[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2958-2965]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 APPLYING COUNTERVAILING DUTY PROVISIONS TO NONMARKET ECONOMY COUNTRIES

  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4105) to apply the countervailing duty provisions of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 to nonmarket economy countries, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4105

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

     SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY PROVISIONS TO 
                   NONMARKET ECONOMY COUNTRIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1671) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Applicability to Proceedings Involving Nonmarket 
     Economy Countries.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     merchandise on which countervailing duties shall be imposed 
     under subsection (a) includes a class or kind of merchandise 
     imported, or sold (or likely to be sold) for importation, 
     into the United States from a nonmarket economy country.
       ``(2) Exception.--A countervailing duty is not required to 
     be imposed under subsection (a) on a class or kind of 
     merchandise imported, or sold (or likely to be sold) for 
     importation, into the United States from a nonmarket economy 
     country if the administering authority is unable to identify 
     and measure subsidies provided by the government of the 
     nonmarket economy country or a public entity within the 
     territory of the nonmarket economy country because the 
     economy of that country is essentially comprised of a single 
     entity.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (f) of section 701 of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930, as added by subsection (a) of this 
     section, applies to--
       (1) all proceedings initiated under subtitle A of title VII 
     of that Act (19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.) on or after November 20, 
     2006;
       (2) all resulting actions by U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection; and
       (3) all civil actions, criminal proceedings, and other 
     proceedings before a Federal court relating to proceedings 
     referred to in paragraph (1) or actions referred to in 
     paragraph (2).

     SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT OF ANTIDUMPING DUTY IN CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS 
                   RELATING TO IMPORTS FROM NONMARKET ECONOMY 
                   COUNTRIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 777A of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1677f-1) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Adjustment of Antidumping Duty in Certain Proceedings 
     Relating to Imports From Nonmarket Economy Countries.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the administering authority 
     determines, with respect to a class or kind of merchandise 
     from a nonmarket economy country for which an antidumping 
     duty is determined using normal value pursuant to section 
     773(c), that--
       ``(A) pursuant to section 701(a)(1), a countervailable 
     subsidy (other than an export subsidy referred to in section 
     772(c)(1)(C)) has been provided with respect to the class or 
     kind of merchandise,
       ``(B) such countervailable subsidy has been demonstrated to 
     have reduced the average price of imports of the class or 
     kind of merchandise during the relevant period, and
       ``(C) the administering authority can reasonably estimate 
     the extent to which the countervailable subsidy referred to 
     in subparagraph (B), in combination with the use of normal 
     value determined pursuant to section 773(c), has increased 
     the weighted average dumping margin for the class or kind of 
     merchandise,

     the administering authority shall, except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), reduce the antidumping duty by the amount of 
     the increase in the weighted average dumping margin estimated 
     by the administering authority under subparagraph (C).
       ``(2) Maximum reduction in antidumping duty.--The 
     administering authority may not reduce the antidumping duty 
     applicable to a class or kind of merchandise from a nonmarket 
     economy country under this subsection by more than the 
     portion of the countervailing duty rate attributable to a 
     countervailable subsidy that is provided with respect to the 
     class or kind of merchandise and that meets the conditions 
     described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph 
     (1).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (f) of section 777A of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930, as added by subsection (a) of this 
     section, applies to--
       (1) all investigations and reviews initiated pursuant to 
     title VII of that Act (19 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.) on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) subject to subsection (c) of section 129 of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3538), all determinations 
     issued under subsection (b)(2) of that section on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days 
within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous 
material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I urge the passage of this legislation to 
ensure that we can continue to fight unfair subsidies from countries 
like China that violate the WTO, injure our industries, and cost U.S. 
jobs. This legislation reaffirms that our antisubsidy laws, or 
countervailing duty laws, apply to subsidies from China and other 
nonmarket countries, and it overturns an erroneous decision by the 
Federal circuit that the Department of Commerce does not have the 
authority to apply these countervailing duty rules to nonmarket 
economies.
  China distorts the free market by giving enormous subsidies to its 
producers and exporters, and our companies and our workers should not 
be expected to compete against the deep pockets of the Chinese 
Government. That is why it is vital that we preserve this important 
tool and ensure that current countervailing duty orders and 
investigations from nonmarket economies remain in place and that this 
important tool is available in the future.
  In addition, this legislation fully complies with our WTO 
obligations. China agreed to be subject to countervailing duty laws 
when it joined the WTO in 2001, and the WTO has reaffirmed our right to 
apply these laws to China. Failing to enact this legislation would mean 
that we're unilaterally giving away a right that allows us to protect 
American workers. This legislation also brings the United States into 
compliance with its obligations by requiring the Department of Commerce 
to make an adjustment when there is evidence of a double remedy.
  Finally, I am pleased that this legislation, which has already passed 
the Senate, is bipartisan and has administration support.
  For all of these reasons, we urgently need to pass this important 
legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This bill will send a clear signal, especially with an overwhelming 
vote, that there are clear consequences when a nation violates the 
rules. China is, indeed, tilting the field of competition by not 
playing by the rules. This bill restores a key instrument for our 
Nation to hold China and other nations accountable. The failure to pass 
it would be an enormous step backwards at a time when, indeed, we need 
to fast-forward our efforts to rein in China's abusive trade practices 
that, in part, have led to our record $295 billion trade deficit with 
China. This legislation ensures that tools remain available under U.S. 
trade law so that manufacturers can fight back against China's unfair 
trade subsidies.
  Countervailing duties have been a part of U.S. trade law for nearly 
120 years, and today, almost one-half--23 of 50--of all countervailing 
duty orders in place involve China. This is not surprising. A central 
element of Chinese industrial policy has been to provide massive 
subsidies to its producers to help them knock out competitors and to 
dominate the market. These include loans at below-market interest 
rates, cheap or sometimes free land, extensive tax breaks, and other 
subsidies designed to advantage domestic industry.
  To date, countervailing duties have been the singular form of relief 
available to American workers and companies devastated by these 
mercantilist

