To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation granting Vietnam permanent normal trade relations.

Today is a day that shows America really at its best. With one piece of legislation, we will show the world the heart and spirit of our country. In the grand scheme of things, there is not a lot of money involved here, but there is an enormous amount of history and healing involved. Democrats support permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam because granting PNTR to Vietnam allows it to join the rules- based, multilateral trading system, the World Trade Organization. Vietnam's accession to the WTO will ensure that Vietnam is bound to international rules and concessions that aim to provide trade-related economic growth that is fair.

But PNTR does more than just bring Vietnam into a multinational trading relationship. PNTR continues to heal the wounds of a conflict whose wounds are still felt today. The healing of the Vietnam War continues, and today marks another important step in that process.

The U.S.-Vietnam accession agreement, for the most part, is a strong one. The agreement will open an emerging market of almost 90 million people to American exporters of goods and services. This agreement will provide the Nation's exporters and consumers opportunities which are not available today.

In my home State of Washington, a State that relies heavily on exports to drive its economy, products like computer software, commercial aircraft, and agricultural goods will find better access to an increasingly dynamic economy through this agreement.

Subjecting Vietnam to the disciplines of the WTO and its rules and dispute settlement mechanisms will be a positive step in providing the United States more of an opportunity to ensure that Vietnam's economic reforms continue and move in the right direction. This will provide a new opportunity for the Vietnamese to improve their lives by participating in freer and fair markets. That is what makes this agreement worthy of support despite its flaws.

Even as we move, I hope, to pass this resolution, we must recognize a deeply flawed process by which the resolution is brought before the House. First, this is a major trade bill that is coming to the floor on a suspension calendar, the legislation introduced and made available to the Members and the public just a few hours ago without any significant debate, without any hearing in the committee of jurisdiction, and without the opportunity of any markup. I doubt most Members know anything about this bill, which was introduced just a few hours ago, as most Members are presently flying back from their districts across the country.

This is not the way the Congress should operate when we are legislating on matters of importance to the American people. We should follow the regular order, and I am hopeful that in the future we will do that. In fact, I am absolutely certain we will do that, having listened to Mr. Levin talk about it.

In fact, the bill, and Vietnam's accession agreement to the WTO, omits a critically important provision. The Bush administration failed once again to negotiate a safeguard mechanism with Vietnam, which is a country with a nonmarket economy. This is a major oversight. Nonmarket economies do not respond to normal market signals of supply and demand, and thereby they often create surplus supply that can lead to import surges in the U.S. market. These surges, and this administration's failure to address them effectively, are one of the areas in which the Bush administration has failed to stand up for American businesses, for their workers and the manufacturing sector in general.

In the new Congress, the House of Representatives and the Committee on Ways and Means will need to consider ways that our trade law remedies can be updated and strengthened, including the antidumping laws. American firms are among the most competitive in the world, but they cannot compete with the treasury of foreign countries. The administration should know that in the new Congress; the new majority will insist that the administration incorporate safeguard tools in future PNTR agreements.

In closing, I support this bill because it is an important step that we should take to strengthen the multilateral trading system. It is an important step to provide opportunities for American and Vietnamese workers and entrepreneurs. Most importantly, this is a step we can take to improve U.S.-Vietnamese relations and our relationship with emerging Asian economies. It is unfortunate that the agreement has some key shortcomings that my colleagues on the House Ways and Means intend to address in the coming months.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida has the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I feel confident this measure before us will pass quite easily. I am glad that you have allowed the House to consider it today. I am sorry that Mr. Ramstad did not get a chance to come. We are going to miss Mr. Shaw as he leaves us. Mr. Kolbe, I am sorry he has left the floor. He was also a promoter of trade in underdeveloped countries and has been a real contributor to that effort here in the Congress.

However, this House has a little bit of work left to do in trade. And I talked to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Thomas, before he left about whether or not we can get a bill between now and the time we get out of here. I would urge the Speaker and the chairman to act on a bill that extends the expiring trade preference programs, the Andean Trade Promotion Program and the generalized system of preferences. These are programs that have been in place for many, many years and have had a very positive effect in the underdeveloped world. And I think it is important that we not allow them to lapse in the midst of transition between party control and whatever.

There are a lot of people out there whose jobs depend on how those are implemented. And I think that the chairman understands that and has given me his assurance that he is going to talk to the Senate about whether we can get through such a piece of legislation, because it is vital to these developing countries and the workers and the American businessmen and consumers.

If you are trying to plan to source some of your material overseas and you do not know what the law is going to be applying to it, it is very hard for you to plan in advance, as the garment industry does or other industries. You need some certainty about when things are going to be available and what preferences will be in place so that the costs can be considered.

