[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 28, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6183-H6189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY TRADE DEFICIT COMMISSION

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 1875) to establish an Emergency Commission to End the Trade 
Deficit, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1875

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States has run persistent trade deficits 
     since 1978, and many of such trade deficits since 2000 have 
     been especially large.
       (2) There appeared to be some improvements in the United 
     States trade balance in 2009, but this was during a time of 
     global economic crisis, and the reduction in the United 
     States trade deficit appears to be attributable to a 
     shrinking United States demand for imports rather than an 
     increase in United States exports.
       (3) Many of the trade deficits are structural--that is, 
     with the same countries, year after year. In 2009, the United 
     States continued to have significant merchandise trade 
     deficits with the People's Republic of China ($226.8 
     billion), the European Union ($60.5 billion), Japan ($44.7 
     billion), and Mexico ($47.5 billion), notwithstanding the 
     overall decline in the United States trade deficit. In fact, 
     in 2009, China accounted for 44 percent of the United States 
     merchandise trade deficit.
       (4) While the United States has one of the most open 
     borders and economies in the world, the United States faces 
     significant tariff and non tariff trade barriers with its 
     trading partners.
       (5) The causes and consequences of the United States trade 
     deficit must be documented and recommendations must be 
     developed to expeditiously address structural imbalances in 
     the trade deficit.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the Emergency Trade Deficit Commission (in this Act 
     referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership of Commission.--
       (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 11 
     members, of whom--
       (A) three persons shall be appointed by the President, of 
     whom one shall be appointed to represent labor interests, one 
     shall be appointed to represent small businesses, and one 
     shall be appointed to represent manufacturing interests;
       (B) two persons shall be appointed by the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate upon the recommendation of the Majority 
     Leader of the Senate, after consultation with the Chairman of 
     the Committee on Finance of the Senate;
       (C) two persons shall be appointed by the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate upon the recommendation of the Minority 
     Leader of the Senate, after consultation with the ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Finance of the Senate;
       (D) two persons shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, after consultation with the 
     Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (E) two persons shall be appointed by the Minority Leader 
     of the House of Representatives, after consultation with the 
     ranking

[[Page H6184]]

     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (2) Qualifications of members.--
       (A) Presidential appointments.--Of the persons appointed 
     under paragraph (1)(A), not more than one may be an officer, 
     employee, or paid consultant of the executive branch.
       (B) Other appointments.--Persons appointed under 
     subparagraph (B), (C), (D), or (E) of paragraph (1) shall be 
     persons who--
       (i) have expertise in economics, international trade, 
     manufacturing, labor, environment, or business, or have other 
     pertinent qualifications or experience; and
       (ii) are not officers or employees of the United States.
       (C) Other considerations.--In appointing members of the 
     Commission, every effort shall be made to ensure that the 
     members--
       (i) are representative of a broad cross-section of economic 
     and trade perspectives within the United States; and
       (ii) provide fresh insights to in identifying the causes 
     and consequences of the United States trade deficit and 
     developing recommendations to address structural trade 
     imbalances.
       (c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--
       (1) In general.--Members shall be appointed not later than 
     60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and the 
     appointment shall be for the life of the Commission.
       (2) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as 
     the original appointment was made.
       (d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
       (e) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       (f) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The members of the 
     Commission shall elect a chairperson and vice chairperson 
     from among the members of the Commission.
       (g) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
       (h) Voting.--Each member of the Commission shall be 
     entitled to one vote, which shall be equal to the vote of 
     every other member of the Commission.

