[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H1166-H1173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPLYING COUNTERVAILING DUTY PROVISIONS TO NONMARKET ECONOMY COUNTRIES
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4105) to apply the countervailing duty provisions of the
Tariff Act of 1930 to nonmarket economy countries, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4105
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY PROVISIONS TO
NONMARKET ECONOMY COUNTRIES.
(a) In General.--Section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1671) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Applicability to Proceedings Involving Nonmarket
Economy Countries.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
merchandise on which countervailing duties shall be imposed
under subsection (a) includes a class or kind of merchandise
imported, or sold (or likely to be sold) for importation,
into the United States from a nonmarket economy country.
``(2) Exception.--A countervailing duty is not required to
be imposed under subsection (a) on a class or kind of
merchandise imported, or sold (or likely to be sold) for
importation, into the United States from a nonmarket economy
country if the administering authority is unable to identify
and measure subsidies provided by the government of the
nonmarket economy country or a public entity within the
territory of the nonmarket economy country because the
economy of that country is essentially comprised of a single
entity.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (f) of section 701 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as added by subsection (a) of this
section, applies to--
(1) all proceedings initiated under subtitle A of title VII
of that Act (19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.) on or after November 20,
2006;
(2) all resulting actions by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection; and
(3) all civil actions, criminal proceedings, and other
proceedings before a Federal court relating to proceedings
referred to in paragraph (1) or actions referred to in
paragraph (2).
[[Page H1167]]
SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT OF ANTIDUMPING DUTY IN CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS
RELATING TO IMPORTS FROM NONMARKET ECONOMY
COUNTRIES.
(a) In General.--Section 777A of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1677f 1) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Adjustment of Antidumping Duty in Certain Proceedings
Relating to Imports From Nonmarket Economy Countries.--
``(1) In general.--If the administering authority
determines, with respect to a class or kind of merchandise
from a nonmarket economy country for which an antidumping
duty is determined using normal value pursuant to section
773(c), that--
``(A) pursuant to section 701(a)(1), a countervailable
subsidy (other than an export subsidy referred to in section
772(c)(1)(C)) has been provided with respect to the class or
kind of merchandise,
``(B) such countervailable subsidy has been demonstrated to
have reduced the average price of imports of the class or
kind of merchandise during the relevant period, and
``(C) the administering authority can reasonably estimate
the extent to which the countervailable subsidy referred to
in subparagraph (B), in combination with the use of normal
value determined pursuant to section 773(c), has increased
the weighted average dumping margin for the class or kind of
merchandise,
the administering authority shall, except as provided in
paragraph (2), reduce the antidumping duty by the amount of
the increase in the weighted average dumping margin estimated
by the administering authority under subparagraph (C).
``(2) Maximum reduction in antidumping duty.--The
administering authority may not reduce the antidumping duty
applicable to a class or kind of merchandise from a nonmarket
economy country under this subsection by more than the
portion of the countervailing duty rate attributable to a
countervailable subsidy that is provided with respect to the
class or kind of merchandise and that meets the conditions
described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph
(1).''.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (f) of section 777A of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as added by subsection (a) of this
section, applies to--
(1) all investigations and reviews initiated pursuant to
title VII of that Act (19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.) on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) subject to subsection (c) of section 129 of the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3538), all determinations
issued under subsection (b)(2) of that section on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
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 (Mr. Camp).
General Leave
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days
within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I urge the passage of this legislation to
ensure that we can continue to fight unfair subsidies from countries
like China that violate the WTO, injure our industries, and cost U.S.
jobs. This legislation reaffirms that our antisubsidy laws, or
countervailing duty laws, apply to subsidies from China and other
nonmarket countries, and it overturns an erroneous decision by the
Federal circuit that the Department of Commerce does not have the
authority to apply these countervailing duty rules to nonmarket
economies.
China distorts the free market by giving enormous subsidies to its
producers and exporters, and our companies and our workers should not
be expected to compete against the deep pockets of the Chinese
Government. That is why it is vital that we preserve this important
tool and ensure that current countervailing duty orders and
investigations from nonmarket economies remain in place and that this
important tool is available in the future.
In addition, this legislation fully complies with our WTO
obligations. China agreed to be subject to countervailing duty laws
when it joined the WTO in 2001, and the WTO has reaffirmed our right to
apply these laws to China. Failing to enact this legislation would mean
that we're unilaterally giving away a right that allows us to protect
American workers. This legislation also brings the United States into
compliance with its obligations by requiring the Department of Commerce
to make an adjustment when there is evidence of a double remedy.
Finally, I am pleased that this legislation, which has already passed
the Senate, is bipartisan and has administration support.
For all of these reasons, we urgently need to pass this important
legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan
bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This bill will send a clear signal, especially with an overwhelming
vote, that there are clear consequences when a nation violates the
rules. China is, indeed, tilting the field of competition by not
playing by the rules. This bill restores a key instrument for our
Nation to hold China and other nations accountable. The failure to pass
it would be an enormous step backwards at a time when, indeed, we need
to fast-forward our efforts to rein in China's abusive trade practices
that, in part, have led to our record $295 billion trade deficit with
China. This legislation ensures that tools remain available under U.S.
trade law so that manufacturers can fight back against China's unfair
trade subsidies.
Countervailing duties have been a part of U.S. trade law for nearly
120 years, and today, almost one-half--23 of 50--of all countervailing
duty orders in place involve China. This is not surprising. A central
element of Chinese industrial policy has been to provide massive
subsidies to its producers to help them knock out competitors and to
dominate the market. These include loans at below-market interest
rates, cheap or sometimes free land, extensive tax breaks, and other
subsidies designed to advantage domestic industry.
To date, countervailing duties have been the singular form of relief
available to American workers and companies devastated by these
mercantilist policies. Over the last 6 years, Commerce has put in place
23 countervailing duty orders against China--23--and five other
investigations are currently underway. More than $4 billion in
subsidized imports have been covered by these measures, shielding an
estimated 80,000 American jobs from unfair competition.
Yet, in December, based on a deeply flawed assessment of
congressional intent, the court of appeals for the Federal circuit
ruled that Commerce, which administers our countervailing duty laws,
does not have the authority to apply those laws to nonmarket economy
countries like China. That decision threatens to eviscerate the U.S.
right to apply countervailing duties to China, a right protected under
WTO rules; and it threatens to cripple Commerce in its efforts to
combat Chinese subsidies that harm our industries.
With this bill, we are making clear that the Federal circuit's
decision was wrong and that it cannot stand. Commerce has always had
the authority to apply countervailing duties to nonmarket economies
such as China, and now it shall continue to have and exercise this
vitally important authority in the future.
Because of this bill--and I urge the strongest possible support--tens
of thousands of American workers and scores of American companies in 38
States across this country that have shown that they are entitled to
relief from unfair subsidization by nonmarket economies will continue
to get that relief. This bill ensures all of the existing orders and
investigations remain in place.
For these reasons, I support the passage of H.R. 4105, and I urge all
of my colleagues to support it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the
Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the passage of
this bill.
When China repeatedly undermines the free market by subsidizing its
exports to the United States, we can't just give them a pass,
especially when the businesses China subsidizes are often government-
owned businesses that compete unfairly against our American companies
and workers.
{time} 1240
If you don't believe the American Government should pick winners and
losers in the marketplace, you certainly don't support the Chinese
Government doing the same. There is an
[[Page H1168]]
important distinction between the duties that seek to protect companies
that are afraid to compete in the marketplace--those I oppose--and in
this case duties assessed against those who try to distort the free
market through unfair government subsidies.
It's a distinction between the price of legal software and illegal
software. We would shoot ourselves in the foot if we denied this
important tool to protect the free market for American workers.
It's important, as Chairman Camp noted today, that this legislation
is WTO consistent and fully within America's rights when dealing with
China and other nonmarket economies. It's also important that this bill
addresses the double-remedies laws in the right way to ensure that
America applies these laws in accordance with our WTO obligations.
In conclusion, this legislation ensures the freedom of U.S. companies
and workers to compete in a market that is not distorted by the Chinese
Government. It restores free market principles by allowing us to
address China's unfair subsidies. It has no different impact on
consumers than enforcing our intellectual property laws.
We owe it to America's job creators and our workers to make sure we
have the tools at our disposal to offset such unfair trade practices
and allow the free market to work properly. That's why I urge strong
support for this vital legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of our
committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I certainly rise in support of this legislation, which
confirms that the Commerce Department can continue to apply
countervailing duties on subsidized imports from countries with
nonmarket economies such as China and Vietnam.
In fact, this legislation strengthens the opportunity to use an
international forum for the prescribed purpose of resolving disputes.
If our trading partners are not playing by the rules, it's imperative
that the United States have the tools to challenge these unfair
practices. Countervailing duties level the playing field for U.S.
employers and workers and allow them to compete against imports that
are subsidized through unfair trade practices, emphasis on the word
``unfair.''
Since the Commerce Department started applying these duties in 2007,
it is estimated that countervailing duties have protected an estimated
80,000 jobs in the United States. At the same time, it's important to
point out this is not a protectionist measure. It strengthens our hand
in dealing with negotiations.
Let's pass this commonsense legislation and keep American jobs
defended against unfair trade practices.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in favor of H.R. 4105 because we need to have
every tool we can muster to fight China's unfair trade practices, which
not only steal markets and jobs from American producers, but also
provides Beijing with a means to finance its military buildup and
expanding influence around the world.
This bill should not have been necessary. It overturns a faulty court
decision that claimed U.S. law prohibits the Department of Commerce
from applying countervailing duties to nonmarket economies. Yet
nonmarket economies, where the government directs business through
trade subsidies, national planning and state ownership of firms, this
is where the greatest abuses occur that distort the market.
Unfortunately, our system to combat trade abuses and unfair foreign
practices does not work. We have had a massive transfer, which is
evident, when we see that we have had a massive historic transfer of
wealth from the American people to China over these last few decades.
That policy should have been corrected long ago to prevent this
deprivation of the American people.
Furthermore, this bill allows the Commerce Department to adjust
actions to avoid future negative findings by the World Trade
Organization. Again, this should not be necessary because China should
not be part of the World Trade Organization. It is not a market economy
and thus should have been denied membership. It has not lived up to its
obligations of WTO membership, and thus Beijing should not be made a
stakeholder in world affairs.
It remains an aggressive, communist dictatorship that supports every
rogue enemy of the United States. It is the world's number one
proliferator of nuclear technology and the number one abuser of human
rights. It is a land of cronyism, corruption, and repression. We should
not be helping a country ruled by this kind of government grow while we
stagnate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. We ran a record $295 billion trade deficit in goods
with China last year at a time when the U.S. economy was trying to
struggle from a recession and we had high unemployment. This bill would
be a small step in the right direction; but we need to do much more to
restore growth and balance to our international, economic and strategic
relations with other countries, especially China. We should end this
massive transfer of wealth from our people to China. It's a sin against
our own people.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our
committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Levin. I appreciate the fact that our
chairman, Mr. Camp, and our ranking member, Mr. Levin, are here today
advancing H.R. 4105.
We are not going to unring the bell.
The Chinese Government is an important part of the world economy. We
are interrelated and interdependent. American people buy things from
China every day. I was happy to have them be part of the WTO so there
would be rules of the road.
