers can compete * * * is if the US government 
begins to pay for our building * * * our labor, our employee benefits 
and * * * other costs of doing business.'' ``That's exactly what the 
Chinese are doing today.''
  I have always maintained that our products and our workers can 
compete anywhere, with anyone in the world, as long as that competition 
is fair.
  This bill will help combat illegal subsidies, provide additional 
funding for enforcement of trade laws, and make certain that our 
products and services have fair access to Chinese markets--all critical 
aspects of our fight to ensure fair trade.
  I commend Congressman English and Chairman Thomas for their hard work 
on this issue; and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means and a member of the executive committee of 
the Congressional Steel Caucus.
  Ms. HART. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of this bill, and I am mystified by the opposition 
on the other side of the aisle. It appears that partisan politics 
trumps good business. It appears that partisan politics trumps their 
interest in American manufacturers.
  Foreign subsidies products exported to the United States continue to 
cause extreme financial hardship for these manufacturers. While rules 
exist to provide countervailing duties on such products, rules do not 
take into account the advantages enjoyed by nonmarket economies like 
China.
  Because China is such a major global trader, China's undervalued 
fixed-exchange rate has exacerbated significant imbalances between 
trading partners. Under China's fixed-exchange rate, the U.S. annual 
bilateral trade deficit accelerated since 2001, reaching $162 billion 
in 2004. While U.S. exports to China increase, its undervalued currency 
has burdened U.S. manufacturers, restricted market opportunities for 
exporting our products into China.
  Meeting with businesses in my district, the three main complaints I 
have heard from my district regarding China have been piracy of 
product, the dumping of products on our market, and the currency 
pegging issue.
  I believe that we need to support this legislation, reject the 
Democrat bill, which does not address these issues.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), one of the key 
players in developing this legislation.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English) for yielding me this time, and I thank the 
chairman for working on this bill.
  Quickly, one of the things that my mother used to tell me is self-
pity never solved one problem. We know how to fix this bill. I should 
not feel sorry for them; they should not feel sorry for me. We should 
vote on the bill that will make a difference.
  These are counterfeit parts made in China. They are robbing and 
stealing from the American economy. We have the chance today for the 
first time to put a law enforcement trade officer in charge so that 
when they get up in the morning, the first thing they do is work on how 
to stop China from doing exactly this and stealing jobs from our 
economy.
  There is a town in China, 80 percent of the parts, over 30 outlets, 
were counterfeit. If we do not step up to the plate with this bill, we 
are going to lose and continue to lose $12 billion a year just in 
automobile part counterfeiting.
  This is our chance. I plead with those on the other side, if they 
truly care about labor, if they care about the individual that gets up 
in the morning, plays by the rules, and is trying to compete in a world 
market, they will vote for this bill. They will send a message to China 
that American jobs are worth fighting for. Give us a fair, level 
playing field, and we will compete; we will win.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett), another 
strong advocate of fair trade for American workers and American 
farmers.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 3283, the United States Trade Rights 
Enforcement Act.
  Madam Speaker, this bill goes to the heart of what we know is true in 
South Carolina: China cheats. I thank President Bush and the 
administration for stepping up their trade enforcements this year, and 
I especially commend them for expediting the implementation of the 
Chinese textile safeguards to combat recent surges in exports to our 
market, but when it comes to China, more must be done.

[[Page H6449]]

  The United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act would provide the 
necessary tools to ensure China meets the trade obligations it has 
agreed to in order to become a member of the WTO. In addition, it holds 
in this legislation that China will be accountable. It is common sense 
to say here is what they have agreed to, and if they do not follow 
through, there will be consequences.
  How we deal with China today affects our future, our jobs and our 
livelihood. That is why I urge all my colleagues to level the playing 
field for everybody and support H.R. 3283.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a very distinguished advocate 
of fair trade.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam Speaker, this is one of many bills we need to pass 
that deal with China and its continued policy of government support, 
pegging of its currency, not complying with trade laws. They have 
significantly lower wages, sometimes slave wages, in their plants. Over 
90 percent of their steel production comes from government-owned steel 
mills. Their steel enjoys millions of dollars in government subsidies. 
China limits foreign participation in the wireless market by imposing 
severe regulatory requirements on telecommunications imports. The lack 
of intellectual property rights enforcement has resulted in epidemic 
levels of counterfeiting and piracy, causing serious harm to U.S. 
businesses. The implementation of questionable health standards affects 
what they will import from our agriculture. Their policies mandate the 
purchase of Chinese-owned software. They have a value-added tax on all 
non-Chinese semiconductors, which also hampers American manufacturers' 
ability to export to them.
  These unfair Chinese policies are hurting all American businesses, 
not just a few, and impact workers here.
  Only a strong American commitment to hold China accountable will 
bring about the changes necessary. Consideration of this bill is an 
important part of what we need to be doing in an extensive selection of 
things to hit back on China.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, is my understanding 
correct that the gentleman has only himself as the remaining speaker 
with 4 minutes?
  Mr. RANGEL. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is correct.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a very distinguished member of the 
Steel Caucus, an advocate of the cause of fair trade.
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for his leadership.
  It has been alleged here on the House floor that this is a trade for 
CAFTA, to get some of our votes. Let me be real blunt. It was for me. I 
took it to the President, the Vice President, our trade ambassador, the 
Secretary of State, because we have had no action on China. Whether it 
was a Democratic President or a Republican President, we have had no 
action on China. Whether it was a Democratic Congress or a Republican 
Congress, we had no action on China. Every single time we come up for a 
vote, we get rolled.
  We have to hold China accountable. This is not perfect, but a vote 
against this bill is a vote for China, not for the United States. It is 
a small step, but a critical step. Without the data, if they do not let 
their currency float, how in the world do we measure how much they are 
manipulating the currency? And those critics of those of us who have 
been putting pressure on China in the last few weeks said we could 
never get them to reevaluate their currency. It was a little, piddly 
step, but 2 percent is 2 percent. It is a big admission that they have 
been manipulating their currency.
  So rather than declare victory and rather than saying we finally, it 
looks like, are going to pass a bill on China, the other side wants to 
take it down, or at least a few Members.
  We had better pass this bill, or this is yet another victory for 
China, and we will never get anything done except at critical moments 
when they need our votes.
  I rise in support of H.R. 3283, the United States Trade Rights 
Enforcement Act.
  The outcry from American manufacturers has never been louder. China 
is destroying many American businesses. For too long, warnings of these 
businesses have been ignored. The American government has negotiated 
with China, talked to China, cajoled China, but has declined to act 
decisively and with concrete measures to combat China's policies and 
help American manufacturers. I applaud those at the United State Trade 
Representative office who have the daunting task of dealing with the 
Chinese government, but unless talk is backed-up with action, it really 
doesn't matter.
  Congress has also been reluctant to help where China is concerned. 
Although we have passed several resolutions condemning Chinese trade 
practices, they are meaningless, and do nothing to actually help 
businesses. Often it seems that the piracy of music and movies is worth 
administration and congressional action but the piracy of manufactured 
goods or China's deliberate undercutting of manufacturing through 
suspect trade policies does not warrant action.
  The hollowing out of American manufacturing does warrant action. 
Although China's economy is moving toward the free market, China 
remains an avowed communist country. The Communist government and the 
army own countless businesses, including the Chinese National Overseas 
Oil Company, which recently made a bid for Unocal. They prop up many 
businesses with free or reduced-cost energy, low cost or no-cost loans 
and financing, and sometimes forced labor. Because of Chinese 
government intervention in the economy, Chinese businesses are not 
subject to the same market forces as American businesses.
  American businesses have also been enticed to set-up shop in China. 
In addition to cheaper labor costs, businesses in China do not have to 
worry about clean air, clean water, OSHA, or compliance with a crushing 
regulatory burden. 
  Although these things put American businesses, particularly 
manufacturers, at a disadvantage, the biggest distortion of the market 
is China's currency manipulation. Until last week, China pegged its 
currency at 8.28 yuan to the dollar. Despite huge growth in the Chinese 
economy and explosive international trading, the Chinese government 
refused to revalue its currency. Estimates of China's currency 
manipulation were anywhere from 20-80 percent. This meant that Chinese 
goods entering the United States were 20-80 percent cheaper than they 
should have been. And American goods were 20-80 percent more expensive.
  Last week, the Chinese government revalued the yuan by slightly over 
2 percent. While I applaud this movement on the part of the Chinese, 
there is much more that needs to be done. I realize that the Chinese 
cannot adjust their currency overnight but I expect this latest 
devaluation to be the first of many. I also expect the Bush 
administration and future administrations to keep pressuring China to 
restructure their financial sectors and currency schemes so that they 
better match those of the market-oriented world. Their currency needs 
to flock and let markets determine the value, not the government.
  As American manufacturers have been severely damaged by unfair 
Chinese policies, the necessary tools to fight this unfair competition 
have not been available to them. One important tool is tHe 
countervailing duty, CVD. Countervailing duties are taxes assessed to 
counter the effects of subsidies provided by foreign governments to 
goods exported to the United States. Subsidies cause the price of such 
merchandise to become artificially low, which may cause economic 
``injury'' to U.S. manufacturers.
  One thing is sure, the artificially low price of Chinese merchandise 
has caused injury to American manufacturers. Unfortunately, the most 
recent interpretation of American trade laws does not allow CVDs to be 
applied to non-market economies. H.R. 3283 will explicitly allow them 
to impose CVDs on non-market economies. It will allow investigators to 
compare China with comparable market economies, most likely India, in 
order to see just how

[[Page H6450]]

much the Chinese government is unfairly aiding its businesses. This 
will not save American manufacturing overnight but it will help to 
level the playing field, and allow fair competition in the global 
marketplace.
  This legislation comes to the Floor at the same time as legislation 
to implement the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA. I am one 
of many Members that withheld support for CAFTA in exchange for 
concrete action on China. Some have criticized the efforts to link 
China and CAFTA. They argue that they are two different issues. I 
disagree. CAFTA has been sold with the promise that it will open up new 
and bigger markets for American manufacturers. That may be, but if 
manufacturers in my district are put out of business because of unfair 
competition from China, whether or not they have access to markets in 
Central America will be irrelevant because they will be out business.
  I urge all of my colleagues in the House and the Senate to vote for 
this necessary tool against unfair trade practices.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  One of the major reasons why we are opposing this bill is because of 
the process. Clearly a bill is supposed to be brought to this floor 
when it has overwhelming support, when it is a simple bill, naming a 
post office, having a stamp, declaring mothers as being essential for 
parenthood, things that Republicans and Democrats can look up at the 
scoreboard and see that we have 435 Members or close to it supporting 
it.
  How can anyone perceive, as one of the Members on the other side 
said, the most important trade legislation that we ever had will be put 
on just for 40 minutes debate? The qualities that exist in the English 
bill, we have been able to see some loopholes. He and I would want to 
work together to close those loopholes. All the members of the 
Committee on Ways and Means feels the same way about trying to do 
something to contain the overreaching of China. What makes the other 
side believe that we Democrats are not entitled to participate in the 
substantive nature of sensitive, complex legislation?
  Putting this on the suspension calendar, in my opinion, is an insult 
to Members on both sides of the aisle and is an insult to those people 
who oversight what we do, because the suspension calendar means that we 
never thought that they would ever have a problem with it, and that is 
why we did not share what is in this bill.
  I also think that it is really unfair to have the Members of Congress 
to believe that this bill comes to the floor because of its importance 
and therefore has to be passed on the suspension calendar. We have 
plenty of time to work in the Committee on Ways and Means in dealing 
with this so that we can be proud that we do not have a Rangel bill or 
an English bill or a Republican bill or a Democratic bill. The pride 
should come when we have a congressional bill which we can say both 
sides have an opportunity to hear witnesses; to see what the impact is 
going to be, whether it is going to work or not work; to see whether 
those who have fought to put checks on China feel satisfied that we 
have done it; and to be able to say to foreigners that we may have 
differences among ourselves, political differences, but when it comes 
to trade policy, we speak with one voice. The flag is up, and we speak 
for the United States of America.
