[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 127 (Monday, November 13, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H8595-H8602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         EXTENDING PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TO VIETNAM

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 5602) to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory 
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of 
Vietnam, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5602

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) In July 1995, President Bill Clinton announced the 
     formal normalization of diplomatic relations between the 
     United States and Vietnam.
       (2) Vietnam has taken cooperative steps with the United 
     States under the United States Joint POW/MIA Accounting 
     Command (formerly the Joint Task Force-Full Accounting) 
     established in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush to provide 
     the fullest possible accounting of MIA and POW cases.
       (3) In 2000, the United States and Vietnam concluded a 
     bilateral trade agreement that included commitments on goods, 
     services, intellectual property rights, and investment. The 
     agreement was approved by joint resolution enacted pursuant 
     to section 405(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2435(c)), and entered into force in December 2001.
       (4) Since 2001, normal trade relations treatment has 
     consistently been extended to Vietnam pursuant to title IV of 
     the Trade Act of 1974.
       (5) Vietnam has undertaken significant market-based 
     economic reforms, including the reduction of government 
     subsidies, tariffs and nontariff barriers, and extensive 
     legal reform. These measures have dramatically improved 
     Vietnam's business and investment climate.
       (6) Vietnam is in the process of acceding to the World 
     Trade Organization. On May 31, 2006, the United States and 
     Vietnam signed a comprehensive bilateral agreement providing 
     greater market access for goods and services and other trade 
     liberalizing commitments as part of the World Trade 
     Organization accession process.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE TRADE 
                   ACT OF 1974 TO VIETNAM.

       (a) Presidential Determinations and Extension of Non-
     Discriminatory Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision of 
     title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), 
     the President may--
       (1) determine that such title should no longer apply to 
     Vietnam; and
       (2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to Vietnam, proclaim the extension of 
     nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations 
     treatment) to the products of that country.
       (b) Termination of the Applicability of Title IV.--On and 
     after the effective date of the extension of 
     nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of Vietnam under 
     subsection (a), title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall cease 
     to apply to that country.

     SEC. 3. PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING PROHIBITED SUBSIDIES BY 
                   VIETNAM.

       (a) Authority of Trade Representative.--The Trade 
     Representative may conduct proceedings under this section to 
     determine whether the Government of Vietnam is providing, on 
     or after the date on which Vietnam accedes to the World Trade 
     Organization, a prohibited subsidy to its textile or apparel 
     industry, if such proceedings are begun, and consultations 
     under section 4(a) are initiated, during the 1-year period 
     beginning on the date on which Vietnam accedes to the World 
     Trade Organization.
       (b) Petitions.--
       (1) Filing.--Any interested person may file a petition with 
     the Trade Representative requesting that the Trade 
     Representative make a determination under subsection (a). The 
     petition shall set forth the allegations in support of the 
     request.
       (2) Review by trade representative.-- The Trade 
     Representative shall review the allegations in any petition 
     filed under paragraph (1) and, not later than 20 days after 
     the date on which the Trade Representative receives the 
     petition, shall determine whether to initiate proceedings to 
     make a determination under subsection (a).
       (3) Procedures.--
       (A) Determination to initiate proceedings.--If the Trade 
     Representative makes an affirmative determination under 
     paragraph (2) with respect to a petition, the Trade 
     Representative shall publish a summary of the petition in the 
     Federal Register and notice of the initiation of proceedings 
     under this section.
       (B) Determination not to initiate proceedings.--If the 
     Trade Representative determines not to initiate proceedings 
     with respect to a petition, the Trade Representative shall 
     inform the petitioner of the reasons therefor and shall 
     publish notice of the determination, together with a summary 
     of those reasons, in the Federal Register.
       (c) Initiation of Proceedings by Other Means.--If the Trade 
     Representative determines, in the absence of a petition, that 
     proceedings should be initiated under this section, the Trade 
     Representative shall publish in the Federal Register that 
     determination, together with the reasons therefor, and notice 
     of the initiation of proceedings under this section.

     SEC. 4. CONSULTATIONS UPON INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION.

       If the Trade Representative initiates a proceeding under 
     subsection (b)(3)(A) or (c) of section 3, the Trade 
     Representative, on behalf of the United States, shall, on the 
     day on which notice thereof is published under the applicable 
     subsection, so notify the Government of Vietnam and request 
     consultations with that government regarding the subsidy.

     SEC. 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION.

       (a) Public Participation.--In the notice published under 
     subsection (b)(3)(A) or (c) of section 3, the Trade 
     Representative shall provide an opportunity to the public for 
     the presentation of views concerning the issues--
       (1) within the 30-day period beginning on the date of the 
     notice (or on a date after such period if agreed to by the 
     petitioner), or
       (2) at such other time if a timely request therefor is made 
     by the petitioner or by any interested person,
     with a public hearing if requested by an interested person.
       (b) Consultation.--The Trade Representative shall consult 
     with the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate, 
     and with the appropriate advisory committees established 
     under section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155), 
     with respect to whether to initiate proceedings under section 
     3 and, if proceedings are conducted, with respect to making 
     the determination under subsection (c).
       (c) Determination.--After considering all comments 
     submitted, and within 30 days after the close of the comment 
     period under subsection (a), the Trade Representative shall 
     determine whether the Government of Vietnam is providing, on 
     or after the date on which Vietnam accedes to the World Trade 
     Organization, a prohibited subsidy to its textile or apparel 
     industry. The Trade Representative shall publish that 
     determination in the Federal Register, together with the 
     justification for the determination.
       (d) Record.--The Trade Representative shall make available 
     to the public a complete record of all nonconfidential 
     information presented in proceedings conducted under this 
     section, together with a summary of confidential information 
     so submitted.

     SEC. 6. ARBITRATION AND IMPOSITION OF QUOTAS.

