Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important bill and believe it is sound legislation that the House should adopt today.

If private actors collusively controlled supply and prices in the manner that OPEC member nations do, there is no question that their conduct would be illegal as a per se violation of the Sherman Act, and they would be subject to criminal and civil liability. Typically, however, foreign states are immune from suit in Federal court. Section 1604 of title 28 of the United States Code provides that a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States, with some specific exceptions. One exception is where the suit is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state, or upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere, or upon an act outside of the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that causes a direct effect in the United States.

I think it is quite clear that the OPEC collusion falls within the current exception.

So why is this bill, this law, necessary? A district court has held otherwise, and it is important that the Congress reaffirm that the antitrust laws do indeed apply to OPEC nations in their role as commercial actors engaging in such collusion where such conduct impacts the United States.

Another obstacle to antitrust lawsuits against OPEC is the so-called ``act of state'' doctrine which has been used by the Ninth Circuit in affirming the dismissal of the case that was wrongly decided.

H.R. 2264 minimizes any ``act of state'' doctrine concerns by making sure and entrusting to the executive branch the discretion whether to bring charges under this provision. A court's concern about any insinuation of itself into matters properly within the bailiwick of the political branches is mitigated when Congress, by this legislation, and the executive branch, by bringing the action, explicitly authorize judicial involvement.

Much has been said about the price of gas today. It is high, and I think we all hear from our constituents about it. But there is another reason why manipulation of the market is bad for America. We know that for our long-term future we have to develop energy alternatives. We cannot continue to drill and continue to be dependent upon the Middle East for oil.

So long as it is possible for OPEC to manipulate rapidly the price of crude, they have it within their power to really destroy markets for alternative energy, and therefore, make it even harder for us to escape from the oily grasp of OPEC.

We need to make sure that these misdeeds are prevented by adopting this legislation. This is a good bill for consumers, for people in California that are complaining about the cost of gas. It is a good bill for those who want to move away from oil to alternative energies and who need to avoid the manipulation of the market by OPEC that for many years has kept us from that goal.

I hope that this bill, which is an important first step, will not be vetoed by the President. I think it would be a shame if he were to prevent this relief for the traveling public, and also this hope for those of us who want to fight global climate change through the use and development of alternative energy sources.

I thank the gentleman for recognizing me.

Madam Speaker, I rise because May 11 is Vietnamese Human Rights Day, and my conscience will not let me stay quiet on this very troubling issue. I also rise today to applaud the efforts of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom on their recent report on the status of religious freedom in the world.

I am deeply troubled by the findings of the Commission, but I can't say that I'm surprised. The Commission made the same recommendation last year: Vietnam should be placed on the State Department's list of Countries of Particular Concern because of government repression towards many religious believers.

The Vietnamese government's campaign to force people to renounce their faith, their detainment of dozens of religious prisoners, and the harassment and physical mistreatment of some believers and their families amounts to inexcusable human rights violations.

In Vietnam's quest to gain Permanent Normal Trade Relations with the United States, and access to the WTO, the Vietnamese embarked on a disingenuous public relations campaign to cleanse its image as a human rights violator.

Secretary Rice caved in to the campaign of their communist government and removed Vietnam from the Countries of Particular Concern list.

But some of us in Congress were not fooled by this advertising campaign.

My constituent, Cong Thanh Do, a United States citizen, was unjustly arrested in Vietnam last August while on a family vacation. Mr. Do is no criminal. He is nothing more than a peaceful democracy and human rights activist who wrote articles that he then posted on the internet while he was living in the United States.

Vietnam held Cong Thanh Do imprisoned for over a month before he was released after we pressured the Vietnamese government.

Because of the evidence suggesting that Vietnam made little progress on human rights--especially given the detention of my constituent, Cong Thanh Do--I told the administration it would be a mistake to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations with Vietnam and I voted against it.

