[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 135 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H9140-H9146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRADE LAWS MODIFICATION
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield the balance of
my time to the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hastert).
The SPEAKER. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, later tonight I expect that this House will adjourn sine
die. This is the last day that we will be together on this floor during
my Speakership, and so with your indulgence I
[[Page H9141]]
would like to make a few brief comments.
Eight years ago, you elected me as your Speaker. I said at the time
that it was not a job which I sought, but it was one which I would
embrace with enthusiasm and determination. Each day since then, I have
tried to do my best. The challenges have been great, but so too has
been the honor of serving this institution and each of you.
At this time of transition I have been reflecting upon the many
things for which I am deeply grateful. First of all, for my wonderful
wife Jean, for her encouragement and for accepting the sacrifices that
have allowed me to run for public office. I don't think she ever got
quite used to the attention that the Speakership has brought, but she
handled every moment with certainly grace and good cheer. And I also
thank my son Josh and my son Ethan and my daughter-in-law Heidi, and I
thank all of them for their love and support.
I am grateful to the unbelievable people of the 14th District of
Illinois for the trust that they have placed in me over these many
years. They are the most down-to-earth, honest, and wonderful people I
have ever known, and I am honored to serve them in this great House.
I thank all the Members, all of you, for the countless courtesies
that you have extended to me over the years, and for electing me to be
your Speaker. I am immensely proud of this House of Representatives,
and I am grateful for what we have accomplished.
Together, we reformed welfare, we cut taxes, and small businesses
grew all over this Nation, and we expanded trade and we saw the Dow
Jones break record after record as the economy grew to new heights. And
our policies yielded near record low unemployment and near record low
interest rates.
And we mourned on 9/11 when our country was savagely attacked; but
then I remember we stood together shoulder to shoulder on the steps of
the front of this Capitol, and we promised to the American people to
protect this Nation as best we could from further attack. And then from
somewhere in the back broke out a verse of God Bless America, and
everybody joined in song. And I will never forget that moment, and
chills went down my back, and I knew that this country's greatness
would survive. And by the grace of God and the leadership and help of
our President, we have been successful.
During my tenure we have challenged the Washington notion that
government has a claim to the earnings of all Americans, and I believe
as I did when I came here 20 years ago that government should work for
the people and not the other way around.
As a body we have gathered together in celebration to award
Congressional Gold Medals to giants like Pope John Paul II and Rosa
Parks and Billy Graham. And we have gathered together in the great
Rotunda of this building in mourning to pay our respects to a great
leader, Ronald Reagan. I am proud to have been a part of this unique
time in the history of our country.
Few people understand what support it takes to run this House of
Representatives, and I am grateful for the legions of dedicated
individuals who serve the House day in and day out. The Speaker has a
huge core of people, mostly behind the scenes, who make this
institution run. I could have not done this job without the officers of
the House, the staff who serves them, and those who have served in
Members' offices and committee offices and leadership offices, and the
Speaker's Office. And I want to personally highlight a few who make
this institution work.
Bill Livingood is the longest serving officer today in this House.
I also want to thank the U.S. Capitol Police for their daily
diligence in protecting us. Some of us remember that day in July in
1998 when somebody broke into this Capitol, and in an action right
outside the office that my family happened to be in, that I served in
at that time, that two of our police officers were shot and killed, and
to protect us. I will never forget that day.
Jay Eagen, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, has done an
incredible job in managing the financial and operational affairs here.
Father Dan Coughlin, the Chaplain of the House, has been a healer and
has led us in a quiet way. Father Dan arrived at a time of turmoil,
some of you may remember. A reporter asked him whether or not he was
prepared to step into this lion's den. He looked at them and quietly
responded and he said, ``Well, my name is Daniel.''
Karen Haas, the Clerk of the House, loves this institution and has
inspired countless people to have the same respect for this Chamber and
the legislative operations as she does.
John Sullivan, the Parliamentarian, has given us wise and steady
guidance with an even temperament.
And Admiral John Eisold, our attending physician, whose leadership
during the anthrax crisis calmed the fears of anxious Members and
staff.
Alan Hantman, the Architect of the Capitol, and his staff who are
responsible for maintaining this beautiful monument, the place that we
work in, but the epitome of freedom to the world.
