Today, what’s made in Oregon isn’t likely to stay in Oregon-- or even in America. Small businesses and their online commerce are growing – especially in Oregon -- and customs law needs to reflect the increasingly global marketplace.
That’s why Senator Wyden (D- Ore.) and Senator Thune (R- S.D.), introduced the Low Value Shipment Regulatory Modernization Act of 2013, which raises the threshold at which shipments coming into the U.S. are exempt from tariffs from $200 to $800.
Raising the threshold makes it easier for small businesses who depend on the global marketplace to operate more efficiently and avoid some of the high costs associated with shipping internationally. Businesses can more efficiently move goods across borders and receive returns from international customers faster and at lower cost. As the government’s administrative costs for shipments $800 or less are significantly reduced, taxpayers win too.
Bottom line: the Low Value Shipment Regulatory Modernization Act allows small businesses to focus on growing their business and for international e-commerce to be quick commerce.
Last Friday, Senator Wyden spoke on how to smartly advance America's energy policy at the Portland City Club for their Friday Forum.
Senator Wyden pointed to Oregon's historic leadership in energy and natural resources and the role Oregon can continue to play as a leader when it comes to these policies.
Recognizing the problems facing resource-dependent communities in both Oregon and other states, Senator Wyden pledged to work towards long-term permanent solutions and get these communities off the fiscal rollercoaster.
Turning to energy exports, Senator Wyden detailed his concerns that before exporting any energy source we must "look before we leap." Ensuring that unfettered natural gas exports don't harm U.S. consumers and manufacturers is a top priority.
In addition to finding the "sweet spot" between energy imports and exports, as Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Wyden is committed to looking for the smart balance between traditional and renewable sources. When striking this balance, the fact that climate change is real must be taken into consideration. As Senator Wyden remarked- "inaction on climate change is not an option."
On December 3, Senator Wyden attended the 10th Annual Oregon Leadership Summit. Over 800 community and business leaders were also in attendance.
Senator Wyden is credited with coming up with the idea for the Oregon Leadership Summit ten years ago-- an idea that grew out of the town hall meetings he holds in every Oregon county every year.
“We knew this was going to be well received, but it far exceeded what we actually thought was possible,” said Senator Wyden to the Portland Business Journal about the Summit's 10th anniversary.
At this year's Summit, Senator Wyden praised the Oregon Business Plan and its aim to create businesses and industry in Oregon that sustain local economies and communities. Senator Wyden also spoke of sustained economic growth on a national level.
“So here’s my take on what has to be done in Washington, D.C.” said Senator Wyden. “We must stop patching the broken mess that creates problems like the fiscal cliff and start working on fresh reforms that will service as a launching pad for sustained economic growth.”
Senator Wyden stressed that these fresh reforms must include: investing in transportation infrastructure, transparency in trade negotiations, cybersecurity policies that encourage innovation, and comprehensive tax reform. Importantly, since all this takes an educated workforce, students and workers should be able to apply a cost-benefit analysis to their education and training.
(Note: this letter was originally published in the Washington Post on October 28, 2012)
A federal investigation has proved that China is subsidizing its solar panels and dumping those panels in the U.S. market. The Oct. 19 editorial “A cloud on trade” said there’s a good reason to let China continue to do this. I disagree.
World trade is governed by well-defined rules. Allowing China to break those rules at the whim of certain lobbying groups would turn the rules-based trading system into one based on politics. The world tried that system before. It failed. Under that system, trade was neither free nor fair, to the detriment of the United States and global economy.
Failure to address China’s practices will undercut U.S. innovation. It will also make it more difficult for the United States to act against China’s cheating in other areas on everything from the manipulation of its currency to its export restraints on resources such as rare earth minerals.
China has been clear that it is seeking to be a dominant provider of the world’s solar panels, and it is accomplishing this by breaking the rules. To accept these actions because it is helpful to consumers (for now) is to accept a world in which China chooses the industries it wishes to dominate and the
United States is forced to take what’s left. How long after the last U.S. solar manufacturer has shut its doors will China wait to use its monopoly power to raise prices for U.S. consumers?
Ron Wyden, Washington
The writer, a Democrat from Oregon, is a member of the U.S. Senate.