Three of Mr. Do's supporters in Vietnam were tried and sentenced yesterday for 3 to 5 years of prison each. Their crime? Promoting a multi-party democratic system in Vietnam through peaceful means and sending email communication to my constituent.

After Vietnam joined the WTO, I think it is obvious that the conditions of religious freedom in Vietnam did not improved. They have worsened severely.

The Vietnamese government removed Father Nguyen Van Ly from his parish and on March 30th sentenced him to 8 years in prison for allegedly conducting propaganda activities to harm the security of the state. His sentence is an outrage.

Vietnamese police, on March 6, 2007, arrested a pair of human-rights lawyers, Nguyen Van Dai (``Die'') and Le Thi Cong Nhan (pronounced ``Lay Tee Kohng Nhun''), for organizing training sessions for political activists in the capital. There are many other dissidents who have been imprisoned simply for expressing their thoughts and attempting to practice their faith freely and openly. Nguyen Van Dai has since been charged with disseminating propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted. Their trials and sentencing are scheduled for this Friday in Vietnam.

Le Quoc Quan (``Lay Kwook Kwun'') and his law colleague Tran Thuy Trang (``Truhn Twee Trahng'') were arrested on the day Mr. Quan returned to Vietnam from his congressionally-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy fellowship in the United States. His arrest is not only a human rights violation, it is a calculated insult to America and specifically to the United States Congress.

With all of the human rights problems in Vietnam, the question we must ask is, ``What can we do to help?'' The United States has the power to influence Vietnam on these important moral issues through the use of our many diplomatic and economic tools--if only we have the political will and moral courage to use these tools.

One tool is the Countries of Particular Concern list.

I believe it was a mistake to take Vietnam off the list. I agree with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom that Secretary Rice should redesignate Vietnam a Country of Particular Concern.

I believe the U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Michael Marine, should provide financial support to the loved ones of the political detainees, using the Human Rights Defender's fund. The wives of many of these political prisoners are left without any financial support. We have a moral commitment not just to these people who have been imprisoned unjustly; we have a moral obligation to relieve the financial burden that these arrests have caused for the families of the brave.

Vietnam claims it has made significant progress in allowing more freedom of religion under its Ordinance on Belief and Religion, but this is simply untrue. Under this law, affiliated organizations of recognized churches may ``register for religious operation.'' In practice, however, only 2.5 percent of all house churches have been approved for registration. And of the one hundred house churches that actually have been registered, only five have been registered for religious operation. No real progress has been made.

Until Vietnam makes real progress on religious freedoms and human rights, instead of paying lip service in order to get trade agreements, I will continue to press this administration to stand up for the rights of the Vietnamese people to speak their minds and practice their faith.

Mr. Chairman, congratulations to Chairman Bennie Thompson for getting the DHS Authorization bill to the floor for the first time in 2 years.

This authorization bill is the result of countless hours of negotiation and I would like to recognize Chairman Thompson and his staff for all their hard work.

H.R. 1684 addresses the difficulties the Department of Homeland Security has faced in contracting, procurement, the morale of employees, management, and oversight.

We cannot continue to sit idly by while the Department which is charged with leading the unified national effort to secure America is not operating effectively.

Again, congratulations to my good friend Chairman Thompson on this accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is a bad idea.

In 1996, I think it was Congressman Sensenbrenner who proposed the US-VISIT system. That was 11 years ago, and the US-VISIT is not yet fully implemented. That system is to biometrically check aliens who are entering the United States. I believe that to divert Homeland Security from that mission at this point would put our government at further risk.

We are promised by Homeland that US-VISIT will be completely implemented at airports by the end of this year. Land ports, they're not implementing. So I think it would be a huge mistake to start some new system when we haven't even implemented the Sensenbrenner plan from 1996.

I'd like to note further that in the body of the motion to recommit it suggests that it is true that the 9/11 hijackers were not admissible to the United States when they were admitted. But the inspectors at the airport didn't know that, not because of the biometric system. It was because the reasons for their inadmissibility lay in paper files on microfiche in a box in Florida.

