[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 135 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H9083-H9088]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6406, TRADE LAWS MODIFICATION

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1100 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 1100

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6406) to modify 
     temporarily certain rates of duty and make other technical 
     amendments to the trade laws, to extend certain trade 
     preference programs, and for other purposes. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 2. In the engrossment of the House amendment to the 
     Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6111) to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court 
     may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to 
     suspend the running on the period of limitations while such 
     claims are pending, the Clerk shall--
       (a) add the text of H.R. 6406, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of such engrossment;
       (b) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (c) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from California 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I have, for the last time for the next 2 
years, called up this resolution, and I will say that for the purpose 
of debate only I will yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good 
friend from Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Hastings, pending which I yield myself 
such time as I may consume. And during consideration of this 
resolution, all time that I will be yielding will be for debate 
purposes only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1100 is a closed rule 
providing 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of 
the bill, and also provides for one motion to recommit.
  The rule also provides that, in the engrossment of the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6111) to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review 
claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running 
on the period of limitations while such claims are pending the Clerk 
shall, (a) add the text of H.R. 6406, as passed by House, as new matter 
at the end of such engrossment; (b) assign appropriate designations to 
provisions within the engrossment; and (c) conform provisions for short 
titles within the engrossment.
  Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1100 and its 
underlying legislation, H.R. 6406. While it is important to note that 
this bill is not a free trade agreement, we have structured a closed 
rule to mirror the standard procedures afforded to free trade 
agreements for House consideration.
  This past Congress I am very proud, with your work, Madam Speaker, 
and

[[Page H9084]]

the work of many others, we have been able to pass crucial free trade 
agreements with the countries of Bahrain and Oman as well as the 
Central American countries and the Dominican Republic. Under this rule, 
we are continuing this commitment to free trade, and we aim to 
implement a number of provisions that are critical for advancing our 
trade agenda and ensuring the continued leadership of the United States 
economy in the worldwide marketplace. First, we would grant Vietnam, 
Southeast Asia's fasting growing economy, permanent normal trade 
relations (PNTR), thereby eliminating the annual evaluation of 
Vietnam's emigration practices under the Jackson-Vanik provision.
  It is important to clarify what PNTR is and what it is not. First of 
all, as I said, PNTR is not a free trade agreement. Though I would be 
the first to support an FTA with Vietnam, the issue we are debating 
today is not a special trading relationship between the United States 
and Vietnam. It would simply grant what is known as a normal trade 
relationship.
  Normalizing trade with Vietnam is an important step towards enhancing 
our ability to engage with Vietnam and encourage continued progress in 
the areas of economic and political liberalization. A normal trade 
relationship will not be a panacea or cause an instantaneous 
eradication of the challenges of human rights violations and other 
issues that Vietnam faces. But it is both by doing this, we are 
acknowledging the tremendous progress that has been made and an 
opportunity for further engagement that will help propel Vietnam 
forward on the path towards political and economic reform.
  Furthermore, granting PNTR for Vietnam is necessary to provide access 
for American producers and service providers to a market that will soon 
be open to the rest of the world. Vietnam will accede to the WTO, the 
World Trade Organization, in just a few weeks, essentially normalizing 
its trading relationship with the entire globe. If we fail to grant 
PNTR for Vietnam, we will be putting American businesses and our 
consumers, the American people, at a competitive disadvantage with our 
trading partners, all of whom will have access to the market in 
Vietnam.
  By seeking WTO accession, Vietnam has demonstrated its commitment to 
operate in a rules-based trading system. It has clearly signaled that 
it wants to be a responsible participant in the global economy, and 
adhere to the rules that we have all agreed to. Through PNTR, we not 
only open up new market access, we gain the ability to hold Vietnam 
accountable for its trading practices.
  Many will argue that because Vietnam must still make progress in 
protecting human rights and ensuring individual freedoms, that we 
cannot normalize our trade relationship yet. I believe that it is 
precisely because of the need to focus on improving the human rights 
situation, on bringing about a full accounting of the POW, MIAs, of 
dealing with enhancement of the rule of law and political pluralism, 
that that is exactly why we must do everything we can to expand our 
engagement. Bringing them in to a rules-based system of international 
trade will enhance transparency and accountability, and I truly believe 
will undermine the command-and-control concept that has existed in 
their government.
  This is not a gift to them, Madam Speaker. What we are doing is we 
are playing a big role in not only enhancing the opportunity for the 
American people to see our standard of living and quality of life 
improve because of imports, but also by gaining access to their market 
and thereby improving the standard of living and the quality of life 
for the people of Vietnam. Giving them a place in the international 
community will increase the pressure that they feel to live up to 
international norms.
  As I said, a great deal of progress has already been made on the part 
of the Vietnamese Government. Refusing to engage in a normalized trade 
relationship is not the way to encourage continuation of this progress 
that we have already seen.
  Now, Madam Speaker, additionally, this bill includes an extension of 
the Andean preference program which expires in just a few weeks, on 
December 31. This program provides an incentive for U.S. companies to 
invest in the politically and economically fragile Andean region. 
Creating lawful economic activity has been critical to efforts to 
divert illegal coca manufacturing towards legitimate industries, 
especially in some of the most egregious drug trafficking countries.
  And at the same time, these preferences encourage the Andean 
countries to pursue more permanent, two-way free trade agreements with 
the United States which will help to solidify our economic and 
political relationship with that very important region right in our 
back yard.
  Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation would extend these programs 
temporarily, but require full cooperation in the free trade arrangement 
negotiating process in order to continue them beyond a 6-month period.

