From Arlen Specter:
I have a two-part question, and just a brief statement of the issue. We have lost 2.3 million jobs as a result of the trade imbalance with China between 2001 and 2007. The remedies to save those jobs are very ineffective -- long delays, proceedings before the International Trade Commission, subject to being overruled by the President. We have China violating international law with subsidies and dumping -- really, a form of international banditry. They take our money and then they lend it back to us and own now a big part of the United States.
The first part of my question is, would you support more effective remedies to allow injured parties -- unions which lose jobs, companies which lose profits -- by endorsing a judicial remedy, if not in U.S. courts perhaps in an international court, and eliminate the aspect of having the ITC decisions overruled by the President -- done four times in 2003 to 2005, at a cost of a tremendous number of jobs on the basis of the national interest. And if we have an issue on the national interest, let the nation pay for it, as opposed to the steel industry or the United Steel Workers.
...
A "judicial remedy," perhaps in an "international court," to prevent the U.S. President from overruling the U.S. International Trade Commission? I'm not sure I follow that one at all. I'd love to hear more about this if anyone knows what he's talking about.
The rest of the question (and Obama's answer) was mostly about whether China was violating its trade commitments and what to do about it. Here's the part of Obama's response related to the tires safeguards:
"There was a case involving foreign tires that were being sent in here, and I said this was an example of where we've got to put our foot down and show that we're serious about enforcement. And it caused the usual fuss at the international level, but it was the right thing to do."
That fuss is DS399 at the WTO. The panel has been established but not yet composed.