During my tenure as Speaker, we created the Office of
Interparliamentary Affairs, ably headed by Martha Morrison, so that we
could more effectively interact with our legislative colleagues around
the world as together we try and share the blessings of democracy with
those who have been oppressed by tyranny, and are only now enjoying the
fruits of freedom.
We also reinstituted the Office of the Historian, headed by Dr.
Remini and his deputy, Fred Beuttler, and they are commended for their
hard work.
And I want to especially thank Pope Barrow and his staff in the
Legislative Counsel's Office; Peter LeFevre and his staff in the Law
Revision Counsel's Office. You didn't even know we had that office, did
you? Geraldine Gennet and her staff in the House General Counsel's
Office have helped us negotiate through some difficult constitutional
issues and have been our legal guardians.
{time} 1915
And Curt Coughlin and his staff in the Office of Emergency Planning
who have become so important to us in the post-9/11 world.
I am especially grateful to the dedicated individuals who served me
so well over the years. I have been so blessed to have a dedicated and
talented team, from my Illinois district offices, my 14th District
Office here in Washington, and to the staff in the Office of Speaker.
And while they are not employees of the House, I also want to thank
those over at the NRCC who have helped me fulfill my responsibilities
as a party leader.
I hope each of them knows of my personal gratitude for their service.
They have spent many long days and many long nights working to make
this a better country, and I know they have sacrificed time with their
family and friends to do so. On behalf of a grateful Speaker, I want to
thank them all for their service.
In particular, I want to thank my chief of staff, Scott Palmer. Scott
has been with me since 1986 when I first came to Congress. Scott, you
and Mike Stokke and Sam Lancaster and Bill Hughes and so many others
have given so much of your time. I am so proud of what we have
accomplished together.
Next month we will begin a new Congress. Power will change without a
shot being fired, peacefully, as the Founding Fathers envisioned. Those
of us on this side of the aisle will become the loyal opposition, and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) will assume the duties as
our Speaker. I know she will do so with skill and grace and that she
will bring honor to this institution.
In a few short months, the Capitol Visitor's Center will be
completed. In that center the work of this Congress will be described
to future generations. Visitors will view an introductory film
entitled, ``Out of Many, One. E Pluribus Unum.''
In my first speech as your Speaker, I said that solutions to problems
cannot be found in a pool of bitterness. The framers expected the floor
of this House to be a place of passionate debate, a place where
competing ideas and philosophies clash, a crucible where many ideas can
be blended together to forge a strong Nation. But this floor should
also be a place of civility and mutual respect and a place where
statesmanship and not just electoral politics guide our decisions.
President Reagan is right: ``There is no limit to what can be
accomplished if you don't mind who gets the credit.''
[[Page H9142]]
Eight years ago I broke with tradition and gave my inaugural speech
from this microphone in the well of the House and not from the
Speaker's chair. I did so because I said ``my legislative home is here
on this floor with so many of you, and so is my heart.''
Sitting in the Speaker's chair is an honor I will always cherish. But
I believe there is actually an even greater honor.
It is one that each of you shares with me. It is bestowed upon us by
the citizens of this country, one by one, as they go into the voting
booth and elect us with their sacred ballot. It is the honor of raising
our hands and taking the oath as a Member of this House of
Representatives and then to sit on one of these benches.
So on January 4, I will be privileged to rejoin you on these benches,
where my heart is, here on the floor of this great House.
May God bless each of you, may God bless this People's House, and may
God bless the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to salute Dennis Hastert, Speaker Dennis
Hastert, the longest serving Republican Speaker in history.
And long may that record stand.
This record is a testament to Dennis Hastert's leadership within the
Republican Conference, in this Congress and in this country.
But Dennis's public service began long ago. He spent 16 years as a
teacher and a coach at Yorkville High School in Illinois, and that is
the best kind of public service, shaping the minds of our young people.
Then he went into politics, and after 6 years in the Illinois State
House, he came to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1986. In 1999,
Dennis Hastert's colleagues elected him Speaker of the House, the third
highest official in the United States of America.
While we have often, from time to time, disagreed on issues, we agree
on the importance of public service, the kind of public service that
has been the hallmark of Speaker Hastert's career, whether in the
classroom or in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for many people in this room and across
the country when I thank you for one thing in particular: Rosa Parks
made history a long time ago and changed America. She also made history
when she was the first African American woman to lie in state in the
Capitol of the United States. That honor would not have been possible
without your leadership, and we are very, very grateful.