                              {time}  1630

  What I am saying is in the first 6 months, there obviously are 
standards that must be met, requirements that must be met, and then we 
must continue in the FTA negotiations. By taking this approach, we 
maintain the economic benefits that the preference program has brought, 
while at the same time we provide a powerful incentive to move toward 
greater economic engagement.
  Madam Speaker, this bill goes further in addition by including 
provisions regarding the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through 
Partnership Encouragement, or the so-called HOPE Act, which provides 
important tax credits for new U.S. labor and capital investments in 
eligible countries in the Caribbean region.
  This program will not only advance U.S. textile interests, but 
provide critical assistance and opportunities for the people in this 
region, again, right in our backyard, not on the other side of the 
world.
  Madam Speaker, with that I again urge my colleagues to support this 
very fair rule that allows us to bring up this important underlying 
legislation which deserves strong bipartisan support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me first thank the distinguished Chair of the House Rules 
Committee, my very good friend, Mr. Dreier, for yielding me the time. 
As a point of personal privilege, Madam Speaker, let me take a moment 
to commend Chairman Dreier for his able stewardship of the Rules 
Committee over these past several years.
  I consider David to have been, on balance, a very good chairman. He 
certainly is an institutionalist and someone who clearly understands 
the role of the United States and the United States Congress in the 
world today. He was given the challenge of running the Rules Committee 
at a particularly difficult juncture in congressional history.
  David, it has been a pleasure to work with you, to travel with you, 
and to learn from you. I look forward to our continued work together, 
albeit with slightly different roles in the future.
  Madam Speaker, as Chairman Dreier has already pointed out, this is a 
comprehensive and massive trade bill that is being brought to the House 
floor today. It was introduced in the House within the past few hours, 
and we are asked to vote on it shortly. I seriously doubt that most 
Members have read this bill. Okay, maybe Chairman Thomas and Mr. 
Rangel. Others? Not really, not a chance.
  In some respects, this was a troubling pattern in the Congress, which 
I hope will end tomorrow. As I have said multiple times this year, it 
is my great hope that this type of legislating will end at the close of 
this year.
  Now, within this massive bill are provisions that are both positive 
and negative. If this bill was split into four or six separate bills, I 
suspect I would find myself voting against three or five of the 
individual pieces of legislation. But I don't have that opportunity 
because, once again, the outgoing leadership has closed down the 
process in the hopes of squelching democracy here in the people's 
House.
  Despite my serious misgivings about several portions of this bill, I 
may wind up supporting it for the sections that deal with our Caribbean 
neighbor to the immediate south.