We are about to receive a technology upgrade plan from USCIS. In fact, we have been told it is sitting at OMB today. What we need to do is to implement US-VISIT, integrate it with the new technology plan that is about to be brought online. It will be a dreadful mistake for the Congress to defer a Department that is not terrifically functional as is from this vital mission by creating still another program that will not actually do its job.

No, I will not. That will not actually do its job because we have failed to do the screening of aliens.

I would thank the chairman of the committee for yielding this brief time, and I would urge my colleagues not to divert the Department from the vital mission of implementing US-VISIT.

Madam Speaker, Juanita Millender- McDonald touched our lives in different ways. I chair the California Democratic delegation, and I can tell you that our delegation is literally heartbroken over the loss of Juanita.

We meet every Wednesday as a delegation to sort through the issues that face us not just as a Congress but as a State. And although we know Juanita for her leadership in the Nation, those of us in California are very proud of the special things she did for our State.

There will be an empty spot at our meeting every Wednesday.

She was a trail blazer, as has been mentioned, a first so often: the first California African American woman to chair two committees in the California Assembly; the chairperson of the House Administration Committee. But when I think of Juanita, I think of someone who had tremendous dignity, tremendous style, tremendous poise. She knew that she was a first, and it was important to her that she accomplish these firsts with an eye to being a role model for young people around the country and, indeed, around the world.

As Chair of the Committee on House Administration, where I also serve, she worked so diligently to make sure that every vote would be counted, that all Americans would be treated fairly and without discrimination, and she was so happy to provide that leadership as chairwoman of the committee. It is so unfair that we have lost her from that position so prematurely.

Today, we mourn the passing of a great American, but we also celebrate the legacy of public service that she leaves behind. Juanita Millender-McDonald left this Chamber as she entered it, with poise and spirit, fighting for those who could not fight for themselves.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to her husband, her five children, her grandchildren, and we mourn her passing, not just today but every day.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Charles W. Davidson, one of San Jose, California's most successful home builders and a dedicated patron of San Jose State University.

Mr. Davidson is an alumnus of San Jose State University. Born and raised in Oklahoma cattle country, Davidson served 3 years in the Air Force before working as an engineer for the state highway department.

In 1954, Davidson met and married Anita Wien, also a graduate of San Jose State University and they settled in Willow Glen.

Davidson opened a consulting engineering company in 1960 and then in 1961 began his business in homebuilding. He founded five companies and by the 1980s he had become the biggest independent builder of subsidized housing in Northern California.

While his businesses are a vital part of the area economy, Davidson is also a role model in giving back to the community. In 1992 he created a foundation that supports the arts, higher education and human services organizations.

Mr. Davidson's foundation was a major contributor to San Jose State University's new athletic training facility. He chaired the fundraising efforts which resulted in a $1 million gift from the Koret Foundation. Although Davidson did not play competitive sports at SJSU, he has been a devoted fan of Spartan athletics, attending nearly every football game since 1952.

For the College of Engineering at San Jose State University, Davidson has recently endowed a $2 million professorship for construction management in his field of civil engineering.

Davidson is also strongly loyal to the several hundred people who work for him, providing the maximum retirement plan the government allows and overseeing the companies' pension funds himself.

I am pleased to honor Mr. Charles W. Davidson for his philanthropic and business contributions to the San Jose area that I have the honor of representing.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor and recognize the life of Tony Cortese, United States Postal Service Employee and President of the National Association of Letter Carriers Local 193.

In his forty-two years as a proud and honorable employee of the United States Postal Service and twenty-seven years as the president of the National Association of Letter Carriers Local 193, NALC, Tony Cortese made a significant impact on the rights of Letter Carriers and on the well-being of his community.

Mr. Cortese was a fifty-five-year resident of San Jose, California and was a tireless advocate for Letter Carriers. As President of the NALC Local 193 for nearly thirty years, Mr. Cortese procured a union owned building for the members, secured expanded health benefits, and provided an open forum for discussion for union members and Federal, State, and local politicians.

Mr. Cortese's service was not just limited to advocacy for the rights of the union members, but extended into the San Jose community and beyond. Under Mr. Cortese's leadership, San Jose served as a pilot for what would become a national food drive sponsored by the NALC the first Saturday before Mother's Day. In fact, this national program, which began in 1991 and continues today, is the result of Mr. Cortese's own food drive initiative in 1990. This is but one example by which Mr. Cortese's unassuming, generous, and selfless manner made significant and positive changes in the lives of a countless number of people.

Along with my Santa Clara County colleagues, Congressman Honda and Congresswoman Eshoo, and my constituents in San Jose, I am honored to pay tribute to Tony Cortese.

We thank his family for supporting his work over many years and for being the source of tremendous pride for him, his wife Barbara, his daughter Caroline and son-in-law Don Bauldry, his sister Mary and brother-in-law Vince Catalano, and his grandchildren Austin and Ashley. Our thoughts are with you during your grief, and we are honored with the years of service Mr. Cortese gave to both the NALC and the United States Postal Service as well as the residents of San Jose, California and the State of California. He will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution that supports our troops, but oppose the President's escalation plan. My opposition to this war has been clear and consistent. The night before I voted against the Iraq war resolution in October 2002, I stated on this floor that Congress should not grant the President power to pursue a war in Iraq for three reasons.

First, Iraq was not an imminent threat to the safety and security of America, something we now know to be true. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Secondly, we were acting without real international support. And we now know that our unilateral action proved to be disastrous to our standing in the world community.

Finally, I questioned whether the President had an exit strategy. Now, 4\1/2\ years later, it is clear that President Bush did not have and still does not have an exit strategy for our troops.

Even though I voted against the invasion, I never dreamt that the President's policies and course of action would be as disastrous as they have been for Iraq, for the gulf region and for America.

Americans went to the polls in November to send a clear message to Congress and to the administration. They

are against this war and they want a successful exit plan. Americans see that we are spending 8 to $10 billion a month to fight this war, while in our own country we have 47 million Americans without health care insurance and our national debt is almost $9 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues and I hear the American people loud and clear. They want oversight of this war. They want to know the hard facts of the situation on the ground in Iraq, instead of the rosy picture the Bush administration tries to paint. They want investigations of and an end to the shady contracting in Iraq that has given away billions of American dollars without so much as a receipt. They want assurances that our troops will be protected.

Mr. Speaker, even though it was a mistake of titanic proportions to initiate this war, now that Iraq has been destabilized, what are we to do? The answer cannot be more of the same, because what we are doing is failing to have a positive impact. Our troops have performed the difficult missions given to them in Iraq with courage.

Congress and the American people will continue to support them and provide them with every resource they need. 320 soldiers from my home State of California have died in this war. We can never repay our debt to their faithful service and the sacrifices made by their families.

The failure in Iraq is not a failure of our fighting men and women. It is a failure of command, a failure of political leadership. We must provide our troops and their families with a new exit strategy instead of a new deployment.

The civil war in Iraq is not the product of ad hoc, spur-of-the- moment individual violence. No. It is organized and it is a strategy of various political and sectarian factions in Iraq. Putting our troops in the middle of these warring factions will not end the violence. It will only put our troops in the middle of it. That notion is borne out by the fact that more than 60 percent of the Iraqi public believes that it is a good thing to attack and kill Americans stationed in Iraq.

Proponents of the President's escalation plan act as if the United States has but two options: one, increase the American troops at great cost, both in human lives and financial; or, two, do nothing. But those are not the only choices. We must step up our diplomatic efforts in the region as recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Americans should call upon neighboring states in the Middle East to take strong measures to avoid a spread of the conflict beyond Iraq. As Iraq disintegrates into sectarian violence, her neighbors must insist that the factions within Iraq halt their civil war.