       (a) Arbitration.--If, within 60 days after consultations 
     are requested under section 4, in a case in which the Trade 
     Representative makes an affirmative determination under 
     section 5(c), the matter in dispute is not resolved, the 
     Trade Representative shall request arbitration of the matter 
     under the Dispute Settlement Understanding.
       (b) Imposition of Quotas.--
       (1) In general.--The Trade Representative shall impose, for 
     a period of not more than 1 year, the quantitative 
     limitations described in paragraph (2) on textile and apparel 
     products of Vietnam--
       (A) if, pursuant to arbitration under subsection (a), the 
     arbitrator determines that the Government of Vietnam is 
     providing, on or after the date on which Vietnam accedes to 
     the World Trade Organization, a prohibited subsidy to its 
     textile or apparel industry; or
       (B) if the arbitrator does not issue a decision within 120 
     days after the request for arbitration, in which case the 
     limitations cease to be effective if the arbitrator, after 
     such limitations are imposed, determines that the Government 
     of Vietnam is not providing, on or after the date on which 
     Vietnam accedes to the World Trade Organization, a prohibited 
     subsidy to its textile or apparel industry.
       (2) Limitations described.--The quantitative limitations 
     referred to in paragraph (1) are those quantitative 
     limitations that were in effect under the Bilateral Textile 
     Agreement during the most recent full calendar year in which 
     the Bilateral Textile Agreement was in effect.
       (c) Determination of Compliance.--If, after imposing 
     quantitative limitations under subsection (b) because of a 
     prohibited subsidy, the Trade Representative determines that 
     the Government of Vietnam is not providing, on or after the 
     date on which Vietnam accedes to the World Trade 
     Organization, a prohibited subsidy to its textile or apparel 
     industry, the quantitative limitations shall cease to be 
     effective on the date on which that determination is made.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Bilateral textile agreement.--The term ``Bilateral 
     Textile Agreement'' means the Agreement Relating to Trade in 
     Cotton, Wool, Man-Made Fiber, Non-Cotton Vegetable Fiber and 
     Silk Blend Textiles and Textile Products Between the 
     Governments of the United States of America and the Socialist 
     Republic of Vietnam, entered into on July 17, 2003.
       (2) Dispute settlement understanding.--The term ``Dispute 
     Settlement Understanding'' means the Understanding on Rules 
     and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes referred 
     to in section 101(d)(16) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(16)).
       (3) Interested person.--The term ``interested person'' 
     includes, but is not limited to,

[[Page H8596]]

     domestic firms and workers, representatives of consumer 
     interests, United States product exporters, and any 
     industrial user of any goods or services that may be affected 
     by action taken under section 6(b).
       (4) Prohibited subsidy.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``prohibited subsidy'' means a 
     subsidy described in article 3.1 of the Agreement on 
     Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
       (B) Subsidy.--The term ``subsidy'' means a subsidy within 
     the meaning of article 1.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
     Countervailing Measures.
       (C) Agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures.--
     The term ``Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
     Measures'' means the Agreement on Subsidies and 
     Countervailing Measures referred to in section 101(d)(12) of 
     the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(12)).
       (5) Textile or apparel product.--The term ``textile or 
     apparel product'' means a good listed in the Annex to the 
     Agreement on Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 
     101(d)(4) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 
     3511(d)(4)).
       (6) Trade representative.--The term ``Trade 
     Representative'' means the United States Trade 
     Representative.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5602 was a bill that was introduced in June of this 
year by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and principally the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson). This is the culmination of a 
long and sometimes very difficult process.
  The relationships between the United States and Vietnam have been 
difficult. When I was a member of the committee as a member of the 
minority and the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee was the gentleman 
from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons, we traveled to Vietnam as the first official 
United States Delegation on Trade. That was a number of years ago. So 
we arrive today after an 11-year effort in working with Vietnam to 
enjoy the announcement that Vietnam is on the verge of joining the 
World Trade Organization.
  Vietnam joining the WTO will bring substantial economic benefits 
obviously to the Vietnamese and to the United States, because Vietnam 
has agreed to open its markets to U.S. goods and services. However, to 
fully benefit from this move on the part of Vietnam to the World Trade 
Organization, the United States must first extend the so-called 
permanent normal trade relationship to Vietnam, and that is what this 
bill does.
  I asked to take it up with the ``as amended'' phrase attached because 
we have been able to come to an agreement. One of the real concerns 
with an increase in trade between the United States and Vietnam is the 
textile industry. We have concerns about those areas in the United 
States that still have an ability to provide and afford the production 
of textiles and the relationship we are going to continue to grow with 
Central America with the free trade agreement there and with the 
pending free trade agreements with Andean countries that will provide 
us with an excellent opportunity to move our raw and partially finished 
textile products to an area that will both advance those countries and 
the United States.
  Vietnam will be a major player in the textile industry. The concern 
we have is in balancing the concerns of those who are on the retail 
side and those who are on the production side, and we believe that the 
amendment that we have offered will go a long way toward resolving 
those concerns.
  There is still concern as far as the chairman is concerned and, I 
know, of other Members on Vietnam's record on human rights and 
religious freedom. Just because it decides to join the World Trade 
Organization doesn't mean that it has decided in all aspects to join 
the world's civilized nations in its behavior not only to its people 
and to others. However, I do firmly believe that if Vietnam lives up to 
its commitment in its membership in the World Trade Organization, it 
will encourage and accelerate the opportunity for needed reforms in a 
tangible way that impacts the Vietnamese people's lives daily. So 
although I have a number of reservations in that regard, I do support 
going forward.
  This is a regime that is not a democracy. I do hope as we examine 
trade relationships that may be presented to this Congress before we 
adjourn sine die, that we take cognizance of the fact that we have an 
opportunity to enter into free trade agreements with growing and 
vibrant democracies in this hemisphere, and if we are anxious to move a 
trade agreement with a country that is not democratic, that we extend 
that same courtesy to those in the Western Hemisphere, specifically 
Peru, that have made significant sacrifices to come to a free trade 
agreement. They are, after all, a deserving people.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I turn the balance of my 
time over to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the 
Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, and that he be 
allowed to yield said time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because I believe, on 
balance, Vietnam's accession to the WTO is a positive step. It is a 
growing economy with 90 million people. It remains a command economy 
basically and a one-party state, and that always leads to some concerns 
and some qualifications. That is true here in terms of some problems, 
serious ones in the past with human rights, and also some economic 
issues. However, I think, on balance, it is wise to proceed. Their 
becoming part of the WTO will mean that the disciplines of 
international regulations will apply to them.
  Let me say, however, I have several concerns. One is that this bill 
is on the suspension calendar. This bill did not go through committee. 
There was no hearing. I think this is not a wise procedure. In fact, I 
am sure it is not a wise procedure, and it is not going to be followed 
in the future. Bills of this nature, I believe, will have hearings 
before a committee and will not come up on suspension.
  Secondly, a second concern, there is an important omission here and 
there is no safeguard mechanism in this accession agreement. When 
nonmarket economies operate, they usually do not do so through the 
usual mechanisms of supply and demand or international market dynamics, 
and so it is easier for there to be surges of imports into this country 
and more difficulty in dealing with them. The Bush administration did 
not negotiate a general surge provision here nor a textile surge 
provision. They were both in the China accession agreement. This is a 
serious omission, or at least an omission that should not be 
replicated.
  For example, there is now negotiation with Russia of an accession 
agreement. The bilateral has been completed and the multilateral will 
start. I don't think we should be approving PNTR bills, for example, 
with Russia, until there is a safeguard mechanism negotiated in the 
agreement itself.
  I believe all of us on this side who are speaking today will be 
dedicated to making sure that there is such a safeguard mechanism, so 
that if there is that surge of exports to us, we have a mechanism to 
deal with it.
  On balance, I think it is important to proceed with this bill, and 
therefore I urge support.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5602 would grant permanent normal trade relations 
with Vietnam and permit U.S. businesses to take full advantage of the 
commitments that Vietnam has made as part of its accession into the 
World Trade Organization.
  On November 7, 2006, World Trade Organization members voted to 
approve Vietnam's entry into the organization and Vietnam is expected 
to officially become a member by the end of the year. To get to this 
point, Vietnam has clearly made significant economic reforms and will 
benefit not only the international community, but also the people of 
Vietnam.
  As part of Vietnam's accession into the World Trade Organization, 
more

[[Page H8597]]

than 94 percent of all U.S. exports of manufactured goods will face 
duties no higher than 15 percent. Tariffs will also be reduced 15 
percent or less on three-quarters of United States agricultural 
products.
  Additionally, U.S. service providers will have increased access to 
Vietnam's market. My own State of Florida already exports over $20 
million of goods to Vietnam. With Vietnam's entry into the World Trade 
Organization, I expect this number to grow even higher, thus benefiting 
those that manufacture, create, grow and harvest these products, as 
well as those that package, store and transport them.
  To say the United States and Vietnam have had a rocky relationship 
would be a dramatic understatement. Yet, much like with Japan, this 
opportunity to promote cooperation and conciliation demonstrates the 
great progress that is important when countries engage economically.
  By enacting this legislation, the United States and Vietnam have a 
unique opportunity to show the world that no matter what the history 
between these countries may be, they can still have substantial 
economic and foreign policy benefits when the countries turn away from 
violent conflict and focus their efforts on economic interaction with 
an international rule-based system.

                              {time}  1530

  This legislation can provide an important symbolic example to 
countries throughout the world facing an important choice between 
violence and isolation or economic prosperity.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 5602 and support the 
efforts of American businesses striving to compete in this new and 
expanding market.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation granting Vietnam permanent 
normal trade relations.
  Today is a day that shows America really at its best. With one piece 
of legislation, we will show the world the heart and spirit of our 
country. In the grand scheme of things, there is not a lot of money 
involved here, but there is an enormous amount of history and healing 
involved. Democrats support permanent normal trade relations with 
Vietnam because granting PNTR to Vietnam allows it to join the rules-
based, multilateral trading system, the World Trade Organization. 
Vietnam's accession to the WTO will ensure that Vietnam is bound to 
international rules and concessions that aim to provide trade-related 
economic growth that is fair.
  But PNTR does more than just bring Vietnam into a multinational 
trading relationship. PNTR continues to heal the wounds of a conflict 
whose wounds are still felt today. The healing of the Vietnam War 
continues, and today marks another important step in that process.
  The U.S.-Vietnam accession agreement, for the most part, is a strong 
one. The agreement will open an emerging market of almost 90 million 
people to American exporters of goods and services. This agreement will 
provide the Nation's exporters and consumers opportunities which are 
not available today.
  In my home State of Washington, a State that relies heavily on 
exports to drive its economy, products like computer software, 
commercial aircraft, and agricultural goods will find better access to 
an increasingly dynamic economy through this agreement.
  Subjecting Vietnam to the disciplines of the WTO and its rules and 
dispute settlement mechanisms will be a positive step in providing the 
United States more of an opportunity to ensure that Vietnam's economic 
reforms continue and move in the right direction. This will provide a 
new opportunity for the Vietnamese to improve their lives by 
participating in freer and fair markets. That is what makes this 
agreement worthy of support despite its flaws.
  Even as we move, I hope, to pass this resolution, we must recognize a 
deeply flawed process by which the resolution is brought before the 
House. First, this is a major trade bill that is coming to the floor on 
a suspension calendar, the legislation introduced and made available to 
the Members and the public just a few hours ago without any significant 
debate, without any hearing in the committee of jurisdiction, and 
without the opportunity of any markup. I doubt most Members know 
anything about this bill, which was introduced just a few hours ago, as 
most Members are presently flying back from their districts across the 
country.
  This is not the way the Congress should operate when we are 
legislating on matters of importance to the American people. We should 
follow the regular order, and I am hopeful that in the future we will 
do that. In fact, I am absolutely certain we will do that, having 
listened to Mr. Levin talk about it.
  In fact, the bill, and Vietnam's accession agreement to the WTO, 
omits a critically important provision. The Bush administration failed 
once again to negotiate a safeguard mechanism with Vietnam, which is a 
country with a nonmarket economy. This is a major oversight. Nonmarket 
economies do not respond to normal market signals of supply and demand, 
and thereby they often create surplus supply that can lead to import 
surges in the U.S. market. These surges, and this administration's 
failure to address them effectively, are one of the areas in which the 
Bush administration has failed to stand up for American businesses, for 
their workers and the manufacturing sector in general.
  In the new Congress, the House of Representatives and the Committee 
on Ways and Means will need to consider ways that our trade law 
remedies can be updated and strengthened, including the antidumping 
laws. American firms are among the most competitive in the world, but 
they cannot compete with the treasury of foreign countries. The 
administration should know that in the new Congress; the new majority 
will insist that the administration incorporate safeguard tools in 
future PNTR agreements.
  In closing, I support this bill because it is an important step that 
we should take to strengthen the multilateral trading system. It is an 
important step to provide opportunities for American and Vietnamese 
workers and entrepreneurs. Most importantly, this is a step we can take 
to improve U.S.-Vietnamese relations and our relationship with emerging 
Asian economies. It is unfortunate that the agreement has some key 
shortcomings that my colleagues on the House Ways and Means intend to 
address in the coming months.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to clarify the record on the statement by the gentleman 
from Washington. He may have just gotten the amendments, but the bill 
has been out there since last spring and amendments were delivered to 
the staff of the minority office last Thursday asking for comments. We 
are trying to do this in as bipartisan a way as we can because we have 
support from the other side.
  So I don't want anyone watching this process going forward to think 
that the majority here has in any way not shared the information that 
it has with the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to rise in strong support of this legislation, and I want to 
commend the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the 
subcommittee for the work that they have done in advancing this bill, 
which will benefit both America and Vietnam for years to come. And I 
want to especially pay tribute to the chairman of the Trade 
Subcommittee for his long service in this Congress and for the work 
that he has done over the years in the area of trade, which has made 
such advances for better relations between the United States and other 
countries and improved the lot of people in other countries as well as 
the lot of workers and citizens here at home in the United States. His 
service will be greatly missed in the next Congress.
  Permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam is the next logical 
step in our partnership with that country. Back in 1995, with my 
support and that of many others on both sides of the