  So I recognize how important it is to pass the DR-CAFTA bill. I 
recognize that there is a problem because Democrats were not involved 
and Republicans cannot get the votes. But I do not know how many 
suspension bills they are going to bring in as an excuse to get Members 
to say, I got them to talk about China, and therefore I am going to 
vote for CAFTA.
  It is not enough to talk about China and the problems that we face. 
What we should be doing is bringing these issues up in the committee 
that has jurisdiction, and we are so proud of it, and to make certain 
that the best we can is to have this as a bipartisan effort on both 
sides.
  So this is not the first time that the committees of jurisdiction 
have had to have Members bypassed in terms of their input, bypassed in 
terms of the ability to have amendments, and bypassed in terms of 
saying that we have to find some way to find some bill that we can get 
bipartisanship on it. The vehicle to do this normally, from the record 
of the Congress, are the suspension bills. But trade bills should not 
be on the suspension calendar.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I would like, in this closing minute, to cut through 
the fog of process arguments and weird Alice in Wonderland illusions to 
linkage to other trade agreements. This is important legislation, and 
it is important in itself, and it deals directly with key problems that 
we are having in our trade relations, particularly with China.

                              {time}  1130

  This legislation closes loopholes, not creates loopholes. It allows 
us, for the first time, to apply countervailing duties to nonmarket 
economies. That is a good thing. I realize our friends on the other 
side of the aisle never engaged on the SOS bill, the underlying core of 
this bill, nor cosponsored it. I realize that they have been behind the 
curve on this.
  We have to move today and put this on the calendar today so that we 
can move quickly to send a message to China that we are going to close 
the loopholes, that we are going to audit their compliance with their 
trade obligations, that we are going to oppose the WTO watering down 
our domestic trade relations; and we are determined to put more money 
into trade so that we can enforce these agreements.
  If you care about China, if you care about trade, vote for this bill 
and avoid the petty partisan politics.
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I believe it is critical that we seek out 
abuses in existing agreements, and reform such laws that are 
detrimental to U.S. producers. Such is currently the case with unfair 
honey imports from China.
  In my northern California Congressional District, honey and honeybees 
play a critical role in pollinating many of our important export crops, 
including almonds.
  Because Chinese ``new shippers'' are allowed to circumvent 
antidumping orders by posting bonds, the honey industry in California 
and nationwide faces serious and continuing price declines, making it 
difficult for honey producers to provide bees for pollination.
  This bill would suspend the bonding privilege for a three-year 
period. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues, 
Representative English, Chairman Shaw and Chairman Thomas for their 
work on this matter.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, when China joined the WTO, the U.S. and 
China entered into an ``accession protocol.'' Among other things, that 
protocol anticipates that the United States may find that China is 
subsidizing exports, and in that case, the United States may seek to 
impose countervailing duties, to level the playing field. The 
Department of Commerce is required to use Chinese data to measure the 
size of the subsidy, ``where practicable,'' but use of Chinese cost and 
pricing data is not always practicable, so similar data must be drawn 
from a comparable country. As originally drawn, this bill dropped the 
key phrase, ``where practicable.'' It restricted the ability of the 
Commerce Department to measure subsidies in China and other non-market 
economies. Due to a barrage of complaints from U.S. industry, that 
phrase was added back at the last moment, before this bill was brought 
to the floor.
  But two other problems, to which U.S. industry objects, were not 
corrected.
