[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 31, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1436-S1437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 460. A bill to make determinations by the United States Trade 
Representative under title III of the Trade Act of 1974 reviewable by 
the Court of International Trade and to ensure that the United States 
Trade Representative considers petitions to enforce United States Trade 
rights, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, when reflecting on the attributes that have 
made our great country prosperous--its free market system, its hard-
working and enterprising people, its treasured natural resources--we 
must not overlook the rule of law as an equal, if not paramount element 
of the blessings we have secured. Since our Nation's founding, 
Americans have recognized that the success of worthy enterprises in a 
functioning market require the government--rather than choosing winners 
and losers--to consistently and dispassionately enforce the rules that 
bind all actors.
  While our legal system evolved over the course of centuries to 
provide for the rule of law throughout our country, the fates of 
American people and businesses have become increasingly bound to 
counterparts in the world beyond our borders. Whether called 
``Globalization'', ``Internationalization'' or some other moniker, the 
rapidly growing number of connections between suppliers, consumers and 
financiers across national boundaries means that agreements breached 
and laws broken on the far side of the world can harm companies and 
workers here at home.
  Yet our government has failed to adapt to this new reality. While 
foreign governments engage in market-distorting currency manipulation, 
refuse to protect intellectual property rights and turn a blind eye to 
labor exploitation--each a violation of trade obligations to the United 
States--ours demurs with communiques and consultations, rather than 
formal enforcement action. What makes this abdication of its duty to 
defend the U.S. economy from unfair foreign practices especially 
troubling is that the tools to do so already exist in the dispute 
resolution provisions of various trade agreements.
  The distressing reality is that U.S. industry and labor groups are 
often rebuffed in attempts to petition the United States Trade 
Representative to initiate a formal investigation or bring a dispute 
resolution action under the relevant multilateral or bilateral trade 
agreement, as there seems to be considerable institutional momentum 
among senior officials at USTR and elsewhere in the Administration 
against bringing formal enforcement action against certain trade 
partners, and China in particular.
  USTR's handling of the trade effects of China's currency manipulation 
practices is representative of the problem. In September 2004, a U.S. 
industry coalition filed a petition under Section 301 of the Trade Act 
of 1974--the statute setting forth general procedures for the 
enforcement of U.S. trade rights--alleging that Chinese currency 
manipulation practices constituted a violation of China's obligations 
to the United States under World Trade Organization rules, and calling 
for USTR to conduct an investigation of such practices. USTR rejected 
the petition on the day it was filed, contending that ``an 
investigation would not be effective in addressing the acts, policies, 
and practices covered in the petition. The Administration is currently 
involved in efforts to address with the Government of China the 
currency valuation issues raised in the petition. The USTR believes 
that initiation of an investigation under [the Section 301 process] 
would hamper, rather than advance, Administration efforts to address 
Chinese currency valuation policies.'' Shortly thereafter, in November 
of 2004, a Congressional coalition of 12 Senators and 23 
Representatives filed a similar Section 301 petition, which was 
rejected by USTR on the same grounds.
  As noted in USTR's rejection of these petitions, current law allows 
the Executive to decline to initiate an industry-

[[Page S1437]]

requested investigation where it determines that action under Section 
301 would be ineffective in addressing the offending act, policy or 
practice. The merits of USTR's determination are unreviewable under 
current law. USTR used this loophole to avoid having to even 
investigate industry's claim, let alone take formal action against 
China. And as we now know, the Administration's ``soft'' approach to 
Chinese currency manipulation has itself proven ineffective in 
addressing the problem in the two years since these filings.
  It is to prevent further disregard for U.S. businesses and workers 
seeking a fair and consequential hearing of their concerns with foreign 
trade practices that Senator Rockefeller and I today introduce the 
Trade Complaint and Litigation Accountability Improvement Measures Act, 
or the ``Trade CLAIM Act''.
  The Trade CLAIM Act would amend the Section 301 process to require 
the United States Trade Representative to act upon an interested 
party's petition to take formal action in cases where a U.S. trade 
right has been violated, except in instances where: the matter has 
already been addressed by the relevant trade dispute settlement body; 
the foreign country is taking imminent steps to end to ameliorate the 
effects of the practice; taking action would do more harm than good to 
the U.S. economy; or taking action would cause serious harm to the 
national security of the United States.
  The bill would also grant the Court of International Trade 
jurisdiction to review de novo USTR's denials of Section 301 industry 
petitions to investigate and take enforcement action against unfair 
foreign trade laws or practices. Such jurisdiction would include the 
ability to review USTR determinations that U.S. trade rights have not 
been violated as alleged in industry petitions, and the sufficiency of 
formal actions taken by USTR in response to foreign trade laws or 
practices determined to violate U.S. trade rights.
  The Trade CLAIM Act would give U.S. businesses and workers a greater 
say in whether, when and how U.S. trade rights should be enforced. The 
bill would be particularly beneficial to small businesses, which--like 
other petitioners in Section 301 cases--currently have no avenue to 
formally challenge the merits of USTR's decisions, and are often 
drowned out by large business interests in industry-wide Section 301 
actions initiated by USTR.
  By providing for judicial review of USTR decisions not to enforce 
U.S. trade rights, the bill provides for impartial third party 
oversight by a specialty court not subject to political and diplomatic 
pressures. In delinking discreet trade disputes from the mercurial 
machinations of international relations, this Act would end the 
sacrifice of individual industries on the negotiating table, and leave 
it to the free market--uniformly operating under the trade rules to 
which our trading partners have already agreed--to decide their fate.
                                 ______