I, too, want to join the Speaker in acknowledging the Hastert family,
Jean and Ethan and Joshua, and the entire family for sharing Dennis
with us. We know the sacrifices are great, and I want to acknowledge
them as well.
My colleagues in Congress, we hold the title of ``Honorable'' because
we serve in Congress. We hold the title of ``Honorable'' by virtue of
our office. Dennis Hastert holds it by virtue of his character. I
salute him for service to our Nation and look forward to many more
opportunities. Happily, he is staying with us for us all to work
together.
In your remarks, Mr. Speaker, you referenced that very sad evening
when we joined together on the steps of the Capitol and sang ``God
Bless America.'' Among God's many blessings to this country, to
America, is the service and leadership of Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6406,
the Omnibus Trade Act. Overall I believe the bill provides many
important benefits for consumers and businesses in the United States.
While Vietnam has not fully evolved into the kind of free society I
would like to see, the improvement of relations between the United
States and Vietnam is a welcome development. That is why I support the
extension of presidential authority to grant permanent normal trade
relations with Vietnam. Implementing normal trade relations is an
important step toward ensuring that American business and agriculture
will be able to benefit from a full and open market--a goal that is
enhanced by Vietnam's inclusion into the World Trade Organization
(WTO). It will also ensure that Congress and the Bush administration
have the ability to enforce important commitments, including
intellectual property protections and the elimination of trade
distorting subsidies that ultimately do injury to American producers
and consumers alike.
I have supported a number of efforts to expand access to foreign
markets for exports as part of a long-term strategy to strengthen our
domestic economy. While expanding markets for businesses and farmers is
critical, it needs to be carefully monitored and responsibly
implemented. As structured, I believe the agreement with Vietnam
largely meets this test.
With respect to extending trade benefits to Andean countries, I have
some concerns with the approach taken in this legislation. It puts
important assistance programs at risk and is another example of the
current Congressional leadership engaging in partisan political
posturing instead of legislating in the very best interests of the
American people and the governments and peoples affected by this bill.
If the version of the bill is passed into law, I think it likely will
be necessary to revisit this issue in the upcoming Congress.
While this bill is largely about the liberalized exchange of goods
and services, it is also about building a stronger relationship with
countries around the globe. Expanding our commercial relationships can
help the United States gain support for initiatives in other areas,
such as conflict resolution and reduction of poverty. I urge passage of
this legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, despite my reservations
regarding the lack of deliberation and transparency in how this bill
has come to the floor, I nevertheless rise in support of H.R. 6406,
however, I believe there are serious concerns regarding the process and
the fairness of this administration trade bill.
This bill includes several important provisions which promote the
competitiveness of the United States in the global economy, ensure
greater economic opportunities for the United States, and to foster
broader U.S. national interests, especially in helping the people of
Haiti overcome the poverty with which many of them are afflicted.
Indeed, the inclusion of the provisions relating to Haiti is the main
reason I support this bill.
This legislation includes several key trade measures, such as crucial
provisions to expand trade with Haiti, the poorest country in the
Western Hemisphere. Without the increased economic engagement with
Haiti that this legislation provides, Haiti's situation will
undoubtedly worsen, undermining broader U.S. goals for the region.
This legislation also renews several expiring longstanding U.S. trade
programs that are important for promoting economic opportunities in the
United States, as well as in developing countries in Africa and
elsewhere. The programs include the Generalized System of Preferences
(GSP), the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), and provisions of the
African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).
This legislation would also authorize Permanent Normal Trade
Relations (PNTR) with Vietnam, which is critical to ensure that U.S.
companies, farmers and workers will be able to benefit fully from the
market-opening commitments that U.S. negotiators secured from Vietnam.
It will also ensure that the U.S. Government has the ability to enforce
Vietnam's WTO commitments. Without this legislation, the United States
would be put at a severe competitive disadvantage and would be denied
rights to enforce Vietnam's WTO commitments when it joins the WTO in
early January 2007.
