Andrea Joy Campbell: “I grant the gentleman's point, but I think we have an even better point. Even if the Obey language were a requirement…”

“I grant the gentleman's point, but I think we have an even better point. Even if the Obey language were a requirement upon an enterprise, rather than the Government entity itself, it is covered by the procurement code. So I believe we have them both ways. This does violate the procurement code. The policy question I have is, do we want to violate the procurement code? I certainly hope we do not wish to violate international trade law, but that is what Government procurement code is. The second and last point that I have to raise is the issue about violating the antidumping code. I would like the chairman's permission to recite what a commissioner of the U.S. International Trade Commission has told my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona, on June 19. He said, ``I believe that the amendment, if passed,'' referring to the amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin, ``is in probable violation of our GATT-WTO obligations. In particular, the amendment appears to be inconsistent with article 18.1 of the antidumping code, which prohibits GATT members from taking punitive measures in response to dumping, other than those set forth in the antidumping code.'' The reason is this: We have in our antidumping law a requirement that, first of all, the Department of Commerce find that there is a difference in price in the country where the good is sold and made and the country into which it is imported. Then following that, there must be an injury finding.…”