mr. speaker , whatever position members have on this legislation , they should vote against the previous question so we can consider another and , i believe , a better approach to our trade troubles with china . 
we have only had a short time to examine this bill , but from what we can tell , h.r. 3238 is a bill that is all bark and no bite . 
it calls for more reports and studies , but it does not give american businesses a real tool to fight china 's companies that receive unfair subsidies from the chinese government . 
the rangel proposal contains a countervailing duty mechanism that american businesses could actually use to fight these unfair trade practices , and , at the very least , the house deserves a debate on the rangel proposal , but it is not going to get one here today unless we defeat the previous question . 
we all read the papers . 
we all know that the purpose of this bill is not to have a serious debate over china policy . 
we know it is part of a desperate effort to win a few more votes for our trade agreement called dr-cafta that even supporters do not particularly like . 
allowing this house a chance to debate and consider the rangel alternative to this bill would turn a purely rhetorical exercise into a meaningful , badly needed debate about our nation 's trade relations with china . 
three closed rules were reported from the committee on rules last night . 
that is three major pieces of legislation that have absolutely no opportunity for amendment or alternative points of view . 
that is not how this house should operate . 
we have a chance to change that right now by voting against the previous question and allowing the rangel substitute to be part of the legislation . 
so vote `` no '' on the previous question so we can include this important amendment . 
i want to make it clear that a no vote will not stop us from considering the legislation , but it will enable us to consider the rangel substitute . 
finally , mr. speaker , i would urge my colleagues not to be fooled . 
this bill is a toothless response to a very serious problem . 
my friends on the other side of the aisle supporting this bill rightly have stated that china is stealing our jobs , but this bill and cafta later is going to give our jobs away . 
again , vote `` no '' on the previous question ; let us make this flawed bill significantly better . 
mr. speaker , i yield back the balance of my time . 
