Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6406) to modify temporarily certain rates of duty and make other technical amendments to the trade laws, to extend certain trade preference programs, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1100 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I have, for the last time for the next 2 years, called up this resolution, and I will say that for the purpose of debate only I will yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Hastings, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. And during consideration of this resolution, all time that I will be yielding will be for debate purposes only.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1100 is a closed rule providing 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and also provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides that, in the engrossment of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6111) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while such claims are pending the Clerk shall, (a) add the text of H.R. 6406, as passed by House, as new matter at the end of such engrossment; (b) assign appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment; and (c) conform provisions for short titles within the engrossment.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1100 and its underlying legislation, H.R. 6406. While it is important to note that this bill is not a free trade agreement, we have structured a closed rule to mirror the standard procedures afforded to free trade agreements for House consideration.

This past Congress I am very proud, with your work, Madam Speaker, and

the work of many others, we have been able to pass crucial free trade agreements with the countries of Bahrain and Oman as well as the Central American countries and the Dominican Republic. Under this rule, we are continuing this commitment to free trade, and we aim to implement a number of provisions that are critical for advancing our trade agenda and ensuring the continued leadership of the United States economy in the worldwide marketplace. First, we would grant Vietnam, Southeast Asia's fasting growing economy, permanent normal trade relations (PNTR), thereby eliminating the annual evaluation of Vietnam's emigration practices under the Jackson-Vanik provision.

It is important to clarify what PNTR is and what it is not. First of all, as I said, PNTR is not a free trade agreement. Though I would be the first to support an FTA with Vietnam, the issue we are debating today is not a special trading relationship between the United States and Vietnam. It would simply grant what is known as a normal trade relationship.

Normalizing trade with Vietnam is an important step towards enhancing our ability to engage with Vietnam and encourage continued progress in the areas of economic and political liberalization. A normal trade relationship will not be a panacea or cause an instantaneous eradication of the challenges of human rights violations and other issues that Vietnam faces. But it is both by doing this, we are acknowledging the tremendous progress that has been made and an opportunity for further engagement that will help propel Vietnam forward on the path towards political and economic reform.

Furthermore, granting PNTR for Vietnam is necessary to provide access for American producers and service providers to a market that will soon be open to the rest of the world. Vietnam will accede to the WTO, the World Trade Organization, in just a few weeks, essentially normalizing its trading relationship with the entire globe. If we fail to grant PNTR for Vietnam, we will be putting American businesses and our consumers, the American people, at a competitive disadvantage with our trading partners, all of whom will have access to the market in Vietnam.

By seeking WTO accession, Vietnam has demonstrated its commitment to operate in a rules-based trading system. It has clearly signaled that it wants to be a responsible participant in the global economy, and adhere to the rules that we have all agreed to. Through PNTR, we not only open up new market access, we gain the ability to hold Vietnam accountable for its trading practices.

Many will argue that because Vietnam must still make progress in protecting human rights and ensuring individual freedoms, that we cannot normalize our trade relationship yet. I believe that it is precisely because of the need to focus on improving the human rights situation, on bringing about a full accounting of the POW, MIAs, of dealing with enhancement of the rule of law and political pluralism, that that is exactly why we must do everything we can to expand our engagement. Bringing them in to a rules-based system of international trade will enhance transparency and accountability, and I truly believe will undermine the command-and-control concept that has existed in their government.

This is not a gift to them, Madam Speaker. What we are doing is we are playing a big role in not only enhancing the opportunity for the American people to see our standard of living and quality of life improve because of imports, but also by gaining access to their market and thereby improving the standard of living and the quality of life for the people of Vietnam. Giving them a place in the international community will increase the pressure that they feel to live up to international norms.

As I said, a great deal of progress has already been made on the part of the Vietnamese Government. Refusing to engage in a normalized trade relationship is not the way to encourage continuation of this progress that we have already seen.

Now, Madam Speaker, additionally, this bill includes an extension of the Andean preference program which expires in just a few weeks, on December 31. This program provides an incentive for U.S. companies to invest in the politically and economically fragile Andean region. Creating lawful economic activity has been critical to efforts to divert illegal coca manufacturing towards legitimate industries, especially in some of the most egregious drug trafficking countries.