     SEC. 3. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall be responsible for 
     examining the nature, causes, and consequences of the United 
     States trade deficit and providing recommendations on how to 
     address and reduce structural trade imbalances, including 
     with respect to the United States merchandise trade deficit, 
     in order to promote sustainable economic growth that provides 
     broad-based income and employment gains.
       (b) Causes of U.S. Trade Deficit.--In examining the causes 
     of the United States trade deficit, the Commission shall, 
     among other things--
       (1) identify and assess the impact of macroeconomic 
     factors, including currency practices, foreign government 
     purchases of United States assets, and savings and investment 
     rates, including savings rates of foreign state-owned 
     enterprises, on United States bilateral trade imbalances and 
     global trade imbalances;
       (2) with respect to countries with which the United States 
     has significant, persistent sectoral or bilateral trade 
     deficits, assess with respect to the magnitude and 
     composition of such trade deficits--
       (A) the impact of tariff and non tariff barriers maintained 
     by such countries and the lack of reciprocal market access as 
     a result of such barriers;
       (B) the impact of investment, offset, and technology 
     transfer requirements by such countries;
       (C) any impact due to the failure of such countries to 
     adhere to internationally-recognized labor standards, 
     including the extent to which such failure affects conditions 
     of competition with the United States or the ability of 
     consumers in such countries to buy United States goods and 
     services;
       (D) any impact due to differences in levels of 
     environmental protection and enforcement of environmental 
     laws between such countries and the United States, including 
     the extent to which such differences affect conditions of 
     competition with the United States;
       (E) policies maintained by such countries that assist 
     manufacturers in such countries, including the impact of such 
     policies on manufacturers in the United States; and
       (F) the impact of border tax adjustments by such countries;
       (3) examine the impact of free trade agreements on the 
     United States trade deficit;
       (4) examine the impact of investment flows both into and 
     out of the United States on the trade deficit, including--
       (A) the impact of United States outbound investment on the 
     United States trade deficit and on standards of living and 
     production in the United States;
       (B) the impact that the relocation of production facilities 
     overseas has on the United States trade deficit, including by 
     reviewing major domestic plant closures over an appropriate 
     representative period to determine how much production 
     terminated from such closures was relocated offshore;
       (C) the impact of foreign direct investment in the United 
     States on the United States trade deficit and on standards of 
     living and production in the United States; and
       (D) the impact of United States bilateral investment 
     treaties, including bilateral investment treaties under 
     negotiation, on the United States trade deficit;
       (5) examine the role and impact of imports of oil and other 
     energy products on the United States trade deficit; and
       (6) assess the extent to which United States foreign policy 
     interests influence United States economic and trade 
     policies.
       (c) Consequences of U.S. Trade Deficit.--In examining the 
     consequences of the United States trade deficit, the 
     Commission shall, among other things--
       (1) identify and, to the extent practicable, quantify the 
     impact of the trade deficit on the overall domestic economy, 
     and, with respect to different sectors of the economy, on 
     manufacturing capacity, on the number and quality of jobs, on 
     wages, and on health, safety, and environmental standards;
       (2) assess the effects the trade deficits in the areas of 
     manufacturing and technology have on defense production and 
     innovation capabilities of the United States; and
       (3) assess the impact of significant, persistent trade 
     deficits, including sectoral and bilateral trade deficits, on 
     United States economic growth.
       (d) Recommendations.--In making recommendations, the 
     Commission shall, among other things--
       (1) identify specific strategies for achieving improved 
     trade balances with those countries with which the United 
     States has significant, persistent sectoral or bilateral 
     trade deficits;
       (2) identify United States trade policy tools including 
     enforcement mechanisms that can be more effectively used to 
     address the underlying causes of structural trade deficits;
       (3) identify domestic and trade policies that can enhance 
     the competitiveness of United States manufacturers 
     domestically and globally, including those policies of the 
     United States and other countries that have been successful 
     in promoting competitiveness;
       (4) address ways to improve the coordination and 
     accountability of Federal departments and agencies relating 
     to trade; and
       (5) examine ways to improve the adequacy of the collection 
     and reporting of trade data, including identifying and 
     developing additional databases and economic measurements 
     that may be needed to properly assess the causes and 
     consequences of the United States trade deficit.

     SEC. 4. REPORT.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 16 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the 
     President and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a 
     report that contains--
       (1) the findings and conclusions of the Commission 
     described in section 3; and
       (2) any recommendations for administrative and legislative 
     actions as the Commission considers necessary.
       (b) Separate Views.--Any member of the Commission may 
     submit additional findings and recommendations as part of the 
     report.

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable 
     to carry out this Act. The Commission shall hold at least 
     seven public hearings, one or more in Washington, D.C., and 
     four in different regions of the United States.
       (b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Commission considers necessary to carry 
     out this Act. Upon request of the Chairperson of the 
     Commission, the head of such department or agency shall 
     furnish such information to the Commission.
       (c) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other Federal departments and agencies.

     SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are 
     officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to that received for their 
     services as officers or employees of the United States.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of duties of the Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
     additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
     Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an 
     executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the 
     Commission.

[[Page H6185]]

       (2) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Commission may 
     fix the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification of positions and General Schedule 
     pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive 
     director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable 
     for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of 
     such title.
       (d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; GAO AUDIT.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $2,000,000 to the Commission to carry out this Act.
       (b) GAO Audit.--Not later than 6 months after the date on 
     which the Commission terminates, the Comptroller General of 
     the United States shall complete an audit of the financial 
     books and records of the Commission and shall submit a report 
     on the audit to the President and the Congress.

     SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on 
     which the Commission submits its report under section 4(a).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 1875, a bill to establish 
an Emergency Trade Deficit Commission. This commission will examine the 
causes and the consequences of the United States' persistent and 
substantial trade deficits, and it will provide recommendations on how 
to address and reduce those deficits.
  Over the past 10 years, our trade deficits have been unprecedented. 
Before 2000, our largest trade deficit was in 1987 when the deficit was 
equal to 3.3 percent of GDP, but that 1987 deficit pales in comparison 
to the deficits we have had every year from 2000 through 2008. Indeed, 
in 2006, our trade deficit represented 6.4 percent of GDP, nearly twice 
as high as in 1987.
  These enormous trade deficits are corrosive. They lower our GDP. They 
weaken our economic growth. It is no surprise that global imbalances 
and, in particular, huge U.S. trade deficits have contributed to the 
global economic crisis that we are slowly recovering from. Our trade 
deficits are improving now, but this appears to be largely due to a 
still weak economic recovery, not to any structural policy change, and 
many economists are warning that massive global imbalances will return 
unless we take corrective action.
  Our recent trade deficits are due, in part, to a passive, hands-off 
approach to trade in the past. Proponents of this flawed approach 
mistakenly believed that our trade deficits would resolve themselves. 
Ignoring their effect on U.S. manufacturers, they claim that the 
mercantilistic practices of China and of some of our trade partners may 
be okay for the U.S. because they result in cheaper imports for our 
consumers. This is not a trade policy; this is a recipe for economic 
failure.
  As our President has said: Trade is going to be reciprocal. It is not 
just going to be a one-way street.
  Those words have been backed up by strong action, such as the China 
safeguard action the administration took last year.
  To be sure, there are many causes of our trade deficits, many causes 
which are not directly related to trade or to industrial policy. The 
fiscal deficits we amassed over the past decade certainly played a 
signature role, for example, and we need to confront those issues as 
well. Trade can contribute substantially to the strength of our 
economy, but it has to be reciprocal. It has to be two-way trade.
  I believe that the work of the Emergency Trade Deficit Commission can 
help us determine how best to achieve two-way trade. It can help us 
expand and shape trade to ensure that it is working for working 
Americans. It can help us make a thing of the past these corrosive 
trade deficits that weaken our economy and hurt our workers and the 
manufacturers which employ them.
  I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, at this point I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Kentucky, who is focused on creating manufacturing 
jobs through open markets, Congressman Davis.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased that we're having 
this debate today about the importance of trade for America's 
manufacturing sector. Given my extensive experience in manufacturing, 
I'm pleased to provide my firsthand familiarity with what makes 
business successful and what creates jobs.
  My own experience tells me that international trade is vital to the 
success of America's manufacturing sector. In my home State of 
Kentucky, nearly 50,000 manufacturing jobs are dependent on exports. 
The simple fact is that 95 percent of the world's consumers live 
outside the United States, and the fastest growing markets are outside 
our borders. So success in those markets is critical to growing our 
manufacturing sector and creating good paying jobs.
  As the President has noted, America's exports of manufactured goods 
support one out of every five manufacturing jobs, and those jobs pay 15 
percent more than average. We simply must increase exports, and that's 
the key to any debate about the trade deficit.
  If we're going to be successful in growing U.S. exports and reducing 
the deficit, we need to identify the best practices for doing so. We 
have real world results that we can use to identify these best 
practices, and these facts show clearly that there has been no more 
effective way to reduce the trade deficit and create U.S. jobs than 
negotiating new trade agreements to open foreign markets to U.S. 
exports.
  The benefits of CAFTA to the United States manufacturing sectors and 
workers are clear. Because of this agreement, we swung a negative trade 
balance, a trade deficit in manufactured goods of $1.1 billion, to a 
trade surplus of $1.9 billion, and we already have a surplus of $1.3 
billion so far this year.
  Madam Speaker, in the manufacturing world, we'd never base our best 
practices on just one successful outcome. Fortunately, the success of 
the Central America Free Trade Agreement is not the only example we 
have. The United States has implemented trade agreements with eight 
other countries under the Trade Promotion Authority. In 2009, the U.S. 
had an overall trade surplus of over $27 billion with these eight 
countries, and so far in 2010, we have a surplus of over $14 billion.
  And the results for the American manufacturing sector are even 
stronger. In 2009, the United States had a trade surplus of over $29 
billion with these countries, and in 2010, $16 billion. This is a track 
record that firmly establishes the aggressive pursuit of trade 
agreements as the best practice for increasing U.S. exports and 
lowering the trade deficit.
  Given the ambitious track record of success of our trade agreements, 
I don't think we need another government commission. However, I 
understand that for some, the facts I've cited aren't enough and, 
therefore, I do rise in support of this bill.
  I want to help those with doubts about the benefits of trade 
agreements to see how vital they are to the success of American 
manufacturing, so I'll support this legislation in an effort to educate 
others on these benefits, the benefits of well-executed, bilateral, and 
free trade agreements properly structured between the partners.

