[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 27, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H6658-H6668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3283, UNITED STATES TRADE RIGHTS 
                            ENFORCEMENT ACT

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 387 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 387

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3283) to enhance 
     resources to enforce United States trade rights. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. The amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Putnam) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 387 is a closed rule that 
provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of 
the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution 
shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 387 also provides one motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
bill, H.R. 3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act. The 
legislation passed the House of Representatives yesterday by a majority 
vote of 240 to 186, but did not garner the necessary two-thirds vote to 
pass under suspension of the rules.
  Over the past 25 years, U.S.-China trade has risen from $5 billion to 
$231 billion, and China is now our third largest trading partner. In 
2001, China joined the World Trade Organization by notifying the WTO 
they had formally ratified the WTO agreements. However, a report 
released in December of 2004 by the U.S. Trade Representative stated 
that while China has worked hard to comply with its WTO commitments, 
they have not always been satisfactory.

[[Page H6659]]

  Major areas of concern identified in the report included intellectual 
property rights, agricultural services, industrial policies, trading 
rights and distribution, and transparency of trade laws. This 
legislation addresses these concerns by creating concrete mechanisms to 
ensure that China abides by its previous commitments and that we renew 
our efforts to level the playing field for American manufacturers 
competing against subsidized Chinese goods.
  Specifically, the bill would establish a monitoring system to track 
China's compliance with its trade obligations on intellectual property 
rights, market access for U.S. goods, services, and agriculture, and 
accounting of Chinese subsidies so that we open it up and have that 
transparency that has been lacking to date. The system would require 
that the President issue semiannual reports to Congress on China's 
progress in meeting these commitments.
  Mr. Speaker, our domestic goods manufacturers are currently at a 
disadvantage because they are forced to compete with imported goods 
subsidized by foreign governments or public entities that can be sold 
at lower prices. H.R. 3283 would apply U.S. countervailing duty law to 
exports from nonmarket economies, such as China, to give our 
manufacturers the tools they need here in America to compete with 
nonmarket economies in those countries.
  The bill also tightens the rules on antidumping duties by requiring 
cash deposits, and suspending for 3 years the availability of bonds for 
new shippers in antidumping cases in order to prevent those shippers 
from defaulting on their obligations.
  H.R. 3283 increases funding for the U.S. Trade Representative to 
improve the monitoring and enforcement of U.S. trade agreements, 
something that we hear about an awful lot on this floor, the lack of 
enforcement of prior trade agreements. This directs the trade 
representative to make that a priority.
  The bill also authorizes funding for the U.S. International Trade 
Commission and requires the commission to conduct a comprehensive study 
on the sensitivity of U.S. trade and jobs to current policies.
  Mr. Speaker, in today's global marketplace, it is vital that trade 
obligations be enforced and that our manufacturers and producers be 
allowed to fairly compete in our markets here at home and those abroad. 
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Putnam), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House decided that this time it would not 
accept the practice of approving bills that materialize out of nowhere. 
This time, the House decided it wanted a real debate on China's unfair 
trade practices and how best to remedy them.

                              {time}  1045

  So the House did not approve the two-thirds majority needed for 
passage under suspension of H.R. 3283, a bill that has never gone 
before committee, never had a hearing, never had the benefit of expert 
testimony, never had a markup, and has never been open to amendment. 
Instead, this House demanded that the bill be taken up under regular 
procedure. That is why we are here today. But even under regular order, 
the Republican majority has done all it can to stifle debate.
  Last night the Republican majority on the Rules Committee reported 
out a closed rule for H.R. 3283, a closed rule that only allows for 1 
hour of debate and no amendments; well, except for the one amendment 
offered by the back room author of this bill in the first place, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Last night the Committee on Rules heard testimony on three amendments 
that would seriously address some of the major challenges facing U.S. 
trade with China and other nonmarket economy nations. First, there was 
the amendment modeled on the bipartisan bill originally introduced by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis). This amendment 
might actually provide needed remedies to tackling China's currency 
manipulation.
  Then there was a amendment offered by the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel), a comprehensive amendment that addresses the real 
problems facing America in its trade with China, currency manipulation, 
export surges, barriers to U.S. export of goods and services, and the 
right of American private sector companies and workers to challenge 
China's agricultural and manufacturing subsidies.
  Finally, there was an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) which would have shut down the loopholes in the 
countervailing duties in the Thomas bill. Each of these concrete 
proposals presented to the Committee on Rules last night deserve 
debate, and would significantly enhance the underlying do-nothing 
legislation. But the Republican leadership shut them out and shut down 
debate.
  Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has become a place where 
democracy comes to die. Heaven forbid that this House might take up 
amendments that actually address the real issue surrounding China's 
unfair trade practices and provide genuine remedies. Heaven forbid that 
this House might actually have a real debate on these matters, and 
heaven forbid that the Republican majority might actually allow votes 
on these serious unfair trade practices.
  What is the majority afraid of, a straight up-or-down vote?
  Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this Chamber and heard over and over 
Members on the other side of the aisle give 1-minute speeches demanding 
that the Senate have up-or-down votes on judicial nominations. Well, 
Mr. Speaker, if up-or-down votes are good for the Senate, why are they 
not good for the House of Representatives?
  This House has had enough time this week to provide 40 minutes of 
debate each to the naming of half a dozen post offices, but we do not 
have enough time or interest to give the Ryan-Hunter-Davis amendment 10 
or 15 minutes, or the courtesy to give the ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means 10 or 15 minutes to offer a substitute 
amendment?
  The Chinese Government must be laughing with glee at the Republican 
leadership's blatant abuse of power in their lock-step rejection of 
democratic debate. Instead, we are forced to settle for the Thomas 
bill, a bill that fails to offer solutions and fails to take action. 
Instead, it calls for more reports, more studies and more dialogue. In 
fact, when the Thomas bill does take action, it actually opens up more 
loopholes for China to exploit, more ways for China to hide its 
subsidies, and more opportunities for China to manipulate and falsify 
its trade and economic data.
  Mr. Speaker, standing up for American businesses and workers against 
America's unfair trade practices should be one of our top trade 
priorities. The growth of China's economy and its trade with the rest 
of the world is one of the most significant developments of the 21st 
century, and the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of 
this House have no effective policy for dealing with it.
  Last year the U.S. trade gap with China was $162 billion. This year 
it is expected to climb to $225 billion. And China continues to engage 
in unfair trade practices, with billions lost to Chinese piracy of U.S. 
intellectual property, Chinese subsidies for its manufacturers, and 
Chinese currency manipulation harming U.S. exports.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and let this House debate 
the thoughtful, meaningful amendments that have been offered. That is 
how democracy is supposed to work.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  One of the items that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 
mentioned that I agree wholeheartedly with is the rise of China is one 
of the most significant developments of the 21st century, and that is 
why it is so critically important that we make sure that the trade 
agreements that exist