  First of all, this bill requires the Department of Commerce to ensure 
that there is no ``double-counting'' of countervailing duties and anti-
dumping duties. Current law only requires that there be no double-
counting of export subsidies, but makes no provision with respect to 
antidumping duties. Commerce has called this change ``wholly 
inappropriate.'' These are the words of the Commerce Department: ``The 
proposed change would put China into a special category distinct from 
all other countries when subject to concurrent anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty investigations.'' According to the Department of 
Commerce, this restriction ``would raise complex methodological 
questions, the costs of which may far outweigh any purported equity 
gains of any such adjustment.''
  Secondly, this bill gives the WTO Dispute Settlement Body special 
influence over U.S. law. WTO decisions are not self-executing. The 
Congress decides how, when, and whether to implement a WTO decision. 
This bill would require the Commerce Department to ensure that our 
application of countervailing duty law to non-market economies is 
consistent with our international obligations. There

[[Page H6451]]

is no guarantee how the WTO would rule if this aspect of this law were 
brought before it. This provision could place WTO dispute settlement 
tribunals on a special footing when dealing with U.S. laws.
  If this bill were brought up as a regular bill, it would be 
amendable, and these troubling provisions could be changed or deleted.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
3283 on both process and policy grounds. This legislation is on the 
floor this week simply to provide political cover for members who vote 
for the flawed Central American Free Trade Agreement. The consideration 
of this bill is not a real attempt to react to Chinese currency 
manipulation, trade barriers and state-sponsored subsidies. It is 
merely an empty, rhetorical response to our valid concerns about 
China's ability to utilize CAFTA to circumvent U.S. trade laws.
  The bill's title--the U.S. Trade Rights Enforcement Act--is, at best, 
a misnomer, because it actually prevents our country from enforcing its 
trade rights. While the bill purports to apply U.S. countervailing duty 
law to China, it contains three glaring loopholes that strip us from 
any ability to enforce that law. First, the bill limits our use of 
third-party data when investigating Chinese subsidies in anti-dumping 
cases. The effect of this provision is to force us to use China's own 
data in these cases, even though we've learned time and again that 
China does not play fair in the global trade market.
  The bill also exempts Chinese domestic subsidies when industries file 
both anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases. This provision 
essentially applies a more lenient standard to non-market economies 
than to market economies under U.S. anti-dumping and CVD law. Let me 
remind my colleagues that our goal here is to get tough on China, not 
give them a free pass while holding our friends with market economies 
to a tougher standard.
  The bill also imposes extra burdens on the U.S. that raises serious 
issues with regard to both sovereignty and separation of powers. The 
bill would direct the Commerce Department to essentially pre-clear the 
application of U.S. law to ensure consistency with the WTO. While every 
other U.S. law is deemed WTO-compliant unless and until the WTO rules 
otherwise, this bill makes our actions toward China jump through extra 
international hoops before it can ever be applied.
  Even worse--for the first time ever--the bill would give the Commerce 
Department the power to align U.S. law with the WTO, without action 
from Congress. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives the 
Congress--not the executive branch--the sole responsibility for the 
regulation of foreign commerce. This provision is a serious 
infringement on the power of the legislative branch and strips the 
Congress of much, if not all, authority to deal with our country's 
trade concerns with China.
  I urge my colleagues not to fall for the majority's empty rhetoric. 
This bill will do nothing to help our trade problems with China and is 
a thinly-veiled diversionary tactic to shore up votes for the flawed 
CAFTA agreement. Look beyond the majority's smoke and mirrors, and vote 
against this ill-timed and ill-conceived legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3283. The 
so-called United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act would provide 
little to no remedy for those in my district who are deeply concerned 
about the ever growing trade deficit with the Peoples Republic of China 
due to its longstanding illegal policy of currency manipulation.
  This is a major issue. Congress should be considering this measure 
for more than forty minutes and with the opportunity to offer 
amendments. However, this will not be the case today because of the 
procedures under which this bill was brought to the floor. We should be 
debating this issue in great depth, not the rather cursory discussion 
we are having today. We should be talking seriously about complex 
issues like ``Super 301,'' ``double counting,'' and what exactly we 
should do with our countervailing duties. We should be talking about 
why our trade deficit with China is now at $162 billion and continues 
to grow with no end in sight. We should be talking about the fact that 
China doubled its holding of U.S. debt between 2001 and 2004. And we 
should be talking about how jobs in our home states have been affected 
and what we can do to help American businesses who are struggling to 
export their goods to China.
  But that debate unfortunately will not happen today.
  Rather, today the House is considering H.R. 3283 because of an 
agreement reached, I presume to secure votes in favor of the seriously 
flawed Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement, (DR-
CAFTA). The majority has chosen to play politics on the floor today 
rather than seriously address the issues resulting from China's 
currency manipulation and the resulting trade imbalance that has 
ballooned between the United States and China.
  I have heard from a number of constituents in my district who are 
deeply concerned about these issues. And yet today, we are not 
addressing their concerns with action, we are requesting studies. Today 
we are not ordering countervailing duties to correct for unfair trade 
practices, we are creating additional loopholes for China to evade the 
even paltry countervailing duties that do exist.
  Madam Speaker, today I stand with the people in my district who are 
affected by China's currency manipulation and our soaring trade 
deficit. That is why I have cosponsored a number of other bills, such 
as the bipartisan The Chinese Currency Act, H.R. 1498, that will 
actually address China's currency manipulation. However, I will vote 
against H.R. 3283, and it is my hope that the Congress will re-evaluate 
this serious issue in a detailed fashion to actually address these 
important issues that have bipartisan support.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3283, 
the so-called United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act. This bill 
purports to address China's lax enforcement of its international trade 
obligations. In fact, this bill does little to address serious trade 
issues with China, and it is on the House floor for only one reason: to 
garner votes for CAFTA later this week.
  There is no question that Congress should do everything in its power 
to enforce trade rights worldwide. However, giving lip service to an 
issue that deserves our careful consideration and strong action is a 
grave disservice to the American people. What we should be talking 
about today is the Bush Administration's continued failure to decrease 
our trade deficits and promote labor rights, environmental standards 
and public health protections with our trading partners.
  Let's look at the facts: In 2004, the U.S. trade deficit with China 
grew to a record $162 billion. This despite the fact that China joined 
the World Trade Organization, WTO, in 2001 and should be well on its 
way to reducing trade barriers and opening up their markets to U.S. 
goods and services. Even the United States Trade Representative has 
said that China's WTO compliance efforts are ``far from complete and 
have not always been satisfactory.''
  Given these facts, I support strong trade enforcement against China. 
I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1498, the Chinese Currency Act, which would 
allow the administration to impose countervailing duties due to China's 
continued currency manipulation. The bill has 110 bipartisan cosponsors 
and provides real enforcement mechanisms, instead of the studies and 
redefinitions offered by H.R. 3283. If the leadership were serious 
about China we would be voting on this meaningful legislation today. 
But, that is not the case.
  Madam Speaker, we have known about trade enforcement issues in China 
for years. But China legislation magically appears only now that CAFTA 
is in trouble. I urge my colleagues to vote against this sham bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act.
  I do have real concerns about the spiraling trade deficit with China 
and China's unfair trade practices, and I think Congress should 
consider possible legislative responses.
  However, the bill offered today does little to provide assistance to 
U.S. workers, farmers, and businesses. In fact, it could create 
additional problems for them. In particular, I am concerned that the 
legislation could make it more difficult to apply countervailing duties 
to China and other nonmarket economies while making it easier for them 
to hide subsidies.
  Further, by placing this legislation on the suspension calendar, 
which is reserved for non-controversial legislation, the Republican 
leadership has refused to offer a full debate to Members to consider 
alternative plans to strengthen enforcement of our trade policies and 
hold countries accountable for their trade practices.
  This procedure makes it clear that real intent here is not so much to 
address our trade problems--it is more about politics and winning extra 
votes for passage of CAFTA later this week.
  It is unfortunate that the Republican leadership has taken this 
opportunity to bring about stronger trade policies and instead used it 
to consider a bill that is largely symbolic at best, and could even be 
harmful.