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade Customs and Global Competitiveness, introduced legislation clarifying USTR’s obligation to share information on trade agreements with Members of Congress. Legislation is necessitated by administration’s refusal to share information with Congress broadly, and specifically with Wyden’s office.
Text of Statement of Introduction:
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD U.S. Senator Ron Wyden On Introduction of the “Congressional Oversight Over Trade Negotiations Act”
M. President, right now, the Obama Administration is in the process of negotiating what might prove to be the most far-reaching economic agreement since the World Trade Organization was established nearly twenty years ago.
The goal of this agreement – known as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) – is to economically bind together the economies of the Asia Pacific. It involves countries ranging from Australia, Singapore, Vietnam, Peru, Chile and the United States and holds the potential to include many more countries, like Japan, Korea, Canada, and Mexico. If successful, the agreement will set norms for the trade of goods and services and includes disciplines related to intellectual property, access to medicines, Internet governance, investment, government procurement, worker rights and environmental standards.
If agreed to, TPP will set the tone for our nation’s economic future for years to come, impacting the way Congress intervenes and acts on behalf of the American people it represents.
It may be the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) current job to negotiate trade agreements on behalf of the United States, but Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress – not the USTR or any other member of the Executive Branch – the responsibility of regulating foreign commerce. It was our Founding Fathers’ intention to ensure that the laws and policies that govern the American people take into account the interests of all the American people, not just a privileged few.
And yet, Mr. President, the majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations – like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America – are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement. As the Office of the USTR will tell you, the President gives it broad power to keep information about the trade policies it advances and negotiates, secret. Let me tell you, the USTR is making full use of this authority.
As the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, my office is responsible for conducting oversight over the USTR and trade negotiations. To do that, I asked that my staff obtain the proper security credentials to view the information that USTR keeps confidential and secret. This is material that fully describes what the USTR is seeking in the TPP talks on behalf of the American people and on behalf of Congress. More than two months after receiving the proper security credentials, my staff is still barred from viewing the details of the proposals that USTR is advancing.
M. President, we hear that the process by which TPP is being negotiated has been a model of transparency. I disagree with that statement. And not just because the Staff Director of the Senate subcommittee responsible for oversight of international trade continues to be denied access to substantive and detailed information that pertains to the TPP talks.
M. President, Congress passed legislation in 2002 to form the Congressional Oversight Group, or COG, to foster more USTR consultation with Congress. I was a senator in 2002. I voted for that law and I can tell you the intention of that law was to ensure that USTR consulted with more Members of Congress not less.
In trying to get to the bottom of why my staff is being denied information, it seems that some in the Executive Branch may be interpreting the law that established the COG to mean that only the few Members of Congress who belong to the COG can be given access to trade negotiation information, while every other Member of Congress, and their staff, must be denied such access. So, this is not just a question of whether or not cleared staff should have access to information about the TPP talks, this is a question of whether or not the administration believes that most Members of Congress can or should have a say in trade negotiations.
Again, having voted for that law, I strongly disagree with such an interpretation and find it offensive that some would suggest that a law meant to foster more consultation with Congress is intended to limit it. But given that the TPP negotiations are currently underway and I – and the vast majority of my colleagues and their staff – continue to be denied a full understanding of what the USTR is seeking in the agreement, we do not have time to waste on a protracted legal battle over this issue. Therefore, I am introducing legislation to clarify the intent of the COG statute.
The legislation, I propose, is straightforward. It gives all Members of Congress and staff with appropriate clearance access to the substance of trade negotiations. Finally, Members of Congress who are responsible for conducting oversight over the enforcement of trade agreements will be provided information by the Executive Branch indicating whether our trading partners are living up to their trade obligations. Put simply, this legislation would ensure that the representatives elected by the American people are afforded the same level of influence over our nation’s policies as the paid representatives of PHRMA, Halliburton and the Motion Picture Association.
My intent is to do everything I can to see that this legislation is advanced quickly and becomes law, so that elected Members of Congress can do what the Constitution requires and what their constituents expect.
Right now, the Obama administration and the International Trade Commission (ITC) are in the process of investigating complaints alleging that China is violating global trading rules to give their domestic solar-and wind-energy industries an advantage on the world market.