[[Page H6660]]

between our country and theirs are enforced and are monitored. That is 
what this bill does.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Rogers), a man from a heavy industry and manufacturing State who 
understands well the challenges imposed by the lack of enforcement of 
these agreements.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, George Washington in his 
Farewell Address warned of some of the problems that would be created 
with two strong party systems, and today I see it. It is unfortunate 
that my colleagues would spend so much of their time both yesterday and 
today debating about how they did not have time to debate the issue 
that is so important.
  This bill for the first time will change trade policy toward somebody 
like China, who is cheating our economy and stealing our jobs. We have 
the ability today to make a statement, to stand up for every worker in 
America who gets up, plays by the rules, goes to work and tries to 
build the best products in the world, and they do. Given a level 
playing field, we will compete with any Nation on the face of the 
Earth. Our workers are that good. You should have the faith and 
confidence in them to stand up today and say, we are going to help you 
by leveling the playing field.
  Trade is important. It is the engine of prosperity. Commerce is our 
best diplomat, and today we send that very clear message to places like 
China that are cheating. It is amazing, and I want to talk just a 
minute about counterfeit goods, because in this bill for the first time 
we say you have to have a trade enforcement officer who gets up in the 
morning, and her whole job for the whole day is going to make sure that 
countries like China are living up to their WTO and the world trade 
arrangements and agreements and the rule of law, the protection of 
intellectual property.
  Mr. Speaker, 750,000 jobs are lost every year to counterfeit 
products, mainly from China. This product right here, you cannot tell 
the difference in these two products except what is on the inside. This 
product steals one job. It steals the opportunity for a company here to 
compete. It takes tax revenues away from us. This is our chance to give 
our workers the ability to do this. But is not just about an oil 
filter. This puts our jobs at risk, cheats our economy and puts 
Americans at risk. The FAA estimates that 2 percent of all airline 
parts are counterfeit.
  This is the day that we stand up for America and say, We will not 
take it anymore.
  Windshields in China, a group of auto companies went together and 
said you cannot counterfeit these things, it puts Americans at risk. 
There are no safety factors in your glass. After three convictions in 
China, that company is still producing automobile glass.
  Brake pads, there was a woman killed in Saudi Arabia because they put 
formed grass in brake pads and sold them as a counterfeit part; and, 
unfortunately, took her life. This is awfully important stuff.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to get over the partisanship and 
get over the debate about debating, and for the first time send a very 
clear message that we will stand up for American workers, we will stand 
behind their products, stand for the future of trade and prosperity, 
and we will not allow countries like China to cheat our economy and 
steal our jobs.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Rogers) by saying we are very concerned about the fact that China is 
cheating and not keeping its word with its trade obligations. Our 
problem with this bill is it is largely symbolic. It does not do what 
we want it to do.
  In fact, if press reports are to be believed, this bill is being 
brought to the floor today, as ineffective as it is, so Members on the 
other side of the aisle can have some cover to vote for CAFTA later on 
today. This bill is largely symbolic. This bill is not tough. It is 
ineffective.
  The gentleman complains that those on our side are criticizing the 
way this rule has been put together. We are criticizing because we have 
amendments that will actually make this bill tough and will strengthen 
this bill.
  We are sending a great message to China about democracy when the 
Committee on Rules last night shut off all debate, when it says to 
Members who have legitimate amendments that have bipartisan 
cosponsorship on amendments, by the way, you cannot have an opportunity 
to offer your amendments on the floor.
  We have spent an entire week debating naming of post offices, but we 
do not have the time to have a serious debate on this. It is 
ridiculous.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule 
before us this morning because, as was pointed out yesterday, the 
Republican leadership, in a clear attempt to circumvent the democratic 
process, tried to sneak the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act 
through the House under suspension of the House rules.
  Now, suspension rules are supposed to be reserved for 
noncontroversial measures. They are most often employed for renaming 
post offices and honoring sports teams, but not for bills which attempt 
to alter America's trade policy. But this leadership wanted to force 
this bill through the House without a proper hearing in the committee, 
without the appropriate debate, and without any opportunity for 
amendment or improvement.
  Fortunately for all Americans, that plot failed, and the measure was 
defeated on the floor. But to no one's surprise, they are back at it 
again this morning. The leadership once more has shut the door on the 
delivery of democracy by providing just 1 hour of debate on this 
measure. And more importantly, on a party-line vote, the Republicans 
voted to prevent any amendment by any Member of Congress from even 
being considered on the House floor today which would strengthen this 
bill.
  That means they want all 435 Members of the House to accept the 
leadership's version of the bill; no changes, no arguments, no 
additions, no recommendations for improvement, just yes or no. This is 
like being given an opportunity to vote in an election with only one 
candidate on the ballot. It is a stretch to call that democracy.
  The question is what is the House leadership afraid of? They do not 
want the membership of the body to have an opportunity to strengthen 
trade policies for American companies. This China trade bill is merely 
a public relations effort, and it is part of a last-ditch attempt to 
pick up votes for CAFTA which will come up later today, and nothing 
more.
  It has no teeth, and that is exactly how the majority wants it: Long 
on rhetoric and short on substance. Even though it is called the United 
States Trade Rights Enforcement Act, the bill provides little for those 
concerned about the ballooning trade deficit with the China and the 
destruction of U.S. jobs. It fails to include real solutions proposed 
by Members on both sides of the aisle.
  It fails to include solutions such as strengthening remedies for 
American industries that were hurt by China's unfair trade practices. 
This is a very serious issue that the leadership is trivializing as a 
protection for a vote for CAFTA. But real American jobs are hanging in 
the balance, and a perfect example of this can be found in Buffalo, New 
York.
  After 100 years of business, the Buffalo Color Company, the last 
domestic producer of indigo dye used to make blue jeans, is in the 
final throes, to quote the vice president, of bankruptcy. Buffalo Color 
is the victim, and it has already been adjudicated, of illegal Chinese 
dumping of indigo dye on the American market. For 2 years, we have been 
asking for help from the administration to stop the Chinese companies 
from circumventing our trade laws by shipping their cheap dye to the 
United States through Korea and Mexico. I have tried repeatedly to 
personally discuss this case with Commerce Secretary Gutierrez, and 
have yet to even hear back from him.
  I want Members to understand that the unfair trade practices are 
going on because this administration will not stop them. The Secretary 
has been so busy going to China to give away more jobs and working up 
here to get CAFTA passed, he cannot even answer

[[Page H6661]]

a letter. We have called, we have written, we have issued press 
releases, but we cannot get the Bush Commerce Department to lift one 
finger to save an iconic American industry from annihilation at the 
hands of Chinese price dumping, which is already illegal.
  The bottom line is that, much like the Bush administration, this bill 
will do nothing to help Buffalo Color Company or its employees. As a 
result, the only remaining producer of the dye for blue jeans, a 
powerful American icon, will be driven into bankruptcy by illegal price 
dumping, and more American jobs will be lost. Let me repeat that they 
have already won their case against China. The Commerce Department 
simply refuses to allow it to survive.

                              {time}  1100

  I hope the sad irony of this is not going to be lost on anybody here 
today, because Buffalo Color should be able to count on its Federal 
Government to provide protection from unfair trade practices. With this 
bill, the Republican leadership is failing to meet that responsibility.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just take one moment to correct something that 
was said by my friend from Massachusetts about this week being filled 
with renaming of post offices. We have also managed to find time this 
week to pass the first comprehensive postal reform in years. There is 
the strong likelihood of at least a couple of appropriations conference 
reports; the Central American Free Trade Agreement; a highway 
conference report; an energy conference report; and a bill to get 
strict with China about enforcing our trade agreements.
  The gentlewoman from New York is correct. This bill was up for a vote 
yesterday on the suspension calendar. Under House rules it requires a 
two-thirds vote to be passed. It garnered 240 votes, shy of two-thirds, 
but a clear majority, with 19 Democrats also believing that it was 
important to enforce trade agreements with China. It was our mistake, 
apparently, to believe that there would be even broader bipartisan 
support, to believe that there would be more than 19 Democrats who 
would want to enforce our trade agreements with China. So it is back 
today where it requires a majority vote to pass. So for the second day, 
we will have an opportunity to devote the time and resources to debate 
the need for our country to enforce trade agreements with China; to 
keep our commitments that have been negotiated and passed in the 
Congress; to make sure that the resources are in the Department of 
Commerce and the resources are in the ITC, the International Trade 
Commission, and the resources are in the Trade Representative's Office 
to make sure that we are monitoring the compliance of the Chinese 
Government with preexisting laws, with preexisting trade agreements so 
that our manufacturers, our employers, our jobs in America do not 
suffer. That is why we are back here today.
  I am happy to yield, Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder), another leader on this issue.
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few questions on 
process and some on policy. There is a big difference between talk and 
actually getting something done. This is not an ideal bill. I would 
have liked to have had a lot more in this bill. I wish we could have 
had more. I hope we can get some additional provisions in as it moves 
through the Senate. But the fact is, with all due respect, the most 
powerful lobby, or at least one of the most powerful lobbies, in this 
Congress is the China lobby, with quotes around that, those people who 
believe that trade with China and expanding trade with China is 
absolutely essential. They rolled us on vote after vote, and we cannot 
get their attention.
  Some people have alleged that the only reason this bill is coming up 
is because of CAFTA. Well, big shock. It is hard to get different bills 
up unless you can use your leverage at different times when the 
majority of Congress, of the leadership, President Clinton when he was 
President, President Bush when he was President, the leadership of both 
political parties, has not been willing to aggressively confront China. 
They view it as a paper dragon. This bill is not perfect.
  If I can move into policy for a few minutes, because it is very 
difficult to figure out how to deal with a country that is cheating in 
their currency manipulation. If they do not float the manipulation, is 
it 20, 40, 80 percent? We do not know. It is not floating. So how do 
you peg it? If you do not have any data like this bill is asking us to 
collect, when I went in and worked with the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English) and others to try to put this bill together in the 
beginning, the main problem is that most of the proposals on the table 
are not workable. They are not workable under WTO because we do not 
have the functional data with which to match it up to try to prove that 
there is currency manipulation. We know there is currency manipulation 
because they are propping it up, but that is very difficult to prove in 
a world court.
  Furthermore, as I worked with Ambassador Zoellick and with now 
Ambassador Portman and Josette Shiner and others who are working and 
lobbying China is that as you confront them on these issues, it was 
questionable whether they had the power to invoke countervailing 
duties.
  This bill incorporates the English bill that I was an original 
cosponsor of and helped in drafting with the modifications of the Ways 
and Means Committee, with the numbers collection, so that we can have 
the first steps to be able to not just be a paper dragon.
  Now, for all the rhetoric that comes through, and we come down here 
on the floor and we pound on China and lose another vote, and pound on 
China and lose another vote, the fact is they have reevaluated their 
currency this past week. Sure, 2.1 percent. If they are cheating by 80 
percent, 2.1 percent is not much. But it is a step. All the rhetoric of 
Congress got nothing, but when we leveraged on CAFTA, which, quite 
frankly, is a little tiny peanut compared to a great big elephant when 
we are talking about China, very important in Central America, very 
important to those democracies, important to a few people in our 
country and certain trading agreements, but just a little tiny trade 
thing, and China is a huge trade thing, but they will not talk to me or 
others about China, either party, unless you leverage your vote when it 
becomes a critical time.
  China, as I talked to the DCM a few weeks ago, says, we are not going 
to reevaluate. The pressure was so great out of Congress on the markets 
and manipulation that they made a small concession. They need to make 
more.
  The plain truth is that for all my criticism of China, they have been 
helping to prop up our currency. As Arab countries back out of our 
currency and move to the euro because of our support for Israel and 
other elements in the Middle East, China has helped prop it up. If they 
suddenly float it, it is uncertain what would happen to our economy 
from interest rates and inflation, but they need to reevaluate. 
American industry cannot compete with environmental standards, clean 
air, clean water, parental leave, the minimum wage, ADA and all this 
type of stuff, then add to that a currency manipulation of 20 to 80 
percent. We cannot compete. It is not a matter of putting tariffs up 
and us asking for trade advantages. We cannot compete when other people 
cheat.
  Now, we appreciate the Chinese Government moving 2 percent. They need 
to move faster. This bill gives us a tool.
  It was shocking to me last night when this bill went down. It should 
have been a unanimous vote. Yes, there was not normal participation. 
Normal participation going through the Ways and Means Committee means 
it would have been buried so deep, we would not have even seen the 
letters with the H.R. on it. It would not have ever come out to the 
House floor. It took leverage to come out. It is not a perfect bill, 
but we had a bill. Quite frankly, when I first saw that bill go down 
last night, I thought the China lobby won again, the China lobby on our 
side that wanted to bury it and the China lobby on the other side that 
wanted to bury it. I am thankful to our leadership that they agreed to 
come back today with a rule so we could pass it with a clear bipartisan 
majority. I appreciate them

[[Page H6662]]

moving forth. I believe this incrementally, and that is politics. It is 
not some dramatic speech. It is not denouncing China. It is actually 
making incremental policy changes. We just got the double. With this 
bill and the currency reevaluation, we have made the first progress 
with China that we have had in years. I think we should be commended, 
and I think we should try to get a unanimous vote after the politics 
are done.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say to the gentleman from Indiana that I share his 
anguish over the process. I share his frustration over the fact that 
many of us, we want to have more of a policy debate here. I would 
suggest to the gentleman from Indiana if he really wants a policy 
debate, that he will join with us on this side and vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so we can bring up some very reasonable, thoughtful 
amendments that will put some teeth into this bill.
  I bet we will get bipartisan support for these amendments. I think 
one of the reasons why they are not being made in order is because the 
leadership on your side believes that, in fact, these amendments will 
actually carry the day.
  I would say to the gentleman from Florida that just to make it clear 
that one of the reasons why so many of us voted against this bill 
yesterday, one is because it does not have any teeth in it. That does 
not mean it does not have reports; reports and dialogue, and that is 
it. We have had enough of that. We wanted something that had some teeth 
in it, that was actually going to send China the message we want to be 
sending.
  But we also objected to the fact that this bill has never gone before 
a committee, never had a hearing, never had the benefit of expert 
testimony, never had a markup, has never been open to amendment. That 
is not the way this process is supposed to work. This is supposed to be 
a deliberative body. Flawed legislation like this can be made better. 
At least we should be given the chance to let the majority in this 
House work its will.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the gig is up. On both sides of the aisle, 
regardless of how trade bills, and this is trade day, I guess, on the 
floor of the House, regardless of how these bills go up or down, the 
American public knows who is exposing and who is extending and who is 
sending jobs overseas. Both parties. We have had two administrations 
now that have given the store away, one Democrat and one Republican 
administration, and you come on this floor and want us to believe that 
you are going to pass this legislation and teach China a lesson.
  I rise, and I rise to oppose this fig leaf, which is pathetic. The 
majority is using this fig leaf to cover the growing crisis of our 
trade relationship with China years after the horse is out of the barn. 
China is obviously not playing by the rules. You tell me whether they 
are or they are not. The American people want to know where you stand. 
They want to know in your district where they stand. It has nothing to 
do with Democrat and Republican. The resulting imbalance is destroying 
family wage production jobs here in this United States. This bill does 
not contain the answers. It should be defeated again. That it is even 
being considered on this floor to buy a few votes is an embarrassment 
to the House of Representatives.
  Let us look at the facts. Let us look at the data. Our trade deficit 
with China is rapidly growing. It reached $162 billion last year. It 
was $16 billion in the month of May alone. China is buying huge chunks 
of our Nation's growing debt. Do you know how much debt China owns of 
ours? Is that not embarrassing enough?
  Human rights abuses continue to be a problem in China. People from 
both sides of the aisle have stated on the record what those abuses 
are. They are not hidden. They are exposed. Yet God knows what we do 
not know.
  China continues its piracy of U.S. goods and products unabated. 
Unabated. Many factories in China still utilize child and prison labor. 
We cannot even get in to see what is going on in those factories.
  China has only made a minor change in disconnecting its currency from 
the dollar. Another fig leaf. It is on the front page of the Financial 
Times and the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. Who are those 
trade people kidding? They are not kidding the American people at all. 
Our Nation's manufacturing sector and the manufacturing capability 
throughout the world is being decimated by China's use of these low-
wage, no-regulation, nonmarket conditions.
  This free trade gig is up. It is exposed. Just today, 9:30 this 
morning, I can report to the Congress of the United States in New 
Jersey where the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has said, we are going to 
gain all of these jobs from this trade, we are going to gain all of 
these jobs from CAFTA. We did a survey of 180 small New Jersey 
manufacturers. One hundred four small manufacturing business owners 
told us they did not think CAFTA would have any impact on their 
business. One-quarter of the entire sample told us that CAFTA would 
have a negative impact and lead to job losses, and they were willing to 
document it. We will bring that up for another debate.
  I ask you, taking such minor action today like this bill and the 
resolution condemning the Unocal bid, ho-ho-ho. And the majority thinks 
it can show American manufacturers and American workers that it is 
concerned about China at this stage? You are not fooling anybody.
  This is a fig leaf, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the figs and the gigs, 
may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman has 15\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman on the other side of the aisle, for whom I have a great 
deal of respect, from New Jersey represents a major industrial State, 
lots of manufacturers. I would just say that this is clearly a bill 
that is more than a fig leaf. Application of U.S. countervailing duty 
law to exports from nonmarket economies is more than an empty gesture: 
$6 million per year in additional money to USTR beyond the President's 
request, up to $45 million and earmarked for the General Counsel, 
Office of Monitoring and Compliance; the suspension for 3 years of 
bonding authority; increased teeth, increased enforcement, increased 
compliance to make the Chinese follow the law and agreements that we 
have already signed and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the sponsor of this legislation, and 
someone who has worked for years very diligently on all the issues 
relating to China.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Let me say I do not look particularly becoming in a fig leaf; and the 
gentleman from New Jersey, who is hanging his hat on the fig leaf that 
has been introduced by the other side, which is not taken seriously by 
anyone, does not look particularly becoming hanging back behind that 
either.
  I would urge everyone who in this Chamber is as concerned as I am 
about the problems of China trade to vote for this rule and to vote for 
this bill. This bill should be allowed to move forward today. It got 
240 votes yesterday, and I thank all of those involved who have made it 
possible.
  This, I believe, is the key trade vote of the year. And contrary to 
the propaganda we have heard from elsewhere, it is not largely 
symbolic. Yet yesterday, over 270 of our colleagues from the other side 
of the aisle voted ``no.'' Let me tell the Members what the 
significance was of their vote. They voted against extending 
countervailing duties to China and other nonmarket economies that we 
regularly apply to other market countries that we trade with.
  They voted against closing the bond loophole under antidumping. They 
voted against a comprehensive audit system for China, how they follow 
their trade obligations. They voted against authorizing new funds for 
trade cops. They also voted against clarifying Congress's opposition to 
efforts to water down our domestic trade law protections in the current 
WTO rules negotiations.

[[Page H6663]]

  And, finally, they voted against requiring the Treasury to clarify 
its definition of currency manipulation in the context of the very 
modest change that the Chinese have now put forward.
  This is commonsense legislation. It was intended as consensus 
legislation, and it certainly did not materialize out of nowhere 
because all of these components we have been familiar with for years. 
It is just that the minority in the Committee on Ways and Means never 
had much interest in issues like CVD before.
  The rule underlying this debate is consistent with Ways and Means 
traditions, sought and supported by both parties when they were in the 
majority. So this is not about stifling debate. This is about moving a 
bill forward.
  Simply by offering silly process arguments like the other side did 
yesterday is not enough. Offering a fig leaf alternative, a bill 
dropped in the same day that we announced the consensus we had worked 
forward, is not enough. The truth was blurted out, may I tell the 
Members, Mr. Speaker, today in The Hill magazine in which it quoted a 
spokesman for the Committee on Ways and Means Democrats as saying: 
``The minority's near unified opposition to the bill stemmed as much 
from its role in the CAFTA battle as from the strength of its 
content.''
  This is all about cynicism. This is all about politics being played 
by their side of the aisle. They would rather stop a significant first 
step in dealing with China if it inconveniences their strategy on 
CAFTA. In other words, they are more worried about dealing with another 
trade agreement, dealing with five countries whose combined economy is 
smaller than that of the Czech Republic, than dealing with the real 
problem and the real threat in Beijing.
  This is cynical. This is outrageous. And I urge all of my colleagues, 
including those intrepid Democrats who supported us on this bill 
yesterday, to join with us to get it through today; and if they want to 
vote ``no,'' let them do it. That is democracy, but the voters will 
hold them accountable.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Florida just commended the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for being the author of the bill. This is the bill that 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania introduced, and then, mysteriously, 
this is the bill that came out of nowhere out of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, no hearings, no markup, nothing. So we are talking about two 
different pieces of legislation. This bill that mysteriously has 
appeared before us weakens the countervailing duty section. It makes 
this bill that the gentleman from Pennsylvania introduced originally 
worse. So that is what we are concerned about here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very disturbed that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, the last speaker, has introduced partisanship in this. I 
chastised both administrations, Democrat and Republican, as giving away 
the kitchen sink. We gave it away. We gave it away in the Free China 
deal. We gave up article I, section 8 of the Constitution, what we 
learn in the eighth grade: commerce belongs in the House of 
Representatives, not on the President's desk. And, second of all, the 
jobs that we have gained and the jobs that we have lost in our dealings 
with China make very interesting reading because we have lost high-wage 
jobs, and we have gained those jobs that pay far less. Look at the 
data.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the ranking member on the Trade Subcommittee.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my Republican colleagues talk 
about this rule, I understand why the Republican leadership is bringing 
forward a closed rule, because if we had an open rule, we would end up 
with a very good bill that would do something about enforcing our laws 
against China.
  I listened to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) talk 
about this being the key trade vote of the year, and I think we should 
understand that the Committee on Rules is responsible to make sure that 
we have a fair and open debate by the manner in which they propose 
rules. There has never been an opportunity to offer a single amendment 
to this bill anywhere along the process, whether in the subcommittee, 
the full committee, or here on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that Trade Promotional Authority gives the 
right of the administration to submit a trade-negotiated bill to the 
Congress after consultation and after a mock markup on an up-or-down 
vote. I just did not know that we had given the Republican leadership 
the right to bring out any bill they wanted to with an up-or-down vote 
without having democracy work. That is what this rule represents, and 
it is shameful.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) talks about the 
tradition. The minority normally gets an opportunity to offer a 
substitute on a major bill. They do not even give us the right to offer 
a substitute. That is just wrong, and that is not a democratic process.
  Let me just talk for a moment or two about substance. I heard my 
colleagues talk about the manipulation of currency by China. No action 
is taken in this legislation in that regard. China undervalues its 
currency between 15 to 40 percent. We know that. Nothing is done in 
this bill to bring action against China for currency manipulation. 
Another study by Treasury? Excuse me, they just came back and told us 
there is no manipulation. What do we expect to get from that?
  My friends talk about intellectual property. They are absolutely 
correct. China does not adhere to international standards on protecting 
intellectual property. No action is provided in this bill against China 
in regards to their infringement of intellectual property. My friends 
talk about the textile issues and the flooding of the market after the 
quotas were finished. We have certain safeguards. Nothing is done in 
this legislation for action against China in regards to the flooding of 
markets.
  So what does this bill do? Does it deal with countervailing duties? 
Yes, it does. That is where we have illegally subsidized products 
coming into the U.S. market. But what does it do? It provides some 
relief on one hand, but makes it more difficult on the other. It is 
hard to figure out whether it is a plus or a minus.
  Then my friends talk about more money. It does not provide any more 
money. We have already done that through the appropriation bills. We do 
not need this bill to do it. There is nothing new in this bill.
  Then my friends talked about other issues that are not in this bill. 
Read the bill. We have missed an opportunity to deal with China by this 
rule.
  I hope we will listen to what the gentleman from the Committee on 
Rules is saying on the Democratic side. Give us a chance to have a full 
debate on China. That is the tradition of this body.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As the gentleman is aware, House rules allow for the motion to 
recommit and sets aside time for debate on the Democratic alternative 
to the legislation that we are considering here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ft. 
Lauderdale, Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee 
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  I do want to respond to several items that have been made. I think 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) just simply pointed out that 
the motion to recommit can certainly be with instructions to 
incorporate the amendments that the minority is speaking of.
  But let us take a look at what this bill does. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts was pointing out that there was more to this bill than 
the original bill filed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English). I might say it, too, that he is absolutely correct because 
there is a substantial provision in there that was written by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on Ways and Means. There was also a provision by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Pickering), the