We need to remind the countries in the region that stability in Iraq is vital to their interests. If they want to avoid having this war spill out across the Middle East, they must step up their diplomatic efforts. With the help of the entire region, we can push the Iraqis to help themselves.

Iraqi security forces must be trained in a faster pace so they can be responsible for their own country. There is no guarantee of success in Iraq, nor is there a clear definition of what success might look like; but we do have a moral obligation to make our best efforts to diffuse the chaos the war has created. The solution must be a political and a diplomatic one.

Unfortunately, the President refuses to pursue the diplomatic options endorsed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and his own military advisors. As we saw today with the welcome news that diplomatic efforts have led to the de-escalation of tensions in North Korea and an agreement to abandon their nuclear weapons ambition, a conflict is not always the right answer to world challenges.

Even General Abizaid, the outgoing top commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, does not believe an escalation will increase our chances of American success. The American public has long been ahead of Congress in their opposition to this war.

I am here today to tell the American people that they are being heard. I stand with the majority of Americans who say they have had enough. In the coming weeks and days, Congress will give the President's plan the scrutiny the American people expect and our troops deserve. It is time to bring this war to an end and time to support this resolution

Mr. Speaker, we did not need to invade Iraq. From the beginning, I found President Bush's stated reasons for the Iraq war unconvincing. Now we know they were also untrue.

At the time the decision was being sold to Congress, I was unable to get any level of assurance that there was a workable plan for victory. There weren't answers to questions like, ``What is the strategy for stabilization after the military victory?'' or, ``What is the exit plan?''

The American forces were to be greeted by grateful Iraqis bearing flowers, but I was never able to learn what plan B was if this rosy scenario did not prove out. Now we know there was no plan B.

I voted against the war in Iraq, but even though I opposed the invasion, I never dreamed that the President's policies and course of action would be as disastrous as they have been for Iraq, for the Gulf region and for America.

I think the real question America now faces is what is the least catastrophic end to this debacle, and how can we obtain it. Answering such a question would include options of utilizing diplomacy in the region as recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. It would include America calling upon neighboring States to take strong measures to avoid a spread of the conflict beyond Iraq as that nation disintegrates into tribal and sectarian violence. The Saudis are aware of the peril and Iran is aware of the prospects.

But President Bush has once again offered a proposal based on wishful thinking instead of the unpleasant reality. Having been the cause of the destabilization of Iraq, America has a moral obligation to take what steps are possible to obtain new stability. But wanting to create stability within Iraq and being able to accomplish that goal with U.S. military forces is not the same thing. That is why I have decided to cosponsor Representative John Murtha's resolution directing the redeployment of our troops at the earliest practicable date while maintaining a quick reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines in the region. Like Representative Murtha, I feel like the solution to the war in Iraq is a diplomatic one.

America is a country that doesn't take disappointment well. Our culture is one where the phrase ``failure is not an option'' just makes sense. That attitude has served us well historically in science, industry and war. But it can also lead to problems and to decisions based on wishful thinking instead of on facts.

Political leaders don't want to be the ones to bring the bad news to an American public raised on the phrase ``failure is not an option.'' Some even suspect that the President's escalation plan may have as a goal running out the clock so the next President will be the one who has to deliver the bad news.

Right now I think another American phrase is better for this situation: When you are in the hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

It is time to stop digging. Sending in more troops is not going to bring stability to Iraq because the primary problem between the Iraqis is political, not military.

We are not going to be met with flowers by the Iraqis today, or probably ever. More than 60 percent of the Iraqi public believes it is a good thing to attack and kill Americans stationed in Iraq. We have to accept that we are part of the problem in Iraq, not part of the solution.

Real leadership deals with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. And

here is something to keep in mind: The American public already knows it is time to stop digging. Now they are ready to hear Congress say it out loud.

Madam Speaker, climate change threatens the security and stability of our planet. The temperature of the earth is increasing at a rate unseen in modern times and is starting to melt the polar ice caps and disrupt weather patterns. Unprecedented levels of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by automobiles and industries, with about one-fourth of the world's carbon dioxide emissions being produced by the United States, have led to current rates of warming.

Historically high gas prices and political instability in oil producing regions reinforce the need for the United States to secure our energy independence. We can make real progress by developing and distributing alternatively fueled vehicles. Through innovation and existing technology, we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and promote energy efficiency and conservation to secure a safe future for our country and the environment.

Alternatively fueled vehicles, such as those that use E85 ethanol fuel, could reduce our use of petroleum fuels by up to 40%, helping our country move towards sustainable energy independence. E85 ethanol fuel can be produced from agricultural products grown here in the United States, so that money spent on fuel supports farmers in the Midwest, not countries in the Middle East. Corn may not be the only answer to biofuels, as other sources of energy such as switchgrass or other renewable starch re-sources are also on the horizon.

Congress must do more to make alternative fueled vehicles practical and accessible to every American. There are currently only six million E85-capable vehicles on U.S. roads, compared to approximately 230 million gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles, according to the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition. Only 993 fuel stations in the entire country currently provide E85 fuel, and only four of these are located in California.

That is why I am again introducing this bill to encourage consumers and manufacturers to develop the infrastructure necessary for a cleaner energy future. We must do more to make alternatively fueled vehicles practical and accessible to everyone. The cost of producing flex fuel capable vehicles is minimal at the time of manufacture, but there are currently few incentives for the production of flex fuel vehicles and a lack of infrastructure to service them.

My bill will encourage the production of more alternatively fueled vehicles by phasing in a tax penalty on the manufacture or import of new, non-flex fuel vehicles. However, since the cost to convert fleets to flex fuel is nearly nil, it will be easy for manufacturers or importers to avoid these costs completely. Any revenues generated would be used to help independent gas station owners install alternative fuel equipment.

I would like to thank Speaker Pelosi for her hard work and dedication to increase investment in renewable energy and ultimately achieving energy independence. I hope this bill can be a part of the crucial national dialogue towards securing our energy independence and helping America move towards a more secure and sustainable future.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This bill, I believe, is trying to protect sports organizations, but, unfortunately, it does leave children unprotected from child molesters.

We know that sexual predators volunteer to be involved with children's sports programs and pedophiles routinely use the bond between coach and athlete to prey on children.

A Seattle Times investigation uncovered 159 coaches who had been reprimanded or fired for sexual misconduct between 1993 and 2003, and of those coaches, 98 continued to coach or teach children. An investigation in Texas uncovered 60 incidents of high school coaches being fired or reprimanded as a result of allegations of sexual misconduct with minors. And last month a Maryland high school basketball coach was charged with abusing three minors.

This amendment, the amendment to the bill that has been mentioned, does not fix the problem of providing liability relief to these nonprofits. The bill

exempts claims based on Federal, State, and local statutes concerning sexual assault, molestation, or harassment. But the bill grants complete immunity for claims of negligence in establishing rules related to adult supervision. I have here a letter from a scholar, Professor Andy Popper, a professor at the American University School of Law, and I would like to read just a small portion of his letter:

``Common-law tort claims for failure to exercise due care in hiring coaches, investigating backgrounds, or overseeing inappropriate activity would be actionable, but I think a plain reading of section 4(d) and section 5 suggests that those claims would be barred, and that is really quite horrendous from the perspective of children who might be victimized by adults treated in ways that are patently destructive from an emotional or psychological vantage point. What possible reason could there be to pass this bill?''

And he goes on to say: ``After reading the bill, I see no language that exempts State common-law tort claims. To the contrary, the specific areas exempted, labor law, antitrust law, statutory claims, et cetera, suggests that Congress intends to exempt very specific areas only. Given that list in 4(d), unless the bill were amended to include an exemption for all State common-law tort claims, the bill will be seen as a bar to cases involving negligent hiring, failing to assess background, negligent oversight of individuals who may well do great harm to children, to athletes, to those most in need of protection.''

I would like to note that the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence has asked us to vote against this bill, as amended.

And the reason why, and I quote from President Hostler's letter, as the leading national sexual assault victim advocacy organization, we believe the passage of this bill would create serious problems for victims and would not allow them to hold perpetrators and organizations responsible.

Now, the amended bill tells athletic organizations that they owe children no duty of care. The bill takes away any incentive to take reasonable steps to keep child molesters out and to keep children safe.

Do I suggest that the authors of this bill intend to protect child molesters? I can't imagine that they do. But intent doesn't matter. We are writing law here. And the impact of adopting this bill would, in fact, be to protect child molesters.

Now, I am someone who really believes in Little League. My dad was a Little League manager my entire young life. I have strong memories of sitting in the stands day after day, month after month, watching my brother catch the ball. I believe in Little League. But I also know that my dad, were he alive today, would say, I don't believe in protecting child molesters.

I yield.

The letter from the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence is dated December 5 of this year, and the letter from the law professor is dated December 4 of this year.

Madam Speaker, I will be brief.

This bill, or its predecessor bill, H.R. 3369, was not approved when it was brought before the Congress in 2004. It was defeated. And the reason why I believe it was defeated was the concern that, although probably well intentioned, it provided liability relief from predators, from child molesters.

Now, I believe the law professor when he did the analysis. And as the letter is in the record, he cites the cases and does a proper analysis that negligence that results in child molestation would be protected under this bill. We surely cannot be wanting to do that here as this Congress closes.

Now, I have raised this issue in committee. I was, frankly, rather shocked

to see this bill on the Suspension Calendar.

As Mr. Conyers has mentioned, we have not had a wonderful record here in the 109th Congress of doing the right thing to protect children from sexual predators. Let's not compound that problem by enacting this bill today. I urge all of us to vote against it.

And I will say also that in the 110th Congress we should work in a proper way to achieve the goals of supporting Little League and the other organizations, while not letting down the children of our Nation and letting them be victimized by child molesters and sexual predators.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a woman who whose quiet contributions in her support for her family make her community of supporters proud.

A native Californian and the daughter of immigrants, Julia Pon grew up on the orange groves of San Juan Capistrano, and after graduation from San Francisco College for Women, came to Santa Clara Valley to join her husband, Joe, in working and caring for the orchards for which our valley was world famous. As a great tribute to her patience and understanding, Julia Pon raised 9 children with her husband.

As Julia celebrates her 80th birthday on December 10, 2006, we celebrate a strong and courageous woman who has raised family members who have become successful members of society and who has lived a demonstrable life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Dennis Kennedy who has served the City of Morgan Hill in various capacities for the past 30 years.

Since 1977, one year after Mr. Kennedy moved to Morgan Hill, he has been involved in various roles within the City of Morgan Hill's local government. He served three terms on the Planning Commission and two terms on the General Plan Update Committee.

In 1990 he stood for election and won a seat on the City Council. He has served four terms as the mayor of the City of Morgan Hill. He was appointed to his first term in 1992. In 1996, he became the first directly elected mayor and was re-elected in 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004.

He is past chairman of the South County Regional Wastewater Authority, has served two terms on the Board of Directors of the Valley Transportation Authority and is a past-president of the Santa Clara Cities Association.

Mr. Kennedy has always been mindful of his commitment to the Santa Clara Valley and, although he was born in Nebraska, he has acted like a true local when community interests were at stake. Mr. Kennedy moved to San Jose, California during his high school years and attended Bellarmine College Preparatory School in San Jose. He earned a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering from Santa Clara University and served as a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army.

Professionally, it has been a pleasure to work with Mr. Kennedy because he sincerely cares about the residents of the City of Morgan Hill and their interests. I know I stand with many other thankful constituents in congratulating Mr. Kennedy on his years of service and wishing him the very best for his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to 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.

Although both 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 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?