And at the same time, these preferences encourage the Andean countries to pursue more permanent, two-way free trade agreements with the United States which will help to solidify our economic and political relationship with that very important region right in our back yard.

Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation would extend these programs temporarily, but require full cooperation in the free trade arrangement negotiating process in order to continue them beyond a 6-month period.

What I am saying is in the first 6 months, there obviously are standards that must be met, requirements that must be met, and then we must continue in the FTA negotiations. By taking this approach, we maintain the economic benefits that the preference program has brought, while at the same time we provide a powerful incentive to move toward greater economic engagement.

Madam Speaker, this bill goes further in addition by including provisions regarding the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement, or the so-called HOPE Act, which provides important tax credits for new U.S. labor and capital investments in eligible countries in the Caribbean region.

This program will not only advance U.S. textile interests, but provide critical assistance and opportunities for the people in this region, again, right in our backyard, not on the other side of the world.

Madam Speaker, with that I again urge my colleagues to support this very fair rule that allows us to bring up this important underlying legislation which deserves strong bipartisan support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation for my very good friend, Mr. Hastings, for his kind words and I look forward to working with him and Mrs. Slaughter. We don't know all the other new members of the Rules Committee who will be joining us, but we look forward to working in a bipartisan way to address the many challenges the United States of America faces.

Mr. Hastings and I are in agreement on our quest to try to make sure that we implement this very important legislation. It does touch a number of areas, but as I said, it reaffirms our very strong commitment to doing all that we can, all that we can to expand the cause of freedom and the recognition of the interdependence of economic and political liberalization.

I was just talking to one of my colleagues a few minutes ago, Madam Speaker, and he made the statement to me that he is concerned about the Vietnam agreement because we should not be engaging with a communist country.

I think it is for that precise reason that we have what to me is an authoritarian dictatorship in Vietnam. I believe that by tying their hands, forcing them to live with a rules-based trading system, by doing everything that we can to bring them, as I said in my statement, into a world trade community, they will be able to have to comply with international norms, and there will be greater transparency and disclosure, so that the horrendous human rights issues that we have seen can more readily be addressed.

I am one who has believed at my core that trade promotes private enterprise, which creates wealth, which improves living standards, which undermines political oppression. If one looks at the last two decades of our Nation's history, we found countries with authoritarian dictatorships where we have maintained strong economic engagement, and, in so doing, we have been able to bring about the kind of political reform that I believe to be essential.

Two instances in this hemisphere alone, Venezuela and Chile, these are two countries which have had oppressive dictatorships. Yet through the decades of the 1980s, we maintained strong economic engagement with them. What has happened? Well, we have seen blossoming, strong political liberalization and the building of democracies in those nations, the recognition of the rule of law.

Similarly, if we shift to Asia, shift to Asia and look at countries like South Korea and Taiwan, places where we saw authoritarian dictatorships for many, many years and we as a Nation, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush maintained strong economic ties with those countries, what has happened? Well, we see vibrant, growing democracies, both on Taiwan and on South Korea.

Now, I believe similarly that doing the kinds of things that can help us in the recognition of the importance of improving human rights, the importance of dealing with the violations of international norms that we have observed in Vietnam, we all acknowledge them. I served for years as a member of the POW/MIA Task Force. I made several trips to Vietnam in our quest to bring about a resolution on that. We continue today to be committed to this. I believe that our bringing Vietnam into this international norm, the trading status, will help us resolve these very, very important issues.

Another question that came forward was the deleterious impact this could potentially have on the textile industry here in the United States as it relates to India, as it relates to Haiti. I know there has been some concern raised about ATPA, the Andean Trade Preference Status.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to recognize that change is inevitable. I am one who believes passionately in what is known as the ``economic theory of comparative advantage.'' We do what we do best, and others will do what they do best.

Madam Speaker, it is in our interest to see a strong, growing, global economy. It is also in our interest to do everything we can within our own hemisphere to ensure that we can compete globally. By proceeding with our focus on the Andean region, as we deal with the scourge of illicit drugs, as we deal with the economic devastation in Haiti, and I am very proud of the fact that the House Democracy Assistance Commission, that my colleague, David Price and I have worked on, are focusing on building the parliament in Haiti, that our doing what they can there to enhance that political pluralism will be very important, very important for the stability of this hemisphere. I believe it will be very important for the consumers of the United States of America as well.