[[Page H6664]]

gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) dealing with different 
aspects.
  So this was a conglomeration of a number of bills brought together 
under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) 
and brought directly to the floor.
  Let us talk about an open rule on a trade bill, something coming out 
of the Committee on Ways and Means. If we bring a bill like this to the 
floor, there is going to be a feeding frenzy. There will be more China 
bashing than we can ever imagine, and that is not a proper way to bring 
any trade bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. I do not 
recall any trade bill of this sort that has been brought directly to 
the House with an open rule so that every Member can throw in 
everything and every political speech, as we are hearing today.
  There is another provision that I think we need to really take a 
close look at. The Democrats are talking about unilateral sanctions 
being brought against China. That is a violation of the World Trade 
Organization. And is it not strange that we would be asked to violate 
the World Trade Organization provisions by unilateral sanctions, which 
are in violation of the World Trade Organization?
  Also, we were talking about intellectual property rights. This does 
require the trade representative to build a case under intellectual 
property rights.
  This is all being done under the rule of law. It is all being done 
properly. It is all being done through the World Trade Organization. 
This bill addresses many of the problems, if not all of the problems, 
that we have heard come from the other side of the aisle. But it does 
it in an orderly manner. It does it in accordance with law, and it does 
stick to the principles of the World Trade Organization, which is 
something that we subscribe to.
  So I would urge all the Members to vote for this rule, vote for the 
underlying bill. The House is not going to close down. As chairman of 
the Trade Subcommittee, I am sure we are going to be talking about more 
things having to do with China, and the fact that the minority party 
does not get all that it wants out of this bill does not mean that they 
should trash it or that they should vote against it. This is an 
incremental process.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I just want to clarify the record. The provision that we have in our 
legislation on China currency is to direct that a claim be brought 
within the WTO, not inconsistent with the WTO, so that we would use the 
dispute settlement resolution process within the WTO, which is 
certainly within the rights that we have.
  I just really wanted to clarify the record on currency manipulation.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentleman that we do not waive any of those rights in the bill that is 
before the House today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a little perplexed here. The gentleman from Florida 
talks about Democrats offering all kinds of amendments and discussing 
all kinds of things if we had an open rule. Well, that is called 
debate. We do that here. At least we are supposed to do that here. We 
have not been doing it lately. And I should also add that we are not 
here calling for an open rule. We are asking for right now that they 
give us at least three amendments.

                              {time}  1130

  Three thoughtful amendments have been offered, that is it. There are 
not thousands of amendments, three; and we cannot even discuss those. 
We cannot even have a debate on those. We cannot have an up-or-down 
vote on it. My colleagues talk about how the Senate should vote up or 
down on judicial nominees. Why can we not vote up or down on these 
thoughtful amendments? We are being denied that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  Because the Central American Free Trade Agreement cannot pass on its 
merits, its supporters are attempting a last-minute bid to win 
desperately needed votes later this evening, probably very late this 
evening, on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
  This bill before us purports to address the imbalanced trade 
relationship with China. We all know it will not do that. But what it 
is is just another cynical attempt to buy what is very well documented 
in this Nation's pro-free trade, pro-CAFTA media, very well documented 
in the media; this is just another cynical attempt to buy votes on 
CAFTA, among other cynical attempts to buy votes on CAFTA. This fails, 
as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) said, as the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) said, and as the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) said, fails to effectively address remedies for our 
trade deficit with China; the destruction of U.S. manufacturing jobs, 
and we know how many jobs we have lost: hundreds and hundreds and 
hundreds and hundreds of thousands as a result of China's trade policy.
  Members of Congress should be troubled that this bill has been 
introduced only in order to push through another trade priority. We 
should not have to approve a job-killing trade deal with Central 
America in order to get the chance to vote on a toothless China bill. I 
will say that again: We should not have to approve a job-killing trade 
deal with Central America in order to get a chance to vote on this 
toothless China bill.
  There are no assurances even that the Senate has plans to consider 
this half measure, and it is surely unlikely to ever become law. 
Aggressively counteracting China's unfair trade practices should be a 
top trade priority. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), members of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, they want it to be, but it should have nothing to do with 
CAFTA.
  Unfortunately, for the past 5 years, the administration has done 
nothing to curb China's illegal trade activities. It is always words 
over action. In the past 5 years, our government has refused to enforce 
domestic trade laws with regard to China, failed to take advantage of 
WTO mechanisms to challenge China's violations of international trade 
rules, balked at taking any concrete action on China's manipulation of 
its currency; what I hear from my manufacturers in Akron, in Lorain, 
and in Elyria almost every week.
  Our government has proposed eliminating funding for China enforcement 
activities and our government's proposed congressional efforts to 
address China's unfair trade practices through legislation. This bill 
fails to resolve these problems. Instead of demanding action, it calls 
for more reports and more studies to tell us what we already know, that 
China is simply not playing fair.
  Congress may get only one chance, Mr. Speaker, to act on China trade 
this year. Wasting that opportunity on this ineffective bill is a 
betrayal of America's working families, of our small manufacturers, and 
of our long-term economic security. Congress should not be fooled by 
this lose-lose proposition.
  A toothless bill on China will not make CAFTA any better.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding to me at this time.
  I will tell my colleagues, if you want to know about defense or 
intelligence reorganization, education or medical research, I am your 
guy to tell you what to do. Trade issues is an interest, but I do not 
know the ins and outs, but I want to speak as someone who is not on the 
committee that sees it in a little different way.
  Mr. Speaker, the vote that we are voting on today, when we talk about 
amendments, this is the same exact bill that we voted on yesterday in 
suspension. So the same bill, not amendments, the same bill as 
yesterday, and we are bringing it up today, we had 240 votes.
  China policy. I understand while many of my colleagues on the other 
side, and some on our side, have difficulty with China, it is a very 
difficult policy. Is it an opportunity or a threat? China is both. They 
are building Su-30s, a Russian fighter that destroys our best fighters 
90 percent of the time,

[[Page H6665]]

and the Taiwan problem with the submarines and the different trade 
issues.
  But I would tell my colleagues that spoke against, both Republican 
and Democrat Presidents, seven Presidents supported trade with China. 
Are there some jobs in some sectors that are lost? Yes. And that is 
where the administration and Republicans and Democrats need to come 
together to try and help those sectors that have lost jobs, because in 
other sectors, jobs have increased, and those Presidents, like many 
Members on the floor, feel that the overall policy is good.
  Thirdly, there is no magic bill. If you look at Northern Ireland, you 
look at the Middle East, look back when Jimmy Carter and President 
Clinton started peace talks in the Middle East. It takes 
incrementalism, and it is going to take years of working what other 
Presidents started to negotiate and to make this sound policy. I do not 
think they will ever be totally sound, but this is one step, not a 
magic bill, to make sure that some of those trade agreements are 
enforced.
  That is a good thing, and that is why we are here today, to vote on 
the same bill that we voted on yesterday. I know my colleagues want 
amendments, but this is the same bill that 240 people voted for hours 
ago.
  I would remind people that I went to Hanoi, and Pete Peterson, who is 
a Democrat. He invited us to go to Vietnam. When I was in Hanoi, to the 
Minister I said, why will you not get involved with President Clinton 
and trade in Vietnam, and he pointed at thousands of bicycles outside 
his window and he said, Congressman, I am a Communist. He said, if 
those people have things, I will be out of office. So maybe trade is 
good as a fight against communism, as one small increment.
  That is why these small bills that go forward are impotant. My 
colleagues who have legitimate concerns, especially in their own 
districts, and we need to work those things out, but this is an 
important bill, and I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the 
bill.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, quickly on process, we are not asking for an 
open rule; we are asking for the ability to bring up a substitute and 
three specific amendments, number one.
  Number two, as to the connection with CAFTA, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English) was not in favor of CAFTA until there was an 
agreement to bring up his bill, and then he said he was for CAFTA.
  Number three, what you are doing is limiting debate on this and also 
on CAFTA. We have major trade issues, and you do not want to discuss 
them.
  Here is a reason why we need to have long debate on this issue and on 
CAFTA. We have been limited to 2 hours on CAFTA. Will all the facts get 
out? I am afraid not.
  For example, there was discussion in the media about commitments that 
were made by this administration regarding pocketings and linings, and 
that there had been an agreement reached with the CAFTA countries. We 
need a long time to debate so we can show that things are not true 
sometimes that are said to be true.
  I just saw an article from La Nacion in Costa Rica about this alleged 
agreement on textiles, and here is a quote from the Minister, the Trade 
Minister of Costa Rica. I am quoting: ``It is not true that those 
consultations, that negotiation, has occurred, and it is not at all 
true that we in Costa Rica and the rest of Central America have sat 
down yet for that process of consultations.''
  So we need a full airing of CAFTA and of the China bill.
  Quickly, on the China bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) 
said that the Rangel substitute calls for unilateral sanctions. That is 
not true. That is simply not true. There is a provision relating to 
currency allowing an action under 301. If that action is taken, we go 
to the WTO. So you get up here and say things that are just not 
correct. That is why we need more time.
  The currency thing, I heard another colleague on the Republican side 
say we need more information. The Treasury report comes out every 6 
months. It is loaded with information, data just coming out of the ears 
of the Treasury Department. The trouble is, there is never any action. 
We have in our substitute provisions that say, let us have an avenue 
for action rather than simply more talk. So we should turn down this 
rule and, really, this bill.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) does not like the word 
``fig leaf.'' It is a smoke screen; maybe that is more polite. It is a 
smoke screen. It is an effort to say we are doing something when we are 
really not in order to give some people, I guess, an excuse to vote for 
another bill.
  That will not work. This is such a weak bill. We can do better. We 
should turn it down and have time to consider the substitute that was 
put together by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and myself and 
others.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to consider 
the Rangel substitute. The substitute was offered in the Committee on 
Rules last night, but was blocked on a straight party-line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the 
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, whatever position Members have on this 
legislation, they should vote against the previous question so we can 
consider another and, I believe, a better approach to our trade 
troubles with China. We have only had a short time to examine this 
bill, but from what we can tell, H.R. 3238 is a bill that is all bark 
and no bite. It calls for more reports and studies, but it does not 
give American businesses a real tool to fight China's companies that 
receive unfair subsidies from the Chinese Government.
  The Rangel proposal contains a countervailing duty mechanism that 
American businesses could actually use to fight these unfair trade 
practices, and, at the very least, the House deserves a debate on the 
Rangel proposal, but it is not going to get one here today unless we 
defeat the previous question.
  We all read the papers. We all know that the purpose of this bill is 
not to have a serious debate over China policy. We know it is part of a 
desperate effort to win a few more votes for our trade agreement called 
DR-CAFTA that even supporters do not particularly like. Allowing this 
House a chance to debate and consider the Rangel alternative to this 
bill would turn a purely rhetorical exercise into a meaningful, badly 
needed debate about our Nation's trade relations with China.
  Three closed rules were reported from the Committee on Rules last 
night. That is three major pieces of legislation that have absolutely 
no opportunity for amendment or alternative points of view. That is not 
how this House should operate. We have a chance to change that right 
now by voting against the previous question and allowing the Rangel 
substitute to be part of the legislation.
  So vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can include this 
important amendment. I want to make it clear that a no vote will not 
stop us from considering the legislation, but it will enable us to 
consider the Rangel substitute.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues not to be fooled. 
This bill is a toothless response to a very serious problem. My friends 
on the other side of the aisle supporting this bill rightly have stated 
that China is stealing our jobs, but this bill and CAFTA later is going 
to give our jobs away.
  Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question; let us make this flawed 
bill significantly better.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a huge week for the Congress, a big week for the 
House of Representatives. We are passing out major postal reform for 
the first time

[[Page H6666]]

in years, a highway bill that has been in the making for over 2 
Congresses now, an energy conference report that has also been in the 
making for over 2 Congresses now; the opportunity to have at least one 
and perhaps as many as three appropriations conference reports behind 
us as we enter the August district work period; and a Central American 
Free Trade Agreement, as well as a bill that gets tough with China, 
that finally holds our administration's feet and the feet of, either 
party's feet to the fire, and requires that they monitor and enforce 
the existing trade agreements that have been enacted by this Congress.

                              {time}  1145

  This bill has been called a smoke screen, it has been called a fig 
leaf, it has been called a number of demeaning terms. But at the end of 
the day, this is a real worthwhile enforcement tool that gives Members 
the opportunity to show the folks back home where they are on fair 
level trade with China.
  The application of U.S. countervailing duty law on nonmarket 
economies is not an empty gesture.
  A system of comprehensive monitoring of Chinese compliance with their 
trade obligations on intellectual property rights; market access for 
our American goods, services, and agriculture; an accounting of the 
Chinese subsidies; increased transparency so that we know what the 
government ownership is, we know what they are subsidizing, we know how 
much. Those are more than fig leaves, Mr. Speaker.
  It requires reporting by Treasury to define the currency manipulation 
and to analyze the effect of what the Chinese did with their new 
exchange rate mechanism this week. That is not a smoke screen.
  A $6 million a year increase above the President's request, up to 
almost $45 million a year for the general counsel and an office of 
monitoring and compliance. That is not an empty promise. That is a real 
meaningful resource to improve our ability to track the Chinese subsidy 
and the potential manipulation of the global marketplace that is out of 
compliance with our trade agreements.
  The suspension for 3 years of the availability of bonds for new 
shippers in antidumping cases. Meaningful, meaningful reform. And 
funding for the ITC and an ITC report on the sensitivity of U.S. trade 
and jobs to the currency policy, something that on a bipartisan basis 
we have heard a great deal of angst about from Members of Congress. 
That is a reflection of what is going on in the countryside that there 
are genuine fears out there about currency manipulation. This bill 
gives us an opportunity to get our arms around how extensive that is 
and what effect the reforms and the step forward the Chinese Government 
made this week will have on our economy and our employment base.
  This is an outstanding bill, Mr. Speaker. We have debated it now, 
this is the second day, first on the suspension calendar, admittedly 
with the belief that it would garner two-thirds support from this 
Chamber in the belief that everyone would share in the need to crack 
down on Chinese abuse of trade agreements, that everyone would agree 
that we need to put as many tools in the tool kit as possible to 
enforce and monitor their compliance, to bring about that transparency 
so that the world community can see what is going on, can see where 
there are distortions, can see where there is manipulation; and now it 
is back today for a straight up-or-down vote.
  Yesterday, it got 240 votes. Today, I hope it gets even more. 
Yesterday there were 19 Democrats who supported it. There were five 
Republicans who opposed it. It is a bipartisan effort, bipartisan 
angst, bipartisan support. I urge the Members to pass the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 387 H.R. 3283--United States Trade Rights 
                            Enforcement Act

       In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed 
     in Section 2 of this resolution if offered by Representative 
     Rangel of New York or a designee, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read, and 
     shall be separately debatable for 60 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)''
       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec. 2. The amendment by Representative Rangel referred 
     to in Section 1 is as follows:

          Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3283

                   Offered by Mr. Rangel of New York

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Trade with China Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) The growth of the economy of the People's Republic of 
     China is one of the most important developments of the 21st 
     century.
       (2) The bilateral trade relationship between the United 
     States and China is heavily imbalanced and is undermining the 
     long-term economic health of the United States.
       (3) The United States trade deficit with China has doubled 
     since 2000, reaching $162,000,000,000 in 2004, the largest 
     bilateral trade deficit in the world.
       (4) As a consequence of the trade deficit, the United 
     States has had to borrow massive amounts of money from 
     foreign governments.
       (5) The United States has accumulated more debt to foreign 
     countries since 2000 than in the first 220 years of the 
     country's history.
       (6) China has become a major purchaser of United States 
     Treasury bonds, and United States indebtedness to the 
     Government of China has grown by more than $100,000,000,000 
     since 2000.
       (7) The large amounts of United States dollars accumulated 
     by the Government of China contribute to China's acquisitions 
     of United States companies, such as the proposed acquisition 
     of Unocal Corporation by the China National Offshore Oil 
     Corporation.
       (8) China continues to violate many of the commitments it 
     made when it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.
       (9) China's inadequate enforcement of intellectual property 
     rights is resulting in infringement levels of 90 percent or 
     more for nearly all forms of intellectual property, and cost 
     American companies more than $2,500,000,000 in lost sales in 
     2004.
       (10) China's industrial policies discriminate against 
     foreign firms and products.
       (11) The Government of China continues to heavily subsidize 
     its manufacturing sector through tax incentives, preferential 
     access to credit and capital, subsidized utilities, and other 
     measures.
       (12) Since 1994, China has kept its currency pegged at 
     approximately 8.3 renminbi to the United States dollar, which 
     has caused the renminbi to become undervalued against the 
     dollar by as much as 40 percent, harming exports of United 
     States goods and services to China and providing an unfair 
     advantage to Chinese exports to the United States.
       (13) Current policies of the United States have failed to 
     advance and protect the interests of American workers, 
     farmers, and businesses in the United States-China trade 
     relationship, failed to address effectively China's unfair 
     trade practices and market access barriers to goods and 
     services and its poor record at protecting intellectual 
     property rights, and failed to stem or reverse the 
     unsustainable United States trade deficit with China.
       (14) It is critical that the United States develop and 
     implement a comprehensive and coherent set of policies to 
     address China's unfair trading practices and failure to abide 
     by its commitments as a member of the World Trade 
     Organization.

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

       (a) In General.--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.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply to petitions filed under section 702 of the Tariff Act 
     of 1930 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Antidumping Provisions not Affected.--The amendments 
     made by subsection (a) shall not affect the status of a 
     country as a nonmarket economy country for purposes of any 
     matter relating to antidumping duties under the Tariff Act of 
     1930.

     SEC. 4. TREATMENT OF CURRENCY MANIPULATION.

       (a) Definition of Unjustifiable Acts, Policies, and 
     Practices.--Section 301(d)(4)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2411(d)(4)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B)(i) Acts, policies, and practices that are 
     unjustifiable include, but are not limited to, any act, 
     policy, or practice described in subparagraph (A) which 
     involves currency manipulation, or denies national or most-
     favored nation treatment or the right of establishment or 
     protection of intellectual property rights.
       ``(ii) In this subparagraph, the term `currency 
     manipulation' means the protracted large-scale intervention 
     by an authority to undervalue its currency in the exchange 
     market that prevents effective balance of payments adjustment 
     or gains an unfair competitive advantage over the United 
     States.''.
       (b) Investigation Into Currency Manipulation by the 
     People's Republic of China.--

[[Page H6667]]

       (1) Investigation, determinations, actions.--The United 
     States Trade Representative shall--
       (A) conduct an investigation, under sections 302 and 303 of 
     the Trade Act of 1974, of the currency practices of the 
     People's Republic of China;
       (B) make the applicable determinations under section 304 of 
     that Act pursuant to that investigation; and
       (C) implement any action, under section 305 of that Act, in 
     accordance with such determinations.
       (2) Initiation of investigation.--The United States Trade 
     Representative shall initiate the investigation required by 
     paragraph (1) not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. CLARIFICATION OF STANDARD FOR PRESIDENTIAL ACTION ON 
                   ITC FINDING OF MARKET DISRUPTION.

       (a) Amendments to Standard for Trade Representative's 
     Recommendation to the President.--Section 421(h)(2) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2451(h)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(2) Within'' and inserting ``(2)(A) 
     Within''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) In making a recommendation to the President under 
     subparagraph (A), the Trade Representative shall consider the 
     facts found, or conclusions drawn, by the Commission as they 
     are reported to the Trade Representative, and the Trade 
     Representative may not conduct an additional review or 
     reconsideration of the facts found or conclusions reached by 
     the Commission.
       ``(C) If the Commission in its report makes an affirmative 
     finding of market disruption, the Trade Representative shall 
     apply a presumption in favor of relief to prevent or remedy 
     the market disruption.
       ``(D) The following factors may not be used as the basis of 
     a recommendation by the Trade Representative to recommend 
     denying relief under this section:
       ``(i) The presence or absence (whether actual or potential) 
     of third-country imports of the product under investigation.
       ``(ii) Any results of the econometric model known as the 
     Commercial Policy Analysis System (COMPAS) or equivalent 
     model.''.
       (b) Amendments to Standard for Presidential Action.--
     Section 421(k) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2451(k)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The President's determination shall be based on the 
     facts found, or conclusions drawn, by the Commission as they 
     are reported to the Trade Representative under subsection 
     (g).
       ``(4) If the Commission in its report makes an affirmative 
     finding of market disruption, the President shall apply a 
     presumption in favor of relief to prevent or remedy the 
     market disruption.
       ``(5) Any determination by the President under paragraph 
     (1) that providing import relief is not in the national 
     economic interest of the United States may not be based on 
     the following factors:
       ``(A) The presence or absence (whether actual or potential) 
     of third-country imports of the product under investigation.
       ``(B) Any results of the econometric model known as the 
     Commercial Policy Analysis System (COMPAS) or equivalent 
     model.''.

     SEC. 6. IDENTIFICATION OF TRADE EXPANSION PRIORITIES.

       (a) Identification of Trade Expansion Priorities.--Section 
     310 of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 310. IDENTIFICATION OF TRADE EXPANSION PRIORITIES.

       ``(a) Identification.--
       ``(1) Identification and report.--Within 30 days after the 
     submission in each calendar year of the report required by 
     section 181(b), the Trade Representative shall--
       ``(A) review United States trade expansion priorities;
       ``(B) identify priority foreign country practices, the 
     elimination of which is likely to have the most significant 
     potential to increase United States exports, either directly 
     or through the establishment of a beneficial precedent; and
       ``(C) submit to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and publish in the Federal Register a report 
     on the priority foreign country practices so identified.
       ``(2) Factors.--In identifying priority foreign country 
     practices under paragraph (1), the Trade Representative shall 
     take into account all relevant factors, including--
       ``(A) the major barriers and trade distorting practices 
     described in the National Trade Estimate Report required 
     under section 181(b);
       ``(B) the trade agreements to which a foreign country is a 
     party and its compliance with those agreements;
       ``(C) the medium- and long-term implications of foreign 
     government procurement plans; and
       ``(D) the international competitive position and export 
     potential of United States products and services.
       ``(3) Contents of report.--The Trade Representative may 
     include in the report, if appropriate--
       ``(A) a description of foreign country practices that may 
     in the future warrant identification as priority foreign 
     country practices; and
       ``(B) a statement about other foreign country practices 
     that were not identified because they are already being 
     addressed by provisions of United States trade law, by 
     existing bilateral trade agreements, or as part of trade 
     negotiations with other countries, and because progress is 
     being made toward the elimination of such practices.
       ``(b) Initiation of Consultations.--By no later than the 
     date that is 21 days after the date on which a report is 
     submitted to the appropriate congressional committees under 
     subsection (a)(1), the Trade Representative shall seek 
     consultations with each foreign country identified in the 
     report as engaging in priority foreign country practices for 
     the purpose of reaching a satisfactory resolution of such 
     priority practices.
       ``(c) Initiation of Investigation.--If a satisfactory 
     resolution of priority foreign country practices has not been 
     reached under subsection (b) within 90 days after the date on 
     which a report is submitted to the appropriate congressional 
     committees under subsection (a)(1), the Trade Representative 
     shall initiate under section 302(b)(1) an investigation under 
     this chapter with respect to such priority foreign country 
     practices.
       ``(d) Agreements for the Elimination of Barriers.--In the 
     consultations with a foreign country that the Trade 
     Representative is required to request under section 303(a) 
     with respect to an investigation initiated by reason of 
     subsection (c), the Trade Representative shall seek to 
     negotiate an agreement that provides for the elimination of 
     the practices that are the subject of the investigation as 
     quickly as possible or, if elimination of the practices is 
     not feasible, an agreement that provides for compensatory 
     trade benefits.
       ``(e) Reports.--The Trade Representative shall include in 
     the semiannual report required by section 309 a report on the 
     status of any investigations initiated pursuant to subsection 
     (c) and, where appropriate, the extent to which such 
     investigations have led to increased opportunities for the 
     export of products and services of the United States.''.
       (b) Initial Report on Chinese Practices.--Not later than 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the United 
     States Trade Representative shall identify, and report to the 
     Congress on, priority foreign trade practices of the People's 
     Republic of China, in accordance with section 310 of the 
     Trade Act of 1974, as amended by subsection (a) of this 
     section.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 310 
     in the table of contents of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended 
     to read as follows:

``Sec. 310. Identification of trade expansion priorities.''.

     SEC. 7. REQUIREMENT OF CASH DEPOSITS.

       Section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1675(a)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (iii); and
       (2) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (iii).

     SEC. 8. ITC INVESTIGATION.

       (a) Investigation.--The United States International Trade 
     Commission shall conduct a study, under section 332 of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332), regarding how the 
     People's Republic of China uses government intervention to 
     promote investment, employment, and exports. The study shall 
     comprehensively catalog, and when possible quantify, the 
     practices and policies that central, provincial, and local 
     government bodies in the People's Republic of China use to 
     support and to attempt to influence decisionmaking in China's 
     manufacturing enterprises and industries. Chapters of this 
     study shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
       (1) Privatization and private ownership.
       (2) Price coordination.
       (3) Targeting of industries.
       (4) Banking and finance.
       (5) Utility rates.
       (6) Infrastructure development.
       (7) Taxation.
       (8) Restraints on imports and exports.
       (9) Research and development.
       (10) Worker training and retraining.
       (11) Rationalization and closure of uneconomic enterprises.
       (b) Timing of Reports on Investigation.--The Congress 
     requests that--
       (1) not later than 9 months after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the International Trade Commission complete its 
     investigation under subsection (a) and submit a report on the 
     investigation to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate; and
       (2) not later than 1 year after the report under paragraph 
     (1) is submitted, and annually thereafter through 2016, the 
     International Trade Commission prepare and submit to the 
     committees referred to in paragraph (1) an update of the 
     report.

     SEC. 9. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL 
                   POLICY.

       (a) Bilateral Negotiations.--Section 3004(b) of the 
     Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination 
     Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5304(b)) is amended in the second 
     sentence by striking ``(1) have material global account 
     surpluses; and (2)''.
       (b) Definition of Manipulation.--Section 3006 of the 
     Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination 
     Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5306) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(3) Manipulation of rate of exchange.--A country shall be 
     considered to be manipulating the rate of exchange between 
     its currency and the United States dollar if there is a 
     protracted large-scale intervention by an authority to 
     undervalue its currency in the

[[Page H6668]]

     exchange market that prevents effective balance of payments 
     adjustment or gains an unfair competitive advantage over the 
     United States.''.
       (c) Report.--Section 3005(b) of the Exchange Rates and 
     International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 (22 
     U.S.C. 5305(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) a detailed explanation of the test the Secretary uses 
     to determine whether or not a country is manipulating the 
     rate of exchange between that country's currency and the 
     dollar for purposes of preventing effective balance of 
     payments adjustment or gaining an unfair competitive 
     advantage over the United States.''.

     SEC. 10. WITHDRAWAL OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TREATMENT FROM 
                   THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       Notwithstanding the provisions of title I of Public Law 
     106-286, title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, or any other 
     provision of law, effective on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, normal trade relations treatment shall not apply to 
     the products of the People's Republic of China, and normal 
     trade relations treatment may not thereafter be extended to 
     the products of that country.

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The questions was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________