[[Page 2959]]

policies. Over the last 6 years, Commerce has put in place 23 
countervailing duty orders against China--23--and five other 
investigations are currently underway. More than $4 billion in 
subsidized imports have been covered by these measures, shielding an 
estimated 80,000 American jobs from unfair competition.
  Yet, in December, based on a deeply flawed assessment of 
congressional intent, the court of appeals for the Federal circuit 
ruled that Commerce, which administers our countervailing duty laws, 
does not have the authority to apply those laws to nonmarket economy 
countries like China. That decision threatens to eviscerate the U.S. 
right to apply countervailing duties to China, a right protected under 
WTO rules; and it threatens to cripple Commerce in its efforts to 
combat Chinese subsidies that harm our industries.
  With this bill, we are making clear that the Federal circuit's 
decision was wrong and that it cannot stand. Commerce has always had 
the authority to apply countervailing duties to nonmarket economies 
such as China, and now it shall continue to have and exercise this 
vitally important authority in the future.
  Because of this bill--and I urge the strongest possible support--tens 
of thousands of American workers and scores of American companies in 38 
States across this country that have shown that they are entitled to 
relief from unfair subsidization by nonmarket economies will continue 
to get that relief. This bill ensures all of the existing orders and 
investigations remain in place.
  For these reasons, I support the passage of H.R. 4105, and I urge all 
of my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the 
Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the passage of 
this bill.
  When China repeatedly undermines the free market by subsidizing its 
exports to the United States, we can't just give them a pass, 
especially when the businesses China subsidizes are often government-
owned businesses that compete unfairly against our American companies 
and workers.

                              {time}  1240

  If you don't believe the American Government should pick winners and 
losers in the marketplace, you certainly don't support the Chinese 
Government doing the same. There is an important distinction between 
the duties that seek to protect companies that are afraid to compete in 
the marketplace--those I oppose--and in this case duties assessed 
against those who try to distort the free market through unfair 
government subsidies.
  It's a distinction between the price of legal software and illegal 
software. We would shoot ourselves in the foot if we denied this 
important tool to protect the free market for American workers.
  It's important, as Chairman Camp noted today, that this legislation 
is WTO consistent and fully within America's rights when dealing with 
China and other nonmarket economies. It's also important that this bill 
addresses the double-remedies laws in the right way to ensure that 
America applies these laws in accordance with our WTO obligations.
  In conclusion, this legislation ensures the freedom of U.S. companies 
and workers to compete in a market that is not distorted by the Chinese 
Government. It restores free market principles by allowing us to 
address China's unfair subsidies. It has no different impact on 
consumers than enforcing our intellectual property laws.
  We owe it to America's job creators and our workers to make sure we 
have the tools at our disposal to offset such unfair trade practices 
and allow the free market to work properly. That's why I urge strong 
support for this vital legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of our 
committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I certainly rise in support of this legislation, which 
confirms that the Commerce Department can continue to apply 
countervailing duties on subsidized imports from countries with 
nonmarket economies such as China and Vietnam.
  In fact, this legislation strengthens the opportunity to use an 
international forum for the prescribed purpose of resolving disputes. 
If our trading partners are not playing by the rules, it's imperative 
that the United States have the tools to challenge these unfair 
practices. Countervailing duties level the playing field for U.S. 
employers and workers and allow them to compete against imports that 
are subsidized through unfair trade practices, emphasis on the word 
``unfair.''
  Since the Commerce Department started applying these duties in 2007, 
it is estimated that countervailing duties have protected an estimated 
80,000 jobs in the United States. At the same time, it's important to 
point out this is not a protectionist measure. It strengthens our hand 
in dealing with negotiations.
  Let's pass this commonsense legislation and keep American jobs 
defended against unfair trade practices.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in favor of H.R. 4105 because we need to have 
every tool we can muster to fight China's unfair trade practices, which 
not only steal markets and jobs from American producers, but also 
provides Beijing with a means to finance its military buildup and 
expanding influence around the world.
  This bill should not have been necessary. It overturns a faulty court 
decision that claimed U.S. law prohibits the Department of Commerce 
from applying countervailing duties to nonmarket economies. Yet 
nonmarket economies, where the government directs business through 
trade subsidies, national planning and state ownership of firms, this 
is where the greatest abuses occur that distort the market.
  Unfortunately, our system to combat trade abuses and unfair foreign 
practices does not work. We have had a massive transfer, which is 
evident, when we see that we have had a massive historic transfer of 
wealth from the American people to China over these last few decades. 
That policy should have been corrected long ago to prevent this 
deprivation of the American people.
  Furthermore, this bill allows the Commerce Department to adjust 
actions to avoid future negative findings by the World Trade 
Organization. Again, this should not be necessary because China should 
not be part of the World Trade Organization. It is not a market economy 
and thus should have been denied membership. It has not lived up to its 
obligations of WTO membership, and thus Beijing should not be made a 
stakeholder in world affairs.
  It remains an aggressive, communist dictatorship that supports every 
rogue enemy of the United States. It is the world's number one 
proliferator of nuclear technology and the number one abuser of human 
rights. It is a land of cronyism, corruption, and repression. We should 
not be helping a country ruled by this kind of government grow while we 
stagnate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. We ran a record $295 billion trade deficit in goods 
with China last year at a time when the U.S. economy was trying to 
struggle from a recession and we had high unemployment. This bill would 
be a small step in the right direction; but we need to do much more to 
restore growth and balance to our international, economic and strategic 
relations with other countries, especially China. We should end this 
massive transfer of wealth from our people to China. It's a sin against 
our own people.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of our 
committee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Levin. I appreciate the fact that our

