[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 20 (Monday, February 2, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1276-S1277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 363. 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, the devastating job losses we are currently 
seeing across our economy have reaffirmed my conviction that Congress 
must redirect U.S. international trade policy toward preserving 
American jobs through stringent enforcement of

[[Page S1277]]

U.S. trade rights, rather than endlessly pursuing new free trade 
agreements. Shifting the focus of U.S. trade strategy to job 
preservation is particularly essential in the manufacturing sector, 
which since 1994--the year NAFTA came into effect--has lost over 4.2 
million jobs. The economic downturn over the past year has further 
decimated U.S. manufacturers, which have shed over 600,000 jobs in 2008 
alone.
  It is no coincidence that this withering of our country's once-
unparalleled manufacturing base took place during a decade-and-a-half 
of record trade liberalization and increases in imports from large, 
often poorly regulated low-cost producers like China and India. In 
Maine, my constituents have seen this down-side of trade, with over 
20,000 manufacturing jobs lost since 2000, mainly in paper and wood-
working industries that have suffered from unfair competition from 
Asian imports.
  To stem the outflow of American manufacturing jobs due to trade 
competition with countries that manipulate their currencies, exploit 
their workers or wantonly degrade their environment, it is essential 
that we decisively enforce the trade agreements we already have in 
place. Yet our Government has often failed to take this basic but 
crucial step when confronted with egregiously unfair trade practices. 
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 all too frequently demurs with communiques 
and consultations, rather than formal enforcement action. What makes 
this abdication of 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 bureaucracy against 
bringing formal enforcement action against key trade partners. Indeed, 
it is a troubling fact that every single one of the petitions brought 
by business or labor groups in the last 8 years under Section 301 of 
the Trade Act of 1974--the statute setting forth the process by which 
members of the public can request that the government enforce of U.S. 
trade rights--has been rejected by USTR, in some instances on the same 
day they were filed!
  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 Senators Rockefeller and Conrad 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 or 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 U.S. 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 thus give U.S. businesses and workers a 
greater say in whether, when and how U.S. trade rights should be 
enforced. As Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I believe this bill would also 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 de-linking discreet trade disputes from the mercurial 
machinations of USTR's trade liberalization agenda, this Act would end 
the sacrifice of individual industries on the negotiating table, and 
allow trade enforcement claims to be decided on their merits. We owe no 
less to the millions of American workers whose jobs depend on the level 
international playing field that can only be guaranteed by their 
Government consistently standing up for them against unfair foreign 
trade practices.

                          ____________________