United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act

UNITED STATES TRADE RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT ACT -- (House of Representatives - July 27, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

[Begin Insert]

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.

[End Insert]

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov