Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3283) to enhance resources to enforce United States trade rights.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I normally am in agreement with my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, when it comes to antidumping and countervailing duty laws. We have worked together to try to improve those laws. But I disagree with him in regards to this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the gentleman's assessment of this legislation. I think it is an inconsequential bill. I do not believe it will do very much one way or the other. It will certainly not hold China accountable. There is nothing in this bill that would hold China accountable for its violations of its international trade obligations.

So, Madam Speaker, let me try to get the Members to focus on what is in this bill and not what people who may be coming to this well say is in this bill. I would urge my colleagues to please read the legislation that is before us. It is not the original bill that was filed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a bill that was supported by the industry, that would have extended countervailing duty laws to China and nonmarket economies. Instead, what this bill does in section 2 is a ``sense of Congress.'' Now, a sense of Congress resolution is exactly that. It expresses our concerns, but takes no action.

The first section that takes any action at all in changing law is section 3, and section 3 does deal with the countervailing duty provisions. It extends countervailing duties to nonmarket economies. That is good. Countervailing duties are imposed when a country inappropriately subsidizes its products that go into international trade. And China and nonmarket economies should be held to our countervailing duty laws. Unfortunately, they are not today.

The problem is that the amended bill then puts 2 hurdles in being able to apply those countervailing duty provisions. It first does what is known as double-counting and prevents from using on the countervailing duties the import and export subsidies by the country involved. Now, that is a different standard than we have for market economies, where you only have to double-count export subsidies. The change here is dramatic, and that is why the industries that are affected by the countervailing duty statute that we would hope would help in regards to China oppose this provision.

Nu Car, which is one of the companies that asked us to apply the countervailing duty law to China, has written us in opposition to this section, because it will not help them remedy the situation of subsidized product coming from China into the United States. That is why the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws, the committee of business groups that have joined together in order to strengthen our antidumping and countervailing duty laws, oppose this section. It will not help companies that are hurt by subsidized, manufactured product coming into the United States. That is section 3. That is why I say, you try to help in one respect, but you take it away by putting obstacles in the way.

You also put a second test that is not currently required, a certification of compliance of international law. That is not required today for a market economy violation for us to file a countervailing duty claim. That is section 3.

Let us go to section 4. Section 4 deals with the new shipper review amendment. Well, here we have a problem with Chinese exporters who are not getting an adequate security when they come into our market. You provided a temporary fix for 3 years. We should do it permanently. It should be done permanently.

Going to section 5, section 5 talks about monitoring compliance with the People's Republic of China with international trade obligations. Read what is here. There is no action. There is review, but no action. We should not be doing this now, the review. The administration does this already. There is nothing new that is added to the requirements that we are going to be able to take action against China for violating intellectual property rights or access to market for services, or access to market for goods. We should be taking action under our safeguards in that regard. But no, there is no action at all taken in section 5. If I am wrong, please correct me on this point.

Then we move to section 6. Section 6 is probably the most egregious section in the bill: report on currency manipulation by foreign countries. Read it. It is only a couple lines. You are asking Treasury to define currency manipulation. We have already had Treasury report to us and fail to take action against China. China is manipulating its currency. We all know that. So why do we not take action against China?

No. This bill does, again, nothing in regards to China currency.

Then, in section 7, you talk about providing more money for the USTR. You are not providing more money for the USTR. The amount that you have here in authorized levels has already been provided in the appropriations bill. There is no new money here.

Then, in section 8, you talk about more money for the U.S. International Trade Commission. Again, it is equal to the amount that we have already provided through the appropriation process. There is no new money here in either section 7 or section 8.

I want to give you credit in section 9, talking about sense of Congress regarding the expansion of membership in the agreement on government procurement of the WTO. I support that section. I think we should be asking for broader participation in government procurement under the WTO. No action here again, strictly a sense of Congress.

So, Madam Speaker, I take this time to go through section by section because I challenge Members who come and speak on this bill to please speak about the facts of what is in this bill. There are only two sections that actually provide any change in law or action. One deals with countervailing duty, and I have already pointed out how there is negative along with the positive, and the other deals with a temporary fix of the exporter license issue, which is certainly not the major problem that we are having with China today.

As I said earlier, this bill is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity because the overwhelming majority of the Members of this body would like to vote on a bill that would provide real relief to the problems that we have in China living up to its international trade responsibilities. That legislation just happens to be H.R. 3306, which has been introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I regret that we do not have an opportunity to debate that bill and do what is right for the people of this country in enforcing our trade rules against the People's Republic of China.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

I think the gentleman pointed out that there are no sections other than the two I mentioned that are action sections in your bill. And I point out again that the double-counting provision will make the application of countervailing duties much more difficult, if not impossible, in a nonmarket economy; and that is not helpful to companies that have been hurt by subsidized products coming from China.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond to gentlewoman's comments.