I would urge the Speaker in this thing to bring us a short-term clean extension. There are a lot of things out there that can get onto these bills that really do not add, in fact are very controversial.

But the clean extension should include the provisions for Haiti, which is the poorest country in our hemisphere, and certainly we want to do what we can for them. Sub-Saharan Africa is also a very undeveloped area that is having enormous economic problems. And for those kinds of supports I think there ought not to be any kind of opposition to them. The problem is they always get coupled with everything else under the sun that people have always wanted to do.

I hope the chairman and the committee and the subcommittee and the Speaker will all come together and bring us a bill and we will support it as we have done this one today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5602 would grant permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam and permit U.S. businesses to take full advantage of the commitments that Vietnam has made as part of its accession into the World Trade Organization.

On November 7, 2006, World Trade Organization members voted to approve Vietnam's entry into the organization and Vietnam is expected to officially become a member by the end of the year. To get to this point, Vietnam has clearly made significant economic reforms and will benefit not only the international community, but also the people of Vietnam.

As part of Vietnam's accession into the World Trade Organization, more

than 94 percent of all U.S. exports of manufactured goods will face duties no higher than 15 percent. Tariffs will also be reduced 15 percent or less on three-quarters of United States agricultural products.

Additionally, U.S. service providers will have increased access to Vietnam's market. My own State of Florida already exports over $20 million of goods to Vietnam. With Vietnam's entry into the World Trade Organization, I expect this number to grow even higher, thus benefiting those that manufacture, create, grow and harvest these products, as well as those that package, store and transport them.

To say the United States and Vietnam have had a rocky relationship would be a dramatic understatement. Yet, much like with Japan, this opportunity to promote cooperation and conciliation demonstrates the great progress that is important when countries engage economically.

By enacting this legislation, the United States and Vietnam have a unique opportunity to show the world that no matter what the history between these countries may be, they can still have substantial economic and foreign policy benefits when the countries turn away from violent conflict and focus their efforts on economic interaction with an international rule-based system.

This legislation can provide an important symbolic example to countries throughout the world facing an important choice between violence and isolation or economic prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 5602 and support the efforts of American businesses striving to compete in this new and expanding market.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to clarify the record on the statement by the gentleman from Washington. He may have just gotten the amendments, but the bill has been out there since last spring and amendments were delivered to the staff of the minority office last Thursday asking for comments. We are trying to do this in as bipartisan a way as we can because we have support from the other side.

So I don't want anyone watching this process going forward to think that the majority here has in any way not shared the information that it has with the minority.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that after all of these years, I finally found something that I agree with with the gentleman from Washington, and that is the statement with regard to the Andean countries, Africa, and with Haiti.

I would hope if we cannot conclude a satisfactory agreement, free trade agreement with the countries that we are working with now, most notably Peru and Colombia, that we should have some short-term extension of the Andean preference for those countries.

At this time we do not have one, an agreement with Ecuador. However, Ecuador is in a situation now of going into an election where they have one pro-American candidate, and one that is pro-Chavez. I think we should watch that very closely, and I think that we have an obligation to do everything we can for our friends and their economic growth. I will leave it right there.

But I think that we need to, and I would hope that in the next Congress, which I regret that I will not be part of, to see these things through that we should continue our work to become, and continue to be free trade.

I would like to also comment on the comments made by my friend from Ohio with regard to the low wages and low standard of living in Vietnam. I traveled there in the late 1980s with then-chairman Gibbons. It is the same CODEL that Mr. Thomas made reference to in his opening remarks.

There we saw a very impoverished nation. We stayed at a government house in which the conditions were deplorable. In fact, one of the spouses along on the trip took all of her husband's undershirts and laid them on the bed before she would even get into the bed. We had rolling blackouts. The country was an economic disaster.

But we saw something very important. And I think this was really driven home, particularly, Jake Pickrel, whom many of us know, his wife fell and broke her hip. The doctors who was traveling with us took her down to the hospital in Vietnam, and he came back and said this is 1950s technology, the x-ray equipment there. And of course we immediately flew her out of Vietnam, where she could get and did get proper treatment.

I think we can look at Vietnam now, and I have not been back since then. But I understand the economic strides that they have made are really tremendous. And that is almost 100 percent due to their changing their economy so that it can thrive and it can grow and is not held back by the 100 percent socialistic tendencies that it seemed to have at the time.

Also I think that there is no question but that our trade will grow with Vietnam, because this is an agreement that works both ways. Their tariffs come down, our exports will increase, there is no question about that. As usual, and we find in most countries, that the tariffs of the country that we are taking down tariffs with has a higher tariff than we do.

