E. Shaw

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, the Town of Hypoluxo, a gem in the strand of our jeweled communities of Palm Beach County, is celebrating its 50th anniversary on July 3, 2005. I have proudly represented Hypoluxo for 13 years in the United States Congress, and have come to know its residents and town leadership very well. It is interesting to note that Hypoluxo got its name not from a Greek root, but from the Seminole name for Lake Worth which roughly translates to ``water all around--no get out.'' Today a great number of people want to move into the friendly confines of Hypoluxo, but because no one wants to ``get out'', home sites are difficult to find. No doubt, because of the wonderful people and the coastal breezes. Hypoluxo is one of the smallest communities in my District with its nearly 2,500 people, but it has in its rich heritage played a very important role in the history and growth of Palm Beach County. It was the center of the story of the legendary Barefoot Mailman, who connected Jupiter with Lemon City (now the Miami area) in the 19th Century, long before any type of road existed. At one time, the mail to Miami had to be shipped to Jacksonville, then by rail to Cedar Key, steam shipped to Key West and lastly by schooner to Miami. The big advancement took place in 1885, with a railroad line south to West Palm Beach. The mail then traveled by row boat to Hypoluxo. At Hypoluxo, the Barefoot Mailman took over and walked six days along the hard sand next to the ocean for over 60 miles (and occasionally crossing inlets by swimming or by canoe) to Miami-- and back. All for $175 every three months. The Postal Creed says that ``neither snow, nor rain, nor snow, nor heat, nor gloom of night will stay these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.'' To the Barefoot Mailman you can add on gators, sharks, snakes, hurricanes, and swift currents. In fact, it is legend that alligators or sharks caused the demise of a Barefoot Mailman on one of his appointed rounds. Mr. Speaker, Hypoluxo has created in its natural scrub park, a statue monument to the Barefoot Mailman, to recognize the heroic traditions of each person who served the coastal residents and brought the news, commercial transactions, and many smiles to them during their years of service. To the citizens of Hypoluxo gathered to celebrate its 50 years in the shadow of its beautiful Key West Town Hall, its natural Florida hammock, and under the watchful eye of the Barefoot Mailman, I congratulate you and wish you the best in the next 50 years. I am sure that by that time the mail will arrive a little faster--but not with the colorful traditions of the Barefoot Mailman. Congratulations on 50 years, and on behalf of Florida's 22nd Congressional District, I wish you many, many more.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, he and I have discussed on several occasions now my interest in funding the NCI, National Cancer Institute, for more money to expedite finding a cure for cancer or finding that cancer becomes a manageable disease. Twenty- five percent of the deaths in this country are caused by cancer. One out of every two men will get cancer. One out of every three women will be stricken with cancer. Research is going forward at such a fast pace. I wanted to put together an amendment that would add $50 million for additional research centers designated by NCI. I realize, picking up on what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has just said, that this is a very tightly crafted bill; but I would ask the gentleman as chairman, and this is coming from one who has suffered from lung cancer, that the gentleman find that money, or look for the money in the conference, so that we can increase the funding for NCI so that we can expand those centers.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I very much appreciate that and sincerely hope the gentleman will be able to accomplish this. This is a tremendously important project. Dr. von Eschenbach is doing a huge job. By 2015, we could be looking at cancer through the rear-view mirror instead of every day worrying about some loved one or yourself as a sufferer of cancer.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 52) approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