Madam Speaker, there is nothing in this bill that deals with dumping and enforcement in China. There is nothing in this bill that takes action against China for currency manipulation. And there is nothing in this bill that takes action against China for intellectual property failures. On the countervailing duties, I have already commented on that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the former ranking Democrat on trade, the senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, in response to my friend from Florida's (Mr. Shaw) comments on the intellectual property problems that we are having with China, and they are substantial, China is violating intellectual property rights every day not only with videos and tapes, but also with industrial products. Listen to what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said. Listen to the action required by the President if China violates intellectual property to gather information.

We already have that, Madam Speaker. Action is filing a claim under the WTO. That is following the requirements of the WTO dispute settlement resolution process. There is no action whatsoever in this bill. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) got it right. This is a bill about saying things about China that people might feel good about. And if you are so inclined to feel good about it and want to vote for it, fine. But to say that this is taking action against China is just wrong. It does not take action against China.

The administration tomorrow could file a claim against China on intellectual property against China if it wanted to, and it should have. The administration yesterday should have filed claims against China for currency manipulation, and it has not, and then allow the WTO process to proceed. But for us to say that we are requiring the administration to make a finding and then collect information which they already have is being tough on China, come on now. Let us be straightforward on this bill.

It is a bill that says things about China that many Members might feel good about, but as far as taking action against China, this bill comes out short.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. In response on the currency issue, section 6 in this legislation deals with currency manipulation. It does not deal with China specifically. And it requires the Secretary of the Treasury to define currency manipulation and describe actions of foreign countries that will be considered to be currency manipulation.

The problem is Treasury has already done this and found that China was not manipulating its currency despite the fact that we know it undervalues its currency between 15 percent and 40 percent. So I appreciate the gentleman's concern about the competitive problems that we have with American manufacturers and producers trying to compete with an undervalued Chinese currency, but this bill comes up very short.

But I very much appreciate what the gentleman said because we will be come back in a little bit and offer him an opportunity to really do something about the manipulation of China's currency.

Madam Speaker, let me also point out while I am on the floor that legislation filed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), H.R. 3306, would take action in this area by requiring the administration to initiate a WTO action to address China's currency manipulation.

Now, that would bring action consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization because we would act under the World Trade Organization. That is what we should be doing.

Let me suggest that when you file an action under the WTO, it is not the end of issues, it is the beginning of a process. To ask the Secretary of the Treasury to do another study or come up with another definition, all we do is delay for another year any action against China. And to suggest that there are minor adjustments that they made is in any way dealing with the underlying problems of currency manipulation is just unreal. China announced today that they do not intend to do more. So we need to take action against China.

American jobs are at stake. We can compete if it is on a fair, level playing field. It is not. This bill does not deal with the China currency issue.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the textile issue that was recently mentioned on the other side.

When we negotiated our WTO accession agreement with China, we provided certain safeguards against the flooding of a market on textiles, knowing that the textile quota would be expiring. The concern many of us have had with China is that our government has not exercised the safeguards that are currently available to us under the agreement negotiated with China. We would like to see the administration be more aggressive in making sure that we do not get a flooded market either here or with trading partners that would have an adverse impact on the textile industry.

That is a major concern in our relationship with the People's Republic of China. The concern is that this legislation does absolutely nothing about that. So I appreciate the comments of my colleague on the other side of the aisle that there is no provision in this bill that would require action against China consistent with the provisions of the WTO accession agreement.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the discussion that we have had. One of the advantages of the consideration of this bill under a rule as restrictive and repressive as the rule was, is that we do have a chance to have a more open and full debate, and I appreciate that.

I appreciate also the fact that we have been able to go through many of the provisions, including the colloquy that was just recently put on the record. I found that colloquy helpful, because I must tell you I shared the same concerns as to whether we were turning over to dispute settlement panels a decision as to whether we would bring future cases using counterveiling duties. And if I understand my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), that would be a determination made solely by our Commerce Department consistent with U.S. interests, and I certainly agree with that interpretation.

I regret that we have not had the chance to consider amendments or consider a substitute, because I do think that there is general sentiment among the overwhelming majority of the Members of this body to take action against China for its failure to comply with international trading rules. China has violated currency manipulation, which has worked to the disadvantage of American manufacturers, farmers, and producers. China has not enforced intellectual property issues, which has worked to the disadvantage of our entertainment industry, and to our engineering and manufacturing industries.

China has flooded the markets, contrary to its trade agreements on textiles, which has worked to the disadvantage of the U.S. markets. China over and over again has denied access on services and many other areas that require action. So it is appropriate that we should be considering legislation to address the shortcomings of China's compliance with international trade rules.

Now, I think we could have come up with a much stronger bill. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), as I pointed out earlier, introduced H.R. 3306. And when you compare H.R. 3306 with the bill that is before us, you cannot help but feel that we should have done a much better job.

H.R. 3306 would have applied U.S. countervailing duty laws to China and other nonmarket economies without the additional burdens imposed by the underlying bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) quoted from some sources that support that provision. Let me just tell you that Nucor, which is, as you know, a steel company that has to live with subsidized steel from China coming into the U.S. market, opposes the provision. Nucor believes that the extra burden of trying to establish the amount of subsidy when you have to factor additionally for nonmarket economies domestic subsidies, it is a burden that will make the new countervailing duty application meaningless as it relates to China. That is a specific company telling us, who supported the original English bill, they oppose this provision because of the problems.

I could cite other examples, Madam Speaker, but on one hand the bill gives some relief for countervailing duties to nonmarket economies; but on the other, the bill imposes new restrictions that really make it very difficult if it provides any help at all.

The Rangel bill would require the administration to initiate WTO action to address China's currency manipulation. Instead, the underlying bill provides for another study generally by Treasury which will delay action taken against China by another period of time. H.R. 3306, the Rangel bill, would strengthen special China safeguard laws. The underlying bill does nothing on that at all.

So, Madam Speaker, we have a bill that contains the sense of Congress and provisions that I think most of the Members of this body would agree with. It contains some other provisions that are well intended, and I think the majority of the Members of this body would agree with. But I want to make it clear that for those who are claiming this bill is tough on China or tough on enforcing our trade rules with China, it does not do that.

It does say certain things about China that most Members of this body would agree with. The main purpose of this bill was to deal with countervailing duties to nonmarket economies, and it does that in a way that probably will provide no relief. It provides authorizations for additional funds for two agencies that deal with trade, but we have already taken care of that in the appropriation bill.

So I come back to the point of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). If you want to feel good and vote for this bill, go ahead and do it. But if you think you are taking action against China, if you believe that this bill will speak to the trade imbalance we currently have with China because of China's failure to adhere to their international responsibilities under the WTO or under the accession agreement with the United States, if you believe that, this bill does not do that. This bill is a missed opportunity because we were not able to have a free and open rule.

So I regret, Madam Speaker, that we are sort of in a dilemma with this bill as to what advice we should give Members. If you look at it as a resolution expressing the sense of Congress, there is nothing wrong with this bill. But if you look at it as a bill to provide action against China, there is really nothing in it to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am at this time

Mr. Speaker, the only opportunity we have is on a motion to recommit, and this motion to recommit will deal with the currency manipulation issue with China, and will take real action on China's currency manipulation.

Since 1994, China has pegged its currency to the U.S. dollar. This policy has caused China's currency to become undervalued by as much as 40 percent. What this means in practice is that Chinese manufacturers have a significant unfair advantage over U.S. manufacturers because China's currency manipulation makes Chinese exports to the United States cheaper and U.S. exports to China more expensive.

It is simply unacceptable that this administration has allowed China to continue this policy, and the Chinese Government appears to realize that this administration is not serious about stopping China's currency manipulation. Just last year when the vice governor of the People's Bank of China was asked when China would change its currency policy, he stated, ``China has 8,000 years of history. One year, three years, five years, or ten years, for Chinese, that is just a twinkling of an eye.''

Now I know that the administration and many of those on the opposite side of the aisle will point to the fact that China reevaluated its currency by about 2 percent last week. However, I would urge them to read the report in today's Washington Post and New York Times indicating that China's Central Bank issued a statement yesterday to clarify that last week's change was a one-time event, and that we should not expect more changes any time soon.

China's continuing refusal to end its currency manipulation demands action by this body. However, the bill before us today, H.R. 3283, calls on one more report and another delay. The Treasury Department has already issued reports on Chinese currency and has not taken any action.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard my colleagues talk about taking action against China during this debate. Here is an opportunity to do that. What this motion to recommit would do would be to bring the bill immediately back with an amendment that would have the administration file a WTO claim. That is consistent with the WTO. It starts the process. It tells China we are serious. It does not do anything in violation of the WTO. It starts the process, but it tells China that this body is serious about their dealing with their currency issue. That is what China understands. We cannot justify tying a currency to another currency. That is manipulation. That is working to the disadvantage of American manufacturers.

I would hope that we could join together. I have heard many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues tell me it is time to take action against China. This does it in a responsible way. It does not require any tariff; it does not do anything inconsistent with the WTO obligations. It exercises the constitutional responsibility that we have on trade. It is the legislative branch that is responsible for trade. We delegate to the executive branch. We should be willing to assume our responsibility.

