Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should initiate negotiations to enter into a free trade agreement with the country of Georgia.

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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1674, I call up the bill (H.R. 2378) to amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify that fundamental exchange-rate misalignment by any foreign nation is actionable under United States countervailing and antidumping duty laws, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Colleagues, this is an important moment for this House and for the people of our Nation. There is a real problem--China's persistent manipulation of its currency. That requires real action, and under our leadership, real action is now being taken in this House.

China's practices represent, as the Secretary of the Treasury indicated in his testimony before us, ``a major distortion in the global economy.''

For our country, it is impacted on our trade deficit with China--in 2009, $226 billion--and it is impacted on our jobs. Their goods come to us, as a result of their manipulation, cheaper, and our goods to them, more expensive. There is a 15-35 or 40 percent imbalance, a tilted field of competition. The estimates mean 500,000 to 1.5 million jobs. This manipulation is one of the causes of the outsourcing of our jobs-- of manufacturing and other good jobs.

Talk hasn't worked. Less than 2 percent appreciation has occurred since just before the last G-20 meeting when the Chinese said that they would make their currency more flexible.

Additional steps are needed, and this bill is just such a step. So, after 2 days of hearings before our committee, I worked over the weekend with our majority staff to modify, to make sure this bill was fully compliant with our international WTO obligations. It is compliant.

China has an economic strategy. For our businesses and workers, it is vital that our Nation has an active economic strategy, and this is one important piece of that strategy.

I strongly urge support of this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

That statement really rewrites the history of this legislation. I suggest to everybody, go back and look at the opening statement of the ranking member. Also, we have urged support of the green 301 petition. Only three Republicans supported it. I regret the partisan inflection here. I won't engage in it. I hope we get bipartisan support.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a gentleman who is so actively engaged on these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), another active member of our committee.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), another very distinguished member of our committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), another member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another very, very distinguished member of our Ways and Means Committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), another distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the very distinguished chair of the Rules Committee.

I yield myself 10 seconds.

To the gentleman who just spoke, without a job, one can't buy goods at any price. This bill is about jobs.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a member of our Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my special pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who is an original cosponsor of this important legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, how much is there on both sides?

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), an active participant in discussions of trade issues.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege, a deep privilege, to yield

1 minute to our distinguished Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

It is now my special privilege to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Perriello).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on either side?

I yield now 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2378.

Is the gentleman ready to close?

So am I.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, international trade is here to stay. The question before us today is whether we shape its course or simply let it roll--whether there are rules of competition that allow us to compete or whether we look the other way.

A 25-40 percent tilt against us is unacceptable. This bill says we cannot and will not look the other way. We are going to act. I say the more multilateral effort the better, but the lack of it should not leave us without a remedy.

China's manipulation of its currency is a major unilateral act, and we need to act. The President of our country said to the Chinese Premier, ``Make your currency flexible or we have other means.'' This is just such a means.

This is a real problem. No more excuses. Goodwill isn't enough. We need a real answer. This is a real answer. Support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, this day has been long in coming. In 2003, I was one of the first Members of Congress to introduce legislation on this topic to stop this anti-free market practice of foreign governments of deliberately undermining the value of their own currency to make their exports less expensive and foreign imports more costly. We have had some modest progress over the years but the overall practice continues to the detriment of our manufacturers and farmers.

Currently, counties in northern Illinois have an official unemployment rate of between 8 and 16.4 percent. The unemployment rate in the cities of Rockford, Belvidere, and Freeport are 17.4 percent, 17.8 percent, and 13.3 percent respectively. But if you include those who have given up looking for work, the real unemployment rate for these counties and cities is probably somewhere between 18 and 28 percent. We can't wait any longer for more promises to solve this problem in the future.

I am pleased to support the ``new and improved version'' of the legislation introduced by my fellow co-chair of the House Manufacturing Caucus, Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, to combat exchange rate misalignment by China and other foreign governments. I am a proud original co-sponsor of this legislation. Regardless of any person's view on free trade, opposing exchange rate undervaluation is an area where both sides of the trade debate should come together. We must take a stand to stop China and other nations from making their imports cheaper in the U.S. and our exports more expensive in their country.