[[Page H8598]]

aisle, we embarked on a new path of political progress with Vietnam. We 
restored political relations and we restored economic relations. We 
recognized how important it was to integrate a former adversary into 
the global economy.
  Then in December of 2001, we passed a bilateral trade agreement that 
has spurred economic growth for all parties. By the end of 2005, two-
way trade between the United States and Vietnam had reached nearly $8 
billion, a huge increase from the base it started at just a few years 
earlier. Now, with the passage of this legislation, with the adoption 
of permanent normal trade relations, we will magnify those benefits and 
we will allow the United States and Vietnam to work as partners in the 
World Trade Organization.
  The impact for our Nation will be especially dramatic in the services 
sector. The bill will provide more open access in telecommunications, 
financial services, and energy services. This is crucial, absolutely 
crucial, for jobs here at home in the United States. Eighty percent of 
the American workforce is in the service sector.
  At the same time, this legislation is about more than just economics, 
and I think that those on both sides of the aisle recognize this fact. 
Permanent normal trade relations will promote additional domestic 
reforms in Vietnam. By increasing transparency in that country's trade 
practices, this bill will contribute to greater transparency in all 
areas of government.
  From the first time that I visited Vietnam after my service in the 
conflict there, more than 15 years ago, to today we have seen enormous 
changes take place in the political structure of Vietnam. And as a 
Vietnam veteran, I find this especially heartwarming and especially 
important. We are working and we must continue to work on behalf of 
development and of good governance in Vietnam.
  This legislation shows us that Vietnam's best interests can align 
with the interests of this country as well, and this is what free trade 
is all about. This is what free trade does for two countries, and this 
is why this bill has bipartisan support, and it is why it will pass, 
why it should pass, today.
  I can only hope that in the next Congress my colleagues will take the 
same commonsense approach to other trade bills that will be considered 
and that they will have the courage to embrace a free trade agenda 
which will benefit Americans and people around the world alike.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
permitting me to speak on this bill.
  I am honored to follow my friends Mr. Shaw and Mr. Kolbe, who have 
invested in making this work, and it is an example of how trade policy 
can, in fact, be bipartisan. This is one of those examples.
  For those of us who entered political life during the Vietnam War 
era, the passage of normal trade relations and the final step towards 
normalization of relations with Vietnam is nothing short of 
astonishing. I was honored to accompany President Clinton on his 
historic visit to Vietnam in 2000 and to watch the spontaneous 
outpouring of, interest and it appeared even affection, for the 
American President and for America at that point. This agreement 
cements this important political relationship with a key Southeast Asia 
partner and demonstrates a roadmap for other former enemy countries to 
repair relations and proceed together along a mutually beneficial path.
  It contributes to the continued process of reform in Vietnam, 
strengthening the rule of law, promoting transparency in government, 
and decreasing that government's role in the Vietnamese economy.
  It is also good economic policy for both the United States and 
Vietnam, strengthens the international trading system in the wake of 
the collapse of the Doha Round. U.S. exports to Vietnam have increased 
over 150 percent since that historic visit with President Clinton to 
over $1.2 billion last year, and Vietnam continues to be the second 
fastest economic growth engine in the world.
  Vietnam has agreed to open their markets to U.S. manufactured goods, 
services, and agricultural commodities, including things we care about 
in Oregon like beef, apples and pears.
  Imports from Vietnam are also important in supporting many jobs in 
the Northwest, as my friend from Puget Sound mentioned. Companies, I 
would say, like Nike and Intel have the same sort of interests, and it 
will also provide advantages for American consumers. Access to U.S. 
markets can also play an important role in Vietnam's fight against 
poverty as it seeks to emulate the progress of the other ``Asian 
tigers,'' which have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of 
poverty and sickness in East Asia.
  However, I would offer two points of caution. I am concerned that the 
administration has agreed to self-initiate antidumping investigations 
against the Vietnamese textile industry, which employs 2 million people 
and is Vietnam's second largest export earner. By creating an uncertain 
atmosphere for U.S. business in Vietnam, I am concerned, and I hope 
that this concern is not proven to be founded, that the agreement 
between the administration and the Senators from North Carolina will 
deter U.S. companies from operating in Vietnam and harm companies that 
depend on imports from that country, limiting the benefits of this 
agreement both for the United States and the Vietnamese people, as well 
as setting, shall we say, a dubious precedent for future trade policy.
  I do encourage the administration to work closely with the United 
States stakeholders and attempt to find a mutually acceptable 
conclusion to this issue that is fair to the parties involved and does 
not set a dangerous precedent.
  I would also repeat on the floor what I have said to friends and 
people that I have met in Vietnam, Vietnamese officials at the highest 
level in both countries, that the Vietnam record on religious freedom 
and human rights continues to be an impediment to a full flowering of 
the partnership with the United States. It decreases the legitimacy of 
the Vietnamese Government in the eyes of their people and people around 
the world.