[[Page H9085]]

  The major focus of this bill, as it relates to the people of south 
Florida and of the 23rd Congressional District, which I am privileged 
to represent, is the investment it makes in Haiti. The truth is, Madam 
Speaker, this Congress and this administration and the previous 
administration has had a dismal record as it relates to helping one of 
the most beleaguered nations in our hemisphere. This bill takes a step, 
albeit a small step, in helping our brothers and sisters in Haiti begin 
to take control of their economy, take control of their livelihoods 
and, hopefully, their circumstances.
  It is not a panacea, far from it. But it is, in my view, a step in 
the right direction. One of the key provisions of the Haitian 
Hemispheric Opportunity Through Partnership Encouragement, as it is 
referred to as the HOPE Act, will be that it provides new duty free, 
quota-free access to the U.S. market for apparel made in Haiti.
  This has a two-fold benefit. One, it should, over time, allow 
businesses in Haiti to flourish and build a stable economy and lead to 
a more stable democracy; and, two, it will also help to lessen the 
massive trade imbalance we currently owe to China.
  Madam Speaker, as the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means 
committee, my good friend, Charlie Rangel, has recently said Haiti and 
its fledgling democracy stand at critical crossroads. This is a key 
moment in the relationship between the United States and Haiti.
  In order to capitalize on this moment, Haiti needs to be able to 
create sustained economic opportunity for its citizens. The provisions 
of this section of the bill can and likely will go a long way to 
fulfilling the U.S. part of this commitment.
  As I said, Madam Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, and it 
certainly is not a perfect process. But this is what we have to work 
with today, and I may support this bill, warts and all, because of what 
it may do for the future of Haiti and its citizens who are desperately 
in need of support from the United States and other donor countries.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation 
for my very good friend, Mr. Hastings, for his kind words and I look 
forward to working with him and Mrs. Slaughter. We don't know all the 
other new members of the Rules Committee who will be joining us, but we 
look forward to working in a bipartisan way to address the many 
challenges the United States of America faces.
  Mr. Hastings and I are in agreement on our quest to try to make sure 
that we implement this very important legislation. It does touch a 
number of areas, but as I said, it reaffirms our very strong commitment 
to doing all that we can, all that we can to expand the cause of 
freedom and the recognition of the interdependence of economic and 
political liberalization.
  I was just talking to one of my colleagues a few minutes ago, Madam 
Speaker, and he made the statement to me that he is concerned about the 
Vietnam agreement because we should not be engaging with a communist 
country.
  I think it is for that precise reason that we have what to me is an 
authoritarian dictatorship in Vietnam. I believe that by tying their 
hands, forcing them to live with a rules-based trading system, by doing 
everything that we can to bring them, as I said in my statement, into a 
world trade community, they will be able to have to comply with 
international norms, and there will be greater transparency and 
disclosure, so that the horrendous human rights issues that we have 
seen can more readily be addressed.
  I am one who has believed at my core that trade promotes private 
enterprise, which creates wealth, which improves living standards, 
which undermines political oppression. If one looks at the last two 
decades of our Nation's history, we found countries with authoritarian 
dictatorships where we have maintained strong economic engagement, and, 
in so doing, we have been able to bring about the kind of political 
reform that I believe to be essential.
  Two instances in this hemisphere alone, Venezuela and Chile, these 
are two countries which have had oppressive dictatorships. Yet through 
the decades of the 1980s, we maintained strong economic engagement with 
them. What has happened? Well, we have seen blossoming, strong 
political liberalization and the building of democracies in those 
nations, the recognition of the rule of law.
  Similarly, if we shift to Asia, shift to Asia and look at countries 
like South Korea and Taiwan, places where we saw authoritarian 
dictatorships for many, many years and we as a Nation, under the 
leadership of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush maintained strong 
economic ties with those countries, what has happened? Well, we see 
vibrant, growing democracies, both on Taiwan and on South Korea.
  Now, I believe similarly that doing the kinds of things that can help 
us in the recognition of the importance of improving human rights, the 
importance of dealing with the violations of international norms that 
we have observed in Vietnam, we all acknowledge them. I served for 
years as a member of the POW/MIA Task Force. I made several trips to 
Vietnam in our quest to bring about a resolution on that. We continue 
today to be committed to this. I believe that our bringing Vietnam into 
this international norm, the trading status, will help us resolve these 
very, very important issues.
  Another question that came forward was the deleterious impact this 
could potentially have on the textile industry here in the United 
States as it relates to India, as it relates to Haiti. I know there has 
been some concern raised about ATPA, the Andean Trade Preference 
Status.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to recognize that 
change is inevitable. I am one who believes passionately in what is 
known as the ``economic theory of comparative advantage.'' We do what 
we do best, and others will do what they do best.
  Madam Speaker, it is in our interest to see a strong, growing, global 
economy. It is also in our interest to do everything we can within our 
own hemisphere to ensure that we can compete globally. By proceeding 
with our focus on the Andean region, as we deal with the scourge of 
illicit drugs, as we deal with the economic devastation in Haiti, and I 
am very proud of the fact that the House Democracy Assistance 
Commission, that my colleague, David Price and I have worked on, are 
focusing on building the parliament in Haiti, that our doing what they 
can there to enhance that political pluralism will be very important, 
very important for the stability of this hemisphere. I believe it will 
be very important for the consumers of the United States of America as 
well.
  While this isn't a perfect measure, frankly, I wish we could do more, 
I wish we could immediately pass the FTAs with Peru, Colombia and we 
look forward to the South Korea FTA. I mean, I can go to other parts of 
the world. I very much want us to see more and more of these. I know 
come June we will see the expiration of trade promotion authority.
  I see my very good friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and he and I 
worked very closely on the issue of trying to enhance our opportunity, 
on trying to embark on more negotiations for FTAs. I believe it is 
imperative for us.
  Madam Speaker, as I listen to many people decry the notion of trade 
and talk about the devastation that it has wrought to the U.S. economy, 
I remind them that just yesterday we got a near record report of a drop 
in jobless claims. We have a 4.6 percent unemployment rate, near record 
low.
  We have a very strong GDP growth rate. We want it to be stronger, not 
quite as strong for this quarter as it has been in the past, but it 
still is strong GDP growth. I believe that has come, in large part, due 
to our strong commitment to the global leadership role.
  If we as a Nation, if we don't lead globally, we will see others take 
that lead. What we are going to be voting on later today is very 
important in our quest to do that.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to my 
friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman; I want to thank Chairman 
Dreier.

[[Page H9086]]

  Madam Speaker, I think it is important to concede that it is possible 
to be in favor of trade, but at the same time be very concerned about 
the rules which attend a trade, about the structures that are set up to 
facilitate trade that may not take into account the rights of people, 
the rights of workers.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us might have Vietnam in its name, but 
it is a hodgepodge collection of an agenda impacting Africa, Haiti, as 
well as Vietnam.

                              {time}  1645

  If we wanted to raise wages around the world, improve the livelihoods 
of a majority of citizens, we wouldn't send them on a global race to 
the bottom. That is precisely what this bill does.
  Let me talk about Vietnam. A lot of us feel very badly about the 
legacy of the U.S. war in Vietnam. We feel badly about the napalm and 
carpet-bombing and the damage that was done to the lives of innocent 
people. We feel we should do something positive for the people of 
Vietnam. And I agree. We will have a moral obligation to the people of 
Vietnam far into the future.
  But foisting the rules of globalization on the Vietnamese people is 
no gift. Let us remember that NAFTA was no gift to the Mexican farmers, 
who lost their markets and their livelihoods and who are poorer now 
after NAFTA than they were before NAFTA.
  This bill is no gift. The global experience of developing countries 
with WTO rules provides a warning. During the WTO decade of 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.
  When you add in the full range of globalization's institutions, the 
picture gets even bleaker, from the specter of a developing country. 
Per capita income growth in poor nations declines when they sign up for 
the structural adjustment policies of the IMF and the World Bank. Per 
capita growth from 1980 to 2000 fell to half of what occurred between 
1960 and 1980, prior to the imposition of the WTO-IMF, or International 
Monetary Fund, package.
  I worry about the damage to the people in Vietnam if this permanent 
trade agreement passes. As poor as that country is, it actually has a 
lot more to lose. This permanent trade agreement we are talking about, 
here is what it could cause. It could cause millions of peasants to be 
thrown off their land as agricultural supports are withdrawn. It can 
cause 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.
  As a result of these and other factors, there will be a surge in 
income and wealth inequality, exacerbating dangerous trends already 
underway. Foreign tobacco companies will gain greater access to the 
Vietnamese market, which almost certainly means there will be a rise in 
smoking rates among women and children and may result in millions of 
excess tobacco-related deaths.
  The U.S. balance of trade with Vietnam has already 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 United States will disappear.
  Haven't we learned enough about the folly of the World Trade 
Organization? Haven't we lost enough good-paying jobs? Haven't we 
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?
  What will have to happen for us to learn that we cannot sustain trade 
deficits forever? The U.S. is borrowing almost $800 billion per year 
from the international community. That is the trade deficit. One day, 
our Chinese, British, German, Canadian and Vietnamese creditors will 
want a say in U.S. economic policies, and that is not going to be in 
the interests of U.S. workers. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 6346.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, being the eternal optimist that I am, I 
will put my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) in the ``undecided'' column 
on this.
  Pending that, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very good friend, 
the former mayor of Alexandria, Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules 
Committee, my friend, Mr. Dreier.
  I am a cosponsor of this legislation because I do agree with the 
premise, as articulated by Mr. Dreier, that trade liberalization 
inevitably does lead to political and social liberalization. We tried 
the other approach in Vietnam and we lost 58,000 people and have very 
little to show for it. But it doesn't mean that we are going to look 
the other way when human rights are being violated. In fact, this gives 
us more ability to intervene and to protect American citizens and 
Vietnamese citizens.
  Let me give you an example. There is a gentleman by the name of Hoan 
Nguyen. He has been a United States citizen for over 30 years. He has 
been on the Board of Visitors of George Mason University for 5 years. 
He is an internationally recognized humanitarian and educator.
  He went to Vietnam to open the Hanoi International School for the 
children of diplomats and corporate executives because he wanted to 
help his native country to develop and to grow. But under the current 
regime, without this trade agreement, he is required to accept a local 
partner that the Vietnamese Government assigns him.
  Well, this school worked and it began to make money, and so he 
started to pay off his American investors who had invested in the 
school. The local partner, with the assistance of Vietnamese officials, 
decided they wanted to seize the school. What they did was to arrest 
Mr. Hoan Nguyen. He is now in prison, without charges, without 
evidence, without the ability to consult his lawyer, without trial. He 
can't have an American lawyer.
  His wife, with the help and advice of the U.S. Embassy, paid $85,000 
in bail for his release on October 14, 2006. The government took the 
money and wouldn't release him. Now they want more money. It is pure 
extortion. She can't pay it, and she shouldn't. It is a brazen attempt 
to take over this school.
  Now, my constituents who know Hoan Nguyen say the answer is to defeat 
the Vietnam Trade Agreement. I think the answer is just the opposite, 
because that is the kind of situation that exists today for every 
American investor. It won't exist when we have the kind of transparency 
that is guaranteed through this agreement.
  What we are trying to get is the protection of commercial 
transactions, the protection of money that is invested in Vietnam. This 
is a quid pro quo, and there are a lot of Vietnamese Communist 
officials who are very uneasy about what this will require. They should 
be uneasy, because we won't allow this kind of situation to continue to 
occur.
  This situation is not fair, in Vietnam or in any authoritarian 
Communist countries. China is not dissimilar from Vietnam. But the 
answer is not to engage militarily and I don't think the answer is to 
turn our back.
  The answer is to change the situation, peacefully, diplomatically, 
legally. And that is what these trade agreements are all about: sitting 
down, negotiating; coming up with requirements for transparency; coming 
up with the ability to get insurance, with the ability to protect your 
investment, with the ability to take your case to court and have a fair 
trial, to introduce justice into these authoritarian systems.
  Now, it is going to be slow, it is going to be frustrating, but it 
has got to be the way we go in the 21st century. We have got to engage 
with our competitors, even our former enemies, in this global economy, 
and this I think is the appropriate way to do so.
  I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this trade agreement.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I want to particularly thank my colleague 
from the State of Florida for the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule for consideration of H.R. 
6346 because under today's marshal law and the closed rule before us, 
no amendments were made in order.

[[Page H9087]]

  I oppose this legislation, and I particularly want to reference a 
provision which allows the administration to revoke India's competitive 
need limitations waivers on certain items after 6 months. Although 
India continues its economic development, the vast majority of Indians 
are still desperately poor. The GSP program has become very important 
to India's smaller businesses, such as the jewelry industry.
  Approximately 325,000 workers employed by the Indian jewelry 
industry, many of whom are from the countryside and are extremely poor, 
depend on GSP benefits. By providing alternative employment 
opportunities, the jewelry industry is helping to address the 
challenges India faces with increasing unemployment and desperation in 
rural areas, particularly for vulnerable populations such as women and 
low-skilled workers. It has afforded workers and their families access 
to basic necessities, such as basic education and health care.
  From a development standpoint, restricting GSP benefits for India 
would have an adverse effect on this progress. These workers will 
simply lose their jobs, putting a tremendous burden on them and their 
families.
  In addition, India is an important source of diamond jewelry to 
American jewelers today. Revoking these benefits would significantly 
increase the cost of many jewelry products for jewelers and their 
customers here, causing real harm to the industry in the United States.
  The contention for revoking these benefits is to allow smaller GSP 
beneficiary countries to develop this industry. However, it would not 
increase sourcing from these lesser-developed countries or from 
domestic sources here in the United States. Instead, the U.S. market 
would simply turn straight to China, which is extremely cost 
competitive and has a well-established industry.
  So I urge the administration to disregard the authority that is given 
under this bill to revoke India's competitive-need limitations. I hope 
the President will recognize the importance this program has on India's 
poor.
  Again, I would urge Members to vote ``no'' on the rule and also on 
the subsequent bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I would add further 
compliments to the final rule that our distinguished chair is bringing 
to the House as the chair in the majority, and to thank him again for 
his leadership of the Rules Committee and his friendship as we have 
progressed along. Having learned the things that I have from him, I am 
sure now that I will be able to teach him a thing or two in the next 
majority.
  Thank you very much, David, for your friendship.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I, of course, express my great appreciation to my 
friend from Florida for his very kind words, and I do look forward to 
learning from him. I see the distinguished future chairman of the Ways 
and Means Committee here, my very good friend, Mr. Rangel. We are going 
to have an interesting 2 years, and it is going to be a different 
opportunity for all of us.
  I just reminded Paul Hayes of the fact that he, 15 years ago, said to 
me that he looked forward to the day when I would be able to, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, call up a resolution for us to 
consider here on the floor, and I have been able to do that now for 12 
years. We have this 2-year intermezzo that we are going to be going 
through, and I look forward to working in a bipartisan way with my 
colleagues on a wide range of issues.
  I believe that this measure that we are considering right here on our 
global leadership role is an important bipartisan effort.
  Madam Speaker, Mr. Rangel and I spoke yesterday at length about the 
need for us to move ahead with our global trade agenda, and I look 
forward to continuing our effort together. On all of the public policy 
questions that we will be facing here in this House, I look forward to 
working with Mrs. Slaughter and Mr. Hastings and the other members of 
the Rules Committee.
  On this measure itself, Madam Speaker, I believe that for the cause 
of freedom, for the cause of our global leadership role, and, as Mr. 
Moran said so eloquently, the effort to ensure the rule of law and 
political pluralism and the building of democratic institutions, this 
effort to pass these agreements is essential for us. So I urge support 
for the rule.

                              {time}  1700

  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam 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, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of H. Res. 1100 will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on suspending the rules on H.R. 5948.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207, 
nays 193, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 536]

                               YEAS--207

     Akin
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Moran (VA)
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sekula Gibbs
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Capps
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kingston

[[Page H9088]]


     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Markey
     Marshall
     McCarthy
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schmidt
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Baker
     Blumenauer
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Evans
     Fattah
     Ford
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kolbe
     McCrery
     Miller, Gary
     Norwood
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Watson

                              {time}  1729

  Messrs. HEFLEY, LoBIONDO, MILLER of Florida, KINGSTON, RYUN of 
Kansas, GEORGE MILLER of California, MOORE of Kansas, RUSH, Ms. 
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Messrs. VAN HOLLEN, BECERRA, SAXTON, MORAN of 
Kansas, and Mrs. SCHMIDT changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. Capuano changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________