Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

First, let me say I am profoundly disappointed by the way this issue has been handled over the past several weeks.

My staff has been working hard with some of the proponents of this legislation to fully understand the pros and cons of the legislation.

In fact, a meeting was held with the proponents just prior to a press release being issued saying that a hold was being placed on a nominee unless a vote were taken on the bill.

I thought we were making good progress. Needless to say, I was very surprised to learn of that development. No one asked me about it.

Let's be clear, I share concerns about China's economic policies and the impact of those policies on international trade and the U.S. economy.

At this point, however, I'm not convinced that the Bayh amendment is the best possible policy response we can provide to China's economic policies.

The amendment would substantively change United States trade law, and it is imperative that the repercussions be fully understood before we move ahead with the proposed change.

That's why the committee process should not be circumvented. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over issues of international trade, and its expertise should be brought to bear on any trade issue before its consideration by the full Senate.

When that process is not respected, we run the risk of adopting ill-thought out policy which in the end could undermine the very intent of legislation that is rushed in as an amendment, as Senator Bayh proposes we do in this case.

For starters, I understand that the bill may not even be necessary, as it's possible this change could be implemented administratively rather than legislatively.

We should explore with Administration officials the feasibility of implementing an administrative change, what that would entail and how that might best be accomplished.

The proposed legislation doesn't give the Commerce Department any flexibility to develop appropriate regulations and procedures to implement this provision.

Such a significant change from established practice should at least incorporate sufficient flexibility so that it can be implemented properly. Otherwise, proponents run the risk of undermining their very goal.

Why wouldn't proponents want to ensure that such a significant change in the operation of our trade laws is implemented properly?

Again, that's why the Finance Committee should have the opportunity to address the details.

There are other repercussions that should be examined. How does the proposed legislation relate to China's accession to the WTO for example?

Is it consistent with the terms of our bilateral agreement on China's WTO accession?

Those questions should be answered before we move ahead on this legislation.

Another very serious issue is the relationship between this legislation and existing U.S. trade law.

It's quite possible that by adopting this bill we could undermine the application of U.S. antidumping law, and I doubt any of my colleagues would advocate that result.

It is even possible that this amendment could force us to relinquish application of the nonmarket antidumping methodology in dumping cases.

That question needs to be addressed thoroughly before we move ahead on this legislation. Proponents may offer blanket assertions to the contrary, but that is not sufficient, in my view.

We should not run the risk of undermining our trade laws by pushing this amendment onto a bill today.

I hope Senator Bayh will reconsider his decision and withdraw the amendment.

If not, I hope my colleagues will join with me in opposing his amendment until we can fully appreciate its repercussions.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/