Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3283, United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3283, UNITED STATES TRADE RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT ACT -- (House of Representatives - July 27, 2005)
BREAK IN TEXT
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
BREAK IN TEXT
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
BREAK IN TEXT
Mr. McGOVERN. 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).
BREAK IN TEXT
Mr. McGOVERN. 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).
BREAK IN TEXT
Mr. McGOVERN. 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).
BREAK IN TEXT
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
BREAK IN TEXT
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
BREAK IN TEXT
http://thomas.loc.gov