The contention is that the Chinese government -- recognizing the growing global demand for renewable energy products -- has been giving its solar and wind energy producers enough money to price Chinese solar panels and wind turbines less than the rest of the world's solar panels and wind turbines. Their goal is to get the world's customers to stop buying the rest of the world's products and start buying from the Chinese.
The Chinese Government has made no secret of its desire to become the world's leading producer of environmental goods and has even issued a series of economic plans laying out its strategy to "speed up the development and deployment of hydropower, wind power, solar energy and biomass energy," directing local authorities to "allocate the necessary funds to support renewable energy development."
By all accounts, the Chinese Government's strategy is working. Today, my office is issuing a report showing that in just the last five years, China rose from playing a minor role in the global market for environmental goods to become the dominant actor in the world's biggest and fastest growing markets. Among other things, the report lays to rest arguments that the U.S. solar industry isn't losing out to China, showing that in just 2011, the U.S. went from a $2 billion trade surplus in solar energy products to a $1.5 billion deficit.
Of course, some will undoubtedly say: "So what?" They'll argue that the Chinese Government can do what it wants, that we shouldn't start a trade war with China and that cheap solar panels are a good thing. And others will say this is just another example of why free trade isn't good for Americans.
Let me respond:
1. So what if China is helping its domestic industries charge less for solar panels and other environmental goods? Can't the U.S. do the same?
If China is helping its domestic industries charge an artificially low price for solar panels and other environmental goods, then China is violating international trade rules that it agreed to when it became a member of the World Trade Organization. The global rules based trading system -- established after World War II and the Great Depression -- was designed to prevent trade wars by creating clear, enforceable standards for all of the world's participants. Its rules ensure that competition is based, not on the amount of assistance a government provides its industries, but on each industry's ability to innovate quality products and produce them efficiently.
If China -- the world's second largest economy -- is violating trade rules to help its industries undercut the price of solar panels and other environmental goods, it changes the competition from a race to produce better products more efficiently to a competition to cheat better. Meanwhile, the global trading system breaks down and countries that play by the rules -- like the U.S -- suffer.
2. But wouldn't enforcing trade laws with China start a trade war?
Trade wars aren't started by countries appealing to respected, independent trade authorities. Rather, trade wars begin when one country decides to violate international trade rules to undercut another country's industries. In trade -- as in football or any other rules-based competition -- we hold the rule breaker accountable, not the coach who asks the referee for a review.
If the U.S. Department of Commerce finds that China isn't breaking the rules, then no action will be taken. But if China is breaking trade rules to give its industries an unfair advantage, it's important that trade rules be enforced and tariffs be applied to negate that unfair advantage. Again, doing otherwise would undermine the integrity of the rules-based trading system.
3. But won't fewer people install solar panels if we raise the cost of Chinese solar panels?
This is a short-sighted argument. Yes, while U.S. manufacturers of solar panels are closing plants and laying off workers, U.S. solar panel installers are doing well by using the low-cost Chinese solar panels. However, if China successfully puts the rest of the world's solar manufacturers out of business, the Chinese government will stop subsidizing the price of solar panels and prices will go up.
Moreover, if China successfully puts the rest of the world's solar industries out of business, the race to innovate better, more efficient and more affordable renewable energy technologies comes to a halt.
4. Isn't this just another example of why trade is bad for Americans?
No. This is an example of why unfair trade is bad for Americans. President Obama said it best during his state of the Union Address this year when he declared: "I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don't play by the rules."
More than 90 percent of the world's customers live outside the United States. Ensuring that U.S. companies have a level playing field to compete for those customers is probably the single best way to grow U.S. businesses and create more good-paying U.S. jobs. But free trade does not mean trade free from rules, and failing to enforce trade rules not only fails to ensure that level playing field, it leaves U.S. industries at the mercy of countries that break the rules.
President Obama was right to make enforcement of those trade rules a priority and his creation, today, of a Trade Enforcement Unit is a massive step in the right direction. But as my office's report shows, we need to act quickly because it doesn't take long to lose to China.(Note: This blog was originally posted by Senator Wyden on Huffington Post.)
(Note: This blog was originally posted by Senator Wyden on Huffington Post.)