                              {time}  1545

  A truly close relationship can only be based on shared values and the 
Vietnam Government's record must improve in the area of human rights 
and religious freedom. And it is not just about the relationship 
between the United States and Vietnam and helping oppressed people in 
Vietnam. It is only with this freedom of the economy and religion that 
they are going to be able to benefit the full flowering of their 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, in the end, permanent normal trade relations with 
Vietnam is a win for both the United States and Vietnam on all fronts. 
And I for one enjoyed working with the junior Senator from Oregon who 
helped lead the passage in the Senate, demonstrating once again that 
trade does not have to be one of these mindless partisan issues. I 
strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do as well.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5602. 
Opposing PNTR for Vietnam is in the interest of the Vietnamese and the 
American people. As you know, Vietnam has been subject to a trade 
agreement with the United States since 2001. How has it gone? If you 
care about Vietnam, then you should care to know that Vietnam has a lot 
to lose as poor as that country may be.
  Vietnam had a growth rate of 9 percent between 1993 and 1997, the 
year the Asian financial crisis hit. In other words, under the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, economic growth was very respectable, 
but the global experience of developing countries with WTO roles is 
disappointing at best.
  During the WTO decade, that is 1995 to 2005, the number and 
percentage of people living on less than $2 a day has jumped in South 
Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and the 
Caribbean. The rate of worldwide poverty reduction has slowed. Per 
capita income growth in poor nations decline when they sign up for the 
WTO.
  And structural adjustment policies by the IMF and the World Bank also 
cause the economic situation of the people in those countries that sign 
up for the WTO to be impaired.

[[Page H8599]]

  Per capita growth from 1980 to 2000 fell to half of what occurred 
between 1960 and 1980, 1980 prior to the imposition of the WTO-IMF 
package. I worry about the Vietnamese people if the PNTR should pass. 
If you care about Vietnam, then you should care to know that the PNTR 
could have the effect of causing, one, millions of peasants to be 
thrown off the land as agricultural supports are withdrawn; two, 
millions of workers to lose their jobs as state enterprises wither in 
the face of foreign competition or downsize and speed up operations in 
an effort to stay competitive.
  Privatization, right on its way. At the beginning of this year, I was 
one of the Democratic representatives chosen by the Speaker of the 
House to visit Southeast Asia, and we visited Vietnam.
  One of the things that struck me during the visit, particularly to 
the south part of Vietnam, was the ubiquitous nature of the bicycle. 
People use bicycles as a primary means of getting around, and it is 
linked to the culture. There are rules that impose high tariffs and 
taxes on bringing cars in to operate in Vietnam. Those rules and 
tariffs are just going to be wiped off the books, pushed aside.
  This agreement is going to have a profound impact in creating a 
transition in the culture of Vietnam away from a use of an effective 
and efficient means of transportation, towards choking streets that are 
already clogged with a lot of people, with automobiles at a time that 
we should be thinking about the relationship between trade and global 
climate change.
  I mean, after all, the WTO does not permit human rights, workers' 
rights or environmental quality principles to be put into trade 
agreements. So here we are celebrating the growth of free trade at the 
same time the worldwide economic crisis continues.
  Somebody has got to make the connection between demanding that the 
WTO have environmental quality principles written into these 
agreements, and you are going to see countries like Vietnam suffer as a 
result of that lack. Have we not had enough of the folly of the World 
Trade Organization? Have we not lost enough good-paying jobs in this 
country? Have we not learned that the U.S. cannot for long be the 
world's biggest market and biggest consumer if our people are not 
making wealth through manufacturing? I mean, we need an American 
manufacturing policy where the maintenance of steel, automotive, 
aerospace and agriculture is seen as vital to our Nation's national 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, if you care about jobs in the United States, then you 
should be concerned to learn that the U.S. balance of trade with 
Vietnam has gone from a surplus in 1993 to a deficit of over $5 
billion.
  As Chinese manufacturers move south to Vietnam in search of even 
cheaper labor, more and more exports will come from Vietnam to the 
United States and more and more jobs in the U.S. will disappear. Wake 
up, Congress. We have got close to an $800 billion trade deficit, and 
this bill just keeps going in the same direction.
  Goodbye, American jobs. No workers rights. No human rights. No 
environmental quality principles. Why are we doing this?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida has the right 
to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has the right to 
close, that is correct.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel confident this measure before us will pass quite 
easily. I am glad that you have allowed the House to consider it today. 
I am sorry that Mr. Ramstad did not get a chance to come. We are going 
to miss Mr. Shaw as he leaves us. Mr. Kolbe, I am sorry he has left the 
floor. He was also a promoter of trade in underdeveloped countries and 
has been a real contributor to that effort here in the Congress.
  However, this House has a little bit of work left to do in trade. And 
I talked to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Thomas, before he left 
about whether or not we can get a bill between now and the time we get 
out of here. I would urge the Speaker and the chairman to act on a bill 
that extends the expiring trade preference programs, the Andean Trade 
Promotion Program and the generalized system of preferences. These are 
programs that have been in place for many, many years and have had a 
very positive effect in the underdeveloped world. And I think it is 
important that we not allow them to lapse in the midst of transition 
between party control and whatever.
  There are a lot of people out there whose jobs depend on how those 
are implemented. And I think that the chairman understands that and has 
given me his assurance that he is going to talk to the Senate about 
whether we can get through such a piece of legislation, because it is 
vital to these developing countries and the workers and the American 
businessmen and consumers.
  If you are trying to plan to source some of your material overseas 
and you do not know what the law is going to be applying to it, it is 
very hard for you to plan in advance, as the garment industry does or 
other industries. You need some certainty about when things are going 
to be available and what preferences will be in place so that the costs 
can be considered.
  I would urge the Speaker in this thing to bring us a short-term clean 
extension. There are a lot of things out there that can get onto these 
bills that really do not add, in fact are very controversial.
  But the clean extension should include the provisions for Haiti, 
which is the poorest country in our hemisphere, and certainly we want 
to do what we can for them. Sub-Saharan Africa is also a very 
undeveloped area that is having enormous economic problems. And for 
those kinds of supports I think there ought not to be any kind of 
opposition to them. The problem is they always get coupled with 
everything else under the sun that people have always wanted to do.
  I hope the chairman and the committee and the subcommittee and the 
Speaker will all come together and bring us a bill and we will support 
it as we have done this one today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that after all of these 
years, I finally found something that I agree with with the gentleman 
from Washington, and that is the statement with regard to the Andean 
countries, Africa, and with Haiti.
  I would hope if we cannot conclude a satisfactory agreement, free 
trade agreement with the countries that we are working with now, most 
notably Peru and Colombia, that we should have some short-term 
extension of the Andean preference for those countries.
  At this time we do not have one, an agreement with Ecuador. However, 
Ecuador is in a situation now of going into an election where they have 
one pro-American candidate, and one that is pro-Chavez. I think we 
should watch that very closely, and I think that we have an obligation 
to do everything we can for our friends and their economic growth. I 
will leave it right there.
  But I think that we need to, and I would hope that in the next 
Congress, which I regret that I will not be part of, to see these 
things through that we should continue our work to become, and continue 
to be free trade.
  I would like to also comment on the comments made by my friend from 
Ohio with regard to the low wages and low standard of living in 
Vietnam. I traveled there in the late 1980s with then-chairman Gibbons. 
It is the same CODEL that Mr. Thomas made reference to in his opening 
remarks.
  There we saw a very impoverished nation. We stayed at a government 
house in which the conditions were deplorable. In fact, one of the 
spouses along on the trip took all of her husband's undershirts and 
laid them on the bed before she would even get into the bed. We had 
rolling blackouts. The country was an economic disaster.
  But we saw something very important. And I think this was really 
driven home, particularly, Jake Pickrel, whom many of us know, his wife 
fell and broke her hip. The doctors who was traveling with us took her 
down to the hospital in Vietnam, and he came back and said this is 
1950s technology, the x-ray equipment there. And of course we 
immediately flew her out of Vietnam, where she could get and did get 
proper treatment.