The Haitian HOPE Act encourages hemispheric integration and promotes
the use of U.S. and other trade bill inputs in apparel assembled in
Haiti. The Haitian HOPE Act will help Haiti while expanding
opportunities for U.S. textile interests. Just over two-thirds of
Haitian apparel exports to the United States are assembled from U.S.
and CBI fabric, made from U.S. yarn. The Haitian HOPE Act encourages
this partnership to continue to thrive, rather than to switch to China.
President Preval needs our help and this bill can do a lot for the
struggling people of Haiti.
Put simply, H.R. 6406 would provide new economic opportunities for
the world's poorest people. H.R. 6406 is one of the most important
humanitarian steps that Congress can take for some of the poorest
countries in the world, including some of the nations of sub-Saharan
Africa, Haiti, and the Andean countries. One of the best ways to lift
people out of poverty is to promote economic activity through increased
trade and investment.
There are 314 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty, which
is nearly half the African population. Likewise, Haiti is the poorest
country in the Western Hemisphere, with over 80 percent of its
population living in abject poverty.
The textile provisions for sub-Saharan Africa and Haiti will bring
economic opportunities to these least developed countries and, in the
case of Haiti, also expand opportunities for U.S. textile and apparel
interests.
The Haiti/AGOA provisions will greatly benefit those countries while
having a minimal impact on overall U.S. imports of apparel and
[[Page H9143]]
U.S. domestic markets. Apparel imports from Africa and Haiti barely
register in U.S markets while millions of workers in Peru, Colombia,
Bolivia and Ecuador owe their livelihoods to the Andean trade
preferences.
In addition to Haiti, other nations in Latin America will also
benefit from this bill. Peru and Colombia have extended their hands in
economic cooperation by negotiating comprehensive, commercially
meaningful trade promotion agreements. However, the Administration did
not submit for Congressional consideration these two agreements with
democratically elected governments before the expiration of
preferences. It would add insult to injury if Congress does not provide
a short-term extension of preferences until the agreements can be
considered early next year.
Similarly, extending trade preferences to Ecuador and Bolivia will
encourage those countries to follow the lead of Peru and Colombia and
act quickly to conclude trade promotion agreements with the United
States.
Furthermore, granting PNTR to Vietnam furthers bilateral relations,
fosters economic growth, and will serve as a catalyst for much needed
political reforms in Vietnam. Granting permanent normal trade relations
(PNTR) status to Vietnam represents a significant milestone in our
efforts to mend the wounds of one of the most divisive conflicts in our
nation's history .
Vietnam's membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) will serve
as a catalyst for continued economic and political reform in Vietnam.
The State Department's 2005 Human Rights report notes that economic
developments in Vietnam are a ``major influence on the human rights
situation, and economic reforms and the rising standard of living
continue to reduce ``government control over, and intrusion into, daily
life'' in that country. However, I do continue to express grave concern
about Vietnam's continuing Human Rights Violations.
Vietnam will officially join the WTO later this month, and its
membership will bring substantial economic benefits to American
businesses, farmers, workers, and consumers. However, if PNTR is not
granted before Vietnam joins the WTO, the United States would not be
able to take full advantage of many of Vietnam's WTO commitments until
PNTR is approved.
For all of these reasons, and especially for the benefit of the
people of Haiti, I rise in support of H.R. 6406.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6406 and the various
trade bills it includes. Unfortunately, I cannot be present to vote in
favor of it because of a prior engagement in my district. However, this
legislation is a good example of how honest trade can help American
consumers, workers, and businesses and promote growth in poor countries
at the same time.
Honest and fair trade will help the U.S. and other countries grow
more prosperous and stable. Trade barriers, quotas, and restrictions
hurt all but a select few by raising prices for consumers, limiting
efficiency, and restricting the ability of developing countries to
improve their economies. I am pleased that this legislation moves us
toward more open markets in a number of significant areas.
Extending the Generalized System of Preferences, the Andean Trade
Preference Act, and the AGOA third party fabric rule, as well as
establishing trade preferences for Haiti, promotes jobs and growth in
some of the world's poorest countries, part of a strategy to help move
countries toward self-sufficiency and giving workers more options and
bargaining power. At the same time, preferences support and preserve
manufacturing jobs here in the United States as it makes many of their
inputs cheaper. So too are consumer products from these countries less
expensive, giving Americans more purchasing power. I recognize the
concerns that many people have expressed over changes being made to
these programs and I look forward to working with Chairman Rangel in
the upcoming Congress to strengthen them to ensure that they are as
effective and fair as possible
I spoke the first time we considered the Vietnam bill about the
benefits of granting permanent normal trade relations to Vietnam.