Let me relate the experience of one manufacturer from Rockford, Illinois, Jerry Busse of Rockford Toolcraft. He was quoted in the Rockford Register Star last August saying, ``We have done work for a big manufacturer in Chicago for 20 years. All of a sudden we lost a lot of their business because they decided to move the work to China.'' Jerry Busse asked the Chicago company what he had to do to get the work back. The prices they were getting from China were close to what Rockford Toolcraft had been getting. Jerry Busse thought to himself that he could do the work for that amount but the Chicago company refused. According to Jerry Busse, the management of the Chicago firm said anyone in America has to be 30 percent under the Chinese price. Mr. Speaker, 30 percent is approximately the undervaluation of the Chinese currency. Suffice it to say that Rockford Toolcraft couldn't meet this predatory price and lost a customer.

Despite any differences we may have over trade policy, we should all agree on the need to stop foreign governments from undervaluing their currencies to gain an economic advantage over us by making their goods artificially less expensive in the United States and making our exports more expensive overseas.

This bill is not targeted at one country. Currency undervaluation is not just a problem that plagues our trade relationship with China. About two weeks ago, Japanese monetary authorities sold a large amount of yen against the dollar to stem the Japanese currency's sharp appreciation against the U.S.--the first time since 2004. Other countries have joined in this anti-capitalistic, mercantilist behavior over the years and they should be equally condemned. It is in their long-term self interest to eventually move to a valuation of their currency that is based on the marketplace--not by a government official.

Fred Bergsten, Director of the highly respected Peterson Institute for International Economics, estimated that correction of all of the Asian currency undervaluations would cut the global U.S. trade deficit by about $100 billion and generate at least 700,000 jobs.

This legislation provides another weapon in our trade arsenal to empower our trade enforcement officials to confront unfair trade practices by China and others. The revised bill

gives discretion to the Department of Commerce to consider currency undervaluation as another form of a government subsidy that is eligible for higher countervailing duties.

This legislation is preferable to other bills that would impose blanket, across-the-board tariffs on just Chinese goods that would almost immediately be ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. This approach is WTO compliant and does not target one specific country over another for currency undervaluation. This bill should unite both spectrums of the trade debate and one that should send shockwaves to capitals of foreign governments that deliberately undervalue their currency for a trade advantage. The frustration level is high among our small manufacturers such as Jerry Busse and the time is ripe for Congress to act.

I'm here as a proponent of free but fair trade in support of this carefully crafted legislation and I urge my colleagues to do the same. If you want to stop Chinese imports coming in at predatory prices and give our manufacturers and farmers the chance to fairly compete, then support this bill. If you don't like government subsidies and interference in the marketplace; if you prefer capitalism to mercantilism; then you vote for this bill.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying it is truly disappointing that this is the only trade bill in the past 2 years that has been marked up by the Ways and Means Committee. I find it unacceptable that this is the sum total of our trade agenda. While this legislation addresses an important issue, it will not address many more pressing trade concerns with China, and it will not advance the goal of doubling exports in 5 years.

To achieve those goals, we must move expeditiously on the pending free trade agreements, work harder to open new markets to our exports, and address broader economic issues all over the world and with China.

We have held four separate hearings on China this year alone. At each, we heard from witnesses, including Treasury Secretary Geithner, who stressed that China's currency policy is only one element in our highly complicated trading relationship.

It's not that China's currency problem is not a problem or priority; it's just that there are far larger issues with regard to China and our trade imbalance. Issues like intellectual property rights, indigenous innovation, export restraints on rare earth minerals and other items, and a host of nontariff barriers are wreaking havoc on American employers, their workers, and our economy.

Despite my disappointment about the lack of a broader trade agenda and the lack of action on these other concerns with respect to China, it would be an enormous mistake to give up completely on addressing China's currency policy. We all agree that China's currency is fundamentally misaligned and that China must take prompt action to allow market forces to determine the value of its currency.

At the same time, it is important that any legislation be consistent with our international obligation and be effective. Any legislation that could potentially expose the United States to WTO-sanctioned retaliation would undoubtedly do more harm than good and would undermine our efforts to get China to comply with its own obligations.

At our hearings over the past few weeks, a number of witnesses and Republican Members raised serious concerns about the WTO consistency of the original version of H.R. 2378. As a result of these concerns, Chairman Levin completely rewrote the bill. The version before us today has little in common with the original, which, on its face, violated our WTO obligation. It addresses many of the criticisms raised by witnesses and by Republican Members, and I appreciate that the chairman has taken these concerns into account.