  It is for these reasons I will vote against this bill.
  Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3283, 
concerning trade with China.
  I join with millions of American workers in saying no to this ill-
conceived Republican gift to the Chinese government.
  This bill does nothing to address the growing unfair trade gap 
between China and the United States--an imbalance purchased with 
China's exploitation of political prisoners, oppressive jail-like 
working conditions, child labor, and suppression of basic freedoms.
  Products made in China are cheap through the exploitation of the 
workforce. Every time

[[Page H6452]]

we shop, we are driving the nail further into the coffin of American 
manufacturing jobs.
  This bill does nothing to address artificially low prices. It does 
nothing to stop manipulation of currency to drive the United States 
further into a trade imbalance. It does nothing to save honest American 
workers from losing their jobs.
  This bill weakens the ability of the United States to apply sanctions 
against China for unfair trade practices. Democrats have offered 
several much stronger proposals to deal with this issue, and the 
Republicans have refused to let them come to the floor. Not a single 
one has been considered.
  To help U.S. workers, farmers and businesses, and America's long-term 
economic security, Congress should take decisive action to bring about 
fair trade with China, instead of squandering this opportunity on a 
weak Republican bill.
  If Congress wants to take real action, it should pass comprehensive 
legislation to end currency manipulation; allow U.S. companies to 
challenge subsidized imports from China; and fix China safeguard 
statute and other import remedies to protect U.S. manufacturers against 
surges and other unfair imports from China.
  I support American workers in saying, let's combat China's unfair 
trade practices by providing us with the tools to save American jobs.
  It is an insult to American workers that, in the same week that 
Congress is considering CAFTA, it is bringing forth a weak China trade 
compromise bill. This demonstrates the majority's anti-worker agenda, 
that gives priority to Chinese workers instead of American jobs.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation. Isn't it ironic that the proponents of ``free trade 
agreements'' like CAFTA are lining up squarely behind a bill like this 
that threatens a trade war with China, and at the least calls for the 
United States to initiate protectionist measures such as punitive 
tariffs against ``subsidized'' sectors of the Chinese economy? In 
reality, this bill, which appeared out of the blue on the House floor 
as a suspension bill, is part of a deal made with several Members in 
return for a few votes on CAFTA. That is why it is ironic: to get to 
``free trade'' with Central America we first need to pass protectionist 
legislation regarding China.
  Madam Speaker, in addition to the irony of the protectionist flavor 
of this bill, let me say that we should be careful what we demand of 
the Chinese Government. Take the demand that the Government ``revalue'' 
its currency, for example. First, there is sufficient precedent to 
suggest that doing this would have very little effect on China's trade 
surplus with the United States. As Barron's magazine pointed out 
recently, ``the Japanese yen's value has more than tripled since the 
breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, yet Japan's trade surplus 
remains huge. Why should the unpegging of the Chinese yuan have any 
greater impact?''
  As was pointed out in the Wall Street Journal recently, with the yuan 
tied to several foreign currencies and the value of the dollar 
dropping, China could be less inclined to purchase dollars as a way of 
keeping the yuan down. Fewer Treasury bond purchases by China, in turn, 
would drive bond prices down and boost yields--which, subsequently, 
would cause borrowing costs for residential and some corporate 
customers to increase. Does anyone want to guess what a sudden burst of 
the real estate bubble might mean for the shaky U.S. economy? This is 
not an argument for the status quo, however, but rather an observation 
that there are often unforeseen consequences when we demand that 
foreign governments manipulate their currency to U.S. ``advantage.''
  At the very least, American consumers will feel the strengthening of 
the yuan in the form of higher U.S. retail prices. This will 
disproportionately affect Americans of lower incomes and, as a 
consequence, slow the economy and increase the hardship of those 
struggling to get by. Is this why our constituents have sent us here?
  In conclusion, I strongly oppose this ill-considered and potentially 
destructive bill, and I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting 
it.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3283, as amended.
  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. RANGEL. 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.

                          ____________________