[[Page H6186]]

  I fully expect the commission will reach the same conclusion that I 
and many others on both sides of the aisle have already reached. 
However, I'm concerned that we can't simply wait for the commission to 
do its analysis.
  As the President has noted, other countries are racing ahead of us in 
negotiating agreements that benefit their workers while we sit on the 
sidelines. That's why I strongly support the President's call to 
resolve the outstanding issues around the U.S.-South Korea trade 
agreement.
  My colleagues and I on this side of the aisle stand ready to work 
with the President to implement these best practices and prepare not 
only the South Korea agreement for congressional approval, but to 
prepare the agreements with Colombia and Panama as well. I'm confident 
these agreements will be just as successful for American workers in the 
U.S. manufacturing sector as our prior agreements.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell), our distinguished colleague, a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I want to agree with the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Davis), but there's a catch here. In the last 6 months, 
we have gained 136,000 manufacturing jobs, private jobs. It's one of 
the few pluses that we can refer to. So there is hope for the future in 
terms of manufacturing if we do the right thing.
  I rise in support of H.R. 1875, the End the Trade Deficit Act, and I 
want to thank my friend from Oregon for introducing this important 
legislation. All through the years, Mr. DeFazio continues to speak out 
over the din and over the years for the American consumer and for fair 
trade policies. I salute you.
  The United States has run a persistent trade deficit with the world 
since 1978, including structural deficits with several major trading 
partners year after year. This includes a $220 billion trade deficit 
with China alone.
  In 2001, just think of it, 9 years ago, China was granted admission 
to the World Trade Organization, that number was $84 billion. It's 
increased in 9 years by $136 billion. One study by the Economic Policy 
Institute estimates that the dramatic increase in our trade deficit 
with China alone has cost this country 2.4 million jobs.
  The American people, the middle class, know that our trade policy has 
not worked for them. They see it in their everyday lives. My hometown 
of Paterson, New Jersey, I still live there. We close factories. We 
reopen them south of the border or overseas. Why haven't we stopped the 
hemorrhaging of jobs to places offshore?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. PASCRELL. We cannot continue down this path. Our trade deficit is 
unsustainable. We must begin to tackle it if we want to create jobs 
here in the United States and remain a prosperous country in the 
future.
  There's no silver bullet out there that will balance the books, which 
is why a comprehensive study of the problem and recommendations for 
policy solutions, which is proscribed in this legislation specifically, 
is very necessary.
  The commission will look at many of the tactics we know our trading 
partners use in order to place their exports at an advantage and in 
order that they have played and gamed the system to our disadvantage:
  Foreign currency manipulation, we've addressed it in some esoteric 
statements now and then. But we know what China is doing, and it hurts 
us in terms of what the Americas are trying to do.
  Tariff and nontariff barriers, just mentioned before in the previous 
legislation by the gentleman from Illinois.
  Foreign subsidization of manufacturing, other countries have 
different taxing methodologies than we do. They subsidize their 
industries. How can our industries compete against that unless we 
address that particular issue, which we're afraid to do. Both sides of 
the aisle are afraid to address the real issues on trade and the weak 
environmental and labor standards.
  I'm pleased the commission will include the impact of border tax 
adjustments on our trade deficit, which penalized our exporters by an 
average of 15.2 percent and are currently totally legal under current 
global trade agreements.
  We will not deal with the imbalance in our trade agreements unless we 
understand how countries have gamed the system to hurt our workers, and 
that's why we continue to offshore these jobs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. At the end of the day, the United States is the most 
open, accessible, and dynamic market in the world. We hold our trading 
partners, hopefully, to the same standard. We must tackle our trade 
deficit head-on so that United States businesses and families can 
continue to prosper in the years to come.
  I urge passage of this legislation. I eagerly await the report of the 
commission.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
who is the top Republican on the Oversight Committee on Ways and Means 
and has focused both on ending the drilling moratorium that is killing 
U.S. jobs in the gulf, and also opening new markets for our American 
manufacturers, services, and ag community, the gentleman from 
Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the ranking member on the Trade Subcommittee, 
Mr. Brady from Texas, for yielding time to me.
  I think it's important to recognize, and I agree with the gentleman 
who just spoke, Mr. Pascrell, that the United States has the most 
vibrant, open market in the entire world, and we need to take advantage 
of our leadership position. The U.S. has led globally since 1945 in 
setting the standards for open trade.
  Trade agreements give access to American workers and businesses to 
other markets for U.S. services and products. Let's face it, 95 percent 
of the consumers of the world are outside of the borders of the United 
States. So our trade agreements create U.S. jobs.
  Despite having the trade deficit that we've talked about, the U.S. 
trade balance with 13 countries that we have free trade agreements 
implemented through Trade Promotion Authority has really improved our 
export capacity by 476 percent between 2001 and 2009, creating a trade 
surplus with those respective countries of over $25 billion.
  Case by case we can look at these: CAFTA-DR, Chile, Morocco, 
Singapore, Australia. These trade agreements actually exceeded actual 
export growth estimates initially put forth by the International Trade 
Commission. The U.S. had a trade surplus with each of these countries, 
enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. workers and businesses.
  The failure to implement an aggressive trade strategy that focuses on 
exports puts the U.S. at extreme risk of falling behind competitively. 
We know that China's embarking on a very aggressive trade policy 
globally. Other countries, Brazil. We have a very multipolar world 
today with very aggressive trade policies working against us, and our 
country has really been on the sidelines for the last year-and-a-half 
in trade. This failure threatens U.S. credibility globally. Frankly, it 
threatens the U.S. credibility. And it's also a threat to the historic 
U.S. leadership role that we have set in setting open standards for 
global trade.
  Now, I believe that this new commission really is unnecessary. I am 
going to support it if it's the only way we can jump-start something on 
trade, but I really do think it's unnecessary. And if you go back and 
look at the historic role that the Ways and Means Committee has played 
in implementing an open trade policy, a trade policy that benefits U.S. 
businesses and U.S. workers, it goes all the way back into the 
twenties, and possibly even before that.
  I remember reading about Cordell Hull as a member of the House Ways 
and Means Committee, a Democrat who espoused open trade, and then went 
on to become Secretary of State and continued to espouse open trade. 
Our committee, the Ways and Means

