Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

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. 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. 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. 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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. 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. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, how much time is 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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I believe I have the right to close.

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. 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 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. ENGLISH

Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. First of all, the last speaker appears to have read the other party's bill, not ours. The Democrats' bill is actually weaker than our bill because it ignores a recommendation by the GAO to authorize the Commerce Department to use third-country information in countervailing duty cases against China consistent with China's WTO accession commitment. Without this provision, the countervailing duty provision would be difficult to use and could be subject to endless court challenges. They have simply misread this legislation and done it in an egregious way. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, the argument from the other side of the aisle that this issue is somehow tied to CAFTA, I think, is particularly striking and particularly odd because the underlying bill that we are considering today should be on the consent calendar; it should not be controversial with the bulk of people in this Congress who care about the American economy. Mr. Speaker, today the House has the opportunity to vote on a bill that will take the largest step toward strengthening our trade remedy laws in over 15 years. This bill is a comprehensive approach towards eliminating many of the inequities that exist in our trading relationships, particularly our bilateral U.S.-China trade relationship. It holds China and others accountable and creates tough mechanisms to ensure compliance with trade agreements and provides tools for us to gain compliance should our trading partners, particularly China, fail to do so. Voting for this bill today 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 costs us jobs. Voting for this bill today will send a strong signal to China and 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 to follow the international rules. It is clear that voting against this bill will send a very dangerous signal that this Congress is willing to turn a blind eye to Chinese complacency and we continue with the status quo of unfairness to our producers. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a strong, responsible, and comprehensive initiative that would close an existing loophole that bars the use of the countervailing duty law against nonmarket economies such as China. Right now a major tool in our arsenal is unavailable in dealing with a nonmarket economy or communist countries. It is ridiculous that when we find subsidies in France, Japan, Brazil, or Taiwan, we can use countervailing duties to strip the benefits of those subsidies, but we cannot do so if we find the same subsidies in China or Vietnam. This bill would establish a strong and external system to audit China's compliance with trade obligations on intellectual property rights, market access, and transparency; and it would place Congress strongly on the record as opposing attempts to use the WTO to water down domestic trade law protections. It would require the Treasury Department to define currency manipulation and clarify legal protections against China and other countries that manipulate their currency. It would increase funding for the United States trade representative to create more trade cops to improve enforcement of existing trade laws. By replacing current bonds that are used by new shippers in antidumping cases with cash deposits, we are dealing with one of the biggest loopholes. Finally, it would authorize funding for the International Trade Commission. Mr. Speaker, passage of this legislation is essential for the economic future of the next generation, for the future of good-paying jobs in places like northwestern Pennsylvania where we make things for a living. We need this legislation passed by a Congress willing to come together, to put aside its political differences, and certainly not vote down this legislation merely for political positioning on another trade agreement. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this key legislation. This is the top trade vote of this year, and everyone will be counted on it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means and an authentic advocate of fair trade.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), a distinguished advocate of fair trade and a member of the Subcommittee on Trade. (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a member of the executive committee of the Congressional Steel Caucus.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), one of the key players in developing this legislation.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett), another strong advocate of fair trade for American workers and American farmers.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a very distinguished advocate of fair trade.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, is my understanding correct that the gentleman has only himself as the remaining speaker with 4 minutes?

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a very distinguished member of the Steel Caucus, an advocate of the cause of fair trade. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I would like, in this closing minute, to cut through the fog of process arguments and weird Alice in Wonderland illusions to linkage to other trade agreements. This is important legislation, and it is important in itself, and it deals directly with key problems that we are having in our trade relations, particularly with China. This legislation closes loopholes, not creates loopholes. It allows us, for the first time, to apply countervailing duties to nonmarket economies. That is a good thing. I realize our friends on the other side of the aisle never engaged on the SOS bill, the underlying core of this bill, nor cosponsored it. I realize that they have been behind the curve on this. We have to move today and put this on the calendar today so that we can move quickly to send a message to China that we are going to close the loopholes, that we are going to audit their compliance with their trade obligations, that we are going to oppose the WTO watering down our domestic trade relations; and we are determined to put more money into trade so that we can enforce these agreements. If you care about China, if you care about trade, vote for this bill and avoid the petty partisan politics.