David Obey: “Now, the authors of this amendment or the author of this amendment is saying that it violates trade laws. It most…”

“Now, the authors of this amendment or the author of this amendment is saying that it violates trade laws. It most certainly does not. There is no trade law, there is no trade pact which we have joined which requires us to accept dumped goods. The authors say, ``Well, why don't you follow the process normally used for consumable items? That's what you ought to do.'' The problem is it is very different if one is dealing with an automobile versus a supercomputer because if one simply waits and allows for a final determination down the line, the only penalty is to assess an additional tariff. Japan has already indicated they will gladly accept that additional tariff in order to bust the U.S. market and compete successfully because of their deep pockets. We are told that the Congress is violating the law if they do what the committee is suggesting. They do not. The Congress does not violate the law. If my colleagues take a look at Footnote 24 to the antidumping agreement to which America subscribes, there is a recognition that other actions can be taken. It is suggested that we are violating the procurement law. That is not correct, because the procurement law only applies directly to American agencies, and what we are discussing here is the action of a grantee of a U.S. agency. So there is in no way a violation of either U.S. law or violation of trade agreements to which we have become a party.”