[[Page H6187]]

Committee, has an illustrious history in doing this, and I believe 
that's where the leadership should come from.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe we can work together in trying to implement 
in working with this current administration to come up with a really 
good, solid trade strategy that really promotes U.S. competitiveness. 
That's where I believe the authority should lie.
  I believe it's pretty clear what we need to do. We ought to implement 
the three pending free trade agreements: South Korea, Panama, and 
Colombia. Let's move forward on these. These will immediately help 
enhance exports and create U.S. jobs. They already have access to our 
market. We need access to those markets. In the hearing just yesterday, 
Stu Eizenstat, who served in the Clinton administration, talked about 
these being no-cost stimulus, no-cost job creation mechanisms.
  I also believe, in addition to implementing a very aggressive trade 
strategy that focuses on U.S. exports not just for large corporations 
but small and mid-sized companies as well, where we can really enhance 
our export capacity, we also need to take a look at the other things 
holding us back on U.S. competitiveness.
  We need to lower the corporate rate. If we lower the corporate tax 
rate, this will enhance U.S. competitiveness. And we also need to back 
away from some of these proposals in international tax that are hurting 
U.S. competitiveness.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. If we lower our corporate tax rate at least down to 
OECD averages, that will enhance U.S. competitiveness. And we do have a 
different tax system than other countries utilize that I think actually 
hurts our competitiveness. But if we actually take steps such as what 
the administration has proposed in its current budget in the 
international tax treatment of U.S. companies, we're actually going to 
hurt U.S. job growth, we're going to hurt exports, and we're going to 
hurt U.S. competitiveness. So I think it's imperative that we take a 
look at this. And our committee, the Ways and Means Committee, should 
take the lead in this issue as well.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my distinct pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the 
author of this legislation, the active, distinguished gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the chairman.
  It's interesting to hear some Republicans on the other side of the 
aisle say this commission isn't necessary. We are going to run a $700 
billion trade deficit this year. That means we will borrow, 
predominantly from China, Japan, and a few other countries, $700 
billion to buy things that we used to make in America. And it's not a 
level playing field. We get played for a sucker in these trade deals.
  We need a new, strong trade policy. Yes, American workers can 
compete, but not on an unfair, tilted playing field, which is what 
they're being asked to do today. I will give a couple of examples. When 
we were doing MFN permanently for China, which I voted against because 
we lost that annual leverage with them, wheat guys from Oregon came in, 
and they said, Congressman, right now a ship is going into China. 
Imagine what it's going to mean for our markets. They're finally 
accepting our wheat. This new trade deal's going to be great.
  I said, Well, actually, I have got translated broadcasts of their 
agriculture minister that say that they're not going to allow that, and 
they're not going to become dependent upon imported food. They said, 
Oh, no, you are wrong. So, yeah, that one ship got in.
  Congress voted the deal, China was permanently off the hook to be 
reviewed for unfair trade practices by the Congress, and, guess what, 
that was the last ship. They came in the next year kind of hanging 
their heads and said, You were right. Are you going to say it? I said, 
No. I am going to say, what are we going to do now? And talked about 
fighting back against these unfair trade practices.
  We can look at just after the first President Bush signed the deal 
with Canada that was supposed to deal with their unfair subsidies and 