While this isn't a perfect measure, frankly, I wish we could do more, I wish we could immediately pass the FTAs with Peru, Colombia and we look forward to the South Korea FTA. I mean, I can go to other parts of the world. I very much want us to see more and more of these. I know come June we will see the expiration of trade promotion authority.

I see my very good friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and he and I worked very closely on the issue of trying to enhance our opportunity, on trying to embark on more negotiations for FTAs. I believe it is imperative for us.

Madam Speaker, as I listen to many people decry the notion of trade and talk about the devastation that it has wrought to the U.S. economy, I remind them that just yesterday we got a near record report of a drop in jobless claims. We have a 4.6 percent unemployment rate, near record low.

We have a very strong GDP growth rate. We want it to be stronger, not quite as strong for this quarter as it has been in the past, but it still is strong GDP growth. I believe that has come, in large part, due to our strong commitment to the global leadership role.

If we as a Nation, if we don't lead globally, we will see others take that lead. What we are going to be voting on later today is very important in our quest to do that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, being the eternal optimist that I am, I will put my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) in the ``undecided'' column on this.

Pending that, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very good friend, the former mayor of Alexandria, Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

Madam Speaker, I, of course, express my great appreciation to my friend from Florida for his very kind words, and I do look forward to learning from him. I see the distinguished future chairman of the Ways and Means Committee here, my very good friend, Mr. Rangel. We are going to have an interesting 2 years, and it is going to be a different opportunity for all of us.

I just reminded Paul Hayes of the fact that he, 15 years ago, said to me that he looked forward to the day when I would be able to, by direction of the Committee on Rules, call up a resolution for us to consider here on the floor, and I have been able to do that now for 12 years. We have this 2-year intermezzo that we are going to be going through, and I look forward to working in a bipartisan way with my colleagues on a wide range of issues.

I believe that this measure that we are considering right here on our global leadership role is an important bipartisan effort.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Rangel and I spoke yesterday at length about the need for us to move ahead with our global trade agenda, and I look forward to continuing our effort together. On all of the public policy questions that we will be facing here in this House, I look forward to working with Mrs. Slaughter and Mr. Hastings and the other members of the Rules Committee.

On this measure itself, Madam Speaker, I believe that for the cause of freedom, for the cause of our global leadership role, and, as Mr. Moran said so eloquently, the effort to ensure the rule of law and political pluralism and the building of democratic institutions, this effort to pass these agreements is essential for us. So I urge support for the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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

I think it is very clear that we clarify exactly what we are talking about with Vietnam. We are simply making what we have been doing every year as a permanent-type position so we don't have to come back and vote on it every year. And what do we get for it? We get access to their markets. So this is something that is to the benefit of the United States, and it is not giving any free trade agreement or any special deal to Vietnam. And I think people that are watching this debate tonight should be very much aware of that.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

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

I don't have it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time in order to read a paragraph into the Record. This is a letter dated December 8 from the United States Customs and Border Protection.

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner in this letter says: ``As the customs and border protection official ultimately charged with our trade facilitation and enforcement efforts, including protecting United States industry against unfairly traded textile imports, we can and will enforce this legislation, if enacted. I was disturbed to learn that some interests are characterizing the Customs and Border Protection's position as opposed to the package of legislation. That is not the case.''

Of course, he was referring to the legislation that is before the body at this time.

U.S. Department of

Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, December 8, 2006.

Hon. Bill Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thomas: Thank you for contacting us with an

opportunity to clarify the views of U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (CBP) on H.R. 6346 and its predecessor H.R. 6142

which contain various free trade agreement provisions related

to Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for Vietnam,

Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), the Andean Trade

Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), the African

Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the Haitian Hemispheric

Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement (HOPE) Act, and

various tariff measures.

As the CBP official ultimately charged with our trade

facilitation and enforcement efforts, including protecting

U.S. industry against unfairly traded textile imports, we can

and will enforce this legislation, if enacted. I was

disturbed to learn that some interests are characterizing

CBP's position as opposed to the package of legislation. That

is not the case.

Every major change to trade laws poses enforcement

challenges for our agency, and this legislation is no

different. Simply acknowledging these challenges however does

not constitute agency opposition to the legislation as a

whole nor to the underlying agreements nor do they pose

insurmountable obstacles to textile enforcement. I want to

assure you that CBP remains committed to enforcing all

textile trade laws that impact the domestic industry.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond and clarify the

agency's position, please do not hesitate to contact me if I

may be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

W. Ralph Basham,

Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished gentleman of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), who will certainly be missed next year.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I do rise in very strong support of H.R. 6406, which is a shining example of how international trade can help the world's poorest people by creating jobs in impoverished nations, also bettering the lives of Americans by reducing costs, creating export opportunities for United States business, and offering United States consumers more choices at lower prices.

Living in Florida, I am especially sensitive to the plight of the Haitian people. This legislation includes the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement, also known as the HOPE Act, which is aimed at helping our desperately poor neighbors. This is an act that was created in a bipartisan way with many Members on each side of the aisle participating, and I was very, very pleased to be a part of that.

This HOPE Act contains modest provisions to allow Haiti's struggling apparel sector to create jobs and to better integrate the United States and other hemispheric textile industries, such as in Central America. This legislation is critical to help Haiti build an economy to sustain its very young and very fragile democracy and give the Haitian people hope and purpose to cease conflict and embrace a better tomorrow.

In this way, the benefits included in the HOPE Act could have a tangible and meaningful impact on the people of Haiti, but would have a very minimal, even, I might say, trivial impact on the United States markets.

For example, Haiti's benefit in the first year capped at 1 percent of the United States apparel imports, 1 percent of the imports, a level less than the current 1 percent of the current apparel imports from Haiti. I think one thing is abundantly clear, and we can see it all over the globe, whether you look in Haiti. You cannot sustain a democracy without an economy. That is black letter law as far as I am concerned. In order for this democracy to flourish, it is going to be absolutely necessary that we do help them as best we can to build their economy.

I also draw the Members' attention to the short-term extension of unilateral trade benefits for Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, yes, and even Bolivia. The United States signed bilateral trade promotion agreements with Peru and Colombia, and I would greatly prefer that we were approving these bilateral agreements today rather than simply extending the current benefits. But the administration did not submit the implementing packages for these agreements for congressional consideration before the preferences expired, so we must ensure that our allies are not harmed economically while the Congress completes its process, and, hopefully, this will be early next year.

This bill provides a seamless tradition for extending the trade preferences for 6 months, yet it maintains an incentive for everyone to quickly approve and implement the trade agreements by providing an additional 6 months of benefits only if the legislatures here and there approve their respective agreements. This approach also encourages Ecuador and Bolivia to follow the lead of Peru and Colombia to include comprehensive and commercially meaningful trade promotion agreements within that year.

I certainly support this bill, and if I may, as a point of personal privilege, want to thank all that I have had the privilege of working with throughout so many years on the Ways and Means Committee. It has been an honor, not only to serve in this body, but particularly to serve on this particular committee.

The gentleman from Maryland and I have been close friends for many, many years, as I have with soon-to-be Chairman Rangel on the other side of the aisle. We have had our differences here on the floor, but never off of the floor, and it has been a tremendous, tremendous opportunity for me to be able to work. And also to watch the skilful work of Chairman Thomas. Sometimes he gets a little prickly and a little hard to work with, but he always ends up doing the right thing, and it has been a privilege to serve with him too.

This will be the last time that I will be able to appear on this floor, but thank you for the great opportunity to serve the people of the 22nd Congressional District of Florida and the people of the United States of America, the greatest country on the face of this Earth.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California, Chairman Thomas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6406. And while I believe in free trade between free people, this bill would extend trading rights to the dictatorship of Vietnam and other questionable countries.

Why are we doing this? We are told that, of course, increasing commerce with such dictatorships will eventually lead that dictatorship to evolve into a more docile or a more democratic society. That has not worked. It has created a monster in China. Why is there any reason for us to think it won't do the same in Vietnam?

The Vietnamese themselves have been pleading with us not to grant Most Favored Nation status; basically permanent normal trade status is what we are talking about tonight.

I include this letter in the Record. It is a letter to the President of the United States from 28 leading Vietnamese, who probably will end up in prison, discussing how their country is not free, that the people there have none of the liberties that we are talking about and that such trade would go

in the opposite direction rather than making the leadership of the dictatorship more open to reforms.

