[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 23262-23268]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 23263]]

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.''
  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.

[[Page 23264]]

  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 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

[[Page 23265]]

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 
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

[[Page 23266]]

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.
  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

[[Page 23267]]

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

[[Page 23268]]


     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     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.

                          ____________________