[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.
____________________