A Call for Democracy--Open Letter to President George W. Bush on the Occasion of his Trip to Vietnam To Attend the APEC Summit in November

2006

Vietnam,

November 14, 2006.

Dear Mr. President: On behalf of all Vietnamese people who

struggle for democracy and freedom in Vietnam we warmly

welcome you to our country on the occasion of your trip to

Hanoi to attend the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

Summit.

When arriving in Vietnam, you will see, in addition to the

natural beauty of our country, many high-rise buildings and

splendid mansions belonging to the elite of the Vietnamese

Communist Party and wealthy businessmen. However, you won't

see the poverty of the majority of Vietnamese people who live

in the countryside or in suburban areas. You will not be

allowed to see the impoverished farmers who keep on coming to

Hanoi to protest against the confiscation of their land year

after year, their plight unheard.

Mr. President:

The Vietnamese people have no free elections. In Vietnam,

the Communist Party chooses all candidates prior to an

election, and people who are not chosen by the Communist

system cannot run in an election. Since all candidates are

nominated by the Party, from the People's Committee at the

village level to the National Assembly, elections are only a

ploy used by the regime to disguise their intentions. This is

the reason why people's legitimate complaints are never

addressed.

The Vietnamese people have no freedom of the press, and

therefore freedom of speech is severely limited. Although

Vietnam currently has more than 600 newspapers, all are owned

and controlled by the Party. Until now, no private newspaper

has ever been allowed to appear. Vietnam has one of the

strictest systems of control over public use of the Internet

in the world. Many web sites with information on freedom and

democracy are not available in Vietnam.

The Vietnamese people do not have freedom of religion and

worship. Religious organizations which were not established

by the state, such as the Unified Buddhist Church of VietNam,

the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church, the Cao Dai Congregation and the

Mennonite Church of Vietnam, are all prohibited from

operating. Many Buddhist monks and Christian priests are

placed under ``administrative restrictions,'' i.e. under

detention in their own pagodas or churches.

Recently, due to pressure from the United States, the

European Union, and other countries and international

organizations, the Vietnamese government released some

prisoners of conscience. Nevertheless, hundreds of political

dissidents are still detained or placed under

``administrative restriction'' based on Decree 31-CP which

allows anyone to be detained up to two years without a court

order.

Corruption in the Communist Party of Vietnam is at an

epidemic level. Vietnam is classified as one of the most

corrupt countries in the world but nobody within Vietnam

dares to point that out because we don't have freedom of the

press. The most corrupt people are high-ranking members of

the Vietnamese Communist Party themselves.

Despite legal restrictions, the Vietnamese people still

seek real democracy and freedom. Among the appeals is the

``Call for Democracy for Vietnam'' issued by the Unified

Vietnamese Buddhist Congregation in 2001, the ``Nine Steps

towards Democracy in Vietnam'' by the Non-Violent Movement

for Human Rights in 2005, and most recently the ``Declaration

for Democracy and Freedom'' courageously released on April 8,

2006 by 118 private citizens inside Vietnam.

Mr. President:

You have said many times that spreading democracy is one of

your great goals. We found it very encouraging when you said

that you always side with those who fight for freedom in the

world and will support them in this effort. We hope,

therefore, that you will use your forthcoming visit to

encourage the Communist leaders of Vietnam to adopt real

democracy. In order to implement this policy, first and

foremost they would have to discard Article 4 of the Vietnam

constitution which gives absolute power to the Vietnam

Communist Party, repeal the 31-CP Decree, release all

political dissidents currently detained in prisons or under

house arrest, and move resolutely in restoring the freedom of

the press, freedom of religion, and freedom to form

organizations and political parties, and freedom to stand for

election.

With our best wishes for a successful trip and for good

health and happiness to you and Mrs. Bush, we remain,

Yours most respectfully,

Engineer Nguyen Phuong Anh (Hanoi).

Retired Colonel Pham Que Duong (Hanoi).

Engineer Bach Ngoc Duong (Hanoi).

Lawyer Nguyen Van Dai (Hanoi).

Catholic Father Nguyen Huu Giai (Thua Thien).

Mr. Nguyen Thanh Giang, Ph.D. (Hanoi).

Engineer Do Nam Hai (Saigon).

Mr. Tran Van Hoa (Quang Ninh).

Mr. Nguyen Ho (Former Labor Union Leader, Saigon).

Professor Nguyen Chinh Ket (Saigon).

Professor Tran Khue (Saigon).

Retired Major Colonel Tran Anh Kim (Thai Binh).

Mr. Le Quang Liem (Hoa Hao Buddhist Leader, Saigon).

Catholic Father Phan Van Loi (Hue).

Catholic Father Nguyen Van Ly (Hue).

Mr. Cao Van Nham (Hai Phong).

Lawyer Le Thi Cong Nhan (Hanoi).

Pastor Ngo Hoai No (Evangelical Missionary League, Saigon).

Technician Nguyen Phong (Hue).

Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang (Mennonite Church of Vietnam,

Saigon).

Retired Army Officer Vu Cao Quan (Hai Phong).

Mr. Nguyen Dan Que, MD (Saigon).

Mr. Pham Hong Son, MD (Hanoi).

Venerable Thich Nu Dam Thoa (Senior Buddhist Nun, Bac

Giang).

Writer Tran Khai Thanh Thuy (Hanoi).

Writer Hoang Tien (Hanoi).

Catholic Father Chan Tin (Saigon).

Journalist Nguyen Khac Toan (Hanoi).

Also let me note this: If not for the cause of freedom and justice, which we are supposedly fighting for in Iraq right now, we at least should back up our own military troops who gave their lives in Vietnam. The Vietnamese have never come clean with us on the POW issue. Ask Sam Johnson, who is one of our own colleagues. Yes, they have given us us the right to dig, but they have kept from us all of the prison records of those POWs who we knew were alive and in captivity. They have refused time and again. Until they come clean on POWs, until there is some reform that shows they are going in the right direction, it is wrong, it is morally wrong for us to extend this Permanent Normal Trading Status for this type of dictatorship.

And, in fact, we know what it is all about. It is not trying to evolve Vietnam into a more democratic society. It is about our big businessmen sacrificing the interests of American workers by chasing cheap labor, cheap labor under dictatorships where they don't have a right to stand up for their own rights.

I ask that this bill be defeated.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. This legislation would extend permanent normal trade relations to Vietnam. That is necessary for the United States to be able to benefit from Vietnam's entering the World Trade Organization, and Vietnam is entering the World Trade Organization. It will give U.S. manufacturers and producers more access to the market in Vietnam, which is the fastest growing economy in Southeast Asia. It also provides stronger protection for American companies in regards to intellectual property rights.

But I want to make it clear no one should interpret the passage of Permanent Normal Trade Relations for Vietnam as a clean bill of health on their human rights. Vietnam has a long way to go in dealing with human rights issues. Yes, we are pleased that the State Department has removed them from a country of particular concern as it relates to religious freedom. That is an important step forward. But when you look at the list of issues that still remain in Vietnam on human rights, it is a matter of concern for our country.

Vietnam fails to provide its citizens with any meaningful vote, and the government censors domestic media sources, blocks foreign radio broadcasts and Web sites, and denies its people the right to form independent organizations, including independent unions representing working people. The government also routinely cracks down harshly on antigovernment protesters.

We cannot let these shortcomings go unchallenged. PNTR should not be stopped. That is not the right tool for us to deal with those issues. Vietnam is entering the World Trade Organization. We need to be part of that. We need to engage Vietnam. We need to look for new ways in which we can have Vietnam deal with these human rights issues. It is a good step that Vietnam is entering the World Trade Organization. That is going to be helpful for us in dealing with the human rights issues.

I think we need to take note that Vietnam has taken some important steps in the right direction and that we need to make sure that they continue with their entry into the WTO, that more is expected, and that they will adhere to the rule of law. And countries with open economies are more likely to have more open societies.

I also support the provisions in this bill that deal with trade preferences for Haiti and Africa. Haiti is the poorest country in our hemisphere. We have a moral obligation to do all that we can to raise the standard of living of its

people, our neighbors in the Caribbean, and to support the fragile democracy. The administration of Haiti offers a hope of an improved standard of living for the Haitian people, but only if the United States is prepared to engage with trade and investment and support Haiti with assistance. We have a chance with this legislation to do exactly that.