Unlike the original version, this bill does not mandate that the Commerce Department automatically adjust antidumping and countervailing duty calculations to account for China's currency policy. This version allows Commerce to consider many factors in determining whether or not China's currency policy satisfies the technical definition of an export subsidy, as it does today, and does not prejudge an outcome.

While I remain deeply concerned about using countervailing duty law to address China's currency policy, I believe the bill before us today does not, on its face, violate our WTO obligations.

I will vote for this bill because it sends a clear signal to China that Congress' patience is running out but does not give China an excuse to retaliate against U.S. companies and their workers. While we cannot pass legislation that likely violates our WTO commitments and would result in WTO-sanctioned retaliation, we cannot, at the same time, allow ourselves to be afraid of China's reaction to a WTO- consistent measure.

If China retaliates against this bill at this stage, I fully expect that USTR, and the administration as a whole, will act swiftly and aggressively to pursue every option available, including through action at the WTO. China's posturing and bad behavior cannot dictate our trade policy.

This legislation also sends an important signal to the administration: It is time to produce results. The administration must step up its bilateral and multilateral efforts and set a clear timeline for action. The administration should work to ensure that the issue of global imbalances, which naturally includes China's currency policy, is prominently on the agenda at the November G20 meetings in Seoul. We should also reengage in bilateral investment treaty negotiations.

As I noted at our markup, the fact that the administration has not moved aggressively on a multilateral basis has forced us to this point. The legislation we are considering today is better than the original but still won't resolve our trade imbalances with China.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

I thank our distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for the recognition and for his yielding time. I thank him for his leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. I thank Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania and Mr. Ryan of Ohio for their leadership in this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, for so many years we have watched the China-U.S. trade deficit grow and grow and grow. And today we are finally doing something about it by recognizing that China's manipulation of the currency represents a subsidy for Chinese exports coming to the United States and elsewhere.

Many of us have been working on this issue for decades. Twenty years ago, when the issue of China trade was before the floor of the House, the trade deficit was $5 billion a year. The U.S.-China trade deficit was $5 billion a year. We thought that that gave us tremendous leverage for them to stop violating our intellectual property, to give us market access, to stop nontariff barriers to our products going into China, and the rest. We had other issues with China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to Pakistan, with the actions taken in Tiananmen Square, and human rights in China and Tibet. But strictly on the subject of trade, the imbalance was $5 billion, which seems like an enormous amount of money.

We tried through legislation, unsuccessfully, on the floor under both Democratic and Republican Presidents--this is not a partisan thing--and because of the opposition of the administration, we were not able to pass any legislation that said, Halt. We understand the U.S.-China relationship is an important one in every way--culturally, politically, diplomatically, economically, and commercially--but we need to play by the rules.

When China came into the WTO, it was projected that they would play by the rules. But here we are today, and remember, I said the trade deficit was $5 billion a year 20 years ago when we were having this debate then. It is now $5 billion a week. A week. One way that we can address that is to address the issue of China's manipulation of the currency, which, as I mentioned, is a subsidy for their exports.

We believe that passing this legislation here today will give the President leverage in his conversations with the Chinese about how seriously and closely the American people are watching this situation. As part of our Make It In America agenda to stop the erosion of our manufacturing, industrial, and technological base, we have to stop that. It's an economic issue and it's a national security issue that we have the manufacturing capacity to protect the American people in every way.

So this is about America's workers. It's about making it in America so that our people can make it in America for their families, for their communities, for our country, for our economy. Especially now, when we're talking about all the new green technologies and the rest, which are part of the green, clean energy jobs for the future, and we see what is happening in the trade relationship with China on that score, it is absolutely essential, as we go farther into that future, that we do not have unfair subsidies of Chinese exports into the United States in the important competitive arena of innovation and new green technology.

So with this bipartisan legislation, and, again, I commend Representative Tim Murphy and Representative Tim Ryan, we make it clear that if China wants a strong trading relationship with the United States, it must play by the rules. We owe that to American workers. It is our hope that passing this legislation, again, will give the Obama administration and future administrations greater leverage in its bilateral and multilateral negotiations with the Chinese Government. We do this because 1 million American jobs could be created if the Chinese Government took its thumb off the scale and allowed its currency to respond to market forces.

The bipartisan Ryan-Murphy Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act marks a positive step in the direction of fairness for our workers, opportunities for our manufacturers, and growth for our economic prosperity. I urge our colleagues to vote ``aye.''