[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 135 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11721-S11722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            APPAREL IMPORTS

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the assurances 
my friend and colleague from Oregon and I have received from U.S. Trade 
Representative, USTR, Susan Schwab and Assistant Secretary of Commerce 
David Spooner about the import monitoring program on Vietnamese 
textiles and apparel. In response to concerns raised by Senator Dole 
and Senator Graham about the impact of Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations, PNTR, for Vietnam, Ambassador Schwab and Secretary of 
Commerce Carlos Gutierrez wrote a letter stating their intention to 
monitor U.S. textile and apparel imports from Vietnam and self-initiate 
antidumping investigations if the normal elements of an antidumping 
case can be demonstrated. The Commerce Department will conduct a review 
every 6 months, and the program will last until the end of this 
administration. I ask the Senator from Oregon if he is aware of the 
concerns that have been raised about this program.
  Mr. SMITH. I am aware of the concerns, and I want to thank the senior 
Senator from California for her leadership on this issue. The apparel 
industry is a very important segment of Oregon's economy, and my 
constituents back home are watching this issue very closely. There is a 
great deal at stake here for Oregon companies such as Nike, Inc., and 
Columbia Sportswear that source apparel from Vietnam. These companies 
provide thousands of well-paying jobs to workers in my State and infuse 
billions of dollars into Oregon's economy. I have heard from them and 
other U.S. retailers about the impact the proposed monitoring program 
will have on their businesses as unilateral actions such as this can 
have a significant chilling effect on companies' sourcing strategies.
  Unfortunately, the administration did not give the apparel and retail 
industry due consideration in its decision to monitor textile and 
apparel products from Vietnam. I am disappointed that the 
administration chose to use our trade remedy laws as a tool in the 
legislative process and not consult with other Members of Congress or 
the retail industry before agreeing to create a new monitoring process. 
I share the concerns of my constituents that this program will burden 
and discriminate against trade in textiles and apparel from Vietnam.
  I was pleased that the senior Senator from California agreed to send 
a letter with me to USTR and Commerce asking for assurances that the 
program would be implemented in a manner fully consistent with U.S. law 
and our obligations in the World Trade Organization, WTO, and that no 
new precedent would be set; the program would not establish any 
additional burdens for importers and exporters of Vietnamese textiles 
and apparel; and U.S. textile and apparel importers and retailers will 
have the opportunity to review and comment on how the program is 
developed.

[[Page S11722]]

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree with the Senator from Oregon's description of 
our concerns and the assurances we are seeking from the administration. 
This matter was first brought to my attention by key retail 
constituents in my State including companies like Gap, Inc., Liz 
Claiborne, and Limited Brands. Retailers have expressed their concern 
that the import monitoring program would create too much 
unpredictability and force companies to modify their sourcing 
strategies and accept the risk of and potential additional cost of 
antidumping investigations and antidumping duties. They share the 
concern expressed by the Senator from Oregon that the retail industry 
was not consulted before the administration committed to setting up the 
program. I was happy to join the Senator from Oregon on the letter to 
USTR and Commerce, and I had hoped that we would receive a response 
before a vote on PNTR on the Senate floor. Is it the Senator's 
understanding that we will not receive a response to our concerns 
before the vote?
  Mr. SMITH. It is my understanding that lawyers from USTR and Commerce 
have advised Ambassador Schwab and Secretary Gutierrez that because a 
notice has been placed in the Federal Register announcing the creation 
of the import monitoring program and soliciting public comment, they 
cannot provide a substantive written response to our letter. 
Nevertheless, Ambassador Schwab and Assistant Secretary of Commerce 
Spooner graciously agreed to meet with the Senator from California and 
me to provide us with more information about the import monitoring 
program and how it will be implemented.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator from Oregon is correct. We had a robust 
and substantive discussion. Ambassador Schwab and Assistant Secretary 
Spooner assured us that the import monitoring process will be fully 
consistent with U.S. law and applicable WTO rules. No new precedent 
would be set. In addition, they also agreed that the import monitoring 
process should not harm U.S.-Vietnam textile and apparel trade, and 
they assured us that no additional reporting requirements or other 
burdens would be placed on importers of textiles and apparel from 
Vietnam. This means that it is their intention that monitoring will be 
based upon information already collected in the normal customs entry 
process or otherwise available to the Government. Finally, they assured 
us that the views of our constituents and all Members of Congress would 
be taken into account as the process is developed. Is that the 
Senator's understanding?
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the Senator from California is correct. 
Specifically, USTR and Commerce told us that it is their intention that 
any investigation would only cover those textile and apparel products 
imported from Vietnam which are like or identical to a product also 
produced in the United States. This also means that, consistent with 
U.S. law, the domestic producer will have to request monitoring and 
supply information about their employment levels and production. This 
makes sense to me because why would the U.S. Government monitor a 
product from Vietnam that is not produced in the United States or that 
the U.S. domestic industry is not interested in being monitored in the 
first place? It is also my understanding that according to U.S. law, 
any finding of critical circumstance, which would trigger preliminary 
antidumping duties, would only be made during the course of an 
investigation and not in advance of an investigation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's commitment 
and hard work on this issue. With the assurances from Ambassador Schwab 
and Assistant Secretary Spooner, I will support legislation granting 
permanent normal trade relations status to Vietnam. Would the Senator 
from Oregon agree that we will continue to follow this process closely 
to ensure that USTR and Commerce live up to their commitments and 
implement this program in a manner that is fully consistent with U.S. 
law and our WTO obligations?
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I agree with the senior Senator from 
California, and I would like to thank her for standing with me on this 
important matter. I too will support PNTR for Vietnam. Both of us are 
committed to a strong and mutually beneficial United States-Vietnam 
trade relationship. Both of us understand how important the vibrant and 
growing Vietnam market is to our constituents. I look forward to 
working with the senior Senator from California to provide effective 
oversight of the monitoring program and ensure that the voice of 
retailers across the country are heard in the discussion of U.S. trade 
policy. I trust Ambassador Schwab when she told us that she intends to 
have this monitoring process work in the way we discussed in our 
meeting. As the senior Senator from California knows, we have many 
difficult trade initiatives that we will consider next year. I, for 
one, will measure my willingness to work with the administration on 
these upcoming initiatives, in part, based on the good faith of the 
administration in implementing this monitoring process in a fair and 
normal way.

                          ____________________