[[Page H8600]]

  I think we can look at Vietnam now, and I have not been back since 
then. But I understand the economic strides that they have made are 
really tremendous. And that is almost 100 percent due to their changing 
their economy so that it can thrive and it can grow and is not held 
back by the 100 percent socialistic tendencies that it seemed to have 
at the time.
  Also I think that there is no question but that our trade will grow 
with Vietnam, because this is an agreement that works both ways. Their 
tariffs come down, our exports will increase, there is no question 
about that. As usual, and we find in most countries, that the tariffs 
of the country that we are taking down tariffs with has a higher tariff 
than we do.
  So we should benefit, Vietnam should benefit and the economy of both 
countries will be better off for it. And when an economy as small as 
Vietnam mixes with an economy as large as the United States, it is very 
easy to realize that any type of stimulus that you give those economies 
will be a very, very big impact on their economy.
  I have a letter here from the U.S.-Vietnam World Trade Coalition, and 
it is signed by Madeleine Albright, Jim Baker, Charlene Barshefsky, 
Samuel Berger, Harold Brown, Warren Christopher, William Cohen, 
Lawrence Eagleburger, Carla Hills, Michael Kantor, Henry Kissinger, 
Anthony Lake, Robert McNamara, Colin Powell, Robert Rubin, George 
Shultz, Robert Strauss, and Clayton Yeutter, very much in favor of this 
agreement.

                                Washington, DC, September 8, 2006.
       Dear Colleague: As the bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 5602, 
     to provide Vietnam with Permanent Normal Trade Relations 
     (PNTR) status, we forward you the following letter signed by 
     numerous former Cabinet Secretaries, U.S. Trade 
     Representatives and others involved in trade and foreign 
     policy in previous administrations.
       We hope you find this letter useful as you consider your 
     vote on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
     Jim Ramstad,
       Member of Congress.
     Mike Thompson,
       Member of Congress.
                                  ____
                                  


                                  U.S. Vietnam, WTO Coalition,

                                                    July 11, 2006.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker,
     House of Representatives.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader,
     House of Representatives.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader,
     U.S. Senate.
       We strongly support the President's proposal to grant 
     Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status to Vietnam. 
     America's long-term security and economic interests will be 
     advanced by Vietnam's full integration into the rules-based 
     global trading system. Vietnam can become a catalyst for 
     growth and development in Southeast Asia, and will offer 
     significant opportunities for U.S. companies, workers, and 
     consumers.
       In the thirty years since the end of the conflict in 
     Southeast Asia, the United States has worked steadfastly to 
     normalize relations with its former adversary. This effort 
     proceeded, step by step, as we sought the fullest possible 
     accounting of American prisoners of war and personnel missing 
     in action. The ``Roadmap'' to normalization helped to achieve 
     significant progress in this regard. We enjoy today a 
     multifaceted, mutually beneficial relationship with Vietnam 
     that has enabled us to engage on a range of issues, including 
     protection of religious freedom, labor, and human rights.
       Vietnam is home to nearly eighty-five million people, more 
     than half of whom are under the age of twenty-five. As a 
     country facing a host of infrastructure and human development 
     challenges, Vietnam merits not only our attention. but also 
     our support for the promising reform process that is 
     underway. In this vein, the 2001 U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade 
     Agreement was an important milestone, and it has contributed 
     to the development of a more open, market-oriented economy 
     with important potential benefits for the Vietnamese and 
     American peoples.
       PNTR and WTO accession for Vietnam will strengthen 
     America's linkages with the commercially and strategically 
     important region of Southeast Asia, which, with a GDP of 
     nearly $3 trillion, represents our fourth largest export 
     market. The comprehensive WTO accession agreement reached by 
     Vietnam and U.S. negotiators will provide even broader market 
     access across a range of U.S. goods and services. Equally 
     important, it will enhance transparency, accountability, and 
     the rule of law.
       The granting of PNTR for Vietnam represents the logical 
     next step in the normalization of relations between our two 
     countries, a process that has been made more effective by 
     broad bipartisan support in Congress, and that has spanned 
     successive presidential administrations during the past three 
     decades. We support the granting of PNTR in advance of 
     Vietnam hosting the Annual APEC Leaders Meeting in November, 
     in which President Bush will participate. This will further 
     encourage Vietnam's emergence as a responsible regional 
     partner, as we together address a myriad of complex 
     international economic and security issues.
       We urge the Congress to approve PNTR for Vietnam at the 
     earliest possible opportunity this summer.
       Sincerely,
         Madeleine K. Albright, James A. Baker III, Charlene 
           Barshefsky, Samuel L. Berger, Harold Brown, Warren 
           Christopher, William S. Cohen, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, 
           Carla A. Hills, Michael Kantor, Henry A. Kissinger, 
           Anthony Lake, Robert McNamara, Colin L. Powell, Robert 
           E. Rubin, George P. Shultz, Robert S. Strauss, Clayton 
           K. Yeutter.

                              {time}  1600

  I think the Members on both sides of the aisle will certainly find 
somebody on that list that they have a great deal of respect for for 
their particular view with regard to matters pertaining to trade.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank Mr. Ramstad, 
who is trying to get back here in order to take time on the floor, and 
really I think if he were here, and I will not hesitate because he is 
not, to praise him for the good work that he has done and his foresight 
in bringing this particular bill forward.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I have serious 
concerns about establishing Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) 
with Vietnam without mandating essential human rights protections.
  In August, the Government of Vietnam arrested and held a U.S. 
Citizen, Cong Thanh Do, on false charges. Only with the efforts of many 
U.S. officials was Mr. Do released.
  The Government of Vietnam arrested and imprisoned Mr. Do, a U.S. 
citizen, on false charges even when it was trying to convince the U.S. 
Congress to grant permanent normal trade relations.
  What practices will the Government of Vietnam engage in when they are 
not trying to convince the U.S. Congress to pass PNTR?
  I believe that had the Majority allowed us ample time for 
consideration and debate on PNTR, we may have been able to include 
critical human rights protections.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill until sufficient time is 
granted to include necessary human rights protections.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support 
for the permanent normalization of trade relations (PNTR) with Vietnam. 
With the Doha round of global trade talks in limbo, the U.S. must 
continue to pursue an active bilateral trade agenda that makes real 
gains for America's working families.
  My hometown of Laredo has been transformed by trade. Since the 
implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), I 
have watched as trade transformed communities in Texas from areas of 
marginal business activity, to some of the most rapidly developing 
counties in the nation. Laredo now serves as the largest inland port in 
North America and takes in 60 percent of all NAFTA traffic.
  But our current trade agreements are simply not enough. In today's 
global economy, we cannot afford to stand idle but instead must push 
ahead with increased trade liberalization. The Vietnam agreement does 
just that.
  Agricultural products are crucial exports for my congressional 
district. With Vietnam's accession to the World Trade Organization 
(WTO) and our new trade relations, Vietnam will reduce tariffs on most 
U.S. agricultural exports to 15 percent or less. Texas farmers will be 
able to sell in the Vietnamese market on a level playing field with 
competitors in other WTO member countries. Without PNTR with Vietnam, 
Texas's exporters will lose. I urge my colleagues to join me today in 
making history and supporting America's working families by granting 
Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Vietnam.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5602 
legislation to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment 
(normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Vietnam, and to 
establish a procedure for imposing quotas on imports of subsidized 
textile and apparel products of Vietnam.
  Mr. Speaker, as we speak American soldiers are dying in Iraq in 
support of a noble effort to create a democratic government. Why

[[Page H8601]]

then are we about to give Permanent Normal Trading Treatment to the 
dictatorship in Vietnam, a cabal of gangsters and thugs that 
mercilessly prohibits in Vietnam and Laos any democracy, freedom of 
law, freedom of the press, and human and religious rights? The 
Vietnamese government has never come clean on the whereabouts of over 
600 American soldiers who were left behind in Vietnam after the war. 
I'm not talking about granting us permission to dig for American 
remains, I'm talking about their refusal to hand over the prison 
documents of those men who we know were alive when we left Vietnam 
thirty years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, the same political party that forced us to cut and run 
from Vietnam has stubbornly refused to acknowledge the complete lack of 
freedom there and in Laos. It doesn't care if we retreat from Iraq just 
like we did from Vietnam, before the job is done. But what truly 
disturbs me is how the majority can go along with this and reward the 
thugs in Hanoi for what they did and continue to do to their own people 
and to the relatives of our veterans who never returned. Have we 
completely lost our moral compass? Is cheap labor so much more 
important than democracy, freedom of religion and supporting our 
soldiers and their families? Do we care anymore about freedom?
  Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this 
misconceived initiative that insults our troops and ignores the wishes 
of good people of Vietnam who want to live free from the thugs in 
Hanoi.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I have long been an ardent supporter of 
trade expansion because the bottom line is jobs. Fully 95 percent of 
the world's population lives outside the United States, and the global 
economy is projected to grow at three times the rate of the U.S. 
economy. We must continue to take steps to make sure American farmers, 
manufacturers and service providers remain leaders in the international 
marketplace and our products have fair access to foreign markets.
  Vietnam is the fastest growing economy in Southeast Asia and 
continues to grow in significance as a U.S. trading partner. By our 
granting Vietnam PNTR status, U.S. businesses will be able to take 
advantage of the increased market-access opportunities the Vietnamese 
have offered in return. And increased market access to Vietnam will 
also help provide U.S. companies a competitive sourcing counterbalance 
to China in the region.
  Without passage of this legislation, U.S. companies will not be able 
to take advantage of the Vietnamese concessions. And in addition, the 
United States will not be able to engage in dispute-settlement cases 
with Vietnam in the World Trade Organization.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairmen Thomas and 
Shaw for their leadership on bringing forward this important 
legislation, and I would also like to thank Ranking Member Rangel and 
Representative Thompson for their support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 5602.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to 
Vietnam.
  Just two months ago, the Vietnamese government arrested my 
constituent, a U.S. citizen, Cong Thanh Do. Mr. Do had posted comments 
on the Internet while at home in San Jose, California advocating that 
Vietnam undergo a peaceful transition to a multi-party democracy. For 
exercising his U.S. Constitutional right of free speech, the Vietnamese 
arrested him and held him in prison for 38 days in Vietnam without 
charges.
  Other U.S. citizens have been imprisoned in Vietnam for what appear 
to be political reasons, including the sister of another one of my 
constituents, Thuong Nguyen ``Cuc'' Foshee.
  Although both are free today and back in America, I am concerned 
about hundreds of Vietnamese nationals as well as other U.S. citizens 
imprisoned in Vietnam.
  The Vietnamese government has repeatedly violated human rights. 
Hundreds of Vietnamese have been imprisoned, put under house arrest, or 
placed under intense surveillance for simply practicing their religion 
or speaking out about democracy and human rights in Vietnam.
  Following his return to the U.S., Mr. Do provided me a disturbing 
list of over 130 Vietnamese nationals and U.S. citizens he believes are 
currently imprisoned in Vietnam as prisoners of conscience or harassed 
by the government for simply speaking about democracy and human rights.
  In addition, groups such as the Human Rights Watch have published 
reports of 355 Montagnard prisoners of conscience currently imprisoned 
in Vietnam.
  I am not alone in my concerns about Vietnam's human rights record. 
The Department of State, the U.S. Commission on International Religious 
Freedom, Amnesty International, the Committee to Protect Journalists, 
and various Vietnamese-American groups have documented egregious 
violations of religious freedom, human rights, and free speech in 
Vietnam.
  I have been a supporter of international trade. But I also know that 
the Vietnamese Government would correct their behavior in order to 
perfect a trading relationship with the United States. Given the 
alarming human rights violations currently underway in Vietnam, it 
seems a mistake for our country to grant PNTR to Vietnam without 
requiring that the Vietnamese Government make significant improvements 
in respecting human rights, free speech, and freedom of religion.
  The United States of America has a long and honorable tradition of 
safeguarding freedom and human rights throughout the world, especially 
with our trading partners. We should not make an exception for Vietnam.
  At a time when we are spending 8 to 10 billion dollars a month and 
shedding the blood of our American servicemen and women proclaiming the 
cause to be democracy for Iraq, how is it that we can fail to use our 
mere economic leverage to try to achieve human rights in Vietnam?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill which would 
grant permanent normal trade relations for the government of Vietnam.
  Why are we here today ready to give Vietnam--a country with an 
abysmal human rights record, which continues to abuse and oppress its 
own people--favorable trade status?
  I am strongly opposed to this action and urge defeat of this 
legislation.
  There are people in Vietnam right now, as we debate this bill, in 
jail for their support of religious freedom, democracy, and freedom of 
speech--universal freedoms on which our country was built. If someone 
says they are for you, but do not want to be identified with you, how 
much are they really for you? Are we for democracy and religious 
freedom in Vietnam or are we more interested in promoting trade?
  The answer to that question may lie in the incredible news just 
announced today that the State Department has conveniently removed 
Vietnam from its list of Countries of Particular Concern--a designation 
stamped on countries with egregious violations of human rights and 
religious freedom. Vietnam had been on the list in the company of 
China, Eritrea, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Sudan.
  I stand with the dissidents who remain in jails across Vietnam 
because they spoke out against human rights abuses being committed and 
condoned by their own government. Mr. Speaker, I call on this House to 
stand with the people of Vietnam who deserve our support as they seek 
democracy and freedom from oppression.
  Later this week the President will make a historic trip to Vietnam. I 
have called on him to meet with Vietnamese human rights activists here 
in the United States, and I have asked that he meet with dissidents in 
Vietnam. I have asked President Bush to stand with the dissidents in 
the way that the Reagan administration did with regard to the Soviet 
Union. It is unacceptable for the United States to encourage democracy 
and respect for human rights and then fail to hold Vietnam to this 
standard before granting them PNTR.
  Earlier today there was a groundbreaking ceremony on the National 
Mall to launch the memorial for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I ask my 
colleagues to think about Dr. King's words before voting on the 
legislation before us: ``In the end we will remember not the words of 
our enemies but the silence of our friends.''
  If the Bush administration and this Congress want to be friends with 
those fighting for democracy, religious freedom and an end to human 
rights abuses, the silence should be broken. I call on the President 
and our ambassador in Vietnam to meet with dissidents and to break the 
silence about human rights abuses in Vietnam.
  Mr. Speaker, our actions today are more than how much the U.S. will 
trade with Vietnam. The decisions we make will reach the 83 million 
Vietnamese people who are struggling to live in freedom. What will our 
answer be for them?
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 5602, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those voting have responded in the affirmative.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further

[[Page H8602]]

proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________