S5988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

of a GED, education in pursuit of a 

post-secondary degree or certification, 

and training in financial literacy. Providing families in need with affordable 

rental housing is critical, but coupling 

it with the support and services to help 

families get ahead is more effective. 

This legislation makes it easier for 

FSS participants to obtain the training 

necessary to secure employment and 

the education to make prudent financial decisions to better safeguard their 

earnings. 

Lastly, this bill opens up the FSS 

program to families who live in privately-owned properties subsidized 

with project-based rental assistance. It 

shouldn’t matter what kind of housing 

assistance a family gets, and families 

seeking to achieve self-sufficiency 

shouldn’t be held back by this sort of 

technicality. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

bill, which will help give those receiving housing assistance a better chance 

to build their skills and achieve economic independence. 

By Ms. SNOWE: 

S. 3516. A bill to encourage spectrum 

licenses to make unused spectrum 

available for use by rural and smaller 

carriers in order to expand wireless 

coverage; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise 

today to introduce legislation to help 

expand wireless broadband to rural 

areas. Specifically, the Rural Spectrum 

Accessibility Act would direct the Federal Communications Commission, 

FCC, establish a program that would 

provide an incentive, a three year extension to a spectrum license, to wireless carriers that make available, 

through partitioning and 

disaggregation, unused spectrum to 

smaller carriers or carriers serving 

rural areas. 

As the FCC National Broadband Plan 

reports ‘‘most areas without mobile 

broadband coverage are in rural or remote areas.’’ This legislation would 

provide an additional incentive to increase wireless broadband to these 

areas and make more spectrum available to smaller and rural wireless carriers through secondary market mechanisms. 

This bill is loosely based on a wireless carrier’s existing program, which 

creates a partnership with rural carriers to build and operate Long Term 

Evolution, LTE, wireless networks in 

rural areas. Through the cooperation 

the carrier provides spectrum and core 

network equipment and the rural carrier supplies the cell towers and 

backhaul. 

The Rural Spectrum Accessibility 

Act is an effort to get other large carriers to implement similar initiatives 

to create more opportunities for the 

smaller and rural carriers. It should be 

noted the FCC actually already has 

partitioning and disaggregation rules, 

see 47 C.F.R. 22.948, this legislative proposal just provides a simple but attractive incentive for carriers to utilize 

them. 

The main goal of this legislation is to 

provide another catalyst to expand 

next generation, 4G, Wireless 

broadband service to rural areas, which 

will mean more reliable service, more 

innovation, and more choice to rural 

consumers and businesses. 

The increasing importance of wireless communications and broadband 

has a direct correlation to our Nation’s 

competitiveness, economy, and national security. We must reform existing spectrum policy and management 

to ensure that all Americans continue 

to realize the boundless benefits of 

wireless broadband. Congress has taken 

some steps but more can and must be 

done. That is why I sincerely hope that 

my colleagues join me in supporting 

this important legislation. 

By Mr. WYDEN: 

S. 3518. A bill to make it a principal 

negotiating objective of the United 

States in trade negotiations to eliminate government fisheries subsidies, 

and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance. 

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise 

today to introduce the Fair Trade in 

Seafood Act. 

Right now, our country is proud to be 

a world leader in the fishing and seafood processing industries. We rank 

among the world’s top five exporters of 

seafood, and its largest importer. However, the U.S. seafood industry faces 

many challenges on the global stage 

from unfair competition. The Congress 

should be doing everything it can to 

make sure we retain our status as global leader. That is why I am introducing 

the Fair Trade in Seafood Act. This bill 

will establish this issue as a Principal 

Negotiating Objective of the United 

States in the ongoing Trans-Pacific 

Partnership and World Trade Organization talks. 

Why is this bill important? According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, 85 percent of 

the world’s fisheries are fully exploited, overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion—the highest 

percentage since the Food and Agricultural Organization began keeping 

records. 

Many governments continue to provide significant subsidies that push 

their fleets to fish longer, more intensively, and farther away than otherwise would be possible. These destructive fisheries subsidies are estimated 

to be at least $16 billion annually, an 

amount equivalent to approximately 20 

percent of the value of the world catch. 

The detrimental effects of these illegal 

subsidies are so significant that eliminating them is the single greatest action that can be taken to protect the 

world’s oceans. 

In contrast to these nefarious actors, 

the U.S. does not just talk about the 

importance of sustainable fishing practices and marine conservation. We are 

practicing what we preach. That means 

enforcing regulations and changing old, 

counterproductive, destructive habits. 

Our seafood industry is stronger because of it. At the same time, our market is open. In my view, this is the way 

every country ought to run its seafood 

industry. Our foreign trading partners, 

as I mentioned, often support practices 

that can cause long-term harm to marine habitat. In addition, our trading 

partners put up trade barriers that prevent sustainably caught U.S. seafood 

from reaching foreign consumers. 

These are practices that skew the playing field in a competitive marketplace. 

They skew the playing field against 

American fishers and give foreign competitors a huge advantage in an industry that depends on global trade. Forty 

percent of global fishery products are 

traded internationally, and seafood is 

more globally sourced than coffee, rice, 

and tea combined. 

These harmful foreign trade barriers 

and practices that encourage overfishing are top priorities that need to 

be addressed. These foreign trade barriers harm our country’s ability to create good-paying jobs. Preserving the 

wealth of the world’s marine environment is of paramount importance. The 

U.S. seafood industry represents a 

major portion of our economy, employing over 1.5 million workers in the 

commercial sector alone. The commercial seafood industry has a significant 

presence in over 23 States and is an industry and, in fact, a way of life, a way 

of life that binds communities and 

stitches together the regions of our 

country. The seafood sector employs 

more people than the mining or oil industries. 

It is also a foundation of our economy because, without fish, there are no 

jobs. Preserving the wealth of our 

oceans and rivers is an economic imperative as much as a moral one. That 

is why I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Fair Trade in Seafood Act. 

In short, this Act will codify an official trade negotiating objective of the 

United States with respect to government fisheries subsidies. More specifically, the negotiating objective will be 

to eliminate fisheries subsidies provided by governments that unfairly destroy markets to the detriment of the 

United States commercial fishing interests and that perpetuate 

unsustainable fishing practices. The 

bill aims to ensure that any commitments with respect to such subsidies 

are enforceable under appropriate 

trade laws. This negotiating objective 

will apply to any trade agreement that 

includes any negotiations relating to 

the elimination or reduction of government fisheries subsidies. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 3518 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
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