Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the effort, Mr. Speaker, by Chairman Levin to address the concerns of Ranking Member Camp and other Republican Members that were…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the effort, Mr. Speaker, by Chairman Levin to address the concerns of Ranking Member Camp and other Republican Members that were raised at our various hearings. And while the revised version addresses the WTO consistency issue, my view is that, on balance, the promises that this bill makes to compel China to appreciate its currency to reduce the trade deficit and to create U.S. jobs won't be realized, and, therefore, I oppose this bill.
Rather than focus on China's currency policy alone, a priority must be creating American jobs by promoting U.S. exports, and this bill doesn't do enough to provide new market access for American businesses, farmers, and workers. If we are to meet the President's goal of doubling exports, we must focus our energy on tearing down real substantive barriers to U.S. access to China's consumers. We must require China to better U.S. intellectual property rights and end its directed lending, cease its innovative policy, and move other artificial barriers to U.S. exports. Such an effort would benefit thousands more American workers than the focus on China currency alone.
I am concerned that moving on this bill makes it more difficult for us to resolve these other issues, and I think we ought to be careful to avoid doing more harm than good in tearing down these barriers.
Breaking down barriers to U.S. exports is difficult work and requires concerted effort by Congress and the administration. To begin with, rather than merely paying lip service to new and pending trade agreements, we have to find a way to move these agreements forward.
Currently, there is no clear end date for concluding the Trans- Pacific partnership negotiations, no plan from the administration on how it intends to resolve issues related to the U.S.-Colombian, -Panama trade agreements, and just limited discussion on the U.S.-South Korea trade agreement.
The administration must also return to the negotiating table and complete bilateral investment treaty negotiations with China. Entering into a bit with China could help on many of these issues and is necessary to ensure that Americans have the same rights in China as our other trading partners.
Mr. Speaker, while this bill is improved from its original version, it is no substitute for a comprehensive China policy that the administration and the majority have failed to give us. I urge, and strongly urge, a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), who has played a key role in opening trade barriers for U.S. products.
I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is focused on jobs, spending, and getting this economy back on track.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I would make the point that the Chinese currency appreciated 20 percent during President Bush's administration. It had no impact on the trade deficit. It has only appreciated 5 percent under the current administration, with no impact on the trade deficit.
I reserve my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who is, again, focused on jobs and getting this economy back on track, as well as limiting the size of these dangerous debts and deficits.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I do think it is unfortunate to try to interject partisan politics into a serious issue. There is already concern that after 4 years this bill is now being rushed to the floor a few weeks ahead of the election. I think at this point on an issue so serious, we ought to be thoughtful, understanding there are Members on both sides of the aisle that have come to different conclusions about this bill.
With that, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
General Leave
I am, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is an issue, I think, where good people can disagree. There is unanimity in the desire for China to appreciate its currency. There are differences of opinion about what impact that truly would have on our complex relationship with China economically. And there have been a number of issues raised throughout the hearings on this bill, and I do appreciate, to Chairman Levin, taking into account the number of the objections on the most, we think, troubling provisions that Ranking Member Dave Camp from Michigan and others raised during those hearings. I think some of those issues have been addressed in a very positive way, but there are real concerns about how effective this will be, and if it will truly compel China to change its currency regime or that it will significantly change our trade deficit.
I would like to submit for the Record a letter sent by, I think, almost 30 of our major job creators in America, groups that represent many of our agriculture companies and workers, our technology sector, our manufacturing and financial services sector, those who produce and sell medical devices and services throughout the world, including groups like the National Retail Federation; the broader job creators like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and companies that compete and succeed successfully selling U.S. products in China.
This letter agrees with Chairman Levin and others that China needs a yuan exchange rate response to trade flows and that China should move rapidly toward that. But it says:
``We do not agree, however, that H.R. 2378 as reported can help achieve that goal. To the contrary, we believe that passage of this legislation is counterproductive not only to the goals related to China's exchange rate that we all share but also to our Nation's broader goals of addressing the many and growing challenges in the U.S.-China economic relationship, including inadequate protection of intellectual property, restrictions on market access, financial services liberalization, export of commodities such as rare earths, discriminatory indigenous innovation and other industrial policies. Above all, this legislation will do more harm than good to job creation and economic growth at a time when we need both dearly.''
The point of that, I think, is that there are a number of barriers to selling U.S. products fairly and successfully in that growing Chinese market. We all have the same goal. How we achieve it is where we honestly differ.
This group concludes this way:
``We share Congress' desire to have China act more quickly to adopt a market-determined exchange rate, but the proposed unilateral measure is not going to achieve that result. We urge you to oppose H.R. 2378 and, instead, work with and vigorously call on the administration to develop a robust bilateral and multilateral approach to
achieve tangible results, not only on China's exchange rate policies, but also on other Chinese policies that are harming American businesses, workers and farmers.''
I think that is the point, perhaps, of those of us who believe this bill will not achieve what we hope.
While I urge opposition of this bill, there are those who believe that, as we move forward, regardless of the outcome, we ought to, Republicans and Democrats, join hands and insist on fair access to Chinese markets, on a level playing field and on a growing trade relationship that is balanced to increase Chinese consumption, as well as to increase U.S. savings that will rebalance the trade relationship for decades to come. We share those goals and look forward to working with those in Congress who also share them.
September 28, 2010.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. Steny Hoyer,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Republican Leader, House of Representatives,
U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leaders Hoyer and Boehner: Like
Congress and the Administration, we agree that China needs a
yuan exchange rate that responds to trade flows and that
China should move rapidly towards a market-determined
exchange rate. In addition to continuing U.S. government
efforts, our organizations support strong, coordinated and
enhanced multilateral pressure, including at the early
October Finance Ministers' Meeting in Washington and
continuing at the November G20 Leaders' Meeting in Seoul, to
achieve concrete progress on China's currency and exchange
rate policies.
We do not agree, however, that H.R. 2378 as reported by the
Committee on Ways and Means can help achieve that goal. To
the contrary, we believe that passage of this legislation is
counterproductive not only to the goals related to China's
exchange rate that we all share, but also to our nation's
broader goals of addressing the many and growing challenges
in the U.S.-China economic relationship, including inadequate
protection of intellectual property, restrictions on market
access, financial services liberalization, export of
commodities such as rare earths, discriminatory indigenous
innovation and other industrial policies. Above all this
legislation will do more harm than good to job creation and
economic growth at a time when we need both dearly.
Unilateral legislation, which seeks to increase tariffs on
imports from China, is unlikely to incentivize China to move
expeditiously to modify its exchange policies. Rather, it
would likely have the opposite effect and could engender
retaliation against U.S. exports into the Chinese market,
currently the fastest-growing market for U.S. exports. Our
companies do not fear retaliation--if it were based on WTO-
consistent actions that would achieve the desired result,
with benefits outweighing the costs. But counterproductive
tariff legislation will not get us closer to the goal of a
market-driven exchange rate and will shift the focus away
from the core issue of China's currency and onto U.S.
unilateral action. Such an action would embolden PRC
retaliation and undermine U.S. government efforts to address
a growing number of discriminatory Chinese policies,
weakening our economy by harming American exports of
manufactured goods and farm products.
Despite efforts to make H.R. 2378 consistent with the rules
of the WTO, it is not clear that the legislation meets the
WTO's standards for the application of countervailing duties
(CVDs). The legislation would require the Commerce Department
to estimate what the ``true'' exchange rate is, a process
that will be highly subjective and potentially politicized.
Since application of CVDs to imports from China on the basis
of this legislation is of questionable WTO legality, China
would almost certainly challenge this action as violative of
U.S. WTO obligations, which would focus the world's attention
on the United States and WTO technicalities, and away from
China's exchange-rate policies.
We share Congress' desire to have China act more quickly to
adopt a market-determined exchange rate. But the proposed
unilateral measure is not going to achieve that result. We
urge you to oppose H.R. 2378 and instead work with and
vigorously call on the Administration to develop a robust
bilateral and multilateral approach to achieve tangible
results not only on China's exchange-rate policies, but also
on other Chinese policies that are harming American
businesses, workers and farmers.
Sincerely,
Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed);
American Chamber of Commerce in China; American Chamber
of Commerce in Shanghai; American Chamber of Commerce
in South China; American Apparel & Footwear Association
(AAFA); American Soybean Association; American Meat
Institute; Business Roundtable; Coalition of New
England Companies for Trade (CONECT); Coalition of
Service Industries; Consumer Electronics Association;
and Corn Refiners Association.
Distilled Spirits Council of the United States; Emergency
Committee for American Trade (ECAT); Fashion
Accessories Shippers Association (FASA); Financial
Services Forum; Financial Services Roundtable;
International Dairy Foods Association; Los Angeles
Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Association;
National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Customs
Brokers and Forwarders Association of America (NCBFAA);
National Fisheries Institute; National Foreign Trade
Council; and National Retail Federation.
Pacific Coast Council of Customs Brokers and Freight
Forwarders (PCC); Retail Industry Leaders Association;
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association;
Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association; Toy Industry
Association; Travel Goods Association (TGA); United
States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel
(USA-ITA); U.S. Chamber of Commerce; US-China Business
Council; U.S. Council for International Business; USA
Poultry & Egg Export Council; and Washington State
China Relations Council.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
