[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 131 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5943-H5947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            EXTENDING THE GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 2832) to extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for 
other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2832

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.

       (a) Extension.--Section 505 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2465) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2010'' and 
     inserting ``July 31, 2013''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
     apply to articles entered on or after the 15th day after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Retroactive application for certain liquidations and 
     reliquidations.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law 
     and subject to subparagraph (B), any entry of an article to 
     which duty-free treatment or other preferential treatment 
     under title V of the Trade Act of 1974 would have applied if 
     the entry had been made on December 31, 2010, that was made--
       (i) after December 31, 2010, and
       (ii) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act,
     shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry 
     occurred on the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (B) Requests.--A liquidation or reliquidation may be made 
     under subparagraph (A) with respect to an entry only if a 
     request therefor is filed with U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection not later than 180 days after

[[Page H5944]]

     the date of the enactment of this Act that contains 
     sufficient information to enable U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection--
       (i) to locate the entry; or
       (ii) to reconstruct the entry if it cannot be located.
       (C) Payment of amounts owed.--Any amounts owed by the 
     United States pursuant to the liquidation or reliquidation of 
     an entry of an article under subparagraph (A) shall be paid, 
     without interest, not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the liquidation or reliquidation (as the case may be).
       (3) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the terms 
     ``enter'' and ``entry'' include a withdrawal from warehouse 
     for consumption.

     SEC. 2. MERCHANDISE PROCESSING FEES.

       For the period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on 
     June 30, 2014, section 13031(a)(9) of the Consolidated 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 
     58c(a)(9)) shall be applied and administered--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by substituting ``0.3464'' for 
     ``0.21''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by substituting ``0.3464'' for 
     ``0.21''.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 2832.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation, which renews the nearly 40-
year-old Generalized System of Preferences, is a vital part of a robust 
trade agenda, an agenda that makes American companies more competitive 
and increases American exports. GSP is an important tool for boosting 
economic growth and job creation.
  Just last week, we learned that on the whole there were zero jobs 
created in August and that the unemployment rate remains above 9 
percent. Over the next several weeks, congressional Republicans will 
bring several bills to the floor that will address the shortage of 
American jobs and help promote job creation.
  This legislation is an important component of that effort because GSP 
is critical to the competitiveness of many American manufacturers. 
Having more competitive American companies means creating and 
supporting more American jobs. The lapse of this program since the 
beginning of the year has unnecessarily imposed higher costs on 
American manufacturers and consumers at a time when we can least afford 
it.
  The GSP program is the largest U.S. trade preference program and 
provides duty-free treatment to nonsensitive imports from over 130 
developing countries. Many U.S. companies source raw materials and 
other inputs from GSP countries, and the duty-free treatment of these 
imports reduces the production costs of these U.S. manufacturers, 
making them more competitive. Nearly three-quarters of all GSP-eligible 
imports are raw materials, components, parts, or machinery and 
equipment used by American workers to manufacture goods in the United 
States for both consumption here and for export.
  According to an analysis by the Coalition for GSP, approximately 
82,000 jobs are either directly or indirectly associated with the 
importation and use of GSP-eligible imports. The clear connection with 
jobs reinforces how important it is the program is renewed.
  Many of the jobs supported by GSP imports are in Michigan, where the 
unemployment rate remains almost 2 percentage points above the national 
average. Unfortunately, the lapse in the GSP program has forced 
employers in Michigan to pay over $9 million in unnecessary duties. 
Instead of paying unnecessary duties, these employers could have been 
paying $9 million more in needed salaries.
  The legislation renews the program until July 30, 2013, and permits 
importers to apply for duty refunds for eligible products imported 
since the program's expiration on December 31 of 2010. This retroactive 
renewal will provide a timely infusion of capital to U.S. manufacturers 
that have faced higher duties and, therefore, higher production costs 
since the program expired. It will allow them to compete with 
manufacturers abroad who already have duty-free access to such inputs.
  I also note that this legislation will not add to the deficit as the 
costs are fully offset.
  I would like to thank my colleague, Ranking Member Levin, for working 
with me to find a path forward for this legislation. Given how 
important this legislation is, I hope that our colleagues in the other 
body will act quickly.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize how important this job-creating 
legislation is for American manufacturers and their employees by 
creating and supporting American jobs. It's a valuable part of an 
aggressive, pro-growth trade agenda. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I shall consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2832. Unfortunately, today we are acting to 
rectify only one wrong in the Republican agenda of disregard for 
workers and economic recovery. The Generalized System of Preferences, 
GSP, that we extend today for 22 months should never have been 
permitted to lapse at the beginning of the year.
  The Andean Trade Preferences program should also not stand expired. 
And, importantly, it is inexcusable that the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance that we improved on a bipartisan basis in 2009 has stood 
expired since February. The only reason we are considering this 
legislation today is because House Republicans have been unwilling to 
support a simple extension of the expanded TAA Program.

                              {time}  1750

  They have been unwilling to support a program targeted at helping 
unemployed Americans get back to work, this at a time when more 
Americans have remained jobless for a longer period than ever recorded 
in our Nation's history.
  In FY 2010 alone, more than 227,000 workers took advantage of TAA, 
receiving assistance such as case management, training, and income 
support. And there is broad support for the program. I quote just one 
such evidence, a letter circulated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable in May 
2011, which states: ``TAA is as vitally important today as it has been 
over the years. It helps American businesses get into exporting and is 
designed to give displaced workers the new skills and resources they 
need to reenter the 21st century job market. Accordingly, we urge 
Congress and the administration to find a way forward to ensure that 
the United States has in place an effective TAA program to support U.S. 
global economic engagement.''
  I support the GSP program and the legislation before us today. That 
program is an important tool in U.S. trade policy. It is a means by 
which the U.S. can help developing countries to capture the 
opportunities and meet the challenges of trade and globalization. One 
hundred and twenty-nine developing countries participate in GSP and 
depend on it to spur economic growth. This includes some of the poorest 
countries in the world. Moreover, GSP benefits Americans. I emphasize 
that. In fact, the majority of U.S. imports under GSP, approximately 65 
to 75 percent, are inputs used to support U.S. manufacturing, including 
raw materials, parts and components, and machinery and equipment.
  This program is important enough that it should not have been allowed 
to lapse, and can now be considered on its own merits. It appears that 
the prospect is that the Senate will act on GSP by adding TAA. If that 
is the path for the renewal of TAA, the Republicans have an obligation 
to ensure that it happens immediately as a primary action.
  The Republicans often talk about a languishing trade agenda. What has 
been languishing is action on trade items ready for action--GSP, TAA, 
ATPA--languishing at the hands of the Republican majority here while 
action has been underway to address the shortcomings of the Bush trade 
agreements.
  I am confident that each of the free trade agreements can be 
considered on

[[Page H5945]]

their own merits. Other programs, especially those vital to workers 
transition during this difficult economy, should never have been held 
hostage.
  I would like now to ask that the balance of our time be managed by 
the ranking member on the Trade Subcommittee, Jim McDermott of 
Washington.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Washington will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, it is evident that our country is in 
desperate need of jobs. And I rise today to bring light on an issue 
that could cost literally hundreds of jobs in America. Currently, there 
is a flaw in the GSP, and if it is not addressed, it will cause the 
loss of 150 jobs in the district that I represent alone, and could 
cause the loss of many other jobs across the industry.
  Implemented back in 1974, GSP was designed to exclude import-
sensitive items, and therefore excluded all textiles. However, in the 
early 1990s, sleeping bags, along with a long list of other items, were 
added to GSP as eligible for duty-free import, causing sleeping bags to 
be the only manufactured textile that is allowed to be imported without 
a 9 percent duty.
  The sleeping bags made at Exxel Outdoors in Haleyville, Alabama, are 
simply fabric, filling and zipper, yet they are not treated as other 
textiles. Sleeping bags that are manufactured in Bangladesh, where 90 
percent of their value comes from materials in China, cut into 
America's sleeping bag sales by 20 percent a year.
  Without this modest import duty, there will be at least another 150 
people who will lose their jobs unnecessarily in a region where 
unemployment is already over 15 percent. While the economy added no new 
jobs in August and U.S. unemployment numbers remain stagnant, this 
issue gives us another example of government policy that hinders job 
growth and retention.
  I want to thank the Ways and Means Committee for their time, 
attention, and concern regarding this matter and for working with us as 
we move forward on this process to find a resolution. I am looking 
forward to continuing our work with them in pursuit of a fair, 
commonsense solution.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2832, a bill which extends the 
Generalized System of Preferences, or GSP, for 22 months.
  Let's make it very clear what's going on here tonight. Usually, 
Members of Congress come from all over the country on the first day of 
session, and we come back here and we rename post offices. So the 
President said: Why don't I go over there on Wednesday and give a 
speech about jobs and about the agenda that this country ought to face. 
He sent a pro forma request to the leadership of the House, and they 
said: Oh, no. We have important business. We can't make room for you. 
It's the first time in history the President has been denied access to 
a general speech to the entire Congress.
  Now, then you have the problem, what important stuff have you got? So 
they come looking for a bill. So this is the bill they brought forward. 
It's going to pass on unanimous consent. It could have passed months 
ago. It should have passed months ago because it is the cornerstone of 
our U.S. trade and development policy and has been in place since 1976.
  The GSP program allows duty-free entry into the United States for 
lots of products coming from 129 developing countries, including some 
of the poorest in the world. But the poor countries are not the only 
ones that rely on this. As you just heard, American businesses rely on 
GSP to be competitive. In fact, most GSP products are import products 
for U.S. manufacturers. Unfortunately, GSP was allowed to lapse in 
December in the midst of all of the anti program; anything that the 
White House or anybody wanted around here, they said ``no.'' This was 
no. This was the Congress of no. And so it undermined the development 
goals of GSP.
  Now, this job-killing delay didn't have to happen. But like so much 
else, the Republicans wanted to use GSP as a hostage no matter what the 
cost to U.S. businesses and consumers. Despite the damage to our 
economy by the Republicans, I am supportive of finally passing GSP. And 
now that we are about to get this done, hopefully we can act on the 
other critical trade programs the Republicans have allowed to expire. 
In particular, I'm talking about the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
program, or TAA, as it is known around here, which helps workers who 
are laid off as a result of trade. It retrains workers so they can 
compete better in the global environment. TAA has been in place since 
1962, and the bunch running this place let it expire early last year. 
The expansion in 2009 had strong bipartisan support as recently as up 
to this past December, and with good reason. Most Members understand or 
should understand that to compete in a global economy, you need a 
globally competitive workforce.
  Now, the Speaker has taken TAA hostage--or the leadership of the 
Republican Party. I don't know who's doing it. But they have held it 
hostage for no good reason whatsoever, even though they voted for it in 
the past--unanimously voted for it in the past, and now suddenly they 
can't pass it.
  Mr. Speaker, the level of dysfunction in this body is astonishing, 
and it's not just intentional delays in extending TAA and our other 
preference programs.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Speaker, the level of dysfunction in this body is astonishing, 
and it's not just intentional delays in extending TAA and our other 
Preference programs. The Republicans have refused to act on any of the 
trade agenda. And why? Because they want action on the three pending 
FTAs first, above all else, no matter what. Even when the Obama 
administration wanted to move forward on the renegotiated Korea FTA 
last spring, the Republicans refused to act because they wanted action 
on all three Bush-era agreements, all at once, regardless of how flawed 
they might be. And as the Republicans delayed the agreements with their 
hostage-taking, they have criticized the administration.
  Mr. Speaker, U.S. businesses are failing. They are falling behind 
their EU competitors who already have their agreement up and running, 
making contracts, while we're still sitting here waiting for the 
leadership of the Republican Party to let it loose.
  Now, the Republican delay: Republicans kill jobs with their tactics 
and then they blame the President. They must have found out something 
in August when they went home, and that's why they're back here worried 
about jobs. We'll see about it. We'll see how serious they are. They 
spent too much time with Alice in Wonderland--where up is down and down 
is up. It's a cynical game the Republicans are playing with the public.
  We need to act on the two FTAs that have been fixed--Korea and 
Panama--and also on the trade programs that have expired. For example, 
I have submitted a bill that will extend the important parts of AGOA--
the African Growth and Opportunity Act--that will expire next year and 
add the new country of South Sudan to our list of trading partners. 
These changes need to be made soon to keep the development that is 
already occurring under AGOA from withering. And nobody is opposed to 
the changes. It's just being held as a hostage.
  We need to put American jobs first and get this work done, and we 
need to do it quickly. We just need to pass this bill that's before us 
today. I'm sure it will pass by unanimous consent.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I think today we'll find that we're the 
Congress of ``yes'' on this bipartisan legislation, and I want to thank 
the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee for his original 
cosponsorship.
  With that, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Trade 
Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  You may not sense it from some of the remarks today, but, in truth, 
this bill has strong bipartisan support, and I rise in support of this 
legislation renewing the Preference program as one valuable step 
Congress can take together to help spur economic and job growth here in 
America.
  As last week's jobs number--or, more importantly, zero jobs number--
showed

[[Page H5946]]

us, our economy is struggling, and there are 14 million Americans who 
want a job that can't find a job. Twenty-two million Americans want a 
full-time job and can't find one. The lapse of this Preference program 
has hurt the competitiveness of our American manufacturers and others 
who rely upon these GSP imports as raw materials and inputs.
  We all know our States best. In Texas, 27 companies have asked 
Congress to renew this Preference program. These companies import such 
products as chemicals, iron and steel flanges, and ceramics for use as 
inputs in their manufacturing operations at home in Texas. These 
imports support jobs in my local communities and make our manufacturers 
more competitive when they compete against companies overseas. And the 
program benefits every State in this way, not just mine.
  The lapse of the program since the beginning of the year has cost 
these Texas companies over $21 million in unnecessary duties. That $21 
million could have been used to hire more employees and invest in new 
equipment. Instead, it was taxed away from them. This legislation would 
provide a retroactive renewal of the program and give these companies 
the opportunity to get these duties refunded to them. And I know they 
can use this money more effectively to promote jobs and invest in our 
economy than sending it here to Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased there is strong bipartisan 
support for this legislation under the leadership of Chairman Dave 
Camp, along with Ranking Member Levin and Congressman McDermott--my 
friend and coworker on the Trade Subcommittee--who are original 
cosponsors of this legislation. As a result of this strong bipartisan 
support, I expect it to pass strongly tonight in the House. I hope the 
other body will move quickly to consider this legislation.
  Last December, during the holidays, the House passed by voice vote a 
renewal of this program that would have prevented the lapse of the 
program. Unfortunately, it never made it out of the Senate. Therefore, 
Mr. Speaker, I urge not only bipartisan support for this legislation 
but bicameral support for it as well so we can get this money back in 
the hands of American manufacturers and job creators.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. My good friend from Texas is right; there is strong 
bipartisan support for this legislation. There was bipartisan support 
for the legislation when it passed in the House last December when it 
expired. But, unfortunately, the Senate shut down. It would not be 
allowed to move forward by the Republicans in the other body, and it 
died inexplicably. I don't understand the workings of the other body 
and why Republicans would require supermajorities to move things 
through that will ultimately pass unanimously.
  There was bipartisan support for this legislation in January, in 
February, March, April, May, June. I am proud to support it now, and 
I'm pleased that the Republican leadership and my friend, Chairman 
Camp, brought it forward. But there's just as much support today as 
there was in January.
  It made me feel bad that our friend from Texas talked about the $21 
million that was lost to his Texas industries. It didn't need to 
happen. Any night that we came into session at the beginning of any 
week, the legislation could have come forward, since January. This is 
important, and I'm pleased we're having the discussion now. I will do 
anything I can to lobby people in the other body to move forward with 
it. But it's part of a simple bipartisan agenda where there's no 
objection. These are the sorts of things that can come forward.
  In the 1960s, a growing number of nations agreed that more needed to 
be done to bring the benefits of trade to the developing world and 
devised a system of trade preferences to meet this objective. The 
United States enacted it first in 1974, and criteria under this System 
of Preferences were not merely related to trade but reflected our 
Nation's social values when we inaugurated this program, Preferences, 
in 1974 and included a statement of the policies we feel valuable in 
our trading partners and about which policies we feel drive the 
development of nations. It's often referred to as a tool of foreign 
policy as well as trade.
  Among the criteria we judge our trading partners on in eligibility 
for this program are the protection of American commercial interests 
like the protection of intellectual property, the prevention of seizure 
of property belonging to United States citizens and businesses, as well 
as the protection of individual rights such as the protection of 
commonly accepted labor rights and the elimination of child labor.
  I wonder at this point if I may ask a question of my friend, the 
chairman of the committee.
  As I scanned the legislation, I don't see any reference in the 
elements to the protection of the environment. Is there anything in 
this legislation that would speak to that?
  Mr. CAMP. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP. Well, the short answer is no. The gentleman is correct in 
his analysis or reading of the bill. This is a straightforward 
extension of the existing program, so it has not added any additional 
eligibility criteria in this legislation. This is just simply a 
straightforward extension.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. If the gentleman would entertain an additional 
question. I appreciate that this has not been incorporated in the past 
and that this is just a simple extension over the course of the next 22 
months.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. As we move forward, hopefully we won't be dealing 
with the expiration in the future. I'm wondering if the gentleman would 
entertain working with us and, as we come forward in the course of a 
replacement, if we might consider including environmental protections 
in the list of accepted criteria.
  Mr. CAMP. I haven't had a chance to review your suggestion but would 
be happy to take a look at it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and 
interest in at least looking at it.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have done with the trade 
agenda in 2007 was establish environmental protections which are part 
of future FTAs. We've kind of turned the corner with trade agreements. 
And I'm hopeful that this relatively modest--and I would think 
noncontroversial--item could be included so that as we move forward in 
the future we add to our list and would benefit developing countries' 
respect for the environment.
  Trade can have a powerful effect on environmental protection. We've 
worked hard to include them in previous items. And I'm hopeful that we 
can work together to make sure when this comes before us again that the 
environment is given its due protection.
  Mr. CAMP. I am prepared to close at this point if the gentleman has 
no further speakers.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I have no other speakers, so I will close on our side.
  Mr. Speaker, I expect this bill will pass in 5 minutes without a vote 
against it.
  This bill could be law by tomorrow at noon if the Senate would act, 
and I hope that my colleagues on the other side will do as we will do 
on this side, which is to contact our colleagues in the Senate and ask 
them this time, put it up and move it. Now, if they don't, all you can 
say is this was a trial balloon we put up in the air, and we found out 
the Senate was asleep or dysfunctional or--I don't know what you would 
put on it. They have to act on this if they're serious about a trade 
agenda for this country, and I hope that we can make it happen for the 
American worker.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank both of my colleagues for their commitment to work 
with the other body to ensure that this legislation becomes law. As we 
all know, we can use all the help we can get when we get to the other 
side of the Capitol. But I want to just reemphasize that this is part 
of a 40-year history of more competition for U.S. manufacturers and 
U.S. companies. This is bipartisan legislation which has been around 
for a long time.

[[Page H5947]]

  It is important to continue to grow markets and create exports; and 
this legislation helps American employers, American manufacturers--and 
their employees, more importantly--by creating and supporting jobs here 
in America. So it's just an important, valuable part of our export 
policy, and I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting this 
bipartisan legislation.
  With that, 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. Camp) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 2832.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________