Vietnam has agreed to open their markets to U.S. manufactured goods,
services, and agricultural commodities, including key Oregon products
such as beef and pears, while imports from Vietnam are also important
to supporting many jobs in Oregon at companies like Nike and Intel.
Perhaps most importantly, this bill will contribute to reform in
Vietnam and the process of U.S.-Vietnam normalization.
Finally, this legislation includes important tariff relief provisions
for the bike industry, allowing the duty-free import of certain
specialty bicycle parts not produced in the United States, and for my
hometown of Portland, Oregon, facilitating the import of streetcars for
our local public transit system, at a time when there's no domestic
supplier, saving money for Portland taxpayers. I particularly
appreciate the help of Jennifer McCadney of the Ways and Means staff
for making the inclusion of these provisions possible.
For too many Americans, trade has been a source of insecurity and
inequality, instead of growth. For too long, critical questions of how
the United States engages in an increasingly global economy have been
used as partisan and political wedges. We must develop an honest trade
policy that can be broadly supported by Americans of all political
stripes and that reflects the concerns that I hear from Oregonians.
While this will be a long-term process, this legislation meets that
basic test and moves us in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this
omnibus trade bill, which includes a provision to grant permanent
normal trade relations for the government of Vietnam.
While I support this trade bill's important benefits to the people of
developing countries such as Haiti and those affected by the African
Growth Opportunity Program, I deeply regret the decision to extend
permanent normalization of trade relations to Vietnam, a country which
continues to violate the human rights of its own citizens.
I believe it is a grave error to include this PNTR provision within
the trade bill. The Vietnam government has failed to prove to the world
that it values democracy and the freedom of its own citizens.
The government of Vietnam is one of the most egregious human rights
abusers in the world. According to the 2005 State Department human
rights report, here are just some of the human rights problems reported
at the hands of the Vietnamese government:
Police abuse of suspects during arrest, detention, and interrogation;
harsh prison conditions; arbitrary detention or restriction of the
movement of persons for peaceful expression of political and religious
views; denial of the right to fair and expeditious trials; imprisonment
of persons for political and religious activities; restrictions on
freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association; restrictions on
religious freedom; restrictions on freedom of movement; prohibition of
the establishment and operation of human rights organizations; violence
and discrimination against women; trafficking in women and children;
and child labor abuse.
The State Department's report says that Vietnam's ``human rights
record remained unsatisfactory.''
I receive reports almost daily confirming that these human rights
abuses are continuing to occur. I am contacted every week by
Vietnamese-Americans in my congressional district who are concerned for
their families and friends in Vietnam who face repression and torture
as they stand up for democracy and freedom.
The government of Vietnam also continues its harassment of people of
faith.
For Catholics, Vietnam retains the ability to choose all bishops and
screen all seminarians. Charitable and educational activities are
severely restricted.
For Protestants, individual churches affiliated with Mennonite,
Baptist, and 7th Day Adventist denominations have been allowed to
register. However, churches with dissident pastors are not allowed to
register nor are churches outside Ho Chi Minh City.
In the Central Highlands in 2001, authorities closed 1,250 religious
sites in this region. As reported by Human Rights Watch, Protestants
who refuse to affiliate with the Southern Evangelical Church of Vietnam
and seek independent status are accused of ``sowing division.''
Individuals are harassed, literature confiscated, leaders are detained
and interrogated and pressured to give up their faith tradition.
In the Northwest Provinces, forced renunciations of faith continued
in the last year. Hmong Protestants in the Northwest Provinces have
encountered the most problems in seeking legal recognition, as
Vietnamese authorities have refused to acknowledge the legal existence
of a reported 1,110 Protestant churches in the region. Approximately
200 Hmong churches have applied for registration under the new law, but
they have encountered numerous obstacles, including some overt
harassment.
For the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, UBCV leaders Thich Quang
Do and Thich Huyen Quang are still restricted in their contacts and
movement. At least 13 other senior UBCV monks remain under some form of
administration probation or actual ``pagoda arrest.''
At the time that the report was printed, the State Department
estimates that there were six religious prisoners and 15 other
individuals being held in some form of administrative detention on
account of their religious beliefs. According to experts this number is
likely to be higher.
While pressure on the government of Vietnam has begun to move the
government to change its abusive practices, life for the average person
in Vietnam continues to be grim.
I am extremely disappointed to hear that the issues of human rights
and international religious freedom were not a priority during the
[[Page H9144]]
President's trip to Vietnam in November despite ongoing and widespread
human rights abuses.
The people of Vietnam deserve our support. It is a tragic error to
reward the government of Vietnam with normal trade relations while the
people of Vietnam continue to be exploited.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support
free trade with free nations. I can not in good conscience support free
trade with a totalitarian regime like Vietnam which imprisons political
dissidents, suppresses religious freedom and violates even the most
basic of human rights.
I will continue to strongly advocate for an Andean Free Trade
Agreement, and I will continue to voice my support for free trade with
the impoverished nation of Haiti, which desperately needs the economic
opportunities the United States can provide.
Although I would have eagerly voted to extend the trade agreements
with Andean nations and Haiti, I am very disappointed that the Vietnam
trade agreement was attached to this vote. Economic opportunities with
the United States should be with nations who uphold some basic human
rights.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to have to
speak against this trade proposal today. I am from one of the most
trade dependent states in the country and I have always supported the
expansion of trade opportunities and fair trade agreements. I am well
aware of how complex and interrelated the global economy is today and
how important it is that we remain engaged with our trading partners to
bring down trade barriers. I support Permanent Normal Trade Relations
for Vietnam and many other provisions in this package.
However, I have a duty to speak out against this bill, because it
proposes to continue unfair trade concessions to select Andean nations
in exchange for absolutely nothing. I am speaking of the extension of
the Andean Trade Preferences Act, which has been rolled into this
package. ATPA is not a trade agreement--it is a one-sided proposition
that writes off the interests of American farmers under the false
premise that South American drug lords are going to give up lucrative
cocaine production if they simply had the opportunity to export
legitimate products duty free into the United States. It is
fundamentally unfair for American farmers and has had dramatic
repercussions in my district in Central Washington state.
One of the Peruvian products that have benefited most from the ATPA
windfall is asparagus, which grows in the sandy coastal areas of Peru--
not the mountain highlands where coca is produced. Since the
implementation of the Andean Trade Preferences Act in 1991, imports of
fresh Peruvian asparagus have soared from 2,800 metric tons to well
over 55,631 metric tons. Similarly, imports of frozen asparagus from
Peru have increased more than twenty times. This flood of duty-free
imports has been devastating for American asparagus growers in the
major production areas of Washington, Michigan, and California. It has
also decimated much of the domestic asparagus processing capacity. In
fact, facing a flood of inexpensive Peruvian imports, many asparagus
processors simply closed their U.S. operations and reopened down in
Peru.
Perhaps if you are not from an asparagus production area in this
country, you may think this trade-off is worth it if it results in less
narcotics production. The unfortunate reality is that this policy has
failed. According to the White House Office of National Drug Policy,
coca cultivation in Peru has increased to 94,000 acres--the highest
level in eight years. The International Trade Commission noted that any
impact to narcotics trade from ATPA is ``small'' and ``indirect.'' Yet
the impact to the American asparagus producer is the exact opposite.
Nevertheless, here we are, asking American farmers to sacrifice their
livelihoods for another six to twelve months under this bill to pursue
a wholly unrelated anti-narcotics strategy.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that we are once again putting the interests of
a handful of large industrial asparagus exporters in Peru ahead of our
own fanners in Washington, Michigan, and California. It is an unfair
policy that sends the wrong message at a time when we need to revive
momentum for expanding global trade opportunities. I must therefore
oppose this flawed legislation.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
6406, a comprehensive trade package that has great potential to create
tens of thousands of new jobs in the Haitian textile industry.
While the provisions in this bill are not as strong as in the
legislation I introduced, I am relieved that after years of empty
promises and delay that the Republican-controlled Congress finally has
allowed a bill to come to the House floor that helps Haiti.
I have traveled to Haiti a half dozen times since entering the
Congress. And on these trips I have met with Haitian business leaders
who have told me time and again that the textile industry has suffered
greatly and is inching closer to collapse.
The Haitian garment industry currently employs a mere 12,000 people--
a tiny fraction of what it once was. In Port-au-Prince, the capital, 15
factories have closed in the last 2 years. By failing to act, Congress
and the Bush Administration have enabled Haiti's miserable situation.
This bill is significant because one tenth of Haiti's national income
comes from its textile exports. While the vast majority of Haitians
live off less than $2 a day, the average Haitian garment worker earns
twice that. Bread-winners in Haiti often support large extended
families; grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, children, and their
children's children often live under one roof.
Industry analysts estimate that the HOPE Act could generate as many
as 30,000 new jobs. Haitians working in these textile jobs would not
only possess the buying power to help stimulate the national economy,
but the trickle down would directly impact the lives of tens of
thousands of other people in this hemisphere's poorest country.
Haitians need to return to work, and that's why I've supported granting
Haiti preferential trade status for years.
The HOPE bill has the potential to revive this vital sector of the
Haitian economy by allowing apparel assembled in Haiti using third-
country fabrics duty-free access to the United States market. It is a
scaled down version of The Haiti Economy Recovery Opportunity (HERO)
bill, H.R. 4211, which I introduced in the House in 109th Congress.
It has taken this Congress far too long to act, but perhaps, at long
last, help for Haiti is finally on the way.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, as a combat Vietnam veteran,
I have a strong personal understanding of why granting Permanent Normal
Trade Relations status to Vietnam is so important for both our country
and theirs. Reconciliation with our former adversary has been a long
and on-going effort, and today we are taking a long step toward
furthering that process.
This process began more than a decade ago when we lifted the trade
embargo on Vietnam in recognition of the cooperation received from
Vietnam in POW/MIA accounting. In May, the United States and Vietnam
signed a bilateral WTO accession agreement, which was required as part
of Vietnam's bid to join the WTO.
For the United States to participate in this trade agreement,
Congress must pass legislation granting PNTR to Vietnam.
Mr. Speaker, it's important to understand that congressional approval
of PNTR for Vietnam is a necessary step toward maintaining our
competitive edge in the 21st century global economy.
By passing PNTR, farmers, ranchers, businesses, manufacturers and
consumers will be able to take full advantage of Vietnam's rapidly
expanding economy.
The facts speak for themselves: Vietnam has become our fastest
growing export market in Asia. In just the last five years, trade
between the U.S. and Vietnam has increased more than 400 percent, going
from under $1 billion a year to $7.8 billion.
If we fail to pass PNTR, we are putting ourselves at a distinct
disadvantage because we will be the only WTO member country that will
not have access to Vietnam's booming economy.
Foreign competitors will get the benefit of lower trade barriers--
benefits we negotiated--as U.S. farmers, manufacturers and businesses
watch from the sidelines.
Also, granting PNTR status to Vietnam advances our interests in areas
other than trade.
PNTR will promote ongoing internal reforms within Vietnam. WTO
membership will require Vietnam to adhere to WTO rules of law and
provide greater transparency where trade matters are concerned.
Vietnam's laws and regulations that affect foreign trade and investment
will need to be published and made publicly available.
In addition, Vietnam has been cooperative with our efforts to achieve
full accounting of U.S. soldiers missing in action.
Enactment of PNTR will further this good working relationship.
Mr. Speaker, today, we have an opportunity to expand our economy and
improve American prosperity. We also have an opportunity to eliminate
the remnants from a war that ended more than three decades ago.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6406.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
opposition to this bill which includes establishing permanent normal
trade relations with Vietnam.
I have serious concerns about establishing PNTR with Vietnam without
mandating essential human rights protections.
Despite the fact that the President removed Vietnam from the list of
``Countries of Particular Concern, which happened to coincide with his
trip to Vietnam, reports from people inside the country continue to
cite ongoing harassment by the government on the basis of religion and
political beliefs.
[[Page H9145]]
In addition to the Government of Vietnam's human rights violations
against its own people, 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 it 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 think it would be irresponsible for this Congress to establish
permanent normal trade relations with the Government of Vietnam at this
time, without including critical human rights protections.
There is concern on both sides of the aisle about the continued human
rights violations by the Government of Vietnam.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill until critical human rights
protections are included.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the
Republican Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee introduced a 259-
page trade bill that was delivered too late for most of us to really
study. Many of us have not had a chance to thoroughly read the bill,
let alone participate in committee hearings or a markup on the bill.