Right now, the Obama administration and the International Trade Commission (ITC) are in the process of investigating complaints alleging that China is violating global trading rules to give their domestic solar-and wind-energy industries an advantage on the world market.
The contention is that the Chinese government -- recognizing the growing global demand for renewable energy products -- has been giving its solar and wind energy producers enough money to price Chinese solar panels and wind turbines less than the rest of the world's solar panels and wind turbines. Their goal is to get the world's customers to stop buying the rest of the world's products and start buying from the Chinese.
The Chinese Government has made no secret of its desire to become the world's leading producer of environmental goods and has even issued a series of economic plans laying out its strategy to "speed up the development and deployment of hydropower, wind power, solar energy and biomass energy," directing local authorities to "allocate the necessary funds to support renewable energy development."
By all accounts, the Chinese Government's strategy is working. Today, my office is issuing a report showing that in just the last five years, China rose from playing a minor role in the global market for environmental goods to become the dominant actor in the world's biggest and fastest growing markets. Among other things, the report lays to rest arguments that the U.S. solar industry isn't losing out to China, showing that in just 2011, the U.S. went from a $2 billion trade surplus in solar energy products to a $1.5 billion deficit.
Of course, some will undoubtedly say: "So what?" They'll argue that the Chinese Government can do what it wants, that we shouldn't start a trade war with China and that cheap solar panels are a good thing. And others will say this is just another example of why free trade isn't good for Americans.
Let me respond:
1. So what if China is helping its domestic industries charge less for solar panels and other environmental goods? Can't the U.S. do the same?
If China is helping its domestic industries charge an artificially low price for solar panels and other environmental goods, then China is violating international trade rules that it agreed to when it became a member of the World Trade Organization. The global rules based trading system -- established after World War II and the Great Depression -- was designed to prevent trade wars by creating clear, enforceable standards for all of the world's participants. Its rules ensure that competition is based, not on the amount of assistance a government provides its industries, but on each industry's ability to innovate quality products and produce them efficiently.
If China -- the world's second largest economy -- is violating trade rules to help its industries undercut the price of solar panels and other environmental goods, it changes the competition from a race to produce better products more efficiently to a competition to cheat better. Meanwhile, the global trading system breaks down and countries that play by the rules -- like the U.S -- suffer.
2. But wouldn't enforcing trade laws with China start a trade war?
Trade wars aren't started by countries appealing to respected, independent trade authorities. Rather, trade wars begin when one country decides to violate international trade rules to undercut another country's industries. In trade -- as in football or any other rules-based competition -- we hold the rule breaker accountable, not the coach who asks the referee for a review.
If the U.S. Department of Commerce finds that China isn't breaking the rules, then no action will be taken. But if China is breaking trade rules to give its industries an unfair advantage, it's important that trade rules be enforced and tariffs be applied to negate that unfair advantage. Again, doing otherwise would undermine the integrity of the rules-based trading system.
3. But won't fewer people install solar panels if we raise the cost of Chinese solar panels?
This is a short-sighted argument. Yes, while U.S. manufacturers of solar panels are closing plants and laying off workers, U.S. solar panel installers are doing well by using the low-cost Chinese solar panels. However, if China successfully puts the rest of the world's solar manufacturers out of business, the Chinese government will stop subsidizing the price of solar panels and prices will go up.
Moreover, if China successfully puts the rest of the world's solar industries out of business, the race to innovate better, more efficient and more affordable renewable energy technologies comes to a halt.
4. Isn't this just another example of why trade is bad for Americans?
No. This is an example of why unfair trade is bad for Americans. President Obama said it best during his state of the Union Address this year when he declared: "I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don't play by the rules."
More than 90 percent of the world's customers live outside the United States. Ensuring that U.S. companies have a level playing field to compete for those customers is probably the single best way to grow U.S. businesses and create more good-paying U.S. jobs. But free trade does not mean trade free from rules, and failing to enforce trade rules not only fails to ensure that level playing field, it leaves U.S. industries at the mercy of countries that break the rules.
President Obama was right to make enforcement of those trade rules a priority and his creation, today, of a Trade Enforcement Unit is a massive step in the right direction. But as my office's report shows, we need to act quickly because it doesn't take long to lose to China.