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

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my friend. In 2003, Congress passed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which among a number of things imposed an import ban on all products from Burma. Today, the House considers extending this import ban for an additional year. Madam Speaker, the situation in Burma remains deeply troubling. The actions by the military in Burma continue to demonstrate its inability to promote an equitable way of life for millions of Burmese. Despite the deplorable conditions in Burma today, the United States remains committed to political and social change in Burma. In fact, the United States is one of the few leaders willing to shine the light on the lack of human rights in Burma. Within the international community, the United States has cosponsored resolutions within the United Nations Commission on Human Rights condemning the human rights situation in Burma. It is tremendously important that we continue to pressure the Burmese Government to become a transparent society, free from human rights abuses that have plagued this Asian nation for so many years. Pressure must remain in place. Extending trade sanctions puts pressure on the Burmese junta to change its ways. For the pressure to be truly effective, the sanctions must be multilateral and include Burma's main trading partners. Therefore, I encourage the administration to continue to pursue a multilateral response to the atrocities in Burma. This is a critical component for ending the military stranglehold on this society. I urge all my colleagues to support the resolution that is before us today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who himself has gained a great reputation in this Congress as being a champion of human freedoms.

Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article that appeared in the International Herald Tribune this past Sunday, written by Seth Mydans. The article is on Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi who we have heard so much about during this debate, really a true heroine in our time. [From the International Herald Tribune, June 19, 2005] Test of Wills: the Burmese Captive Who Will Not Budge (By Seth Mydans) Bangkok.--Seventeen years ago, as the people of Myanmar filled the streets in mass protests against their military dictatorship, a striking, self-possessed woman rose to address a rally at the great golden Shwedagon Pagoda. At the time, nobody realized the price she would pay for her outspokenness. The woman, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, was visiting from her home in England to tend to her sick mother when pro-democracy protests swelled throughout the country in August 1988 despite a brutal response by the military that took thousands of lives. In the months that followed she emerged, through a combination of charisma and pedigree, to lead what has so far been a futile opposition to the country's military leaders. On Sunday, Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi will mark her 60th birthday under house arrest, where she has spent most of the intervening years, in an increasingly dilapidated house, more cut off than ever from contacts outside her weed-filled compound. Her birthday has become an occasion for new international protests against a military junta that holds the country in its grip, jailing its opponents while ruining the country's economy and waging war against its ethnic minorities. From one of the region's most refined and richly endowed nations, Myanmar has become its most desperate and reviled. As the daughter of the country's founding hero, U Aung San, she held a nearly mystical appeal for people desperate to regain their freedoms and self-respect. With her dignity, self-sacrifice and perseverance, she has created a legend of her own. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 and has joined the company of Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama of Tibet as international icons of a struggle for freedom. But in a contest between brute force and principle, between repression and the clearly expressed will of the people of Myanmar, it is the men with the guns who have managed so far to prevail, and the country's moral symbol who is their prisoner. Calls for the release of Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi have come from around the world in recent days, including statements from Washington and from Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations. In Norway, the chairman of the Nobel Committee, Ole D. Mjoes, issued a rare statement about a past laureate, saying; ``We ask that she be set free immediately. We look forward to the day that democracy again rules her country.'' But the generals have released her twice already, most recently in May 2002, only to be shaken and shamed at her continuing, overwhelming popularity: huge crowds that gathered wherever she appeared. One year after her last release, her convoy was attacked by an organized mob in what some analysts believe was an attempt to kill her, and she was returned to house arrest after a period of harsh treatment in prison. ``She has become the only leader that the Burmese people have acknowledged since the death of her father in 1947,'' said Josef Silverstein, an expert on Myanmar at Rutgers University. ``I would add that she has in every way possible emulated what her father stood for, which was for the right of the people to govern themselves and to have a free and democratic country.'' Shortly after her address at the Shwedagon Pagoda, she explicitly assumed her father's mantle, saying she would dedicate her life to the people of her country as he had done. She made that clear in 1999 when she chose not to visit her husband, Michael Aris, in England, when he was dying of cancer, because she feared that the government would bar her from re-entering Myanmar. The Myanmar authorities had refused to allow him to visit her. The United States, the European Union and other nations have responded to repression in Myanmar with economic penalties that have done little to affect its leadership. Myanmar's giant neighbors, China and India, with several other Asian nations, offer it an economic lifeline. But opposition from the West is putting pressure on the junta now as it prepares to take over the rotating leadership of the regional 10-member political and economic grouping, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, next year. The United States and some other nations have hinted strongly in recent weeks that they will boycott an annual meeting to which they are invited if it is held in Myanmar. Its regional neighbors, facing potential embarrassment, are beginning to press the junta to skip its turn as regional leader if it does not release Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi and improve its record on human rights. At the same time, there has been an eruption of internal turmoil among the ruling generals, though like most things in Myanmar its details and its causes are unclear. In October, Prime Minister Khin Nyunt, who was the head of military intelligence and one of the country's most powerful leaders, was fired and placed under house arrest. His trial on expected corruption charges has either begun or is about to begin, according to conflicting reports. Over the years, as repression has continued in Myanmar, some of Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi's allies abroad have complained about what they call her stubbornness and intransigence. But it is the military leaders who have several times switched track, ignoring her and vilifying her, opening and closing dialogues, freeing and rearresting her. She has also been criticized for demanding that the government recognize the results of a parliamentary election in 1990 that was won overwhelmingly by her party, the National League for Democracy. The remarkably open parliamentary election was a characteristic misjudgment by the junta, which had apparently expected to win. When Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi's party won more than 80 percent of the seats, the generals refused to recognize the results and clung to power. Many who won seats were arrested. Bit by bit over the years the junta has whittled away at their party. Today its leaders are aging--Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi is the youngest--and its youth wing has atrophied More and more, the democratic opposition to military rule in Myanmar is personified by one isolated and determined woman. ``Her stubbornness is her strength,'' Mr. Silverstein said. ``This woman will not bend and will not break.''

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 52.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the City of Coconut Creek for its designation as a ``community wildlife habitat'' by the National Wildlife Federation. Coconut Creek becomes the first city in Florida and the eleventh city in the Nation to receive this environmental recognition. In order to receive such a designation, criteria set by the National Wildlife Federation mandates that applicants must have a number of homes declared as back yard wildlife habitats while establishing habitats at schools and residential complexes. In addition, applicants must also create educational programs about various wildlife within the city. Facing these various guidelines, residents of Coconut Creek met the challenge by planting trees and various gardens around the city. City Manager John Kelly stated, ``They tackled the project and took it as their own. And it's been a wonderful instrument for getting the word out about the environment in our schools.'' Mr. Speaker, Coconut Creek, located in Broward County, was incorporated in 1967. Today, with a population of 48,000, the city takes great pride in promoting itself as an environmentally friendly community. In fact, Coconut Creek is considered the Butterfly Capital of the World. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to represent the city of Coconut Creek and its residents in the House of Representatives. I congratulate Mayor Gerber, the City Commission and the residents of Coconut Creek on being designated a ``community wildlife habitat.''

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not just apply to these trade agreements. The amendment would prevent the use of the funds by State, Justice, Commerce and related agencies for any negotiations that would have the effect of increasing immigration. The amendment is unnecessary. The U.S. Trade Representative, as we have already heard, has long recognized that trade agreements are not the appropriate forum to negotiate provisions regarding permanent immigration. In addition, the U.S. Trade Representative has confirmed with the Committee on the Judiciary that it will refrain from negotiating any immigration provisions in any trade agreement negotiated since implementation of the Singapore and Chile agreements, including the agreement in the World Trade Organization. This amendment would send a very negative signal to our trading partners about the United States' commitment to seeking liberalization in goods, agricultural services in the Doha Round. At a time when the services sector accounts for 8 out of 10 U.S. jobs and roughly 30 percent of U.S. exports, we have much to gain from these negotiations. Let us not tie the hands of those negotiating for the United States.

Mr. SHAW

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, so that no one listening to this debate is confused, this vote has nothing to do with DR-CAFTA, it has nothing to do with free trade, it is simply are we going to continue as part of the World Trade Organization. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, just one moment, I think, to respond to the gentleman who was just in the well, and that is in the 10 years that we have been members of the World Trade Organization, our environmental laws have never been challenged, have never been challenged, nor will they. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 304, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 27) withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 27, the joint resolution under consideration.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this morning the House considers the withdrawal of the United States from the World Trade Organization. I strongly oppose this resolution and urge my Members to join me in this opposition. As a member of the World Trade Organization, the United States is one of 148 member countries. Our role in this global body is tremendously important, not only for the future of the United States trade but for the continuation of global trade liberalization. As the world's leading economy, the largest economy that has ever been on the face of this earth, we all too often focus our attention on the aspects of trade we disagree with. When Members of Congress meet with our international counterparts, we spend a large amount of time discussing specific trade barriers and little time supporting the broad range of cooperation and successes that we may share. Continued membership in the World Trade Organization will allow the United States the opportunity to continue cooperating as we work towards free trade benefiting United States consumers, farmers, manufacturers and firms. Currently, the World Trade Organization is negotiating the Doha Round. Congress has been deeply involved with the administration as the Round continues to move forward. It is tremendously importantly that we remain active in these negotiations and push for a completed Doha. Finally, I congratulate Mr. Pascal Lamy of France on his selection as the new World Trade Organization Director General. I am hopeful his abilities will enable the World Trade Organization to balance the concerns of its members. I look forward to working with him in the future. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is my strong view that the United States greatly benefits from our continued participation in the World Trade Organization. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A lot of astounding remarks have been made since I stood up here and introduced this resolution, in the negative. There are a couple of things I think we need to really talk about. What has been the economic growth of the United States? How fast is our economy growing? It is growing at the rate of 4 percent. How fast is the economy in Europe growing? It is 1 percent. How fast is the European economy growing? It is 1 percent. The China economy is growing at 9 percent, but let us look at what that means. Nine percent of the Chinese economy is less than 4 percent of our economy. So I can say with all certainty that we have, in terms of dollars, the fastest growing economy in the world. No question about that. And of this economy, what percentage is exports? It is 25 percent. Are we not concerned about those jobs? And when we talk about the loss of jobs in the United States, we are not talking about a net loss; we are talking about, yes, there has been some loss of jobs and, yes, a lot of these jobs have been because of foreign competition, yes. But our economy has grown in other areas, so it has also created jobs. If we look at just the jobless rate of where we are now and where we were a few years ago, we are doing pretty darn good. If we look at the world economy, we are doing really good. So why would we want to send a message to the administration by attempting to throw the world economy into chaos? It makes absolutely, absolutely no sense. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman in the well that of the 50 cases we have brought before the World Trade Organization, we have won 46 which is a 92 percent success rate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. There is quite a bit of ground that we have covered here this morning. One is that somehow CAFTA has been brought into this debate by a couple of speakers. I would like to submit for printing in the Record a letter dated June 8, 2005, which was just yesterday, from former President Jimmy Carter to Mr. Bill Thomas, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, in support of CAFTA. In this letter, he says, If the United States Congress were to turn its back on CAFTA, it would undercut these fragile democracies, compel them to retreat to protectionism, and make it harder for them to cooperate with the United States. This is the type of bipartisan cooperation that we are about here today. It is important, I think, to realize that this resolution came before the Ways and Means Committee because we were required to take it up if it were to be filed under the law originally bringing us into the World Trade Organization. On both sides of the aisle, I believe I am correct on this, that the decision by the Ways and Means Committee to report this out unfavorably to the House, which we had to do procedurally, but to report it out unfavorably, I think, was unanimous on both sides of the aisle. There is criticism as to what is happening, and some people would like to change some of the things within the framework of the World Trade Organization, but the Ways and Means Committee, I think, was very, very responsible. Now the question of jobs and the economy has been raised, and China has been brought into this debate. China has got some problems with their currency and some things we need to do and their enforcement of their own laws. I will yield that ground to those that bring that criticism to us. But I think it is important to realize where those jobs are coming from or where those exports, who are the winners and losers with regard to the Chinese exports. The Chinese exports are draining off the exports from Japan, Korea and other Pacific Asian countries. That is where those jobs are coming from. If you talk about and look at exactly the exports into the United States from that region of the world, you will see that it is fairly flat, not for China, but China is increasing its exports at the expense of these other countries. The question has been brought into this debate as to the sovereignty of the United States. It is very clear to anyone, any of the lawmakers in this Congress, that Congress and the President make United States laws. The World Trade Organization cannot change laws either today or in the future. The World Trade Organization has no enforcement authority. It cannot impose fines, levies, sanctions, modify tariff rates or change the laws of any country. The only sanction for a violation of the World Trade Organization is that affected World Trade Organization member, and that member country may in some cases impose retaliatory measures on trade of the country that violates the rules. But that is not enforcement by the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization agreement permits the United States to regulate and even stop trade to protect United States national security, public health and safety, natural resources and human rights. So we are not giving up any of our sovereignty by remaining in the World Trade Organization. On the question of jobs and the exporting of American jobs, exports account for about 25 percent of the United States economic growth over the course of the past decade. Exports support an estimated 12 million jobs, and those workers' wages are estimated to pay 13 to 18 percent more on the average than nonexport jobs. United States exports directly support one in every five manufacturing jobs. Workers in most trade- engaged industries where combined exports and imports amount to at least 40 percent of their domestic industrial output earn an annual compensation package that is one-third more than the average compensation in the least trade-engaged sectors. A recent University of Michigan study shows that lowering remaining global trade barriers by just one-third would boost annual average family income by an additional $2,500. So if you are interested in jobs, vote against this resolution. If you are interested in the economy and the growth of our economy of this United States, vote against this resolution. If you want chaos in world trade, vote for it, because that would exactly be what we would have. We would have total chaos. It would be the wild, wild west. I think that the only responsible vote here today for the American worker and the American economy is to vote no on this resolution. June 8, 2005. Hon. Bill Thomas, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. To Representative Bill Thomas: as you prepare for your initial consideration of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the nations of Central America and the Dominican Republic, I want to express my strong support for this progressive move. From a trade perspective, this will help both the United States and Central America. Some 80 percent of Central America's exports to the U.S. are already duty free, so they will be opening their markets to U.S. exports more than we will for their remaining products. Independent studies indicate that U.S. incomes will rise by over $15 billion and those in Central America by some $5 billion. New jobs will be created in Central America, and labor standards are likely to improve as a result of CAFTA. Some improvements could be made in the trade bill, particularly on the labor protection side, but, more importantly our own national security and hemispheric influence will be enhanced with improved stability, democracy, and development in our poor, fragile neighbors in Central America and the Caribbean. During my presidency and now at The Carter Center, I have been dedicated to the promotion of democracy and stability in the region. From the negotiation of the Panama Canal Treaties and the championing of human rights at the time when the region suffered under military dictatorships to the monitoring of a number of free elections in the region, Central America has been a major focus of my attention. There now are democratically elected governments in each of the countries covered by CAFTA. In negotiating this agreement, the president of each of the six nations had to content with their own companies that fear competition with U.S. firms. They have put their credibility on the line, not only with this trade agreement but more broadly by promoting market reforms that have been urged for decades by U.S. presidents of both parties. If the U.S. Congress were to turn its back on CAFTA, it would undercut these fragile democracies, compel them to retreat to protectionism, and make it harder for them to cooperate with the U.S. For the first time ever, we have a chance to reinforce democracies in the region. This is the moment to move forward and to help those leaders that want to modernize and humanize their countries. Moreover, strong economies in the region are the best antidote to illegal immigration from the region. In appreciate your consideration of my views and hope they will be helpful in your important deliberations. Sincerley, Jimmy Carter.

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