* Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, trade agreements have the potential to increase export opportunities for U.S. businesses by removing market access barriers. However, U.S. companies' ability to take advantage of opportunities created by these, and existing, U.S. trade pacts depends on their government's willingness to enforce its trade agreements. Currently, U.S. companies face many non-tariff barriers (NTBs) that violate existing trade agreements. This bill offers an additional way for U.S. companies to get the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to act on market access barriers that are unlawful under any U.S. trade agreement.
* NTBs are devices other than tariffs that are used to restrict the flow of imports into an economy. Under current law, the USTR has the ability to retaliate against a wide variety of unfair trade practices, including market access problems caused by NTBs. Sections 301 through 310 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, (Section 301), give USTR a mandate to take retaliatory action when the rights of the United States under any trade agreement are being denied. USTR starts this process by initiating an investigation that includes formal negotiations with the country suspected of being in breach of an agreement. Should the issue not be resolved through negotiation, at the end of the investigation, USTR issues a determination as to whether the trade practice at issue is denying U.S. rights under an agreement. If the determination is affirmative, the USTR enters the formal dispute settlement process.
* While U.S. producers can petition the USTR to take action under Section 301, they seldom do. During 2010 USTR initiated only one Section 301 investigation in response to a petition. To put together a petition that has even a chance of passing USTR's scrutiny, companies have to hire an expensive Washington law firm to compile a copious amount of information and advocate for them before the USTR. Tens of thousands of dollars later, there is no guarantee that their petition will be accepted, or that the trade practices in question will be addressed in a timely fashion. This is not a realistic option for a small or medium-sized company, especially one that is losing business due to unfair trade practices.
* My bill will use a market access complaint process that the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration (ITA) already has in place a starting point for possible action under Section 301. ITA will have 180 days to resolve interested party complaints that a foreign country is engaging in an act, policy or practice that acts as a non-tariff barrier; if ITA is unable to resolve the issue, the bill mandates that the Secretary of Commerce issue an opinion as to whether the reported NTB meets the criteria for mandatory USTR action under Section 301. If Commerce issues an affirmative opinion, the bill mandates that USTR initiate a Section 301 investigation. Further, the bill clarifies that subsections of the law giving USTR discretion not to start an investigation do not apply and gives interested parties the opportunity to request a hearing.
* Only the U.S. government can ensure that U.S. trade agreements are enforced. U.S. companies should have every opportunity to have their complaints investigated and acted on. Even if only one small company makes a complaint about a specific NTB, it is highly probable that the NTB affects multiple companies in multiple sectors. Without strong enforcement of its agreements, the United States cannot get the full benefits from free trade. Given the opportunity, U.S. companies can compete with the best in the world and can grow and create good private sector jobs. This bill is one step towards ensuring that U.S. companies have the opportunity to achieve their full potential competing in the global marketplace.
* Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this important bill.