So we should benefit, Vietnam should benefit and the economy of both countries will be better off for it. And when an economy as small as Vietnam mixes with an economy as large as the United States, it is very easy to realize that any type of stimulus that you give those economies will be a very, very big impact on their economy.

I have a letter here from the U.S.-Vietnam World Trade Coalition, and it is signed by Madeleine Albright, Jim Baker, Charlene Barshefsky, Samuel Berger, Harold Brown, Warren Christopher, William Cohen, Lawrence Eagleburger, Carla Hills, Michael Kantor, Henry Kissinger, Anthony Lake, Robert McNamara, Colin Powell, Robert Rubin, George Shultz, Robert Strauss, and Clayton Yeutter, very much in favor of this agreement.

Washington, DC, September 8, 2006.

Dear Colleague: As the bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 5602,

to provide Vietnam with Permanent Normal Trade Relations

(PNTR) status, we forward you the following letter signed by

numerous former Cabinet Secretaries, U.S. Trade

Representatives and others involved in trade and foreign

policy in previous administrations.

We hope you find this letter useful as you consider your

vote on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Jim Ramstad,

Member of Congress.

Mike Thompson,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank Mr. Ramstad, who is trying to get back here in order to take time on the floor, and really I think if he were here, and I will not hesitate because he is not, to praise him for the good work that he has done and his foresight in bringing this particular bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill.

I am honored to follow my friends Mr. Shaw and Mr. Kolbe, who have invested in making this work, and it is an example of how trade policy can, in fact, be bipartisan. This is one of those examples.

For those of us who entered political life during the Vietnam War era, the passage of normal trade relations and the final step towards normalization of relations with Vietnam is nothing short of astonishing. I was honored to accompany President Clinton on his historic visit to Vietnam in 2000 and to watch the spontaneous outpouring of, interest and it appeared even affection, for the American President and for America at that point. This agreement cements this important political relationship with a key Southeast Asia partner and demonstrates a roadmap for other former enemy countries to repair relations and proceed together along a mutually beneficial path.

It contributes to the continued process of reform in Vietnam, strengthening the rule of law, promoting transparency in government, and decreasing that government's role in the Vietnamese economy.

It is also good economic policy for both the United States and Vietnam, strengthens the international trading system in the wake of the collapse of the Doha Round. U.S. exports to Vietnam have increased over 150 percent since that historic visit with President Clinton to over $1.2 billion last year, and Vietnam continues to be the second fastest economic growth engine in the world.

Vietnam has agreed to open their markets to U.S. manufactured goods, services, and agricultural commodities, including things we care about in Oregon like beef, apples and pears.

Imports from Vietnam are also important in supporting many jobs in the Northwest, as my friend from Puget Sound mentioned. Companies, I would say, like Nike and Intel have the same sort of interests, and it will also provide advantages for American consumers. Access to U.S. markets can also play an important role in Vietnam's fight against poverty as it seeks to emulate the progress of the other ``Asian tigers,'' which have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and sickness in East Asia.

However, I would offer two points of caution. I am concerned that the administration has agreed to self-initiate antidumping investigations against the Vietnamese textile industry, which employs 2 million people and is Vietnam's second largest export earner. By creating an uncertain atmosphere for U.S. business in Vietnam, I am concerned, and I hope that this concern is not proven to be founded, that the agreement between the administration and the Senators from North Carolina will deter U.S. companies from operating in Vietnam and harm companies that depend on imports from that country, limiting the benefits of this agreement both for the United States and the Vietnamese people, as well as setting, shall we say, a dubious precedent for future trade policy.

I do encourage the administration to work closely with the United States stakeholders and attempt to find a mutually acceptable conclusion to this issue that is fair to the parties involved and does not set a dangerous precedent.

I would also repeat on the floor what I have said to friends and people that I have met in Vietnam, Vietnamese officials at the highest level in both countries, that the Vietnam record on religious freedom and human rights continues to be an impediment to a full flowering of the partnership with the United States. It decreases the legitimacy of the Vietnamese Government in the eyes of their people and people around the world.

A truly close relationship can only be based on shared values and the Vietnam Government's record must improve in the area of human rights and religious freedom. And it is not just about the relationship between the United States and Vietnam and helping oppressed people in Vietnam. It is only with this freedom of the economy and religion that they are going to be able to benefit the full flowering of their economy.

Mr. Speaker, in the end, permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam is a win for both the United States and Vietnam on all fronts. And I for one enjoyed working with the junior Senator from Oregon who helped lead the passage in the Senate, demonstrating once again that trade does not have to be one of these mindless partisan issues. I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5602 was a bill that was introduced in June of this year by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) and principally the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson). This is the culmination of a long and sometimes very difficult process.

The relationships between the United States and Vietnam have been difficult. When I was a member of the committee as a member of the minority and the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee was the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons, we traveled to Vietnam as the first official United States Delegation on Trade. That was a number of years ago. So we arrive today after an 11-year effort in working with Vietnam to enjoy the announcement that Vietnam is on the verge of joining the World Trade Organization.

Vietnam joining the WTO will bring substantial economic benefits obviously to the Vietnamese and to the United States, because Vietnam has agreed to open its markets to U.S. goods and services. However, to fully benefit from this move on the part of Vietnam to the World Trade Organization, the United States must first extend the so-called permanent normal trade relationship to Vietnam, and that is what this bill does.

I asked to take it up with the ``as amended'' phrase attached because we have been able to come to an agreement. One of the real concerns with an increase in trade between the United States and Vietnam is the textile industry. We have concerns about those areas in the United States that still have an ability to provide and afford the production of textiles and the relationship we are going to continue to grow with Central America with the free trade agreement there and with the pending free trade agreements with Andean countries that will provide us with an excellent opportunity to move our raw and partially finished textile products to an area that will both advance those countries and the United States.

Vietnam will be a major player in the textile industry. The concern we have is in balancing the concerns of those who are on the retail side and those who are on the production side, and we believe that the amendment that we have offered will go a long way toward resolving those concerns.

There is still concern as far as the chairman is concerned and, I know, of other Members on Vietnam's record on human rights and religious freedom. Just because it decides to join the World Trade Organization doesn't mean that it has decided in all aspects to join the world's civilized nations in its behavior not only to its people and to others. However, I do firmly believe that if Vietnam lives up to its commitment in its membership in the World Trade Organization, it will encourage and accelerate the opportunity for needed reforms in a tangible way that impacts the Vietnamese people's lives daily. So although I have a number of reservations in that regard, I do support going forward.

This is a regime that is not a democracy. I do hope as we examine trade relationships that may be presented to this Congress before we adjourn sine die, that we take cognizance of the fact that we have an opportunity to enter into free trade agreements with growing and vibrant democracies in this hemisphere, and if we are anxious to move a trade agreement with a country that is not democratic, that we extend that same courtesy to those in the Western Hemisphere, specifically Peru, that have made significant sacrifices to come to a free trade agreement. They are, after all, a deserving people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I turn the balance of my time over to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, and that he be allowed to yield said time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time.

I want to rise in strong support of this legislation, and I want to commend the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee for the work that they have done in advancing this bill, which will benefit both America and Vietnam for years to come. And I want to especially pay tribute to the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee for his long service in this Congress and for the work that he has done over the years in the area of trade, which has made such advances for better relations between the United States and other countries and improved the lot of people in other countries as well as the lot of workers and citizens here at home in the United States. His service will be greatly missed in the next Congress.

Permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam is the next logical step in our partnership with that country. Back in 1995, with my support and that of many others on both sides of the

aisle, we embarked on a new path of political progress with Vietnam. We restored political relations and we restored economic relations. We recognized how important it was to integrate a former adversary into the global economy.

Then in December of 2001, we passed a bilateral trade agreement that has spurred economic growth for all parties. By the end of 2005, two- way trade between the United States and Vietnam had reached nearly $8 billion, a huge increase from the base it started at just a few years earlier. Now, with the passage of this legislation, with the adoption of permanent normal trade relations, we will magnify those benefits and we will allow the United States and Vietnam to work as partners in the World Trade Organization.

The impact for our Nation will be especially dramatic in the services sector. The bill will provide more open access in telecommunications, financial services, and energy services. This is crucial, absolutely crucial, for jobs here at home in the United States. Eighty percent of the American workforce is in the service sector.

At the same time, this legislation is about more than just economics, and I think that those on both sides of the aisle recognize this fact. Permanent normal trade relations will promote additional domestic reforms in Vietnam. By increasing transparency in that country's trade practices, this bill will contribute to greater transparency in all areas of government.

From the first time that I visited Vietnam after my service in the conflict there, more than 15 years ago, to today we have seen enormous changes take place in the political structure of Vietnam. And as a Vietnam veteran, I find this especially heartwarming and especially important. We are working and we must continue to work on behalf of development and of good governance in Vietnam.

This legislation shows us that Vietnam's best interests can align with the interests of this country as well, and this is what free trade is all about. This is what free trade does for two countries, and this is why this bill has bipartisan support, and it is why it will pass, why it should pass, today.

I can only hope that in the next Congress my colleagues will take the same commonsense approach to other trade bills that will be considered and that they will have the courage to embrace a free trade agenda which will benefit Americans and people around the world alike.