The countries of Sub-Saharan Africa also merit and need stronger trade and investment relationship and our support. The AGOA program has had wide support in this Congress and has been highly successful since its inception more than 6 years ago. Since its passage in the spring of 2000, U.S. imports from eligible African countries have increased by more than 300 percent, AGOA has attracted over $340 million in new investment, and it has helped to create thousands of new jobs in Africa. Thirty-seven African countries now participate in AGOA. I hope that others, including Liberia, will soon be eligible. African exports to the United States under AGOA totaled $38 billion in 2005, an increase of more than 300 percent since 2002. The list goes on and on and on where we have been able to see economic progress through AGOA.

The problem is that we can do more and should do more. This bill includes a 6-year extension of the third-country fabric provision, the longest extension for this provision in the history of the AGOA program. It also extends other benefits in the textile and apparel sector from 2008 to 2015, a major improvement.

Mr. Speaker, these provisions will help the African workers and businesses compete against China and other competitors, including competitors who suppress their workers' rights and provide subsidies to their industries. That is in the interest of the United States and our manufacturers and producers to have that type of competition from Sub- Saharan Africa.

It is for all these reasons that this is a well-balanced bill that will advance U.S. interests, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), one of the senior members of the Ways and Means Committee and one of the most active on trade issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Maxine Waters.

Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give my friend the 20 seconds he wanted.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I might first start by saying, the past 2 years I have had the honor of being the ranking Democrat on the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee. I want to thank Mr. Shaw for his help and cooperation during these past 2 years. I think that we have acted responsibly on many initiatives, but, more importantly, we have had an opportunity to talk directly with trade representatives from many other countries in an effort to move forward trade with the United States.

I want to thank Tim Reif, the staff director on the Democratic side, for his help during all this period of time. It was a new subcommittee for me, and I can tell you I could not have done it without the help of our staff, Mr. Reif and the others.

On a personal note, this will be my last opportunity to speak on the floor of this body, and I want to thank my constituents in the Third Congressional District of Maryland for giving me the opportunity to serve in this body during the past 20 years; 18 of those years I have served on the Ways and Means Committee. The voters of Maryland have now given me the opportunity to move to the other body.

I want to thank all of the Members that I have served with over these past 20 years. This is an incredible body of the people's House in which the Members truly are concerned about the traditions of this body and the work that we do.

I have had a chance to serve with many Members on the Ways and Means Committee, and we don't always agree on issues. I know that Bill Thomas will be leaving and Clay Shaw will be leaving this body also. Both carried the tradition of the Ways and Means Committee in this body of doing what they thought was right, not only to advance a policy for this Nation, but to make sure that anything that came out of our committee lived up to the highest standards of the Ways and Means Committee and was drafted properly, and there was no misunderstanding of the intentions of what we were trying to do.

Many times that was difficult to be done, and I just want to congratulate Mr. Thomas for carrying out that awesome responsibility as Chair of the Ways and Means Committee. I can tell you that I have enjoyed every moment in this body, even those difficult evenings. This is truly a unique opportunity, to be given the opportunity to serve in this great body.

Once again, I want to thank the courtesies that I have received from each of the Members, and, again, thank the people from Maryland for giving me this opportunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1100, I call up the bill (H.R. 6406) to modify temporarily certain rates of duty and make other technical amendments to the trade laws, to extend certain trade preference programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 6406. This is the companion bill which will be combined with the tax and trade bill to be sent back to the Senate. It was originally structured as H.R. 6406, and it approves several trade measures that really are important to the livelihoods of millions of people, both in developing countries and in the U.S. and affects the global marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering H.R. 6406 to approve several trade measures that are vitally important to the livelihoods of millions of people in developing countries or are necessary to keep U.S. manufacturers and exporters competitive in the global marketplace.

This bill would extend several existing trade preferences for developing countries. The

longstanding Generalized System of Preferences, or GSP, which expires at the end of this year, provides duty-free treatment to non-sensitive products from developing countries. This bill extends GSP, adjusting it to ensure that benefits are targeted toward countries that are not competitive. It's important to note that the GSP extension applies the same rules to all countries equally.

The bill would also extend and enhance the African Growth and Opportunities Act, or AGOA, which provides trade preferences to sub- Saharan Africa. This bill would extend the current duty-free benefits on African apparel using third-country fabric through 2012.

The bill grants a six-month extension of preferences to the Andean countries, and allows another six-month extension for each country if a trade promotion agreement with that country is approved. This approach keeps our democratic allies whole while creating an incentive to complete the transition to a mature trading relationship by implementing the trade agreements that have been negotiated and concluding agreements with the other Andean countries.

The bill would also provide modest new trade preferences for Haiti to create jobs in that desperately poor country by encouraging Haiti to use more U.S. and hemispheric inputs. Haiti's poverty is equivalent to the poorest countries in Africa, and yet Haiti has never received U.S. trade preferences like the AGOA benefits.

The second major component of the bill grants permanent normal trade relations, or PNTR, to Vietnam. The bill also creates a mechanism to ensure that Vietnam abides by its obligations to end all prohibited subsidies to its textile sector. Vietnam has completed all the steps necessary to become a member of the World Trade Organization. The Vietnamese National Assembly ratified the implementing package, and the country will officially become a member at the end of the month. A majority of House members supported identical language granting PNTR to Vietnam last month.

Lastly, the bill includes 500 Miscellaneous Trade Bill provisions that went through the usual rigorous vetting process to ensure they are noncontroversial. These provisions suspend duties on products that are not produced in the United States and are usually traded in small volumes. This bill helps lower costs for U.S. manufacturers, retailers, and consumers.

This bill is responsible, bipartisan legislation that deserves support. Providing assistance to these poor countries not only helps to create stronger trading partners in the future but is also our responsibility as one of the world's strongest economies to create humanitarian opportunities through trade. I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time until I reclaim my time be provided to the gentleman from Florida who I would usually describe as the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee. Mr. Shaw, however, deserves a bit fuller description.

He came to Congress in 1981. He joined the Ways and Means Committee in the 100th Congress. He joined in 1988 and then became chairman of the Trade Subcommittee in January of 2005. He is the author of the Haiti Economic Opportunity Act. He was chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee from 1995 until 1998, and one of his major achievements, as far as I am concerned, was the 1996 welfare reform bill, historic and unprecedented. He was chairman and is chairman of the Florida delegation since 1996. And as the proud grandfather of two, I am amazed to say he is the father of four and the grandfather of 15; and I cannot imagine if my two were 15. And so it is my pleasure to turn the time over to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Speaker, unaccustomedly, the gentleman from Florida has handled the substance of the bill, so I am not going to talk about the substance, which means I normally don't have very much to talk about if I don't talk about the substance.

This is kind of unique, because normally at the end of a session and at the end of a committee's legislative responsibilities, one or two people may be retiring, but, frankly, six members of the Ways and Means Committee will not be in the 110th Congress. Some have left willingly, some unwillingly. Here we are with three of us at the end of this particular bill, which will be the last legislative responsibility of the committee.

I, too, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland. Based upon my knowing him and the extremely difficult position he found himself in, moving over to the Senate, if anyone is walking close to him, I wouldn't be surprised to hear him humming, ``free at last, free at last.'' He is going to be able to go over and completely exercise his legislative beliefs and structure. I know how difficult it has been for him in this constraint, because he has been, in words that I think are significant compliments, a legislator, as best he could be in the environment. I look forward to watching him continue his career over in the Senate.

My colleague from Florida, who became the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, I was on the Trade Subcommittee for a long time but I was never chair, so I envied him in that role, has a number of opportunities in front of him.

It is always customary to thank those people that everyone sees, obviously Angela Ellard, chief counsel on the Trade Subcommittee, and Alex Brill, chief counsel for the committee. But I want to just take a minute, because people don't realize that there are a lot of people who even a lot of the Members never see, who are absolutely essential to make this place work.

One of them is in Leg Counsel. His name is Ed Grossman. He has made it possible for this committee to work, year after year after year. Ed Grossman told his wife-to-be that they would have their honeymoon after he finished a Ways and Means bill, and she still married him.

Tom Barthold over at the Joint Committee on Taxation, Reggie Greene, who helps the Ways and Means Committee work, and a long list of others. I just want to indicate that the people who are in front of the cameras and who do the talking could not do the job without all those people that you can't see.

So, it comes to a point now where I say this willingly, but I do say it with mixed emotions:

Mr. Speaker, I relinquish my time, forever.