If Members believe it is wrong for China to continue to manipulate its currency to the disadvantage of U.S. manufacturers and producers and employment here in this Nation, vote for the motion to recommit so we can finally start action against China on currency manipulation.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 387, I call up the bill (H.R. 3283) to enhance resources to enforce United States trade rights, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

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.)

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

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.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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.)

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.

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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

No, and I thank the gentleman for raising this issue, Madam Speaker, because it has been raised during this debate. It is well understood that World Trade Organization agreements and WTO dispute settlement decisions are not self-executing, that is, they are not binding on the United States in and of themselves. Congress must enact any changes to U.S. law resulting from WTO agreements or WTO decisions.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is correct.

No, and I thank the gentleman. This provision does not force the Commerce Department to do anything inconsistent with U.S. law. Instead, it is designed to provide flexibility to Commerce in interpreting the law.

That is correct.

No. Agencies are presumed to act in good faith when implementing a statute in accordance with international obligations. There is no additional requirement.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with mixed feelings because in a different setting, I might be very sympathetic to the argument the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is making. I have been involved myself in the fight to specifically challenge the Chinese on currency issues, but I am disappointed in the timing of this motion, particularly in view of China's recent and very modest actions to move forward on currency, and with the fact that in this context, this motion would function effectively as a poison pill that might very well kill the bill in the Senate.

On the substance, the motion from the other side of the aisle seeks to force the administration to bring a section 301 case against China based on its old currency peg to the dollar. It would also force the administration to use a very narrow and simplistic definition of currency manipulation in its foreign exchange reports.

My understanding is the USTR rightly rejected this petition twice in the past because it would hinder the efforts to change China's former currency regime. In fact, China's recent steps in moving in the direction of a float, however limited, have made it very clear that the timing on this provision is not good.

I would argue that my bill requires that the USTR instead report to Congress every 6 months on the degree to

which the new mechanism moves the currency closer to a market-based representation of its value and requires Treasury to reconsider how it currently defines currency manipulation.

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) might argue that in a sense all that this does is force the United States to bring a WTO case against China on grounds that China is manipulating its currency. However, the motion itself does not appear designed to force the United States to bring a WTO case. In fact, the motion's definition of currency manipulation clearly bears no relationship to the WTO rules.

Instead, this proposal from the other side of the aisle would force the United States to take unilateral action under section 301, which would potentially place us in violation of WTO rules. Section 301 mandates specific actions, including possibly trade retaliation if a foreign act or measure: one, violates or is inconsistent with a trade agreement such as the WTO agreements; or, two, is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.

These are separate grounds for taking mandatory action under section 301. The recommittal defines currency manipulation using a fabricated definition as ``unjustifiable.'' Thus, it appears that this initiative is really intended to force the United States to take action under the second prong of section 301, not the prong intended to be used where there are potential WTO violations.

The intent thus appears to be to force the U.S. to impose sanctions without a WTO finding of a breach, thus allowing China to shift the focus from China's currency policies to claims of U.S. breaches of the WTO. In the current context, in my view, that would not be helpful.

Accordingly, with great regret and acknowledging that my colleague from Maryland has been serious about moving forward in the area of currency reform and challenging the Chinese, I feel that his motion to recommit comes up short, and I would urge all of my colleagues to vote it down.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House decided that this time it would not accept the practice of approving bills that materialize out of nowhere. This time, the House decided it wanted a real debate on China's unfair trade practices and how best to remedy them.

So the House did not approve the two-thirds majority needed for passage under suspension of H.R. 3283, a bill that has never gone before committee, never had a hearing, never had the benefit of expert testimony, never had a markup, and has never been open to amendment. Instead, this House demanded that the bill be taken up under regular procedure. That is why we are here today. But even under regular order, the Republican majority has done all it can to stifle debate.

Last night the Republican majority on the Rules Committee reported out a closed rule for H.R. 3283, a closed rule that only allows for 1 hour of debate and no amendments; well, except for the one amendment offered by the back room author of this bill in the first place, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Last night the Committee on Rules heard testimony on three amendments that would seriously address some of the major challenges facing U.S. trade with China and other nonmarket economy nations. First, there was the amendment modeled on the bipartisan bill originally introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis). This amendment might actually provide needed remedies to tackling China's currency manipulation.

Then there was a amendment offered by the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a comprehensive amendment that addresses the real problems facing America in its trade with China, currency manipulation, export surges, barriers to U.S. export of goods and services, and the right of American private sector companies and workers to challenge China's agricultural and manufacturing subsidies.