Even though we are on the House floor tonight getting ready to vote
on a bill we know very little about.
Tucked away on page 74 of this 259-page bill is what appears to be a
small provision on extending permanent normal trade relations (PNTR)
with Vietnam, a bill that failed in the House last month.
Although I support some provisions in the bill before us, I am voting
against H.R. 6406 because the PNTR provision does not do anything to
improve human rights conditions in Vietnam.
We have a unique opportunity to significantly affect the state of
human rights and political and religious freedom in Vietnam. It is a
mistake not to use the leverage of PNTR to begin to gain these
improvements in 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, who was also released after
pressure from U.S. legislators in the time before consideration of
PNTR.
These Americans were freed, not because Vietnam had a sudden change
of heart on human rights in their country, but precisely because they
care so deeply about gaining permanent normal trade relations with the
U.S. Given this experience, we know Vietnam is willing to make changes
on human rights if we demand it in exchange for PNTR.
Sadly, although both Mr. Do and Ms. Foshee 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 to
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?
With Vietnam's strong interest in PNTR, Congress has a unique
opportunity to bring about substantive improvements in human rights. We
should not pass up this one-time opportunity by sneaking through PNTR
in a 259-page bill that was just introduced yesterday in the last week
of a lame duck Congress.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, today, I am voting
in opposition to H.R. 6406. This legislation addresses multiple trade
issues which will have an important impact on the rights of workers.
I strongly support extending the benefits of the Andean Trade
Preferences program, and I would like to vote for its renewal. However,
H.R. 6406 only extends the Andean Trade Preferences program for 6
months and then holds any future extension hostage to the passage of
the Colombia and Peru free trade agreements. The model used to draft
these free trade agreements has failed to protect workers, and any
trade agreement with either nation will require substantial review.
Additionally, H.R. 6406 includes an extension of Permanent Normal
Trade Relations to Vietnam. Workers in Vietnam are denied basic human
and labor rights, including the freedom of association and the right to
form independent unions. Vietnam should meet all of the core
international labor standards before it receives an extension of
Permanent Normal Trade Relations.
Sadly, this legislation mixes good ideas with bad ones. For example,
we ought to have the opportunity to cast a clear up or down vote on the
Andean Trade Preferences, rather than be forced to vote against it
because it is tied to flawed trade agreements. This bill was hastily
written and given inadequate time for debate. While I support trade, we
must ensure that our trade policy benefits working families, increases
exports, decreases our trade deficit, and guarantees basic labor
rights. Because this bill endangers these goals, I cannot support it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1100, the bill is considered read, and
the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212,
noes 184, not voting 37, as follows:
[Roll No. 539]
AYES--212
Ackerman
Baird
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Cole (OK)
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
Dent
Dicks
Doggett
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
[[Page H9146]]
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Neal (MA)
Northup
Nunes
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Oxley
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Sekula Gibbs
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Towns
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Walden (OR)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Young (AK)
NOES--184
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bonner
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Carson
Carter
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Conaway
Costello
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Etheridge
Everett
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Higgins
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hostettler
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
LaTourette
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lynch
Markey
Marshall
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Turner
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watt
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--37
Baker
Berman
Blumenauer
Burton (IN)
Conyers
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
English (PA)
Evans
Fattah
Ford
Gallegly
Gibbons
Gillmor
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kolbe
McCrery
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Miller, Gary
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Otter
Paul
Sanchez, Loretta
Sensenbrenner
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Strickland
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Watson
Waxman
{time} 1945
Mr. BACHUS and Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, due to a preexisting
commitment with constituents in my district, I missed two rollcall
votes this evening. I ask that the Congressional Record show that had I
been present:
For rollcall No. 536--Adoption of the Rule for H.R. 6406, a bill to
modify temporarily certain rates of duty and make other technical
amendments to the trade laws, and to extend certain trade preference
programs--I would have voted ``no'';
For rollcall No. 539--Adoption of the Rule for H.R. 6406, a bill to
modify temporarily certain rates of duty and make other technical
amendments to the trade laws, and to extend certain trade preference
programs--I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Pursuant to section 2 of House
Resolution 1100, the text of H.R. 6406, as passed by the House, will be
appended to the engrossment of the House amendment to the Senate
amendment to H.R. 6111.
____________________