[[Page 2960]]

chairman, Mr. Camp, and our ranking member, Mr. Levin, are here today 
advancing H.R. 4105.
  We are not going to unring the bell.
  The Chinese Government is an important part of the world economy. We 
are interrelated and interdependent. American people buy things from 
China every day. I was happy to have them be part of the WTO so there 
would be rules of the road.
  It's not about protectionism for the United States. It is making sure 
that our competitors in China play by the rules. Too often we have seen 
that they don't. We've seen their massive unjustified subsidies. We've 
found cheating in the international arena in terms of stealing 
intellectual products, stealing Web sites. The Chinese Government needs 
to be encouraged directly to play by the same sorts of rules.
  If America is on a level playing field, our manufacturers can work 
and compete against the best the world has to offer. But, 
unfortunately, related to China right now, it is too often not a level 
playing field. This is an important step going forward to make sure 
that we can rebalance the equation.
  I hope that the administration will be aggressive in using the tools 
that it has to make sure the rules of the road are observed. This has 
been a frustration I have had since I have been in Congress with both 
Republican and Democratic administrations. I don't think we have done 
all, in fact, that we could. I hope that we will.
  I think this bill is a step in the right direction, and I appreciate 
the bipartisan show of support from our committee to move it forward. I 
hope that the House passes it overwhelmingly, and that it is something 
that the other body moves on, so that we can have this tool back in our 
tool kit.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the 
Oversight Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong, vigorous support of 
H.R. 4105, and I want to commend Chairman Camp for his leadership in 
bringing this appropriate bill to the floor today.
  As a supporter of free and fair trade, I believe that U.S. companies 
and workers deserve a level playing field in order to successfully 
compete around the world. This bill restores Commerce's ability to 
protect American jobs and companies from unfair, WTO-inconsistent 
practices, inconsistent trade practices perpetrated by nonmarket 
economies, mainly China and Vietnam.
  This is an important tool being used by several industries in my home 
State of Louisiana, the ability to use countervailing duties, companies 
that produce steel pipe, aluminum extrusion, woven sack industries, 
just to name a few. More importantly, many key industries such as 
shrimp processors want to make sure that this tool remains in place in 
case they need to use it in the future to deal with unfair trade 
practices.
  As our industries expand and compete for businesses around the world, 
it's irresponsible to not have these types of measures, enforcement 
measures, in place and to take this vital tool away from the Department 
of Commerce.

                              {time}  1250

  This has been a practice that is WTO compliant. We have used it for 
years, and now because of a recent Federal court ruling, it has been 
taken away.
  The bill simply amends the 1930 Tariff Act to allow this WTO-
compliant technique to be used to impose countervailing duties on 
nonmarket economies when they use unfair subsidies. It's fully 
consistent with our international trade obligations, it restores 
current practices, and it is the right thing to do for American 
businesses and workers. I strongly encourage our colleagues in this 
House to support this important bill.

                                                   American Shrimp


                                       Processors Association,

                                        Biloxi, MS, March 5, 2012.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, Cannon House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sander M. Levin,
     Ranking Member, Ways and Means Committee, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin: The American 
     Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA) strongly supports, H.R. 
     4105, the bill you introduced on February 29, ``to apply the 
     countervailing duty provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 to 
     nonmarket economy countries.'' We appreciate that you took 
     the lead on this measure and are working hard to quickly pass 
     this critical bipartisan legislation that allows the Commerce 
     Department to continue to apply countervailing duty laws to 
     non-market economies. We believe passage of this measure is 
     critical to the continued ability of domestic industries like 
     ASPA to fight unfair Chinese and Vietnamese trade practices. 
     Additionally, we salute the strong support offered to this 
     measure by our Gulf coast Ways and Means Committee Member 
     Charles Boustany, Jr.
       This bipartisan and bicameral legislation aims to correct a 
     problematic decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
     Circuit that found that U.S. law prohibits the Department of 
     Commerce from applying countervailing duties to non-market 
     economies like China and Vietnam. We understand that Congress 
     must act by March 15th to ensure that the law is changed 
     prior to final action in the courts.
       As a domestic industry that has struggled to survive amidst 
     a barrage of subsidized imports from Asian non-market and 
     market economies alike, ASPA has a strong interest in seeing 
     U.S. countervailing duty law enforced. If the Congress were 
     to do nothing, important trade orders already in place on 
     subsidized imports from China and Vietnam would disappear. 
     These orders have corrected Chinese and Vietnamese practices 
     that have injured a broad range of domestic industries and 
     threatened the jobs of tens of thousands of American workers.
       Additionally, and more importantly to ASPA members, the 
     recent Court decision would prohibit the U.S. shrimp industry 
     from ever using the U.S. trade laws designed to correct 
     unfair government subsidies on shrimp exported from non-
     market economies like China and Vietnam, which have been 
     flooding the U.S. market for years.
       While the U.S. shrimp industry has repeatedly demonstrated 
     its resilience in the past, the failure to pass this 
     important legislation leaves the domestic shrimp industry, 
     and all U.S. industries, at a permanent disadvantage, as they 
     will be unable to take any action to redress the harm that 
     subsidized imports from non-market economies cause. All our 
     major trading partners have trade laws that allow them to go 
     after government subsidies from non-market economies. Why 
     would the United States want to unilaterally disarm?
       Without this legislative fix, ASPA members' ability to go 
     after egregious trade practices in China and Vietnam would be 
     severely limited. ASPA urges you to maintain a level playing 
     field for all domestic industries by passing this legislation 
     this week.
           Sincerely,
                                                    C. David Veal,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to Mr. Pascrell from 
the great State of New Jersey, another very active member of our 
committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, as cosponsor of this legislation, I rise 
in strong support of the bill. I want to thank Chairman Camp and 
Ranking Member Levin for working together in a bipartisan way to 
address this issue, and I hope this is the beginning of more bipartisan 
trade negotiations amongst ourselves. I think it's healthy.
  We all know that China uses a variety of mercantilist measures to 
distort trade with the United States. Illegal subsidies--we must admit 
we are not playing on a level playing field when they are allowed to 
subsidize their industry, and we don't choose to do that. Second, 
forced technology transfers. And, third, currency manipulation.
  It is important that our government have every tool at its disposal 
in order to combat these abuses and others. This legislation will once 
again allow the application of our countervailing duty laws and the 
enforcement of existing orders to nonmarket economies like China.
  But we must go further if we are going to level this playing field 
with China in a way that truly benefits American workers and 
businesses. We need to extend our trade remedy laws to cover currency 
manipulation, an approach embraced by a large bipartisan majority of 
this body that could create over a million jobs.
  Also, I believe we must embrace and fully fund the President's new 
Interagency Trade Enforcement Center to focus our resources on leveling 
the playing field with China. We can't continue to sit on our hands 
while Chinese businesses undercut American workers and our 
manufacturing base continues to drift overseas. Let's not stop with

[[Page 2961]]

the passage of this bill, but continue to move forward on a fair trade 
policy that places American workers and businesses first.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for 
bringing this very, very important piece of legislation to the floor 
for a vote. I'm here to join my colleagues in support of H.R. 4105, 
which will protect the free market and prevent American businesses from 
unfair dumping practices by countries such as China.
  Madam Speaker, I hear from businesses in North Carolina every day who 
are telling me that in order to compete in the global market, action 
must be taken to prevent nonmarket countries like China from distorting 
the market and costing American jobs.
  Since 2007, the Department of Commerce has applied countervailing 
duties to Chinese products where it determines that China has provided 
unfair subsidies that violate its WTO obligations. These duties are not 
punitive; they merely serve as a correction to unfair Chinese 
subsidies. They restore the level playing field that U.S. industries 
and small businesses--such as wire producers and textile companies in 
North Carolina--provide.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. I thank the gentleman.
  H.R. 4105 will ensure that the Department of Commerce can continue to 
apply countervailing duty and anti-subsidy laws to nonmarket economies 
that are violating current law. At the same time, we need robust trade 
policies that will strengthen our economy and build upon the 
partnerships we have made with countries around the world.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Michaud) who is very active in trade matters.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4105. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
efforts in bringing this bill before this body. Passing this bill will 
ensure that the Commerce Department has the authority to apply tariffs 
on illegally subsidized goods from China and other nonmarket economies.
  For the State of Maine, passing this bill will protect the 
countervailing and anti-dumping duties in place on coated paper imports 
from China. From 2002 to 2009, China provided more than $33 billion in 
subsidies, many of them illegal, to the paper sector. As a result, 
China overtook the United States as the world's largest producer of 
paper and paper products. This growth in Beijing's paper sector hits 
Maine's mills hard.
  Since 2008, Maine workers from both Sappi Fine and NewPage companies 
have become eligible for trade adjustment assistance after they were 
laid off as a result of increased foreign imports. But after 
countervailing and anti-dumping duties were applied to paper imports 
from China, one mill hired 100 employees. This is just one example of 
how much of a difference countervailing duties can make for an American 
company having to compete against illegally subsidized Chinese goods.
  H.R. 4105 will ensure that countervailing duties can continue to be 
applied to illegally subsidized goods from all countries, including 
China. This bill is critical to ensuring that our American businesses 
compete on a level playing field, and I urge all my colleagues to vote 
for it. And I want to once again thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for their efforts in bringing this bill forward. It's always 
good to be on the same side as the chair and the ranking member.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman. I rise today in 
strong support of H.R. 4105.
  Where I'm from in northwest Pennsylvania, western Pennsylvania, we 
relish competition. In fact, we can't wait to go head-to-head and toe-
to-toe with anybody, anytime, anyplace in the world. The only thing we 
ask for is a level playing field, something that's fair for everyone.
  And when you look at markets in Vietnam and China and other nonmarket 
economies that are able to game us, we don't like it. So places like 
Sharon Tube and Wheatland Tube, those are the workers I'm talking 
about. And those are workers who I will tell you today would stand here 
with us, arm-in-arm, in saying, Bring it on. Bring it on. We want the 
competition. We can prove to the competition that we are the best and 
always will be the best, but keep it a level playing field, keep the 
rules where they should be, and enforce them.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to Mr. Critz from the great State of 
Pennsylvania, a gentleman who is most active on these issues.
  Mr. CRITZ. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin. As a cosponsor of this 
bill, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4105.
  In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of 
Commerce did not have the authority to impose countervailing duties on 
goods from nonmarket economies. Of the 24 countervailing duties 
currently in place against goods from nonmarket economies, 23 are for 
China. Without the legislative action we are proposing today to 
overturn this ruling, it is very likely that these current 
countervailing duties would be negated.
  This is unacceptable, and we cannot stand by when over 80,000 
American manufacturing jobs are at stake. Almost every State is 
impacted by this decision, and almost every congressional district in 
Pennsylvania has companies that would be affected if this legislation 
does not pass.
  We must take action today and pass H.R. 4105 to overturn a flawed 
court ruling and to ensure that the Department of Commerce can continue 
to fight unfair subsidies that hurt American manufacturers and American 
workers. We must level the playing field, and I strongly urge my 
colleagues to stand with American workers and pass this bill.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reed).
  Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join in what appears to be a 
bipartisan sentiment that's developing on the floor of the House today, 
and I'm pleased to be part of it. I'm pleased to stand with my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and members of the Ways and 
Means Committee in support of a bill that will go a long way to 
protecting American job creators and American employees from coast to 
coast.
  What we are talking about is allowing the imposition of 
countervailing duties in order to protect the American market to make 
sure that the American market is in a competitive position when it 
comes to our competitors in China and making sure that when we go to 
the battlefield of the marketplace that that marketplace is put on an 
even, level playing field so that we can compete squarely.
  As my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) just articulated, I bet 
on the American worker every single time when we have a marketplace 
that is level, that is fair, and that is even. And that's why I ask all 
my colleagues--all of my colleagues--to join us in sending a message 
today by passing the subject bill and sending a message to the world, 
to the world economy and to the world markets that America will compete 
on an even playing field and allow the imposition of countervailing 
duties to make sure that we have free marketplace principles in place 
that protect our American workers and protect our American job 
creators.
  For that, I wholeheartedly support and stand with hardworking 
taxpayers across this country. I ask all colleagues to join in support 
of this resolution and legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to our ranking member on the Rules 
Committee, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

[[Page 2962]]


  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
This is very important legislation we're doing here today because in 
December the Federal Court of Appeals wrongly determined that the 
Commerce Department does not have the authority to respond to illegal 
Chinese subsidies with countervailing duties. The court said that 
despite illegal action from the Chinese, we, as a Nation, are unable to 
respond as we wish to stop the loss of thousands of American jobs.
  This court decision would have immediately reversed 23 import duties 
that protect 80,000 American workers from subsidized goods entering our 
market. In addition, it would have halted six pending U.S. 
investigations into unfair trade practices while costing the taxpayers 
billions of dollars each year.
  Quite simply, allowing this decision to stand would unilaterally 
disarm our Nation of one of the most important weapons we have in 
combating subsidized Chinese exports. In the world of global trade, our 
Nation can ill afford to let any country assume an unfair and illegal 
advantage. Countless American companies, from Rochester, New York, to 
Detroit, Michigan, rely upon a level playing field to compete and win.
  From the day of this court ruling, I've been working closely with my 
colleagues on Ways and Means to reverse this decision, and I'm so happy 
to support today's bipartisan legislation. Tens of thousands of working 
Americans are counting on Congress today to reverse the court decision 
and preserve the ability of our country to respond to illegal trade.
  I want to thank Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin for the good 
work that they have done in working together to reach an agreement that 
stands up for American manufacturers. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this critical legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of our time.
  The need is clear, the answer is clear, and I hope the vote will be 
clear. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In summary, I'd like to say that an identical bill to this passed the 
Senate with unanimous consent. The ability of the U.S. to impose 
countervailing duties on nonmarket economies, specifically on China, 
was something China agreed to when it entered the WTO. There are 
massive subsidies that distort the free market and cost us jobs here in 
the United States. This is an important tool, as so many have said, as 
speakers today have said, for us to have to address unfair subsidies 
from China that hurt our U.S. workers.
  I think this is an important bill. It has bipartisan support, and I 
urge the passage of this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker I rise today in order to 
debate H.R. 4105, ``To apply the countervailing duty provisions of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 to nonmarket economy countries,'' would ensure that 
the Department of Commerce can continue to apply countervailing duty 
law (CDV) to non-market economies (NME), such as China and Vietnam. 
Countervailing duties aim to offset the benefits of government 
subsidies to industries. Anti-dumping (AD) duties apply to goods sold 
overseas at or below the price in the home country.
  As we enter the first full week of spring and trees are regaining 
their leaves. We are once again faced with finding ways to help 
strengthen our economy. After years of witnessing a decline in 
manufacturing, before us this year there has been a revival. This 
legislation that would further enhance the economic viability of our 
manufacturing industries against unfair competition is welcome news.
  The measure before us would enable U.S. manufactures to fairly 
compete with goods which enter our stream of commerce. Goods supplied 
to the United States from nonmarket economies have a significant market 
advantage. Those goods receive multiple subsidies from their 
governments that allow them to be sold at a steeply discounted price in 
the United States and thereby gain a competitive advantage against 
products that are unsubsidized and manufactured in the United States.
  Just think of a main street which employs hundreds of local workers. 
The main manufacturing plant on main street supplies both goods and 
services to the community. When outside goods and manufacturers, from 
nonmarket economies, compete with main street manufacturers by 
undercutting prices the result will be that manufacturers on main 
street will close. American workers will lose jobs and it will cause 
the death of main streets all over the country.
  We must continue to support measures that will establish and ensure a 
level playing field for American workers and American companies. The 
issue before us is how to address goods from countries like China and 
Vietnam that have entered our stream of commerce, and compete with our 
business but have a significant market advantage because they are 
heavily subsidized.
  I firmly believe in the importance of continuing a balanced trade 
relationship with China. Trade between the United States and China has 
expanded dramatically in the years since China acceded to the World 
Trade Organization in December 2001. In 2009, bilateral trade in goods 
totaled $366 billion, with U.S. imports from China totaling $296 
billion and U.S. exports to China totaling $70 billion.
  In my home State of Texas we have also increased our exports of goods 
to China. In the District I represent, the 18th Congressional District 
of Texas, we export chemicals, machinery, computers & electronics, 
fabricated metal products, and primary metal manufacturing. Yet, I can 
attest that more can be done to ensure that our trading relationship 
must improve.
  Experts agree that the disparity in imports and exports has resulted 
in a U.S. goods trade deficit with China. In 2009, there was a trade 
deficit with China for $227 billion in which accounts for 45.3 percent 
of the overall U.S. goods trade deficit.
  In trade in services, the United States runs a surplus with China, 
with exports to China of $16 billion in 2008 (the latest year for which 
numbers are available) and imports from China valued at $10 billion.
  The United States' bilateral goods trade imbalance with China may be 
attributed to a variety of factors such as alleged unfair trade 
practices and their undervalued currency and their impact on the U.S. 
economy.
  Chinese officials, who cite different figures for the bilateral trade 
deficit provided by the United States, routinely seek to shift some of 
the blame for the trade deficit to the United States by criticizing 
U.S. controls on exports of advanced technology. They further argue 
that the sharp increase in exports to the United States reflects the 
shifting of production from other countries to China and many ``made-
in-China'' products contain components from other countries.
  Since 2006, the U.S. government has repeatedly raised concerns about 
alleged backsliding in China's implementation of commitments it made as 
part of its 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization. Most 
prominently the problem of ``excessive trade-distorting government 
intervention intended to promote or protect China's domestic industries 
and state-owned enterprises.'' China's inadequate protection of 
intellectual property rights has also been a major concern. Under the 
Obama Administration, there have been four cases filed against China 
with the World Trade Organization, including three in 2010.
  Those four cases relate to China's import substitution subsidies in 
the wind energy sector, its anti-dumping and countervailing duties on 
grain-oriented electrical steel from the United States, its 
restrictions on foreign suppliers of electronic payment services, and 
its restraints on exports of raw materials used in the steel, aluminum, 
and chemical sectors.
  The White House reports, however, that it made progress on some long-
standing trade issues with China at the December 2010 meeting of the 
U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade in Washington, D.C.
  Currently, there are more than 300 anti-dumping and countervailing 
duty orders to shield American-made goods, from honey to bedroom 
furniture, against global competition it deems unfair and damaging to 
U.S. companies. About half the orders target iron and steel products.
  China accounts for a third of all U.S. unfair trade cases, the most 
of any country, including about 100 anti-dumping and two dozen 
countervailing duty orders, according to the U.S. International Trade 
Commission.
  The U.S. Commerce Department would be allowed to apply duties to 
offset government subsidies in nations such as China and Vietnam under 
this bipartisan bill.
  H.R. 4105, overturns the decision of the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit and preserves the validity of the countervailing duty 
proceedings against imports from China and Vietnam, beginning in 2006. 
This would ensure that the Department of Commerce can continue to apply 
countervailing duty law (CDV) to non-market economies (NME), such

[[Page 2963]]

as China and Vietnam. Countervailing duties aim to offset the benefits 
of government subsidies to industries. Anti-dumping (AD) duties apply 
to goods sold overseas at or below the price in the home country.
  The legislation also addresses an adverse World Trade Organization 
(WTO) finding that there may be ``double remedies'' in situations where 
countervailing duties are applied to NME exports at the same time that 
antidumping duties calculated using the so-called ``surrogate value'' 
methodology are applied to the exports.
  As a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee it is not without 
hesitation that I join my colleagues in overturning a court ruling. I 
believe in the deliberative process from the judiciary and I was 
pleased that the court entrusted Congress to act.
  In 2007, the Department of Commerce began applying countervailing 
duty laws (CVD). This was after nearly 20 years of not applying CVD 
laws to import from NME countries. In 2007, Commerce began to impose 
CVDs to imports from China, a country which it has long been considered 
to be a NME for the purposes of Anti-dumping /CVD laws.
  The legality of applying both CVD/and AD laws to Chinese goods was 
first tested in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in 2009, 
when the CIT found that Commerce's approach unreasonable. GPX Int'l 
Tire Corp. v. United States, 645 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1242-1243 (Ct. Int'l 
Trade 2009).
  The CIT ruled that the prospect of a double remedy is likely when CVD 
duties are imposed at the same time as the NME AD duties. As the CIT 
explained, ``the NME AD statute was designed to remedy the inability to 
apply the CVD law to NME countries, so that subsidization of a foreign 
producer or exporter in a NME country was addressed through the NME AD 
methodology.''
  The CIT instructed Commerce ``.  .  . to forego the imposition of 
CVDs on the merchandise at issue or for Commerce to adopt additional 
policies and procedures to adapt its NME AD and CVD methodologies to 
account for the imposition of CVD remedies on merchandise from the 
PRC.'' GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States.
  Commerce was unable to find a reasonable methodology to prevent the 
likely double-counting outcome and, under protest, it complied with the 
CIT's order not to apply CVDs on imports of tires from China, but 
appealed the CIT decision.
  The Federal Circuit affirmed the holding of the Court of 
International Trade that such countervailing duties could not be 
collected but did so on different grounds. Without this legislation the 
Department of Commerce will be required to stop imposing countervailing 
duties on goods imported from nonmarket economies (NME).
  Rather, in affirming the CIT's judgment, the CAFC held more broadly 
that the legislative history of the U.S. CVD laws, Commerce's longtime 
practice up to 2007 of not applying CVD law to NMEs, and the CAFC's 
1986 opinion in Georgetown Steel Corp. v. United States, compel the 
interpretation that the CVD statute cannot be applied to NME countries. 
The CAFC reasoned that the earlier interpretation was considered and 
adopted by Congress, when Congress amended the Trade Act of 1930 in the 
1988 Trade Act, and again in 1994 when it reenacted most of CVD law 
while making changes to conform U.S. law to its international 
obligations as part of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. The Federal 
Circuit stated:

       We thus find that in amending and reenacting the trade laws 
     in 1988 and 1994, Congress adopted the position that 
     countervailing duty law does not apply to NME countries. 
     Although Commerce has wide discretion in administering 
     countervailing duty and antidumping law, it cannot exercise 
     this discretion contrary to congressional intent.

  It is a broader ruling from several points of view, which, in 
practice, may succeed in providing more clarity on the issues than if 
the CAFC had affirmed GPX by adopting the CIT's rationale. First, the 
CAFC did not distinguish between NME countries, as Commerce did in 2007 
when it found that CVD law can be applied to China. In essence the 
CAFC's opinion tells Commerce that it cannot have it both ways: where 
the agency makes a determination that a country is a NME, it does not 
have authority to assess CVDs on imports from that country. Second, GPX 
involved an alleged ``domestic subsidy,'' which generally benefits both 
domestic and exported goods, as opposed to an ``export subsidy'' which 
applies only to exports. The CIT's opinion in GPX may have not 
prevented Commerce from countervailing export subsidies in other cases. 
However, the CAFC's language does not distinguish between subsidies and 
holds that ``countervailing duty law does not apply to NME countries.'' 
Third, as noted supra, the CAFC did not adopt the CIT's reasoning of 
double-counting of remedies. The CIT's reasoning left open the 
possibility that Commerce may come up with a methodology that somehow 
eliminates double-counting, while imposing both ADs and CVDs on imports 
from a NME. The CAFC's decision in GPX closed that possibility by 
explicitly stating that one cannot apply CVD law to a NME country. In 
short, had the CAFC adopted the CIT's reasoning in GPX, it is possible 
that some of Commerce's authority to proceed with CVD investigations--
albeit on a much more restricted scale--would have survived. However, 
the CAFC's decision, once final, will compel Commerce to cease its 
current CVD practice with respect to countries designated as NMEs.
  The problems raised by this decision has been addressed by this 
legislation. As H.R. 4105 amends the Tariff Act of 1930 regarding the 
imposition of countervailing duties on imports into the United States 
from a country subsidizing, directly or indirectly, the manufacture, 
production, or export of merchandise which materially injures a U.S. 
industry or threatens to.
  Declares that merchandise on which countervailing duties must be 
imposed includes merchandise from a nonmarket country, unless the 
administering authority cannot identify and measure subsidies provided 
by the government of the nonmarket economy country (or a public entity 
within its territory) because the economy of that country is 
essentially composed of a single entity.
  Requires the administering authority to reduce the antidumping duty 
on a class or kind of merchandise from a nonmarket economy country in 
cases where: (1) such country (or a public entity within its territory) 
has provided the merchandise with a countervailable subsidy (other than 
an export subsidy), (2) the subsidy has reduced the average price of 
imports of that class or kind of merchandise during the relevant 
period, and (3) the extent to which the subsidy, in combination with 
the use of normal value, has increased the weighted average dumping 
margin for such merchandise can be reasonably estimated.
  Requires the administering authority, in such cases, to reduce the 
antidumping duty by the amount of the increase in the weighted average 
dumping margin estimated (but not by more than the portion of the 
countervailing duty rate attributable to the countervailable subsidy).


                                 FACTS

  Antidumping and countervailing duty laws are administered jointly by 
the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of 
Commerce.
  Currently, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) determines 
whether articles from China are being imported into the United States 
in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause or 
threaten to cause market disruption to the domestic producers of like 
or directly competitive products. If the Commission makes an 
affirmative determination, it proposes a remedy. The Commission sends 
its report to the President and the U.S. Trade Representative. The 
President makes the final remedy decision.
  When China entered the WTO in 2001, it agreed to allow the United 
States to continue to treat it as a non-market economy for 12 years 
(codified in U.S. law under Sections 421 of the 1974 Trade Act, as 
amended) for the purpose of U.S. safeguards. This provision enables the 
United States (and other WTO members) to impose restrictions (such as 
quotas and/or increased tariffs) on Chinese products when imports of 
those products have sharply increased and have caused, or threaten to 
cause, market disruption to U.S. domestic producers.
  Under the Bush Administration on six different occasions chose not to 
extend relief to various industries under the China-specific safeguard, 
even though in four cases the U.S. International Trade Commission 
(USITC) recommended relief. A number of U.S. industries and labor 
groups have called on the Obama Administration to utilize the China 
safeguard provision, especially in the face of the current U.S. 
recession and because of ``unfair'' Chinese trade practices.
  Countervailing duty (CVD) laws give a similar kind of relief to 
domestic industries that have been, or are threatened with, the adverse 
impact of imported goods that have been subsidized by a foreign 
government or public entity, and can therefore be sold at lower prices 
than similar goods produced in the United States. The relief provided 
is an additional import duty placed on the subsidized imports.
  Currently, there are more than 300 anti-dumping and countervailing 
duty orders to shield American-made goods, from honey to bedroom 
furniture, against global competition it deems unfair and damaging to 
U.S. companies. About half the orders target iron and steel products.

[[Page 2964]]

  China accounts for a third of all U.S. unfair trade cases, the most 
of any country, including about 100 anti-dumping and two dozen 
countervailing duty orders, according to the U.S. International Trade 
Commission.


                 STORY OF SOLAR CELL AND PANEL INDUSTRY

  China exports the vast majority of its solar products, and has a 
small domestic market. Chinese exports of crystalline silicon solar 
cells and panels to the United States rose more than 350 percent from 
2008 to 2010. Exports in July 2011 alone exceeded those from all of 
2010.
  The continued push of massive volumes of dumped Chinese cells and 
panels, along with growing margins of underselling at artificially and 
illegally low prices, ultimately caused market pricing in the United 
States to collapse in 2011--with an average worldwide price decline of 
40 percent--despite a growing market for these goods.
  Chinese subsidies caused the price collapse and has had a devastating 
impact on the U.S. solar cell and panel industry, resulting in 
shutdowns, layoffs, and bankruptcies throughout the country. Over the 
past 18 months, seven solar plants have shut down or downsized, 
eliminating thousands of U.S. solar manufacturing jobs in Arizona, 
California, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania.
  China does not have a production cost advantage--labor accounts for 
only 10 percent of solar panel production costs, and China actually 
imports U.S. raw materials and equipment. Further, China's extra 
shipping costs and comparatively lower labor productivity make its 
pricing impossible without illegal subsidization and dumping.


                           OVERVIEW H.R. 4105

  H.R. 4105 is a direct response to a December 19, 2011, decision by 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court 
found that certain countervailing duties levied by the Department of 
Commerce on tires imported from China should not have been assessed 
because countervailing duty law does not apply to the context of a non-
market economy (NME) such as China's. The United States Court of 
International Trade originally ruled that the prospect of a double 
remedy is likely when CVD duties are imposed in parallel with NMEAD 
duties.
  The Federal Circuit affirmed the holding of the Court of 
International Trade that such countervailing duties could not be 
collected, but did so on different grounds. If this ruling is allowed 
to stand then U.S. manufacturers would be adversely affected, thousands 
of american workers could lose their jobs, and the Commerce Department 
would not be able to affectively address unfair trade practices.


                        HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

  I would be remiss if I did not mention today the importance of not 
only establishing a fair and positive trade relationship with China, 
but also ensuring that our trade partner continues to address human 
rights issues.
  In the past several years, the People's Republic of China had enacted 
some laws aimed at reducing human rights abuses, including those 
related to the use of torture, the death penalty, and labor conditions. 
It also has promulgated legislation protecting property rights and 
promoting government transparency, and developed mechanisms for 
soliciting public input in the policy-making process.
  However, the enforcement of human rights protections remains weak and 
arbitrary. The People's Republic of China's leadership has instituted 
few real checks on its power and remains extremely sensitive to social 
instability, autonomous political activity, and potential challenges to 
its authority.
  In the past two years, the government has cracked down upon human 
rights lawyers, social organizations, and Internet use. Major ongoing 
problems include the following: excessive use of violence by security 
forces and their proxies; unlawful detention; torture; arbitrary use of 
state security laws against political dissidents; coercive family 
planning policies; state control of information; and harassment and 
persecution of people involved in unsanctioned religious activities, 
including worship in unregistered Protestant ``house churches'' and 
Catholic churches that express loyalty to the Pope. Many Tibetans, 
ethnic Uighur (Uygur) Muslims, and Falun Gong adherents have been 
singled out for especially harsh treatment. The Congressional-Executive 
Commission on China has documented 1,452 cases of political and 
religious prisoners known or believed to be under detention.
  As we move forward in addressing the needs of American workers and 
American business, we must continue by leveling the playing field 
against highly subsidized nonmarket economy good through the 
application of countervailing duty and antidumping as laws. And, as we 
build trade relationships with China, Vietnam, and other Global 
partners they must be balanced relationships. We must also remember to 
ask of our partners to strongly advocate for fair trade, fair labor 
practices, and stress the importance of human rights. The advancement 
of human rights is an important American value. Today, marks the 
opportunity for American workers to breathe a sigh of relief, that 
their jobs are not going to be jeopardized by goods manufactured 
outside of the United States that have an unfair competitive advantage.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 
4105. I am an original co-sponsor of this wonderfully common-sense 
bill, which will permit the Department of Commerce to apply 
countervailing duty orders to non-market economies like China. While 
the term, ``countervailing duty order,'' is not one on the tip of every 
American's tongue, it is an extraordinarily important trade enforcement 
tool. In times like these, we need to be able to use our trade laws to 
the fullest extent, so we can protect jobs at home and ensure our 
trading partners play by the rules.
  H.R. 4105 is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that will be signed into 
law by President Obama. It is another step in the right direction for 
American trade, and it is one that is fully consistent with our World 
Trade Organization obligations. A flawed decision by the Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit weakened our country's ability to 
protect itself from unfair trade practices, and H.R. 4105 will fix it. 
Most importantly, the bill will help workers and businesses in my home 
State of Michigan compete fairly on a level playing field.
  I commend my good friends, Messrs. Camp, Levin, Brady, and McDermott 
for introducing H.R. 4105, and I congratulate House leadership for 
bringing it to a vote so expeditiously. I urge my colleagues in the 
Senate to act swiftly, so we can send this measure to President Obama 
for his signature.
  Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4105.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask my 
colleagues to join me in support of domestic manufacturing, middle 
class jobs, and American in-sourcing by voting in favor of H.R. 4105.
  Last December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
ruled that the Commerce Department could not apply countervailing 
duties (CVDs) on imports from non-market economies. If this ruling were 
allowed to stand, it would terminate 23 existing CVD orders on certain 
imports from China and one from Vietnam.
  H.R. 4105 would reverse the court's ruling and make clear the intent 
of Congress to allow CVDs to be applied to non-market economies.
  Several of the endangered CVD orders provide relief to steel and pipe 
manufacturers, many of which, including VAM Drilling, V&M Star, and TMK 
IPSCO, are located in or near the 29th District of Texas.
  These manufacturers, and the dozens like them throughout the country, 
have witnessed unfair competition on a mass scale in recent years due 
to the large subsidies provided by the Chinese government towards their 
domestic industries.
  Without these countervailing duties, tens of thousands of well-
paying, middle class jobs would be threatened around the country, 
including several thousand in the 29th District alone.
  As our Nation's economy continues to recover from the Great 
Recession, and American industry rebounds from a decade of outsourcing 
and unfair competition, it is important that this Congress support 
domestic manufacturing and good paying jobs by voting in favor of H.R. 
4105.
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Madam Speaker, the December 2011 ruling by the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit bars the Department of 
Commerce from applying countervailing duties (CVDs) on goods produced 
by heavily subsidized foreign companies from non-market economy 
countries like China and Vietnam.
  This ruling is a significant blow to U.S. manufacturers and workers. 
If action is not taken to remedy the situation, the Department of 
Commerce could likely be forced to terminate 24 existing CVD orders 
against unfairly subsidized products from China and Vietnam, including 
a CVD order to help companies and families in southwest Ohio.
  In my community, paper manufacturers New Page, SMART Papers and 
Appleton Papers, petitioned the International Trade Commission to levy 
CVDs on subsidized imports of coated fresh-sheet paper from China and 
Indonesia. In 2008, NewPage was forced to close its sheeting facility 
for coated paper due to these unfair trade practices, resulting in a 
loss of 175 Ohio jobs. Just recently, Appleton Papers announced it 
would cut 330 jobs from the West Carrolton plant in my Dayton community 
as it struggles against unfair competition.
  I strongly backed the application of CVDs against this unfair trade 
practice and testified

[[Page 2965]]

before the ITC in support of the petition, which was unanimously 
approved in 2010. However, the court's recent ruling could negate the 
ITC's unanimous action and threaten more jobs in my community.
  Madam Speaker, we must move swiftly to ensure U.S. manufacturers and 
workers can compete on a level playing field in the global marketplace. 
That is why I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 4105, bipartisan 
legislation that confirms the Department of Commerce may continue to 
apply CVDs against unfairly subsidized imports from nonmarket economies 
like China.
  At the same time, with 95 percent of consumers overseas, it is 
essential that U.S. companies have the opportunity to export their 
products. U.S. exporters face many non-tariff barriers that violate 
existing trade agreements, hampering the ability of U.S. companies to 
access foreign markets and create jobs. My bill, H.R. 3112, the Trade 
Law Enforcement Act, provides an affordable way for U.S. companies to 
have their market access complaints investigated and resolved in a 
manner consistent with U.S. international obligations.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 4105 and urge my colleagues to 
vote yes on this important legislation. I also urge my colleagues to 
support and co-sponsor my bill, H.R. 3112, to help U.S. manufacturers 
reach new consumers abroad and spur job creation right here at home.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4105, a 
measure that will apply the countervailing duty provisions of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 to nonmarket economy countries.
   Steelworkers and manufacturers in Northwest Indiana need every tool 
available to them to combat duplicitous trade practices, and this 
legislation is critical to preserving their ability to combat such 
practices by countries such as China.
   I applaud the expeditiousness of the House Ways and Means Committee 
and the House leadership in bringing this important legislation to the 
floor, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 4105.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________