August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5989 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Trade 

in Seafood Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress makes the following findings: 

(1) According to the Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, 85 percent of the world’s fisheries are overexploited, fully exploited, significantly depleted, or recovering from overexploitation, 

the highest percentage ever on record. 

(2) A primary reason for the global fisheries crisis is government subsidies that create perverse incentives for continued fishing 

in the face of declining catches. 

(3) Despite the dire conditions of the 

world’s marine resources, some of the countries that engage in the most fishing continue to provide significant subsidies to their 

fishing fleets. 

(4) Fisheries subsidies are estimated to be 

approximately 20 percent of the value of the 

world catch and have helped create a global 

fishing fleet that is up to 250 percent larger 

than that needed to fish sustainably. 

(5) Many long-range foreign fleets are supported by government subsidies for fuel, 

other operational expenses, and vessel construction that allow their fleets to fish 

longer, at greater distances, and more intensively than is commercially or environmentally warranted. Those fleets would not 

be viable without the support of government 

subsidies. 

(6) Many developing countries are particularly affected by fisheries subsidies provided 

by other governments because the developing countries are unable to compete 

against subsidized industrial fleets. 

(7) Fisheries subsidies offered by the governments of other countries give the fleets of 

those countries an unfair advantage over 

United States fishermen by reducing the 

costs of operations and increasing the number, size, and power of vessels competing for 

fish. Foreign fisheries subsidies also undermine opportunities for United States fishermen in potential export markets. 

(8) Without committed global leadership to 

reduce ‘‘overfishing subsidies’’, there is a significant risk that the oceans will become too 

depleted to fish, resulting in a catastrophic 

blow to the world economy and environment. 

(9) As one of the world’s largest importers 

of seafood and one of the top five exporters 

of seafood, the United States has a particular responsibility to lead trade negotiations to address fisheries subsidies and make 

the establishment of strong new rules on 

fisheries subsidies a core priority in United 

States trade negotiations. 

(10) Paragraphs 28 and 31 of the Ministerial 

Declaration of the World Trade Organization 

adopted at Doha November 14, 2001, which 

launched the Doha Development Agenda, 

called for negotiations to clarify and improve disciplines on trade-distorting government fisheries subsidies. 

(11) Paragraphs 9 through 11 of Annex D of 

the Ministerial Declaration of the World 

Trade Organization adopted at Hong Kong 

December 18, 2005, reinforced the Doha fisheries subsidies mandate, noting that ‘‘there 

is broad agreement that the Group should 

strengthen disciplines on subsidies in the 

fisheries sector, including through the prohibition of certain forms of fisheries subsidies 

that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing’’ and calling on ‘‘Participants 

promptly to undertake further detailed work 

to, inter alia, establish the nature and extent 

of those disciplines, including transparency 

and enforceability’’. 

(12) The negotiations on fisheries subsidies 

in the World Trade Organization and negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership 

Agreement are two of the most important, 

and promising, international efforts to stop 

global overfishing and represent meaningful 

efforts to directly address a key environmental issue that directly impacts international trade. 

(13) On November 12, 2011, the leaders of 

the 9 countries in negotiations for the TransPacific Partnership Agreement—Australia, 

Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New 

Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the 

United States—announced the achievement 

of the broad outlines of an ambitious, 21stcentury agreement. According to a statement released by those leaders, the agreed 

outline calls for ‘‘[a] meaningful outcome on 

environment [that] will ensure that the 

agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and 

enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade 

and environment. The TPP countries share 

the view that the environment text should 

include effective provisions on trade-related 

issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee 

implementation and a specific cooperation 

framework for addressing capacity building 

needs.’’. Various proposals, including a proposal by the United States, to bring disciplines to government-subsidized fishing are 

under active discussion as part of the negotiations on the environment chapter of the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. 

(14) The United States continues to make 

achievement of an agreement on disciplines 

on government fisheries subsidies a priority 

in negotiations in the World Trade Organization and for the Trans-Pacific Partnership 

Agreement. On December 16, 2011, at the 

Eighth Ministerial Conference of the World 

Trade Organization in Geneva, the United 

States Trade Representative issued a statement urging ‘‘continued work toward an ambitious outcome on fisheries subsidies under 

the WTO’’. Noting the acute impact of declining catches on developing countries, the 

Trade Representative further stated, ‘‘We 

stand ready to explore new negotiating approaches that can move us towards the 

elimination of harmful subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. . . . 

WTO Members have a duty to address one of 

the root causes of overfishing and overcapacity—the fisheries subsidies that encourage fishing enterprises to fish longer, 

harder, and farther than would otherwise be 

sustainable without subsidy aid. . . . The 

United States is ready to continue this work 

in the WTO and in other appropriate fora— 

including free trade agreements such as the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership and other bilateral, regional and multilateral initiatives.’’. 

(15) A strong fisheries subsidies agreement 

by the World Trade Organization and in the 

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement would 

set an historic precedent by showing that 

international trade can directly benefit the 

environment while promoting exports and 

open markets. 

SEC. 3. TRADE NEGOTIATING OBJECTIVES OF 

THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT 

TO GOVERNMENT FISHERIES SUBSIDIES. 

It shall be a principal negotiating objective of the United States in negotiations for 

a trade agreement— 

(1) to eliminate fisheries subsidies provided 

by governments that unfairly distort markets to the detriment of United States commercial fishing interests and that perpetuate 

unsustainable fishing practices; and 

(2) to ensure that any commitments with 

respect to such subsidies are enforceable 

under appropriate trade laws. 

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

This Act takes effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and applies with respect 

to negotiations for a trade agreement that— 

(1) include any negotiations relating to the 

elimination or reduction of government fisheries subsidies; and 

(2) are entered into— 

(A) on or after such date of enactment; or 

(B) before such date of enactment if the negotiations continue on or after such date of 

enactment. 

f 

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS 

SENATE RESOLUTION 541—CONDEMNING THE GOVERNMENT OF 

VIETNAM FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 

VIOLATIONS 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mrs. 

BOXER, Mr. BOOZMAN, and Mr. DURBIN) 

submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Relations: 

S. RES. 541 

Whereas Vietnam is an authoritarian state 

ruled by the Communist Party of Vietnam, 

which continues to deny the right of the people of Vietnam to participate in free and fair 

elections; 

Whereas, according to the 2012 annual report of the United States Commission on 

International Religious Freedom, ‘‘Vietnam’s overall human rights record remains 

poor, and has deteriorated since Vietnam 

was removed from the CPC [countries of particular concern] list and joined the World 

Trade Organization in 2007.’’; 

Whereas, according to the Department of 

State’s most recent Country Reports on 

Human Rights Practices, published on May 

24, 2012 (in this resolution, the ‘‘DOS Human 

Rights Report’’), the most significant human 

rights issues in Vietnam ‘‘were severe government restrictions on citizens’ political 

rights, particularly their right to change 

their government; increased measures to 

limit citizens’ civil liberties; and corruption 

in the judicial system and police’’; 

Whereas, according to the DOS Human 

Rights Report, the Government of Vietnam 

‘‘reportedly held more than 100 political detainees at year’s end, although some international observers claimed there were 

more. . . Diplomatic sources reported the existence of four reeducation centers in the 

country holding approximately 4,000 prisoners’’; 

Whereas, according to the DOS Human 

Rights Report, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public 

Security ‘‘maintains a system of household 

registration and block wardens to monitor 

the population,’’ while ‘‘credible reports suggested that local police used ‘contract thugs’ 

and ‘citizen brigades’ to harass and beat political activists and others, including religious worshippers, perceived as undesirable 

or a threat to public security’’; 

Whereas, on April 8, 2006, the pro-democracy movement Bloc 8406 was founded in 

Vietnam, and it has since attracted thousands of supporters calling for respect for 

basic human rights, the establishment of a 

multiparty political system, and guarantees 

of freedom of religion and political association; 

Whereas, according to the DOS Human 

Rights Report, the Government of Vietnam 

‘‘continued to restrict public debate and criticism severely. No public challenge to the legitimacy of the one-party state was permitted,’’ and ‘‘the government continued to 

crack down on the small, opposition political 

groups established in 2006, and group members faced arrests and arbitrary detentions’’; 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
S5990 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

Whereas, according to the DOS Human 

Rights Report, ‘‘[t]here continued to be credible reports that authorities pressured defense lawyers not to take as clients any religious or democracy activists facing trial. 

Human rights lawyers were restricted, harassed, arrested, disbarred, and in some cases 

detained for representing political activists,’’ while ‘‘given their previous convictions, lawyers Le Tran Luat, Le Thi Cong 

Nhan, and Le Quoc Quan were not permitted 

to practice law’’; 

Whereas, on April 4, 2011, the Hanoi People’s Court sentenced attorney Cu Huy Ha 

Vu to seven years in prison for defending victims of land confiscation and abuse of power, 

including the Catholic villagers of Con Dau 

who refused to sell or vacate land, including 

a 135-year-old religious burial site, and in 

August and November 2011, Vu’s appeals were 

unsuccessful; 

Whereas, although the constitution of 

Vietnam provides for freedom of religion, Vietnamese law requires official recognition or 

registration for religious groups, which has 

been used to monitor and restrict the operations of religious organizations; 

Whereas the 2012 Annual Report of the 

United States Commission on International 

Religious Freedom (USCIRF) lists Vietnam 

as one of the ‘‘world’s worst religious freedom violators,’’ recommending that the Secretary of State name Vietnam a ‘‘country of 

particular concern’’ with respect to religious 

freedom, noting that ‘‘the Government of 

Vietnam continues to control all religious 

communities, restrict and penalize independent religious practice severely, and repress individuals and groups viewed as challenging its authority’’ and that ‘‘individuals 

continue to be imprisoned or detained for 

reasons relating to their religious activity or 

religious freedom advocacy’’ while ‘‘independent religious activity remains illegal’’; 

Whereas, according to the USCIRF report, 

between April 2011 and February 2012, ‘‘as 

many as 27 individuals were arrested or disappeared in Vietnam for their religious affiliations, religious activities, or peaceful 

protest of religious freedom restrictions, 

among them Hoa Hao Buddhists, Catholics, 

Protestants, and Falun Gong practitioners’’; 

Whereas hundreds of Montagnard Protestants arrested after 2001 and 2004 demonstrations for religious freedom and land rights 

remain in detention in Vietnam’s Central 

Highlands, while, according to Human 

Rights Watch, in 2010, as many as 70 additional people were detained in the Central 

Highlands for conducting ‘‘illegal’’ religious 

services; 

Whereas the Unified Buddhist Church of 

Vietnam is the country’s largest religious 

organization, yet according to the USCIRF, 

it ‘‘has faced decades of harassment and repression for seeking independent status and 

for appealing to the government to respect 

religious freedom and related human rights’’; 

Whereas, in July 2011, Father Nguyen Van 

Ly, who has been imprisoned numerous 

times for his religious freedom and human 

rights advocacy, but had been granted medical parole in March 2010 after suffering several strokes in prison that left him partially 

paralyzed, was returned to prison to serve 

the remainder of his eight-year sentence; 

Whereas on January 6, 2011, Christian 

Marchant, a United States diplomat at the 

United States Embassy in Hanoi, was beaten 

by Vietnamese police when he went to visit 

Father Ly, who was then under house arrest; 

Whereas, according to the USCIRF report, 

over a dozen religious leaders are being held 

under long-term house arrest orders, including Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam 

(UBCV) leader Thich Quang Do and other 

UBCV leaders, Catholic Father Phan Van 

Loi, Hoa Hao leader Le Quang Liem, Protestants Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thi Cong 

Nhan, and Mennonite Leader Nguyen Thi 

Hong; 

Whereas Reporters Without Borders’ 2011- 

2012 Press Freedom Index ranks Vietnam last 

in Southeast Asia with regard to freedom of 

the press, and 172 out of 179 countries overall; 

Whereas, in September 2007, Vietnamese 

bloggers established the Club of Free Journalists to promote freedom of expression and 

independent journalism and were quickly 

faced with harassment, intimidation, and detention by authorities in Vietnam, beginning 

with the arrest of Nguyen Van Hai in April 

2008; 

Whereas, on October 30, 2010, while in 

Hanoi, Vietnam, Secretary of State Hillary 

Clinton said, ‘‘[T]he United States remains 

concerned about the arrest and conviction of 

people for peaceful dissent, the attacks on 

religious groups, the curbs on Internet freedom, including of bloggers. Vietnam has so 

much potential, and we believe that political 

reform and respect for human rights are an 

essential part of realizing that potential.’’; 

Whereas, on November 10, 2011, Secretary 

of State Clinton stated, ‘‘We support not 

only open economies but open societies . . . 