It's not about protectionism for the United States. It is making sure
that our competitors in China play by the rules. Too often we have seen
that they don't. We've seen their massive unjustified subsidies. We've
found cheating in the international arena in terms of stealing
intellectual products, stealing Web sites. The Chinese Government needs
to be encouraged directly to play by the same sorts of rules.
If America is on a level playing field, our manufacturers can work
and compete against the best the world has to offer. But,
unfortunately, related to China right now, it is too often not a level
playing field. This is an important step going forward to make sure
that we can rebalance the equation.
I hope that the administration will be aggressive in using the tools
that it has to make sure the rules of the road are observed. This has
been a frustration I have had since I have been in Congress with both
Republican and Democratic administrations. I don't think we have done
all, in fact, that we could. I hope that we will.
I think this bill is a step in the right direction, and I appreciate
the bipartisan show of support from our committee to move it forward. I
hope that the House passes it overwhelmingly, and that it is something
that the other body moves on, so that we can have this tool back in our
tool kit.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the
Oversight Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong, vigorous support of
H.R. 4105, and I want to commend Chairman Camp for his leadership in
bringing this appropriate bill to the floor today.
As a supporter of free and fair trade, I believe that U.S. companies
and workers deserve a level playing field in order to successfully
compete around the world. This bill restores Commerce's ability to
protect American jobs and companies from unfair, WTO-inconsistent
practices, inconsistent trade practices perpetrated by nonmarket
economies, mainly China and Vietnam.
This is an important tool being used by several industries in my home
State of Louisiana, the ability to use countervailing duties, companies
that produce steel pipe, aluminum extrusion, woven sack industries,
just to name a few. More importantly, many key industries such as
shrimp processors want to make sure that this tool remains in place in
case they need to use it in the future to deal with unfair trade
practices.
[[Page H1169]]
As our industries expand and compete for businesses around the world,
it's irresponsible to not have these types of measures, enforcement
measures, in place and to take this vital tool away from the Department
of Commerce.
{time} 1250
This has been a practice that is WTO compliant. We have used it for
years, and now because of a recent Federal court ruling, it has been
taken away.
The bill simply amends the 1930 Tariff Act to allow this WTO-
compliant technique to be used to impose countervailing duties on
nonmarket economies when they use unfair subsidies. It's fully
consistent with our international trade obligations, it restores
current practices, and it is the right thing to do for American
businesses and workers. I strongly encourage our colleagues in this
House to support this important bill.
American Shrimp
Processors Association,
Biloxi, MS, March 5, 2012.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, Cannon House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Sander M. Levin,
Ranking Member, Ways and Means Committee, Longworth House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin: The American
Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA) strongly supports, H.R.
4105, the bill you introduced on February 29, ``to apply the
countervailing duty provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 to
nonmarket economy countries.'' We appreciate that you took
the lead on this measure and are working hard to quickly pass
this critical bipartisan legislation that allows the Commerce
Department to continue to apply countervailing duty laws to
non-market economies. We believe passage of this measure is
critical to the continued ability of domestic industries like
ASPA to fight unfair Chinese and Vietnamese trade practices.
Additionally, we salute the strong support offered to this
measure by our Gulf coast Ways and Means Committee Member
Charles Boustany, Jr.
This bipartisan and bicameral legislation aims to correct a
problematic decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit that found that U.S. law prohibits the Department of
Commerce from applying countervailing duties to non-market
economies like China and Vietnam. We understand that Congress
must act by March 15th to ensure that the law is changed
prior to final action in the courts.
As a domestic industry that has struggled to survive amidst
a barrage of subsidized imports from Asian non-market and
market economies alike, ASPA has a strong interest in seeing
U.S. countervailing duty law enforced. If the Congress were
to do nothing, important trade orders already in place on
subsidized imports from China and Vietnam would disappear.
These orders have corrected Chinese and Vietnamese practices
that have injured a broad range of domestic industries and
threatened the jobs of tens of thousands of American workers.
Additionally, and more importantly to ASPA members, the
recent Court decision would prohibit the U.S. shrimp industry
from ever using the U.S. trade laws designed to correct
unfair government subsidies on shrimp exported from non-
market economies like China and Vietnam, which have been
flooding the U.S. market for years.
While the U.S. shrimp industry has repeatedly demonstrated
its resilience in the past, the failure to pass this
important legislation leaves the domestic shrimp industry,
and all U.S. industries, at a permanent disadvantage, as they
will be unable to take any action to redress the harm that
subsidized imports from non-market economies cause. All our
major trading partners have trade laws that allow them to go
after government subsidies from non-market economies. Why
would the United States want to unilaterally disarm?
Without this legislative fix, ASPA members' ability to go
after egregious trade practices in China and Vietnam would be
severely limited. ASPA urges you to maintain a level playing
field for all domestic industries by passing this legislation
this week.
Sincerely,
C. David Veal,
Executive Director.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to Mr. Pascrell from
the great State of New Jersey, another very active member of our
committee.
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, as cosponsor of this legislation, I rise
in strong support of the bill. I want to thank Chairman Camp and
Ranking Member Levin for working together in a bipartisan way to
address this issue, and I hope this is the beginning of more bipartisan
trade negotiations amongst ourselves. I think it's healthy.
We all know that China uses a variety of mercantilist measures to
distort trade with the United States. Illegal subsidies--we must admit
we are not playing on a level playing field when they are allowed to
subsidize their industry, and we don't choose to do that. Second,
forced technology transfers. And, third, currency manipulation.
It is important that our government have every tool at its disposal
in order to combat these abuses and others. This legislation will once
again allow the application of our countervailing duty laws and the
enforcement of existing orders to nonmarket economies like China.
But we must go further if we are going to level this playing field
with China in a way that truly benefits American workers and
businesses. We need to extend our trade remedy laws to cover currency
manipulation, an approach embraced by a large bipartisan majority of
this body that could create over a million jobs.
Also, I believe we must embrace and fully fund the President's new
Interagency Trade Enforcement Center to focus our resources on leveling
the playing field with China. We can't continue to sit on our hands
while Chinese businesses undercut American workers and our
manufacturing base continues to drift overseas. Let's not stop with the
passage of this bill, but continue to move forward on a fair trade
policy that places American workers and businesses first.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).
Mrs. ELLMERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for
bringing this very, very important piece of legislation to the floor
for a vote. I'm here to join my colleagues in support of H.R. 4105,
which will protect the free market and prevent American businesses from
unfair dumping practices by countries such as China.
Madam Speaker, I hear from businesses in North Carolina every day who
are telling me that in order to compete in the global market, action
must be taken to prevent nonmarket countries like China from distorting
the market and costing American jobs.
Since 2007, the Department of Commerce has applied countervailing
duties to Chinese products where it determines that China has provided
unfair subsidies that violate its WTO obligations. These duties are not
punitive; they merely serve as a correction to unfair Chinese
subsidies. They restore the level playing field that U.S. industries
and small businesses--such as wire producers and textile companies in
North Carolina--provide.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
Mrs. ELLMERS. I thank the gentleman.
H.R. 4105 will ensure that the Department of Commerce can continue to
apply countervailing duty and anti-subsidy laws to nonmarket economies
that are violating current law. At the same time, we need robust trade
policies that will strengthen our economy and build upon the
partnerships we have made with countries around the world.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Michaud) who is very active in trade matters.
Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
4105. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
efforts in bringing this bill before this body. Passing this bill will
ensure that the Commerce Department has the authority to apply tariffs
on illegally subsidized goods from China and other nonmarket economies.
For the State of Maine, passing this bill will protect the
countervailing and anti-dumping duties in place on coated paper imports
from China. From 2002 to 2009, China provided more than $33 billion in
subsidies, many of them illegal, to the paper sector. As a result,
China overtook the United States as the world's largest producer of
paper and paper products. This growth in Beijing's paper sector hits
Maine's mills hard.
Since 2008, Maine workers from both Sappi Fine and NewPage companies
have become eligible for trade adjustment assistance after they were
laid off as a result of increased foreign imports. But after
countervailing and anti-dumping duties were applied to paper imports
from China, one mill
[[Page H1170]]
hired 100 employees. This is just one example of how much of a
difference countervailing duties can make for an American company
having to compete against illegally subsidized Chinese goods.
H.R. 4105 will ensure that countervailing duties can continue to be
applied to illegally subsidized goods from all countries, including
China. This bill is critical to ensuring that our American businesses
compete on a level playing field, and I urge all my colleagues to vote
for it. And I want to once again thank the chairman and the ranking
member for their efforts in bringing this bill forward. It's always
good to be on the same side as the chair and the ranking member.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman. I rise today in
strong support of H.R. 4105.
Where I'm from in northwest Pennsylvania, western Pennsylvania, we
relish competition. In fact, we can't wait to go head-to-head and toe-
to-toe with anybody, anytime, anyplace in the world. The only thing we
ask for is a level playing field, something that's fair for everyone.
And when you look at markets in Vietnam and China and other nonmarket
economies that are able to game us, we don't like it. So places like
Sharon Tube and Wheatland Tube, those are the workers I'm talking
about. And those are workers who I will tell you today would stand here
with us, arm-in-arm, in saying, Bring it on. Bring it on. We want the
competition. We can prove to the competition that we are the best and
always will be the best, but keep it a level playing field, keep the
rules where they should be, and enforce them.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to Mr. Critz from the great State of
Pennsylvania, a gentleman who is most active on these issues.
Mr. CRITZ. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin. As a cosponsor of this
bill, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4105.
In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of
Commerce did not have the authority to impose countervailing duties on
goods from nonmarket economies. Of the 24 countervailing duties
currently in place against goods from nonmarket economies, 23 are for
China. Without the legislative action we are proposing today to
overturn this ruling, it is very likely that these current
countervailing duties would be negated.
This is unacceptable, and we cannot stand by when over 80,000
American manufacturing jobs are at stake. Almost every State is
impacted by this decision, and almost every congressional district in
Pennsylvania has companies that would be affected if this legislation
does not pass.
We must take action today and pass H.R. 4105 to overturn a flawed
court ruling and to ensure that the Department of Commerce can continue
to fight unfair subsidies that hurt American manufacturers and American
workers. We must level the playing field, and I strongly urge my
colleagues to stand with American workers and pass this bill.
{time} 1300
Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reed).
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join in what appears to be a
bipartisan sentiment that's developing on the floor of the House today,
and I'm pleased to be part of it. I'm pleased to stand with my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and members of the Ways and
Means Committee in support of a bill that will go a long way to
protecting American job creators and American employees from coast to
coast.
What we are talking about is allowing the imposition of
countervailing duties in order to protect the American market to make
sure that the American market is in a competitive position when it
comes to our competitors in China and making sure that when we go to
the battlefield of the marketplace that that marketplace is put on an
even, level playing field so that we can compete squarely.
As my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) just articulated, I bet
on the American worker every single time when we have a marketplace
that is level, that is fair, and that is even. And that's why I ask all
my colleagues--all of my colleagues--to join us in sending a message
today by passing the subject bill and sending a message to the world,
to the world economy and to the world markets that America will compete
on an even playing field and allow the imposition of countervailing
duties to make sure that we have free marketplace principles in place
that protect our American workers and protect our American job
creators.
For that, I wholeheartedly support and stand with hardworking
taxpayers across this country. I ask all colleagues to join in support
of this resolution and legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to our ranking member on the Rules
Committee, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is very important legislation we're doing here today because in
December the Federal Court of Appeals wrongly determined that the
Commerce Department does not have the authority to respond to illegal
Chinese subsidies with countervailing duties. The court said that
despite illegal action from the Chinese, we, as a Nation, are unable to
respond as we wish to stop the loss of thousands of American jobs.
This court decision would have immediately reversed 23 import duties
that protect 80,000 American workers from subsidized goods entering our
market. In addition, it would have halted six pending U.S.
investigations into unfair trade practices while costing the taxpayers
billions of dollars each year.
Quite simply, allowing this decision to stand would unilaterally
disarm our Nation of one of the most important weapons we have in
combating subsidized Chinese exports. In the world of global trade, our
Nation can ill afford to let any country assume an unfair and illegal
advantage. Countless American companies, from Rochester, New York, to
Detroit, Michigan, rely upon a level playing field to compete and win.
From the day of this court ruling, I've been working closely with my
colleagues on Ways and Means to reverse this decision, and I'm so happy
to support today's bipartisan legislation. Tens of thousands of working
Americans are counting on Congress today to reverse the court decision
and preserve the ability of our country to respond to illegal trade.
I want to thank Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin for the good
work that they have done in working together to reach an agreement that
stands up for American manufacturers. I urge all of my colleagues to
support this critical legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of our time.
The need is clear, the answer is clear, and I hope the vote will be
clear. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In summary, I'd like to say that an identical bill to this passed the
Senate with unanimous consent. The ability of the U.S. to impose
countervailing duties on nonmarket economies, specifically on China,
was something China agreed to when it entered the WTO. There are
massive subsidies that distort the free market and cost us jobs here in
the United States. This is an important tool, as so many have said, as
speakers today have said, for us to have to address unfair subsidies
from China that hurt our U.S. workers.
I think this is an important bill. It has bipartisan support, and I
urge the passage of this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker I rise today in order to
debate H.R. 4105, ``To apply the countervailing duty provisions of the
Tariff Act of 1930 to nonmarket economy countries,'' would ensure that
the Department of Commerce can continue to apply countervailing duty
law (CDV) to non-market economies (NME), such as China and Vietnam.
Countervailing duties aim to offset the benefits of government
subsidies to industries. Anti-dumping (AD) duties apply to goods sold
overseas at or below the price in the home country.
As we enter the first full week of spring and trees are regaining
their leaves. We are once again faced with finding ways to help
strengthen our economy. After years of witnessing a decline in
manufacturing, before us this year there has been a revival. This
legislation that
[[Page H1171]]
would further enhance the economic viability of our manufacturing
industries against unfair competition is welcome news.
The measure before us would enable U.S. manufactures to fairly
compete with goods which enter our stream of commerce. Goods supplied
to the United States from nonmarket economies have a significant market
advantage. Those goods receive multiple subsidies from their
governments that allow them to be sold at a steeply discounted price in
the United States and thereby gain a competitive advantage against
products that are unsubsidized and manufactured in the United States.
Just think of a main street which employs hundreds of local workers.
The main manufacturing plant on main street supplies both goods and
services to the community. When outside goods and manufacturers, from
nonmarket economies, compete with main street manufacturers by
undercutting prices the result will be that manufacturers on main
street will close. American workers will lose jobs and it will cause
the death of main streets all over the country.
We must continue to support measures that will establish and ensure a
level playing field for American workers and American companies. The
issue before us is how to address goods from countries like China and
Vietnam that have entered our stream of commerce, and compete with our
business but have a significant market advantage because they are
heavily subsidized.
I firmly believe in the importance of continuing a balanced trade
relationship with China. Trade between the United States and China has
expanded dramatically in the years since China acceded to the World
Trade Organization in December 2001. In 2009, bilateral trade in goods
totaled $366 billion, with U.S. imports from China totaling $296
billion and U.S. exports to China totaling $70 billion.
In my home State of Texas we have also increased our exports of goods
to China. In the District I represent, the 18th Congressional District
of Texas, we export chemicals, machinery, computers & electronics,
fabricated metal products, and primary metal manufacturing. Yet, I can
attest that more can be done to ensure that our trading relationship
must improve.
Experts agree that the disparity in imports and exports has resulted
in a U.S. goods trade deficit with China. In 2009, there was a trade
deficit with China for $227 billion in which accounts for 45.3 percent
of the overall U.S. goods trade deficit.
In trade in services, the United States runs a surplus with China,
with exports to China of $16 billion in 2008 (the latest year for which
numbers are available) and imports from China valued at $10 billion.
The United States' bilateral goods trade imbalance with China may be
attributed to a variety of factors such as alleged unfair trade
practices and their undervalued currency and their impact on the U.S.
economy.
Chinese officials, who cite different figures for the bilateral trade
deficit provided by the United States, routinely seek to shift some of
the blame for the trade deficit to the United States by criticizing
U.S. controls on exports of advanced technology. They further argue
that the sharp increase in exports to the United States reflects the
shifting of production from other countries to China and many ``made-
in-China'' products contain components from other countries.
Since 2006, the U.S. government has repeatedly raised concerns about
alleged backsliding in China's implementation of commitments it made as
part of its 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization. Most
prominently the problem of ``excessive trade-distorting government
intervention intended to promote or protect China's domestic industries
and state-owned enterprises.'' China's inadequate protection of
intellectual property rights has also been a major concern. Under the
Obama Administration, there have been four cases filed against China
with the World Trade Organization, including three in 2010.
Those four cases relate to China's import substitution subsidies in
the wind energy sector, its anti-dumping and countervailing duties on
grain-oriented electrical steel from the United States, its
restrictions on foreign suppliers of electronic payment services, and
its restraints on exports of raw materials used in the steel, aluminum,
and chemical sectors.
The White House reports, however, that it made progress on some long-
standing trade issues with China at the December 2010 meeting of the
U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade in Washington, D.C.
Currently, there are more than 300 anti-dumping and countervailing
duty orders to shield American-made goods, from honey to bedroom
furniture, against global competition it deems unfair and damaging to
U.S. companies. About half the orders target iron and steel products.
China accounts for a third of all U.S. unfair trade cases, the most
of any country, including about 100 anti-dumping and two dozen
countervailing duty orders, according to the U.S. International Trade
Commission.
The U.S. Commerce Department would be allowed to apply duties to
offset government subsidies in nations such as China and Vietnam under
this bipartisan bill.
H.R. 4105, overturns the decision of the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit and preserves the validity of the countervailing duty
proceedings against imports from China and Vietnam, beginning in 2006.
This would ensure that the Department of Commerce can continue to apply
countervailing duty law (CDV) to non-market economies (NME), such as
China and Vietnam. Countervailing duties aim to offset the benefits of
government subsidies to industries. Anti-dumping (AD) duties apply to
goods sold overseas at or below the price in the home country.
The legislation also addresses an adverse World Trade Organization
(WTO) finding that there may be ``double remedies'' in situations where
countervailing duties are applied to NME exports at the same time that
antidumping duties calculated using the so-called ``surrogate value''
methodology are applied to the exports.
As a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee it is not without
hesitation that I join my colleagues in overturning a court ruling. I
believe in the deliberative process from the judiciary and I was
pleased that the court entrusted Congress to act.
In 2007, the Department of Commerce began applying countervailing
duty laws (CVD). This was after nearly 20 years of not applying CVD
laws to import from NME countries. In 2007, Commerce began to impose
CVDs to imports from China, a country which it has long been considered
to be a NME for the purposes of Anti-dumping /CVD laws.
The legality of applying both CVD/and AD laws to Chinese goods was
first tested in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in 2009,
when the CIT found that Commerce's approach unreasonable. GPX Int'l
Tire Corp. v. United States, 645 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1242 1243 (Ct. Int'l
Trade 2009).
The CIT ruled that the prospect of a double remedy is likely when CVD
duties are imposed at the same time as the NME AD duties. As the CIT
explained, ``the NME AD statute was designed to remedy the inability to
apply the CVD law to NME countries, so that subsidization of a foreign
producer or exporter in a NME country was addressed through the NME AD
methodology.''
The CIT instructed Commerce ``. . . to forego the imposition of
CVDs on the merchandise at issue or for Commerce to adopt additional
policies and procedures to adapt its NME AD and CVD methodologies to
account for the imposition of CVD remedies on merchandise from the
PRC.'' GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States.
Commerce was unable to find a reasonable methodology to prevent the
likely double-counting outcome and, under protest, it complied with the
CIT's order not to apply CVDs on imports of tires from China, but
appealed the CIT decision.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the holding of the Court of
International Trade that such countervailing duties could not be
collected but did so on different grounds. Without this legislation the
Department of Commerce will be required to stop imposing countervailing
duties on goods imported from nonmarket economies (NME).
Rather, in affirming the CIT's judgment, the CAFC held more broadly
that the legislative history of the U.S. CVD laws, Commerce's longtime
practice up to 2007 of not applying CVD law to NMEs, and the CAFC's
1986 opinion in Georgetown Steel Corp. v. United States, compel the
interpretation that the CVD statute cannot be applied to NME countries.
The CAFC reasoned that the earlier interpretation was considered and
adopted by Congress, when Congress amended the Trade Act of 1930 in the
1988 Trade Act, and again in 1994 when it reenacted most of CVD law
while making changes to conform U.S. law to its international
obligations as part of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. The Federal
Circuit stated:
We thus find that in amending and reenacting the trade laws
in 1988 and 1994, Congress adopted the position that
countervailing duty law does not apply to NME countries.
Although Commerce has wide discretion in administering
countervailing duty and antidumping law, it cannot exercise
this discretion contrary to congressional intent.
It is a broader ruling from several points of view, which, in
practice, may succeed in providing more clarity on the issues than if
the CAFC had affirmed GPX by adopting the CIT's rationale. First, the
CAFC did not distinguish between NME countries, as Commerce did in 2007
when it found that CVD law can be applied to China. In essence the
CAFC's opinion tells Commerce that it cannot have it both ways: where
the agency makes a determination that a country is a NME, it does not
have authority to assess CVDs on imports from that country. Second, GPX
involved an
[[Page H1172]]
alleged ``domestic subsidy,'' which generally benefits both domestic
and exported goods, as opposed to an ``export subsidy'' which applies
only to exports. The CIT's opinion in GPX may have not prevented
Commerce from countervailing export subsidies in other cases. However,
the CAFC's language does not distinguish between subsidies and holds
that ``countervailing duty law does not apply to NME countries.''
Third, as noted supra, the CAFC did not adopt the CIT's reasoning of
double-counting of remedies. The CIT's reasoning left open the
possibility that Commerce may come up with a methodology that somehow
eliminates double-counting, while imposing both ADs and CVDs on imports
from a NME. The CAFC's decision in GPX closed that possibility by
explicitly stating that one cannot apply CVD law to a NME country. In
short, had the CAFC adopted the CIT's reasoning in GPX, it is possible
that some of Commerce's authority to proceed with CVD investigations--
albeit on a much more restricted scale--would have survived. However,
the CAFC's decision, once final, will compel Commerce to cease its
current CVD practice with respect to countries designated as NMEs.
The problems raised by this decision has been addressed by this
legislation. As H.R. 4105 amends the Tariff Act of 1930 regarding the
imposition of countervailing duties on imports into the United States
from a country subsidizing, directly or indirectly, the manufacture,
production, or export of merchandise which materially injures a U.S.
industry or threatens to.
Declares that merchandise on which countervailing duties must be
imposed includes merchandise from a nonmarket country, unless the
administering authority cannot identify and measure subsidies provided
by the government of the nonmarket economy country (or a public entity
within its territory) because the economy of that country is
essentially composed of a single entity.
Requires the administering authority to reduce the antidumping duty
on a class or kind of merchandise from a nonmarket economy country in
cases where: (1) such country (or a public entity within its territory)
has provided the merchandise with a countervailable subsidy (other than
an export subsidy), (2) the subsidy has reduced the average price of
imports of that class or kind of merchandise during the relevant
period, and (3) the extent to which the subsidy, in combination with
the use of normal value, has increased the weighted average dumping
margin for such merchandise can be reasonably estimated.
Requires the administering authority, in such cases, to reduce the
antidumping duty by the amount of the increase in the weighted average
dumping margin estimated (but not by more than the portion of the
countervailing duty rate attributable to the countervailable subsidy).
FACTS
Antidumping and countervailing duty laws are administered jointly by
the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of
Commerce.
Currently, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) determines
whether articles from China are being imported into the United States
in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause or
threaten to cause market disruption to the domestic producers of like
or directly competitive products. If the Commission makes an
affirmative determination, it proposes a remedy. The Commission sends
its report to the President and the U.S. Trade Representative. The
President makes the final remedy decision.
When China entered the WTO in 2001, it agreed to allow the United
States to continue to treat it as a non-market economy for 12 years
(codified in U.S. law under Sections 421 of the 1974 Trade Act, as
amended) for the purpose of U.S. safeguards. This provision enables the
United States (and other WTO members) to impose restrictions (such as
quotas and/or increased tariffs) on Chinese products when imports of
those products have sharply increased and have caused, or threaten to
cause, market disruption to U.S. domestic producers.
Under the Bush Administration on six different occasions chose not to
extend relief to various industries under the China-specific safeguard,
even though in four cases the U.S. International Trade Commission
(USITC) recommended relief. A number of U.S. industries and labor
groups have called on the Obama Administration to utilize the China
safeguard provision, especially in the face of the current U.S.
recession and because of ``unfair'' Chinese trade practices.
Countervailing duty (CVD) laws give a similar kind of relief to
domestic industries that have been, or are threatened with, the adverse
impact of imported goods that have been subsidized by a foreign
government or public entity, and can therefore be sold at lower prices
than similar goods produced in the United States. The relief provided
is an additional import duty placed on the subsidized imports.
Currently, there are more than 300 anti-dumping and countervailing
duty orders to shield American-made goods, from honey to bedroom
furniture, against global competition it deems unfair and damaging to
U.S. companies. About half the orders target iron and steel products.
China accounts for a third of all U.S. unfair trade cases, the most
of any country, including about 100 anti-dumping and two dozen
countervailing duty orders, according to the U.S. International Trade
Commission.
STORY OF SOLAR CELL AND PANEL INDUSTRY
China exports the vast majority of its solar products, and has a
small domestic market. Chinese exports of crystalline silicon solar
cells and panels to the United States rose more than 350 percent from
2008 to 2010. Exports in July 2011 alone exceeded those from all of
2010.
The continued push of massive volumes of dumped Chinese cells and
panels, along with growing margins of underselling at artificially and
illegally low prices, ultimately caused market pricing in the United
States to collapse in 2011--with an average worldwide price decline of
40 percent--despite a growing market for these goods.
Chinese subsidies caused the price collapse and has had a devastating
impact on the U.S. solar cell and panel industry, resulting in
shutdowns, layoffs, and bankruptcies throughout the country. Over the
past 18 months, seven solar plants have shut down or downsized,
eliminating thousands of U.S. solar manufacturing jobs in Arizona,
California, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania.
China does not have a production cost advantage--labor accounts for
only 10 percent of solar panel production costs, and China actually
imports U.S. raw materials and equipment. Further, China's extra
shipping costs and comparatively lower labor productivity make its
pricing impossible without illegal subsidization and dumping.
OVERVIEW H.R. 4105
H.R. 4105 is a direct response to a December 19, 2011, decision by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court
found that certain countervailing duties levied by the Department of
Commerce on tires imported from China should not have been assessed
because countervailing duty law does not apply to the context of a non-
market economy (NME) such as China's. The United States Court of
International Trade originally ruled that the prospect of a double
remedy is likely when CVD duties are imposed in parallel with NMEAD
duties.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the holding of the Court of
International Trade that such countervailing duties could not be
collected, but did so on different grounds. If this ruling is allowed
to stand then U.S. manufacturers would be adversely affected, thousands
of american workers could lose their jobs, and the Commerce Department
would not be able to affectively address unfair trade practices.
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
I would be remiss if I did not mention today the importance of not
only establishing a fair and positive trade relationship with China,
but also ensuring that our trade partner continues to address human
rights issues.
In the past several years, the People's Republic of China had enacted
some laws aimed at reducing human rights abuses, including those
related to the use of torture, the death penalty, and labor conditions.
It also has promulgated legislation protecting property rights and
promoting government transparency, and developed mechanisms for
soliciting public input in the policy-making process.
However, the enforcement of human rights protections remains weak and
arbitrary. The People's Republic of China's leadership has instituted
few real checks on its power and remains extremely sensitive to social
instability, autonomous political activity, and potential challenges to
its authority.
In the past two years, the government has cracked down upon human
rights lawyers, social organizations, and Internet use. Major ongoing
problems include the following: excessive use of violence by security
forces and their proxies; unlawful detention; torture; arbitrary use of
state security laws against political dissidents; coercive family
planning policies; state control of information; and harassment and
persecution of people involved in unsanctioned religious activities,
including worship in unregistered Protestant ``house churches'' and
Catholic churches that express loyalty to the Pope. Many Tibetans,
ethnic Uighur (Uygur) Muslims, and Falun Gong adherents have been
singled out for especially harsh treatment. The Congressional-Executive
Commission on China has documented 1,452 cases of political and
religious prisoners known or believed to be under detention.
As we move forward in addressing the needs of American workers and
American business, we must continue by leveling the playing field
against highly subsidized nonmarket economy good through the
application of countervailing duty and antidumping as laws. And, as we
build trade relationships with
[[Page H1173]]
China, Vietnam, and other Global partners they must be balanced
relationships. We must also remember to ask of our partners to strongly
advocate for fair trade, fair labor practices, and stress the
importance of human rights. The advancement of human rights is an
important American value. Today, marks the opportunity for American
workers to breathe a sigh of relief, that their jobs are not going to
be jeopardized by goods manufactured outside of the United States that
have an unfair competitive advantage.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R.
4105. I am an original co-sponsor of this wonderfully common-sense
bill, which will permit the Department of Commerce to apply
countervailing duty orders to non-market economies like China. While
the term, ``countervailing duty order,'' is not one on the tip of every
American's tongue, it is an extraordinarily important trade enforcement
tool. In times like these, we need to be able to use our trade laws to
the fullest extent, so we can protect jobs at home and ensure our
trading partners play by the rules.
H.R. 4105 is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that will be signed into
law by President Obama. It is another step in the right direction for
American trade, and it is one that is fully consistent with our World
Trade Organization obligations. A flawed decision by the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit weakened our country's ability to
protect itself from unfair trade practices, and H.R. 4105 will fix it.
Most importantly, the bill will help workers and businesses in my home
State of Michigan compete fairly on a level playing field.
I commend my good friends, Messrs. Camp, Levin, Brady, and McDermott
for introducing H.R. 4105, and I congratulate House leadership for
bringing it to a vote so expeditiously. I urge my colleagues in the
Senate to act swiftly, so we can send this measure to President Obama
for his signature.
Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4105.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask my
colleagues to join me in support of domestic manufacturing, middle
class jobs, and American in-sourcing by voting in favor of H.R. 4105.
Last December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
ruled that the Commerce Department could not apply countervailing
duties (CVDs) on imports from non-market economies. If this ruling were
allowed to stand, it would terminate 23 existing CVD orders on certain
imports from China and one from Vietnam.
H.R. 4105 would reverse the court's ruling and make clear the intent
of Congress to allow CVDs to be applied to non-market economies.
Several of the endangered CVD orders provide relief to steel and pipe
manufacturers, many of which, including VAM Drilling, V&M Star, and TMK
IPSCO, are located in or near the 29th District of Texas.
These manufacturers, and the dozens like them throughout the country,
have witnessed unfair competition on a mass scale in recent years due
to the large subsidies provided by the Chinese government towards their
domestic industries.
Without these countervailing duties, tens of thousands of well-
paying, middle class jobs would be threatened around the country,
including several thousand in the 29th District alone.
As our Nation's economy continues to recover from the Great
Recession, and American industry rebounds from a decade of outsourcing
and unfair competition, it is important that this Congress support
domestic manufacturing and good paying jobs by voting in favor of H.R.
4105.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Madam Speaker, the December 2011 ruling by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit bars the Department of
Commerce from applying countervailing duties (CVDs) on goods produced
by heavily subsidized foreign companies from non-market economy
countries like China and Vietnam.
This ruling is a significant blow to U.S. manufacturers and workers.
If action is not taken to remedy the situation, the Department of
Commerce could likely be forced to terminate 24 existing CVD orders
against unfairly subsidized products from China and Vietnam, including
a CVD order to help companies and families in southwest Ohio.
In my community, paper manufacturers New Page, SMART Papers and
Appleton Papers, petitioned the International Trade Commission to levy
CVDs on subsidized imports of coated fresh-sheet paper from China and
Indonesia. In 2008, NewPage was forced to close its sheeting facility
for coated paper due to these unfair trade practices, resulting in a
loss of 175 Ohio jobs. Just recently, Appleton Papers announced it
would cut 330 jobs from the West Carrolton plant in my Dayton community
as it struggles against unfair competition.
I strongly backed the application of CVDs against this unfair trade
practice and testified before the ITC in support of the petition, which
was unanimously approved in 2010. However, the court's recent ruling
could negate the ITC's unanimous action and threaten more jobs in my
community.
Madam Speaker, we must move swiftly to ensure U.S. manufacturers and
workers can compete on a level playing field in the global marketplace.
That is why I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 4105, bipartisan
legislation that confirms the Department of Commerce may continue to
apply CVDs against unfairly subsidized imports from nonmarket economies
like China.
At the same time, with 95 percent of consumers overseas, it is
essential that U.S. companies have the opportunity to export their
products. U.S. exporters face many non-tariff barriers that violate
existing trade agreements, hampering the ability of U.S. companies to
access foreign markets and create jobs. My bill, H.R. 3112, the Trade
Law Enforcement Act, provides an affordable way for U.S. companies to
have their market access complaints investigated and resolved in a
manner consistent with U.S. international obligations.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 4105 and urge my colleagues to
vote yes on this important legislation. I also urge my colleagues to
support and co-sponsor my bill, H.R. 3112, to help U.S. manufacturers
reach new consumers abroad and spur job creation right here at home.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4105, a
measure that will apply the countervailing duty provisions of the
Tariff Act of 1930 to nonmarket economy countries.
Steelworkers and manufacturers in Northwest Indiana need every tool
available to them to combat duplicitous trade practices, and this
legislation is critical to preserving their ability to combat such
practices by countries such as China.
I applaud the expeditiousness of the House Ways and Means Committee
and the House leadership in bringing this important legislation to the
floor, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''
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. 4105.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________