Finally, there was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) which would have shut down the loopholes in the countervailing duties in the Thomas bill. Each of these concrete proposals presented to the Committee on Rules last night deserve debate, and would significantly enhance the underlying do-nothing legislation. But the Republican leadership shut them out and shut down debate.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has become a place where democracy comes to die. Heaven forbid that this House might take up amendments that actually address the real issue surrounding China's unfair trade practices and provide genuine remedies. Heaven forbid that this House might actually have a real debate on these matters, and heaven forbid that the Republican majority might actually allow votes on these serious unfair trade practices.

What is the majority afraid of, a straight up-or-down vote?

Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this Chamber and heard over and over Members on the other side of the aisle give 1-minute speeches demanding that the Senate have up-or-down votes on judicial nominations. Well, Mr. Speaker, if up-or-down votes are good for the Senate, why are they not good for the House of Representatives?

This House has had enough time this week to provide 40 minutes of debate each to the naming of half a dozen post offices, but we do not have enough time or interest to give the Ryan-Hunter-Davis amendment 10 or 15 minutes, or the courtesy to give the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means 10 or 15 minutes to offer a substitute amendment?

The Chinese Government must be laughing with glee at the Republican leadership's blatant abuse of power in their lock-step rejection of democratic debate. Instead, we are forced to settle for the Thomas bill, a bill that fails to offer solutions and fails to take action. Instead, it calls for more reports, more studies and more dialogue. In fact, when the Thomas bill does take action, it actually opens up more loopholes for China to exploit, more ways for China to hide its subsidies, and more opportunities for China to manipulate and falsify its trade and economic data.

Mr. Speaker, standing up for American businesses and workers against America's unfair trade practices should be one of our top trade priorities. The growth of China's economy and its trade with the rest of the world is one of the most significant developments of the 21st century, and the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of this House have no effective policy for dealing with it.

Last year the U.S. trade gap with China was $162 billion. This year it is expected to climb to $225 billion. And China continues to engage in unfair trade practices, with billions lost to Chinese piracy of U.S. intellectual property, Chinese subsidies for its manufacturers, and Chinese currency manipulation harming U.S. exports.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and let this House debate the thoughtful, meaningful amendments that have been offered. That is how democracy is supposed to work.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) by saying we are very concerned about the fact that China is cheating and not keeping its word with its trade obligations. Our problem with this bill is it is largely symbolic. It does not do what we want it to do.

In fact, if press reports are to be believed, this bill is being brought to the floor today, as ineffective as it is, so Members on the other side of the aisle can have some cover to vote for CAFTA later on today. This bill is largely symbolic. This bill is not tough. It is ineffective.

The gentleman complains that those on our side are criticizing the way this rule has been put together. We are criticizing because we have amendments that will actually make this bill tough and will strengthen this bill.

We are sending a great message to China about democracy when the Committee on Rules last night shut off all debate, when it says to Members who have legitimate amendments that have bipartisan cosponsorship on amendments, by the way, you cannot have an opportunity to offer your amendments on the floor.

We have spent an entire week debating naming of post offices, but we do not have the time to have a serious debate on this. It is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say to the gentleman from Indiana that I share his anguish over the process. I share his frustration over the fact that many of us, we want to have more of a policy debate here. I would suggest to the gentleman from Indiana if he really wants a policy debate, that he will join with us on this side and vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up some very reasonable, thoughtful amendments that will put some teeth into this bill.

I bet we will get bipartisan support for these amendments. I think one of the reasons why they are not being made in order is because the leadership on your side believes that, in fact, these amendments will actually carry the day.

I would say to the gentleman from Florida that just to make it clear that one of the reasons why so many of us voted against this bill yesterday, one is because it does not have any teeth in it. That does not mean it does not have reports; reports and dialogue, and that is it. We have had enough of that. We wanted something that had some teeth in it, that was actually going to send China the message we want to be sending.

But we also objected to the fact that this bill has never gone before a committee, never had a hearing, never had the benefit of expert testimony, never had a markup, has never been open to amendment. That is not the way this process is supposed to work. This is supposed to be a deliberative body. Flawed legislation like this can be made better. At least we should be given the chance to let the majority in this House work its will.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Florida just commended the gentleman from Pennsylvania for being the author of the bill. This is the bill that the gentleman from Pennsylvania introduced, and then, mysteriously, this is the bill that came out of nowhere out of the Committee on Ways and Means, no hearings, no markup, nothing. So we are talking about two different pieces of legislation. This bill that mysteriously has appeared before us weakens the countervailing duty section. It makes this bill that the gentleman from Pennsylvania introduced originally worse. So that is what we are concerned about here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the ranking member on the Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little perplexed here. The gentleman from Florida talks about Democrats offering all kinds of amendments and discussing all kinds of things if we had an open rule. Well, that is called debate. We do that here. At least we are supposed to do that here. We have not been doing it lately. And I should also add that we are not here calling for an open rule. We are asking for right now that they give us at least three amendments.

Three thoughtful amendments have been offered, that is it. There are not thousands of amendments, three; and we cannot even discuss those. We cannot even have a debate on those. We cannot have an up-or-down vote on it. My colleagues talk about how the Senate should vote up or down on judicial nominees. Why can we not vote up or down on these thoughtful amendments? We are being denied that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Rangel substitute. The substitute was offered in the Committee on Rules last night, but was blocked on a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, whatever position Members have on this legislation, they should vote against the previous question so we can consider another and, I believe, a better approach to our trade troubles with China. We have only had a short time to examine this bill, but from what we can tell, H.R. 3238 is a bill that is all bark and no bite. It calls for more reports and studies, but it does not give American businesses a real tool to fight China's companies that receive unfair subsidies from the Chinese Government.

The Rangel proposal contains a countervailing duty mechanism that American businesses could actually use to fight these unfair trade practices, and, at the very least, the House deserves a debate on the Rangel proposal, but it is not going to get one here today unless we defeat the previous question.

We all read the papers. We all know that the purpose of this bill is not to have a serious debate over China policy. We know it is part of a desperate effort to win a few more votes for our trade agreement called DR-CAFTA that even supporters do not particularly like. Allowing this House a chance to debate and consider the Rangel alternative to this bill would turn a purely rhetorical exercise into a meaningful, badly needed debate about our Nation's trade relations with China.

Three closed rules were reported from the Committee on Rules last night. That is three major pieces of legislation that have absolutely no opportunity for amendment or alternative points of view. That is not how this House should operate. We have a chance to change that right now by voting against the previous question and allowing the Rangel substitute to be part of the legislation.

So vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can include this important amendment. I want to make it clear that a no vote will not stop us from considering the legislation, but it will enable us to consider the Rangel substitute.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues not to be fooled. This bill is a toothless response to a very serious problem. My friends on the other side of the aisle supporting this bill rightly have stated that China is stealing our jobs, but this bill and CAFTA later is going to give our jobs away.

Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question; let us make this flawed bill significantly better.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 387 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 387 is a closed rule that provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 387 also provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act. The legislation passed the House of Representatives yesterday by a majority vote of 240 to 186, but did not garner the necessary two-thirds vote to pass under suspension of the rules.

Over the past 25 years, U.S.-China trade has risen from $5 billion to $231 billion, and China is now our third largest trading partner. In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization by notifying the WTO they had formally ratified the WTO agreements. However, a report released in December of 2004 by the U.S. Trade Representative stated that while China has worked hard to comply with its WTO commitments, they have not always been satisfactory.

Major areas of concern identified in the report included intellectual property rights, agricultural services, industrial policies, trading rights and distribution, and transparency of trade laws. This legislation addresses these concerns by creating concrete mechanisms to ensure that China abides by its previous commitments and that we renew our efforts to level the playing field for American manufacturers competing against subsidized Chinese goods.

Specifically, the bill would establish a monitoring system to track China's compliance with its trade obligations on intellectual property rights, market access for U.S. goods, services, and agriculture, and accounting of Chinese subsidies so that we open it up and have that transparency that has been lacking to date. The system would require that the President issue semiannual reports to Congress on China's progress in meeting these commitments.

Mr. Speaker, our domestic goods manufacturers are currently at a disadvantage because they are forced to compete with imported goods subsidized by foreign governments or public entities that can be sold at lower prices. H.R. 3283 would apply U.S. countervailing duty law to exports from nonmarket economies, such as China, to give our manufacturers the tools they need here in America to compete with nonmarket economies in those countries.

The bill also tightens the rules on antidumping duties by requiring cash deposits, and suspending for 3 years the availability of bonds for new shippers in antidumping cases in order to prevent those shippers from defaulting on their obligations.

H.R. 3283 increases funding for the U.S. Trade Representative to improve the monitoring and enforcement of U.S. trade agreements, something that we hear about an awful lot on this floor, the lack of enforcement of prior trade agreements. This directs the trade representative to make that a priority.

The bill also authorizes funding for the U.S. International Trade Commission and requires the commission to conduct a comprehensive study on the sensitivity of U.S. trade and jobs to current policies.

Mr. Speaker, in today's global marketplace, it is vital that trade obligations be enforced and that our manufacturers and producers be allowed to fairly compete in our markets here at home and those abroad. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

One of the items that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) mentioned that I agree wholeheartedly with is the rise of China is one of the most significant developments of the 21st century, and that is why it is so critically important that we make sure that the trade agreements that exist

between our country and theirs are enforced and are monitored. That is what this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a man from a heavy industry and manufacturing State who understands well the challenges imposed by the lack of enforcement of these agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me just take one moment to correct something that was said by my friend from Massachusetts about this week being filled with renaming of post offices. We have also managed to find time this week to pass the first comprehensive postal reform in years. There is the strong likelihood of at least a couple of appropriations conference reports; the Central American Free Trade Agreement; a highway conference report; an energy conference report; and a bill to get strict with China about enforcing our trade agreements.

The gentlewoman from New York is correct. This bill was up for a vote yesterday on the suspension calendar. Under House rules it requires a two-thirds vote to be passed. It garnered 240 votes, shy of two-thirds, but a clear majority, with 19 Democrats also believing that it was important to enforce trade agreements with China. It was our mistake, apparently, to believe that there would be even broader bipartisan support, to believe that there would be more than 19 Democrats who would want to enforce our trade agreements with China. So it is back today where it requires a majority vote to pass. So for the second day, we will have an opportunity to devote the time and resources to debate the need for our country to enforce trade agreements with China; to keep our commitments that have been negotiated and passed in the Congress; to make sure that the resources are in the Department of Commerce and the resources are in the ITC, the International Trade Commission, and the resources are in the Trade Representative's Office to make sure that we are monitoring the compliance of the Chinese Government with preexisting laws, with preexisting trade agreements so that our manufacturers, our employers, our jobs in America do not suffer. That is why we are back here today.

I am happy to yield, Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), another leader on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the figs and the gigs, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman on the other side of the aisle, for whom I have a great deal of respect, from New Jersey represents a major industrial State, lots of manufacturers. I would just say that this is clearly a bill that is more than a fig leaf. Application of U.S. countervailing duty law to exports from nonmarket economies is more than an empty gesture: $6 million per year in additional money to USTR beyond the President's request, up to $45 million and earmarked for the General Counsel, Office of Monitoring and Compliance; the suspension for 3 years of bonding authority; increased teeth, increased enforcement, increased compliance to make the Chinese follow the law and agreements that we have already signed and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the sponsor of this legislation, and someone who has worked for years very diligently on all the issues relating to China.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As the gentleman is aware, House rules allow for the motion to recommit and sets aside time for debate on the Democratic alternative to the legislation that we are considering here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a huge week for the Congress, a big week for the House of Representatives. We are passing out major postal reform for the first time

in years, a highway bill that has been in the making for over 2 Congresses now, an energy conference report that has also been in the making for over 2 Congresses now; the opportunity to have at least one and perhaps as many as three appropriations conference reports behind us as we enter the August district work period; and a Central American Free Trade Agreement, as well as a bill that gets tough with China, that finally holds our administration's feet and the feet of, either party's feet to the fire, and requires that they monitor and enforce the existing trade agreements that have been enacted by this Congress.

This bill has been called a smoke screen, it has been called a fig leaf, it has been called a number of demeaning terms. But at the end of the day, this is a real worthwhile enforcement tool that gives Members the opportunity to show the folks back home where they are on fair level trade with China.

The application of U.S. countervailing duty law on nonmarket economies is not an empty gesture.

A system of comprehensive monitoring of Chinese compliance with their trade obligations on intellectual property rights; market access for our American goods, services, and agriculture; an accounting of the Chinese subsidies; increased transparency so that we know what the government ownership is, we know what they are subsidizing, we know how much. Those are more than fig leaves, Mr. Speaker.

It requires reporting by Treasury to define the currency manipulation and to analyze the effect of what the Chinese did with their new exchange rate mechanism this week. That is not a smoke screen.

A $6 million a year increase above the President's request, up to almost $45 million a year for the general counsel and an office of monitoring and compliance. That is not an empty promise. That is a real meaningful resource to improve our ability to track the Chinese subsidy and the potential manipulation of the global marketplace that is out of compliance with our trade agreements.

The suspension for 3 years of the availability of bonds for new shippers in antidumping cases. Meaningful, meaningful reform. And funding for the ITC and an ITC report on the sensitivity of U.S. trade and jobs to the currency policy, something that on a bipartisan basis we have heard a great deal of angst about from Members of Congress. That is a reflection of what is going on in the countryside that there are genuine fears out there about currency manipulation. This bill gives us an opportunity to get our arms around how extensive that is and what effect the reforms and the step forward the Chinese Government made this week will have on our economy and our employment base.

This is an outstanding bill, Mr. Speaker. We have debated it now, this is the second day, first on the suspension calendar, admittedly with the belief that it would garner two-thirds support from this Chamber in the belief that everyone would share in the need to crack down on Chinese abuse of trade agreements, that everyone would agree that we need to put as many tools in the tool kit as possible to enforce and monitor their compliance, to bring about that transparency so that the world community can see what is going on, can see where there are distortions, can see where there is manipulation; and now it is back today for a straight up-or-down vote.

Yesterday, it got 240 votes. Today, I hope it gets even more. Yesterday there were 19 Democrats who supported it. There were five Republicans who opposed it. It is a bipartisan effort, bipartisan angst, bipartisan support. I urge the Members to pass the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few questions on process and some on policy. There is a big difference between talk and actually getting something done. This is not an ideal bill. I would have liked to have had a lot more in this bill. I wish we could have had more. I hope we can get some additional provisions in as it moves through the Senate. But the fact is, with all due respect, the most powerful lobby, or at least one of the most powerful lobbies, in this Congress is the China lobby, with quotes around that, those people who believe that trade with China and expanding trade with China is absolutely essential. They rolled us on vote after vote, and we cannot get their attention.

Some people have alleged that the only reason this bill is coming up is because of CAFTA. Well, big shock. It is hard to get different bills up unless you can use your leverage at different times when the majority of Congress, of the leadership, President Clinton when he was President, President Bush when he was President, the leadership of both political parties, has not been willing to aggressively confront China. They view it as a paper dragon. This bill is not perfect.

If I can move into policy for a few minutes, because it is very difficult to figure out how to deal with a country that is cheating in their currency manipulation. If they do not float the manipulation, is it 20, 40, 80 percent? We do not know. It is not floating. So how do you peg it? If you do not have any data like this bill is asking us to collect, when I went in and worked with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and others to try to put this bill together in the beginning, the main problem is that most of the proposals on the table are not workable. They are not workable under WTO because we do not have the functional data with which to match it up to try to prove that there is currency manipulation. We know there is currency manipulation because they are propping it up, but that is very difficult to prove in a world court.

Furthermore, as I worked with Ambassador Zoellick and with now Ambassador Portman and Josette Shiner and others who are working and lobbying China is that as you confront them on these issues, it was questionable whether they had the power to invoke countervailing duties.

This bill incorporates the English bill that I was an original cosponsor of and helped in drafting with the modifications of the Ways and Means Committee, with the numbers collection, so that we can have the first steps to be able to not just be a paper dragon.

Now, for all the rhetoric that comes through, and we come down here on the floor and we pound on China and lose another vote, and pound on China and lose another vote, the fact is they have reevaluated their currency this past week. Sure, 2.1 percent. If they are cheating by 80 percent, 2.1 percent is not much. But it is a step. All the rhetoric of Congress got nothing, but when we leveraged on CAFTA, which, quite frankly, is a little tiny peanut compared to a great big elephant when we are talking about China, very important in Central America, very important to those democracies, important to a few people in our country and certain trading agreements, but just a little tiny trade thing, and China is a huge trade thing, but they will not talk to me or others about China, either party, unless you leverage your vote when it becomes a critical time.

China, as I talked to the DCM a few weeks ago, says, we are not going to reevaluate. The pressure was so great out of Congress on the markets and manipulation that they made a small concession. They need to make more.

The plain truth is that for all my criticism of China, they have been helping to prop up our currency. As Arab countries back out of our currency and move to the euro because of our support for Israel and other elements in the Middle East, China has helped prop it up. If they suddenly float it, it is uncertain what would happen to our economy from interest rates and inflation, but they need to reevaluate. American industry cannot compete with environmental standards, clean air, clean water, parental leave, the minimum wage, ADA and all this type of stuff, then add to that a currency manipulation of 20 to 80 percent. We cannot compete. It is not a matter of putting tariffs up and us asking for trade advantages. We cannot compete when other people cheat.

Now, we appreciate the Chinese Government moving 2 percent. They need to move faster. This bill gives us a tool.

It was shocking to me last night when this bill went down. It should have been a unanimous vote. Yes, there was not normal participation. Normal participation going through the Ways and Means Committee means it would have been buried so deep, we would not have even seen the letters with the H.R. on it. It would not have ever come out to the House floor. It took leverage to come out. It is not a perfect bill, but we had a bill. Quite frankly, when I first saw that bill go down last night, I thought the China lobby won again, the China lobby on our side that wanted to bury it and the China lobby on the other side that wanted to bury it. I am thankful to our leadership that they agreed to come back today with a rule so we could pass it with a clear bipartisan majority. I appreciate them

moving forth. I believe this incrementally, and that is politics. It is not some dramatic speech. It is not denouncing China. It is actually making incremental policy changes. We just got the double. With this bill and the currency reevaluation, we have made the first progress with China that we have had in years. I think we should be commended, and I think we should try to get a unanimous vote after the politics are done.