[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17949-17966]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               UNITED STATES TRADE RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT ACT

  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 387, I call up the bill (H.R. 3283) to enhance resources to 
enforce United States trade rights, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 387, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of H.R. 3283 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3283

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``United States Trade Rights 
     Enforcement Act''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) United States producers that believe they are injured 
     by subsidized imports from nonmarket economy countries have 
     not been able to obtain relief through countervailing duty 
     actions because the Department of Commerce has declined to 
     make countervailing duty determinations for nonmarket economy 
     countries in part because it lacks explicit legal authority 
     to do so;
       (2) explicitly making the countervailing duty law under 
     subtitle A of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1671 et seq.) applicable to actions by nonmarket economy 
     countries would give United States producers access to import 
     relief measures that directly target government subsidies;
       (3) the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the 
     Department of Homeland Security has encountered particular 
     problems in collecting countervailing and antidumping duties 
     from new shippers who default on their bonding obligations;
       (4) this behavior may detract from the ability of United 
     States companies to recover from competition found to be 
     unfair under international trade laws;
       (5) accordingly, it is appropriate, for a test period, to 
     suspend the availability of bonds for new shippers and 
     instead require cash deposits;
       (6) more analysis and assessment is needed to determine the 
     appropriate policy to respond to this and other problems 
     experienced in the collection of duties and the impact that 
     policy changes could have on legitimate United States trade 
     and United States trade obligations;
       (7) given the developments in the ongoing World Trade 
     Organization (WTO) negotiations relating to trade remedies, 
     Congress reiterates its resolve as expressed in House 
     Concurrent Resolution 262 (107th Congress), which was 
     overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives on 
     November 7, 2001, by a vote of 410 to 4;
       (8) the United States Trade Representative should monitor 
     compliance by United States trading partners with their trade 
     obligations and systematically identify areas of 
     noncompliance;
       (9) the United States Trade Representative should then 
     aggressively resolve noncompliance through consultations with 
     United States trading partners;
       (10) however, should efforts to resolve disputes through 
     consultation fail, the United States Trade Representative 
     should vigorously pursue United States rights through dispute 
     settlement in every available forum;
       (11) given the huge growth in trade with the People's 
     Republic of China, its impact on the United States economy, 
     and the complaints voiced by many United States interests 
     that China is not complying with its international trade 
     obligations, the United States Trade Representative should 
     place particular emphasis on identifying and resolving 
     disputes with China that limit United States exports, 
     particularly concerning compliance with obligations relating 
     to intellectual property rights and enforcement, tariff and 
     nontariff barriers, subsidies, technical barriers to trade, 
     sanitary and phytosanitary issues, nonmarket-based industrial 
     policies, distribution rights, and regulatory transparency;
       (12) in addition, the United States Trade Representative 
     should place particular emphasis on trade barriers imposed by 
     Japan, specifically the Japanese trade ban on United States 
     beef without scientific justification, the Japanese sanitary 
     and phytosanitary restrictions on United States agricultural 
     products, Japanese policies on pharmaceutical and medical 
     device reference pricing, insurance cross-subsidization, and 
     privatization in a variety of sectors that discriminate 
     against United States companies;
       (13) the fixed exchange rate that the People's Republic of 
     China currently maintains is a substantial distortion to 
     world markets, blocking the price mechanism and impeding 
     adjustment of international imbalances, and it is also a 
     source of large and increasing risk to the Chinese economy;
       (14) the People's Republic of China has completed 
     significant preparations over the last two years for adoption 
     of a more flexible, market-oriented exchange rate;
       (15) the People's Republic of China is now ready to move to 
     a more flexible exchange rate and it should move to such an 
     exchange rate as soon as possible;
       (16) the Secretary of the Treasury, in the annual report 
     reviewing developments in international economic policy, 
     including exchange rate policy, under the Omnibus Trade and 
     Competitiveness Act of 1988, appropriately concluded that 
     ``current Chinese policies are highly distortionary and pose 
     a risk to China's economy, its trading partners, and global 
     economic growth'';
       (17) moreover, the rapid growth of credit and very high 
     rate of investment risk undermine the progress that the 
     People's Republic of China has made in reforming its banking 
     system by creating new flows of non-performing loans;
       (18) such behavior effectively prevents market forces from 
     operating efficiently in the People's Republic of China, 
     which distorts world trade;
       (19) furthermore, based on the fact that the Secretary of 
     the Treasury has determined the currency policy of the 
     People's Republic of China to be ``distortionary'', the 
     United States Trade Representative and the Secretary of the 
     Treasury should place particular emphasis on determining 
     whether China is violating its international obligations and 
     identify to Congress the actions it is taking to address 
     distortions to world trade;
       (20) in addition, Japan's policy of intervening to 
     influence the value of its currency and its prolific barriers 
     to trade create distortions that disadvantage United States 
     exporters;
       (21) this adverse impact is magnified by Japan's role in 
     the global marketplace, combined with its chronic surplus, 
     weak economy, deflationary economy, low growth rate, and lack 
     of consumer spending; and
       (22) accordingly, the United States Trade Representative 
     should have additional resources in the Office of the General 
     Counsel, the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement, the Office 
     of China Affairs, and the Office of Japan, Korea, and APEC 
     Affairs to address a variety of needs that will best enable 
     United States companies, farmers, and workers to benefits 
     from the trade agreements to which the United States has 
     around the world.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES TO NONMARKET 
                   ECONOMY COUNTRIES.

       (a) Amendments.--
       (1) Countervailing duties imposed.--Section 701(a)(1) of 
     the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671(a)(1)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(including a nonmarket economy country)'' after 
     ``country'' each place it appears.
       (2) Definition of countervailable subsidy.--Section 
     771(5)(E) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(5)(E)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentences: ``With respect 
     to the People's Republic of China, if the administering 
     authority encounters special difficulties in calculating the 
     amount of a benefit under clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of 
     this subparagraph, the administering authority may use 
     methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy 
     benefit which take into account the possibility that 
     prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be 
     available as appropriate benchmarks. When applying such 
     methodologies, the administering authority should adjust such 
     prevailing terms and conditions before considering the use of 
     terms and conditions prevailing outside China.''.
       (b) Prohibition on Double Counting.--In applying section 
     701(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by subsection 
     (a), to a class or kind of merchandise of a nonmarket economy 
     country, the administering authority shall ensure that--
       (1) any countervailable subsidy is not double counted in an 
     antidumping order under section 731 of such Act (19 U.S.C. 
     1673) on the same class or kind of merchandise of the 
     country; and
       (2) the application of section 701(a)(1) of such Act is 
     consistent with the international obligations of the United 
     States.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply to any petition filed under section 702 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671a) on or after 30 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and the provisions 
     contained in subsection (b) apply to any subsequent 
     determination made under section 733, 735, or 751 of such Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 1673b, 1673d, or 1675).

     SEC. 4. NEW SHIPPER REVIEW AMENDMENT.

       (a) Suspension of the Availability of Bonds to New 
     Shippers.--Clause (iii) of section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)(iii)) shall not be 
     effective during the 3-year period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Report on the Impact of the Suspension.--Not later than 
     2 years after the date

[[Page 17950]]

     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, the United 
     States Trade Representative, and the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, shall submit to the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives a report containing--
       (1) recommendations on whether the suspension of the 
     effectiveness of section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act 
     of 1930 should be extended beyond the date provided in 
     subsection (a) of this section; and
       (2) assessments of the effectiveness of any administrative 
     measures that have been implemented to address the 
     difficulties giving rise to the suspension under subsection 
     (a) of this section, including--
       (A) problems in assuring the collection of antidumping 
     duties on imports from new shippers; and
       (B) burdens imposed on legitimate trade and commerce by the 
     suspension of availability of bonds to new shippers by reason 
     of the suspension under subsection (a).
       (c) Report on Collection Problems and Analysis of Proposed 
     Solutions.--
       (1) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     consultation with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs 
     and Border Protection and the Secretary of Commerce, shall 
     submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a 
     report describing the major problems experienced in the 
     collection of duties, including fraudulent activities 
     intended to avoid payment of duties, with an estimate of the 
     total amount of uncollected duties for the previous fiscal 
     year and a breakdown across product lines describing the 
     reasons duties were uncollected.
       (2) Recommendations.--The report shall make recommendations 
     on additional actions to address remaining problems related 
     to duty collections and, for each recommendation, provide an 
     analysis of how the recommendation would address the specific 
     problem or problems cited and the impact that implementing 
     the recommendation would have on international trade and 
     commerce (including any additional costs imposed on United 
     States businesses and whether the implementation of the 
     revision is likely to violate any international trade laws).

     SEC. 5. COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE BY THE 
                   PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA WITH ITS 
                   INTERNATIONAL TRADE OBLIGATIONS.

       (a) Intellectual Property Rights Compliance.--
       (1) In general.--In accordance with the terms of the 
     Agreement of WTO Accession for the People's Republic of 
     China, subsequent agreements by Chinese authorities through 
     the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), 
     and other obligations by Chinese officials related to its 
     trade obligations, the United States Trade Representative and 
     the Secretary of Commerce shall undertake to ensure that the 
     Government of the People's Republic China has taken the 
     following steps:
       (A) The Chinese Government has increased the number of 
     civil and criminal prosecutions of intellectual property 
     rights violators by the end of 2005 to a level that 
     significantly decreases the current amount of infringing 
     products for sale within China.
       (B) China's Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's 
     Procuratorate, and Ministry of Public Security have issued 
     draft guidelines for public comment to ensure the timely 
     referral of intellectual property rights violations from 
     administrative bodies to criminal prosecution.
       (C) The Chinese Ministry of Public Security and the General 
     Administration of Customs have issued regulations to ensure 
     the timely transfer of intellectual property rights cases for 
     criminal investigation.
       (D) The Chinese Ministry of Public Security has established 
     a leading group responsible for overall research, planning, 
     and coordination of all intellectual property rights criminal 
     enforcement to ensure a focused and coordinated nationwide 
     enforcement effort.
       (E) The Chinese Government has established a bilateral 
     intellectual property rights law enforcement working group in 
     cooperation with the United States whose members will 
     cooperate on enforcement activities to reduce cross-border 
     infringing activities.
       (F) The Chinese Government has aggressively countered movie 
     piracy by dedicating enforcement teams to pursue enforcement 
     actions against pirates and has regularly instructed 
     enforcement authorities nationwide that copies of films and 
     audio-visual products still in censorship or import review or 
     otherwise not yet authorized for distribution are deemed 
     pirated and subject to enhanced enforcement.
       (G) By the end of 2005, the Chinese Government has 
     completed its legalization program to ensure that all 
     central, provincial, and local government offices are using 
     only licensed software and by the end of 2006 has extended 
     the program to enterprises (including state-owned 
     enterprises).
       (H) The Chinese Government, having declared that software 
     end-user piracy is considered to constitute ``harm to the 
     public interest'' and as such will be subject to 
     administrative penalties nationwide, has initiated civil and 
     criminal prosecutions of software end-user violators.
       (I) The Chinese Government has appointed an Intellectual 
     Property Rights Ombudsman at the Chinese Embassy in 
     Washington, D.C., to serve as the point of contact for United 
     States companies, particularly small- and medium-sized 
     businesses, seeking to secure and enforce their intellectual 
     property rights in China or experiencing intellectual 
     property rights problems in China.
       (J) The relevant Chinese agencies, including the Ministry 
     of Commerce, the China Trademark Office, the State 
     Intellectual Property Office, and the National Copyright 
     Administration of China have significantly improved 
     intellectual property rights enforcement at trade shows and 
     issued new regulations to achieve this goal.
       (K) Not later than June 30, 2006, the Chinese State Council 
     has submitted to the National People's Congress the 
     legislative package needed for China to accede to the World 
     Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet treaties.
       (L) The Chinese Government has taken steps to enforce 
     intellectual property right laws against Internet piracy, 
     including through enforcement at Internet cafes.
       (M) The Chinese Government, having confirmed that the 
     criminal penalty thresholds in the 2004 Judicial 
     Interpretation are applicable to sound recordings, has 
     instituted civil and criminal prosecutions against such 
     violators.
       (N) The Chinese Government has initiated civil and criminal 
     prosecutions against exporters of infringing recordings.
       (2) Dispute settlement proceedings in wto.--If the 
     President determines that the People's Republic of China has 
     not met each of the obligations described in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (N) of paragraph (1) or taken steps that result 
     in significant improvements in protection of intellectual 
     property rights in accordance with its trade obligations, 
     then the President shall assign such resources as are 
     necessary to collect evidence of such trade agreement 
     violations for use in dispute settlement proceedings against 
     China in the World Trade Organization.
       (b) Access for Exports of United States Goods.--In 
     accordance with the terms of the Agreement of WTO Accession 
     for the People's Republic of China, subsequent agreements by 
     Chinese authorities through the U.S.-China Joint Commission 
     on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), and other obligations by 
     Chinese officials related to its trade obligations, the 
     United States Trade Representative and the Secretary of 
     Commerce shall undertake to ensure that the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China has taken the following steps:
       (1) China has taken steps to ensure that United States 
     products can be freely distributed in China, including by 
     approving a significant backlog of distribution license 
     applications and by preparing a regulatory guide for 
     businesses seeking to acquire distribution rights that 
     expands on the guidelines announced in April 2005.
       (2) Chinese officials have permitted all enterprises in 
     China, including those located in bonded zones, to acquire 
     licenses to distribute goods throughout China.
       (3) The Chinese Government has submitted regulations on 
     management of direct selling to the Chinese State Council for 
     review and taken any additional steps necessary to provide a 
     legal basis for United States direct sales firms to sell 
     United States goods directly to households in China.
       (4) The Chinese Government has issued final regulations on 
     direct selling, including with respect to distribution of 
     imported goods and fixed location requirements.
       (c) Access for Exports of United States Services.--In 
     accordance with the terms of the Agreement of WTO Accession 
     for the People's Republic of China, subsequent agreements by 
     Chinese authorities through the U.S.-China Joint Commission 
     on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), and other obligations by 
     Chinese officials related to its trade obligations, the 
     United States Trade Representative and the Secretary of 
     Commerce shall undertake to ensure that the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China has taken the following steps:
       (1) The Chinese Government has convened a meeting of the 
     U.S.-China Insurance Dialogue before the end of 2005 to 
     discuss regulatory concerns and barriers to further 
     liberalization of the sector.
       (2) The Chinese Government has made senior level officials 
     available to meet under the JCCT Information Technology 
     Working Group to discuss capitalization requirements, resale 
     services, and other issues as agreed to by the two sides.
       (d) Access for United States Agriculture.--In accordance 
     with the terms of the Agreement of WTO Accession for the 
     People's Republic of China, subsequent agreements by Chinese 
     authorities through the U.S.-China Joint Commission on 
     Commerce and Trade (JCCT), and other obligations by Chinese 
     officials related to its trade obligations, the United States 
     Trade Representative and the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     undertake to ensure that the Government of the People's 
     Republic of China has taken the following steps:

[[Page 17951]]

       (1) China has completed the regulatory approval process for 
     a United States-produced corn biotech variety.
       (2) China's Administration of Quality Supervision, 
     Inspection and Quarantine has implemented the 2005 Memorandum 
     of Understanding between the United States and China designed 
     to facilitate cooperation on animal and plant health safety 
     issues and improve efforts to expand United States access to 
     China's markets for agricultural commodities.
       (e) Accounting of Chinese Subsidies.--In accordance with 
     the terms of the Agreement of WTO Accession for the People's 
     Republic of China, subsequent agreements by Chinese 
     authorities through the U.S.-China Joint Commission on 
     Commerce and Trade (JCCT), and other obligations by Chinese 
     officials related to its trade obligations, the United States 
     Trade Representative and the Secretary of Commerce shall 
     undertake to ensure that the Government of the People's 
     Republic of China has provided a detailed accounting of its 
     subsidies to the World Trade Organization by the end of 2005.
       (f) Reports.--
       (1) Biannual report.--Not later than six months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and every six months 
     thereafter, the President should transmit to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate a report that contains--
       (A) a description of the specific steps taken by the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China to meet its 
     obligations described in subsections (a) through (e) of this 
     section (other than obligations described in subsections 
     (a)(1)(A) and (G), (b)(1), (c)(1), and (e));
       (B) an analysis of the extent to which Chinese officials 
     are attempting in good faith to meet such obligations; and
       (C) a description of the actions, if any, the President 
     will take to obtain compliance by China if the President 
     determines that the Chinese Government is failing to meet 
     such obligations, including pursuing United States rights 
     under the dispute settlement provisions of the World Trade 
     Organization, as appropriate.
       (2) Monthly report.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and every 30 days thereafter, 
     the President should transmit to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Finance of the Senate a report that contains--
       (A) a description of the specific steps taken by the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China to meet its 
     obligations described in subsections (a)(1)(A) and (G), 
     (b)(1), (c)(1), and (e);
       (B) an analysis of the extent to which Chinese officials 
     are attempting in good faith to meet such obligations; and
       (C) a description of the actions, if any, the President 
     will take to obtain compliance by China if the President 
     determines that the Chinese Government is failing to meet 
     such obligations, including pursuing United States rights 
     under the dispute settlement provisions of the World Trade 
     Organization, as appropriate.

     SEC. 6. REPORT ON CURRENCY MANIPULATION BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report that--
       (1) defines currency manipulation;
       (2) describes actions of foreign countries that will be 
     considered to be currency manipulation; and
       (3) describes how statutory provisions addressing currency 
     manipulation by trading partners of the United States 
     contained in, and relating to, section 40 of the Bretton 
     Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286y) and sections 3004 and 
     3005 of the Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy 
     Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5304 and 5305) can be 
     better clarified administratively to provide for improved and 
     more predictable evaluation.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 141(g)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(g)(1)(A)) is amended by striking clauses 
     (i) and (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) $44,779,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       ``(ii) $47,018,000 for fiscal year 2007.''.
       (2) Rule of construction.--The amendment made by paragraph 
     (1) shall not be construed to affect the availability of 
     funds appropriated pursuant to section 141(g)(1)(A) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations for the Office of the 
     General Counsel and Certain Other Offices.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Office of the United 
     States Trade Representative for the appointment of additional 
     staff in or enhanced activities by the Office of the General 
     Counsel, the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement, the Office 
     of China Affairs, and the Office of Japan, Korea, and APEC 
     Affairs--
       (1) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       (2) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES 
                   INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 330(e)(2)(A) 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(e)(2)(A)) is 
     amended by striking clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) $62,752,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       ``(ii) $65,890,000 for fiscal year 2007.''.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a) shall not be construed to affect the availability of 
     funds appropriated pursuant to section section 330(e)(2)(A) 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Study and Report on Trade and Economic Relations With 
     China.--
       (1) Study.--
       (A) In general.--The United States International Trade 
     Commission shall carry out a comprehensive study on trade and 
     economic relations between the United States and the People's 
     Republic of China which focuses on China's macroeconomic 
     policy, including its fixed exchange rate policy, the 
     competitiveness of its industries, the composition and nature 
     of its trade patterns, and the impact of these elements on 
     the United States trade account, industry, competitiveness, 
     and employment.
       (B) Requirements.--In carrying out the study under 
     subparagraph (A), the United States International Trade 
     Commission shall undertake the following:
       (i) An analysis of the United States trade and investment 
     relationship with China, with a focus on the United States-
     China trade balance and trends affecting particular 
     industries, products, and sectors in agriculture, 
     manufacturing, and services. The analysis shall provide 
     context for understanding the U.S.-China trade and investment 
     relationship, by including information regarding China's 
     economic relationships with third countries and China's 
     changing policy regime and business environment. The analysis 
     shall include a focus on United States-China trade in goods 
     and services, United States direct investment in China, 
     China's foreign direct investment in the United States, and 
     the relationship between trade and investment. The analysis 
     shall make adjustments, where possible, for merchandise 
     passed through Hong Kong.
       (ii) An analysis of the competitive conditions in China 
     affecting United States exports and United States direct 
     investment. The analysis shall take into account, to the 
     extent feasible, significant factors including tariffs and 
     non-tariff measures, competition from Chinese domestic firms 
     and foreign-based companies operating in China, the Chinese 
     regulatory environment, including specific regulations and 
     overall regulatory transparency, and other Chinese industrial 
     and financial policies. In addition, the analysis shall 
     examine the specific competitive conditions facing United 
     States producers in key industries, products, and sectors, 
     potentially including computer and telecommunications 
     hardware, textiles, grains, cotton, and financial services.
       (iii) An examination of the role and importance of 
     intellectual property rights issues, such as patents, 
     copyrights, and licensing, in specific industries in China, 
     including the pharmaceutical industry, the software industry, 
     and the entertainment industry.
       (iv) An analysis of the effects on global commodity markets 
     of China's growing demand for energy and raw materials.
       (v) An examination of whether or not increased United 
     States imports from China reflect displacement of United 
     States imports from third countries or United States domestic 
     production, and the role of intermediate and value-added 
     goods processing in China's pattern of trade.
       (2) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the United States International Trade 
     Commission shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of 
     the Senate a report that contains the results of the study 
     carried out under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EXPANSION OF MEMBERSHIP 
                   IN THE AGREEMENT ON GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT OF 
                   THE WTO.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Nondiscriminatory, procompetitive, merit-based, and 
     technology-neutral procurement of goods and services is 
     essential so that governments can acquire the best goods to 
     meet their needs for the best value.
       (2) The Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) of the 
     World Trade Organization (WTO) provides a multilateral 
     framework of rights and obligations founded on such 
     principles.
       (3) The United States is a member of the GPA, along with 
     Canada, the European Union (including its 25 member States: 
     Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, 
     Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, 
     Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, the Netherlands, 
     Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, 
     and the United Kingdom), Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, 
     Korea, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands with respect to Aruba, 
     Norway, Singapore, and Switzerland.

[[Page 17952]]

       (4) Albania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Jordan, the Kyrgyz 
     Republic, Moldova, Oman, Panama, and Taiwan are currently 
     negotiating to accede to the GPA.
       (5) The People's Republic of China joined the WTO in 
     December 2001, signaling to the international community its 
     commitment to greater openness.
       (6) When China joined the WTO, it committed, in its 
     protocol of accession, to negotiate entry into the GPA ``as 
     soon as possible''.
       (7) More than 3 years after its entry into the WTO, China 
     has not commenced negotiations to join the GPA.
       (8) Recent legal developments in China illustrate the 
     importance and urgency of expanding membership in the GPA.
       (9) In 2002, China enacted a law on government procurement 
     that incorporates preferences for domestic goods and 
     services.
       (10) The first sector for which the Chinese Government has 
     sought to implement the new government procurement law is 
     computer software.
       (11) In March 2005 the Chinese Government released draft 
     regulations governing the procurement of computer software.
       (12) The draft regulations require that non-Chinese 
     software companies meet conditions relating to outsourcing of 
     software development work to China, technology transfer, and 
     similar requirements, in order to be eligible to participate 
     in the Chinese Government market.
       (13) As a result of the proposed regulations, it appears 
     likely that a very substantial amount of American software 
     will be excluded from the government procurement process in 
     China. The draft software regulations threatened to close off 
     a market with a potential value of more than $8 billion to 
     United States firms.
       (14) United States software companies have made a 
     substantial commitment to the Chinese market and have made a 
     substantial contribution to the development of China's 
     software industry.
       (15) The outright exclusion of substantial amounts of 
     software not of Chinese origin that is apparently 
     contemplated in the regulations is out of step with domestic 
     preferences that exist in the procurement laws and practices 
     of other WTO member countries, including the United States.
       (16) The draft regulations do not adhere to the principles 
     of nondiscriminatory, procompetitive, merit-based, and 
     technology-neutral procurement embodied in the GPA.
       (17) The software piracy rate in China has never fallen 
     below 90 percent over the past 10 years.
       (18) Chinese Government entities represent a very 
     significant portion of the software market in China that is 
     not dominated by piracy.
       (19) The combined effect of rampant software piracy and the 
     proposed discriminatory government procurement regulations 
     will be a nearly impenetrable barrier to market access for 
     the United States software industry in China.
       (20) The United States trade deficit with China in 2004 was 
     $162,000,000,000, the highest with any economy in the world, 
     and a 12.4 percent increase over 2003.
       (21) China's Premier, Wen Jiabao, has committed to rectify 
     this serious imbalance by increasing China's imports of goods 
     and services from the United States.
       (22) The proposed software procurement regulations that 
     were described by the Chinese Government in November 2004 
     incorporate policies that are fully at odds with Premier 
     Wen's commitment to increase China's imports from the United 
     States, and will add significantly to the trade imbalance 
     between the United States and China.
       (23) Once it is fully implemented, the discriminatory 
     aspects of China's government procurement law will apply to 
     all goods and services that the government procures.
       (24) Other developing countries may follow the lead of 
     China.
       (25) In July 2005, senior officials of the Chinese 
     Government announced at the U.S.-China Joint Committee on 
     Commerce and Trade that China would accelerate its efforts to 
     join the GPA and toward this end will initiate technical 
     consultations with other WTO member countries and accordingly 
     delay issuing draft regulations on software procurement, as 
     it further considers public comments and makes revisions in 
     light of WTO rules.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Government of the United States should strive to 
     expand membership in the Agreement on Government Procurement 
     of the World Trade Organization (WTO);
       (2) the Government of the United States should ensure that 
     the Government of the People's Republic of China meets its 
     WTO obligations as recently affirmed through its commitment 
     in July 2005 through the U.S.-China Joint Committee on 
     Commerce and Trade, to join the WTO Agreement on Government 
     Procurement.
       (3) the Government of the United States should seek a 
     commitment from the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China to maintain its suspension of the implementation of its 
     law on government procurement, pending the conclusion of 
     negotiations to accede to the Agreement on Government 
     Procurement of the WTO;
       (4) the Government of the United States should seek 
     commitments from the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China and other countries that are not yet members of the 
     Agreement on Government Procurement of the WTO to implement 
     the principles of openness, transparency, fair competition 
     based on merit, nondiscrimination, and accountability in 
     their government procurement as embodied in that agreement; 
     and
       (5) the President should direct all appropriate officials 
     of the United States to raise these concerns with appropriate 
     officials of the People's Republic of China and other trading 
     partners.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in House Report 109-
187 is adopted.
  The text of H.R. 3283, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 387, 
is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``United States Trade Rights 
     Enforcement Act''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) United States producers that believe they are injured 
     by subsidized imports from nonmarket economy countries have 
     not been able to obtain relief through countervailing duty 
     actions because the Department of Commerce has declined to 
     make countervailing duty determinations for nonmarket economy 
     countries in part because it lacks explicit legal authority 
     to do so;
       (2) explicitly making the countervailing duty law under 
     subtitle A of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1671 et seq.) applicable to actions by nonmarket economy 
     countries would give United States producers access to import 
     relief measures that directly target government subsidies;
       (3) the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the 
     Department of Homeland Security has encountered particular 
     problems in collecting countervailing and antidumping duties 
     from new shippers who default on their bonding obligations;
       (4) this behavior may detract from the ability of United 
     States companies to recover from competition found to be 
     unfair under international trade laws;
       (5) accordingly, it is appropriate, for a test period, to 
     suspend the availability of bonds for new shippers and 
     instead require cash deposits;
       (6) more analysis and assessment is needed to determine the 
     appropriate policy to respond to this and other problems 
     experienced in the collection of duties and the impact that 
     policy changes could have on legitimate United States trade 
     and United States trade obligations;
       (7) given the developments in the ongoing World Trade 
     Organization (WTO) negotiations relating to trade remedies, 
     Congress reiterates its resolve as expressed in House 
     Concurrent Resolution 262 (107th Congress), which was 
     overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives on 
     November 7, 2001, by a vote of 410 to 4;
       (8) the United States Trade Representative should monitor 
     compliance by United States trading partners with their trade 
     obligations and systematically identify areas of 
     noncompliance;
       (9) the United States Trade Representative should then 
     aggressively resolve noncompliance through consultations with 
     United States trading partners;
       (10) however, should efforts to resolve disputes through 
     consultation fail, the United States Trade Representative 
     should vigorously pursue United States rights through dispute 
     settlement in every available forum;
       (11) given the huge growth in trade with the People's 
     Republic of China, its impact on the United States economy, 
     and the complaints voiced by many United States interests 
     that China is not complying with its international trade 
     obligations, the United States Trade Representative should 
     place particular emphasis on identifying and resolving 
     disputes with China that limit United States exports, 
     particularly concerning compliance with obligations relating 
     to intellectual property rights and enforcement, tariff and 
     nontariff barriers, subsidies, technical barriers to trade, 
     sanitary and phytosanitary issues, nonmarket-based industrial 
     policies, distribution rights, and regulatory transparency;
       (12) in addition, the United States Trade Representative 
     should place particular emphasis on trade barriers imposed by 
     Japan, specifically the Japanese trade ban on United States 
     beef without scientific justification, the Japanese sanitary 
     and phytosanitary restrictions on United States agricultural 
     products, Japanese policies on pharmaceutical and medical 
     device reference pricing, insurance cross-subsidization, and 
     privatization in a variety of sectors that discriminate 
     against United States companies;
       (13) the fixed exchange rate that the People's Republic of 
     China has maintained until recently has been a substantial 
     distortion to world markets, blocking the price mechanism, 
     impeding adjustment of international imbalances, and serving 
     as a source of large and increasing risk to the Chinese 
     economy;
       (14) such behavior has effectively prevented market forces 
     from operating efficiently in the People's Republic of China, 
     distorting world trade;

[[Page 17953]]

       (15) in a welcome move, the People's Republic of China has 
     now begun to move to a more flexible exchange rate, and it 
     should continue to so move to a market-based exchange rate as 
     soon as possible;
       (16) in light of this recent positive development, the 
     Secretary of Treasury should provide to Congress a periodic 
     assessment of the mechanism adopted by the Chinese Government 
     to relate its currency to a basket of foreign currencies and 
     the degree to which the application of this mechanism moves 
     the currency closer to a market-based representation of its 
     value;
       (17) in addition, Japan's policy of intervening to 
     influence the value of its currency and its prolific barriers 
     to trade create distortions that disadvantage United States 
     exporters;
       (18) this adverse impact is magnified by Japan's role in 
     the global marketplace, combined with its chronic surplus, 
     weak economy, deflationary economy, low growth rate, and lack 
     of consumer spending; and
       (19) accordingly, the United States Trade Representative 
     should have additional resources in the Office of the General 
     Counsel, the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement, the Office 
     of China Affairs, and the Office of Japan, Korea, and APEC 
     Affairs to address a variety of needs that will best enable 
     United States companies, farmers, and workers to benefits 
     from the trade agreements to which the United States has 
     around the world.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES TO NONMARKET 
                   ECONOMY COUNTRIES.

       (a) Amendments.--
       (1) Countervailing duties imposed.--Section 701(a)(1) of 
     the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671(a)(1)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(including a nonmarket economy country)'' after 
     ``country'' each place it appears.
       (2) Definition of countervailable subsidy.--Section 
     771(5)(E) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(5)(E)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentences: ``With respect 
     to the People's Republic of China, if the administering 
     authority encounters special difficulties in calculating the 
     amount of a benefit under clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of 
     this subparagraph, the administering authority may use 
     methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy 
     benefit which take into account the possibility that 
     prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be 
     available as appropriate benchmarks. When applying such 
     methodologies, where practicable, the administering authority 
     should adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before 
     considering the use of terms and conditions prevailing 
     outside China.''.
       (b) Prohibition on Double Counting.--In applying section 
     701(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by subsection 
     (a), to a class or kind of merchandise of a nonmarket economy 
     country, the administering authority shall ensure that--
       (1) any countervailable subsidy is not double counted in an 
     antidumping order under section 731 of such Act (19 U.S.C. 
     1673) on the same class or kind of merchandise of the 
     country; and
       (2) the application of section 701(a)(1) of such Act is 
     consistent with the international obligations of the United 
     States.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     apply to any petition filed under section 702 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671a) on or after 30 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and the provisions 
     contained in subsection (b) apply to any subsequent 
     determination made under section 733, 735, or 751 of such Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 1673b, 1673d, or 1675).

     SEC. 4. NEW SHIPPER REVIEW AMENDMENT.

       (a) Suspension of the Availability of Bonds to New 
     Shippers.--Clause (iii) of section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)(iii)) shall not be 
     effective during the 3-year period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Report on the Impact of the Suspension.--Not later than 
     2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Commerce, the United States Trade Representative, and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, shall submit to the Committee 
     on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means 
     of the House of Representatives a report containing--
       (1) recommendations on whether the suspension of the 
     effectiveness of section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act 
     of 1930 should be extended beyond the date provided in 
     subsection (a) of this section; and
       (2) assessments of the effectiveness of any administrative 
     measures that have been implemented to address the 
     difficulties giving rise to the suspension under subsection 
     (a) of this section, including--
       (A) problems in assuring the collection of antidumping 
     duties on imports from new shippers; and
       (B) burdens imposed on legitimate trade and commerce by the 
     suspension of availability of bonds to new shippers by reason 
     of the suspension under subsection (a).
       (c) Report on Collection Problems and Analysis of Proposed 
     Solutions.--
       (1) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     consultation with the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs 
     and Border Protection and the Secretary of Commerce, shall 
     submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a 
     report describing the major problems experienced in the 
     collection of duties, including fraudulent activities 
     intended to avoid payment of duties, with an estimate of the 
     total amount of uncollected duties for the previous fiscal 
     year and a breakdown across product lines describing the 
     reasons duties were uncollected.
       (2) Recommendations.--The report shall make recommendations 
     on additional actions to address remaining problems related 
     to duty collections and, for each recommendation, provide an 
     analysis of how the recommendation would address the specific 
     problem or problems cited and the impact that implementing 
     the recommendation would have on international trade and 
     commerce (including any additional costs imposed on United 
     States businesses and whether the implementation of the 
     revision is likely to violate any international trade 
     obligations).

     SEC. 5. COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING OF COMPLIANCE BY THE 
                   PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA WITH ITS 
                   INTERNATIONAL TRADE OBLIGATIONS.

       (a) Intellectual Property Rights Compliance.--
       (1) In general.--In accordance with the terms of the 
     Agreement of WTO Accession for the People's Republic of 
     China, subsequent agreements by Chinese authorities through 
     the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), 
     and other obligations by Chinese officials related to its 
     trade obligations, the United States Trade Representative and 
     the Secretary of Commerce shall undertake to ensure that the 
     Government of the People's Republic China has taken the 
     following steps:
       (A) The Chinese Government has increased the number of 
     civil and criminal prosecutions of intellectual property 
     rights violators by the end of 2005 to a level that 
     significantly decreases the current amount of infringing 
     products for sale within China.
       (B) China's Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's 
     Procuratorate, and Ministry of Public Security have issued 
     draft guidelines for public comment to ensure the timely 
     referral of intellectual property rights violations from 
     administrative bodies to criminal prosecution.
       (C) The Chinese Ministry of Public Security and the General 
     Administration of Customs have issued regulations to ensure 
     the timely transfer of intellectual property rights cases for 
     criminal investigation.
       (D) The Chinese Ministry of Public Security has established 
     a leading group responsible for overall research, planning, 
     and coordination of all intellectual property rights criminal 
     enforcement to ensure a focused and coordinated nationwide 
     enforcement effort.
       (E) The Chinese Government has established a bilateral 
     intellectual property rights law enforcement working group in 
     cooperation with the United States whose members will 
     cooperate on enforcement activities to reduce cross-border 
     infringing activities.
       (F) The Chinese Government has aggressively countered movie 
     piracy by dedicating enforcement teams to pursue enforcement 
     actions against pirates and has regularly instructed 
     enforcement authorities nationwide that copies of films and 
     audio-visual products still in censorship or import review or 
     otherwise not yet authorized for distribution are deemed 
     pirated and subject to enhanced enforcement.
       (G) By the end of 2005, the Chinese Government has 
     completed its legalization program to ensure that all 
     central, provincial, and local government offices are using 
     only licensed software and by the end of 2006 has extended 
     the program to enterprises (including state-owned 
     enterprises).
       (H) The Chinese Government, having declared that software 
     end-user piracy is considered to constitute ``harm to the 
     public interest'' and as such will be subject to 
     administrative penalties nationwide, has initiated civil and 
     criminal prosecutions of software end-user violators.
       (I) The Chinese Government has appointed an Intellectual 
     Property Rights Ombudsman at the Chinese Embassy in 
     Washington, D.C., to serve as the point of contact for United 
     States companies, particularly small- and medium-sized 
     businesses, seeking to secure and enforce their intellectual 
     property rights in China or experiencing intellectual 
     property rights problems in China.
       (J) The relevant Chinese agencies, including the Ministry 
     of Commerce, the China Trademark Office, the State 
     Intellectual Property Office, and the National Copyright 
     Administration of China have significantly improved 
     intellectual property rights enforcement at trade shows and 
     issued new regulations to achieve this goal.
       (K) Not later than June 30, 2006, the Chinese State Council 
     has submitted to the National People's Congress the 
     legislative package needed for China to accede to the World 
     Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet treaties.
       (L) The Chinese Government has taken steps to enforce 
     intellectual property right laws against Internet piracy, 
     including through enforcement at Internet cafes.

[[Page 17954]]

       (M) The Chinese Government, having confirmed that the 
     criminal penalty thresholds in the 2004 Judicial 
     Interpretation are applicable to sound recordings, has 
     instituted civil and criminal prosecutions against such 
     violators.
       (N) The Chinese Government has initiated civil and criminal 
     prosecutions against exporters of infringing recordings.
       (2) Dispute settlement proceedings in wto.--If the 
     President determines that the People's Republic of China has 
     not met each of the obligations described in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (N) of paragraph (1) or taken steps that result 
     in significant improvements in protection of intellectual 
     property rights in accordance with its trade obligations, 
     then the President shall assign such resources as are 
     necessary to collect evidence of such trade agreement 
     violations for use in dispute settlement proceedings against 
     China in the World Trade Organization.
       (b) Access for Exports of United States Goods.--In 
     accordance with the terms of the Agreement of WTO Accession 
     for the People's Republic of China, subsequent agreements by 
     Chinese authorities through the U.S.-China Joint Commission 
     on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), and other obligations by 
     Chinese officials related to its trade obligations, the 
     United States Trade Representative and the Secretary of 
     Commerce shall undertake to ensure that the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China has taken the following steps:
       (1) China has taken steps to ensure that United States 
     products can be freely distributed in China, including by 
     approving a significant backlog of distribution license 
     applications and by preparing a regulatory guide for 
     businesses seeking to acquire distribution rights that 
     expands on the guidelines announced in April 2005.
       (2) Chinese officials have permitted all enterprises in 
     China, including those located in bonded zones, to acquire 
     licenses to distribute goods throughout China.
       (3) The Chinese Government has submitted regulations on 
     management of direct selling to the Chinese State Council for 
     review and taken any additional steps necessary to provide a 
     legal basis for United States direct sales firms to sell 
     United States goods directly to households in China.
       (4) The Chinese Government has issued final regulations on 
     direct selling, including with respect to distribution of 
     imported goods and fixed location requirements.
       (c) Access for Exports of United States Services.--In 
     accordance with the terms of the Agreement of WTO Accession 
     for the People's Republic of China, subsequent agreements by 
     Chinese authorities through the U.S.-China Joint Commission 
     on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), and other obligations by 
     Chinese officials related to its trade obligations, the 
     United States Trade Representative and the Secretary of 
     Commerce shall undertake to ensure that the Government of the 
     People's Republic of China has taken the following steps:
       (1) The Chinese Government has convened a meeting of the 
     U.S.-China Insurance Dialogue before the end of 2005 to 
     discuss regulatory concerns and barriers to further 
     liberalization of the sector.
       (2) The Chinese Government has made senior level officials 
     available to meet under the JCCT Information Technology 
     Working Group to discuss capitalization requirements, resale 
     services, and other issues as agreed to by the two sides.
       (d) Access for United States Agriculture.--In accordance 
     with the terms of the Agreement of WTO Accession for the 
     People's Republic of China, subsequent agreements by Chinese 
     authorities through the U.S.-China Joint Commission on 
     Commerce and Trade (JCCT), and other obligations by Chinese 
     officials related to its trade obligations, the United States 
     Trade Representative and the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     undertake to ensure that the Government of the People's 
     Republic of China has taken the following steps:
       (1) China has completed the regulatory approval process for 
     a United States-produced corn biotech variety.
       (2) China's Administration of Quality Supervision, 
     Inspection and Quarantine has implemented the 2005 Memorandum 
     of Understanding between the United States and China designed 
     to facilitate cooperation on animal and plant health safety 
     issues and improve efforts to expand United States access to 
     China's markets for agricultural commodities.
       (e) Accounting of Chinese Subsidies.--In accordance with 
     the terms of the Agreement of WTO Accession for the People's 
     Republic of China, subsequent agreements by Chinese 
     authorities through the U.S.-China Joint Commission on 
     Commerce and Trade (JCCT), and other obligations by Chinese 
     officials related to its trade obligations, the United States 
     Trade Representative and the Secretary of Commerce shall 
     undertake to ensure that the Government of the People's 
     Republic of China has provided a detailed accounting of its 
     subsidies to the World Trade Organization by the end of 2005.
       (f) Reports.--
       (1) Biannual report.--Not later than six months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and every six months 
     thereafter, the President should transmit to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate a report that contains--
       (A) a description of the specific steps taken by the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China to meet its 
     obligations described in subsections (a) through (e) of this 
     section (other than obligations described in subsections 
     (a)(1)(A) and (G), (b)(1), (c)(1), and (e));
       (B) an analysis of the extent to which Chinese officials 
     are attempting in good faith to meet such obligations; and
       (C) a description of the actions, if any, the President 
     will take to obtain compliance by China if the President 
     determines that the Chinese Government is failing to meet 
     such obligations, including pursuing United States rights 
     under the dispute settlement provisions of the World Trade 
     Organization, as appropriate.
       (2) Monthly report.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and every 30 days thereafter, 
     the President should transmit to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Finance of the Senate a report that contains--
       (A) a description of the specific steps taken by the 
     Government of the People's Republic of China to meet its 
     obligations described in subsections (a)(1)(A) and (G), 
     (b)(1), (c)(1), and (e);
       (B) an analysis of the extent to which Chinese officials 
     are attempting in good faith to meet such obligations; and
       (C) a description of the actions, if any, the President 
     will take to obtain compliance by China if the President 
     determines that the Chinese Government is failing to meet 
     such obligations, including pursuing United States rights 
     under the dispute settlement provisions of the World Trade 
     Organization, as appropriate.

     SEC. 6. REPORTS ON CURRENCY MANIPULATION BY FOREIGN 
                   COUNTRIES.

       (a) Report on Currency Manipulation.--Not later than 60 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report that--
       (1) defines currency manipulation;
       (2) describes actions of foreign countries that will be 
     considered to be currency manipulation; and
       (3) describes how statutory provisions addressing currency 
     manipulation by trading partners of the United States 
     contained in, and relating to, section 40 of the Bretton 
     Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286y) and sections 3004 and 
     3005 of the Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy 
     Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5304 and 5305) can be 
     better clarified administratively to provide for improved and 
     more predictable evaluation.
       (b) Report on Actions by China.--
       (1) In general.--In light of the recent positive 
     announcement by the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China with respect to increased exchange rate flexibility, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report that examines the mechanism 
     adopted by the Chinese Government to relate its currency to a 
     basket of foreign currencies and the degree to which the 
     application of this mechanism moves the currency closer to a 
     market-based representation of its value.
       (2) Deadline.-- The initial report required by this 
     subsection shall be submitted to the appropriate 
     congressional committees not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and subsequent reports 
     shall be included in the report required under section 3005 
     of the Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy 
     Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5305).
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate 
     congressional committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 141(g)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 
     1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(g)(1)(A)) is amended by striking clauses 
     (i) and (ii) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) $44,779,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       ``(ii) $47,018,000 for fiscal year 2007.''.
       (2) Rule of construction.--The amendment made by paragraph 
     (1) shall not be construed to affect the availability of 
     funds appropriated pursuant to section 141(g)(1)(A) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations for the Office of the 
     General Counsel and Certain Other Offices.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Office of the United 
     States Trade Representative for the appointment of additional 
     staff in or enhanced activities by the Office of the General 
     Counsel, the Office of Monitoring and Enforcement, the Office 
     of China Affairs, and the Office of Japan, Korea, and APEC 
     Affairs--
       (1) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
       (2) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.

[[Page 17955]]

       (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the enforcement of United States rights and of 
     obligations of United States trading partners under trade 
     agreements has gained such significance that the United 
     States Trade Representative should determine which of its 
     current positions is most responsible for carrying out these 
     important enforcement duties and should assign that position, 
     in addition to any other title, the title of Chief 
     Enforcement Officer.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES 
                   INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 330(e)(2)(A) 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(e)(2)(A)) is 
     amended by striking clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) $62,752,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       ``(ii) $65,890,000 for fiscal year 2007.''.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--The amendment made by subsection 
     (a) shall not be construed to affect the availability of 
     funds appropriated pursuant to section section 330(e)(2)(A) 
     of the Tariff Act of 1930 before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Study and Report on Trade and Economic Relations With 
     China.--
       (1) Study.--
       (A) In general.--The United States International Trade 
     Commission shall carry out a comprehensive study on trade and 
     economic relations between the United States and the People's 
     Republic of China which addresses China's economic policies, 
     including its exchange rate policy, the competitiveness of 
     its industries, the composition and nature of its trade 
     patterns, and other elements impacting the United States 
     trade account, industry, competitiveness, and employment.
       (B) Requirements.--In carrying out the study under 
     subparagraph (A), the United States International Trade 
     Commission shall undertake the following:
       (i) An analysis of the United States trade and investment 
     relationship with China, with a focus on the United States-
     China trade balance and trends affecting particular 
     industries, products, and sectors in agriculture, 
     manufacturing, and services. The analysis shall provide 
     context for understanding the U.S.-China trade and investment 
     relationship, by including information regarding China's 
     economic relationships with third countries and China's 
     changing policy regime and business environment. The analysis 
     shall include a focus on United States-China trade in goods 
     and services, United States direct investment in China, 
     China's foreign direct investment in the United States, and 
     the relationship between trade and investment. The analysis 
     shall make adjustments, where possible, for merchandise 
     passed through Hong Kong.
       (ii) An analysis of the competitive conditions in China 
     affecting United States exports and United States direct 
     investment. The analysis shall take into account, to the 
     extent feasible, significant factors including tariffs and 
     non-tariff measures, competition from Chinese domestic firms 
     and foreign- based companies operating in China, the Chinese 
     regulatory environment, including specific regulations and 
     overall regulatory transparency, and other Chinese industrial 
     and financial policies. In addition, the analysis shall 
     examine the specific competitive conditions facing United 
     States producers in key industries, products, services, and 
     sectors, potentially including computer and 
     telecommunications hardware, textiles, grains, cotton, and 
     financial services based on trade and investment flows.
       (iii) An examination of the role and importance of 
     intellectual property rights issues, such as patents, 
     copyrights, and licensing, in specific industries in China, 
     including the pharmaceutical industry, the software industry, 
     and the entertainment industry.
       (iv) An analysis of the effects on global commodity markets 
     of China's growing demand for energy and raw materials.
       (v) An examination of whether or not increased United 
     States imports from China reflect displacement of United 
     States imports from third countries or United States domestic 
     production, and the role of intermediate and value-added 
     goods processing in China's pattern of trade.
       (2) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the United States International Trade 
     Commission shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of 
     the Senate a report that contains the results of the study 
     carried out under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EXPANSION OF MEMBERSHIP 
                   IN THE AGREEMENT ON GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT OF 
                   THE WTO.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Nondiscriminatory, procompetitive, merit-based, and 
     technology-neutral procurement of goods and services is 
     essential so that governments can acquire the best goods to 
     meet their needs for the best value.
       (2) The Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) of the 
     World Trade Organization (WTO) provides a multilateral 
     framework of rights and obligations founded on such 
     principles.
       (3) The United States is a member of the GPA, along with 
     Canada, the European Union (including its 25 member States: 
     Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, 
     Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, 
     Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, the Netherlands, 
     Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, 
     and the United Kingdom), Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, 
     Korea, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands with respect to Aruba, 
     Norway, Singapore, and Switzerland.
       (4) Albania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Jordan, the Kyrgyz 
     Republic, Moldova, Oman, Panama, and Taiwan are currently 
     negotiating to accede to the GPA.
       (5) The People's Republic of China joined the WTO in 
     December 2001, signaling to the international community its 
     commitment to greater openness.
       (6) When China joined the WTO, it committed, in its 
     protocol of accession, to negotiate entry into the GPA ``as 
     soon as possible''.
       (7) More than 3 years after its entry into the WTO, China 
     has not commenced negotiations to join the GPA.
       (8) Recent legal developments in China illustrate the 
     importance and urgency of expanding membership in the GPA.
       (9) In 2002, China enacted a law on government procurement 
     that incorporates preferences for domestic goods and 
     services.
       (10) The first sector for which the Chinese Government has 
     sought to implement the new government procurement law is 
     computer software.
       (11) In March 2005 the Chinese Government released draft 
     regulations governing the procurement of computer software.
       (12) The draft regulations require that non-Chinese 
     software companies meet conditions relating to outsourcing of 
     software development work to China, technology transfer, and 
     similar requirements, in order to be eligible to participate 
     in the Chinese Government market.
       (13) As a result of the proposed regulations, it appears 
     likely that a very substantial amount of American software 
     will be excluded from the government procurement process in 
     China. The draft software regulations threatened to close off 
     a market with a potential value of more than $8 billion to 
     United States firms.
       (14) United States software companies have made a 
     substantial commitment to the Chinese market and have made a 
     substantial contribution to the development of China's 
     software industry.
       (15) The outright exclusion of substantial amounts of 
     software not of Chinese origin that is apparently 
     contemplated in the regulations is out of step with domestic 
     preferences that exist in the procurement laws and practices 
     of other WTO member countries, including the United States.
       (16) The draft regulations do not adhere to the principles 
     of nondiscriminatory, procompetitive, merit-based, and 
     technology-neutral procurement embodied in the GPA.
       (17) The software piracy rate in China has never fallen 
     below 90 percent over the past 10 years.
       (18) Chinese Government entities represent a very 
     significant portion of the software market in China that is 
     not dominated by piracy.
       (19) The combined effect of rampant software piracy and the 
     proposed discriminatory government procurement regulations 
     will be a nearly impenetrable barrier to market access for 
     the United States software industry in China.
       (20) The United States trade deficit with China in 2004 was 
     $162,000,000,000, the highest with any economy in the world, 
     and a 12.4 percent increase over 2003.
       (21) China's Premier, Wen Jiabao, has committed to rectify 
     this serious imbalance by increasing China's imports of goods 
     and services from the United States.
       (22) The proposed software procurement regulations that 
     were described by the Chinese Government in November 2004 
     incorporate policies that are fully at odds with Premier 
     Wen's commitment to increase China's imports from the United 
     States, and will add significantly to the trade imbalance 
     between the United States and China.
       (23) Once it is fully implemented, the discriminatory 
     aspects of China's government procurement law will apply to 
     all goods and services that the government procures.
       (24) Other developing countries may follow the lead of 
     China.
       (25) In July 2005, senior officials of the Chinese 
     Government announced at the U.S.-China Joint Committee on 
     Commerce and Trade that China would accelerate its efforts to 
     join the GPA and toward this end will initiate technical 
     consultations with other WTO member countries and accordingly 
     delay issuing draft regulations on software procurement, as 
     it further considers public comments and makes revisions in 
     light of WTO rules.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Government of the United States should strive to 
     expand membership in the Agreement on Government Procurement 
     of the World Trade Organization (WTO);
       (2) the Government of the United States should ensure that 
     the Government of the People's Republic of China meets its 
     WTO obligations as recently affirmed through its commitment 
     in July 2005 through the U.S.-

[[Page 17956]]

     China Joint Committee on Commerce and Trade, to join the WTO 
     Agreement on Government Procurement.
       (3) the Government of the United States should seek a 
     commitment from the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China to maintain its suspension of the implementation of its 
     law on government procurement, pending the conclusion of 
     negotiations to accede to the Agreement on Government 
     Procurement of the WTO;
       (4) the Government of the United States should seek 
     commitments from the Government of the People's Republic of 
     China and other countries that are not yet members of the 
     Agreement on Government Procurement of the WTO to implement 
     the principles of openness, transparency, fair competition 
     based on merit, nondiscrimination, and accountability in 
     their government procurement as embodied in that agreement; 
     and
       (5) the President should direct all appropriate officials 
     of the United States to raise these concerns with appropriate 
     officials of the People's Republic of China and other trading 
     partners.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) each will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, today the House has yet another opportunity to vote on 
a very important bill, which, in my view, takes the largest step 
towards strengthening our trade remedy laws in over 15 years.

                              {time}  1500

  Madam Speaker, this bill is a comprehensive approach toward 
eliminating many of the inequities that exist in our existing trade 
relationships, and particularly the U.S.-China bilateral trade 
relationship. This legislation would hold China accountable and create 
tough mechanisms to ensure compliance, providing tools for us to use to 
gain compliance, should China fail to do so, on its fundamental trade 
obligations.
  Voting for this bill today, Madam Speaker, will send a strong signal 
to Beijing that Congress will not sit idly by while China's 
mercantilist trade policy injures U.S. employers and destroys jobs, 
particularly in our vital manufacturing sector. Voting for this bill 
today, Madam Speaker, will send a strong signal to China and to every 
country that this Congress will do what it takes to ensure that our 
trading partners fully abide by the rules and are not rewarded with 
unfettered access to our market when they are not prepared to make the 
tough choices that they are obligated to, to follow the rules.
  Let me make it very clear, given the experience with this bill with 
the minority as this bill was brought up yesterday, it has to be clear, 
Madam Speaker, that voting against this bill will send a dangerous 
signal that this Congress is willing to turn a blind eye to Chinese 
complacency, and we continue with the status quo which, ultimately, 
puts many of our most important parts of the economy at risk.
  I believe this bill is strong, responsible, and comprehensive. This 
legislation would, among other things, close an existing loophole which 
bars the use of the countervailing duty law against nonmarket economies 
such as China. Right now a major tool in our arsenal is unavailable 
when dealing with Communist countries. To my mind, it is absurd that 
when we are able to determine that products come in from France, Japan, 
Brazil, or Taiwan containing subsidies, we can use the countervailing 
duty law to strip the benefits of those subsidies, but, by contrast, we 
cannot do so if we discover that China or Vietnam have subsidized 
products that are entering our market.
  This is an absurd situation. It is one that is the result of a court 
decision from the 1980s, the so-called Georgetown case, and for years I 
have advocated that we close this loophole. This is the core of this 
bill and the single most important reform that we have included.
  Second of all, this bill would establish a strong and external system 
to audit China on its compliance with trade obligations on important 
issues like intellectual property rights, market access, and 
transparency. What is more, this legislation would place Congress 
strongly on record as opposing attempts to use the WTO to water down 
our domestic trade law protections.
  This legislation would require the Treasury Department to define 
currency manipulation and clarify legal protections against China, an 
important initiative and language that we have refined in light of the 
developments of a week ago in Chinese currency policy.
  This legislation would also authorize increased funding for the 
United States Trade Representative to create more trade cops to improve 
enforcement of existing trade laws.
  This legislation would also replace the current bonds that are used 
by new shippers and antidumping cases with cash deposits, and, over the 
next 3 years, in a sunset situation, would effectively close a loophole 
that particularly the Chinese have been using to avoid antidumping 
penalties in certain cases.
  Finally, this legislation would authorize funding for the 
International Trade Commission to provide help in expediting its 
dealings with all trade issues.
  This is a responsible, WTO-consistent initiative that I realize has 
been described by the other side as a fig leaf, a smoke screen, or 
something else. I must say, this is very much a mainstream initiative 
that is designed to show the strongest possible support in this Chamber 
for challenging China on its mercantilist trade policies.
  I regret the vote of yesterday in which I think, in a very 
shortsighted fashion, many in the minority chose to put up a vote to 
slow us down here and, in the process, reduce the opportunity, if not 
eliminate the opportunity, for quick Senate action on this bill. I 
believe we should have voted yesterday to pass this bill. But the other 
side has one more opportunity to set the record right and make very 
clear that they are prepared to work with us to deal with the problem 
of China trade.
  I believe that passage of this legislation is essential for the 
economic future of the next generation, for the future of good-paying 
jobs in places like my native northwestern Pennsylvania, where we make 
things for a living, and we need to get this policy right. That is why 
I strongly urge my colleagues to support and swiftly pass this 
important measure.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I normally am in agreement with my friend, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, when it comes to antidumping and 
countervailing duty laws. We have worked together to try to improve 
those laws. But I disagree with him in regards to this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I disagree with the gentleman's assessment of this 
legislation. I think it is an inconsequential bill. I do not believe it 
will do very much one way or the other. It will certainly not hold 
China accountable. There is nothing in this bill that would hold China 
accountable for its violations of its international trade obligations.
  So, Madam Speaker, let me try to get the Members to focus on what is 
in this bill and not what people who may be coming to this well say is 
in this bill. I would urge my colleagues to please read the legislation 
that is before us. It is not the original bill that was filed by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a bill that was supported by 
the industry, that would have extended countervailing duty laws to 
China and nonmarket economies. Instead, what this bill does in section 
2 is a ``sense of Congress.'' Now, a sense of Congress resolution is 
exactly that. It expresses our concerns, but takes no action.
  The first section that takes any action at all in changing law is 
section 3, and section 3 does deal with the countervailing duty 
provisions. It extends countervailing duties to nonmarket economies. 
That is good. Countervailing duties are imposed when a country 
inappropriately subsidizes its products that go into international 
trade. And China and nonmarket

[[Page 17957]]

economies should be held to our countervailing duty laws. 
Unfortunately, they are not today.
  The problem is that the amended bill then puts 2 hurdles in being 
able to apply those countervailing duty provisions. It first does what 
is known as double-counting and prevents from using on the 
countervailing duties the import and export subsidies by the country 
involved. Now, that is a different standard than we have for market 
economies, where you only have to double-count export subsidies. The 
change here is dramatic, and that is why the industries that are 
affected by the countervailing duty statute that we would hope would 
help in regards to China oppose this provision.
  Nu Car, which is one of the companies that asked us to apply the 
countervailing duty law to China, has written us in opposition to this 
section, because it will not help them remedy the situation of 
subsidized product coming from China into the United States. That is 
why the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, the committee of business 
groups that have joined together in order to strengthen our antidumping 
and countervailing duty laws, oppose this section. It will not help 
companies that are hurt by subsidized, manufactured product coming into 
the United States. That is section 3. That is why I say, you try to 
help in one respect, but you take it away by putting obstacles in the 
way.
  You also put a second test that is not currently required, a 
certification of compliance of international law. That is not required 
today for a market economy violation for us to file a countervailing 
duty claim. That is section 3.
  Let us go to section 4. Section 4 deals with the new shipper review 
amendment. Well, here we have a problem with Chinese exporters who are 
not getting an adequate security when they come into our market. You 
provided a temporary fix for 3 years. We should do it permanently. It 
should be done permanently.
  Going to section 5, section 5 talks about monitoring compliance with 
the People's Republic of China with international trade obligations. 
Read what is here. There is no action. There is review, but no action. 
We should not be doing this now, the review. The administration does 
this already. There is nothing new that is added to the requirements 
that we are going to be able to take action against China for violating 
intellectual property rights or access to market for services, or 
access to market for goods. We should be taking action under our 
safeguards in that regard. But no, there is no action at all taken in 
section 5. If I am wrong, please correct me on this point.
  Then we move to section 6. Section 6 is probably the most egregious 
section in the bill: report on currency manipulation by foreign 
countries. Read it. It is only a couple lines. You are asking Treasury 
to define currency manipulation. We have already had Treasury report to 
us and fail to take action against China. China is manipulating its 
currency. We all know that. So why do we not take action against China? 
No. This bill does, again, nothing in regards to China currency.
  Then, in section 7, you talk about providing more money for the USTR. 
You are not providing more money for the USTR. The amount that you have 
here in authorized levels has already been provided in the 
appropriations bill. There is no new money here.
  Then, in section 8, you talk about more money for the U.S. 
International Trade Commission. Again, it is equal to the amount that 
we have already provided through the appropriation process. There is no 
new money here in either section 7 or section 8.
  I want to give you credit in section 9, talking about sense of 
Congress regarding the expansion of membership in the agreement on 
government procurement of the WTO. I support that section. I think we 
should be asking for broader participation in government procurement 
under the WTO. No action here again, strictly a sense of Congress.
  So, Madam Speaker, I take this time to go through section by section 
because I challenge Members who come and speak on this bill to please 
speak about the facts of what is in this bill. There are only two 
sections that actually provide any change in law or action. One deals 
with countervailing duty, and I have already pointed out how there is 
negative along with the positive, and the other deals with a temporary 
fix of the exporter license issue, which is certainly not the major 
problem that we are having with China today.
  As I said earlier, this bill is a missed opportunity. It is a missed 
opportunity because the overwhelming majority of the Members of this 
body would like to vote on a bill that would provide real relief to the 
problems that we have in China living up to its international trade 
responsibilities. That legislation just happens to be H.R. 3306, which 
has been introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I 
regret that we do not have an opportunity to debate that bill and do 
what is right for the people of this country in enforcing our trade 
rules against the People's Republic of China.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ 
minutes, first off, to invite my opponent, or my colleague, to actually 
read the bill.
  I think this is sort of amusing. He criticizes us for dealing with 
the problem of double-counting, and yet the GAO conceded that this was 
a serious problem. Our bill has dealt with it directly, and this is an 
issue I have been involved in for years, and, honestly, our friends 
from the Committee on Ways and Means on the other side have not been.
  Yes, our language encourages compliance with the WTO, but it is not 
self-executing, so I think that is actually a good thing.
  He criticizes us for having a sunset on bonds. I thought the other 
side loved sunset provisions, particularly in the PATRIOT Act. We need 
to revisit this issue in a few years and see if it is having a negative 
impact.
  We also, may I point out, do require the Treasury to revisit its 
current definition on currency manipulation, which, I would submit, is 
the principal problem with the application of the current law as it 
applies to currency manipulation.

                              {time}  1515

  Finally, we authorize funds, which is within the jurisdiction of our 
committee. Their bill does not authorize funds. In my view it is 
appropriate for us to specify through the authorization process how 
USTR is going to apply this money to new trade cops.
  And, finally, may I point out, the gentleman claims that people in 
affected industries are opposing this legislation. Actually, this has 
been endorsed by the National Association of Manufacturers, the 
American Forest and Paper Association, the Forging Industry 
Association, the North American Die Casting Association, the Industrial 
Fasteners Institute, and the Vanadium Producers and Reclaimers 
Association.
  The final point I would make is that when it comes to government 
procurement, we lifted Mr. Rangel's provisions. So I am not sure where 
their criticism is coming from.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I come to the well again, and it seems 
like only yesterday we were here. In fact, it was yesterday, was it 
not? And, Madam Speaker, I think we have just seen why my colleague, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), is one of the most able 
members of the Ways and Means Committee, because he put to rest many of 
the criticisms offered by my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin).
  It was interesting to pick up on one of the criticisms. Let us just 
deal with it, lamenting the fact that this bill conveys a sense of 
Congress to the People's Republic of China, that it carries little 
consequence.
  Well, I would invite every Member of this House, including my 
colleague from Maryland, to think back just a couple of weeks ago when 
a bipartisan sense of the Congress was offered on

[[Page 17958]]

this floor from Democrats and Republicans alike, dealing with a 
possible Chinese purchase of Unocal.
  It so incensed the Chinese Government, they told us to butt out. Now, 
that is very interesting, because if it is only a sense of the 
Congress, if it is only a useless exercise, it certainly awakened those 
in the Chinese Polit Bureau in Beijing; and I stand in this well again 
supporting this legislation today because the facts have not changed 
from yesterday.
  The fact is, this legislation puts the Communist Chinese on notice: 
if you want to get in the game, you better start playing by the rules. 
And, Madam Speaker, I say this in all candor. As one who opposed the 
most favored nation trade status for China, I believe this is important 
legislation. At the end of the day, this is the dilemma for my friends 
on the other side: Does the upcoming midterm election and political 
posturing win out to make the perfect the enemy of the good, or do they 
stand with us, as they did in this well 2 weeks ago, not only conveying 
the sense of Congress, but putting teeth behind our policy to tell the 
Chinese enough is enough?
  Support this legislation. Do not deal with domestic political 
obstruction. Strike a blow for freedom and putting Communist China on 
notice.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  I think the gentleman pointed out that there are no sections other 
than the two I mentioned that are action sections in your bill. And I 
point out again that the double-counting provision will make the 
application of countervailing duties much more difficult, if not 
impossible, in a nonmarket economy; and that is not helpful to 
companies that have been hurt by subsidized products coming from China.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the Republicans have another 
installment in their blame game before us today. The trade deficit is 
rising higher and faster than the Space Shuttle because of policies 
blasted through the Congress by the Republicans. But they want to blame 
someone else. They say it is the fault of the Chinese, failing to 
remember their massive cuts in education and job training programs. 
They fail to remember that our trade deficit occurred because 
foreigners are financing our budget deficit.
  When the Republicans took control of the Congress over a decade ago, 
they came in as the party of free trade and free enterprise and 
balanced budgets. Well, now we have got companies and workers racing 
out of this country because of high energy and high health care costs. 
We have got employers leaving this country because they cannot find 
better skilled employees in this country than they can find elsewhere. 
And what do the Republicans do?
  They blame the patients and the courts for higher health care costs. 
They blame environmentalists for the high price of crude oil, and they 
blame workers when their jobs are outsourced. They blame everyone but 
themselves for our problems and avoid doing anything that can improve 
the situation. And that is what this bill is today.
  This bill does not really require the administration to do anything 
to level the playing field with China. Does this bill invest in the 
American workforce so they can better compete in the global economy? 
The answer is no.
  Does this bill do something about the explosive energy prices that 
eat away at our competitiveness? No. Does this bill significantly 
invest in research and development so that the new services and 
products consumed around the world are created here at home by 
Americans? The answer is no.
  And does this bill do anything to combat health care costs that are 
spiraling out of control and force companies to reconsider whether they 
want to incorporate here or in Canada? The answer is no. Does this bill 
do anything to improve the security of America's working people? The 
answer is no.
  This is just a mechanism the Republicans would use to point their 
fingers elsewhere, to China. They will not even put this bill before 
the Ways and Means Committee for an honest discussion. That is because 
this bill is not about solving America's problems or supporting 
America's workers. It is to make the workers believe that they are 
supporting them.
  This bill is about bashing the Chinese in order to divert attention 
from the fact that the next bill up is CAFTA. The Republicans have 
ignored making America competitive in the world economy. This is a sop. 
This bill is out here first for a sop, for those Members who are going 
to vote for CAFTA, but want something to balance it off when they go 
home.
  I was strong against China, but I did shift some stuff down to 
Central America; but please do not hold that against me, because I was 
strong against China. This is a sop. There are no teeth in this. There 
are no teeth at all. This is simply China bashing. And that does not 
make us more competitive in the world, and it does not make us deal 
with our deficit.
  We have to deal with the budget in this country if we are going to be 
serious about the Chinese investing in our bonds. They own big chunks 
of America, and they are going to continue it as long as the 
Republicans run the kind of deficits that they seem to think do not 
make any difference any more.
  I remember guys out here talking about, oh, my goodness, we have to 
have a balanced budget amendment. This country is going to go to the 
dogs if we do not have a balanced budget amendment. Then they got in 
charge, and they started spending like there was no end to their credit 
card. Stop it. Do not bash the Chinese.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Clearly, I am in support of the U.S. Trade Rights Enforcement Act; 
and as yesterday, I stood somewhat flum-
moxed at the lack of support on the other side of the aisle where they 
claim to care about workers in the United States, but will not support 
this legislation.
  I stand here again to explain how this certainly is the best way 
available to us today to help workers in the United States. I visit 
many plants in the communities I represent in western Pennsylvania; and 
when people talk to me about their top issue, there are several, but 
one that always recurs, no matter the size of the manufacturer, are 
concerns about China.
  Their concerns deal with market access, they deal with piracy of 
products, they deal with dumping of products in the American market, 
and they deal with Chinese currency manipulation. Our U.S. Government 
has put a significant amount of pressure on China, but not enough.
  This bill gives our government the tools to put that real pressure on 
China and to actually deal with them. It gives them teeth. Currently, 
U.S. companies can only file antidumping trade cases against companies 
in market economies. We need to deal with nonmarket economies like 
China. This bill helps us to do that. The other issue of piracy is one 
that we have struggled with in the Judiciary Committee trying to find 
ways to protect the intellectual property that we create here in the 
United States to make sure that those creators get the benefit of their 
ideas.
  We have now under this bill tools to fight piracy, to enforce our 
laws; dumping of products, a huge concern for manufacturers, especially 
of commodity products. This bill helps us deal with dumping. Finally, 
China made a step in the right direction on currency manipulation last 
week.
  This bill helps us to monitor the results of what they have done and 
to push them to do even more to make sure that their currency floats. 
This legislation, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act, is a 
very broad and very helpful piece of legislation to our manufacturers, 
our farmers and our service providers in the United

[[Page 17959]]

States. It will help us get into that economy in China to sell our 
products there, to protect our products that are created here. It will 
monitor their system. It will enforce the laws that they have agreed to 
follow.
  It gives our United States Trade Representative the opportunity to 
make sure that the atmosphere here in the United States only gets 
better and our access to Chinese markets improves significantly.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond 
to gentlewoman's comments.
  Madam Speaker, there is nothing in this bill that deals with dumping 
and enforcement in China. There is nothing in this bill that takes 
action against China for currency manipulation. And there is nothing in 
this bill that takes action against China for intellectual property 
failures. On the countervailing duties, I have already commented on 
that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin), the former ranking Democrat on trade, the senior member of 
the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) 
has done such a splendid job, I am not sure what more needs to be said.
  Mr. Cardin, you want me to say it again.
  You and I have spoken on this earlier, and it is unbelievable the 
hyperbole that we hear. I mean, if people want to vote for hyperbole, I 
guess this is a good way to do it. If they want to vote for this as a 
balance to vote for CAFTA, my suggestion is no one is going to buy 
that. They are going to see right through it.
  I mean, you already responded. It has been said that there are tools 
here. I mean, I have been looking in this bill. You have read it 
carefully. And you have not been able to find the tool.
  And I looked at it, and I cannot find anything that resembles a tool 
to do anything. On piracy, I am not sure what we are talking about. It 
is an immense problem. This administration has had years to do 
something about it, years. When I was last in China, I walked out of 
the hotel for the first time and immediately someone said, I have got a 
DVD, it is brand new, for $1. And I said, I do not want it. And the 
gentleman was kind of insulted that I did not want to buy a DVD that 
was brand new for just a buck.
  You come here with all of these problems and say this bill is going 
to do anything about that? Really? On currency, it is mind-boggling.

                              {time}  1530

  You say you want reports. You want reports. Every 6 months the 
Treasury Department sends us a report. How thick is it? I forget. They 
are like this or like this. If we had brought these reports over from 
the last few years, I would guess they would be maybe a foot and a half 
high.
  I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), we do not 
need reports. We need some serious discussion and then action in this 
place. And I read the sense of the Congress provisions. The hyperbole 
we hear is that we are somehow going to impact somebody, I will use 
that word carefully.
  I read, for example, subparagraph 12, regarding Japan. This is in 
section 2, sense of the Congress. It says: In addition the USTR should 
place particular emphasis on trade barriers imposed by Japan.
  My word, we need more than words. We have been urging this 
administration to take action against nontariff barriers put up by 
Japan from the day they came into office, and nothing has happened. And 
you think some words here will impact?
  I close with a comment about the bonds. Look, I remember sitting in 
the Committee on Ways and Means years ago talking about this problem, 
and it was only within the last 12 months that once again we asked the 
majority to take action against this evasion, and you refused to do it. 
So now you come here with something that is temporary. Why not make it 
permanent? We have been studying this darn problem for years. This is 
such a lame bill that it does not really get out of the starting gate.
  So do not paint this as what it is not. Do not paint this as some 
turning point. What this is more than anything else is an effort to say 
to some people, we will give you this vote in return for your vote on 
CAFTA. Some people have been biting on that apple. Do not do it.
  If you want to vote for a bill that is so short of what we have 
introduced, and by the way, I say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw), it does not violate the WTO requirements in any respects, the 
bill of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). If you want to vote 
for this thinking it does something, go ahead. Do not vote for it as an 
excuse to vote for something else.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 45 
seconds.
  First of all, if I am guilty of hyperbole, that certainly was not my 
intent.
  I would also like to point out there are some that share my view of 
the importance of this legislation. Endorsing this bill from the 
National Association of Manufacturers, John Engler, their president, 
wrote, This bill would give U.S. companies the ability to offset unfair 
subsidies that benefit many of their competitors in China and other 
nations. For the first time, it will give Americans the same trade 
rights guaranteed to others under the World Trade Organization rules.
  For those who wonder why the other side voted en masse against this 
bill yesterday, in today's Hill, according to the spokesman for the 
Ways and Means Democrats, ``The minority's near unified opposition to 
the bill stemmed as much from its role in the CAFTA battle as from the 
strength of its content.''
  Now that to me is cynicism, and I think puts it into context.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English) for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him on his 
leadership for bringing this bill to the floor.
  My friend from Michigan who just left the well has been critical of 
this bill regarding to intellectual property rights. Well, sometimes we 
should go to the bill and read the bill. And I am going to read it. It 
says, ``Dispute settlement proceedings in World Trade Organization. If 
the President determines that the People's Republic of China has not 
met each of the obligations described in A through N, paragraph one,'' 
and that is the provision in there that talks about the trade 
obligations. It then goes on to say, ``or taken steps that result in 
significant improvements or protection of intellectual property rights 
in accordance with its trade obligations, then the President shall 
assign such resources as necessary to collect such evidence of trade 
agreement violations for use in dispute settlement agreements against 
China in the World Trade Organization.''
  In other words, it says the President will proceed in accordance with 
the law through the World Trade Organization to obtain sanctions. That 
is what the World Trade Organization is about. It is not about 
unilateral sanctions. It is simply about that.
  This bill has got a lot of teeth in it, and for anyone to get to the 
well and say, hey, this does not have teeth in it really is misstating 
what this bill actually does. It takes us a long way down the road in 
solving some of the problems with China.
  This is not the end of the legislative process as it relates to 
China. I think every Member of this Congress should know that. This 
does not cut off further debate on China. This does not cut off or set 
aside the possibility of new legislation dealing with the problems of 
China. We are all concerned about the tremendous increase in the 
deficit as it goes from China, but most of that deficit, if not all of 
it, is actually taking trade out of Japan and taking it out of Korea, 
South Korea.
  When you look at the trade deficit as it is to that part of the 
world, it is pretty flat. But China's part is increasing, and the other 
countries' are decreasing. That is concern for alarm. And I am 
concerned about some of the

[[Page 17960]]

trade practices of China which are very sloppy and, quite frankly, not 
dealing entirely honestly with the trading partners.
  So I would ask that Members put aside the politics and all the 
rhetoric, read the bill. If you like what is in the bill, it moves us 
further down the road. If you do not think we have gone far enough, 
that does not mean that you vote no on this particular bill. If you are 
interested in going forward with legislation that will control the 
violation of law committed by China, vote yes.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, in response to my friend from Florida's (Mr. Shaw) 
comments on the intellectual property problems that we are having with 
China, and they are substantial, China is violating intellectual 
property rights every day not only with videos and tapes, but also with 
industrial products. Listen to what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw) said. Listen to the action required by the President if China 
violates intellectual property to gather information.
  We already have that, Madam Speaker. Action is filing a claim under 
the WTO. That is following the requirements of the WTO dispute 
settlement resolution process. There is no action whatsoever in this 
bill. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) got it right. This is a 
bill about saying things about China that people might feel good about. 
And if you are so inclined to feel good about it and want to vote for 
it, fine. But to say that this is taking action against China is just 
wrong. It does not take action against China.
  The administration tomorrow could file a claim against China on 
intellectual property against China if it wanted to, and it should 
have. The administration yesterday should have filed claims against 
China for currency manipulation, and it has not, and then allow the WTO 
process to proceed. But for us to say that we are requiring the 
administration to make a finding and then collect information which 
they already have is being tough on China, come on now. Let us be 
straightforward on this bill.
  It is a bill that says things about China that many Members might 
feel good about, but as far as taking action against China, this bill 
comes out short.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English) has 14 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), a very distinguished Member of the 
House, who in a short period of time has become a real fighter for fair 
trade.
  Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 3283, the United States 
Trade Rights Enforcement Act, because it is necessary to send a strong 
message to foreign governments who are unfairly dumping product on our 
shores and manipulating their currency rates.
  In June, I hosted my second Manufacturing and Jobs Forum in my 
district. I invited manufacturers from southwest Ohio to share their 
concerns about their businesses. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English) joined me for my first forum, and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Manzullo) joined me in Dayton for the second forum. I would like 
to thank both gentlemen for their leadership on the issue of trade 
fairness.
  Madam Speaker, the manufacturers I spoke with during both forums 
shared a common concern about the survival of their businesses, the 
American economy, and unfair trade practices of China, including the 
undervaluing of China's currency. Congress must continue to work to 
level the playing field for manufacturers.
  Last Thursday the Chinese Government announced that they would no 
longer peg their currency to the American dollar. Chinese currency will 
be given room to float among a bundle of foreign currency rates. Mr. 
Speaker, this is an important first step; however, this adjustment will 
still result in an undervalued Chinese currency.
  H.R. 3283 will take further steps to enforce our trade rights. H.R. 
3283 will require the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a report to 
Congress defining currency manipulation and describing the actions of 
foreign countries who are manipulating their currency. This important 
provision, along with others included in the bill, will help Ohio 
manufacturers who are continually harmed by unfair trade practices. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. In response on 
the currency issue, section 6 in this legislation deals with currency 
manipulation. It does not deal with China specifically. And it requires 
the Secretary of the Treasury to define currency manipulation and 
describe actions of foreign countries that will be considered to be 
currency manipulation.
  The problem is Treasury has already done this and found that China 
was not manipulating its currency despite the fact that we know it 
undervalues its currency between 15 percent and 40 percent. So I 
appreciate the gentleman's concern about the competitive problems that 
we have with American manufacturers and producers trying to compete 
with an undervalued Chinese currency, but this bill comes up very 
short.
  But I very much appreciate what the gentleman said because we will be 
come back in a little bit and offer him an opportunity to really do 
something about the manipulation of China's currency.
  Madam Speaker, let me also point out while I am on the floor that 
legislation filed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), H.R. 
3306, would take action in this area by requiring the administration to 
initiate a WTO action to address China's currency manipulation.
  Now, that would bring action consistent with our obligations under 
the World Trade Organization because we would act under the World Trade 
Organization. That is what we should be doing.
  Let me suggest that when you file an action under the WTO, it is not 
the end of issues, it is the beginning of a process. To ask the 
Secretary of the Treasury to do another study or come up with another 
definition, all we do is delay for another year any action against 
China. And to suggest that there are minor adjustments that they made 
is in any way dealing with the underlying problems of currency 
manipulation is just unreal. China announced today that they do not 
intend to do more. So we need to take action against China.

                              {time}  1545

  American jobs are at stake. We can compete if it is on a fair, level 
playing field. It is not. This bill does not deal with the China 
currency issue.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ 
minutes to clarify a few points raised by the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin) and the prior speaker.
  First of all, this legislation does have a significant approach not 
only to dealing with some of the loopholes in the antidumping, as 
spoken for in the bond provision, but also dealing with the problem of 
subsidies, where we do not apply countervailing duties in cases where 
communist countries are found to be sending products into our market 
currently. I believe, as I will make clear in a colloquy in a few 
minutes, that this language does not create additional loopholes but, 
in fact, I think provides a real and substantial solution.
  I would also point out that this legislation does do something 
meaningful on the currency issue by requiring the Treasury to revisit 
how they define currency. I will concede in the bill that was belatedly 
filed by the other side, when we had already announced our bill, there 
is a provision using a 301 to deal with currency. But I must tell you, 
Madam Speaker, that even that procedure has a potential loophole to 
allow an administration to wiggle out.

[[Page 17961]]

So substantively, it is not clear to me there is a major difference.
  I believe with the limited move forward that China has already 
evidenced, the time has come to give them an opportunity to indicate to 
us by action whether they are sincere or not. I think the currency 
language in our bill is adequate to allow that to happen.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey), who in two terms in the House has already made clear he is a 
leader on trade issues and on economic issues.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), for introducing H.R. 3283, the United 
States Trade Enforcement Act. I believe this legislation is a positive 
step in addressing our trade discrepancies with the People's Republic 
of China; and, yes, it does serve as a great precursor for the debate 
on the Dominican Republic and Central American Free Trade Agreement.
  The district I represent in western Georgia has a rich history of 
manufacturing textiles from the Swift Denim Company in Columbus, 
Georgia, to Mt. Vernon Mills in Trion, Georgia, which has been in 
business since the 1840s and currently employs 1,800 associates. The 
textile industry, Madam Speaker, continues to provide quality jobs for 
the citizens of Georgia's 11th Congressional District. I make this 
point because many of these employees have established a culture and a 
community around textile manufacturing.
  Although the administration is working diligently to enforce our 
trade policies, I remain concerned that our country has not taken the 
most aggressive position needed to prevent the People's Republic of 
China or any other nation from ignoring their trade responsibilities 
and agreements. If we continue to allow abuses such as currency 
manipulation and violations of intellectual property rights, an entire 
way of life in these textile communities will be endangered. When 
ratifying trade agreements, it is important to encourage both free and 
fair trade. We cannot afford to lose any more textile jobs, especially 
those lost due to the unfair practices of the Communist Government on 
Mainland China.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage the passage of H.R. 3283 mandating 
stronger enforcement of our trade policies.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) in order to engage 
in a colloquy on some of the issues raised by this debate.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for yielding me this time.
  The legislation drafted by the gentleman specifies that the Commerce 
Department shall ensure that the application of countervailing duty law 
to nonmarket economies is consistent with international obligations to 
the United States. Some Members have expressed concern that this 
legislation would give the WTO special influence over U.S. law. Is that 
true?
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. No, and I thank the gentleman for 
raising this issue, Madam Speaker, because it has been raised during 
this debate. It is well understood that World Trade Organization 
agreements and WTO dispute settlement decisions are not self-executing, 
that is, they are not binding on the United States in and of 
themselves. Congress must enact any changes to U.S. law resulting from 
WTO agreements or WTO decisions.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, and to further 
clarify, to implement any WTO agreement or a decision of a WTO panel or 
the appellate body, the United States must enact the agreement or the 
implementation changes through congressional action?
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that is correct.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Is this provision in H.R. 3283, therefore, 
intended to change this fact in any way or to impose any new 
obligations on the Commerce Department or the United States beyond 
those already set forth in U.S. law?
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. No, and I thank the gentleman. This 
provision does not force the Commerce Department to do anything 
inconsistent with U.S. law. Instead, it is designed to provide 
flexibility to Commerce in interpreting the law.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Therefore, where H.R. 3283 says that ``the 
Commerce shall ensure that the application of CVD law is consistent 
with the international obligations of the United States,'' am I correct 
that Commerce, which administers both U.S. antidumping law and U.S. 
countervailing duty law, may reach this determination of consistency on 
its own?
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. That is correct.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. So, does H.R. 3283 require Commerce to take 
additional steps to ensure consistency?
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. No. Agencies are presumed to act in good 
faith when implementing a statute in accordance with international 
obligations. There is no additional requirement.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for his kindness and his information.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the 
textile issue that was recently mentioned on the other side.
  When we negotiated our WTO accession agreement with China, we 
provided certain safeguards against the flooding of a market on 
textiles, knowing that the textile quota would be expiring. The concern 
many of us have had with China is that our government has not exercised 
the safeguards that are currently available to us under the agreement 
negotiated with China. We would like to see the administration be more 
aggressive in making sure that we do not get a flooded market either 
here or with trading partners that would have an adverse impact on the 
textile industry.
  That is a major concern in our relationship with the People's 
Republic of China. The concern is that this legislation does absolutely 
nothing about that. So I appreciate the comments of my colleague on the 
other side of the aisle that there is no provision in this bill that 
would require action against China consistent with the provisions of 
the WTO accession agreement.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I have no further 
requests for time, and I believe I have the right to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). That is correct.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the discussion that we have 
had. One of the advantages of the consideration of this bill under a 
rule as restrictive and repressive as the rule was, is that we do have 
a chance to have a more open and full debate, and I appreciate that.
  I appreciate also the fact that we have been able to go through many 
of the provisions, including the colloquy that was just recently put on 
the record. I found that colloquy helpful, because I must tell you I 
shared the same concerns as to whether we were turning over to dispute 
settlement panels a decision as to whether we would bring future cases 
using counterveiling duties. And if I understand my friend, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), that would be a 
determination made solely by our Commerce Department consistent with 
U.S. interests, and I certainly agree with that interpretation.
  I regret that we have not had the chance to consider amendments or 
consider a substitute, because I do think that there is general 
sentiment among the overwhelming majority of the Members of this body 
to take action against China for its failure to comply with 
international trading rules. China has violated currency manipulation, 
which has worked to the disadvantage of American manufacturers, 
farmers, and producers. China has not enforced

[[Page 17962]]

intellectual property issues, which has worked to the disadvantage of 
our entertainment industry, and to our engineering and manufacturing 
industries.
  China has flooded the markets, contrary to its trade agreements on 
textiles, which has worked to the disadvantage of the U.S. markets. 
China over and over again has denied access on services and many other 
areas that require action. So it is appropriate that we should be 
considering legislation to address the shortcomings of China's 
compliance with international trade rules.
  Now, I think we could have come up with a much stronger bill. The 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), as I pointed out earlier, 
introduced H.R. 3306. And when you compare H.R. 3306 with the bill that 
is before us, you cannot help but feel that we should have done a much 
better job.
  H.R. 3306 would have applied U.S. countervailing duty laws to China 
and other nonmarket economies without the additional burdens imposed by 
the underlying bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) 
quoted from some sources that support that provision. Let me just tell 
you that Nucor, which is, as you know, a steel company that has to live 
with subsidized steel from China coming into the U.S. market, opposes 
the provision. Nucor believes that the extra burden of trying to 
establish the amount of subsidy when you have to factor additionally 
for nonmarket economies domestic subsidies, it is a burden that will 
make the new countervailing duty application meaningless as it relates 
to China. That is a specific company telling us, who supported the 
original English bill, they oppose this provision because of the 
problems.
  I could cite other examples, Madam Speaker, but on one hand the bill 
gives some relief for countervailing duties to nonmarket economies; but 
on the other, the bill imposes new restrictions that really make it 
very difficult if it provides any help at all.
  The Rangel bill would require the administration to initiate WTO 
action to address China's currency manipulation. Instead, the 
underlying bill provides for another study generally by Treasury which 
will delay action taken against China by another period of time. H.R. 
3306, the Rangel bill, would strengthen special China safeguard laws. 
The underlying bill does nothing on that at all.
  So, Madam Speaker, we have a bill that contains the sense of Congress 
and provisions that I think most of the Members of this body would 
agree with. It contains some other provisions that are well intended, 
and I think the majority of the Members of this body would agree with. 
But I want to make it clear that for those who are claiming this bill 
is tough on China or tough on enforcing our trade rules with China, it 
does not do that.
  It does say certain things about China that most Members of this body 
would agree with. The main purpose of this bill was to deal with 
countervailing duties to nonmarket economies, and it does that in a way 
that probably will provide no relief. It provides authorizations for 
additional funds for two agencies that deal with trade, but we have 
already taken care of that in the appropriation bill.
  So I come back to the point of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin). If you want to feel good and vote for this bill, go ahead and 
do it. But if you think you are taking action against China, if you 
believe that this bill will speak to the trade imbalance we currently 
have with China because of China's failure to adhere to their 
international responsibilities under the WTO or under the accession 
agreement with the United States, if you believe that, this bill does 
not do that. This bill is a missed opportunity because we were not able 
to have a free and open rule.
  So I regret, Madam Speaker, that we are sort of in a dilemma with 
this bill as to what advice we should give Members. If you look at it 
as a resolution expressing the sense of Congress, there is nothing 
wrong with this bill. But if you look at it as a bill to provide action 
against China, there is really nothing in it to do that.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  First of all, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), for giving 
us the opportunity to have a debate and have a vote on this bill at a 
time when I think it is particularly important that this Congress go on 
record deliberately challenging China in many of its mercantilist trade 
policies.

                              {time}  1600

  As I sat down with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), I 
worked closely with him to come up with a bill that would not be a 
panacea, would be a compromise, and would be a compromise that we could 
pass in the House by a wide margin and also pass in the United States 
Senate.
  We have heard some sentiment from the other side of the aisle, and I 
think it is sincere, that wishes we could have gone further in this 
bill. I must say part of me also wishes to have gone further in this 
bill, but I believe this is a practical bill, but also a substantial 
bill that we can pass and can make a tangible start in strengthening 
our trade policy. That, I believe, makes it a very important bill in 
itself.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), whom I have 
worked with on so many trade issues, and I am sorry to be disagreeing 
with him on this bill. I believe on the face of it, this bill is 
substantial. It is strong, responsible, comprehensive, and it moves in 
the right direction. It closes a loophole dealing with countervailing 
duties, a loophole that has for years been out there, and Congress has 
lacked the will to take it on.
  We would for the first time apply countervailing duties where we 
determine Communist countries like China are involved in subsidizing 
their products. This would add a major tool in our arsenal in dealing 
with these countries and making them play by the rules. To me it is 
absurd when we find a subsidized product coming in from France, Brazil, 
Japan or Taiwan, we can apply countervailing duties to strip them of 
the benefit of their subsidy, but we cannot do it with China or 
Vietnam.
  This bill moves forward and with clear language, but without double 
counting, which was not our intent; deals with this issue in a direct 
and refined way.
  This bill also would establish a strong auditing system to make sure 
that China is complying with the trade agreements for which we are 
already a party, and deal with their trade obligations on intellectual 
property rights, market access and transparency.
  This legislation does include resolution language dealing with issues 
like the current rules negotiation on the WTO, but it also requires the 
Treasury Department to do more than a study. It requires the Treasury 
Department to revisit its current definition of currency manipulation 
so as to make the current laws already on the books against currency 
manipulation something other than a dead letter.
  We do increase funding, but we do it in the form of an authorization, 
and that is so important because that spells out how the U.S. Trade 
Representative can use the money, and it specifies that we are going to 
use that additional money for trade cops that are going to improve the 
enforcement of existing trade laws and the tracking of existing 
treaties, and that is essential if we are going to have a more balanced 
approach to that important trade relationship we have with China as 
well as with other countries.
  This legislation would also close the current loophole dealing with 
antidumping cases in which some use bonds and then skip out on them in 
order to avoid paying their obligations. This is something I know the 
other side of the aisle agrees with because they included it in their 
last-minute legislation as well.
  I was disappointed to hear my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle suggest that this is all reports and not action items. As is 
clear from a plain reading of the provisions of this bill, these are 
all action items, and they are all substantial, and they all move our 
trade policy substantially forward, a

[[Page 17963]]

trade policy that, after all, we depend on energy in the executive to 
enforce, but ultimately Congress needs to inform, and it is our 
constitutional obligation to take an active role in shaping our trade 
policy.
  With record trade deficits that are now exceeding 6 percent of GDP 
every year, we cannot go forward with the status quo, and this 
legislation is a substantial, modest, but achievable piece of 
legislation that will allow us to begin to deal with these problems in 
a much more direct and aggressive way.
  I would hope that having listened to the debate, everyone in this 
Chamber would think carefully before doing what some in the minority 
did yesterday, and that is registering a vote against this legislation. 
This legislation was designed to be a consensus bill. It should not be 
wrapped up in any other debate, but I do not control the timing of 
that.
  I believe it is fairly clear that our friends in Beijing will look at 
this debate, will look at how we respond to this legislation, and if we 
do not overwhelmingly pass this bill, they will conclude that we are 
not committed to dealing with these problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this bill 
and to send a clear message to our trading partners that we are not 
prepared to see the status quo go forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the English bill, 
which will only create more red ink with Red China in our global trade.
  Our job and trade deficit with China is exploding with more jobs 
being lost every day. Our red ink in jobs and trade give new meaning to 
the name ``Red China.'' We need strong and effective laws to make China 
follow the rules to which we hold everyone else responsible.
  This bill does not give us those strong and effective rules.
  Instead of demanding action, the Republican bill calls for more 
reports, more studies, and more dialogue. It fails to include real 
solutions proposed by members on both sides of aisle. These include 
strengthening remedies for American industries hurt by export surges 
caused by Chinese imports and requiring the administration to take 
action to bring down China's trade barriers. Further, the English bill 
actually adds new loopholes that gut the effect of the bill. The bill 
would harm U.S. trade laws by giving direct effect to the World Trade 
Organization to impose its decisions against U.S. laws and would create 
harmful precedents on U.S. sovereignty.
  I support subjecting China and other non-market economies to our 
subsidy laws. But this bill actually places restrictions on the 
Department of Commerce's ability to go after those very illegal 
government subsidies.
  In fact, this bill may give China an advantage in this situation. 
This bill places a greater burden on the U.S. Department of Commerce 
than current U.S. law or WTO rules to protect the U.S. against unfair 
competition from China's subsidies. By further limiting counting of 
subsidies, this places China in a special category above all other 
trading partners. It also places such a burden on the agency that the 
costs of doing this far outweigh the gains.
  There is a provision in this bill that says that DoC must ensure that 
trade law is implemented consistent with U.S. international trade 
obligations. This hasn't appeared in U.S. trade law before and could 
give the WTO special influence over U.S. law. Are we an independent 
Nation or are we but a client State for multinational giants?
  This bill fails to address the real problem of our growing deficit 
with China. In fact, sadly, it appears that this bill is simply a cover 
for some Members to vote for CAFTA later today. They can say they spoke 
out about our widening trade deficits, but actually then make them 
worse by voting for CAFTA.
  I ask Members to consider their conscience. Why use this fig leaf of 
a bill that will lead to more job loss, poorer working conditions and 
more misery for working people in the U.S. and in China, and ultimately 
with Central America.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that I will be voting 
against H.R. 3283.
  While I too am concerned about China's compliance with its trade 
commitments and the surge of Chinese imports into the United States, 
the legislation being considered today is unfortunately a false promise 
to address those concerns instead of real action that will become law 
and bring China to the table to correct these problems. In particular, 
the bill does nothing to address currency manipulation.
  I remain strongly supportive of strengthening our trade laws and 
enforcing the laws we currently have on the books. In particular, I 
have been supportive of taking action to require cash deposits from new 
shippers of goods in anti-dumping cases to avoid defaults. This 
provision affects several domestic industries, and it is certainly 
important to honey producers in North Dakota and the nation. I hope 
this provision is passed as a stand-alone bill or included in 
legislation in the near future that addresses the compliance issues 
with our trading partners in a meaningful way.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of the comments 
made during the colloquy between the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
English, and the gentlemen from Utah, Mr. Bishop, regarding H.R. 3283. 
In particular, I would like to respond to my colleagues' assertions 
concerning the application of section 3(b)(2) of the Act, which states 
that when applying the U.S. countervailing duty law to nonmarket 
economies, the Department of Commerce ``shall ensure that . . . the 
application [of the law] is consistent with the international 
obligations of the United States.'' Mr. Speaker, despite my colleagues' 
efforts to provide reassurance about this provision, I remain deeply 
concerned following their exchange--and in some ways, even more so.
  First, the exchange between Mr. Bishop and Mr. English provides no 
comfort to those like me that have raised concerns that section 3(b)(2) 
of the Act will have a chilling effect on the application of U.S. 
countervailing duty law. The provision clearly creates a special burden 
on the U.S. Department of Commerce in cases involving subsidies in 
nonmarket economy countries like China by requiring Commerce to make a 
determination about the WTO consistency of the law prior to applying 
it.
  In every other trade remedy case, the Department of Commerce must 
apply U.S. law as enacted by Congress. The law is presumed to be 
consistent with WTO obligations unless the WTO finds otherwise.
  Under Mr. English's bill, Commerce could not apply countervailing 
duty laws to China and other nonmarket economies to the fullest extent 
authorized by Congress, but rather could apply the law only to the 
extent to which Commerce makes a separate determination that the law 
would pass muster in the WTO. As a result, it is likely that Commerce 
would not apply the law as intended by Congress, thereby denying 
American workers and businesses a remedy authorized by both WTO rules 
and U.S. law.
  Second, and even more importantly, section 3(b)(2) of the English 
bill raises Constitutional issues. After the provision has been applied 
in a CVD investigation and were a WTO panel to rule against some aspect 
of the provision, the English bill would create the first directive 
under U.S. law that WTO decisions are to be self-implementing.
  The English bill creates this self-implementing provision by 
directing Commerce to ``ensure that the application [of the provision] 
is consistent'' with WTO rules. In all other cases under U.S. AD/CVD 
law, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (section 129) creates a 
procedure for congressional consultation prior to Commerce or USTR 
taking any action to alter U.S. law, regulation or practice. While 
Congress technically would not have to approve a change to regulation 
or practice, in practice, neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations 
has ever even suggested that it would make such a change absent 
(bicameral and bipartisan) congressional approval.
  The inclusion language in the English bill authorizing, if not 
directing, Commerce to change regulation or practice even absent 
Congressional approval undermines the broader statutory scheme 
carefully established in 1994, shifts the balance of action for 
implementing WTO decisions that affect one provision of the AD/CVD laws 
toward the Administration, and erodes further congressional authority 
over the unfair trade laws.
  In simple terms, section 3(b)(2) of the English bill authorizes 
Commerce to take action to align U.S. law with the decisions of a WTO 
panel or Appellate Body--without the assent of Congress as provided 
under existing U.S. law (in the case of Commerce, changes to regulation 
or practice).
  Mr. Speaker, section 3(b)(2) of H.R. 3283 is bad policy and may be 
unconstitutional as a matter of law. By requiring the Department of 
Commerce to ensure WTO compliance before acting on Chinese subsidies, 
the bill would prevent the Administration from vigorously enforcing our 
trade laws. In addition, the provision violates traditional notions of 
separation

[[Page 17964]]

of powers by specifically directing the Department of Commerce to take 
steps to alter the application of U.S. law without an act of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Pursuant to House Resolution 
387, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Cardin

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CARDIN. I am at this time
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Cardin moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3283 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions that the 
     Committee report the same back to the House forthwith with 
     the following amendment:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CURRENCY MANIPULATION.

       (a) Definition of Unjustifiable Acts, Policies, and 
     Practices.--Section 301(d)(4)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2411(d)(4)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B)(i) Acts, policies, and practices that are 
     unjustifiable include, but are not limited to, any act, 
     policy, or practice described in subparagraph (A) which 
     involves currency manipulation, or denies national or most-
     favored nation treatment or the right of establishment or 
     protection of intellectual property rights.
       ``(ii) In this subparagraph, the term `currency 
     manipulation' means the protracted large-scale intervention 
     by an authority to undervalue its currency in the exchange 
     market that prevents effective balance of payments adjustment 
     or gains an unfair competitive advantage over the United 
     States.''.
       (b) Investigation Into Currency Manipulation by the 
     People's Republic of China.--
       (1) Investigation, determinations, actions.--The United 
     States Trade Representative shall--
       (A) conduct an investigation, under sections 302 and 303 of 
     the Trade Act of 1974, of the currency practices of the 
     People's Republic of China;
       (B) make the applicable determinations under section 304 of 
     that Act pursuant to that investigation; and
       (C) implement any action, under section 305 of that Act, in 
     accordance with such determinations.
       (2) Initiation of investigation.--The United States Trade 
     Representative shall initiate the investigation required by 
     paragraph (1) not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL 
                   POLICY.

       (a) Bilateral Negotiations.--Section 3004(b) of the 
     Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination 
     Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5304(b)) is amended in the second 
     sentence by striking ``(1) have material global account 
     surpluses; and (2)''.
       (b) Definition of Manipulation.--Section 3006 of the 
     Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination 
     Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5306) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(3) Manipulation of rate of exchange.--A country shall be 
     considered to be manipulating the rate of exchange between 
     its currency and the United States dollar if there is a 
     protracted large-scale intervention by an authority to 
     undervalue its currency in the exchange market that prevents 
     effective balance of payments adjustment or gains an unfair 
     competitive advantage over the United States.''.
       (c) Report.--Section 3005(b) of the Exchange Rates and 
     International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 (22 
     U.S.C. 5305(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) a detailed explanation of the test the Secretary uses 
     to determine whether or not a country is manipulating the 
     rate of exchange between that country's currency and the 
     dollar for purposes of preventing effective balance of 
     payments adjustment or gaining an unfair competitive 
     advantage over the United States.''.

  Mr. CARDIN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the only opportunity we have is on a motion 
to recommit, and this motion to recommit will deal with the currency 
manipulation issue with China, and will take real action on China's 
currency manipulation.
  Since 1994, China has pegged its currency to the U.S. dollar. This 
policy has caused China's currency to become undervalued by as much as 
40 percent. What this means in practice is that Chinese manufacturers 
have a significant unfair advantage over U.S. manufacturers because 
China's currency manipulation makes Chinese exports to the United 
States cheaper and U.S. exports to China more expensive.
  It is simply unacceptable that this administration has allowed China 
to continue this policy, and the Chinese Government appears to realize 
that this administration is not serious about stopping China's currency 
manipulation. Just last year when the vice governor of the People's 
Bank of China was asked when China would change its currency policy, he 
stated, ``China has 8,000 years of history. One year, three years, five 
years, or ten years, for Chinese, that is just a twinkling of an eye.''
  Now I know that the administration and many of those on the opposite 
side of the aisle will point to the fact that China reevaluated its 
currency by about 2 percent last week. However, I would urge them to 
read the report in today's Washington Post and New York Times 
indicating that China's Central Bank issued a statement yesterday to 
clarify that last week's change was a one-time event, and that we 
should not expect more changes any time soon.
  China's continuing refusal to end its currency manipulation demands 
action by this body. However, the bill before us today, H.R. 3283, 
calls on one more report and another delay. The Treasury Department has 
already issued reports on Chinese currency and has not taken any 
action.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard my colleagues talk about taking action 
against China during this debate. Here is an opportunity to do that. 
What this motion to recommit would do would be to bring the bill 
immediately back with an amendment that would have the administration 
file a WTO claim. That is consistent with the WTO. It starts the 
process. It tells China we are serious. It does not do anything in 
violation of the WTO. It starts the process, but it tells China that 
this body is serious about their dealing with their currency issue. 
That is what China understands. We cannot justify tying a currency to 
another currency. That is manipulation. That is working to the 
disadvantage of American manufacturers.
  I would hope that we could join together. I have heard many of my 
Republican and Democratic colleagues tell me it is time to take action 
against China. This does it in a responsible way. It does not require 
any tariff; it does not do anything inconsistent with the WTO 
obligations. It exercises the constitutional responsibility that we 
have on trade. It is the legislative branch that is responsible for 
trade. We delegate to the executive branch. We should be willing to 
assume our responsibility.
  If Members believe it is wrong for China to continue to manipulate 
its currency to the disadvantage of U.S. manufacturers and producers 
and employment here in this Nation, vote for the motion to recommit so 
we can finally start action against China on currency manipulation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise with mixed feelings 
because in a different setting, I might be

[[Page 17965]]

very sympathetic to the argument the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin) is making. I have been involved myself in the fight to 
specifically challenge the Chinese on currency issues, but I am 
disappointed in the timing of this motion, particularly in view of 
China's recent and very modest actions to move forward on currency, and 
with the fact that in this context, this motion would function 
effectively as a poison pill that might very well kill the bill in the 
Senate.
  On the substance, the motion from the other side of the aisle seeks 
to force the administration to bring a section 301 case against China 
based on its old currency peg to the dollar. It would also force the 
administration to use a very narrow and simplistic definition of 
currency manipulation in its foreign exchange reports.
  My understanding is the USTR rightly rejected this petition twice in 
the past because it would hinder the efforts to change China's former 
currency regime. In fact, China's recent steps in moving in the 
direction of a float, however limited, have made it very clear that the 
timing on this provision is not good.
  I would argue that my bill requires that the USTR instead report to 
Congress every 6 months on the degree to which the new mechanism moves 
the currency closer to a market-based representation of its value and 
requires Treasury to reconsider how it currently defines currency 
manipulation.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) might argue that in a sense 
all that this does is force the United States to bring a WTO case 
against China on grounds that China is manipulating its currency. 
However, the motion itself does not appear designed to force the United 
States to bring a WTO case. In fact, the motion's definition of 
currency manipulation clearly bears no relationship to the WTO rules.
  Instead, this proposal from the other side of the aisle would force 
the United States to take unilateral action under section 301, which 
would potentially place us in violation of WTO rules. Section 301 
mandates specific actions, including possibly trade retaliation if a 
foreign act or measure: one, violates or is inconsistent with a trade 
agreement such as the WTO agreements; or, two, is unjustifiable and 
burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.
  These are separate grounds for taking mandatory action under section 
301. The recommittal defines currency manipulation using a fabricated 
definition as ``unjustifiable.'' Thus, it appears that this initiative 
is really intended to force the United States to take action under the 
second prong of section 301, not the prong intended to be used where 
there are potential WTO violations.

                              {time}  1615

  The intent thus appears to be to force the U.S. to impose sanctions 
without a WTO finding of a breach, thus allowing China to shift the 
focus from China's currency policies to claims of U.S. breaches of the 
WTO. In the current context, in my view, that would not be helpful.
  Accordingly, with great regret and acknowledging that my colleague 
from Maryland has been serious about moving forward in the area of 
currency reform and challenging the Chinese, I feel that his motion to 
recommit comes up short, and I would urge all of my colleagues to vote 
it down.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on the passage of H.R. 3283, if ordered; suspending the 
rules on House Resolution 383; and suspending the rules on House 
Resolution 384.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 195, 
nays 232, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 436]

                               YEAS--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--232

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus

[[Page 17966]]


     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brady (PA)
     Cox
     Cummings
     Jenkins
     Murphy
     Murtha


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes left in this vote.

                              {time}  1638

  Messrs. LARSEN of Washington, FORBES, OTTER, SHAYS, FLAKE, HALL, 
MORAN of Virginia, and Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. HARMAN, Ms. McKINNEY, and Messrs. WEXLER, COSTELLO, KANJORSKI, 
and GORDON changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 255, 
nays 168, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 437]

                               YEAS--255

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--168

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brady (PA)
     Clay
     Cox
     Cummings
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Hastings (FL)
     Jenkins
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Reyes


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
there are 2 minutes left in this vote.

                              {time}  1646

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________