dumping of cheap lumber into the U.S. But before the ink was even dry 
on the deal, Canada reclassified much of their lumber to salvage. They 
basically started giving away their trees on the stump instead of 
making companies buy them and provided subsidized transportation and 
other things and again flooded the U.S. market. We're still fighting 
with the Canadians 17 years later over their subsidized lumber, and 
we've still lost thousands of jobs.
  Yeah, there was a little bit of cheaper lumber available here; but 
when you lose the jobs for working-class Americans, middle class 
American families, our consumers, when they lose their jobs, it doesn't 
matter if a house is maybe $300 or $400 cheaper. They can't afford the 
house. So we need a level playing field.
  We need to identify these barriers that are being put up by the 
Chinese and others. The Chinese are going to run more than a quarter of 
a trillion dollar trade surplus with the U.S. this year. They recently 
passed a law saying they're going to have a huge renewable program in 
China. And the law says that nobody can buy a renewable windmill or 
photovoltaic or anything else if it wasn't manufactured in China by a 
Chinese company.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the author of the bill.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
  So the Chinese have passed a law saying that no one in China can buy 
a U.S.-made windmill or photovoltaic. If we get these green jobs and 
green industry going that the President wants, the Chinese aren't going 
to buy them. But guess what? The so-called stimulus bill that passed 
this Congress, part of those funds, our taxpayer dollars, money we 
borrowed in part from China to finance that bill, were used to buy 
windmills made in China. They can get their windmills in here like 
that.
  There's a company proposing to assemble photovoltaics in my hometown 
of Eugene, Oregon. But I also have people in Oregon trying to keep 
their companies going with made in America photovoltaics. But they are 
having trouble competing with the subsidized cheap junk from China 
because their photovoltaics are not very good. Again, we can't send our 
ours there, but they can send theirs here without any constraints.
  I remember back to Lee Iacocca, back when we used to sort of laugh at 
the Japanese cars. And when he had minivans and the Japanese started 
producing minivans, he said, You know, I produce a minivan for $16,000. 
I send it to Japan, it sits on the dock for 6 months while a series of 
inspectors come down and look at it. And then finally when it gets to 
the showroom, it costs $30,000 and it's been there 6 months. He said 
the Japanese take their minivan, it costs $17,000 to make it--they were 
less efficient then--he said they put it on a ship, it gets to 
Portland, they roll it off, it's in the showroom the next day. Do we 
ever reciprocate?
  We say, okay, if you are going to keep our cars on your docks for 6 
months, how about we're going to keep your cars on our docks for 6 
months? And that's what the trade commission will point to. It will 
point to the unfair trade barriers, these whole series of different 
phytosanitary, or actually safety inspections, or currency 
manipulation, all of the things that China and other countries are 
doing to steal our jobs and kill off our industries. This commission 
can point to those things, they can emphasize them, and they can 
propose ways that we can deal with it more meaningfully in trade 
agreements in the future.
  I recommend to my colleagues, help end the trade deficit. Vote for 
this legislation.

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the former top 
Republican on the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from California 
who's focused on creating jobs through selling more California and 
United States products and services, Mr. Herger.
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I find it ironic that we are here today 
creating one more commission to study a problem and report back with 
possible solutions some time in the future when we could be taking 
action right now today that would reduce our trade deficit and make a 
real difference for American workers.

[[Page H6188]]

  One of the findings in this bill states the problem very clearly: 
``While the United States has one of the most open economies in the 
world, the United States faces significant tariff and non-tariff trade 
barriers with its trading partners.''
  For example, over 90 percent of Panamanian and Colombian exports 
enter the U.S. duty free. Additionally, the average Korean tariff for 
U.S. exporters is more than four times the average tariff that Korean 
products face in the United States market.
  We could slash these high tariffs on U.S. exports and level the 
playing field for American workers by passing the current pending Free 
Trade Agreements with these three nations.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to continue the bipartisan 
tradition since World War II of supporting trade and call for passage 
of the pending FTAs with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. If we 
really want to create jobs, pass these trade agreements. If we want to 
increase exports, pass these trade agreements. If we want to reduce the 
trade deficit, pass these trade agreements. We don't need another 
commission; we need action.
  Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, addressing some earlier comments, many Democrats, including 
Chairman Levin, supported bringing China into the World Trade 
Organization to force them to play by the rules. And since we've done 
that, when they have violated those rules, the United States has 
prevailed in seven of the eight complaints we have brought to that 
organization. So it is helping keep China in line so we have a level 
playing field.
  Also, if you've picked up the paper in the last week, you've noticed 
that while auto sales in the United States for our auto manufacturers 
has remained flat, its sales are growing overseas, and its profits are 
growing because they're allowed to sell American automobiles around the 
world. That's good for the U.S. auto workers in the United States.
  I appreciate the chairman bringing this legislation together. I know 
it is well-intended. It's important to tackle America's trade deficit 
the right way. And I think everyone understands another government 
commission alone is no substitute for new customers for American 
workers, farmers, and manufacturers.
  The best way to strengthen the trade deficit while strengthening 
America's economy is to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and 
open the world to more U.S. products and services. I know if my 
Democrat friends and those in the White House are serious about 
reducing the trade deficit, we are eager to work with them by starting 
to take up and passing the pending trade agreements with South Korea, 
Panama, and Colombia.
  I rise in support of this bill because I think that any objective and 
honest commission will find that creating new markets and new customers 
for American exports will reduce our trade deficit, will create jobs, 
and stimulate our economy.
  I think it's absolutely appropriate that Congress is considering this 
legislation today of all days. Today is the fifth anniversary of House 
passage of the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement, which gives 
us an opportunity to look at real results. Those results clearly show 
how trade agreements increase U.S. sales and reduce trade deficits. As 
you know, America is a very open market. Countries sell into the United 
States. But when we try to sell our products, too often we find that 
``America need not apply'' sign.
  Trade agreements tear that sign down and give us a chance not one-way 
trade in, but two-way trade where we have a level playing field. The 
world has changed. It's not enough to simply buy American. We have to 
sell American. We have to sell our products and goods and services 
throughout this world. In fact, over 80 percent of our trade deficit 
today is with countries that are not trade agreement partners, that are 
not level playing fields for the United States. That's why we push hard 
for those agreements.
  For example, 5 years ago the United States had a $1.2 billion trade 
deficit with Central America. Last year, the United States had turned 
that around, because of the agreement, to a $1.2 billion trade surplus, 
and we're on track to surpass that surplus again this year. Last year, 
the United States had a trade surplus in manufactured goods with our 
Central American partners of almost $2 billion. We're on track again 
this year.
  Nor is CAFTA the only example of how trade agreements can improve the 
U.S. trade balance. This week also marks the eighth anniversary of the 
final House vote on the Trade Act of 2002, under which we have 
resoundingly successful trade agreements with 13 countries now in 
force. Last year, the United States had a trade surplus of over $25 
billion with these 13 countries. And so far this year, we have a 
surplus again.
  Looking at just trade in manufactured goods reveals that these 
agreements were even better for American manufacturing workers. Last 
year, the United States had a trade surplus of over $29 billion in 
manufactured products with these countries that we have free trade 
agreements. And again, we have this year a surplus already of nearly 
$16 billion. Without question, these trade agreements have reduced U.S. 
trade deficits and increased U.S. trade surpluses.
  The three pending agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea 
would have the same results by leveling the playing field for our 
American workers.
  Madam Speaker, there is one sector in which the United States runs a 
structural trade deficit, that is energy, and I appreciate the chairman 
including this in the commission. Last year, our deficit in energy 
products accounted for almost half of the trade deficit.
  So our trade deficit isn't principally in goods--it's in oil, it's in 
energy. That's what the American people want to change. We can take an 
enormous step toward reducing our trade deficit simply by increasing 
American-made energy. Unfortunately, many Democrats in Congress have 
taken just about every step they can to reduce American-made energy 
production.
  First, House Democrats rushed through the House a massive national 
energy tax that would cripple the U.S. energy sector. Now, the White 
House has defied the courts and has imposed a moratorium on offshore 
drilling that damages jobs and damages U.S. energy production. The 
impact of that moratorium would be to increase the deficit because it 
will result in more imports of foreign oil. This moratorium also means 
fewer manufacturing jobs.
  In fact, last week a recent analysis by IHS Global Insight found the 
drilling moratorium in the gulf would result in over 300,000 jobs lost 
along the gulf and over $147 billion in lost State, local, and Federal 
tax revenue. It is a terrible blow to American jobs.
  If the sponsors of this legislation are serious--and I believe they 
are--about reducing the trade deficit and working together to create 
manufacturing jobs, let's focus on negotiating more trade agreements to 
open foreign markets to our U.S. sales and promoting U.S. energy 
production. We don't need a new government commission to accomplish 
either of these.

                              {time}  1230

  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Now, that the distinguished ranking member on the Trade 
Subcommittee has yielded back the balance of his time, I will close.
  First of all, I want to thank Mr. DeFazio for introducing the bill 
and for his willingness and his really effective efforts to work with 
us. His staff also collaborated in bringing this bill to the floor. I 
also want to thank Congressman Camp and Congressman Brady and their 
staff for working with us.
  So let me just say a word. We'll debate trade issues another time. I 
think everybody here has spoken about the importance of two-way trade 
and ending the one-way street. The problem with the Korea agreement, as 
it was negotiated, was that when it comes to the industrial sector, 
there was no way it was even close to a likelihood that there would be 
two-way trade in vital industrial sectors. So far it's only been one 
way, and now steps have to be taken with the other provisions in the 
bill to make sure there's two-way trade in industrial, as well as 
agricultural, goods as well as opening up their markets to service 
products.

[[Page H6189]]

  I think we're now finished with this. We can discuss the moratorium 
on drilling some other day, and I now urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for 
H.R. 1875, the End the Trade Deficit Act. I wish to commend my 
colleague, Congressman DeFazio of Oregon for his fine work on this 
bill.
  At a time of nascent national economic recovery, we have the 
opportunity to right the policy failures of the past. This is 
particularly important with respect to trade. I have long criticized 
the NAFTA trade agreement model for its detrimental effect on this 
country's manufacturing base. Indeed, with the implementation of NAFTA 
and CAFTA, we have witnessed the off-shoring of millions of good-paying 
American jobs.
  In light of this, H.R. 1875 will direct establishment of a commission 
to develop a trade policy plan that will eliminate the U.S. merchandise 
trade deficit and develop a competitive trade policy for the 21st 
century. I am particularly pleased that this report, which will include 
recommendations for administrative and legislative actions to reduce 
this deficit, must be submitted to the Congress and the President prior 
to the President's submitting any free trade agreement to the House and 
Senate for approval.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1875 will substitute measured concern in place of 
rash trade policy. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill 
and in so doing, help this country achieve sustainable economic 
recovery.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1875, 
the End the Trade Deficit Act of 2009.
  Since coming to Congress, I have worked to level the playing field of 
international trade, stop the illegal trade practices of other 
countries, notably China, and support American workers. The first step 
in achieving these goals must be addressing our $375 billion trade 
deficit with other countries. While this deficit is down from the $753 
billion deficit we had in 2006, as the global economy recovers, this 
deficit has increased by billions of dollars each month, and our 
deficit with China stands at a staggering $226 billion. In addition, 
the U.S. has lost 3,178,000 manufacturing jobs since 1998 and the 
recession has aggravated this damaging trend.
  The Trade Deficit Review Commission established by H.R. 1875 will 
take positive steps to address the trade deficit by developing a new, 
competitive trade policy that emphasizes fair trade and U.S. jobs. Our 
trade policy must promote the export of U.S.-made goods to foreign 
markets and support our workers rather than aiding the multi-national 
corporations who seek weaker labor, safety, and environmental 
requirements overseas.
  I have consistently opposed free trade agreements--including NAFTA 
and DR-CAFTA--because I believe they have driven good-paying American 
jobs out of the country. H.R. 1875 is needed to reverse these damaging 
trade agreements and takes a positive step forward to revitalize 
manufacturing in the U.S. and create jobs here at home.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
important legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 1875, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title was amended so as to read:
  ``A bill to establish the Emergency Trade Deficit Commission.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________