[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.
____________________