we have made it clear to Vietnam that if we 

are to develop a strategic partnership, as 

both nations desire, Vietnam must do more 

to respect and protect its citizens’ rights’’; 

and 

Whereas, on February 2, 2012, Assistant 

Secretary of State Kurt M. Campbell stated 

that ‘‘for the United States and Vietnam to 

go to the next level it will require some significant steps on the part of Vietnam to address . . . human rights concerns . . . but 

also more systematic challenges associated 

with freedom of expression, freedom of organization,’’ explaining that ‘‘progress in these 

areas will be essential to have the appropriate level of support in the United States 

that will sustain a deeper engagement between our two countries’’: Now, therefore, be 

it 

Resolved, That the Senate— 

(1) reaffirms the commitment of the 

United States to democracy, human rights, 

civil liberties, and rule of law, including the 

universal rights of freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association; 

(2) strongly condemns the ongoing and 

egregious human rights violations committed by the Government of Vietnam 

against the Vietnamese people; 

(3) urges the President, Secretary of State, 

and all other appropriate United States Government officials to ensure that relations between the United States and Vietnam continue to include robust discussion on the 

troubling human rights record of the Government of Vietnam; 

(4) encourages the Secretary of State to 

place Vietnam on the list of ‘‘Countries of 

Particular Concern’’ with regard to religious 

freedom pursuant to section 402(b) of the 

International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 

(22 U.S.C. 6442(b)) in order to highlight 

abuses of religious freedom in Vietnam and 

encourage improvement in the respect for 

human rights in Vietnam; and 

(5) urges the President, Secretary of State, 

and other world leaders to publicly support 

the human rights of the people of Vietnam 

and to call on the President of Vietnam to— 

(A) release all political and religious prisoners, including all those imprisoned or detained on account of their advocacy for democracy, religious freedom, and other 

human rights; 

(B) revise or repeal ordinances and decrees 

that limit freedom of expression, assembly, 

association, or religion; and 

(C) implement all necessary legal and political reforms to protect these rights. 

f 

SENATE RESOLUTION 542—EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE 

SENATE THAT THE UNITED 

STATES GOVERNMENT SHOULD 

CONTINUE TO SUPPORT DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN 

TAIWAN FOLLOWING THE JANUARY 2012 PRESIDENTIAL AND 

LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS IN TAIWAN 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and 

Mr. BEGICH) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Relations: 

S. RES. 542 

Whereas, for many years, Taiwan has been 

a strong and cooperative partner of the 

United States; 

Whereas the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (22 

U.S.C. 3301 et seq.), the cornerstone of United 

States-Taiwan relations, declares that ‘‘the 

preservation and enhancement of the human 

rights of all the people of Taiwan are hereby 

reaffirmed as objectives of the United 

States’’; 

Whereas, since the lifting of martial law in 

1987, the people of Taiwan have amply demonstrated their desire for democratic governance, as well as their commitment to human 

rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law; 

Whereas, since their first democratic presidential election in 1996, the people of Taiwan 

have conducted four more presidential elections, as well as successive elections for 

members of their national legislature, numerous local elections, and two national referendums; 

Whereas Taiwan conducted its latest presidential and legislative elections on January 

14, 2012; 

Whereas, on January 14, 2012, Mr. Ma Yingjeou, the incumbent and the nominee of the 

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), was reelected as the President of Taiwan with 51.6 

percent of the vote, while in the 113-member 

legislature the KMT won 64 seats, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won 40 seats, 

and the People’s First Party (PFP), the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), and other nonpartisan independent candidates each won 3 

seats; 

Whereas an international election observation mission made up of 19 observers from 8 

countries, invited by the International Committee for Fair Elections in Taiwan (ICFET), 

observed the January 14, 2012, elections in 

Taiwan; 

Whereas the final report of the mission, 

made up of observers from Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Japan, Sweden, the 

Netherlands, and the United States, was recently presented in Taiwan; 

Whereas the final report of the mission included— 

(1) a finding that the elections were mostly 

free but only partly fair; 

(2) a finding that the date selected for the 

election made it more convenient for Taiwan 

businessmen in China to return for the vote, 

but made it more difficult for students to return to their home towns to vote, and a recommendation that the household registration system should be changed to allow people to vote where they actually work or 

study in Taiwan, ending the need to travel 

long distances to vote; 

(3) a finding that vote buying and vote betting remains an issue of concern, and recommendations that stiffer penalties be put 

in place for candidates who buy votes, such 

as disqualification from running in future 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE