[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: January 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
Amendment No. 1263 to Amendment No. 1262
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself,
Mr. McCain, Mr. Robb, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Simpson,
Mr. Johnston, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Warner, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Chafee, Mr. Pell, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Mathews, Mr. Bennett,
and Mr. Akaka proposes an amendment numbered 1263 to
amendment No. 1262.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the first word in the pending amendment
and insert the following:
Of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate that--
(1) The government of the United States is committed to
seeking the fullest possible accounting of American
servicemen unaccounted for during the war in Vietnam;
(2) Cooperation by the Government of Vietnam on resolving
the fate of those American servicemen unaccounted for has
increased significantly over the last three years and is
essential to the resolution of outstanding POW/MIA cases;
(3) Substantial and tangible progress has been made in the
POW/MIA accounting process;
(4) Cooperative efforts between the U.S. and Vietnam should
continue in order to resolve all outstanding questions
concerning the fate of Americans missing-in-action;
(5) U.S. senior military commanders and U.S. personnel
working in the field to account for U.S. POW/MIAs in Vietnam
believe that lifting the U.S. trade embargo against Vietnam
will facilitate and accelerate the accounting efforts;
(6) Therefore, in order to maintain and expand further U.S.
and Vietnamese efforts to obtain the fullest possible
accounting, the President should lift the U.S. trade embargo
against Vietnam expeditiously; and
(7) Moreover, as the U.S. and Vietnam move toward
normalization of relations, the Government of Vietnam should
demonstrate further improvements in meeting internationally
recognized standards of human rights.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I understand the amendment is in the form of a second-
degree amendment?
Mr. KERRY. It is in the form of a second-degree amendment to the
amendment of the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the amendment that I have sent to the desk
commences what I and other Senators believe is a very important
discussion for the U.S. Senate.
I have sent this amendment to the desk with 16 cosponsors. They are:
Senator McCain; Senator Robb; Senator Murkowski; Senator Bob Kerrey of
Nebraska; Senator Simpson; Senator Johnston; Senator Pressler; Senator
Warner; Senator Inouye; Senator Chafee; Senator Pell; Senator
Kassebaum; Senator Mathews; Senator Bennett; and Senator Akaka.
This amendment seeks to address the question of our current
relationship with Vietnam and the embargo that is currently in place
pending judgments about the accounting of our prisoners of war.
Mr. President, I know this is a sensitive issue, as does the Senator
from Arizona. We bring it to the floor with the utmost sensitivity and
with a great deal of consideration. We believe very deeply in one
simple concept: That if we urge the President of the United States, as
this amendment seeks to do, to expeditiously lift the embargo against
Vietnam, we will do a better, faster and more thorough job of providing
answers to our families and to our veterans about POW-MIA.
We do not offer this amendment to pick a fight with anyone. We do not
do it with any disrespect to anybody. To the contrary. I think it is
fair to say we do it with the utmost respect, particularly to the
families who have carried with them deep questions for 20-plus years
about what happened to loved ones who were lost in Vietnam. But we are
convinced that the goal of achieving the biggest accounting possible of
our veterans is best served by moving forward in a cooperative process
that will get Americans into Vietnam and help us to find the answers
that we seek regarding those loved ones.
I know that some are going to come to the floor and say, ``Don't
reward Vietnam.'' This is not a reward. We will explain 100 different
ways why it is not. Some will say, ``Don't take your leverage away.''
We will point out it is not a question of taking away leverage, but
rather a question of giving us more leverage, about how this is a
mechanism for opening the doors that have been shut for 20 and 25
years.
More than 25 years ago, many of us who are cosponsors of this
legislation put on the uniform of our country and volunteered to go
across the ocean to Vietnam to fight for freedom. We hoped ultimately
for a democratic nation. Like so many others, I joined and I
volunteered and I went because I wanted to beat back communism, I
wanted to give the Vietnamese a chance for themselves. For reasons far
too numerous and, frankly, not even relevant to the discussion today,
that particular effort failed.
But we come to the floor today convinced that that difficult period
of 25 years ago and the democracy and the freedom that we sought then
do not have to become the story of a chapter of failure. Rather, if we
take the right steps, in the days ahead, Vietnam can become, finally, a
chapter of success for this country.
We believe that it is by giving meaning to the 58,000-plus names on
the Wall in Washington, by ending some of the divisions in this country
and understanding how we can best answer the difficult questions that
remain for families that we can, indeed, begin the process of writing
that final chapter of this war. Millions of Vietnamese citizens
supported us, and they are still in Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands of
soldiers supported us. They are still in Vietnam, some of them without
arms or legs and only their scars as the witness to their service for
our country and our ideals. They could benefit by the infusion of
American assistance and ultimately a relationship. They would benefit
by more Americans being in their country to guarantee human rights and
to guarantee that they ultimately may be able to have the chance to
live in the kind of society that we originally fought for.
So much is at stake in the decision we make or not make. But what is
really critical, as colleagues make a judgment about whether or not we
should move forward, is the basic goal: How do we best get the
accounting for our families? That is the issue. The President of the
United States has followed a policy first established by President
Reagan, followed through on by President Bush, that he is going to try
to get the fullest accounting possible of our missing. Mr. President,
you cannot do that if you are not there. You cannot get that accounting
if the Vietnamese do not cooperate with us. You cannot get that
accounting if you are not talking to the Vietnamese soldiers, the
Vietnamese leaders, the generals, the others who know something about
that war. You cannot get the answers if you do not have access to the
archives. You cannot get the answers if you cannot go around their
countryside asking questions and searching.
For 19 years or so, we were not able to do any of the things that I
just talked about and, in fact, we did not get answers. Families lived
year after year after year not knowing what happened to some loved one
and, frankly, not having the Government of this country do enough to
find out. Then finally, in 1988, Gen. John Vessey went over to Vietnam
and began a process of engagement. President Reagan is to be commended
for having entered into that effort to try to guarantee that we had a
greater accountability process. General Vessey painstakingly built up a
process by which we gave a little, they gave a little, we gave a
little, we kept pressure, we kept the process going, and we have begun
to get answers.
When I started with the POW-MIA Select Committee, we had 2,268 people
on the list of those missing or POW in Vietnam. We are now down to
2,238--not a huge reduction. But the reason that that reduction is not
as great as it might be reflecting the answers we have truly found is
that in order for a name to come off the list, you have to have the
remains back in this country and the remains have to be fully
identified. We have had difficulty--difficulty finding remains,
difficulty getting the remains hopefully identified. In some cases, we
do not find enough of the remains to be able to positively identify. In
other cases, not for the want of the Vietnamese turning over remains,
we are simply not able to make an identification. But we have been able
to make many identifications.
What I think is a far more significant figure--and I think this is an
important figure when you measure it against the assertions of some
veterans groups and some individuals regarding this issue. We often
hear people say: ``We're not making progress. The Vietnamese can do
more, there's not enough progress.'' Let me first ask colleagues to
reflect on what is happening in Vietnam today in the context of this
effort.
No two nations that ever fought a war against each other have ever
entered into as significant an arrangement or as significant an
endeavor to try to find the missing as we have been doing in 1992,
1993, and 1994. This is the most significant remains retrieval and
identification effort in the history of warfare. You cannot find a time
with the Romans or the Greeks or the Germans or the Japanese, or anyone
else, where two nations that have fought against each other are side by
side out on those battlefields trying to find remains and find the
answers. This is the single most important effort.
In an effort to try to put the Vietnamese to the test back in the
early 1990's, or late 1980's, General Vessey went through the list of
2,268 names. Out of those 2,268 names, 1,600-plus are in Vietnam; 500
or so are in Laos, and the remainder in Cambodia.
Of those 2,268 General Vessey--I think it was 69 at the time--General
Vessey went through the loss incidents of those cases, and he chose the
hardest cases, the cases where we would have some cause for possible
belief that someone might have survived their incident.
General Vessey read the folder, the loss incident, and he took those
cases where we had a belief that captain so and so, or major so and so,
or lieutenant so and so might have survived his incident or that we
just did not know what happened to him. You might have had two
airplanes flying beside each other and then there was an explosion and
one disappeared in a fireball. They did not see a parachute. On the
other hand, the last thing they knew the person was alive and flying
the plane. They did not have any contact on the ground. They did not
see the parachute. We list the person as MIA. They are on the list.
You may have had a much more compelling case where you actually had a
parachute and you had somebody dropping to the Earth, and you had radio
communication with the person. Then they were on the ground and they
heard the enemy coming, and in the radio communication they said, ``I
hear the men. I'm going to have to sign off now.'' And that is the last
we knew of that person. We know they reached the ground. We know they
were alive. We know they were in the vicinity of the enemy, but we
never heard from them again.
Or we had instances where we knew someone was captured. We knew they
were in prison. We knew they died. But we did not get their remains
back, so that raises a question: How can you have somebody in captivity
and not know where the remains are?
General Vessey put 196 of these tough cases in front of the
Vietnamese. For someone who says we are not making progress, I ask them
to measure what has happened to those cases. They have gone from 196
cases down to 73 cases, and of those 120 or so cases that we have
resolved, we now know to a certainty what happened to that person. We
know now to a certainty that person is not languishing alive in a
bamboo cage in Vietnam. We know to a certainty that person was not a
captive. We know to a certainty where they died, how they died, and we
are now in the process of trying to excavate and find their remains. We
are currently spending about $1.7 million per remains which we are
trying to retrieve in Vietnam.
Now, for people who say to me, ``Senator, that's not important; the
Vietnamese could just tell you all about it,'' I ask them to look at
the reality of what happened just last week in Vietnam when I was
there. We had a site in Quang Ngai Province where we lost five
personnel, ground troops on a long-range mission. They went up into a
small hillside and all five of them were shot. We know they were shot
at the time because our rescue people went in to get them. When our
rescue people got there, they found only two bodies buried in a very
shallow area of rock, but they saw a trail of blood leading down from
those two bodies into a field. They recorded this in the reports at
that moment in time.
The Vietnamese in the last weeks have helped us find the people who
shot those men. They helped us find the people who were witnesses to
the burial. And by finding the people who were witnesses to the burial,
we were able to find an area in the field that we literally isolated
and took over as an archaeological dig. We dug up some farmer's field
with the help of the Vietnamese finding it because they told us that
the three other bodies were lain out one, two, three beside each other
right there in the field.
Now, Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues
photographs of this effort that some people say is not cooperative.
This is an archaeological dig in a particular field in Vietnam. This
is what we are doing, case by case, in order to eliminate the
possibilities. We cannot do this without the cooperation of the
Vietnamese. If they do not help us find the place, if they do not let
us fly to the place, if they do not go to the place to dig with us, if
they do not help us get the permission of the local people, if they do
not help us find the people who know what happened, this does not
happen and a family does not learn anything.
Right up here in the back is the hillside, and I landed in a
helicopter right over here the other day and walked through this dig
the day I was there. The day after this it was even larger. This is an
example of how complicated it is to find the remains.
Here is another picture from another angle of the dig area. These are
Americans, American soldiers, I might add, active duty American
military personnel, working side by side with Vietnamese military
personnel. They are out there in the jungle with snakes and unexploded
ordnance, in extraordinarily uncomfortable conditions, week after week,
without their mail. We do not have diplomatic relations so they do not
have anything coming in. They are out there digging on a daily basis.
This is an example.
Here is a closer example of the extent of this dig, with people going
in, walls caving in, constant work, bucket for bucket. Every single
bucket of earth that is unearthed is sifted and the Vietnamese are
setting up lines of people to help us sift through it.
Here is another example of this dig from another angle with folks
just sort of walking around looking at it.
Here is an example of Vietnamese themselves working right in the dig,
villagers, army personnel and others helping us, bucket by bucket, to
bring this out.
Well, this paid off. On the last day of the dig, just as they were
about to give up, they uncovered the three bodies lain out one by one,
right beside each other, precisely in the manner that was described.
Now, we have not positively identified those three bodies yet, but
one would assume, given the extent of information and knowledge we have
about what happened, that the chances of positive identification are
enormous. This is precisely how we have identified cases to date.
This is painstaking. Why do we have to do it? We have to do this
because until you found those three bodies, you had people running
around this country claiming every conspiracy in the world: That they
went to Russia; they went to China; or they may be alive.
We have an obligation to find out the answer for our families. So we
are doing it. But I wish to emphasize to every colleague the answers
are not here in this country. The answers are in someone else's
country, a country called Vietnam. And unless the Vietnamese let us do
these things, our families will not get answers. It is that simple.
Now, Admiral Larson, the Commander in Chief of the Pacific fleet,
went to this dig, as he did to others in the ensuing days, and he has
concluded, as have the other senior active duty military people who
have served during this war, that we need to lift this embargo in order
to guarantee that this kind of cooperation continues because we made a
deal with the Vietnamese.
The deal we made with the Vietnamese was if they help us get
documents and they help us get archives and they help us get access and
they help us with the excavations and the cases, we will reciprocate.
That is the road map to deal with this embargo.
(Mrs. FEINSTEIN assumed the Chair.)
Mr. KERRY. Now, let me just say, Madam President, after I went to
this dig, I flew up into the highlands. I landed in a place where our
special forces used to work. There I saw the most remarkable sight. We
landed in the midst of 2,000 Montagnard tribespeople who welcomed us
there to help dig up their field and look for American remains. There
was a huge hole in the middle of this extraordinary plateau and there
were 100 Vietnamese troops in a bucket brigade working alongside
Americans, bucket for bucket, lifting out the dirt from this hole in
order to find out whether three bodies might still be within this
aircraft because we do not know what happened to three crew members,
although we recovered two of the crew members in this explosion in the
loss of this aircraft.
I walked down 3\1/2\ meters into the Earth, right beside the wheel
base of this aircraft, and all around me in the red earth was
disintegrated aluminum, shreds from this aircraft which I could pull
out of the Earth with my hands, and did. Bucket for bucket, this is
being sifted in order to discover whether or not there might be the
remains of the three people we cannot find to determine whether or not
they might have been alive. Were they prisoners somewhere? Were they
not? One hundred Vietnamese soldiers.
Now, we have a decision to make. We can lose this cooperation if we
do not begin to act in a mature and sensible fashion with respect to
this relationship.
This cannot be a one-way street. We sat there for 19 years in a one-
way street, and we got nothing. For the last 2 years, we have had a
two-way street, and we have gotten the greatest amount of cooperation
that we have ever had. Let me describe that to my colleagues.
A couple of years ago when I first went back to Vietnam, we had no
office in Hanoi, no permanent office. We had one or two people
occasionally visiting and working out of a hotel. We had no access to
archives. We had no access to the countryside. We could not go out
except on a few missions, and we had none of this kind of cooperation.
We had no interviews of Vietnamese generals, battalion commanders, or
the historians of their tradition houses, as they are called. We had no
access to military bases. We had no access to prisons. We had not had,
at that point in time, an ability to interview a whole bunch of people
who held John McCain a prisoner who were involved in some of the major
battles with us. We did not have the ability to follow up on live
sighting reports, and many veterans in this country were saying, ``What
are you guys doing? We are getting reports of live Americans, and you
do not even go over there and look.'' Well, we did not have the ability
to go and look wherever we wanted.
Madam President, in the last 2 years we have had a remarkable change.
We now have a permanent office in Hanoi. We now have 107 active duty
military personnel in Vietnam. We have American military personnel who
are allowed to travel anywhere they want in Vietnam without escort. We
now have our general with a multiple reentry visa so he can come in and
out whenever he wants to, which we did not have. We now have an
archival researcher who has a permanent pass to go into the national
defense archives of the Vietnamese and the national archives and
research on a daily basis, and they are doing that.
We now have had every single live sighting report that we had that
was considered an active live sighting report followed up on. We have
gone out and landed in their military bases unexpectedly. I did that
with Senator Smith. We landed unauthorized in the middle of a military
base, and 100 soldiers ran up to us. And we interviewed them and talked
to them spontaneously about whether they had seen Americans.
We went into prisons spontaneously. We were allowed into sections of
the prisons they did not think we were going to go into. We were
allowed to haul their prisoners out of their cells and interrogate them
as to whether or not they had seen Americans or knew anything about
prisoners of war.
We have been allowed to go into every single one of their tradition
houses. They have now been visited.
They have turned over to us some 20,000 documents, 5,000 photographs,
and those documents have helped us with specific cases about specific
people who were lost, and we have in fact been able to bring home to
families news about their loved ones as a consequence of those kinds of
documents. I would like to share with my colleagues an example of the
kind of documents that we are receiving as recently as last week.
We have been able to secure some of the documents that we thought,
through our intelligence sources, were the most important documents in
helping us to resolve some of the cases. Let me give you an example of
the kind of assistance we have.
Last summer or somewhere in that vicinity, we received photographs
that showed an American pilot dead on the ground. So we now had
evidence of a soldier, an airman, who was shot down and who had died.
But we did not have remains. We did not know the circumstances of the
death. So we have begun a process of trying to track that down.
The Vietnamese delivered to me, and they delivered it to Secretary
Lord a few days earlier also, a document that has the names of people
who died in captivity, where they died, the date they died, where they
were buried, and now we are going out to the sites of those burials. We
are person for person able to try to corroborate whether or not the
death was in circumstances we believed it to be or have subsequently
learned it to be or now know it to be.
This will enable us ultimately to do what these people are doing
here, which is do the final corroboration. It will not happen next
month or 10 months from now. This could take us 5 years or 10 years. We
cannot sit frozen in a time warp with respect to Vietnam believing that
somehow, not engaged, not having Americans there, we are going to
empower this process more than we will in our current status.
Let me give you another example. We are now interviewing soldiers. I
would like to share with you a rather remarkable moment. I went back to
Vietnam last year with Senator John McCain and with Congressman Pete
Peterson. Both of them spent about 6 years-plus in Hanoi in prison. It
was a remarkable thing to walk back into this prison where they had
spent this time of agony and pain.
We were able to witness Senator John McCain and Congressman Pete
Peterson being able to publicly, in front of the press, interrogate the
people who had interrogated them 20 years ago. That is a remarkable
turn of events for any proud country to allow there senior military
people and others to be subjected to public interrogation.
We are now receiving documents from military people. This is an
example of one. It is a battalion commander's war diaries. It talks of
specific shootdowns and specific incidents. His personal diaries have
now given us information with respect to several cases that we needed
information on. As a consequence of these diaries, our teams are able
to go out, talk to more people, gather more information, and,
hopefully, find some resolution with respect to a family's questions.
Madam President, we can sit here and we can play sort of a strong-arm
tactic that says, until you--as the American Legion says--turn over the
live prisoners, we are not doing anything, despite the fact that
unanimously the Senate select committee signed off on the fact that
there is no compelling evidence that anybody is alive. Not one of our
people in Vietnam has found any evidence that they are alive.
I might add that we met with 14 ambassadors of our allied nations--
France, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Great Britain, Australia. They have
been in Vietnam since 1975. And not one of those embassies has ever had
one bit of information come to them that an American was alive in
Vietnam. They have been there even in the dark days of 1975, 1976, and
1977 when we could not get anything into Vietnam. They have told us
they have never received any information. That is, after all, how Bobby
Garwood came out of Vietnam. He came out by going up to a foreign
person. If Bobby Garwood can get out by going up to a foreign person,
then the more people you have in the country, the more opportunity
there would be for some potentially live persons to go up to somebody
and get out.
Just the other day an American businessman who was in Hanoi under the
current legal structure where you are allowed to be there but you
cannot do business, hung an American flag out his window. People came
in off the street because there was an American flag. And they told him
information about someone they knew had been killed. He turned the
information over to our team, and our team is now following up on it
and believes it is valuable information. That is because you had an
American flag and an American in the country.
So you know, we can sit here and say no, no, no, no.
You have to give us this, even though we do not know for sure they
have it; we think they might, but we do not know. Until you give us
what we do not know you have, we are not going to do anything. Well,
that is now an invitation to disaster, because we made a deal with the
Vietnamese. The deal was: If you cooperate, we will cooperate. And we
are running out of gas. We have asked them to extend that cooperation.
I think we are reaching a point where we can see this shut down and we
can see less people able to travel and we can see less answers coming
back to our people.
Madam President, for people to say ``why do we not pay a lot of money
and cut a deal and get them all back,'' we have tried it. I personally
walked around with the foreign minister in the garden talking to him
and said, ``Suppose we would pay you $1 billion.'' And I said, ``If we
offered money and if you have live people, and we get them back, can we
cut a deal?'' General Vessey tried it. Assistant Secretary of State
Solomon tried it. Winston Lord tried it. The Vietnamese look you in the
face and say, ``We do not have anybody. We would love to do it, but we
cannot give you somebody we do not have.''
So, Madam President, even at the point where George Bush was about to
leave office, a deal was offered to them that if they could give x
number of remains, we would lift the embargo. Do you not think they
would have given the remains and had the embargo lifted? But they could
not do it. When our Senate committee was there, we said, ``This report
we are going to put out is a very important report, and it will help
condition how Americans view this issue. If you can get more remains or
documents, you have a better chance that this report is going to be a
stronger one.'' Notwithstanding that reality and their good knowledge
of the American media structure and our politics, they were not able to
ante up anything dramatic to change the dynamic.
You tell me, if George Bush could not get it when he was leaving
office and he could have lifted the embargo if they produced 25
remains, how you wait until 20 years and push them to do something they
have not done in the last 19 years? It is beyond me. Do you think the
Vietnamese are going to walk up with some smoking gun document and say:
By the way, we are happy to tell you that we had 50 people alive for 20
years and we used them as slave labor, and then we shot them. Now we
are giving you the evidence, and we want you to give us normal
relations and, by the way, help us a lot.
It is not going to work that way. It is going to work this way--
painstakingly. The way we are going to get answers is the way we have
received the documents we have received so far--by working
cooperatively with them and getting people who can point to where the
documents are, by holding them up in their face in a way that shows the
evidence as we find it and by confronting them.
I want to make it very clear to my colleagues that there is nothing
in this amendment that is based on trusting the Vietnamese or anyone
else. This is a verification process, not trust. But the way we are
going to verify is to get Americans into their country, is to have
access to their records, is to interview their people and proceed
painstakingly down this road. We are not going to get those answers by
stonewalling and setting up a barrier between us and them that merely
continues the difficult years we had when we did not get any answers.
I can only say to my colleagues that one of the great mistakes we
made in the war was not listening to the people who were in the field
fighting the war. So the politicians back home gave in to whatever
impulses and made a lot of decisions and even called bombing raids from
the White House. Well, let us practice that lesson in 1994. We have
soldiers in the field who are telling us today that they will be helped
by lifting the embargo. Our commanding admiral was just there. He
thinks we will be helped. General Christmas, a war hero from the U.S.
Marines, a Navy Cross winner, wounded at Hue, believes we ought to move
forward in ways that will open up the process so that we can begin to
really get the answers. General Needham, Tom Needham, wounded at
Kontum, fought in Vietnam, two tours, volunteered, went back, and now
is back there commanding this effort. He says, ``Help us open up the
process,'' and the way you open up the process is by reciprocating.
Madam President, I think our colleagues ought to understand the
significance of what is happening in Vietnam. On that plateau, which I
described a moment ago--and I did not quite finish the story--in that
hole of that C-130, they just took out 100- pound bombs, 18 of them,
and they had to be defused so these guys could do the digging they are
doing. We have people walking in high jungle area, a 4\1/2\ hour walk
up a mountain between red flags, in order not to set off unexploded
ordnance, in an effort to try to do this. They are telling us that it
will help them if you lift this embargo, if you get more Americans in
there, if you facilitate their access to these places.
So I hope colleagues are going to think hard about what the reality
is. Sixty percent of Vietnam is under the age of 24 years. The vast
majority of this 77 million population does not know anything about the
war, except for the craters that they walk in and the digs that they
see us doing. When they saw me, an American, they were delighted I was
not a Russian and they were thrilled to see us.
We ought to start to wake up to reality here, Madam President. Some
Senators may talk about conspiracy theories and other things. Our
Senate report found unanimously that there has been no conspiracy to
hide here. We have had sloppiness and inadvertence and some negligence,
but we have not had people willfully try to hide something. We have had
some tragedies in this effort. But the bottom line is that we are
getting answers. We are down to 73 tough cases. In some of those cases
we may never find the remains. We may never find the answers. But we
have to understand that the best shot of doing so is to guarantee that
we have access and that we have Americans moving around the country.
There are many other reasons, Madam President--and I could offer
them--as to why this is important. But it is not really what this issue
is about. We could talk about China and the importance of being
involved in the region. We could talk about the efforts to try to
sustain some of those kids and others who still look to us and who wish
we were there in some way or another. We could talk more about the
people that we supported and who fought with us. We could talk more, I
suppose, about the larger economic interests and other things.
In fact, this embargo is, candidly, not an embargo against the
Vietnamese anymore. It is truly an embargo against ourselves, because
Vietnam is growing at 7 percent a year, and the French, Germans,
Taiwanese, Japanese, and others are not hesitating to invest. They have
invested something like $10 billion--$2.9 billion in the last couple of
years. The country is growing. They will do fine without us. They would
like to deal with us, but they will be OK without us.
Boeing, the other day, on the other hand, lost eight airplanes to
Airbus, and Digital lost a huge contract to one of the Japanese
companies. We will never see those again. That is OK, because this is
not about economics, and that is why I am not dwelling on it. The issue
before the U.S. Senate is how do you guarantee that we are going to get
the best accounting possible, and based on the experience of General
Vessey, based on the plea of Admiral Larson and the people who are in
the field, based on the reality of what we are seeing and the documents
being produced and the access to people and the whole capacity we have
to criss-cross their country, it is clear to me that if we do not move
forward, we could be jeopardized and lose the opportunity to get
answers.
I will have more to say on this at a later time, Madam President; but
I happily turn to my colleague, the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, go ahead. I yield to the Senator from
South Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. HELMS. Excuse me.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota has the floor.
Mr. HELMS. Pardon me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota has the floor.
Mr. PRESSLER. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. HELMS. Suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. PRESSLER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, I rise with Senator Kerry today in the hope that the
Senate may join with us in recognizing that the time has arrived to
begin a new chapter in our troubled history with Vietnam.
Let me say at the outset, Madam President, that whenever I consider
our relationship with Vietnam, I try very hard to do so without
succumbing to the sentimentality that so often clouds our judgments
about our former adversary. The grievances I hold against Vietnam are
not personal, nor are they premised primarily on the Vietnamese
leadership's past offenses to the United States, to their neighbors, to
their own people and to mankind. They are, in large part, objections to
Hanoi's current failings.
Similarly, my hope for a better relationship with Vietnam is not
intended to fulfill a personal need to reach closure on the Vietnam
War. Such a goal may still be important to some, but I made my peace
with that the day I returned to the United States. My support for
better relations with Vietnam is based on my judgment that improved
relations would best serve the national interests and values of the
United States--period.
Today, we are calling for an end to the United States trade embargo
against Vietnam. We do so not out of guilt, not out of sentimentality,
not because of pressure from any special interest groups. We do so
because we believe such a move is in the best interests of the United
States, as well as the people of Vietnam.
The issue involved in our relations with Vietnam of greatest
importance to the American people is the accounting for our POW/MIA's.
Contrary, to what Members may hear from some opponents to this
amendment, Vietnam has been cooperating and cooperating substantially
in our efforts to account for our missing. Senator Kerry has made that
case clear in his remarks.
Support for that view comes from every single person involved in our
accounting efforts, most of whom wear the uniform of the United
States--beginning with Gen. John Vessey, former Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan, and appointed by President
Reagan to serve as his emissary to Vietnam for POW/MIA affairs, a man
who has served this country with singular distinction for half a
century.
Adm. Charles Larson, commander-in-chief of United States forces in
the Pacific, has recently traveled to Vietnam and proclaimed that
cooperation from Vietnam ``across all fronts has been excellent.'' He
is joined in that view by Gen. Tom Needham, the commander of the joint
task force for a full accounting, as well as all U.S. personnel who
labor under very difficult conditions to resolve the fate of America's
missing.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to print in the
Record an article from the Washington Times entitled ``Admiral Is
Latest U.S. Official To Laud Vietnam's Cooperation.''
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Admiral Is Latest United States Official To Laud Vietnam's Cooperation
(From Combined Dispatches)
The highest-ranking U.S. officer to visit Hanoi since the
Vietnam War said this week he will report that its
``cooperation across all fronts has been excellent'' in the
effort to account for missing Americans.
The assessment by Adm. Charles R. Larson is expected to
weigh heavily in President Clinton's decision on whether to
lift a 19-year trade embargo against Vietnam. Mr. Clinton has
said the decision is contingent on Hanoi's cooperation in the
search for U.S. servicemen and on progress in the accounting
for MIAs.
I don't think they're holding anything back,'' Adm. Larson,
commander of U.S. military forces in the Pacific, said in
Pleiku Tuesday.
On his last day, he visited American and Vietnamese teams
working in the field as part of the largest investigative and
excavation operation since the war ended in 1975.
Adm. Larson is the latest in a series of U.S. official to
come to Vietnam, including State Department and congressional
delegations.
His visit was seen as another signal by the United States
to Vietnam that it is moving toward the restoration of
economic and diplomatic ties broken in 1975, when Communist
North Vietnam overthrew a U.S.-sponsored regime in South
Vietnam.
Subsequently, Vietnam repulsed China in a brief but violent
1979 border war. Beijing launched the crossborder attacks to
``punish'' Hanoi for ousting the Khmer Rouge regime in
Cambodia.
Sen John Kerry, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, whose views may also influence Mr. Clinton, was in
Vietnam Sunday when Adm. Larson arrived and indicated he
would support an easing or end to the U.S. embargo.
Mr. Kerry, who is a Vietnam combat veteran and was also
chairman of the defunct Senate Select Committee on POW-MIA
Affairs, said American businesses are suffering from the
embargo.
``The embargo is not an embargo against Vietnam,'' said the
Massachusetts Democrat. ``It's an embargo against ourselves,
against U.S. business. Vietnam is not being hurt by it
practically.''
Premier Vo Van Kiet, who met with Mr. Kerry Saturday, urged
Mr. Clinton to normalize relations soon, saying this would
lead to cooperation in other fields.
Many families of the MIAs and some veterans organizations
strongly oppose lifting the trade embargo. They say there is
no substantial progress and claim Vietnam has withheld
information and some remains.
The United States lists, 2,238 Americans unaccounted for in
Southeast Asia, including 1,647 in Vietnam, 505 in Laos, 78
in Cambodia and eight in China.
``I think the fact that I'm here shows that there's been a
level of cooperation that has been very good,'' Adm. Larson
told reporters. ``Certainly if the cooperation level was not
good, I would not be here. I feel a heavy responsibility
coming as the first senior American officer.''
Deputy Foreign Minister Le Mai told Adm. Larson the
Vietnamese had seen a number of American delegations
recently, ``but I think your visit is of particular
significance.''
The U.S. group responsible for accounting for the missing
falls under Adm. Larson's command in Hawaii.
Sen. J. Bennett Johnston, Democrat of Louisiana, chairman
of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and
four members of the committee who wound up a three-day visit
to Vietnam earlier this month urged Mr. Clinton to quickly
lift the embargo and restore diplomatic relations.
After Adm. Larson and Mr. Kerry departed, there was
speculation in Hanoi that decisions on Vietnam may be delayed
by Mr. Clinton's problems in naming a defense secretary to
succeed Les Aspin, after retired Adm. Bobby Ray Inman backed
out on Tuesday.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I quote from it, Madam President. It
states:
The highest-ranking U.S. officer to visit Hanoi since the
Vietnam War said this week he will report that its
``cooperation across all fronts has been excellent'' in the
effort to account for missing Americans.
``I don't think they're holding anything back,'' Adm.
Larson, commander of U.S. military forces in the Pacific,
said in Pleiku Tuesday.
Joint Task Force personnel have, often at great risk to their own
welfare, crawled through some of the worst and most remote terrain in
Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, searching for any clue as to the fate of
our missing. Their efforts have been dismissed as a charade by many
POW/MIA activists who--unlike my friend, Senator Smith, whose
opposition is honorable--cloak their opposition in character
assassination. In truth, JTF personnel are responsible for locating
more information, for resolving more of the mystery surrounding this
question than all the professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con
artists, and dime store rambos who attend this issue have ever or will
ever contribute collectively. They are truly unsung heroes.
Everyone involved in our efforts in Vietnam will testify to the
greatly increased cooperation from Vietnam. It is their word, not mine,
nor Senator Kerry's that Senators should listen to as they consider our
amendment. Everyone of these fine individuals believes that the time
has come to lift the trade embargo against Vietnam. They recognize that
the accounting process has not and should not end, and that there is
more cooperation we will require from Vietnam before our efforts can
conclude. But they feel, as do I, that lifting the embargo will
facilitate and accelerate that cooperation.
There are other valid reasons to lift the embargo which I will
briefly enumerate.
First, I have always felt that America's word ought to stand for
something. The roadmap policy for normalization established by the Bush
administration was intended to answer the charge that the United States
was always moving the goalposts for normalization. It would be unfair,
and beneath the dignity of the United States to do so again. Under the
provisions of the roadmap, Vietnam has complied to the point where
further actions on our part are warranted.
Second, there are, of course, business advantages which we ought to
be in a position to compete for. It won't dwell on these because
American businesses interested in Vietnam are quite able to make their
own case for going forward.
Third, the balance of power in Vietnam. The longer the United States
refrains from further progress toward normalization the stronger
becomes the influence of anti-Western Vietnamese hardliners in the
Defense and Interior Ministry over Western-oriented reformers in the
Foreign Ministry and elsewhere.
Fourth, the balance of power in the region. It is not in our security
interests to have China achieve economic and military dominance in the
region. It is in our interest to have an economically viable Vietnam
able to resist the heavy handed tactics of their colossus to the north.
In a conversation I had with him 2 years ago, Nguyen Co Thach, the
former Foreign Minister of Vietnam, grasped a truth that eluded his
politburo comrades when they fired him 3 months later. ``Vietnam,'' he
told me, ``must accept the destiny of a small country.''
I sincerely believe that Vietnam has come a long way toward accepting
that destiny. They are seeking to live within the margins of balanced
relations with the superpowers while simultaneously pursuing close and
compatible relations with ASEAN nations. We should do whatever
necessary to encourage them on this sensible course.
There is another issue that separates us that was not really
addressed in the roadmap beyond its references to re-education camps--
human rights. Vietnam's record on human rights is not the worst in the
world. But its in great need of improvement. Even in this era of
reform, their preferred course would be to follow either a China or
Singapore model--a vibrant, decentralized economy in a one party state.
The United States has an obligation to help Vietnam reach for something
greater than this.
Good people disagree honestly and honorably over whether we are
better able to promote civic freedoms in Vietnam from within or from
without. In all candor, I have had a hard time deciding which course is
preferable. But I know that the United States doesn't have the power to
keep Vietnam isolated. They are already developing complex relations
with much of the world. So, perhaps our prospects for moving Vietnam
toward political as well as economic liberalization are better if we
have a relationship with that country that exposes it to our values.
We should, however, do a much better job in highlighting the
importance of human rights to our relationship than we have done
heretofore. And I note with approval the recent United States Vietnam
agreement to begin a dialogue on human rights questions. Those of us
who believe that there is room in that corner of the world for
democracy should soon have an opportunity to test the proposition that
greater exposure to Americans will render Vietnam more susceptible to
the influence of our values.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to not be
intimidated by political pressure from quarters that may never support
better relations with our former adversary. I can speak with some
authority to that question since I have suffered the full brunt of
their opposition and survived. On this question, that has so long
divided our country, the right course may not be the most politically
expedient, but it is the right course nonetheless. Let us do the right
thing. Let us take such steps that will best honor our commitments,
protect our interests and advance our values. There is no dishonor in
that.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator McConnell be added as an
original cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I thank you very much for recognizing
me.
I am going to summarize my statement because many people want to
speak. I am going to speak about 3 minutes and let others take the
floor, because I think John McCain and John Kerry have said it all.
I also am a Vietnam veteran, having served two tours of duty in
Vietnam. I have been back to Vietnam since then--in 1988. I visited
both as a soldier and a Senator. Indeed, I was present when 27 sets of
possible American remains were received by U.S. military authorities in
Hanoi.
I have attended an Aspen Institute seminar on Vietnam and met with
Vietnamese officials in Hawaii over the years. So I have been involved
in the Vietnam question for a long time.
I think it is time to get Americans into Vietnam. If there are any
prisoners, our people will be able to find them. There is nothing like
an American businessman with a U.S. flag hanging outside as a place to
bring information. If we have American tourists over there, they will
be able to find any prisoners who may remain.
I listened with some degree of interest to my colleague, Senator
McCain, who is a true hero. He mentioned the term ``dime store
Rambos.'' I remember during one of my past campaigns, I was criticized
for my position on Vietnam. There were some people from another State
there criticizing me. I entered into a dialog with them. I discovered
they were not really Vietnam veterans as they had claimed. Well, I
think we have a lot of that. I think we find a lot of the real Vietnam
veterans, the people who really served there, are for normal relations,
are for lifting the embargo.
In fact, I am an advocate of sending an ambassador there. I am just
worn out by these people, many of whom have a financial interest,
carrying this subject on and on and on. I have been very concerned
about POW's and MIA's. I was present when 27 caskets were loaded up in
Hanoi.
It is time for those of us who are Vietnam veterans to stand up and
say that enough is enough from this very small group. Those of us who
have served in Vietnam find our patriotism questioned sometimes when we
say we should recognize Vietnam; we should enter into relations; we
should lift the trade embargo.
We should not stand for that. Different people can have different
points of view. I respect very much other people who reach a different
conclusion on this subject. But it is time for us to get Americans into
Vietnam, get our business people over there.
I have frequently said that one businessman does as much as many
visiting Senators or many visiting diplomats, one businessman who
creates jobs and sells American products. What is happening now in
Vietnam, the times I have been there, is the French and Japanese are
getting business. Their standards, their machine tool standards, are
being established, and we are losing out.
But, more importantly, I think this country will always have a
special relationship with Vietnam, or at least will in the near future.
I have talked to many Vietnam veterans who would love to go back to
Vietnam as tourists and take their families. I have talked to many
American small businessmen. In fact, I just had a meeting in Rapid City
the other day and it was brought up to me that they would like to
export some products to Vietnam.
This is not just a commercial thing. We also want to find the
prisoners, if there are any. I doubt there are any prisoners.
But the argument that we must go on and on and on under current
policy to prove all these things that cannot be proved before we
recognize Vietnam has just exhausted me. I have gone along with this
approach for years. It is time just to get this behind us. It is time
for us to lift the trade embargo. It is time for us to send an
ambassador to Vietnam. I know the latter is not what this resolution
says.
We should lift the economic embargo, and we should have an ambassador
in Vietnam.
I applaud Secretary Bentsen for his recent Asian trip and ask
unanimous consent that a January 19, 1994, Washington Post article
regarding his position on this matter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
End Hinted To Vietnam Embargo
(By Clay Chandler)
Bangkok, Jan. 18--Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen said
today that the U.S. government has moved nearer a decision to
lift its trade and investment embargo on Vietnam.
Bentsen, speaking at a meeting of Thai business leaders
here, praised the Vietnamese government for assisting in the
effort to determine the fate of more than 2,200 American
servicemen still unaccounted for after the Vietnam War.
``The progress is there, and I'm optimistic we'll get that
finally behind us,'' he said at a news conference later in
the day. ``Some of us older fellows think you ought to move
these things and get it done. We've seen a lot of cooperation
coming out of Vietnam.''
Bentsen declined to speculate on a timetable for lifting
the ban, but in Jakarta on Monday he suggested this might be
imminent. ``That decision has not been made,'' he said, ``but
I think you'll see something forthcoming quite soon.''
Bentsen, who is on a three-nation Asian tour to demonstrate
the Clinton administration's commitment to building stronger
relations in the region, is the latest of several U.S.
officials and members of Congress to urge lifting trade
restrictions on Vietnam. Clinton's chief foreign policy
advisers have agreed to recommend that he do so, according to
senior officials.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations subcommittee on Asian affairs, declared at
the close of a visit to Vietnam last week that the embargo no
longer serves a meaningful purpose and is only
hurting American firms denied business opportunities in
the region.
Firms in many nations--including Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan,
Singapore and France--already are investing heavily in
Vietnam, and some governments are extending financial aid as
well. Last November, for example, Japan resumed providing
official development assistance to Vietnam with a $370
million loan.
In his speech today, Bentsen argued that the United States
could do more to promote the search for information about
missing Americans by lifting the embargo than by continuing
to insist on greater Vietnamese cooperation as a prerequisite
to normal commerce. ``As with other countries on other
issues,'' he said, ``a strategy of engagement with Vietnam
may be the most effective way to promote our goal of
accounting for our POWs and MIAs.''
In September, President Clinton gave a big boost to
economic development in Vietnam by restoring its eligibility
for loans from such international institutions as the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Clinton also
permitted U.S. firms to bid on projects funded by such
institutions.
The move to liberalize trade relations with Vietnam has
drawn stiff opposition from U.S. veterans' groups and is a
politically sensitive issue for Clinton, whose Vietnam War-
era draft record was criticized during the 1992 political
campaign.
Vietnam, where average annual income is about $200, remains
one of Asia's poorest nations, even though its prospects have
improved dramatically since its Communist leaders set the
nation on a path toward free-market economic policies in
1986.
Vietnam's economy grew at a rate of about 7 percent last
year. Still, without greater help from the United States and
other nations, economists say it could take two decades for
Vietnamese living standards to approach those of Thailand.
Mr. PRESSLER. I was asked to yield 1 minute to Senator Helms for a
special request.
Does the Senator want to get the floor in his own right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you yielding to the Senator?
Mr. PRESSLER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am just going to take one moment. I
know we wanted to allow the Senator from New Hampshire an opportunity
to speak. I just wanted to make a couple of quick comments.
No. 1, probably it does not need to be said, but I will say it
anyway, Senator John McCain, who was a naval aviator, combat veteran
who spent more than 6 years of his life in Hanoi in the Hilton and in
other prisons, really knows what is at stake in this issue, and I think
understands better than anybody how difficult it is to come to this
understanding.
I might also point out that the Senator from South Dakota is a combat
veteran himself. He ``humped the boonies,'' as the expression goes.
Mr. PRESSLER. I should correct that. I carried two weapons, but I
never claimed to be in combat. In fact, I had a Jeep. As a matter of
fact, they said the most dangerous thing was a second lieutenant in a
Jeep. I have three medals, but I am not a hero.
Mr. KERRY. The final comment I wanted to make was a tribute to my
colleague, Senator Smith. At least from my point of view, and I believe
truly from his, we have worked at this together and sometimes
separately over the course of the last years. We have disagreed on some
aspects of it.
But I want to pay tribute to his personal involvement and commitment
to this. I never doubted how much he personally cares about it. We may
have a difference in approach on strategy, but I do not believe that
either of us disagree about the goal or what we are trying to achieve.
I pay tribute to the depth of his commitment, the number of trips he
has taken, the risks he has taken, and the extent of time he has put
into it. I think it has helped enormously to serve this country to
understand the dynamics. I do not agree with all of his judgments, as
we shall see and understand but, nevertheless, he deserves that credit
and that respect.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, as a manager of the bill, I find it necessary to
leave the floor temporarily to attend a meeting. But before I go, I
desire to ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment. I do ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I also appreciate the courtesies of the
Senator from North Carolina. I know that he wishes to see a good, full
debate on this issue and there surely will be.
I want to say a word about Senator Smith. I have come to know this
man very well. He is one fine Senator, one fine friend. I was with him
in his State in December and enjoyed it so very much. The remarkable
admiration and respect they have for him in New Hampshire is evident.
They know that he is fully in this tough issue. And this is a tough,
tough issue. This is one of the most sensitive issues of our times, and
now it is here before us today.
I have heard the remarks of Senator McCain from Arizona. They were
measured and powerful. I have heard the remarks of Senator Kerry from
Massachusetts. They were extraordinarily sincere and genuine. My friend
Senator Pressler from South Dakota spoke with great clarity and
earnestness about the frustration of this terrible situation which has
captured our national interest. We did not know when it would be
addressed by the Senate, and today it is here before us.
I commend those Senators, all of them--Senator Smith, Senator McCain;
Senator Helms who will be on the other side of the issue from me,
Senator Kerry, and Senator Pressler.
My remarks will not be long and then I will yield to Senator Smith
who will indeed present what I know will be a powerful statement and
one that should be heard by all.
But I think we should carefully listen to the veterans of Vietnam. I
think we should pay close attention to Senator Kerry, Senator McCain,
and Senator Pressler. I think it is very important to do that.
I have just returned from Vietnam. I went there with Senator
Hatfield, Senator Johnston, Senator Specter, Senator Nickles, Senator
Mathews and Senator Bennett. It was an extraordinary experience for me
to be in Hanoi for 2 days, and Ho Chi Minh City, formerly Saigon--and
for me, I think it will always be ``Saigon.'' I was there to learn, to
pay attention, and try to grapple with the POW issue, the MIA issue,
the trade issue--all of them.
I was taken by several things. We investigated these issues in much
depth, and one of the most memorable aspects of our trip was General
Tom Needham, of Massachusetts. He is an extraordinary man. He served in
Vietnam twice--two tours of duty, both voluntarily. He has surrounded
himself with an extraordinary cadre of people from all branches of our
military who are there on the ground and are allowed to do just about
anything they want to do. They can go anywhere they want to go. I will
not be repetitive, but suffice it to say that I was surprised at that.
I was more surprised at the Vietnamese general, who was on the other
side of that joint task force. He lost a brother in the war and does
not know his whereabouts or what became of him. He claimed that 300,000
Vietnamese are missing or prisoners of war. I do not know how they
could be prisoners of war--but at least 300,000 of their people are
missing from this war. To me it had a special poignancy because, as we
traveled back to the United States, we passed the area where my first
cousin went down. Somewhere in the North Marianas is ``Billy'' Simpson
Brady, my first cousin. He is missing in action or a prisoner of war
from the Second World War.
There are 78,760 people who have never been found from the Second
World War; 78,760 people of that war are unaccounted for. They are
either prisoners of war or missing in action from the Second World War.
I hear nothing about them.
There are 7,800 people who are missing in action or prisoners of war
from Korea. I hear nothing about them.
There are 2,300--I do not recall the specific figure, but it is very
close to that--who are missing in action or prisoners of war from
Vietnam. The pain and the anguish of that, to the survivors, must be
total. I have a constituent who lost a brother, a man in Laramie, who
is very, very passionate about this. I believe he thinks that I am some
lesser form of human being because I have said that we must ``move
on.''
I am a veteran. I was not in Vietnam. I have not been at war. I was
in at the end of the army of occupation in Germany in 1955 and 1956. I
saw the leftovers of war at the end of that army of occupation, even in
those years. And I must say that I think it is time to move on.
I must say that I am puzzled. Why we do not spend this same interest
or time thinking about those many thousands of people from our country,
missing in action and simply gone from our lives, that we did not pay
too much attention to before? Because the war ended and here we are, 21
years after the Treaty of Paris accord.
Tomorrow, I would like to remind this Chamber, marks the 21st
anniversary of the signing of the Paris accord that arranged the end of
the Vietnam conflict. That was signed on January 27, 1973; 21 years
have now passed since we entered into a peace agreement with Vietnam.
Do you know what we were doing 21 years after the last day of World
War II, September 2, 1945? That was 1966. We were in a full range of
normalized activity with Germany and Japan. That is what we were doing.
It is, I think, important to remember where we were 21 years after the
Second World War. Had we fully normalized relations with Germany and
Japan? We certainly had. And that was not the half of it. Not only had
we restored friendly relations with those two countries but the
American taxpayer was asked to provide a great deal of the resources to
do it. That is how we dealt with our adversaries after the conclusion
of the Second World War. That is what we did. Now we have come 21 years
since the end of this war, and what is the difference between this war
and World War II? I am puzzled at it.
Maybe I was tainted in this matter when Senator Alan Cranston, my
friend from California--and we worked closely together--had a hearing
years ago on this issue. We were trying to find the answers because he
was chairman and I was chairman, at different times, of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee. We held a hearing and we said, ``Bring in the
information. Show us the material. We are ready to listen.''
I shall never forget the total sense of offense that I experienced
when I listened to a group of people telling us about ``live
sightings.'' And they said they had a film. They said, ``We have a
film, it is 287 minutes long and it is the most devastating thing. It
shows just exactly where these people are, even today.'' And then they
brought in other photos.
We did not have a resource staff, but we had enough resources to find
that the photos of the persons standing in uniform were taken in
Hawaii, and that there never was a film. But this man had a reel with
him and said, ``Here it is and I will give it to you for 2 million
bucks.''
I said, ``You testified under oath that you were an American. I don't
believe that. You are nothing. To say that you would provide a film and
then not have it, and further that you would give it up to help your
country for $2 million.''
Well, if I had been 20 years old--and when I was 20, I weighed 260
pounds, had hair, and thought beer was food--I would love to have
pitched this guy through the window like a javelin. However, being
rather frail, but not quite as frail as my colleague from California,
the two of us just sat there in mutual disgust. Finally this fellow
said, ``I'll meet you two guys in the parking lot.'' Senator Cranston
and I felt that neither one of us could probably cut the mustard
anymore, because he looked like he had taken training from Charles
Atlas. But I was offended by that exchange, and I remain offended by
it, and I will leave it to those who have been doing all this work to
review it.
But the Paris accord was signed and now 21 years have passed. The
world is not at war. We took ``the long view'' after the Second World
War. The Japanese attacked us in the Second World War to start it. Ho
Chi Minh, at the time of leading his country to independence, was
trying to get America to congratulate him for his revolution. And he
wrote Harry Truman eight times, saying: We are starting a new and
independent country. And he quoted Lincoln and he quoted Jefferson.
There was no response to that communique, or those several
communiques. Senator Hatfield will perhaps involve himself in this
debate because he was there the day of independence in Vietnam, as our
history was being recited to their people by their leader.
Well, the war came. We were involved. And I admire so much those who
served there with such honor. And I think the wounds are healing.
But I think if we can all put to rest the idea that those of us who
favor normalization, and I certainly do, are somehow less committed,
less passionate, or maybe less patriotic. No one here in this Chamber
is making that distinction, or even postulating that, but there are
groups in America that are thriving on this chaos. They bear our close
attention and they bear our criticism.
I think we must listen to these decorated veterans, these prisoners,
these men among us who suffered the most at the hands of the
Vietnamese. They are the ones calling for us to move forward sensibly,
to begin to establish a relationship with Vietnam. What do you get when
you establish a relationship or a diplomatic or trade presence? You get
an embassy, as Senator Pressler so aptly says. I would vote for that
right now.
It would make a large difference when we have a physical presence in
that country, a focal point for all our inquiries on the ground with
respect to these leads. We would get American private interests there
on the ground throughout the country making it ever more difficult to
hide the truth from the outside world. Just as importantly, we would
get leverage. We could establish financial and trade ties with Vietnam,
which would be the beginnings of an interdependency that gives the
Vietnamese far more incentive to cooperate with us.
People say, ``Don't do it. Keep the leverage of the embargo on now.''
What have we gotten for the embargo? We got stiffed--stiffed--for 19
years, 18 years, nothing more. What did it prove? Nothing. When we
opened the door a crack, we began to get action, action like now,
today. If some of the groups that came to me 4 years ago came back, I
would say, ``Why don't you go to Vietnam, point out a coordinate on the
map and say, `I want to go there and find out who is there,''' and you
could do that today. Now, what remarkable progress. I do think the
clock is running. I think the bargain was made, as Senator McCain has
said. There is no question about it.
And then, finally, people in my town meetings have said, ``What are
you going to do about the North Koreans, Simpson? We have a country
there that does not understand anything. They are Neanderthal, they are
backward, they are frightening. What are you going to do about North
Korea?'' I say, ``I have an idea for you.'' Now do not throw anything.
I will get mail from home on this one. I say, ``The best thing you can
do for North Korea, or to handle North Korea, is to give MFN status to
China and give it permanently. We give MFN to Syria, Libya, and Iran,
who are not exactly some of the finest of our compatriots in world
government, and we do that with them. Then you can also normalize
relationships with Vietnam. The North Koreans will say, ``Wait a
minute, what happened here?'' They would see the United States
relationship with China, and the United States with a relationship with
Vietnam, and the North Koreans will see they will be isolated from the
world unless they begin to listen to what the world is telling them.
The backwater channels are already working from Vietnam and China to
North Korea right now, right today as we speak.
So we could remove a potential ally for North Korea in the current
climate of tension between ourselves and that country. Ask anyone who
has dealt with the North Koreans--they will tell you how indispensable
it is that we have the cooperation of the Chinese, Japanese, and
Russians in bringing North Korea to the bargaining table. If Vietnam,
too, has an economic and diplomatic relationship with the West, North
Korea's diplomatic isolation would be virtually complete. This should
remind us that it is true with Vietnam as with every other country,
enemies are more expensive than friends.
I see my fine friend, Senator Johnston, is here, and he was the
splendid leader of our delegation. I shall yield to him.
But in the end, it is going to come down to whether it serves the
interests of America to keep Vietnam closed off. I think it is so
important to open these relations, to listen to those who were there,
which will bring the North Koreans to the table when the Japanese, the
Chinese, the Russians, the Vietnamese who were all involved in that war
are engaged with us in trade and economic activity.
Sure, there is the economic relationship and Americans are waiting to
get involved. But there is another aspect no one has thought of. We
have resettled over 800,000 Vietnamese in this country as refugees, and
I would venture to say that maybe half of them might be ready to go
back. Many of them are residing in the State of the occupant of the
chair. They are waiting for this act--to be able to say, ``I have some
capital. I'm ready to go. I'm headed back to Vietnam. That's my
homeland. I came out as a refugee. The government has changed. We have
positive relations. I am taking the capital and I'm headed back, headed
home.'' That is one I have not heard talked about. That is very real.
That would relieve some of the pressures on us with regard to a lot of
things that are issues today in America about asylum and immigration
refugees.
So I have yet to be convinced that any of the efforts that we are
trying to do are aided in any way by isolating Vietnam. Now we are
seeing the beginnings of greater cooperation. I know it is tough for
all Senators, a tough emotional issue for all of us, but I think we
need to take a sober and comprehensive view that guided our policies
after the Second World War.
We did not undertake those policies out of a spirit of giddy self-
sacrifice. We did not undertake those policies out of any lack of
horror at the excesses of Japan and Nazi Germany. And we certainly did
not undertake them out of a lack of interest in the 78,750 soldiers who
remained missing at the end of that war. We did it because we retained
fresh memories of the follies of a punitive peace--which was how we
ended the First World War. After World War I, we did nothing to
integrate and unify the aims of the warring parties, with the result
that the world was again plunged into war just one generation later.
But after World War II, we learned our lesson, and so we took the long
view. One result is that Germany and Japan are peaceful members of the
international community today.
Not only will our foreign policy and trade status be better for it,
but our POW/MIA efforts will benefit from it as well.
I thank my colleagues and thank Senator Kerry. I look forward to the
remarks of Senator Johnston and Senator Smith. I shall be listening
intently. I thank the Chair.
Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I want to congratulate the
distinguished Senator from Wyoming for a very thoughtful statement. I
agree with every word he said. I might say, it was a delight and a very
constructive thing to be on the trip with him--which we just got back
from--including Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City.
Like most Americans, I have read and been concerned about Vietnam and
about our relationship with Vietnam. I have been principally concerned
about MIA's and POW's. All Americans have tremendous sympathy and
compassion for the families who have lost loved ones in Vietnam. I go
to the Vietnam Memorial fairly regularly because, frankly, I bicycle on
The Mall. Every time I see those 50,000-odd names there, I am reminded
of the tremendous tragedy that Vietnam represented for this country. It
brings to mind the continued suffering of the families of our MIA's and
POW's.
Madam President, I stand here today to ask for dropping of the
embargo not because I care less about the MIA's or the POW's or their
families, but because the best way to get further information for MIA's
and POW's is to drop the embargo. We have all kinds of controversial
decisions which come to the floor of this Senate, but few of those
controversial decisions are, in my judgment, as clear as this question.
There is no doubt in my mind that we ought to drop that embargo. Let me
tell you why.
The question is not whether we have gotten 100 percent cooperation or
whether it is 90 percent or whether there remain some few additional
documents that they are withholding that we can get, but this much is
absolutely clear: We have gotten what Gen. Tom Needham, our man in
charge--a tough major general in the United States Army, who has been
in charge for 2 years--says we have gotten complete cooperation from
the Vietnamese Government in not only giving documents but in allowing
access to sites and also with respect to Cambodia.
If we reward that kind of cooperation with a continuation of the
embargo, then I think that is one way to really risk the cutting off of
further information. The way to encourage the continued flow of
information is to reward that with a dropping of the embargo.
A couple of years ago, the Bush administration undertook an
initiative with the Vietnamese on what they called the pathway to
normalization. They told the Do Muoi government that they had to do
three things in order to qualify for normalization of relationships and
dropping the embargoes. Two of those things had to do with POW's and
MIA's. One was to allow access to sites, and the other was to allow
access to the documents. General Needham and all of his staff--he has
archeologists, he has linguists, he has different specialists in a
whole complex there which they call the Ranch. We visited the ranch and
had briefings in depth. To a man and to a woman in that group, they
said the cooperation is complete. We have 12 teams around Vietnam in
all parts from the north to the south to the highlands to the lowlands
that are in there digging in crash sites now, full access to those
crash sites.
So on the two scores of allowing access to the sites and allowing
access to the documents, the cooperation has been complete.
The third element on the pathway to normalization had to do with
Cambodia. We wanted them out of Cambodia and to secure their
cooperation with respect to access to Cambodia. We have gotten that
cooperation. General Needham says so.
Where should we get the evidence and who should be the primary judges
of cooperation? I submit it ought to be our man who has been there for
2 years, our man and our group who are directly charged by this
country, not some bleeding heart liberals who are always wanting to
make friends with former enemies, but a tough-minded general who in
turn followed up on the former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General
Vessey, who also thinks we ought to normalize relations. That is where
our information ought to come from, from the people in charge.
If, having gotten that kind of cooperation, we now continue the
embargo, then what is the Do Muoi government to say but--I do not know
what they would say, but I can tell you we risk the cutoff of the flow
of information.
General Needham told us there were about 2,000 cases that they
thought were solvable, where they could determine one way or the other
what had happened. There are a lot more cases than that that are still
open, but many of those cases would never be solved because they
involve a crash at sea, or whatever, and there is no way to get that
information. But of the 2,000 solvable cases, General Needham tells us,
they think they have solved 70 percent of them. There are still some 30
percent, something over 700, as I recall, that are still solvable. The
progress is going very well.
The cooperation is complete. Senator Kerry, to whom I think this
Senate and this country owes a great debt of gratitude, has been to
Vietnam, I do not know how many times, been out on the crash sites,
seen the actual cooperation, and fully endorses what General Needham
told us.
Senator McCain, we saw the lake where he crashed outside of Hanoi and
where his parachute came down and where, by the way, they have a
monument depicting the fact that Air Force Major ``McCann" was shot
down and captured. We had our pictures taken--I do not see Senator
McCain in the Chamber. We had our pictures taken in front of his
monument. He has been over there. He feels the same way.
Now, where is the evidence to the contrary? There are just little
bits and pieces and snippets of evidence, suspicions. But, Madam
President, whether there is evidence that can be delivered or not, if
we reward cooperation with further intransigence on our part, that is
really the way to shut off the information.
What I am saying, Madam President, is we should drop the embargo not
based on trust in the Vietnamese, not based on their rhetoric, not
based on trade. And indeed there are great opportunities for trade, but
that should not figure in the formula here. It ought to be based on
MIA's and POW's and the continued flow of information. In that respect,
Madam President, it is a very clear question.
(Mr. WOFFORD assumed the chair.)
Mr. JOHNSTON. A final point. Is this the last bit of ``leverage'' we
have? In the first place, I think a continuation of the embargo is
reverse leverage. It is not actual leverage because it would operate in
reverse against us. But beyond that, Mr. President, we have plenty of
continued leverage against the Vietnamese.
We participate in the international banks from whom Vietnam wants and
needs credits to rebuild their country. They need American companies.
They need a lot from us and, if we drop that embargo, we will still
have that leverage.
Mr. President, it is absolutely clear the time to drop the embargo
against Vietnam is now; reward their cooperation and thereby secure
continued cooperation.
I congratulate the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, for his
leadership, and the other coauthors, mostly Vietnam veterans, who have
been so strong in their leadership in this regard.
Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, the amendment that is being offered by my colleagues
from Massachusetts and Arizona is really the defining moment on the
issue of the trade embargo with Vietnam. I wish to say at the outset
that the kind remarks made by Senator McCain and Senator Kerry and
Senator Simpson about me are very much appreciated. This is not a
personal argument. I have no personal vendettas against any Members of
the Senate on this issue. Many of them served in Vietnam, as I have
done, and many had more things happen to them than I did: Senator
Kerrey wounded; Senator McCain, who is a POW.
I rise in opposition to this amendment on the basis of principle
after 10 years, 10 long years in the Congress working on this issue. I
have been to Vietnam five times myself, in addition to the time I spent
there in the war. It is something that is controversial, and I hope
those of my colleagues who are truly undecided--sometimes I wonder how
many there are of us in that position--would focus on this debate and
some of the things I have to say.
Just so my colleagues will know, at some point after the vote is
taken on the Kerry-McCain amendment, I will offer another amendment--
whether it would be in the form of a substitute or freestanding
amendment remains to be seen at this point, but it will be an amendment
that I think is much more realistic. In general, it will say that the
amendment, my own amendment, which I will talk about in a few minutes,
makes lifting of the trade embargo against Vietnam contingent upon POW/
MIA progress as determined by the President of the United States,
whoever that President may be.
That is a reasonable solution. Specifically, my amendment will say to
lift the embargo the President must make a determination to Congress
that Vietnam has resolved as fully as possible--not fully, as fully as
possible--POW/MIA cases in reports where Vietnam can be reasonably
expected to have additional information or remains based on U.S.
investigations to date. And thirdly, by sense of the Senate, that the
President is urged to consult with Congress, the national veterans
organizations, and the POW/MIA families before making the determination
on lifting the embargo.
That amendment I will offer possibly this evening if we go on into
the evening, so I would just alert my colleagues to that.
So those of you who feel you want to be recorded in some reasonable
way on this issue, if you feel strongly that the embargo should be
lifted, then the Kerry-McCain amendment is the amendment for which you
should vote. However, I have this alternative which I will discuss in
full detail very shortly which will give I think valid reasons, many
reasons--the Senator from Louisiana just said he would like to hear
some evidence. I have plenty of evidence that I will offer in the form
of why we should not believe that the Vietnamese have totally provided
all information they unilaterally can provide.
I might also say, Mr. President, because how you frame these debates
sometimes influences votes, this is not a debate; no matter how many of
us may feel about it, it is not a debate about live POW's. It is about
whether Vietnam has been fully forthcoming on the POW issue.
Some of us have feelings one way or the other on the issue of live
POW's, whether it is compelling evidence or weak evidence or strong
evidence. We all agree there is evidence. It is how compelling it is.
So it is not about that. It is about whether or not the Vietnamese have
been forthcoming in providing unilaterally all information they can
provide.
Now, having worked with Senator Kerry for over a year on the POW
committee--we had a good working relationship. We disagreed from time
to time. We agreed many times--I wish to say with respect to assessing
this amendment that I believe to pull the embargo now, given the
information we still have outstanding, is an insult to the families of
those who have served, and I think it is an insult to the men
themselves who are missing.
If you do not believe what I say, then ask. Ask the American Legion.
I am sure you are hearing from them. My colleagues, read your mail,
answer your telephones from the veterans organizations: The American
Legion, the VFW, VVA, DAV, League of Families. All oppose this
amendment. Whether every member does remains to be seen, but the
organizations have formally expressed opposition to this amendment.
They are opposed to what the Senator from Massachusetts claims he is
doing on behalf of resolving the issue. Why? I am not sure. But I
suspect that there is some knowledge that before we even had increased
access to Vietnam--and we have had increased access to Vietnam, a lot
of it, and I have seen that myself firsthand. But before we even had
any increased access really in the last 2 to 3 years, before we had a
joint task force in Vietnam, before we had a select committee on the
POW issue, the Senator from Massachusetts, with respect, was advocating
lifting the trade embargo against Vietnam.
I think that is his foremost objective. He believes that we should
lift the embargo, and he has a right to believe that. He said so on
occasions long before this debate.
I have here a New York Times story on October 29, 1990. This is a
letter that the Senator from Massachusetts and some of his colleagues
here today who are supporting his amendment sent to then President
Bush. I would like to read briefly a quote from that letter. This is a
letter to President Bush. It was signed by Alan Cranston, Joseph Biden,
John Kerry, Christopher Dodd, Frank Murkowski, Mark Hatfield, among
others.
An excerpt from that letter very simply says this: ``The time has
come for putting the Vietnam war behind us and opening a new chapter in
U.S.-Vietnam relations,'' said the letter of October 29. ``We urge you
to act promptly to lift the U.S. trade embargo on Vietnam, and we
pledge our full support.''
There is not any wiggle room in that statement, my colleagues. This
was October 29, 1990. That was the view of the Senator, many of the
Senators, Senator Kerry and others, in 1990. If we are talking about
using the last 2\1/2\ years or 3 years or 4 years of cooperation as a
reason, then I have some trouble understanding what the point of the
Senator from Massachusetts is.
The point is, if you are for lifting the embargo, then you are for
lifting the embargo. But to say that there has been this magnanimous
progress over the past 3 years, that we did not have prior to that, and
that is the reason, is simply incorrect.
Since May 1991 the Senator from Massachusetts, as I, has made
numerous trips to Hanoi. He has made eight. I think I have made five.
Each time there are claims where he is quoted as saying the Vietnamese
are giving us great cooperation, and each time he is recommending
further relaxing or doing something with the embargo. I have
statements. I do not want to go into them all. I could but I will not.
He has made those recommendations. He made them when he was chairman of
the select committee, sometimes in consultation with colleagues,
sometimes not.
But I just want to make the point that it is not something that
suddenly we have come to that it is time now to lift the embargo
because of what has happened in the past few years.
We ought to lift the embargo when the President has determined that
Hanoi has been fully forthcoming with us on the issue. That is when we
should lift it--President Clinton, some President in the future,
whoever.
Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator be willing to yield for a question, Mr.
President?
Mr. SMITH. Yes. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire. I
have discussed this matter before my colleague started to speak, and it
relates to the evidence which my colleague from New Hampshire feels
that he has that there has not been a full accounting as to the MIA's.
He relates to questions which my colleague has as to the thoroughness
of the investigation which has been conducted by United States military
personnel in Vietnam.
I think it would be useful to have on the record the evidence
indicators which the Senator from New Hampshire has.
My question relates to why the Senator is willing on his alternative
amendment which I have reviewed to have the President have the
authority to lift the embargo if in fact he is not satisfied on the
basis of the evidence indicators which the Senator from New Hampshire
has that the Vietnamese government has been entirely forthcoming.
As I read the amendment submitted by the distinguished Senator from
Arizona, Senator McCain, and the amendment in the second degree offered
by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, they
are identical except for the seventh paragraph in Senator Kerry's
amendment. The first five paragraphs are recitations which I think no
one will disagree with. Paragraph 7 of Senator Kerry's amendment is one
which I think no one would have a disagreement. But the critical
paragraph is paragraph 6 which reads as follows:
Therefore, in order to maintain and expand further United
States and Vietnamese efforts to obtain the fullest possible
accounting, the President shall lift the United States trade
embargo against Vietnam immediately.
I was a part of the delegation with Senator Bennett on the Energy
Committee, and was present with Senator Simpson and heard what General
Needham had to say and the others.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a clarification in point?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Mr. KERRY. I want to make the point that in my amendment, it is not
``immediately.'' It is ``expeditiously.'' So it is really subject to
the President's decision. It is ``expeditiously,'' not ``immediately.''
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator for that clarification. The
materials which I saw were not inclusive.
Coincidentally, we have seen the Senator from New Hampshire on
television on CNN when our delegation was at an Air Force base in Japan
and heard the concerns. And therefore, I have discussed the matter with
the Senator from New Hampshire to try to understand the factual
questions which he has and in fact his disagreement that the Vietnamese
Government has done everything which is possible.
I have grave reservations about the paragraph 6, which is the
operative paragraph in both the McCain and Kerry amendments, which says
that we should lift the embargo in order to obtain the fullest possible
accounting. I have doubts about that because I have doubts that there
will be further disclosure by lifting of the embargo.
The question on my mind--and I have an open mind. I do not know how I
am going to vote on this. The question in my mind is whether the
Vietnamese Government has made a full accounting. If we are sure that
there are no more prisoners of war, and I believe that is accepted on
all sides, that there are no more prisoners of war which are being
held, then the question is whether there has been a fullest possible
disclosure of the facts on the MIA's, and if that is true, I am
prepared to vote to lift the embargo.
If it is not true that there has been the fullest disclosure as to
the remains of the MIA's, then my instinct is not to vote to lift the
embargo. But I am not prepared to vote to lift the embargo to induce
them to give us a fuller accounting if in fact they have not given us
an honest accounting. And that is the question which I pose to my
colleague from New Hampshire. Perhaps also a parliamentary procedure
would be accorded to my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.
Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his question. I
would like to respond to it. The answer to your question as to whether
or not the Vietnamese are fully cooperating is no.
The thrust of the amendment in question is basically an admission of
that fact. And the idea is that if we lift the trade embargo, by doing
that, we will encourage further cooperation and get more answers. I
respect that as a position and I understand that that very well may be
the case, but there is no leverage, once we lift the embargo, to get
that information. That information could be destroyed, or whatever,
because it could be an embarrassment.
For example--and only for example--if there were some very nasty
records that had been kept about what may have happened to POW's during
the war or after the war, whatever the case may be, and they are
particularly embarrassing to the Vietnamese, there would be no
incentive to put that information out.
We have two issues. One, have they been fully forthcoming? By that I
mean, have they provided us all information that they could put their
hands on now and provide to the U.S. side? The answer to that is no. I
will document that in my later remarks, but that is the first point.
The other side of it is, should we go ahead and lift the embargo and
hope that we get it? That is a fair argument. I do not buy it, because
there is no incentive for them to do it once we lift the embargo.
You could use the same argument in North Korea. Maybe we should lift
that embargo and they will give us access to their nuclear facilities.
I do not buy it.
Have the Vietnamese been cooperative? Yes, their cooperation has
increased. I had access to Vietnam that no investigator had ever had
the last time I was there in July. They were cooperative. But fully
cooperative in terms of what is in the archives and in the records in
Hanoi, not what Senator Kerry is referring to here. This photo is a
nice crash site excavation.
I support that, even though the Vietnamese are charging us tens of
millions of dollars to do this. It is a built-in foreign aid; it is not
free. They charge us for helicopters, planes, jeeps, trucks, personnel,
manpower, shovels, you name it. They are not cheap; they are Cadillac
items that we are paying for. So we are doing that and I support that.
That will account for people, but that is only one part of it. What
about what is in Hanoi that they unilaterally could provide from the
documents and records? The answer to the question you ask is no, they
are not and have not fully provided those answers.
The thrust of the Senators' amendment, Senators Kerry and McCain, is
if we lift the embargo we will get more cooperation and get more
information. They may be correct. I happen to disagree. I think the
risk is too great. I am not willing to take that risk. We have no
leverage at all if we do it, and that is why I oppose it.
Mr. SPECTER. If I may pursue the question a little more--
Mr. McCAIN. I would like to try to respond to the question that you
already asked.
Mr. SPECTER. All right
Mr. McCAIN. Thank you. I will be brief. I think the Senator from
Pennsylvania has a very important and crucial question. I think it
would be important to recognize that neither Senators Smith or Kerry,
nor Senator McCain have all of the information; nor do we, because of
perhaps our long involvement in this issue, have a totally objective
view of the issue.
In response to the question of the Senator from Pennsylvania, that is
why I think it is important that we look to the views of others who
would be respected and in positions of responsibility. The Commander in
Chief of the forces in the Pacific is Admiral Larson, under whose
direct command they are carrying out these operations over in Vietnam.
On January 21, Admiral Larson, the Hawaii-based commander of the U.S.
forces in the Pacific, said that ending the 19-year-old embargo would
give him ``an operational advantage'' in searching for Americans listed
as missing in action in Vietnam. ``If we get more Americans investing,
traveling, and participating in Vietnam, that will give me a network of
information that will obviously help me to learn about the past,
present, and perhaps the future,'' he said in an interview here after a
3-day visit to Vietnam this week. His comments rejected the argument by
some veterans groups and families of missing servicemen that the United
States should maintain its embargo to keep up pressure on Hanoi to
resolve the MIA issue.
We get the same opinion from General Needham, who is the general on
the ground, who has been conducting our efforts to track down the MIA/
POW issue.
These individuals may not be the last word, I say to my friend from
Pennsylvania, but I think they should be given serious weight and
consideration as career military people, who are every day immersed in
this issue, who believe it is to our advantage in resolving the POW/MIA
issue to lift the embargo. I recognize fully that the Senator from New
Hampshire, in a very articulate fashion, disagrees with that view, and
I respect the view of the Senator from Massachusetts, as I always have.
But I have a tendency to give great reliance to the people in whose
hands we place the responsibility for trying to resolve this very
difficult, many-decade-old issue.
I thank my friend from New Hampshire for allowing me to respond to my
side of the question. I think it shows great courtesy on his part.
Mr. SPECTER. If I may pursue the question at this point, I ask this
of my colleague, because I know the parliamentary line is somewhat
complicated. The issue for me turns on the good faith of the Vietnamese
in providing all of the information. I have enormous respect for what
our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain said, because of his
tremendous sacrifice as a Vietnam veteran. I was there with Senator
Simpson when we saw the monument in the lake where Senator McCain
crashed. I appreciate what Admiral Larson said; I have seen that, and I
appreciate what General Needham said, and I heard personally about
their view that there would be additional leverage.
I do not know whether there would be greater leverage if we lift the
embargo or if we do not lift the embargo. But my inclination--and this
is not final--is not based on where we have the greater leverage. My
instinct is to base a decision on whether there has been total good
faith by the Vietnamese in disclosing the information as to the MIA's
and their remains. That is why I come back to the essential question as
to whether there is evidence or indicators--maybe not evidence in a
technical, legal sense--but indicators, if not evidence, that there has
not been a good-faith compliance by the Vietnamese in giving us all of
the information about the MIA's.
Mr. SMITH. I respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania by saying this:
In the amendment that I intend to offer in one form or another before
the debate is concluded, I will go into great detail about evidence
that is in our possession and the Intelligence Committee's possession
that the Vietnamese have not been fully cooperative in terms of
providing to us what they can provide--not the fact that they may dig
up remains in 10 years that they do not know about; I do not hold them
to that. That is an unreasonable criteria to apply.
What I am referring to is what they could unilaterally turn over to
us today if they wanted to. The answer to the question is that they
have not done that. They can do it, and I do not think there are very
many people in the U.S. Government who work on this issue in the
Intelligence Committee that would deny that. I do not think General
Needham and Admiral Larson would deny that.
There has been a great focus, as the Senator from Massachusetts
pointed out, on digging up crash sites and going to various locations
and getting access to those crash sites, which we have never had access
to before, correct.
What I want to get into are some of the other areas we have not even
asked to go to yet. For example, there are many prisons in Vietnam that
our people have never gone to, where we have had live sighting reports;
indeed we have had reports that people died in those prisons, were
buried in those prisons as prisoners, and the remains were never
recovered. Not only were they not recovered --and I am getting ahead of
myself in my prepared remarks--we never asked for them.
I repeat that. We have never asked to go to those prisons to look at
those grave sites.
Now, the purpose here is not to come out with some big critique or
being very, very critical of the whole operation here. That is not the
purpose.
The purpose is to point out to you and to my colleagues that what
this amendment is about is a direct departure from policy of Democratic
and Republican Presidents, including this President today. It is a
dramatic departure from that.
I would like to just continue with my remarks. I can point that out.
I would just hope that the Senator from Pennsylvania could listen to
some of the remarks that I have and some of the information that I have
and make up his mind.
I respect the fact he is open minded about it. But you know, there
are plenty of examples, plenty of them throughout the files where we
based on very, very good intelligence from our own prisoners who have
returned, including Senator McCain, that would indicate that there was
information available.
I will just give you one example of what happened to a pilot who was
shot down, captured alive, his capture witnessed and imprisonment
witnessed by other prisoners, filmed on Communist propaganda films,
sent around the world in Communist propaganda and first, he never came
back alive, second, his remains never returned, and third, no
information one way or other what happened to him ever came to our
attention.
We agree they kept very meticulous records, and we know they could
answer what happened to an individual like that. We know that. And they
have not.
There are numerous questions like that, just to give one category of
cases, and that is why I cannot support this amendment. It gets down to
basic decency and we have always confronted the Vietnamese, the
families, the interagency groups under Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan,
and Bush and now President Clinton, and that was no longer in the
group, but they always went after Vietnamese on a humanitarian basis,
provided it to us on a humanitarian basis what you can provide. But we
kept on the road.
Every time we go over there, whether Kerry, me or someone else, they
provide some more information. They sent out Senator Kerry. I heard him
say on the floor the 1,000 documents and photographs. One percent of
those documents and photographs returned pertained to American POW's or
MIA's missing. The rest of them pertained to people who returned.
So I think we really need to look through this and make up our own
minds in terms of saying what is it, have they really fully cooperated?
And if you believe that they have not, then you have to decide on that
basis whether or not you think that they will cooperate more if we lift
the embargo.
My feeling is that they will not because they have no incentive to do
it. It is a risk. If you feel the risk is worth taking, then you would
support the Kerry-McCain amendment.
I do not. I believe it is a terrible mistake as it would be in
lifting an embargo on Libya or North Korea or some other country where
we have differences.
Personally, because of the trips I have taken I like the Vietnamese
people. They have been very courteous to me, even though I disagreed
with them. Senator Kerry knows that they provided me a great deal of
access to their country. They were polite and very kind to me, and I
appreciate that. And they know though that I know that they still can
provide more information, and I feel they should before we lift the
embargo.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask my colleague if I could have a chance
to answer the two questions he propounded?
Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to yield for the purpose of responding to
a question. I have kind of started into some prepared remarks and have
been interrupted a number of times. I will yield to the Senator from
Massachusetts to respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KERRY. I think it is an important line of questions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from
Massachusetts is recognized for that purpose.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I want to address the Senator from Pennsylvania. He
asked a good question. I want to answer that.
The Senator from New Hampshire said you take a risk if you lift this.
I would answer him by saying it is exactly the opposite. It is no risk
to lift it. You take a risk to keep it.
The risk to keep it is that whatever cooperation we can get stops
because we made an arrangement with the Vietnamese. The policy of two
Presidents has been if you cooperate on this, this is the way you lift
the embargo. That is the policy of the United States.
The Vietnamese have done everything. I will say to the Senator that
they have done every single thing that I asked or our committee asked
the entire time we were there. They did not refuse to go one place.
They did not refuse access to one person. Nor has the team that is
there said they refused anything.
The Senator from New Hampshire is correct. Have we been everywhere?
No, it will take 10 years or more for us to get everywhere. Have we
been in every prison? No. Have we excavated every site? No.
But the Senator from New Hampshire, I know, cannot apply the same
standard that he is applying to Vietnam that they be fully forthcoming,
to our own DIA, CIA, or Defense Department. He would not say they have
been fully forthcoming.
Certainly as the Senator knows as a lawyer and former prosecutor, you
cannot put the case together if you are not talking to witnesses and
you do not have access to the evidence.
They control the evidence. We will only gather whatever evidence the
Vietnamese ultimately either give us or we discover. We will only
discover it if we are there.
The Senator keeps saying you lose your leverage. You do not lose your
leverage. You gain leverage. You gain leverage because you are not
normalizing. You hold out the normalization. You hold out GATT. You
hold out loans. You hold out membership in the world community. You
hold out MFN you hold out a whole sequence of things.
And you can always put the embargo back in one month or in 3 weeks or
2 days if they stop doing what they say they are going to do.
So what is the risk? The risk is that you take some nebulous standard
of fully forthcoming when they have done everything we asked them to
do. We do not know. Some will assert our intelligence says they have
some document. Well, intelligence is intelligence. Sometimes it is
right, sometimes not. We do not know exactly where the document is. We
cannot walk into the building and say, ``Give us the document; it is
here.'' We just do not know. They will look you in the eye and say to
you, ``We do not have the document, Senator.''
So how are you going to find the document? You are going to find the
document when some Vietnamese sneaks into the American office and says,
``I know where the American document is.''
That, I might add, is exactly what General Vessey and our Secretary
confronted them with on some documents previously.
My colleague says the issue is whether or not they have been fully
forthcoming. That is not the issue. There is no way to prove whether
they have been fully forthcoming or not.
The issue is, what is the best way to get the evidence out of them?
I do not know if you can find a person with greater credentials on
this than Gen. John Vessey. General Vessey, you know, has 46 years of
military service, Vietnam service, decorated with the distinguished
service cross, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense distinguished
service medals, the purple heart, medals from 19 friendly nations, the
civilian highest award, the medal of freedom from President Bush for
his work on this. Let me read you what General Vessey just said, and he
sent this to us today.
This is what General Vessey said today:
In the past 6 years, Vietnam has made huge leaps in the
direction we wanted them to go, many of them moves that we in
Washington thought would never be made. Among them:
Agreed to Joint Field Investigations of ``discrepancy
cases.'' We are in the 6th year of those investigations.
Agreed to joint live sighting investigations.
Returned several hundred sets of remains of missing
Americans.
Got out of Cambodia and supported U.N. sponsored elections.
Released all reeducation camp inmates.
Helped reunite about 300,000 separated Vietnamese families.
Let us get Amerasian children out of Vietnam.
Let the United States set up a POW/MIA office in Hanoi.
Agreed to State Department officers in Hanoi with no
reciprocal move.
Accommodated a variety of intrusive requests--such as going
through prisons--by the USG and members of Congress.
Have allowed U.S. researchers unlimited access to the
Defense Ministry Library.
I cite these Vietnam Government steps not to urge rewarding
them, but as a reminder that cooperation depends on
confidence building steps. Lifting the trade embargo and
moving forward in relations is not rewarding a heinous
communist regime for past crimes! It is a move that will open
Vietnam and move it toward democracy and free enterprise as
well as help us reach our goal of fullest possible
accounting.
This is the overriding reason for lifting the trade
embargo. We now have the best cooperation we've ever had from
the Vietnamese Government in searching for evidence about the
fates of our people. Maintaining the embargo will not improve
that level of cooperation, but rather will probably lessen
it. To achieve fullest possible accounting, we will need the
help of local authorities, the Vietnamese veterans, and the
Vietnamese people. Let me point out that lifting the trade
embargo is not granting a favor to American business at the
expense of the families of the missing and the Veterans. It
is, rather, the surest way to further the cooperation we need
to get fullest accounting.
My colleague at the beginning of this debate said this issue was not
about MIA's, prisoners, sites. The American Legion and others--let me
read you from the American Legion to the President of the United States
of America saying here to the commander-in-chief that the issue before
us is to force Vietnam to return live American POW's.
That is why they are opposed. They believe there are live American
POW's.
So I say to you, you want to measure good faith, I will put General
Vessey and General Needham and General Christmas and Admiral Larson up
against the American Legion or any of these other folks any day of the
week.
I thank my colleague.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to reclaim my time. I think I
have been very patient. It was supposed to be a question and response.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague.
Mr. SMITH. I am glad to do that.
I want to point out, there have been a lot of people with a lot of
credentials who have worked on this issue over the years, including
General Vessey. But I do not know how anyone, any reasonable person,
could draw the conclusion that you have received the best cooperation
from the Vietnamese people on this type of an example.
Let us say you are a family member, and you have a loved one missing.
You see a Vietnamese propaganda film with your loved one in perfectly
good health speaking on that film. He has been captured alive. He was
uninjured. He is being used for propaganda all over the Chinese world
during the war. And you have not heard one single word from the
Vietnamese.
Best cooperation? Give me a break. They know what happened to that
man. They know what happened to that man. And they ought to tell us
before we let somebody go drill for oil in Vietnam.
That is what is driving this issue. And I do not accuse Senator Kerry
or Senator McCain of that motive. But to some, that is the motive. That
is the objective here: To get business in there to drill for oil,
because the French are in there and maybe the Canadians are in there,
the Japanese are in there. Do you know what? They do not have 2,238
people missing, with all due respect. That is what the issue is here,
not best cooperation.
Has there been some improved cooperation? Yes. Why did we get it? Why
did we get improved cooperation from the Vietnamese? Because five
Presidents from both political parties held firm on a humanitarian
basis and said, ``You give us the answers you can provide us on our
missing and then we will forgive you and the war will be over and it
will be behind us.'' That is why we are getting cooperation, and we
will get more of it if we stand up and be firm.
So the talk about nebulous information, that is not nebulous. If you
are the father or the mother or the wife of a person who has been seen
on that tape on that film, they knew enough about him to tape him and
film him and send him all over the propaganda world, did they not? And
they were meticulous record keepers. They took photographs of dead
people. They took records of everything--how they fed prisoners during
the war and what they did to them during the war and what happened to
them, how they died. They kept meticulous journals. We have them in the
DIA. Go ask for them. Look at them. They know what happened to these
people.
But they hold that out. They hold that out, because they want us to
know that they defeated us in that war.
So, if you want to take the position that you are going to get what
happened to that pilot on that film if you lift the embargo, that is
fine, then vote for the amendment. But if you think you are going to
get it just because they want to give it to you and you are going to
have leverage, you are mistaken, seriously mistaken. Because you have
zero leverage. Zero leverage.
And, frankly, with the utmost respect for the two officers over
there, Admiral Larson and General Needham, they are wrong, dead wrong,
on this issue.
When it is over, 6 months after you vote for this, how are you going
to explain to the families in your State when the Vietnamese suddenly
say, ``Oh, here is the information on colonel so and so.'' Where did
they get it? Did they just find it somewhere? How are you going to
explain that to the families?
It is time we stand up for principle. That is just what is wrong with
this country. It is just why people look on those of us in politics in
a derogatory way. We all hear it. And this is a good example of it.
Stand up for principle. The principle is these people have been
deceitful. They have committed perfidy. They have put these families on
a roller coaster ride for years and years and years and they are still
doing it.
We can get that information because it is the right thing to do; not
the business thing to do, the right thing to do. It is the right thing
to do.
Now, what we have not heard here is that this amendment that the
Senators have offered is at odds with everything the President of the
United States today, Bill Clinton, has said concerning his policy
toward resolving the MIA issue. The President has said--he said it--
``Lifting the embargo in Vietnam will be contingent upon Vietnam being
fully forthcoming on the POW issue.''
So if you support your President and the previous Presidents and your
position is they have to be fully forthcoming before you lift the
embargo, then stick with your President and his predecessors and do it.
If you do not think that is right and you disagree with your President
and you disagree with his last four predecessors, then you vote for the
amendment and you hope and you pray. You lift the embargo and you get
down on your knees and you pray that the Vietnamese will give us all
this information now because we have suddenly lifted the trade embargo.
Well, I am not going to take that chance. It is unfair to the
families of these people who served--many died, many wounded, captured.
It is wrong. It is morally wrong.
Now, if they came in here as a group, the Legion, the VFW, the League
of Families, those who have a stake in this--not Senator Smith, not
Senator Kerry, the people who have the missing--if they came in and
they said this is what we want, maybe we have a point. But they are not
saying that. They are saying the opposite. They do not want this
amendment. Ask them before you vote if you are undecided.
The amendment also says if we lift the embargo, in effect, we improve
our leverage on Hanoi. We are going to convince Hanoi to be suddenly
forthcoming. If they are not, what do we do then? That is what we have
been talking about.
Does anybody really believe there would be a movement to reimpose the
embargo at that point? Are you prepared to do that, those of you who
want to lift this embargo? Are you prepared to put it back on again
when information begins to dribble out that you knew they had before?
Does anyone really believe that we would reimpose the embargo? Come on.
It is business interests driving this thing. That is what is driving
it--profit. And there is not a Senator in here that has a better
business voting record than I do--big business, small business, any
business, whatever business; 100 percent rating from the NFIB; 100
percent rating from the U.S. Chamber. I do not take a back seat to
anybody, with all due respect. So do not tell me that I am
antibusiness. But profits should not come ahead of principle. And of
all countries, this one it should not. The risks are too high to make a
concession like this.
Mr. President, when we know the Vietnamese still have information in
their possession--and we do know it and I will prove it in my later
remarks--about Americans who were never returned at the end of the war,
we ought not to lift the embargo. It is a phony argument to allege that
if we allowed more American businessmen to go into Vietnam they would
stumble upon some information from the Ministry of National Defense.
How many American businessmen stumble around the Pentagon and get top
secret information? Come on. They are not going to let you into the
Ministry of Defense if you are over there drilling for oil. That is
ridiculous to even insinuate that.
If we lift the trade embargo against North Korea, maybe the North
Koreans will let us go in and look at all their nuclear plants. Maybe
we could have some American businessmen go over and do it for us.
The families, Mr. President, of 2,238 people, Americans unaccounted
for, still unaccounted for from the Vietnam war, are scared, to put it
bluntly. They are scared to death that Senator Kerry is going to
prevail on this amendment; that he is going to convince his colleagues
to vote for this amendment, as he has been working hard to do over the
past several days.
I know he was at the White House recently, Monday night, I believe,
trying to make his case. It is pretty convenient. There is a nice
little, convenient setup here. Go to Vietnam, talk to Needham, talk to
Larson, come back to the White House, talk to the President: Everything
is fine, we are getting total cooperation, everything is just rosy. Let
us lift the embargo.
That is what is going on. The families, those of you out there, need
to understand that because that is what is happening. It is a nice
little tidy setup here. We are digging around over here, looking for
these remains. But we are not bothering to go into Hanoi, into the
ministry of defense. We are not investigating live sighting reports.
The Vietnamese told me they are not even looking at them anymore. They
are not asking us. We are not going to the prisons where we have double
polygraphed people who say they saw people buried, prisoners. We are
not going there. We have not asked to go there. We have not even asked.
And the Vietnamese are not going to let us go there--they are not going
to let us go there unless we ask. Admiral Larson and General Needham,
why do you not ask to go to those prisons? And I will be pointing some
of them out to you, as if you need to know.
The President has said that lifting of the embargo is contingent upon
POW/MIA progress. So you are going to go against the policy of this
President, and his predecessors ever since the war, if you vote for
this amendment. In my judgment, and in the judgment of those affected
by this amendment, the families, it is premature for the Senate to do
this.
I am not opposed to lifting the embargo. I said I liked the
Vietnamese people, and I do. There are some fine people in Vietnam, and
I have met a lot of them in five trips. I went all over the country the
last time there. I would like to get the war behind me too, and the
best way to do it is to say: With all due respect, Mr. Do Muoi and
those of you in the Vietnamese Government, give us the information you
have. It is the humanitarian thing to do. It is the right thing to do.
And after you do that we will lift the embargo. That is what we ought
to do, and that has been the policy of Republicans and Democrats for
the past 20 years.
When you cast your vote on this amendment I believe you should reject
it because it is premature, and you should be doing so on behalf of the
families. They are the ones who have the stake, the families. Let us
stop thinking about our own selfish interests, stop thinking about some
businessman from some oil company who wants to go into Vietnam and
drill for oil. That is great. I would like to see them go in there and
do that. I have seen the country. It is oil rich. It is a beautiful
country. I have seen the beaches. I would like to go as a tourist--I
have told the Vietnamese that--but after you give us the information on
our men. That is the decent thing to do.
And my colleagues should be doing this because they support the
President's efforts and his current approach to resolving this issue.
If you do not support it, and you want to break from it, then you vote
for the amendment.
In the strongest possible terms, and with some emotion I admit, I
urge the rejection of this amendment. It is the wrong time. There are
many, many times in foreign policy that we tend to micromanage in this
place. I am guilty of it. We are all guilty of it, depending on which
side of the issue we are on. But if this amendment is agreed to, the
President, who I believe is leaning to lifting the embargo anyway--that
is no secret, many in his administration want it lifted; many in the
Bush administration wanted it lifted but there was more of a debate
there than is in this one--if we vote to lift it we give the President
the excuse to do it because he believes that the American people,
through the Senate, have then so indicated that that is what the
American people want.
I urge the rejection of this amendment. The right course of action is
to have the President first make a determination that Vietnam has been
fully forthcoming on the POW/MIA issue. Then and only then should the
embargo be lifted.
I believe that is the right way to go. I believe that is what the
families want. They have certainly indicated it and they are the ones
who should be listened to. No one--no one including me or anyone else--
could possibly understand the pain that these people have suffered over
the past 25 years, waiting every time somebody goes on a trip to
Vietnam, for some shred of information. Imagine the feeling of those
who saw their loved one.
I have a tape, a film, in my office that I just got that the
Vietnamese just released--in this great period of cooperation--which
showed Bobby Garwood. Everybody knows Bobby Garwood came home. But do
you know what? In the same film was another man, another POW. Perfectly
healthy. Just as healthy as you are or I am. Looking right into the
camera. And the Vietnamese were using him for propaganda purposes.
They said he died. Period. No other information. He died; died in
captivity. They know what happened to him. And they gave us the film.
Why can they not give us the rest of the information? They have it.
That is not full cooperation. And it is--even if it is full
cooperation, and it is not, it does not justify taking the action of
this amendment with that kind of perfidy.
I do have some other remarks. Let me just ask, on a final point on
that particular case in that film: If he died, where are his remains?
If his remains were destroyed, where did they bury them? Who buried
him? What happened to him? They kept notes on it. They know what
happened to him. And there are many cases like that; not just one,
many.
I would be prepared to yield the floor but before yielding I would
say I am going to speak to my own amendment. There might be some
question as to whether we would do that, whether I would speak to the
amendment before I offer it in the course of this debate, or whether
there will be a vote first on the Kerry amendment. But I would just say
to my colleagues my preference would be, and I believe what I will do,
is speak to my amendment because I believe that my colleagues need to
hear why I believe we should stick to the policy that we now have, in
great detail, with many examples and cases of where the Vietnamese have
not been forthcoming and we know they have not been forthcoming.
Senator Specter said he would like to hear some evidence. Senator
Johnston said he would like to hear some evidence. I have it. I will
temporary yield the floor and allow some of my colleagues who have been
waiting to speak to speak and then reclaim the floor at some point and
discuss the content of my amendment, which will either be in the form
of a substitute or another amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there are other colleagues waiting to
speak, so I am not going to go on at length to rebut most of what my
colleague has said, although it is rebuttable.
There is one thing that is important. My colleague said the President
ought to make the decision. He has some amendment that purports to give
the President the chance to make the decision. Please understand that
our amendment, the amendment of Senator McCain and I and others,
permits the President to make the decision. It totally leaves the
choice to the President. It says we believe he ought to do it
expeditiously. When the President deems expeditious is up to the
President. So we leave this in the President's hands. There is no
difference there.
As to these films that have been alluded to, it is precisely through
the Vietnamese we got the films. I was over there and negotiated with
them to get them to turn over 319 films that we have now reviewed. We
have been able to look through the films. It is precisely because of
that that we now have questions about the whereabouts of this person
being buried. Now we now have the list--I showed it a few moments ago--
of where people who died in captivity were buried. They also gave us
that. So we are going about the task of tracking each of these people.
So, the point to be addressed here is how we are best going to
continue this process of accountability, whether we see it shut off or
whether we continue.
Mr. SMITH. Will the Senator yield for one point for 30 seconds?
Mr. KERRY. I yield for one point for 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. In response to what the Senator said regarding the film,
it is correct the Vietnamese did provide the film on POWs and Garwood,
where we got the film on David Garwood 25 years ago when he was alive
and in prison for a number of years. But they have not told us what has
happened to David Hrdlickq. So it is not a case of them providing films
today or previously, but we have had films for years and they never
chose to tell us what happened to the people.
Mr. KERRY. I agree. We do not have a disagreement on that. But the
point is, unless they tell you--which they have obviously not chosen to
do for 25 years--you have to find out. Now, if they are not cooperating
with you, you are not going to find out.
This is all very simple. This is not half as complicated as some
people want to make it. The choice for us is whether we encourage them
to shut down the level of cooperation we have gotten to by ignoring the
cooperation we have received, or whether we are going to keep going
down this road. I think General Vessey said it about as strongly as you
can say it. This is a way of opening up that cooperation. It is a
judgment people have to make. I believe you keep better faith with the
families by guaranteeing we have a process in place that will allow us
to get them answers than pushing us back into the dark ages of 1975 to
1988, when the families got no answers and lived in total exclusion of
what the truth might be.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KERRY. If you care about the families, let us keep the process
open.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he would elaborate a
little bit on General Vessey. He mentioned his name. I wonder if the
Senator would think it appropriate to review the fact that General
Vessey got a battlefield commission in World War II at age 17, I
believe, served in three wars, became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, retired with honor and dignity, and was called back by President
Reagan and asked to be his special envoy to Vietnam on this issue.
The man clearly had deserved his retirement. He clearly was not eager
for this assignment. I think the Senator from Massachusetts knows how
many years he has spent traveling back and forth to Vietnam on this
issue, examining it in depth to the point of being totally
knowledgeable on every single MIA case and rendering his best judgment
and advice and counsel to the President and the American people and
those of us in Congress.
Is it not clear, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, that General
Vessey has said that it is in the interest of the United States of
America, it is in the interest of addressing the MIA/POW issue for us
to move forward in our relations with the Vietnamese Government? And is
it not true that General Vessey greatly fears that at some point the
Vietnamese will say, ``Look, we have complied, we have done what you
have asked us to do and yet you still refuse to honor the roadmap that
was laid out by the Bush administration''? Is it not also true that he
fears that this may cause us to receive much less cooperation and
impair our ability to get this issue resolved?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is absolutely
correct in summarizing General Vessey's view. I would like to
underscore it for a moment. General Vessey not only received a
battlefield commission and served for 46 years, but I think people
ought to focus that this is a man who fought in Vietnam and in Laos. He
is a commander. He lives by the rule that you do not leave people
behind. He came out of retirement dedicated to live by that rule. He
went back to Vietnam again and again and again, a long and tough
journey.
I ask unanimous consent that a history of movement with the
Vietnamese be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the history was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
POW/MIA History Re the Vietnam War
1973:
A total of 591 American POWs return to the United States.
Most returned during Operation Homecoming from February to
April 1973.
1974:
The Vietnamese repatriate the remains of 24 POWs who died
in captivity.
1975:
Saigon falls and American forces are withdrawn from
Vietnam.
1976-1978:
After the end of the war, Vietnam's objective was to be
accepted into the international community. For example, in
1977 when the U.S. opted not to veto their United Nations
membership, the Vietnamese responded by suddenly repatriating
the remains of more than 20 Americans. At the same time,
U.S.-Vietnamese negotiations explored the possibility of
normalizing relations; however, this was later scuttled by
Vietnamese demands for war reparations and their invasion of
Cambodia. U.S. policy at the time was accounting for missing
Americans as ``a hoped for by-product'' of the normalization
process.
1978-1982:
Following the breakdown of normalization talks, contact
with Vietnamese officials virtually halted, as did the return
of remains and any form of cooperation of the POW/MIA issue.
1982-1987:
The U.S. made clear that resolution of the POW/MIA issue
was a humanitarian matter that rested on international
standards and that it was in Vietnam's interest to treat it
that way, regardless of the state of U.S.-SRV diplomatic
relations. It was also made clear that the U.S. domestic
environment, absent such treatment, would dictate that the
pace and scope of U.S.-SRV relations would be directly
affected by cooperation on this issue.
U.S. policy-level delegations visit Vietnam and the
Vietnamese pledge to resolve the POW/MIA issue.
1987:
January--U.S. proposals for technical discussions in Hanoi
were rejected by the Vietnamese, as was a similar proposal
the following month. President Reagan named a former Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Vessey, Jr. USA
(Ret.), as Special Presidential Emissary to Hanoi for POW/MIA
Affairs.
August--General Vessey led an Interagency Delegation to
Vietnam. General Vessey obtained agreement to resume and
expand cooperation on POW/MIA and other humanitarian issues
of mutual concern to the United States and Vietnam.
Vietnamese were provided some representative case files.
Vietnamese repatriate 8 remains.
1988:
Vietnam agreed to initiate joint field investigations aimed
at resolving ``compelling'' cases that General Vessey had
previously provided and to expand their unilateral efforts.
Vietnamese present proposals for the joint activities and
agreed to begin joint field investigations This resulted in
three 10 day periods of joint investigations along with a
visit by U.S. forensic specialists to examine remains
unilaterally provided by Vietnamese.
Vietnamese repatriate 62 remains.
1989:
Vietnamese pledge continued cooperation during Vessey-led
Interagency delegation visit to Hanoi and agree to measures
that would expedite resolution of the issue.
A total of five field activities and four technical
meetings are held during the year--results are disappointing.
Vietnamese repatriate 34 remains.
1990:
General Vessey and the POW/MIA Interagency Group meet with
FM Thach in Washington, DC. Vietnamese agree to all USG
requests including: improved cooperative planning for joint
investigations, increased unilateral remains repatriations
and serious cooperation to locate and make available wartime
documents and records. Thach also agreed to assist in
allowing access to witnesses of incidents where U.S.
personnel were captured or casualties occurred, and to
additional military participation during joint field
activities.
Joint field activities and technical meetings continue--
results continue to disappoint.
Vietnamese repatriate 17 remains.
1991:
April--U.S. policy concerning normalization of relations
with Vietnam, the ``roadmap,'' is presented to Vietnamese
officials in New York. The ``roadmap'' outlined a series of
quid pro quo steps the U.S. was prepared to take to improve
U.S.--SRV relations and eventually lead to normalization.
The Vietnamese agreed to allow a temporary POW/MIA office
in Hanoi during visit by General Vessey.
Five person office opened in Hanoi in July.
Vietnamese repatriate 27 remains (11 joint operations, 16
unilaterally).
1992:
January--The 150 member Joint Task Force-Full Accounting
(JTF-FA) was established. The JTF-FA was designed to combine
all the specialties necessary to obtain the fullest possible
accounting of our POW/MIAs. The JTF-FA was placed under
CINCPAC to allow the full resources of the theater commander
to be brought to bear on this effort.
February-General Vessey returns to Hanoi to assess progress
on POW/MIA matters. During the visit, the Vietnamese
presented the Military region IV shootdown records.
March--Assistant Secretary of State Solomon led a
delegation to Southeast Asia during which the Vietnamese
agreed to five steps: implementation of a short notice live-
sighting investigation mechanism, access to records, archives
and museums, repatriation of remains, trilateral cooperation,
and expanded joint field operations.
October--Cheney and Eagleburger meet with the Vietnamese FM
Cam in Washington and confront him with materials obtained
from Vietnamese archives. General Vessey returns to Vietnam
and the Vietnamese agree to aggressively collect and present
to the USG POW/MIA related materials from all sources and
consolidate it in military museums, thereby providing access
to joint U.S. Vietnamese research teams.
December--Vietnam announces a formal amnesty program for
private citizens holding remains.
Joint field operations continue to expand in scope and team
number and size is increased.
Vietnamese repatriate 32 remains (24 joint operations, 8
unilaterally).
1993:
January--All requested live-sighting investigations and the
initial investigation of all 135 remaining discrepancy cases
are completed.
April--General Vessey leads a delegation to Hanoi during
which the Vietnamese provide new documents and access to
several key witnesses for interview including Lt. Gen, Tran
Van Quang, reputed source of the Russian 1205 document.
Vietnamese pledge continued cooperation, offer information
refuting the Russian document and agree to all U.S. requests
including continued support of joint field operations,
increased archival access, repatriation of remains, and
continued investigation of the remaining 92 discrepancy
cases.
May--Senator Kerry leads delegation to Vietnam requesting
continued cooperation and the Vietnamese agreed to his
requests including the formation of a joint POW/MIA
information center in Hanoi.
July--President Clinton decides to drop U.S. objections to
Vietnam clearing its arrears with the International Monetary
Fund. High-level delegation visits Vietnam and conveys
President Clinton's requirement for tangible results from the
Vietnamese in four key areas. The delegation was led by the
Deputy Secretary for Veterans Affairs, Heschel Gober, and
included Assistant Secretary Winston Lord and Lt. General
Michael Ryan of the Joint Staff. The President's four areas
of concern become the bench mark for cooperation and include
the repatriation of remains, access to documents, trilateral
cooperation, and continued investigation of live sightings
and priority discrepancy cases.
September--President Clinton renews the trade embargo with
Vietnam, but allows some modifications.
December--Assistant Secretary of State, Winston Lord, led
an interagency delegation to Vietnam to assess results in the
four areas of concern. He reported cooperation was excellent
and results have been achieved.
Joint file operations continue on the largest scale ever,
cooperation by the Vietnamese receives high marks from JTF-
FA.
Vietnamese repatriate 67 remains making 1993 the third
largest year for remains since the end of the war.
General Information:
The remains of 281 Americans previously missing in Vietnam
have been identified. Several hundred other remains have been
repatriated, but not yet identified (many never will). The
identification process is often time consuming and laborious.
The delay in the positive identification of some remains is a
function of the high standards of proof we require before
making an identification, rather than a lack of Vietnamese
cooperation.
Of the 1715 first hand live-sighting report received since
1975, 1,694 (99 percent) are resolved. No reports require
further field investigation in Vietnam. Vietnamese
cooperation in this area has been excellent.
One thousand one hundred and ninety-five (70 percent)
relate to Americans who are accounted for (POW returnees,
missionaries, jailed civilians, etc.)
Forty-five (3 percent) relate to wartime sightings of
military personnel or pre-1975 sightings of civilians who
remain unaccounted for.
Four hundred and fifty-four (26 percent) are fabrications.
The remaining 21 reports are under current investigation,
but these do not require field investigation in Vietnam. Not
all of these reports are Vietnam cases.
Archival research teams started work in November 1992 when
the Vietnamese began making their military museum holdings
available for review.
At the height of archival activity there were three teams
located in Hanoi, Da Nang, and Ho Chi Minh City have shut
down because they have completed the review of materials in
those locations.
Nearly 24,000 documents, photographs, and artifacts have
been reviewed with more than 600 items correlating to an
unaccounted for American.
Joint Document Center has been established in Vietnam's
Central Army Museum in Hanoi.
Oral History Program is designed to gain information from
the memories of Vietnamese participants of operations during
the war involving U.S. POWs or casualties.
More than 120 individuals have been identified for an
interview, and over half of the interviews have already been
conducted.
Priority Discrepancy Cases or ``last known alive cases''
are those cases where there is some indication that the
servicemen was ``last known alive'' subsequent to their loss
incident or was listed by their military service as POW at
Homecoming but did not return during Homecoming.
A total of 196 individuals in this category were presented
to the Vietnamese by General Vessey.
Total reduced to 135 by January 1992. The JTF-FA completed
an initial investigation of all cases by January 1993.
We established a Priority Case Investigation Team in June
1993 to focus solely on the remaining priority discrepancy
cases. This team has completed 34 follow-up investigations.
Policy review of additional information has resulted in a
fate determined status for 123 individuals of the original
196, as of January 1994. This leaves 73 priority discrepancy
cases requiring further investigation.
Twenty-four individuals have been accounted for through
remains identification and have been removed from the list of
POW/MIAs.
Although the other 99 individuals members have been removed
from the priority discrepancy list, they are still considered
unaccounted for and remain on the overall list of 2,238. We
will continue to search for their remains.
A Special Remains Team was formed in the fall of 1993 to
focus on those cases where the possibility of remains
recovery appears best. The team works continuously,
independently of JFAs, in Vietnam and has thus far focused on
those who died in captivity. This team has recommended seven
reported burial sites for excavation.
Americans accounted for through remains identification:
Vietnam--281 (including 1 recovered from indigenous
personnel); China--2; Laos--59 (including 3 recovered from
indigenous personnel); Cambodia--3; total=345.
Americans unaccounted for in Southeast in Asia: Vietnam--
1,647; Laos--505; Cambodia--78; China--8; total=2,238.
Totals from WW II: 78,000; Korea: 8,140 (KIA/BNR).
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is a history of movement with the
Vietnamese. You can go back to 1973 and there were 591 American POW's
returned. In 1974, they repatriated 24 remains, people who died in
captivity. In 1975, Saigon fell; our forces gone. From 1976 to 1978,
there were very few things that went on. From 1978 to 1982, total
breakdown, nothing happened. From 1982 to 1987, some engagement but no
real progress. And, finally, General John Vessey goes over there. The
whole task force is put together, and then in October 1992, just to
give an example, Secretary Cheney and Secretary Eagleburger met with
the Vietnamese and they confronted the Vietnamese with documents that
we had obtained from Vietnamese archives. How did we get the documents
from the archives? They let us into the archives. We got the documents.
The documents showed us things, so the Secretaries meet with them and
General Vessey then returned to Vietnam.
As a result, the Vietnamese agreed to collect and present to us
related materials consolidated in the military museums and pull it
together. I could go through here step for step, page for page, because
that is where the pages are filled with the things that General Vessey
was able to negotiate and get out of the Vietnamese which have given
answers to families.
Despite all the Rambos running around this country who raise money
and have spent incredible amounts of citizens' money claiming they are
going to bring back live prisoners, they are going to get
accountability, they have not provided one answer to one family. Not
one. And in 20 years, the Rambos have not brought out one live
prisoner. General Vessey has provided answers. From 196 cases, we are
now down to 73. For those 116 or 120 families, they know what happened.
General Vessey is telling us today: Lift this embargo so you do not
jeopardize further the process, so you can enhance it.
I think the Senator from Arizona made an important point in
underscoring that. I know other colleagues want to speak, so I will
yield the floor.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee,
is recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first, I want to say obviously this is an
issue that stirs deep emotions, and I can understand fully the
viewpoints of the major proponents of this legislation, the Senator
from New Hampshire and the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator
from Arizona.
Next, I would like to say that I think it is important to know who
the sponsors are of this amendment. I do not think there are two more
distinguished veterans of the Vietnam war than the two Senators,
Senator Kerry from Massachusetts and Senator McCain from Arizona. We
are familiar with their records. Not that what they say should be the
total gospel but, nonetheless, the fact is that those two Senators--one
a prisoner of war for a good number of years over there, the other with
a very distinguished war record in the Navy in Vietnam--are the key
sponsors of this resolution.
It seems to me the key question we are facing up to tonight is how do
we get more information, the best possible information, on those
missing in action, the MIA's. It seems to me that is the central
question to the debate that we are engaged in. I would like to make
several points, if I might.
First, I do not think we can discount the fact that nearly every
codel, congressional delegation, Representatives and Senators, that
have visited Vietnam, I know of none that have come back saying other
than the fact that they believe the Vietnamese are cooperating fully.
If there are others, if there are some delegations that have come back
with a contrary view, I do not know who they are. Nor, Mr. President,
do I think we can set aside the judgment of those distinguished
officers, some retired, who have spent months and years on this problem
and have come to the conclusion that the Vietnamese are cooperating
fully.
General Needham's name has been mentioned several times, and Admiral
Larson and General Vessey. I, like many of the Senators, have not been
to Vietnam recently. So who do we depend upon? We depend upon those who
have been there and those who have spent a lot of time on this. This is
not just some flash visit by General Vessey: Go in, get the rapid tour,
leave after 2 days, and that is it. General Vessey has been there I do
not know how many times.
I must say, I have been impressed with the number of visits that
Senator Kerry has made and, indeed, Senator Smith likewise. During the
summertime when the rest of us are off on some vacation, when you turn
on the television, there is Senator Kerry making his sixth or seventh
trip--I believe is it eight trips--eight trips Senator Kerry has made.
So this is a deep passion of his to do everything he can to find what
has happened to the MIA's there. This is very influential on the rest
of us. So we have respect for their judgment, and their judgment has
been the time has come now to lift the trade embargo against Vietnam.
The second point I think is a very important one. Do we not wish to
reward in some small way the Government of Vietnam that has been
cooperative? We have said to them: If you cooperate, meet these
conditions, then we will lift the trade embargo.
They have done that. So what do we say? ``No, no, there is another
hurdle out there for you?'' Or do we say, ``yes, we respect what you
have done and we will lift that trade embargo.'' But the next point, it
seems to me, is very important. It has been made, but I would like to
stress it again. Lifting the trade embargo is not a total lift of all
the restrictions against Vietnam. We still do not diplomatically
recognize that country. Vietnam is extremely anxious to achieve
diplomatic recognition. That is something different from lifting the
trade embargo.
The lifting of the trade embargo means we will trade with Vietnam,
but it does not mean we will have full diplomatic relations. That is
another reward, if you would, that we can grant to the Vietnamese later
if they are even more forthcoming than has been stated to date by those
who have been involved much deeper in this than I have.
Fourth, will this amendment diminish the chances for more information
on the MIA's? Not in my judgment, for two reasons. First, it seems to
me by rewarding in this modest way, lifting of the trade embargo, we
are encouraging even greater cooperation. There are those who are in
the Vietnamese Government who just find it too much effort, too lazy to
do it or do not want to cooperate. There is a bureaucratic struggle, I
am sure, within Vietnam: Yes, do something and cooperate further with
those Americans. You could get something out of it. And there are those
undoubtedly within the Vietnamese Government who are saying do not do
anything more; they will not reward you in any fashion anyway.
So we are saying to those who are for the fullest cooperation, this
is what we will give you. We will give you this lifting of the trade
embargo and maybe later restoration of diplomatic relations. That is
the first point.
But the second point--and I know Senator Smith is entirely sincere in
everything he says, but he just brushed aside this fact--is that more
information will be found in that country when there are more Americans
around there. I strongly believe that. I think the best way to get more
information about MIA's in Vietnam is to have Americans across the
countryside, even if it is trying to sell pumps in some small village.
All the Americans that will come there for further trade are not going
to be off shore drilling oil wells. They are going to be trying to sell
automobiles. They are going to be trying to sell tractors. They are
going to be trying to sell backhoes. They are going to be trying to
sell telecommunications equipment. In my judgment, the best way to get
more information is to have these Americans spread across the country.
Now, fifth, Mr. President, regrettably, there cannot ever be a full
accounting of every MIA. Just think of it. From World War II, there are
still 78,000 Americans who are missing. I would just like to give a
tiny illustration, if I might, of an incident that struck home with me.
When World War II came, I left college along with another college
classmate. We were acquaintances. We were not close friends. We both
went into the Marine Corps together--not together, but we both went
into the Marine Corps. We both joined the First Marine Division, both
landed in Guadalcanal on August 7, 1942. He, Russ Whittlesey, was
killed in September of 1942 on Guadalcanal. Because of the fluid
situation, his body was found and was buried very quickly because of
the situation that then existed.
Three months later we conquered Guadalcanal. We had driven away or
killed all the Japanese that were there. We had control of the island.
Our lines and the place where Russ Whittlesey was buried were fairly
well known--not exactly; we did not find his body, not that I was
personally searching for it, but the graves registration unit of our
division was. So he was carried as missing. They knew he had been
killed, but they never found his body.
In 1989, 47 years after Russ Whittlesey was killed, a farmer was
plowing and struck and found his remains.
Now, the point I am making, Mr. President, sad though it is, we will
not find the remains of every single American soldier who is missing in
action in Vietnam. Regrettably, that is true.
Now, the sixth point. What do we gain in the United States from the
lifting of this trade embargo? It in my judgment improves our
opportunity to learn more about the MIA's that are there. That, of
course, is the essential point of the discussion we are having this
evening. Senator Smith's credentials as being probusiness he set forth.
But it seems to me that it is important to remember that this is a
tremendous market that exists. We will not lose out on that market by
moving forward to lifting this trade embargo. We are not going to
diminish our chances for finding out more about the MIA's there, and it
will give us a chance to get across the countryside at the same time to
sell our goods.
This is a tremendous country. If I asked those on the Senate floor
today what is the population of Vietnam--if I would have asked that of
myself several months ago, I would have come up with the answer ``32
million,'' just trying to figure roughly.
The population of Vietnam is 72 million. It is a very big nation. I
think it is a nation with which it behooves us to have better relations
for a whole series of reasons. Our relationship with China, our
relationships with all the nations of Southeast Asia, it seems to me,
are affected to a great degree by what our relations are with Vietnam.
So for these reasons, because most of all and principally it is going
to give us a better chance to find out more about the missing in action
and, second, that there are markets there which provide jobs for
Americans, I think we should take this first step--not a total step,
not diplomatic recognition, but the lifting of the trade embargo, which
I think is in the best interests of the United States of America and
those families who still have that pain and sorrow for some loved one
within their family who is an MIA.
I thank the Chair.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], is
recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
put before us by Senator Kerry.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRASSLEY. If I do not lose my right to the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Simply for a point here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
Mr. GRASSLEY. How long is the Senator going to take?
Mr. KERRY. I am not going to take very much time at all. I simply
want to inquire whether or not it might be possible now--Senator
Mitchell, the majority leader, has informed me he intends for us to
stay and vote on this this evening. The issue is, therefore, whether or
not we could reach a time agreement, which we are perfectly happy to
enter into over here. I wanted to inquire how long the Senator from
Iowa wished to speak, and perhaps we can just make an allowance here
and get everybody in and create an agreement, and then we can tell
colleagues when it is we would vote.
Mr. GRASSLEY. At the outside, I would say roughly 15, maybe 12 to 15
minutes.
Mr. KERRY. How much time does the Senator from New Hampshire think he
needs in total?
Mr. SMITH. Probably a half an hour, but I would want to confer with
the minority leader before entering into an agreement, because he is a
cosponsor with me. He is one of the original cosponsors of my
amendment.
Mr. KERRY. This would not be a time agreement on the Senator's
amendment. This would simply be a time agreement on the current and
pending amendment. Therefore, the Senator's rights with respect to his
amendment, of which Senator Dole is a cosponsor, would be totally
protected. The question simply is whether or not we could arrange a
time which we could enter into now so we could have a vote on this.
Then we could inform our colleagues so they can plan accordingly. If
the Senator needs half an hour, say, and the Senator from Iowa needs 15
minutes, if we were to say an hour on that side and an hour on this
side----
Mr. MURKOWSKI. This Senator is going to need a half hour.
Mr. KERRY. The Senator from Alaska needs a half hour?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska would ask a half hour.
Mr. KERRY. A half hour, and I know 5 minutes for the Senator from
Rhode Island, and the Senator from Maryland?
Ms. MIKULSKI. No more than 10 minutes, probably less.
Mr. KERRY. So again on this side, if you wanted to agree on a time
limit of 2 hours equally divided, we would be agreeable to enter into
that.
Mr. SMITH. I will attempt to confer with the minority leader on that
request while Senator Grassley is speaking.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the debate on this amendment is not
about whether there is evidence that U.S. servicemen were left behind
in Indochina. That question was the one that the POW-MIA Select
Committee grappled with in 1991-1992. We tried to answer that question.
We left a very extensive record to deal with on that question.
We had disagreements on certain issues. And we found consensus on a
lot of other issues.
Rather, I think the debate on this Kerry amendment is about whether
we can truthfully say that the families of our missing have received
the fullest possible accounting of their loved ones. I think the answer
is, obviously, no.
There are some who say that the Vietnamese have shown somehow
incredible rare openness and a rare amount of cooperation to provide us
with information.
As a matter of fact, you can say Vietnam has provided us with some
information, helmets, photographs, artifacts and the like. But my
colleagues and the public cannot fully understand what it is that the
Vietnamese gave us unless they also know what the Vietnamese did not
give us. So let me explain.
To say that the Vietnamese are cooperating is a relative assertion.
Compared to what, I ask? Certainly photos and helmets are an enormous
breakthrough compared to nothing, which is what we were getting prior
to that unseemly exhibition last October. Those who fell all over
themselves to assign a great significance to the Vietnamese gesture
must certainly recognize its hollowness now. For sure, the rest of the
world recognizes it is a hollow gesture.
How many cases were resolved as a result of 700 photos? Just a
handful--just a handful out of 2,200-plus cases.
For the benefit of my colleagues, for the benefit of families, and
for the benefit of the public, I would like to describe the categories
of information that Vietnam has. We learned of the existence of these
categories through interviews during the select committee's
investigation.
The first level of information is archival, related to military
history. This is information in museums and such like that. Even
Vietnamese citizens have access to much of this information. It would
include photos and it would include helmets of pilots such as we saw
trotted out last fall by the Vietnamese. This is the first level of
information, and I might say it is the least useful.
Next, there are the provincial wartime records of shoot-downs. This
information is an accounting of the date, the time, and the location of
each shoot-down of an American plane out somewhere in the countryside
of Vietnam. It also provides data on the type of aircraft and the
status of the pilot and the crew.
These are official unit records of the antiaircraft corps of Vietnam.
The utility of this information is, among other things, to crosscheck
the status of our MIA's with our own records of the U.S. Government.
Finally, there is the national security information. Here I refer to
central committee-level documents. These contain in essence the Vietnam
national secrets on U.S. prisoner activity and information thereto.
This information is what would tell us what happened to our prisoners
and to our missing.
It is important to know first off that Vietnam denied the existence
of any information whatsoever of this data. So did our crack
investigative outfit on this issue, the Defense Intelligence Agency or
DIA. Yet, as I will show, somehow the information started to appear.
In April 1992, a delegation from the select committee went to
Indochina seeking answers and documentation. I was one of them. We were
told politely that there was no information available, not even photos,
and helmets, and all that stuff that they produced just 6 months later.
Obviously, it was a bald-faced lie. It took creating an international
scandal before the Vietnamese would eventually part with even this low
level category of data. And they did not provide this information
government to government. They somehow, accidentally, let me say, let
us find it through some person who was described as a researcher.
This, I remind my colleagues, was information that the Defense
Intelligence Agency insisted did not exist.
Throughout the rest of 1992 and 1993, the Vietnamese still claimed to
have no new information. Meanwhile, there were high expectations on the
part of Vietnam that the embargo would be lifted in September of 1993
on the 20th anniversary. But the Clinton administration, although
softening the embargo somewhat, however, wisely rejected a push by the
bureaucracy and these business interests to lift that embargo.
The President's rationale was that the Vietnamese had failed to be
fully forthcoming. But now a very funny thing happened thereafter, Mr.
President. Subsequent to September 1993 with President Clinton playing
hardball, let me emphasize--with the President playing hardball--lo and
behold, a second level data on our MIA's and the provincial unit
records began to surface. Like the earlier channel, the channel used to
pass this information was not the usual government to government one.
But this time instead of them allowing us to accidentally find the
data, they channeled it through a humanitarian effort; that is to the
same joint task force that has been digging up their countryside
looking for remains. This data has been streaming in steadily since
last fall. It shows date and location of incidents, time of aircraft,
and status of pilot and crew. Some of it conflicts with information the
U.S. Government had on specific MIA's, and the extent of that conflict
I think is useful information for us.
How did this information just happen to show up, Mr. President?
The answer is because the administration, meaning the Clinton
administration, played hardball and caused them to cough up the data.
Yet, this is the very same data that both the Vietnamese and the DIA
said did not exist. Now we know that it does exist.
So in summary, the only information that we have received so far from
Vietnam about our MIA's is museum pieces and military historical
records.
Now, Mr. President, let me outline the information that we do not
have. I am sure that this will be of immense interest to the families,
to the public, to the intelligence community and to my colleagues. We
have no provincial prison records, no national prison records, no
national leadership records, no list of prisons and who was kept where
and what was done with them during the war.
No dossiers on prisoners; nothing from the Ministry of Interior which
is their security department; no decision papers; no position papers;
no ministerial directives. In short, then, we have nothing from
Vietnam's files. All we have is what we know from our files. We provide
the Vietnamese with what we know and they comment on it. To me, that is
not cooperation; it is not the type of cooperation that I have heard
described here on the floor of this body by the sponsors of this
amendment.
The Vietnamese have not even given us their list of prisoners. We
merely gave them our list and asked them to comment. We presented them
with the last-known-alive list, and they commented on it. That is like
trying to piece together a very difficult puzzle. That is a far cry
from providing us records and documents and letting records and
documents tell us what happened. What is so sensitive now about a
twenty-year-old wartime record and their handling of prisoners 20 years
ago? What should be so sensitive about that? The bottom line is that we
are operating over there almost exclusively on our own data and,
taxpayers, get this: We are paying the Vietnamese for the privilege of
digging up their countryside for remains. Some of the prices we are
paying would make $1,800 toilet seats that the DOD buys seem very
reasonable.
Mr. President, they have denied us all of this information, despite
the fact that the United States recently turned over to them--our
Government turned over to the Vietnamese--3 million pages of the same
type of data that we had on their prisoners. Is it not reasonable to
expect the same thing in return before we go about proclaiming the
Vietnamese's total cooperation to our efforts?
In light of all this, Mr. President, I wonder how many among us can
face their constituents and families of MIA's and say, yes, the
Vietnamese have reasonably been fully forthcoming. The immediate
question is: If pressure on Vietnam made them disclose the first and
second levels of information, why would we lift the embargo now, before
we get their national security data, the data similar to what we gave
them recently, and the kind of data reflected in the Russian document
that our DIA--that crack investigative unit that we rely on probably
more than we should--predictably claimed that it has been debunked.
There is a document that with everything else in it, they do not have
any question; but anything that refers to our POW's in Vietnam,
somehow, it just is not factual. They find fault with it. But
everything else in the document was OK.
That ought to tell you something about our people, whose major
responsibility is to see that we carry out our obligation to get this
information out to satisfy the families yearning for this information.
Because Vietnam has not been forthcoming with information, we should
continue to hold out, just as President Clinton did in September, until
that third level of information, accidentally received or otherwise,
finds its way into our hands. If we do not continue to press for full
disclosure, what incentive does Vietnam have to fully cooperate and
fully disclose? We owe it to the families and to those who will fight
for America in the future, to those whom we told we will neither
forsake nor forget.
Furthermore, Mr. President, if we move ahead with lifting the
embargo, without full disclosure by Vietnam, we will be rewarding
Vietnam, while ignoring their human rights abuses. I have heard the
distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, State this point
over and over again, and we should listen to what he says about this.
We have stress over human rights issues in China. In fact, our
Secretary of State, just 2 days ago, was talking to the Chinese in
Paris about improving their record if they want this body to keep most-
favored-nation status going. Why that concern about China? Why not the
concern about human rights in Vietnam? I do not know.
Vietnamese citizens are unable to express their discontent. You may
remember that, recently, Senator Robb was unable to gain access to a
political prisoner that he sought to meet with in Vietnam.
There continues to be a tight public security operation in Vietnam.
The Vietnamese people continue to suffer hardships and abuses.
Meanwhile, information is abundant that more liberal political factions
in Vietnam are increasingly threatening to replace the old Communist
guard. If we lift the embargo, we reward that old guard. Human rights
abuses will continue, Mr. President. Surely, this is not in America's
interest. It is not in the world's interest, and it does not speak very
well of the consistency of our moral leadership in the world community
of nations when we keep stressing freedom.
Last night, that was a strong point that President Clinton made in
his State of the Union message. It was a strong point that I think we
all believe. It is a strong point that ought to be considered in this
debate. These are all legitimate reasons, Mr. President, why we must
support the Dole-Smith amendment, which I hope we will get a chance to
vote on and defeat. Lifting the embargo is not right, not for the
families, not for the missing, not for tomorrow's servicemen, and not
for our country. We have a moral obligation to deliver on our promise
of the fullest possible accounting. Let me get one thing straight, Mr.
President, those who are pushing the embargo to be lifted are doing so
because they want it lifted, not because the problem has been solved.
The problem of the fullest possible disclosure by Vietnam is
unresolved because Vietnam has failed to cooperate as fully as they
have the capability of doing. They have responded to our economic
leverage. They have done it on level one and level two. Let us keep
that economic leverage there for level three information that we want.
We can force their hand and force them to deliver just as the President
did in September. Let us not take away the President's leverage to do
so again.
The strategy supported by the Dole-Smith amendment is empirical. Both
times we got information. We got it because we played hard ball. We can
do what works, or we can roll the dice. I think that it is a roll of
the dice if we follow the direction of the amendment now before the
Senate.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY. I want to take a moment before my two colleagues,
particularly the chairman, speak. I listened carefully to the Senator
from Iowa. I think one of the most important things here is to have
accuracy in the representations. In point of fact, the Senator has not
accurately represented documents that we have received. He said that we
ought to listen to Senator Bob Kerrey on the subject of human rights. I
agree. Bob Kerrey is an original cosponsor of this amendment. He is a
Medal of Honor winner, Vietnam veteran, and he believes we ought to
proceed forward here. Bob Kerrey has advocated human rights in Vietnam.
He believes we will do more for human rights by going in there and
being able to assert ourselves and press the issue of democratization
and freedom, which we do not do very effectively now. He will speak for
himself.
Let me point to corrections in the Record. I was on the trip where he
relates the Vietnamese said no information is available and they
somehow lied. They said they did not have the information available at
that time to get their hands on while we were there, but they were
going to begin a process of reaching out to their tradition houses,
archives, and their military personnel and get that information in.
That is precisely what has been happening. I think the Senator from
Iowa has made a marvelous argument for why we ought to lift the
embargo, because, in point of fact, he traced the history of how
documents came to surface. They came to surface because we had a person
working in their archive process. They knew it, and we knew it. They
chose to surface some of these materials through that person. Why?
Because this is still an authoritarian government. We all understand
that. They have their own tensions within their own government. There
are some people who do not want to deal with us. There are some people
who do. There are some people who do not want to put things out. There
are some who do.
We have that in our own departments. The Senator remembers how tough
it was to get the CIA to give us information. Remember how tough it was
to get the DIA to give us some information. This is not unique. We
understand the process of tug-of-war to get information.
The fact is all the information we have been able to get we get
because we have been able to be there. We have been able to discover
things. We have been able to confront them. And that is the process.
The Senator says we do not have prison records. That is not true. We
do have prison records. The Senator said we have no dossier on our
prisoners. I personally had certain medical records on our prisoners
turned over to us, and we hope those are going to help lead us to
further records on our prisoners.
In addition, he said we have no interior department records and no
records of some of the political records and shoot-downs.
I personally negotiated and pressed for what are called the group 559
documents that dealt with operations along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. In
addition to that, there is a group of documents called the 875
documents which are documents of the general political directorate
which come through the interior department and refer to our prisoners.
We are now receiving those documents. We have some of them in hand.
We think there may be more, but nobody knows to a certainty where or
how many more. We are going to continue to press that process.
So I come back. I think the Senator frankly has made an excellent
argument for how we have been able to produce these documents which is
exactly what we are saying. You get the document by getting access and
moving down the road through the cooperative effort.
I promised to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island who has been
waiting.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, will you let me engage the Senator for
60 seconds?
Mr. KERRY. I am delighted to. I do not want to put the Senator off. I
do not want to yield the floor. I am happy to respond.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I make clear that I cannot contest some
of these documents that he refers to, but we happen to know what
documents exist from our investigation. I want to make clear that I was
talking about a full and complete set.
We have some specific pieces here and there that we have gotten from
the department the Senator stated and dossiers and some prisons. But I
am talking about a full and complete as we know those records full and
complete exist. We do not have that sort of cooperation from them.
Then my last point is simply the Senator made an argument when he
states about it being an authoritarian government. It is for that
reason that I think we have to use the economic leverage or we will
never get any answers, and it is because they are authoritarian they
can get away with lying to us.
Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my colleague, I do not contest that we at
times have been lied to. I never asserted otherwise.
I am trying to create a structure where we can create an
accountability where there is not a lie.
As I said at the outset of my comments, there is nothing in the
approach of myself, Senator McCain, Senator Murkowski, and others, that
is based on trust. We would be fools if this was based on trust. This
is based on a process of how you verify.
But let me say to my colleague--he says, you know, we know what they
have or do not have. We know that they had certain records. We do not
know that they have them today. We cannot prove them today. No one can
prove they have them today.
The only way we are going to prove they have them today is by getting
into the process and discovering them and finding someone who is going
to give us a smoking gun. We can make all the conjecture we want about
what they do and do not have. The truth is we are not going to know
unless we are there, and that is the bottom line.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell], is
recognized.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I urge support for Senator Kerry and Senator
McCain's amendment stating it is the sense of the Congress that the
trade embargo with Vietnam should be lifted.
I have long endorsed lifting the trade embargo. Indeed, I would be
pleased to see the administration take even more dramatic steps. Early
last year Senator Lugar and I wrote to President Clinton recommending
that the trade embargo be lifted and appropriate steps taken toward the
normalization of relations with Vietnam, for many of the same reasons
just enumerated by Senators Kerry and McCain. I ask unanimous consent
that a copy of our letter and a letter from the chamber of commerce be
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I think it is interesting to note that every
Vietnam combat veteran among our body supports this amendment. It is
time to write an end to the Vietnam war. Continuation of the trade
embargo with Vietnam in this day and age in which American officials
negotiate with North Koreans and trade with the People's Republic of
China is measured in tens of billions of dollars is an anachronism.
Ending the trade embargo does not mean and end to the search for
those listed as missing in action or prisoners of war. In fact, it
means an intensified search as more Americans visit Vietnam. To the
team of American investigators now operating in Vietnam will be added
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of American businessmen and tourists. Any
shred of evidence of a live prisoner or the remains of someone missing
in action, I am certain, will surface more quickly than if we continue
to try to limit contact with Vietnam. I believe that lifting the trade
embargo will bring the best accounting possible of our MIA/POW's.
The United States alone maintains trade sanctions on Vietnam. As
others have noted, lifting the trade embargo would enable American
businesses to compete more effectively for the promising Vietnamese
market. Business is important. We all recognize that America must
export more if we are to grow as a Nation.
But equally important is the impact of American business on the
Vietnamese political and economic system. American business will
transform the landscape of Vietnamese society just as it is changing
China today. While both Chinese and Vietnamese officials may believe
that they can resist political changes even while pursuing economic
reform, I do not believe that they will be able to stem the tide of
political liberalization that comes with economic change. By lifting
the trade embargo, we have the opportunity eventually to see democracy
brought to all of Vietnam. Where once we fought for half a country, we
now have a chance to win all a country. We cannot afford to lose this
opportunity again.
Improving the human rights of the Vietnamese people, many of whom
fought beside our soldiers in the war, and resolving the remaining
cases of those missing-in-action should be the goal of our foreign
policy in Vietnam.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. At the same time I
urge President Clinton to lift the trade embargo and take steps toward
restoring full diplomatic relations with Vietnam. Let us seize the
future, not dwell in the past.
Particularly I bring to our attention focusing again on the fact that
all the Vietnam combat veterans in our body support this amendment. I
yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC, March 18, 1993.
Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to lift the
United States trade embargo on Vietnam and to not oppose
loans to Vietnam by international financial institutions. In
addition, we believe the United States should take
appropriate steps towards the normalization of relations with
Vietnam, including the establishment of a diplomatic liaison
office in Hanoi.
In our view such steps are warranted as well within the
policy parameters established by President Bush in the so-
called road map proposal for the normalization of relations
between the United States and Vietnam. In particular we note
that the Paris Peace Accords for the settlement of the
Cambodian conflict have been in effect for over a year and in
fact the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia
(UNTAC) is now contemplating the completion of its mission.
In addition, we believe a process has been established for
the resolution of the POW/MIA issue with Vietnam that has
already produced substantial results and promises to produce
even more progress over the coming years.
Further resolution of the POW/MIA issue would be aided by a
closer relationship with Vietnam. In this regard we would
support efforts to devote more American assets to the Joint
Recovery Task Force now operating in Vietnam. We certainly
believe that it is within Vietnam's capability to do much
more in assisting the resolution of this issue but we believe
the prospects for success will be enhanced through
intensified American and international contact with Vietnam.
In addition although we remain deeply concerned about
Vietnam's human rights situation, once again we believe that
we will have greater influence on Vietnam's human rights
situation with normalization than we would without such
relations. A similar situation prevails in China where
because of our extensive political and economic relationship
with China we maintain a dialogue on human rights and other
issues which has resulted in internal improvements.
The United States alone maintains trade sanctions on
Vietnam. Lifting the trade embargo would enable American
business to compete more effectively with other countries and
other international businesses for the promising Vietnamese
market.
We believe that an aggressive and enlightened bilateral and
multilateral dialogue with Vietnam will eventually result in
democratic change in Vietnam and achieve a more complete
resolution of the POW/MIA issue. For those Americans deeply
concerned about those issues we believe that there is only
one policy course. Therefore, we encourage you to take
immediate steps to end Vietnam's economic and political
isolation from the world community.
With every good wish.
Every sincerely,
Claiborne Pell,
Chairman.
Richard G. Lugar,
U.S. Senator.
____
U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, DC, January 25, 1994.
Hon. Claiborne Pell,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Pell: During consideration of H.R. 1281, the
State Department Authorization Bill, amendments will be
raised dealing with the current U.S. economic sanctions
against Vietnam. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges your
support for the amendment proposed by Senators Kerry, McCain,
Murkowski, Robb and others which requests that the President
lift all sanctions prohibiting non-strategic trade and
investment with Vietnam.
Given the ongoing liberalization of Vietnam's economy and
its cooperation with the United States regarding POWs/MIAs
and the situation in Cambodia, the U.S. foreign policy
rationale for continuing sanctions against Vietnam is no
longer persuasive. In fact, of 200 POW/MIA discrepancy cases,
more than 120 have been resolved to the satisfaction of the
U.S. government and the families involved. Lifting the
embargo would speed resolution of the remaining bilateral
issues more effectively than maintaining sanctions that only
serve to damage the economic position of the United States.
A continuation of the U.S. trade embargo against Vietnam
will only serve to restrict U.S. business from competing in
the region now and in the future. Most of our major trading
partners have been trading in Vietnam for some time,
positioning themselves to take advantage of a potentially
lucrative and dynamic export market, while U.S. companies
with competitive products are forced to sit on the sidelines.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Federation of 215,000
businesses, 3,000 local and state chambers of commerce, 1,200
trade and professional associations, and 68 American Chambers
of Commerce abroad urges your support for this amendment
requesting an immediate lifting of the U.S. trade embargo
with Vietnam.
Sincerely,
William T. Archey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland, [Ms. Mikulski].
Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Mr. President, for many years I have supported the efforts to get a
full and complete accounting of our missing in action from the Vietnam
war. As a woman in both the House and the Senate, my heart went out to
the families of the MIA's whose wives, mothers, and daughters never
knew what happened to their loved ones, also particularly to the sons
and daughters who never even knew their dad because he was missing in
action when they were either a child or before they were born.
These gallant, brave families have faced at every step over the last
2\1/2\ decades resistance, rejection, and even stonewalling of their
efforts by the Vietnamese Government and often they got little help or
little support from their own United States Government. They feel hurt.
They always feel abandonment.
At the same time, I have always supported our Vietnam veterans, those
who vote, those who died, and many who bear the permanent wounds of
war. My support has not been by words but I have tried to do it by
deeds.
I chaired the subcommittee that funds the Appropriations Committee
for the veterans programs. I have tried to fund the benefit package
that was promised to them and to really move health care to a world-
class status.
I have voted to create the POW/MIA committee within the Senate and
voted to sustain that committee.
For me, the men and women who served in Vietnam are special. So many
were working class families, and in my own neighborhood, I have been to
their funerals, and I have been to their parades. My mother's very best
friend's son, a graduate of West Point, was killed in Vietnam. His name
is Frankie Schap. Right now he would be in his late forties, and what
we have of Frankie, or I should say Captain Schap, is his name engraved
on the Vietnam memorial and engraved in the families of a Polish
American neighborhood who were so proud the day he went to West Point,
the day he graduated from West Point, and we then remember the day he
came home from Vietnam in a casket.
So I have been on the side of the men and women who were there,
whether it was the women at China Beach or the men at the Mekong Delta.
So now we are faced with what should we do about this vote on lifting
the embargo. My first impulse is to vote no, absolutely no. Then I had
to examine what will get us to the accounting of what we want.
For 25 years we followed the policy of no communication, no
cooperation, and the pursuit of isolation with Vietnam, with economic
sanctions, punishments and embargoes. We got nowhere. But then, under
President Reagan and then amplified by President Bush, there was the
policy of small steps, of communication and confidence building, led
primarily by General Vessey. And there have been openings. There has
been more accounting. There has been more information during the last 5
years.
We have the information that was brought to us by General Vessey, a
decorated hero who himself served gallantly in Vietnam, who outlined
the steps that he thought were achieved during his leadership in
heading the Bush effort on confidence building and small steps. Senator
Kerry, John Kerry, has shared with us the facts about many of those;
that from 1975 to 1988, very little happened; that under the then
Vessey effort, the MIA task force was able to go out into the community
to dig for remains; that Vessey presented 196 cases, and now, of those,
we have 120 whose fates have been determined.
We now have our own U.S. military on the ground and the MIA task
force that is going into villages actually able to dig into the grounds
where there have been the last sightings to pursue remains. I have been
told that we have in the U.S. military one who has an unlimited pass to
go into the archival information.
These have been important steps. Are they the only steps? Oh, no, no.
Has what has happened in the last 5 years been enough? The answer is
no. We want a full and complete accounting.
But the Vietnamese tell us if you give in the economic area, you will
get even more cooperation, information, access, and accounting.
Well, should we trust the Vietnamese, I ask? Well, I do not think
this is about trust. I think it is about a testing, a testing of the
Vietnamese. If they say they will give more, then I believe we should
test it.
Let us not kid ourselves. Vietnam is a very, very nasty place. It is
still a totalitarian regime. It still has considerable human rights
abuses. I think we all know that there has been a crackdown on freedom
of speech, that there has been an imprisonment of nonviolent dissenters
and religious dissenters. We know there have been other abuses relating
to children and women. So we know that Vietnam is no garden of
paradise.
As to our MIA's, I really do not know if any MIA's are alive. But I
do believe that the Vietnamese know more than they are telling and I do
believe that the Vietnamese could do more than they are doing now.
Are any alive? Well, I do not know. But I do know and I do believe
that there is more information in the field. I believe that there is
more information in the files. I do believe that there is more
information in the archives. And I also do not want to abandon those
MIA's who are missing or their families.
I was mesmerized by a book by Mary Stevens called ``Kiss the Boys
Good-bye'' in which she delineated the possibilities of even more
findings in Vietnam.
I know the work, the hard work, of the POW-MIA Committee--Chairman
Kerry, John McCain, Chuck Grassley, Bob Smith, Tom Daschle, Nancy
Kassebaum. It is a rollcall of honor in the way they did such due
diligence on that committee.
But now I think we are not talking about goals. We all agree on the
goals. There needs to be an ongoing, continued, unrelenting pursuit for
a full and complete accounting.
But what we are debating here is about means and about means to be
achieved in a timely way. So I have come to the conclusion that it is
time to roll the dice, to test the Vietnamese, to challenge them to
step up, but at the same time as we challenge them, that we let them
know we are not capitulating to them.
Why am I willing to lift the embargo? I am willing to lift it because
this is not the final step in our relationship with Vietnam. It is only
a tool right now. Right now, the Vietnamese want normalization. They
want a full diplomatic relationship. They will probably want MFN. I am
sure they are going to want to be in GATT.
By lifting the embargo, we give this a chance. We give this a test,
even though we do not have trust. We can issue a challenge to put up,
even though we do not capitulate, nor do we abandon our MIA's.
And if they fail to do more, to tell more, to cooperate more, we in
Congress can block any further steps towards normalization, diplomatic
relationships, MFN or membership in the GATT, all those things that
they want.
There is a struggle going on in Vietnam between the old guard and the
new guard, and 60 percent of the population in Vietnam is under the age
of 24. They were born after the Vietnam war came to a close.
The time now, I think, is not to punish this new generation for the
sins of their fathers. We need to see if this new guard will cooperate
with us in a way that the old guard has not.
So let us give it a try. Yes, let us gamble. I will always continue
to stand with those MIA families, with our Vietnam vets. But let me say
I want to stand with the Vietnam vets and the U.S. Congress who call
for the lifting of the embargo. I believe we could lift the bamboo
curtain to find out that which has been hidden and held secret for more
than 25 years.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder, Mr. President, if the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee is waiting to speak?
Mr. PELL. I have spoken. Thank you.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I must have stepped out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Senator from Alaska is
recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to join with my distinguished
colleagues on both sides of this issue who have a genuine commitment to
the highest obligation of government, and that is the issue of full
accountability for American servicemen who are unaccounted for from the
Vietnam war.
I would also like to advise my colleagues, some of whom have come
into the Senate in the last few years, that I am no stranger to this
particular issue. Back in 1986, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, I held extensive hearings on the matter of MIA/POW full
accountability and encouraged extended testimony, which the record in
the Veterans Affairs Committee supports. As part of those hearings, I
worked with the League of Missing Families and other veterans'
organizations in an effort to collect as much information as possible
on the issue of POWs/MIAs from the Vietnam war.
Mr. President, I cannot tell you the anguish that Senator Cranston
and I had--at that time, we were in the majority and Senator Cranston
was the ranking member of that committee--as day by day we hoped that
we would receive some firsthand information on charges that American
soldiers were left behind at the end of the war and were being held
against their will in Vietnamese prisons.
At the hearings, we had situations where witnesses would come in and
testify that they had access to films showing Americans in prison
camps, chained together in gold mines, even. They also testified that
there was some kind of subterfuge, some type of CIA plot to withhold
this information from the American people. It was agonizing.
The reason I go into this is to suggest to you that many of those who
have spoken today on this subject have been thinking about this issue
for quite some time. Of course, those who served as prisoners of war in
Vietnam such as my colleague Senator McCain have a very special
message. And my friend from New Hampshire also has a point of view
based on his service in Vietnam and his examination of the record, and
I think his viewpoint deserves consideration.
But I ask all of my colleagues, as we discuss this issue today, to
recognize that we are also discussing the conscience of America with
regard to the Vietnam war. It was a time that was very unpleasant in
the memories of Americans who were of that era. It is also, if you
will, a debate on the outcome of that war, which is not a very pleasant
matter to reflect upon.
But this is also a debate about the future. I also ask my colleagues
to recognize that there is a new generation both in America and in
Vietnam who were not even born when this war was fought. It is a new
era. It is a new generation. I was particularly moved by the comments
of the Senator from Maryland, who reminded us that the average age of
the 72 million people in Vietnam is 24 years old.
I also think that we have to face reality in this discussion. The
reality that while 2,238 American soldiers remain unaccounted for today
in Vietnam, we have made substantial progress because in 1973 that
figure was 2,583. To put this figure in further perspective, in the
Korean war those unaccounted for total 8,177; in World War II, 78,794;
in World War I, 1,648.
The fullest possible accounting for our POW's/MIA's is the Nation's
highest obligation. I think this is one aspect of U.S. policy that all
of my colleagues would agree with. But the embargo, the sanctions, have
proven to be counterproductive to that goal. The American presence
which we have had in Vietnam, with the presence of the MIA task force,
as well--and this is not generally known, Mr. President--as well as the
presence of three State Department personnel in Hanoi who are assisting
the visits of Americans to Vietnam--have given us the ability to
communicate in ways that were not possible when we completely isolated
Vietnam. And with this communication has come additional information
related to resolving POW/MIA cases.
I am not satisfied with our progress in obtaining the fullest
possible accounting. But I believe that further progress is now
inhibited by the continued isolationist policies of the past. Is it not
ironic as we debate here in this Chamber on the merits of most-favored-
nation status for China that we talk of continuing an isolationist
policy against Vietnam? The logic of most-favored-nation status for
China is that we want to maintain communications with the Chinese so
that we can bring about change, so that we can bring about advancements
in human rights. But for some reason or another, we do not apply this
same logic to Vietnam even though we do want to bring about change in
Vietnam. We want to bring about human rights improvements. We want to
bring about democracy. And we want to bring about the fullest possible
accounting for servicemen still unaccounted for in Vietnam.
United States ability to exert leverage on Vietnamese leaders to meet
our demands, in my opinion, has diminished because other countries are
not standing still. They are moving into Vietnam. They have established
diplomatic and trading relations. As a matter of fact, 120 countries
have normal relations with Vietnam, including all our former allies
during the war.
The question we have to ask is, will we make more progress if there
is more access? And the answer is clearly yes. The evidence proves that
point. We had an isolationist policy for 19 years. Then, 3 years ago,
we began to take small steps to end that isolation. Now we are talking
about finally changing that isolationist approach. I would venture to
say we have been on that tack long enough. As we have established a
presence, we have made more progress in what our obligation is, and
that is full accountability.
I was in the military between 1955 and 1957, between the Korean and
Vietnamese wars. I was in the U.S. Coast Guard, so I do not speak as a
prisoner of war or one who fought during that war. But again, my
commitment as chairman of the Veterans' Committee in holding hearings
on this issue in 1986 has given me a unique sensitivity of the
obligation that we have the families whose loved ones were lost during
the war. We have a responsibility to ease the suffering of these
families by obtaining the fullest possible accounting, and not losing
sight of that goal.
I was in Vietnam in 1986. I was fortunate enough to bring back with
me two children who had not seen their mother for approximately 6
years. It was a very moving experience. I was in Vietnam again in
December of this year. I cannot tell you the change that has occurred
in that country. The contrast between the circumstances at the time
that I held hearings in 1986 and what has happened today is remarkable.
In 1986, we had no firsthand information because we had no access, no
communication, no presence in Vietnam. The situation was of grave
concern to me and Senator Cranston and to the League of Families and
others who participated.
Then, in 1991, General Vessey was sent to Vietnam by George Bush to
begin a formal process with the Vietnamese to resolve the fates of
American servicemen. My colleagues have articulated the progress that
has occurred since the Vessey mission.
You will also recall that during the Bush administration we had the
roadmap toward normalization of relations with Vietnam. We laid down
certain terms and conditions that the Vietnamese had to meet before the
President would improve relations. The conditions included withdrawal
from Cambodia, recognition of human rights, of course full
accountability for the fates of American servicemen.
Then, somewhere along the way we changed the goal post. On Cambodia,
for example, we said first, that they must withdraw from Cambodia. Then
we said, no, no, Vietnamese, we want you to use your influence in
Cambodia. But even with changed goal posts, the Vietnamese met, for the
most part, the requirements that we set down. And we make no apologies
for that.
At the time the roadmap was initiated, we had a policy of no
communication, no presence. We could not travel to crash sites. We
could not interview Vietnamese citizens and officials. Americans could
not spend over $100 in Vietnam. It was against the law.
But that situation changed as we increased contacts with the
Vietnamese. United States personnel now have access to the Vietnamese
Government's military archives and to its prisons. U.S. personnel in
Hanoi now travel freely to the crash sites and interview Vietnamese
citizens and officials.
So we have had positive progress and positive cooperation in the last
3 years and that is a direct result of increased access in Vietnam:
General Vessey's mission, the Joint Task Force Full Accounting Office
in Hanoi, the unofficial presence of our State Department, and the
presence of U.S. business personnel and tourists traveling in the
country.
The more access Americans have in Vietnam, be it diplomatic,
commercial, journalistic, academic, or humanitarian, the stronger the
links between America and Vietnam will become, the more open the
Vietnamese society will become, and the more likely we are to finally
address the issue of full accountability.
Full accountability is something that is a bit in the eyes of the
beholder because we will never be able to fully account for all the
2,238 that we list as unaccounted for. Obviously, some were lost at
sea, some were lost in fires. That does not relieve us of the
obligation of fullest possible accounting, it simple means reality
dictates that we may not account for every single POW/MIA case.
That leads me to reflect on where we are today in this discussion. If
now is not the time to lift the embargo, when is? When are we going to
be able to stand here objectively and say that we have achieved full
accountability? Does that mean that we will not relax the sanctions
against Vietnam until we have been able to account for every one of the
2,238? I would like to stand here and say yes, that is correct, Mr.
President, but reality dictates that we will never be able to fully
account for every serviceman classified as POW/MIA.
But we do have a process going on to resolve every case possible, and
it is a process that I think more Americans should appreciate and
understand.
I know Senator McCain, Senator Kerry, Senator Smith and others have
seen the accounting process. The point that I want to communicate is
that this interaction that we have established with the Vietnamese is
resulting in uncovering additional information. And as the Vietnamese
society opens up to a U.S. presence, there is no point, there is no
rationale, to conceal information.
The last trip I made to Vietnam convinced me that the time has come
to use engagement, if you will, and not isolation, to fully resolve the
fates of missing Americans. Two impressions stuck in my mind from that
trip: One is the tremendous dedication of the Joint Task Force Full
Accounting that is in Hanoi. The progress that I was referring to
earlier is the result of the hard work of the task force. They have
reduced the number of incidents to be investigated from 1,116 to 119.
This systematic process involves following up on information, for
example, that someone was seen shot down parachuting 20 years ago. A
task force goes out in the field, they go to the villages, they
interview witnesses. They take that case and continue to work on it
until they either have identified remains or other evidence of the fate
of the serviceman, or until they have exhausted leads. It is such an
impressive process that I urge all my colleagues to read the reports of
the joint task force.
The Joint Task Force also has resolved a number of the high priority,
discrepancy cases. The number of discrepancy cases has decreased from
196 to less than 80.
I note also Mr. President, most of these people, that make up these
teams are Vietnam veterans. If there is any group that has a greater
motivation, I do not know who it is.
The joint task force also has reviewed a tremendous number of
archival documents: 23,000 pieces have been examined. Further, the
joint task force has presented findings to the families of the POW/
MIA's: 5,614 notifications to approximately 900 families.
I was particularly moved by the statement of Lieutenant Colonel
Flanagan, the deputy commander of the joint task force, who told me:
``More Americans need to come over here and see how it really is and
then go back and tell other Americans about the progress and the
cooperation that is occurring here.''
I agree with the Colonel. Therefore, I plan to propose to this body
that we take the families of our MIA's, at the Government's expense and
using Government transportation, to Hanoi to meet with this team so
that they can see for themselves what is being done to obtain the
fullest possible accounting for their loved ones. It will truly be, I
think, a worthwhile experience. I know that there have been efforts
made in this regard. Perhaps those efforts should be formalized. I hope
that I can count on my colleagues in that regard.
The second impression that sticks in my mind from my recent visit to
Vietnam is the increased cooperation from the Vietnamese. Every
Vietnamese I talked to, from high-ranking Government officials in the
country to reporters on the streets, were committed to fully
cooperating with the Americans to resolve the fates of American
servicemen still unaccounted for.
I think that many of my colleagues who visited Vietnam over the last
several months would agree that they witnessed a true sense of
cooperation. That does not mean that we have to be satisfied with
whether the Vietnamese cooperated in the past. They did not. The
question is, are they cooperating now? I think that the cooperation is
real and that it will continue. I truly believe that cooperation and
progress would be increased if the sanctions were lifted and the
relationship could grow.
The cooperation that I witnessed, as I said, has produced results.
According to the joint task force briefing, 67 sets of remains were
returned from Vietnam in 1993. That is double the number in the
previous year and overall the third highest level returned since the
war ended. In addition, recently completed trilateral investigations on
the Laos border were the first of their kind, and it was the Vietnamese
who pushed Laos to cooperate with the Americans.
My recent trip also confirmed reports of Vietnam's changing society.
In my meetings with various officials in the Vietnamese Government, I
was struck by their strong commitment to an open-market economy. They
have looked at what happened to Russia and to North Korea, and they
have turned towards an open-market economy. This is an extraordinary
thing. In addition, the Vietnamese are a very energetic and well-
educated people. Many of them speak English and they are able to feed
themselves. They have made significant progress.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask if I can interrupt for a moment?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I defer without losing my right to the floor.
Unanimous Consent Agreement
Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished Senator. I merely do so because
I would like to propound a unanimous consent request which will help
colleagues to make considerably better choices for the evening.
I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 hours remaining for debate on
the Vietnam issue for tonight, to be equally divided between Senators
Kerry and Smith; and that immediately following the entering of the
agreement, the two pending amendments numbered 1262 and 1263 be laid
aside in order for Senator Smith to be recognized to offer his
amendment dealing with the same subject; and that no amendments be in
order to the Smith amendment or further amendments be in order to the
McCain amendment.
I also ask unanimous consent that at 9:15 a.m. on Thursday, January
27, the Senate resume S. 1281 and proceed to 45 minutes of debate
equally divided between Senators Kerry and Smith; and that at 10 a.m.,
a vote occur first on the Kerry amendment No. 1263, to be followed
immediately by a vote on the Smith amendment, to be followed by a vote
on the McCain amendment, as amended, if amended, all without any
intervening action or debate.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the first vote be limited to 15
minutes in length, the second vote limited to 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection to the unanimous
consent request of the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. On behalf of the majority leader, I am able to announce
that there will be no further rollcall votes tonight.
I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe the Senator from Alaska has the floor and I
intend to continue to speak for about 10 minutes more.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
complete his remarks and the unanimous consent agreement take effect at
the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Alaska is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, lifting the embargo clearly does not
take away the leverage tools we have. Restrictions on military items
and other high-technical items remain in place. Most-favored-nation
status is not granted. Normal diplomatic relations are not resumed.
Moreover, the President has the flexibility to reimpose restrictions.
But it does do what we want it to do and that is to give us an
increased American presence. Leverage comes from engagement, not
isolation.
Further, lifting the embargo will serve mutually compatible goals.
As I said in the beginning of my statement, the goal of this
amendment is to help the families obtain the fullest possible
accountability. The amendment strives to move relations with Vietnam in
a positive direction so that we can resolve the accountability issue
for the families' benefit, for their loved ones, for their children.
And we need to speed up the process, Mr. President, because we have
been on this track for 20 years. How do we get beyond it? The progress
that we have achieved through limited access speaks for itself.
This amendment also serves the goal of promoting free markets,
democracy, and human rights through communication, access, and
presence.
Lastly, this amendment serves the goal of increasing U.S.
competitiveness through trade and commerce. Some have mentioned a
rather delicate issue, that some supporters of this amendment want the
amendment so that we can go drill oil. That is a ridiculous remark,
with absolutely no foundation and, very frankly, I resent the
implications associated with that, because it is not factual.
What is factual is that from a trade standpoint, the sanctions that
we have imposed now simply hurt the United States rather than Vietnam
because other countries are doing business in Vietnam.
Our embargo no longer deprives the Vietnamese of goods and services.
It only deprives Vietnam of American goods and services. When our
President is talking about creating new jobs, it makes little sense to
keep America out of promising markets when our isolationist policy does
not move us closer to full accountability. Allowing Americans to have a
presence there will increase the process and the timeframe on the issue
of accountability.
So I think we have to keep this issue in focus: It is a humanitarian
obligation of this body to address the lifting of the sanctions.
Last year, I introduced legislation to lift the most restrictive
aspects of this trade embargo. I have asked the Banking Committee to
hold hearings on my bill. I have also communicated with Senator Robb,
chairman of the East Asian Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations
Committee, asking him to hold oversight hearings on United States
policy towards Vietnam. He has indicated he will do so.
So, Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to pass this resolution
today so that we can send a clear signal to the President that the time
has come to lift the trade embargo. I commend the previous
administration, President Bush, for initiating the first opening by
saying American firms could open offices in Vietnam, but not do
business. I also commend President Clinton for allowing United States
firms to participate in development projects in Vietnam that are
financed by international financial institutions.
Mr. President, in conclusion, I ask each of my colleagues to reflect
on the question I asked earlier in my statement: If not now, when? When
are we going to be satisfied as to what constitutes full
accountability? It is a subjective argument because, as I have
indicated, 2,238 are currently unaccounted for in Vietnam vis-a-vis
8,177 in Korea, 78,794 in World War II and 1,648 in World War I. We
have to recognize the harsh reality and the unfortunate fact that we
will never be able to account for all of our missing. But, we must
continue to try by the best method. The isolationist approach we took
for 19 years did not result in what we all want to have happen, and
that is full accountability. The changes over the last 3 years have
resulted in a small U.S. presence. The presence of the Joint Task Force
in Hanoi has accelerated the process. The Vietnamese are now working in
concert with us, maybe not to our full satisfaction, but substantially
better than we had before.
So again, Mr. President, I think this is the time. If we are back
here in 6 months or back here in a year debating the same issue of
whether we are satisfied with the cooperation or whether we are
satisfied with the status of accountability, we are still going to have
to address the same issues. In the meantime, we run the risk of the
Vietnamese deciding that they will no longer cooperate to the degree
that they have been if the message that they take from this debate is
that we do not feel they are cooperating. A loss of cooperation will
only hurt the process of accountability.
So I would implore my colleagues to reflect on the reality of what
this debate means for further progress. I have the utmost respect for
the opinion of my colleagues who served in Vietnam, who were prisoners
of war in Vietnam. They know better than any one of us the anguish that
goes into a decision to support the pending resolution to initiate a
relationship with and a presence in Vietnam. But I have made up my mind
that the amendment, which urges the President to eliminate the trade
sanctions against Vietnam, does not lose sight of the highest
obligation of Government, and that is the full accountability of those
who have made the supreme sacrifice for their country.
I really believe that this is the appropriate time and the
appropriate method for meeting our humanitarian obligation to follow
the best possible course for lessening the anguish of those families
who have not received answers about the fate of their loved ones.
I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska yields the floor. Who
yields time?
Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] is
recognized.
amendment no. 1266
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, under the terms of the unanimous consent
agreement, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator
Dole, Senator Grassley, Senator D'Amato, Senator Campbell, and Senator
Helms and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself,
Mr. Dole, Mr. Grassley, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Campbell, and Mr.
Helms, proposes an amendment numbered 1266:
Amendment No. 1266
On page 179, after line 6, insert the following new
section:
SEC. 174. LIFTING OF SANCTIONS ON SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF
VIETNAM CONTINGENT UPON POW/MIA PROGRESS.
(a) Lifting of Sanctions.--The prohibitions, restrictions,
conditions, and limitations on transactions involving
commercial sale of any good or technology to the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, or involving the importation into the
United States of goods or services of Vietnamese origin, in
effect as of January 25, 1994 under the Act of October 6,
1917 (40 Stat. 411 et seq.) as amended shall remain in effect
until thirty days after the President determines and reports
in writing to the Senate and the House of Representatives
that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has provided the
United States with the fullest possible unilateral resolution
of all cases or reports of unaccounted for U.S. personnel
lost or captured in Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia for which
officials of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam can be
reasonably expected to have in their possession additional
information or remains that could lead to the fullest
possible accounting of said U.S. personnel based on U.S.
intelligence and investigative reports, analyses, and
assessments obtained or conducted prior to January 26, 1994;
(b) Consultation.--It is the sense of the Senate that the
President should consult with Congress, POW/MIA family
representatives and national veterans organizations to the
maximum extent possible prior to making determinations under
subsection (a).
(c) Nondelegation.--The authority of the President to make
the determinations and report to which subsection (a) refers
may not be delegated.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
(1) the phrase ``cases of unaccounted for U.S. personnel''
means cases involving United States personnel originally
listed by the United States as prisoners of war, missing in
action, or killed in action/body not recovered following
their wartime loss incidents in Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia;
and
(2) the phrase ``accounting'' means the return of
unaccounted for U.S. personnel alive, repatriation of their
remains, or convincing evidence as to why neither is
possible.''
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, thank you.
Mr. President, just a couple of quick points in response to a couple
of speakers before going into the remarks on my amendment.
Some are making the debate that it seems as if the person with the
most medals from the Vietnam war--for example, General Vessey or
Admiral Larson or others--are the best qualified people to tell us what
our policy in Vietnam should be.
I reject that argument. Although all of those people have great
credibility, we have thousands of members of the DAV, and their
organization, which I shall point out very shortly in my remarks, is
opposed to this amendment to the Kerry amendment, and they have their
medals. Also, many of them lost limbs in the war and obviously have
been injured.
So I do not think having a medal or having a great, illustrious
military career which is fantastic is the criteria we ought to use to
judge as to whether or not the Vietnamese are making the full
accounting that we are asking for.
So with all due respect to those gentlemen named, I think there are
many, many people who have worked the issue for a number of years, some
of whom have military backgrounds, some of whom have not, some of whom
worked in our intelligence community for 25 years on this issue who
have not served in the military. Although that is very impressive, that
is not the only necessary criteria to judge as to whether or not we are
receiving the full cost accounting.
I also want to respond briefly to something Senator Mikulski
mentioned. I am sorry she is not here on the floor at this time. But
she brought up a very good point. It is something I want to respond to.
I have spent the past several months in debate on this. I spent a lot
of time during the select committee hearings. Apparently I just did not
seem to get the message out in a clear manner to try to have the
American people and many who discuss this issue understand why it is
that we have not narrowed down this list of so-called discrepancy cases
in a complete fashion.
There are 2,238 MIA's. Approximately half of those people are listed
as killed in action according to our records, and the other half are
listed as missing in action or POW's.
The interesting thing is that the discrepancy cases were referred to
as if somehow we have taken 160 or 170 of these cases and narrowed them
down to 35 or 40 based on the best information that we have at our
disposal. But on the 1,100 people out there who are listed as missing
in action, in some cases we have no information at all, in some cases
we have a lot of information. We have some information that they
survived their crash, and in other cases we do not have any information
at all. So there are all kinds. In some cases we even have them listed
as killed in action.
But let me make a point here. The last time I was in Vietnam, the
Vietnamese presented to me the name of an individual whom we had listed
as killed in action. They said to me, ``We had this man as a
prisoner.'' I said, ``Where are his remains, or do you have him
alive?'' They offered neither. They also offered no reason, no
explanation as to why they could provide neither. So here is a man we
have listed as killed in action based on the best information we have.
He probably disappeared on the battlefield and we did not have any more
specific information. The Vietnamese tell me in their own words that
they captured him, but they do not tell me what happened to him.
You see, when you use discrepancy cases and you narrow this down on
the basis of discrepancy cases, that is simply inaccurate. It is not
the valid justification for saying that we have this total cooperation.
Is it part of it? Yes. It is a very important part of it. Discrepancy
cases are very important. They are the best cases we have. They are the
kind of people I talked about who were filmed and used in propaganda.
They are people where we had good solid clues that they survived their
incident and they were captured. They are good cases. They are some of
the best cases. But they are not the only cases.
You cannot take the 1,100 people--indeed the whole 2,200, especially
the 1,100 we do not have any information on--you cannot simply say
because we do not have information that the Vietnamese do not have any
information. That is a terrible conclusion. It is an irresponsible
conclusion today.
That is exactly the fault of the policy that we have gone through for
months and years with the Vietnamese. When we come in and say to the
Vietnamese, we have 100 discrepancy cases or 110, what we have told
them is the other 1,000 people in the category of MIA, we are not
interested in them. We are not interested in those people. We are
interested here. Here is what we have discrepancies on. If they have
someone missing or they have knowledge of somebody on the other list,
what is the incentive?
So I would like to just make those points because they have been made
erroneously in the debate. I think it is important that everyone
understand that there are 2,238 people missing. Approximately half of
those, 1,100, are listed as killed in action by our information, and
1,100 of them are listed as POW/MIA by our information, or we have no
information as to what happened to them. Some of those people in that
1,100 are the discrepancy cases. But you cannot say that, because the
Vietnamese resolved a number of the discrepancy cases, they do not have
information on the others in that 1,100 category.
I have said this until I am blue in the face, I do not know how many
times in the debates, public and private. And it still seems to be out
there that somehow all of the cases are resolved except these
discrepancy cases. That is nonsense. It is a fault in our policy. It is
a vehement disagreement that I have with General Vessey in the way that
he has addressed this issue. It is simply inaccurate, and you basically
have done the job for the Vietnamese by saying, OK, the other 1,000
people, we do not care about them. Here is what we are interested in,
these discrepancy cases, because we have information that they
survived. I am interested in the information that the Vietnamese have
on whether they survived.
If you will recall, when the men came home in 1973--the homecoming--
one man came home who was listed as killed in action. He came back as a
prisoner. So our reporting and our information is not 100 percent
accurate.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am curious to know why the Senator from New
Hampshire would have reason to believe that the process of full
accountability and the resolution of discrepancies in evidence--which
the Senator from Alaska admits exist--would necessarily cease.
Is there any reason to believe that progress would not continue and,
in fact, lead to a greater degree of satisfaction to the questions the
Senator is legitimately bringing up?
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I addressed it previously, and I will also
in my upcoming remarks. But the issue is that we have no assurance. If
we do not hold the Vietnamese to accounting--the policy in the past 20
years has been, on a humanitarian basis, that the Vietnamese should
provide us unilaterally this information, which we believe they have.
If we do not, we should not lift the embargo. That has been our policy.
My point is that this amendment is a departure from that policy. If
they suddenly open up the archives and provide us the answers, I would
be the first to congratulate them. We certainly would not have any
leverage; that is my point. If we do it, we will have no leverage.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The reality is, Mr. President, what presence do we
have there now? We would have an increased presence, and we have seen
an increase in our own satisfaction with regard to advancements that
have been made because of increased cooperation. So one can make the
conclusion that indeed increased presence would very likely lead to
increased cooperation.
I think the Senator from New Hampshire is entitled to his opinion,
and the Senator from Alaska maintains, on the basis of his experience,
that the best way to get this issue behind us is through access. That
is why I am part of the group supporting the formulation of the Kerry,
McCain amendment.
Mr. SMITH. If that were the case, we probably should have done it in
1973. Maybe we should have done it to North Korea, lift that embargo.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. We could argue the merits of most-favored-nation
status for China if you want to argue a parallel thing.
Mr. SMITH. I respectfully disagree with the Senator on that. No
President to date has taken that position, and the League of Families
and other family members, and the veterans organizations disagree with
that assessment. I think we have some type of a moral obligation to
listen to them ahead of business interests and at least give it more
time to work.
I think that the progress we have made over the past 20 years--and
there has not been much of it--has been because we have held firm. But
that is another issue.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I differ with my colleague. Advancement has been made
as a consequence of the U.S. presence there, and the record will
support that.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished
Republican leader and my colleagues, Senators Grassley, D'Amato, Helms,
and Campbell in offering this amendment.
This amendment, as you know, concerns the status of our relationship
with Vietnam and the impact the POW issue should have on how that
relationship will develop in the coming months. The amendment makes it
clear that the lifting of the trade embargo against Vietnam should be
contingent upon the President being confident that Vietnam has made the
maximum unilateral effort to provide information already in their
possession on missing U.S. personnel from Southeast Asia.
That is not an unreasonable amendment. That is a very reasonable
amendment. Certainly, upon that certification by the President, who has
access to the records of our intelligence community, I think that is a
reasonable amendment, which is why I am pleased to offer it.
I point out on a parliamentary basis here that to vote for the Kerry
amendment or the McCain amendment, whichever it happens to be,
basically says to the President: Lift the embargo. We trust the
Vietnamese to come forth and come clean with the rest of the
information, which most of us admit that they have.
My amendment says let the President certify that, and if he does
certify that with his intelligence community, after consultation with
the veterans groups and the League of Families and other family
members, if they feel that time has come, then move on and let us go.
But the key phrase is ``fully forthcoming''; not every bit of
information they can give, but what is fully forthcoming.
There has been a lot of talk in Washington that the administration is
now on the fast track to lift the trade embargo against Vietnam; that
is no secret, and I think that is true. I have had conversations with
the White House. They have never denied that there is interest and
debate going on in the White House to lift the embargo. The White House
told me as recently as January 7 that no decision has been made on the
matter and no decision is expected anytime soon.
It is obvious, though, based on comments by senior administration
officials, both named and unnamed, that this matter is currently being
considered by the President's national security team and his economic
advisers. I have been around this town long enough to know what the
signals are, from meetings taking place in the White House and the
comments that have been coming out of there, that obviously this is on
the fast track. I know many of the same players, ironically, in the
Bush administration, who pushed for lifting the embargo, are still
there in the Clinton administration. It is amazing how other people can
lose their jobs when one administration changes to another, but all the
people working this issue seemed to have stayed the same.
Every one of my colleagues knows by now that I have one overriding
concern on the matter of our relationship with Vietnam; that is, the
issue of the POW's and MIA's never accounted for following the end of
that very divisive conflict 20 years ago. I will state up front that I
join many in this body in looking forward to the day when the United
States and Vietnam have fully normalized relations, diplomatically and
economically. I wish it were today, but it should not be today. I know
a few veterans in this country who do not feel likewise.
I served during the Vietnam conflict, not with the distinction of
many of my distinguished colleagues here on both sides of this debate
who have served in Vietnam, such as Senators Robb; Bob Kerrey; John
Kerry; Pressler; and McCain, of course, a POW; and Hank Brown. And
there are others. I am certain that all of us want to heal those wounds
of war. This is not a personal matter with any of those Senators. I
respect them all, but I believe all of us want to do it in an honorable
way.
The question is: What is the honorable way to do this? What is the
honorable route? That is the purpose of the amendment that I am
offering today, to make clear that our intent is to ensure that the
United States is indeed receiving all relevant POW/MIA information that
Vietnam has the capacity to provide.
Some on this debate will try to say I am asking for a full
accounting. That is impossible. I am not. I do not expect the
Vietnamese to provide the remains from the bottom of the South China
Sea, but what they can fully provide now, unilaterally. This is the
overriding concern, not just of the Senator from New Hampshire and many
others in this body, but it is the concern of every single family
member of the servicemen still unaccounted for. It is a concern of
every national veterans organization in this country.
I think they ought to have a spokesman here tonight, and they do. I
am going to let you hear from them in my words. The last few weeks
while we were on break, each of these national veterans organizations,
in addition to the POW/MIA families, expressed their concerns directly
to the President on this issue--directly.
I will take a moment now to enter into the Record the statements and
positions of our Nation's veterans and family members, for they are
worried that some in this Chamber have not been made aware of their
positions.
The American Legion comprises 3.1 million members. They told the
President that they are opposed to lifting the trade embargo against
Vietnam until the POW/MIA issue has been addressed to their
satisfaction. They have passed resolutions to that effect. As a matter
of fact, they contacted every single Legion post in America in every
State. The national commander of the American Legion sent a personal
letter to every single Senator on January 6 explaining in detail why
they believe more progress can and should be made on the POW/MIA issue
before we remove our trade embargo. Every Senator, I believe, has this
letter.
The last sentence of that letter reads as follows:
The time is not right for such action (to lift the trade
embargo)--Hanoi's illusory cooperation must be replaced by
real, verifiable, tangible progress. In the strongest
possible terms, Legionnaires from throughout the Nation join
with me in asking you to keep faith with POW's and MIA's,
their families and members of the active military services.
Those are the words of the American Legion. In a related press
release, the national commander stated:
America's veterans aren't going to forgive, or forget
about, the businesses that put their profit margins ahead of
the interests of our POW's or their families.
I might add, Mr. President, that I am told that the American Legion
has contacted, as I said, all 50 States, every post.
The Disabled American Veterans, comprised of 1.3 million members, has
told the President:
We do not feel that the recent spate of cooperation (on the
POW/MIA issue) justifies lifting the embargo or taking steps
toward normalizing relations between our nations. As such, we
stand firmly by our most recent convention resolution.
That is the DAV.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars, comprised of over 2.2 million members,
has told the President, in a letter from their national commander dated
January 7:
The level of cooperation necessary to warrant lifting the
trade embargo is one that produces more than minimal results.
We are not convinced that the results obtained to date
warrant lifting the embargo. We, therefore, urge you to keep
the embargo in place.
That is the VFW.
AMVETS, the Nation's fourth largest veterans organization, reiterated
their position on January 11 stating:
Our primary concern is for the MIA families for whom every
consideration must be made. We oppose normalizing relations
with Vietnam until a full accounting is achieved. We
recognize that the Vietnamese are cooperating, but progress
must be measured by the degree of cooperation. To suddenly
drop the embargo sends a signal that we've given up on ever
achieving a full accounting of our people. This still should
remain the highest national priority.
Finally, the president of Vietnam Veterans of America, the Nation's
largest veterans organization comprised solely of veterans from the
Vietnam war, has told the President in a letter dated January 7, 1994:
We recognize the seriousness of efforts such as the massive
search that was launched yesterday, but these measures have
produced far too little information to justify any
conclusions. Your commitment to resolving the fate of the
missing prior to opening diplomatic relations with Vietnam is
much appreciated. We see lifting the trade embargo now,
however, as a movement toward full recognition. Accounting
for America's POW/MIA's and the whole question of steps
toward normalization of relations with Vietnam is a painful
issue for many war-time veterans. Some will never agree to
reconciliation, and others hunger for it. In between are a
great number of veterans who want to resolve both issues--the
fate of our POW/MIA's and our relationship with Vietnam. For
most Vietnam vets it is not a question of retribution but of
resolution. We share a deep concern that lifting the trade
embargo--and giving up whatever leverage is still left in
it--will result in the abandonment of American POW/MIA's.
Healing from war takes time, and the fullest possible
accounting is part of that healing, and it is not complete.
Until it is resolved, the embargo should stand and
normalization should wait.
That is the stated position of the Vietnam Veterans of America.
Let me just take another organization that has a stake in this,
perhaps more than the others I have mentioned.
The Nation's largest family organization of U.S. personnel missing
from the Vietnam war expressed their view, most recently on January 7.
Sue Scott, chairman of the board of the National League of POW/MIA
Families, stated in a press release:
If the Vietnamese want the embargo lifted now, U.S.
evidence shows they can easily meet the President's criteria
by providing remains and records being withheld. Vietnam's
dismal record (on POW/MIA's) does not meet the President's
criteria, pledges to the families, commitments to our
nation's veterans or obligations to those who serve our
country. We, the families, expect the President will adhere
to principles and honor his word to the families that he will
not move forward without POW/MIA criteria being met. The
President would be well-served to ignore the wishful
thinking, distortions of reality and omissions of fact being
promoted by his bureaucracy. The families are tiring of being
labeled as unrealistic or re-fighting the Vietnam war because
we seek an end to our uncertainty which Hanoi can readily
provide.
The National Alliance of Families, another organization with family
members of POW's and MIA's, has also asked the President not to move
forward with relaxing or lifting the embargo until Hanoi has taken
additional steps to resolve the POW/MIA issue.
Mr. President, I presented the views of our Nation's veterans and the
POW/MIA families. They are not my words. And I did not ask for them.
They came to me.
Every one of these organizations are united in their belief that now
is not the time to lift our embargo against Vietnam. And every one of
them is united in their belief that Vietnam can and should be able to
provide additional information on those still missing from the war, to
include the fate of POW/MIA's who were lost or captured in Laos.
Now I know there are Senators in this body who disagree with the
position of the Nation's veterans groups and the POW/MIA families. But
I would be surprised if there was any Senator who would support warming
our relations with Vietnam at this point if President Clinton, our
Commander in Chief, felt that officials in Vietnam still had additional
information in their possession that could lead to an accounting for
United States personnel missing from the war. I know of no Senator who
is prepared to answer that question here on the Senate floor today, and
that is what brings us to this amendment.
These are the people that you just heard from who had the most at
stake, and their feelings are more important than mine or any other
Senator on this floor. They are more important than the President, and
they are more important than the Vietnamese. They ought to be listened
to. They ought to be adhered to.
They have spoken and have very clearly. I can tell you I have spoken
to some of these people and the families and in the veterans
communities. Many of them have traveled to Vietnam. There is not rancor
toward the Vietnamese people. They just want an honest resolution. You
cannot get one for certain if you lift the embargo now. You might get
it lifted and hope you might, and I will be the first one to
congratulate those proponents if it happens.
It is a gamble. It is a roll of the dice, as Senator Murkowski said.
``I am willing to roll the dice.''
I am not, and neither are the veterans groups or the families, and
they are the ones who have the most at stake.
This amendment does not prejudge how the President may feel on
whether Vietnam has been fully forthcoming on POW/MIA issues or what he
may determine at some point in the future, or whether his view may be
at odds with the Nation's veterans or the POW/MIA families, or indeed
some Senators. Instead, the amendment before us simply states that if
and when he may decide to move on the embargo question, we, in this
body, will expect him to tell us that Vietnam has been fully
forthcoming on outstanding POW/MIA issues. It is certainly reasonable,
Mr. President, for the Congress, and indeed, the country to expect the
President to make such a determination before taking further steps in
our relationship with our former adversaries in Hanoi. That is not
unreasonable. That is not a political positions. There is nothing
partisan about this.
There can be no confusion as to what this amendment states. I want to
go through the amendment--it is simple and straightforward--and read by
the clerk, and that is why I wanted it read.
And I would again stress that this amendment does not tell the
President to lift the embargo against Vietnam, and it does not tell him
to keep it in place. It simply tells him that the Congress wants to
be assured that Vietnam has been fully forthcoming on POW/MIA issues
before we move forward. And if the President feels he can make such a
determination in the next month or so--this amendment lets him do it.
I hope my colleagues will agree that this determination should, in
fact, be made by the President, after consultation with the U.S.
intelligence community and others. He is the one in the final analysis
that will be best positioned to make this determination. And I would
hope and expect that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would agree
on this point, judging by the discussion and vote which took place on
this matter at the committee level last September. I have the
transcript of that discussion, and I would be happy to read from it if
necessary--I think it is suffice to say that the Foreign Relations
Committee rejected an attempt in the committee to lift the embargo in
September because it did not want to tie the President's hands on the
POW/MIA issue. Both Democrats and Republicans agreed by a majority vote
in the committee to, and I quote from comments made by the ranking
member at the time, to ``let the President come to a decision, and then
make our judgement if we are inclined to do so.''
The Kerry amendment or the McCain amendment basically gives him
direction. It says lift it and we will support you. That is the message
that you are giving.
The language of the amendment now before us is consistent with the
vote of the Foreign Relations Committee last September.
The most important part of this amendment is as follows--for the
President to move forward in further relaxing or lifting our embargo
against Vietnam, he must first tell the Congress, and I am paraphrasing
here, that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has provided the United
States with the fullest possible unilateral resolution of all cases of
unaccounted for United States personnel lost or captured in Vietnam,
Laos, or Cambodia, for which officials of Vietnam can be reasonably
expected to have in their possession additional information or remains
that could lead to the fullest possible accounting of these missing
United States personnel based on United States intelligence and
investigative reports and analyses which have been gathered to date,
including that gathered by Admiral Larson and General Needham.
And that should include, in my opinion, the President making a
determination to Congress that Vietnam has satisfactorily addressed
information such as that which came to light from the GRU intelligence
archives of the former Soviet Union. Just this week, a year later, the
Pentagon put out a very brief analysis of these documents from Moscow,
but at least conceded that, and I quote, ``We believe there is probably
more information in Vietnamese party and military archives that could
shed light on these documents.''
Where is it? Why would we not insist on it?
The Pentagon said that Monday, Mr. President, and we obviously do not
have that information from Vietnam yet. In fact, I do not even think we
have asked for it in the last few months--so it is a bit premature to
cast those documents aside--but again, it is up to the President to
make that determination. And with all the problems our committee found
last year with the handling of this issue by certain officials at the
Pentagon over the years--not everyone, but many--it is incumbent upon
us to ask the President to come to his own conclusion--under this
amendment, that authority cannot be delegated down to the bureaucracy.
The President will come to his own conclusion.
I want to, just as an aside, say here what a dramatic document that
Russian document was. It alleged that 1,205 American prisoners where
held when, in fact, only 600, roughly, were returned.
Finally, I hope that the President will make a determination before
lifting the embargo that intelligence reports of alleged POW's kept
back in Southeast Asia after the war now in the possession of our
intelligence community have, in fact, been fully investigated.
Furthermore, he should make a determination that reports of remains and
pertinent POW/MIA records being withheld by Vietnam and Laos have been
fully investigated.
All of this is quite reasonable, Mr. President, and it is what the
American people, particularly the Nation's veterans and the POW/MIA
families would expect before we move forward with Vietnam. I would
therefore hope that this amendment would receive strong bipartisan
support from both sides of the aisle.
We are hearing that another amendment may be offered dealing with
these issues, Mr. President, but let me be clear in stating my belief
that the vote on this amendment will be seen across the country as the
vote by which every Senator's commitment to the families of our
Nation's veterans and POW's will be judged. That is what it will be.
This is a judgment vote. This is a defining moment. It is a responsible
amendment and it is consistent with everything the President has said
to date on this issue and everything his predecessors have said and it
is consistent with the position of our Nation's veterans and the
families.
I did not come to the Senate floor today to propose an amendment to
maintain the trade embargo against Vietnam until the United States
obtained the fullest possible accounting for every last serviceman that
is missing. Some have said that and will probably say it in the future.
That is not why I am here. If you listen carefully, this amendment does
not say that every unaccounted for American has to be accounted for
before we lift the embargo against Vietnam. The Vietnamese cannot do
that. It would have been wrong for me to propose such an amendment--
obviously, obtaining the fullest possible accounting could take years,
and there are some that will never be located.
Some of the missing were involved in overwater losses--some crashed
in remote jungles or mountainsides where there were no enemy forcers to
observe the loss and help us account for these individuals. I know
that, and we do not hold the Vietnamese to account for those people.
However, I would point out, as I have said several times before, that
just because we do not have a clue as to the ultimate fate of the
individual, does not mean the Vietnamese do not know what happened. In
point of fact, on seven different occasions since the end of the war,
the Vietnamese have actually repatriated the remains of servicemen
involved in overwater losses--so they have certainly shown their
capacity to have hard information on cases where one might logically
think they would not have any information at all.
Again, our information; their information.
So just as I am not proposing keeping the embargo in place until
every last person is accounted for, it would likewise be wrong for
other Senators to come to the floor to propose lifting the trade
embargo against Vietnam right now because they have somehow determined
that Vietnam has been fully forthcoming on all the POW/MIA cases for
which Vietnam should have information. That would be a remarkable
judgment for a Senator to stand up here and make. And it is one that I
would certainly challenge on a case by case basis, and I am prepared to
do it if necessary. In fact, I can assure my colleagues that I would
protect my rights under the Senate rules and take as much time as I
deemed necessary to counter any such claims. But the bottom line is, we
can debate it all week long. Indeed we debated it all last year in the
Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. And for every quote someone might
read from our committee's report last year saying how great things are,
I can find a sentence in the same report that will say just the
opposite. That is the way committee reports are around here.
Mr. President, this amendment has been thought through carefully, and
I hope my colleagues will appreciate that I am not here to try to block
the United States from moving forward with Vietnam. I would hope we
would, at some point soon, move forward with Vietnam. In fact, this
amendment allows President Clinton to move forward with Vietnam, but it
also gives him the flexibility to determine at what point and to what
degree Vietnam has been fully forthcoming on POW/MIA matters before
moving forward.
So let us not rush to judgment here on the Senate floor based on some
recent codel trip to Vietnam. Let us wait until the information
gathered by the intelligence community to date in Southeast Asia and
Moscow has been presented to the President, and let us wait to see the
President's response.
I have been to Vietnam five times to discuss this issue and every
time, I come away with the impression that more information could be
unilaterally provided by the Vietnamese if they made the political
decision to do so.
Others get a different view. But all of it is immaterial unless we
are willing to take the time here on the Senate floor to go through
every single one of the remaining 2,238 cases of unaccounted for
Americans to see in which instances Vietnam could be reasonably
expected to have additional information based on investigations to
date.
Every one of those numbers has a family behind it. Every one of those
numbers has a family behind it, Mr. President. These are not just
statistics. I do not want to tell those families that we are now the
best experts on their loved ones. I believe the President should make
that decision. Although I consider myself an expert on a lot of them, I
am not an expert on all of them. I do not think anybody, with all due
respect, in this Senate has spent more time than I have going through
those cases one by one.
So I will close by reminding my colleagues of many of the things
President Clinton and White House officials have stated to date on the
POW/MIA issue and our relationship with Vietnam. And I am more
attentive to comments from the White House on these matters, than I am
with comments by low-level bureaucrats in the Departments of State and
Defense or U.S. teams in the field in Southeast Asia who are often only
knowledgeable on one piece of this complex issue where the President
has the knowledge and the overview on all of it.
Most recently, on January 3, the White House press secretary was
asked if the President was ready to move further in our relationship
with Vietnam and the response was, and I quote, ``As you know, the
President has maintained that is contingent on progress on POW and MIA
issues.'' And indeed, I remind my colleagues that the title of the
pending amendment is ``Lifting of Sanctions Against the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam Contingent on POW/MIA Progress.'' So you cannot
have an amendment that's more in sync with the position of the White
House. And indeed, while our committee unanimously determined last year
that this issue was not a priority during the last Democratic
administration, it has been a consistent measure of whether our
relationship improves with Vietnam since President Reagan took office,
and it's been that way for the last 13 years, up to and including
President Clinton.
Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 23\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President.
On December 10, President Clinton stated in a letter to me that ``I
am deeply committed to resolving the cases of all personnel missing
since the Vietnam war. For this reason, I have made achieving the
fullest possible accounting for our POW/MIA's the test of our
relationship with Vietnam. Like you, I seek an honorable resolution to
this issue. I will not accept mere activity by Vietnam on POW/MIA
issues as progress.'' Again, the President could not make it more
clear, and I commend him for it. The test of whether or not we move
forward with Vietnam depends on real and complete answers on the POW/
MIA issue--not on how many crash site excavators Vietnam allows into
their country and not on whether it would be profitable for American
businesses to go to drill for oil.
On November 19, while at the APEC summit, the President stated that
he, ``could see Vietnam more integrated into the region's economic and
political life after providing the fullest possible accounting of those
Americans who did not return from the war there.''
So can I. So can I, Mr. President.
On July 16, White House Deputy National Security Advisor Samuel
Berger stated, ``The President understands that while the processes
underway in Vietnam on the POW/MIA issue are important--and I remind my
colleagues not to be confused by the word process as some people in
this body like to use it to measure POW/MIA progress, which is a little
disingenuous:
The litmus tests here are concrete results and solid
answers * * * the President has specifically rejected
suggestions that he lift the trade embargo, partially or
fully, even though that position disadvantages American
business. This is not a commercial or diplomatic issue for
the President; it is a moral one. . . Vietnamese efforts
to date, while welcome, are not sufficient to warrant
changes in our trade embargo or further steps in U.S.-
Vietnam relations. That is a very powerful and appropriate
statement--
``This is not a commercial or diplomatic issue for the President--it
is a moral one.'' And it is. Ask those families. Ask those veterans
groups. It is a moral issue and we do not have the right to make that
moral decision.
On July 2, the White House stated:
Our policy toward Vietnam must be driven not by commercial
interests but by the overriding purpose of achieving further
progress toward the fullest possible accounting of our POW/
MIAs. . . Progress to date is simply not sufficient to
warrant any change in our trade embargo or any further steps
toward normalization.
And last April, at a White House news conference, the President
stated that he was:
Much more heavily influenced by the families of the people
whose lives were lost or whose lives remain in question than
by the commercial interests and the other things which seem
so compelling in this moment. I am just very interested by
how the families feel.
Finally, just days after his election, then President-elect Clinton
stated the following at a Veterans Day ceremony in Little Rock:
As I have pledged throughout my campaign, I will do my very
best to make sure we have a final resolution of the POW/MIA
issue. . . I have sent a clear message that there will be no
normalization of relations with any nation that is at all
suspected of withholding any information. We must have as
full an accounting as is humanly possible.
That is the President. That is the policy. That is what this
President believes and we ought to support it.
Now, Mr. President, I know during the break, a few of my colleagues
went to Vietnam, as part of CODELS that were traveling in Asia. And
while there, you received the standard briefings and you caught a
glimpse of the process underway by which we are slowly obtaining
relevant information that could lead to an accounting for some U.S.
personnel, although we are mostly talking, in terms of the ongoing
crash site excavations, about people we know died during the war, and
indeed they were listed as killed in action/body not recovered. I am
sure the Senators who went to Vietnam were also allowed to view another
expensive sideshow in which United States investigators are stationed
at Vietnam's central museums--I have been there four times--where they
are given information to review bit by bit, only a small percentage of
which actually pertains to active POW/MIA cases. Most of it refers to
people who already came home or are dead.
But, I would hope my colleagues who went to Vietnam would be able to
separate in their minds, terms like ``process'' from ``accounting,''
and ``fate determined'' from ``tangible results,'' and ``cooperation''
from ``fully forthcoming.'' And I hope they would not forget that more
than 80 percent of the missing cases from Laos, where there has been
extremely limited results, actually involve areas that were under North
Vietnamese control during the war. And while we are slowly getting
records, after years of requesting them, it is a slow process, and
probably a painful, difficult, or embarrassing one for the Vietnamese.
Nonetheless, the Vietnamese should know that this is a process that
they must go through for relations to improve with the United States.
And I take strong exception to those who would hold up every document
as it is now slowly turned over by Vietnam, 20 years later, and say,
``look, here is the proof--Vietnamese officials are now fully
cooperating and they have now told us everything they know about our
POW's and MIA's.'' I recall one Senator a few months ago actually
praised Vietnam for turning over a bag of letters addressed to missing
servicemen from their families during the war which were never
delivered to these guys sitting in their cells. Never even delivered.
And they turned them over. That is progress? Vietnam gave these letters
back to the United States in September and issued a press release
saying ``New MIA Documents Found.'' Are you telling me they did not
know where those letters were? Give me a break. And then a Senator back
here praised this step--as if it was going to somehow account for
missing servicemen. I would say that the Vietnamese have definitely
shown that their propaganda machine from the war is still in full
throttle.
Mr. President, let me repeat, Vietnam has to be encouraged to go
through the process of telling us everything they know--and this
process is really only in the beginning stages. It has improved. It is
only when we know they have gone through that process and coughed up
everything we can reasonably expect they know about our POW's and
MIA's, that we will be able to say to the families and our Nation's
veterans that the Vietnamese have truly been fully forthcoming.
Then the wounds of war are healed. Then it is behind us. The
Vietnamese should understand this and we should tell them that in no
uncertain terms, as I have on many occasions.
I would also add that the process of getting the Vietnamese to open
up their Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior records at the
state, provincial, and local levels will hardly be assisted by the
Kodak Co. or Mobil Oil being allowed to do business in Hanoi or Ho Chi
Minh City. Nonetheless, I have heard suggestions in the past from some
in this body that by having Americans do business in Vietnam, they are
somehow going to stumble into the top secret records, archives, and
find additional information that could lead to an accounting for
missing individuals. Just as if the Vietnamese send a person here, a
businessman--say from Taiwan--he could just stumble into the Pentagon
and find out our National secrets. Come on.
Let me take just a moment to remind my colleagues of some of these
cases which remain open with the Vietnamese--and some of these are
cases from both Laos and Vietnam--and this is only a representative
sampling that I doubt Senators who just visited Vietnam were briefed
on. I doubt Senators who just visited Vietnam were briefed on this. I
would like to hear if they were briefed on this.
U.S. Air Force pilot Wallace Hynds was lost over North Vietnam on
August 2, 1967. At the time of the incident, which involved an FR4C in
Hay Tinh Province, he was presumed to be dead from the crash. In fact,
he was declared ``killed in action/body not recovered'' and was listed
that way at the end of the war in 1973. Today, Air Force pilot Hynds is
still unaccounted for. Enter the next piece of the puzzle. In 1991,
just 2 weeks before our Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs was formed
in the Senate, a United States investigator was allowed to make a visit
to a Vietnamese military museum in Vinh, northern Vietnam. While at the
museum, he located the military ID card and the blood chit which
belonged to Wallace Hynds. Next to these items, in Vietnamese writing,
it stated--``Military Identification Card and Blood Chit of Air Force
Pilot Wallace G. Hynds, captured alive in Hay Tinh Province.'' That was
the Vietnamese reference to this pilot--that he was captured alive.
We have him listed as killed in action/body not recovered. Vietnamese
officials obviously know what happened to Wallace Hynds. How would they
not know? They have his ID card in the museum. Of course they know what
happened to him. Do you know where the ID card is? In your pocket in
the uniform. They either had to kill him and take it out of there or
they captured him alive and took it out. They know where he is. And our
own Defense Department has acknowledged in a letter to me from June
1993, that, because of this discovery, this is now a priority case.
Well, the Vietnamese did not know it was a priority case for the United
States when I was there in July, because I had to bring it to their
attention, after they gave me the list of names General Vessey had
asked them to work on, and Wallace Hynds' name was not on it. The point
here is that we still have not received any further information on this
case from the Vietnamese, although they clearly know what happened. He
was captured alive. So, if the Vietnamese were giving us excellent
cooperation, bending over backwards, and being forthcoming with us, as
some have claimed, why is not Admiral Larson and General Needham,
instead of out here with shovels, why are they not in Hanoi asking
where Wallace Hynds is?
That is what they ought to be doing.
That is what they ought to be doing. That is my problem with the
joint task force. They have their focus wrong and they have their
priorities wrong.
Let me give you another example. Navy Commander Donald Richard Hubbs
was listed as an over-water loss while flying aircraft over the North
Vietnamese coast on March 17, 1968. I have been in touch with the
family of Commander Hubbs. His daughter went to Vietnam last month
seeking answers. Why does she have to go to seek answers? For 20 years
they heard nothing--nothing. Then the daughter went to Vietnam. Now
listen carefully to what I am saying.
She arrives in Hanoi and is told by U.S. investigators for the first
time in 26 years that some of the aircraft's radar equipment had been
recovered at the time of the incident by the United States. More
importantly, she was given a copy of the Vietnamese graves registration
list of U.S. personnel lost in Quanh Binh Province which has her
father's name on it. It turns out that while the U.S. Government had
this information for over a year, it was never given to the family,
even though the law said you have to give it to the family. She had to
go to Vietnam herself.
When Commander Hubbs' daughter met with the Vietnamese experts on
this issue at their foreign ministry last month, she was told Vietnam
has no further information. If Commander Hubbs' name is on a Vietnamese
graves registration list, they know where he was buried. General
Needham, why do you not find Commander Hubbs? They obviously can
account for Donald Hubbs. Yet, to date, they have not chosen to do so.
And when the head of Vietnam's Communist Party, Mr. Do Muoi, sits there
and tells me and other Senators, as he has in the past, that the POW/
MIA families should come to Vietnam to witness the excellent
cooperation first hand, I doubt he is referring to Donald Hubbs.
Frederick John Burns was a marine captured in South Vietnam on
Christmas Day 1967. For 26 years, the family of this marine has waited
for a final accounting of Fred Burns. Why? Because he was listed as
``died in captivity'' by the North Vietnamese on their own lists on
January 27, 1973, the day the accords were signed.
General Vessey asked for an accounting of Fred Burns and was given a
document which the Vietnamese say shows he died in captivity. It is
signed by his prison commander. His remains, however, were never
returned, and he was in their prison.
Now we have a Vietnamese propaganda film showing Fred Burns and Bobby
Garwood. He looked healthy. He was used for propaganda. No remains,
nothing; no information.
The narration on the 1970 Communist film says:
Here is a recently captured American GI. His name is
Frederick, and he's from New York. He says something which
makes even our children laugh--``We Americans can't
understand how you get the better of our forces''--sure he
can't understand and he has read the slogan without catching
the meaning--don't destroy children's school--he and his like
have destroyed many schools.''
That was in the film. That is the propaganda, Mr. President. There
was propaganda on both sides during the war; I know that. I am willing
to put the war behind me, but that does not mean we should forget this
marine was in a Vietnamese prison and what happened to him. If he died
in prison, give us his remains. If you do not have his remains, tell us
how he died and give the family some peace.
We have been told this stuff for 20 years. The Vietnamese can be
expected, therefore, to have the capacity to repatriate his remains for
proper burial by his family. Worried about drilling around for oil? How
about digging up his remains and giving them back to the family? At the
very least, they should be able to tell us how his remains were
disposed of and where they are buried. You will never convince me
otherwise--not General Needham, Admiral Larson, Senator Kerry, nobody
else--will ever convince me they do not know where he is, because they
do.
Last month, just before Christmas Day, his family was given a copy of
the propaganda film I just referred to. They sent the film knowing the
family was going to get it and hurt them more. And then they say we do
not know what happened to him. Come on. They were the most meticulous
recordkeepers we ever heard of. We had testimony from everybody on
that, including defectors.
Here is a fourth and final example for those who claim the embargo
should be lifted, even though the President has not yet made a decision
on this. Yesterday, out of the clear blue sky, unsolicited, comes a fax
into my office. It is from the daughter of Air Force Col. Michael O.
Elhanon. He was flying an F-100A on a forward reconnaissance mission
over North Vietnam August 16, 1968. He was reported missing in action.
Search and rescue efforts were initiated with negative results. We did
not know whether he was dead or alive. We still do not know.
There are several hundred MIA cases where we just do not know what
happened. They are not discrepancy cases. General Vessey is not taking
up the cause for this individual. Because we do not know what happened
does not mean the Vietnamese do not know what happened, and we should
not forget it.
Colonel Elhanon's name should be put on the discrepancy list and
given to the Vietnamese. Why? Because a reference to his actual
shootdown by North Vietnamese units and a reference to his military ID
card being in the possession of Vietnam officials was located in 1991.
The ID card was carried by Colonel Elhanon in a zipped upper breast
pocket on his flight suit. If the Vietnamese officials have Colonel
Elhanon's military ID card, they can produce Colonel Elhanon or
information about what happened to him. They have not done it. No one
has pushed them on this case because it is not a discrepancy case.
In July 1992, the Vietnamese were requested by the United States side
to turn over the ID card, and as of today, a year and a half later,
after the last request, the family has yet to receive the ID card.
Again, that is specific information. How many Senators were briefed on
this case when they received their briefings in Hanoi on the excellent
cooperation being provided by the Vietnamese? Are you interested in oil
or are you interested in men? It is reasonable for President Clinton to
make determinations on these cases because he has the information.
Here is another example of those who are still not convinced, in case
there are any, that we should wait for the President. This one pertains
to a loss in Laos where North Vietnamese units were involved. I remind
my colleagues, more than 80 percent of those still unaccounted for in
Laos, including 53 Americans who were known to be out of their aircraft
at the time of impact, involved areas under North Vietnamese control
during the war.
First Lieutenant Henry Mundt, United States Air Force, and Lieutenant
Col. William Brashear, United States Air Force, were piloting an F-4C
aircraft on an operational mission over Laos on May 8, 1969, 25 years
ago. The aircraft was disabled by hostile ground fire. We knew at the
time that at least one crew member ejected because at least one
parachute was observed and radio contact was established with the
individual on the ground, although identification was not made and
rescue efforts failed to locate him. It was not known whether the crew
member ejected.
In January 1974, 1 year after the war, Mundt and Brashear were
declared ``killed in action/body not recovered,'' even though we know
at least one made it to the ground safely and established radio
contact.
Enter another piece of the puzzle. Exactly 1 year ago this week, on
January 25, 1993, Lao villagers unexpectedly gave us additional
information on this case. During a crash site excavation of this case
in southern Laos, the villagers came up to our team and told us that
the crash site excavation would not do much because Lieutenant Mundt
and Lieutenant Colonel Brashear parachuted from their aircraft and were
captured by Vietnamese and taken away.
You cannot take the information that we believe on our best
information are discrepancy cases and ignore everybody else; you cannot
do it. One witness said he thought they were taken to a North
Vietnamese military hospital in Attapeu Province. The Lao denied our
teams the opportunity to investigate the case further saying they
wanted to investigate it first. And requests to the Vietnamese for
further information on Lieutenant Mundt and Lieutenant Colonel Brashear
have gone unanswered, even though we know they were captured by
Vietnamese forces because they said so. And we have them listed as KIA.
They are not discrepancy cases. How do you answer to the families of
those men? Do you want to drill for oil before we find out what
happened to those guys? Give me a break.
When the families of Lieutenant Mundt and Lieutenant Colonel Brashear
heard Senators holding a news conference in Hanoi a few weeks ago were
saying ``It is time to close the book on the past. It is in the
interest of the United States, in the interest of the MIA's and their
families, and in the interest of stability in the region,'' I suggest
the families of Lieutenant Mundt and Lieutenant Colonel Brashear, and
the others I have now mentioned, would get a knot in their stomach, as
well they should. The knot probably got tighter when they heard another
Senator report in Hanoi last week that United States teams were, and I
quote, ``getting very good cooperation . . . getting cooperation as
good as they could expect, and there's nothing they've been denied.''
Senator Johnston, you asked for evidence. How much more do you need?
Marine Corps Maj. Norman Karl Billipp was listed as missing in action
in South Vietnam on May 6, 1969 during a forward air controller
mission. His family resides in New Hampshire. They are constituents of
mine. We did not know what happened to Major Billipp at the time of his
incident. It is now clear the Vietnamese must, in fact, know the
disposition of Major Billipp. They have the flight route map from the
aircraft in their possession at their army museum. This is an example
of where the Vietnamese have turned over one piece of information which
shows they can be more forthcoming. They do it to tease us. To date,
they have shed no additional light on this case. You are not going to
get information on it by digging around in the ground somewhere. You
are going to get it in Hanoi.
Joseph Morrison and San DeWayne Francisco were flying an F-4D over
North Vietnam on November 25, 1968. We lost track of them. They never
returned from their mission, and search and rescue missions were
unsuccessful. They were listed as missing in action. The Vietnamese
know what happened.
Some of my colleagues may recall in October 1992, then President Bush
held a Rose Garden news conference to herald a significant breakthrough
on the POW/MIA issue. I attended that news conference, along with
Senator Kerry. A private United States investigator under contract by
DOD was given access by the Vietnamese to official photographs from
wartime incidents involving U.S. personnel. This led to the formation
of an archival research team with United States investigators in Hanoi.
Of the 4,000 photographs turned over at the time, I am not aware of any
photograph which led to an actual accounting of anybody.
In fact, only a handful of photographs actually pertained to the POW
issue and provided new information not already known. One of them was a
photograph of Joseph Morrison, one of the Air Force pilots I just
mentioned. Sadly, Morrison was dead in the photograph taken by the
Vietnamese and we did account for Morrison because of that.
But where is Morrison? We have a photograph of the body, yet the
Vietnamese have yet to give us any information about the incident and
they have yet to return the remains. They showed us his photograph and
I saw the photograph. If they have an official Vietnamese News Agency
photograph of Joe Morrison, we could reasonably expect they can account
for him and Mr. Francisco. Yet they have been silent.
That is disappointing. That is wrong.
All of these examples are probably enough to illustrate my point, and
I know I am running out of time. So I do not want to rehash it anymore.
But if Senators would contact the MIA families in their States--and I
hope they will--they will learn more about the examples. It behooves
us; we have a responsibility; maybe we ought to read these cases before
we vote.
This example, the last one that I would like to give, involved a wide
variety of reports of American POW's at prison locations in North
Vietnam and Laos during the war, from which no American POW's ever
returned, even though they were reported to have been there. They never
came back. I will not go into detail because of time, but one prison is
called Tan Lap. It is in a remote area of northern Vietnam. I visited
there last summer to determine the accuracy of some of the intelligence
reports the United States has received. No one from our Government has
ever asked to go there, even though it was a camp which was suspected
by the DIA during the war of holding American POW's. It was a camp
which, according to a recently declassified CIA study in 1982, is now
believed to have contained American POW's during the war.
CIA, everybody will deny it: There is nothing to it.
That is not what the report said. Read the report. This report was
not declassified under the orders of President Bush and Clinton. It was
only declassified a couple weeks ago at my insistence. No one came back
from that prison, and the CIA has reported that American POW's were
held there during the war. I am talking about during the war. It is now
1994. Have the Vietnamese been confronted with this evidence? No. I
just found the study a couple of weeks ago.
Has General Needham taken that up with the Vietnamese? No. And in
yesterday's paper the Pentagon has reiterated their contention that no
information has emerged that would substantiate the inference that a
separate prison system ever existed in Vietnam.
Mr. President, that is disingenuous, and I am being kind.
I have now another CIA study that was conducted in 1976. It has been
classified for 18 years. It was released at my request after the
President said all POW/MIA documents from Vietnam have been
declassified.
The CIA states, and this is 1976,
In response to recent human source reporting on American
POWs still in North Vietnam, we conducted a photographic
study of selected prison/detention facilities in the northern
portion of the country . . . An analysis of 19 camps not
known to have contained Americans revealed inconsistencies in
the various camps reaction to the Son Tay Raid. (That was our
attempt to rescue POWs during the war).
Some camps reacted defensively to the raid, other camps did
not react initially but constructed weapons positions later
in the year and some camps never received weapons positions
during the time frame of our study, November 1970 to January
1973. The reason for this inconsistency in the various camps
reaction to the raid is not known. It does show that the
North Vietnamese did not provide blanket precautionary
measures and that only selected camps reacted initially to
the raid. Because of this inconsistency and the fact that
several reports have been received recently stating that
Americans are still being held in North Vietnam, the
possibility of a second prison system for the detention of
American POWs cannot be disregarded.
Mr. President, that is the first time the American people have heard
those words written by CIA 3 years after the war. It has been
classified all these years--it was never reviewed by our committee last
year--and the only reason it is now public is because I demanded that
it be declassified. And this is after the President said everything has
been declassified. The CIA in its own words was saying that the
possibility of a second prison system existed. And if you look at their
subsequent study on the Tan Lap prison in 1982, a camp which did react
to the raid, a picture starts to emerge about what camps comprised the
second system. The CIA had one report in 1986 concerning an American
POW in this camp in 1978, and their CIA debriefer in Bangkok said,
``CIA is very high on this source. The debriefer involved states source
was very forthcoming, open, and seemed completely candid. In fact,
although the debriefer has interviewed scores of refugees who claimed
first hand live sightings, this is the first, in his subjective view,
whom debriefer believes is being completely honest.'' And my colleagues
should read the subsequent message traffic on this between CIA and DIA.
You can draw your own conclusion on whether this report was ever
properly followed up. I think it is obvious that it was not. CIA could
not even get DIA to agree to do a polygraph of this source. But
regardless of whether members feel it was properly pursued, I implore
you to at least give President Clinton the opportunity to come to
Congress and tell us that these reports have been fully investigated
with the Vietnamese being fully forthcoming to his satisfaction. There
is too much at stake to just lift the embargo without the President
making such a determination. And that is all that is required under
this amendment.
We also know that in Laos, there were areas, such as the caves in Sam
Neua Province, where American POW's were known to be held, and this was
the CIA's position, and yet no one was ever returned. The nine that
returned at homecoming never even transited through Sam Neua Province.
And we know from intelligence reports that North Vietnamese units were
stationed in this area of Laos, and we even know the name of the North
Vietnamese general who commanded this area. Yet we have made no
discernible progress in learning the fate of the American POW's who
were held in northern Laos. The Washington Post had a front page story
on this on January 2--I would refer my colleagues to the story if they
have not already seen it. In point of fact, neither the Vietnamese nor
the Lao have accounted for a single POW held in Sam Neua Province since
the war, even though that is where the CIA determined we had the
strongest evidence, including aerial photography. The Vietnamese and
Lao had their headquarters up there, so it is not like they just do not
know what happened. They certainly can account for Air Force pilot
David Hrdlicka. He was held in that area. The Communists put his
picture in Pravda. He is alive and well in the picture. We have the
transcript of a propaganda confession he was forced to make on the
radio. There is no doubt he was a POW being held at their headquarters.
But he is still unaccounted for.
Finally, some of my colleagues may have seen in the papers in recent
days that there are new reports now coming to light through the
declassification process concerning alleged American POW's having
expired at some prison camps in northern Vietnam long after the war.
They are reportedly buried in marked cemeteries adjacent to the
prisons. As far as I know, U.S. investigators have not even visited
these prisons, even though they have had these reports for several
years, and in some cases, they have actual diagrams of the prisons and
the cemeteries. And I have talked to the people who interviewed some of
these sources. One of them was Bill Bell, who used to head our office
in Hanoi. He believes some of the reports were very credible. That is
another reason why I am asking the President, under this amendment, to
assure me that the Vietnamese have been fully forthcoming with the
United States before we move forward.
These are the kind of things on which we need the Vietnamese to be
fully forthcoming. I have listed samples of POW/MIA cases and
intelligence reports that require answers and cooperation from the
Vietnamese. In my opinion, these are the areas that are the real test
of the depth of Vietnamese cooperation for they directly implicate the
Vietnamese on the POW issue. If the Vietnamese want to drag this
process out some more and play the waiting game on the embargo with us,
I, for one, am prepared to wait until they make the decision to be
fully forthcoming.
For those who say lifting the embargo is the only way to get the POW/
MIA information we seek, I would suggest that is no different than
saying lifting the embargo against North Korea is the way to resolve
the nuclear issue there. I find it ironic that some who want the
embargo lifted on Vietnam were proposing earlier this afternoon keeping
the embargo on North Korea until they have met their full obligation on
the nuclear issue. I would think we should expect Vietnam to likewise
meet their full obligation on the POW/MIA issue before we lift the
embargo there.
It is also no different from saying that lifting the embargo on Libya
is the only viable way to get Kadafi to turn over those responsible for
the Pan Am 103 bombing. Or lifting the embargo on Cuba is the only way
to get Castro to respect human rights. That is outrageous.
Granted, these are my opinions, and in some respects, that is
different from the amendment now before us. The amendment before us
simply calls on the President to make determinations on POW/MIA
cooperation, consistent with his pledges to date, before we remove the
embargo. That assessment is called for under this amendment. That is
why Senators, at the very least, should be patient and allow the
President to make his determinations based on the evidence gathered to
date, and not on public pronouncements by some Members of Congress who,
the record will show, wanted the embargo lifted before we even had the
ongoing process in place and before they had even studied the facts
pertaining to the POW/MIA issue.
This straightforward and simple amendment is the responsible course
of action for the Senate, and I therefore urge my colleagues to vote
yes so that these assessments can be made by the President.
In closing I point out to my colleagues that this amendment urges the
President to consult with Congress as he starts to make further
determinations on POW/MIA progress, so we will all have ample
opportunity to express our views to him, and we should give him the
opportunity to weigh our views before we mandate, in some sort of
legislative way, either a lifting or a maintaining of the embargo.
Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment; it keeps faith
with the commitments made to date by President Clinton; it keeps faith
with the search for our POW/MIA's; and it keeps faith with our Nations
veterans and the POW/MIA families. The President has stated that the
POW/MIA issue is our highest priority with Vietnam. He has stated it is
a moral issue for him. After all, we are talking about people who wore
the Nation's uniform into combat and who did not come home.
There is not business more important right now than the business of
ensuring that the Vietnamese have been fully forthcoming in telling us
what they know about our unaccounted for POW's and missing personnel
from the war. I await that determination from the President and I urge
my colleagues to do likewise.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from the
transcript of the Foreign Relations Committee be printed in the Record
so that that can be interpreted verbatim. There have been some
differences of opinion as to what was intended or what was said. I
would like the record to speak for itself. So I ask unanimous consent
that that be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Say, ``It is the sense of the Senate that.''
Senator Dodd. Would it require certification?
Senator Kerry. That does not work. You still have a legal
requirement before point (5).
Senator Dodd. Paul, why don't you offer what you have in
mind?
Senator Coverdell. Larry, would you be willing to set it
aside until the next amendment?
Senator Pressler. Yes, why don't we do that. Let us set it
aside. And why don't our staffs work on this for a few
minutes here.
And let me offer now Senator Murkowski's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer on behalf of the
Senator from Alaska.
The Chairman. Execuse me.
I would say that we plan to break at about 12:30, and
resume here at 2:30, so members can make their plans.
Senator Pressler. All right. I shall go very rapidly here.
I have an amendment to offer on behalf of the Senator from
Alaska, Senator Murkowski and myself stating that it is the
sense of the Senate that the President shall remove the trade
embargo against Vietnam. As my colleagues know, next week the
President must decide whether or not to review the economic
sanctions against Vietnam under the Trading with the Enemy
Act of 1917.
By passing this amendment, this committee can go on record
in support of increased economic access to Vietnam as a means
to achieve the fullest possible accounting of POW's and MIA's
I recognize that Vietnam is an issue of great personal
significance for many members of this committee, myself
included, and so forth. And I know that Senator Kerry has
done an immense amount of tireless work and has a tireless
commitment to Vietnam's POW's and MIA's, and I commend him
for that fine work.
Mr. Chairman, I have a lengthy statement on this, which is
several pages long.
The Chairman. Without objection, it will be placed in the
record.
Senator Pressler. I wish to put them in the record. And I
move the adoption of the amendment.
[The prepared statement of Senator Pressler follows:]
The Chairman. Is there any comment on the amendment?
Senator Helms. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Helms.
Senator Helms. Now, the committee may very well support
this amendment. But I have got to say I think it is a
mistake. There are very strong feelings on this issue in both
the House and the Senate. And I predict that some members of
the House and some members of the Senate will strenuously
oppose the entire bill because of this single provision.
Now, President Clinton has this issue under consideration,
and I think we ought to give the President some time to
consider it. Let him come to a decision, and then make our
judgment if we are inclined to do so.
I am very concerned that the passage of this amendment will
make Vietnam less cooperative on the POW/MIA issue. And I
think it will be sending the wrong signal to our allies,
which have supported efforts to isolate Vietnam.
If it goes to vote, I, with all apologies to my friend, I
must vote in the negative.
Senator Dodd. If my colleague would yield. I just want to
associate myself with your remarks. I think you are correct.
First of all, you are consistent. Because I would like
someone also to put a definition of what is different between
this form of Marxism that exists in Cuba or other places,
where we spend so much time and energy. But I think you are
absolutely correct, the President is trying to move in this
area, and I think for us to jump ahead without having
considered thought be applied here as to how it affects other
issues is the appropriate way to proceed.
And so while my inclination is to want to lift that
embargo, I think the Senator from North Carolina is correct
in his analysis.
Senator Helms. Thank you.
Senator Simon. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Simon.
Senator Simon. I support the amendment. I think it makes
sense. I think our policy is counterproductive. I have a
company like Caterpillar in Illinois who wants to sell to
Vietnam. They cannot do it now.
Why do we say it is okay to sell to China and not to
Vietnam?
Now, Vietnam is not any great threat. What we are doing in
our Vietnam policy is serving the national passion rather
than the national interest. I am old enough to remember when
Harry Truman said we are going to help Germany and Japan. And
I can remember, with all due respect, the chairman and the
ranking member are also old enough to remember that. I
remember how unpopular Harry Truman was when he did that.
Harry Truman was right.
The Vietnamese War is over. They have been cooperating. And
Senator Kerry and Senator Brown know this much better than
I. But I do not see any purpose served at all by our
present economic boycott of Vietnam. So I am going to vote
for the amendment.
The Chairman. Senator Kassebaum.
Senator Kassebaum. Mr. Chairman, I would defer in time to
Senator Kerry and Senator Brown and myself. We were all
members of the POW/MIA special committee. But, particularly,
Senator Kerry and Senator Brown spend a great deal of time on
this issue. But I would have to vote against it. I think it
is premature.
There are still some very sensitive issues that need
disclosure. And it seems to me that we are moving in that
direction. But to do it at this time really undermines the
ability that we have to get the disclosure that I think will
need to be completed, where we can really move in this
direction. And I agree with the remarks that Senator Helms
has made.
The Chairman. Senator Brown.
Senator Brown. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to report I am
far too young to remember what Harry Truman said about Japan.
[Laughter.]
Senator Brown. Actually, it was pretty close.
I do not think it should pass without noting that the
distinguished Senator from South Dakota is a Vietnam veteran,
who served two terms in country and I think has a record that
every American admires. And I think in terms of advocating
this policy he is probably the ideal one to present it, or
one of the ideal ones.
There are several members of the committee who have very
distinguished records there. But I think the issue should not
be thought of without noting his background in that area.
I am concerned about it for a reason that is a little
different than what we have talked about, and it may only
relate to a special concern I have. My perception of our
trade relations around the world is that following our World
War II experience, we largely bought off on a system where we
accepted other countries' restrictions on our exports to
them, and gave them access to our market in a very broad
fashion that we do with almost everyone.
I do not mean to say that we are perfect or that we have no
barriers at all, but we, on a comparative basis, have an
extremely open market--perhaps the most remarkably open
market of any major economy in the world. That is a way of
saying that the point at which you start trade relationships
is very important. Because once you are started on a plane,
where they have a restricted market and you have an open
market, then it becomes very difficult to get them to make
unilateral concessions.
I am concerned about this action in that my hope is that
the resumption of trade relations with Vietnam--which will
happen--my hope is that when that happens, when we resume
trading with Vietnam, when we end the embargo, that it only
happen after there has been some negotiations on the whole
nature of market access, market access for them in the United
States, and U.S. access to the Vietnamese market. And my hope
is that we do not end the embargo without having that
negotiation first and getting some decent ground rules for
equal access.
If we grant that access before we have done that
negotiating, I fear we will have a much more difficult time
of getting fair and equal access.
So that is a little different focus than I think many of
the members have been observing. But at least my hope is that
we would take care of the discussions on market access before
we would end the embargo.
Senator Simon. Would my colleague yield?
Senator Brown. Surely.
Senator Simon. If we were to drop the word ``immediate''
here, that would not preclude doing precisely what you are
talking about. But it seems to me it is so ridiculous that
Japan, Taiwan, everybody else is in, France, they are in
Vietnam selling away, and we cannot.
I have two major Illinois corporations who want to sell to
Vietnam but they cannot do it. We are hurting Vietnam a
little, but we are hurting ourselves more.
Senator Sarbanes. Could I ask a question?
Is it your assumption that the President is now in
negotiations with Vietnam about removing this trade embargo
and getting certain things, I would assume, in response for
it; that his hand in those negotiations, which I take it
would be very quiet ones now going on I assume, would be
strengthened by passing this? It seems to me it would be
somewhat weakened by passing this.
Because, in effect, it would say, Well, you know there is a
movement growing afoot to do this. In any event, it is going
to take presidential action to do it.
I mean, this is a sense of the Senate. But it seems to me
in that in the play of policy here, let him play with a full
hand while he is at it right now and see what that produces.
It may produce some results that none of us are fully aware
of at the moment.
Senator Pressler. I think the Senator from Illinois has
made a good suggestion, and I would be willing to change the
amendment and take the word immediate out.
Senator Simon. Take out the word immediate.
Senator Pressler. I hope the Senator has a right to change
his amendment, but I will do that without consulting with
Frank Murkowski who is not here.
Senator Simon. All right
Senator Kerry. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Kerry?
Senator Kerry. This is a troubling amendment in some
regards personally, not in terms of the policy, because the
moment here is kind of a critical one with respect to the
road travelled on Vietnam
The President is literally going to decide in the next
couple of days, and I was discussing this earlier with the
White House today. And I think we are on a carefully thought
out and orchestrated road here where there is some critical
information that has come into our hands in the last weeks
and months as a result of the efforts ongoing that is not
fully evaluated yet and it needs to be evaluated.
There is every indication that the Vietnamese are
cooperating very significantly. I just got a letter yesterday
from the Ambassador in New York indicating that significant
documents from the 559 Division and the 875 Division, which
handled prisoners, have been turned over in the last weeks as
well as large bags of letters that they found to prisoners
and other things. So, there is an ongoing process here.
What the President has promised the families, and it is an
important promise, is that our actions are going to be
commensurate with the cooperation of the Vietnamese. I do not
think anybody wants to be abusive of that process that is in
place.
Now, I personally believe that that process is greatly
enhanced by lifting the embargo. But I believe because I see
this process now so carefully engaged in, that we do not
really advantage the process ourselves or the ultimate goals
by pressing this issue today. That is not to say that in 3
weeks or 4 weeks we may not want to press it when the
evaluations are in and when we can make a judgment about the
results of the cooperation that has increased in the last
months.
So, I want to be very careful here. I do not want my
opposition to this particular language at this particular
moment to be interpreted in any way as suggesting that we are
well served by keeping the embargo. We are not. But I want to
pay respect to the needs to have that interpretation made of
this current information, and also to give the President the
leeway in his interplay with the Vietnamese to make the
judgment.
Now, we all ought to understand here, and I want the
Senator from North Carolina who was a member of the committee
and signed off on the report and others to really understand,
that there is an ultimate division here which we are going to
have to confront. There are people who do not want ever to
move forward and who will find any reason whatsoever,
including any interpretation of noncooperation, as an excuse
to prevent moving forward on the embargo. And there is an
ultimate confrontation with that. It may not be appropriate
at this moment today, but it really is 3 weeks, 4 weeks, 6
weeks down the road here.
It is clear--I was just in Japan last week and met a number
of companies that are losing a million dollars a month or so,
and these are companies, one of them is Digital. $1 million
of profit last year. They are losing $12 million annually now
of a contract they cannot complete in Vietnam. And what is
scary is because many of the Vietnamese and other countries
trained on Digital, they will be replaced by NEC and by
others. And the result will be that they will be out of it
forever. And we had better understand that as we go down the
road here.
This embargo will not ultimately change Vietnam's behavior
because Vietnam has alternative sources. There are many
billions of dollars that have now been invested in Vietnam,
and the Taiwanese are there, the Chinese, the Japanese, the
French, the Germans, all our competitors are laughing at us.
When we were last over there we met with the 14 ambassadors
of our allies. Every one of them said, you ask us for advice
on the embargo. Every one of them said, you ask us for advice
on the embargo. If we are going to give you advice from our
perspective we say, keep it. But if we are going to give you
advice for the region and for all of us, lift it immediately.
Now, we have got to understand that. Vietnam is growing at
6 to 7 percent a year right now without us. And what has
happened is that we have got the IMF that we have granted
them which means they get credit, but we do not allow our
companies to take advantage of the benefits that that credit
now gives them.
Now, I am not putting commercial interests ahead of the
larger moral interests of getting this accounting. But the
fact is we want something from the Vietnamese. This is not
unilateral.
You cannot sit here forever and say, give us information
and if you do not we are going to hurt ourselves. Well, that
is basically our policy. And unless we recognize that Vietnam
has the answers and if we are going to get the answers, we
had better have access. And if you continue to shut the door,
you shut the door on getting answers. So, in effect, families
are not helped by the continuing of the embargo.
Now, I just got a letter yesterday from a person who put up
an American flag in Hanoi outside the office they are now
allowed to open to merely talk about doing business but not
to do business. As a result of that flag being there, people
came into his office.
And he said to me, you know, they said we are scared to go
to the government. We are scared to go over here, but we
think we know where some American remains are. We would like
to show you where they are. And they talked to this person.
This person put them in touch with our office in Hanoi.
Our office in Hanoi went out to the location and, indeed,
they are now probably going to have answers for a family. One
American flag provided those answers for that family
probably. And the question this businessman put to me, he
said, what would 100 American flags or 1,000 American flags
in Vietnam do for us?
So, there is a confrontation in a few weeks on this issue,
but I strongly think that this particular day, this
particular moment, though I support the fundamental effort,
is not the moment.
Senator Pressler: Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Senator Pressler?
Senator Pressler: Could I just conclude by saying that I
thank my friend very much. I think by taking Senator Simon's
suggestion and taking the word immediate out I think we solve
the President's problem because we take the pressure off.
This could be prospective. The President can negotiate and so
forth without the word immediate being in there.
But let me say, my thinking on this whole matter is exactly
similar to Senator Kerry's. If there are more POW's there we
will be able to find them a lot better by having Americans
going around and there being offices there and getting
information.
Also, I was with Senator Brown and Senator Cohen on a
recent trip to that part of the world. China and Japan are
getting their paws on Vietnam. And I think by our recognizing
Vietnam we would have a balance to China and Japan
economically in that part of the world.
And I certainly agree with Senator Brown's fine point that
our trade imbalance is partly because of how generous we are.
As to the whole region, we are going to have to change that
not only for Vietnam but for China and Malaysia and all those
countries because we have been allowing their products to
come into our country and they have limited ours.
So, in conclusion, I think with taking the word immediate
out it addresses Senator Kerry's problem. I think we need to
address the trade imbalance issues on a worldwide basis, but
if we do not move forward with this trade we are just letting
China, and Japan, and France, and Germany, everybody else in
the world get the standards set and get the business, as well
as establish hegemony where we really need to have our foot
in the door.
So, I move the adoption of the amendment. And by the way,
the Baltic States amendment, staff has worked that out. So,
right after we vote on this if we could, by unanimous
consent, adopt the Baltic States amendment I would appreciate
it.
The Chairman: All right. Since we have a quorum now, let us
adopt the Baltic States amendment.
Senator Dodd: I would like to hear what it is and I would
like to see it.
The Chairman: You have not seen it? Okay.
Senator Pressler: Let us do the Vietnam one first.
The Chairman: We will do the Vietnam one now.
Senator Dodd: Is this on Vietnam?
The Chairman: The vote is on the amendment as modified by
the Senator from South Dakota.
Senator Dodd: Is this Vietnam?
The Chairman: Yes, this is Vietnam. The clerk will call the
roll.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Biden?
(No response.)
Ms. Allen: Mr. Sarbanes?
Senator Sarbanes: No.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Dodd?
Senator Dodd: No.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Kerry?
Senator Kerry: No.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Simon?
Senator Simon: Aye.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Moynihan?
(No response.)
Ms. Allen: Mr. Robb?
(No response.)
Ms. Allen: Mr. Wofford?
(No response.)
The Chairman: Senator Robb votes no by proxy.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Wofford?
(No response.)
Ms. Allen: Mr. Feingold?
Senator Feingold: No.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Mathews?
Senator Mathews: Aye.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Helms?
Senator Helms: No.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Lugar?
(No response.)
Ms. Allen: Mrs. Kassebaum?
Senator Kassebaum: No.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Pressler?
Senator Pressler: Aye.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Murkowski?
(No response.)
Ms. Allen: Mr. Brown?
Senator Brown: No.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Jeffords?
Senator Jeffords: Aye.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Coverdell?
Senator Coverdell: Aye.
Senator Pressler: Mr. Murkowski is aye by proxy.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Gregg?
(No response.)
Ms. Allen: Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Aye. And also Senator Moynihan votes aye by
proxy. I am sorry. He votes no by proxy.
Senator Helms: Did you get Murkowski's proxy vote?
Ms. Allen: Yes, I did. And Senator Moynihan is no by proxy?
The Chairman: Senator Moynihan is no by proxy. On this vote
there are nine nay's and seven yea's. The amendment is not
agreed to.
Senator Pressler: And the Baltic States amendment, staff
has agreed on that. Shall I go through what the changes have
been or has it been distributed? They have taken out
everything under B.
The Chairman: Could we have a copy of it?
Senator Pressler: Yes.
The Chairman: Would you have copies for everybody?
Senator Simon: May we have copies for everybody please? I
think this is important enough that we do.
[Pause.]
The Chairman: I would like to announce also that there * *
*.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from New Hampshire has
expired.
Mr. SMITH. I will continue tomorrow. I thank the Chair.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kerry],
is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I am not going to take even half as long as my
colleague. He has thrown out a lot of cases, and I do not know how many
folks have been able to digest them or listen to them all, and there
have been a lot of allegations about these cases.
Let me just start off and try to say the accuracy in this process is
awfully important. It is hard for people who do not know a lot about
this to pick through it. We are obviously not going to be able to do
that in a short span of time. But the Senator has made a number of
representations, and I would really like to correct some of them and
let the record be clear on them.
No. 1, he quoted the Foreign Relations Committee actions on the
embargo as indicating why we ought to be in sync with his particular
amendment, and that in fact the Foreign Relations Committee in the
action it took on the embargo was reflecting the decision let the
President decide.
Let me say to my friend, since I am on the Foreign Relations
Committee and since I was the principal one opposing proceeding forward
on the embargo at that point in time, I know what that message was and
what we did. We did not decide on the basis of his amendment to let the
President decide. That had nothing to do with it.
We decided it because we wanted to keep faith with the effort in
place to make sure that the whole JTF process in Vietnam was working. I
felt very strongly that we had not given it enough time and that we
owed it to the veterans to permit a number of months to go by to see if
the Vietnamese were, indeed, cooperating further. It had nothing to do
with ``letting the President decide.'' It had to do with the
determination of the committee that moving forward was premature.
Now, that is just one example of the way in which something is taken
and thrown out here and reality is in fact very different.
Let me give you another example, the case of this film and this
person where he says, ``Why isn't General Needham there in Hanoi
finding out what happened to this guy that we knew was alive?''
Well, we are finding out. We have found out. We do not have his
remains yet. But the point is General Needham is finding those things
out.
Now, I will share with my colleague a sense that a lot of things have
been done very badly in this process over the years. There is a lot of
blame to go around, going right back to 1973, and families were misled;
families were not given the full truth. I think one of the great things
that our report and our work did jointly was to prove the trail of
negligence, inattention, bad decisions and other things that really
have led the families through a terrible process.
But we should not compound it now by not making clear what our group
is doing and not doing in their efforts to provide full faith in this.
The Senator does not like what the task force is doing. He has made
that very clear.
But they are getting answers. You have plenty of people around who
have made huge pronouncements as former Congressmen, or as Congressmen
and others who say that there are 80 live Americans and we are going to
bring them out in a month, who tell us that there are live people there
and who have gone to Vietnam and made announcements about live people
and come back, people who say those are photographs of my son, my
father, and we find out they are fake. This process has been led by a
certain number of charlatans and exploiters, and we should not allow
fiction to cloud what we are trying to do here.
Now, the case that he just talked about in the film happens to be a
person by the name of Burns. He was an American, and an American
captain was with him in the camp. The American captain has told us he
died of malnutrition and in fact he was buried by Americans. We now
have certificates from Vietnam confirming his death certificate and
hopefully the location of the grave because they gave us the grave
registration.
So the Senator is here screaming, ``Find him, General Needham.'' We
have information on this fellow just as we do on every other case he
has raised. We are getting this information. The fact is we hope we
will find his remains now that we know he in fact died, how he died,
where he died, and several fellow Americans observed his burial at the
time.
The Senator did not tell you that during his discourse. He also did
not tell you that the pictures of Bobby Garwood in that film show him
carrying a gun on a mission walking around with Vietcong soldiers at
the time, and that this is the same Bobby Garwood who led people up to
an area north of Hanoi claiming it was the area where he could identify
buildings. He identifies the buildings. We have another press
conference saying this confirms Americans were alive. And lo and
behold, the satellite photography that we have proves the buildings he
was pointing to did not even exist when he was there as a prisoner.
That is the kind of distortion that this matter has been subject to
for a long time.
We have also heard about all the veterans groups that supposedly have
strong opposition--Vietnam Veterans of America, American Legion, and
others. I think it was Jack Kennedy who said of the American Legion
back in the 1960's they had not had an original idea in 25 years. Well,
now maybe it is 50.
Do you know what the American Legion says to the President? They say
there are live prisoners, and until we get the live prisoners back we
cannot lift the embargo. So the Senator now wants us to set that as the
new standard in his amendment. We have to consult with them before we
can proceed forward.
The amendment the Senator has put in is directly opposed to the
amendment of Senator McCain, Senator Pressler, Senator Robb, Senator
Bob Kerrey, myself and others. We are urging the President to take a
step. The amendment of the Senator is geared to prevent the President
from taking a step. It sets a new standard. It is purposely imprecise.
It calls on the President to require Vietnam to produce for Laos and
Cambodia.
So we are not just going to have them responsible for Vietnam. They
have now to produce to the fullest accountability for Laos and
Cambodia. That on its face ought to be rejected. It is not even a
sense-of-the-Senate. They want it to be law so that this actually ties
the hands of the President, something most Republicans were
extraordinary loath to do when President Reagan and President Bush were
in office. While he suggests this is something the President ought to
like, I suggest on its face that this administration will want this
rejected and suggest it is not an appropriate standard.
Mr. President, the Senator said we ought to be getting real answers;
that we are not getting real answers. And he says that we should not be
going to grave sites. We should be going to Hanoi to get a real answer.
I have shown you a photograph. This is a real answer. Three bodies were
unearthed here that we believed might have been alive, might have been
prisoners. We did not know. And by virtue of this grave site, we will
have answers for families, answers that not one of your Ramboesk, self-
styled saviors of POW's has ever produced, not once, not one. They
raised expectations. They have raised hopes. And they have raised
millions of dollars exploiting a lot of people in the process promising
to bring back live people. But they have never brought back a live
person.
Mr. SMITH. Excuse me. Parliamentary inquiry. I need to understand.
The Senator is referring to me in his remarks.
Mr. KERRY. No. I referred to the people in the outside who have been
raising moneys. Has the Senator been raising money?
Mr. SMITH. The Senator knows I have not been doing that. I resent the
implication. And you also misrepresent what I said; the statements that
I made. You said I did not say there was a document certifying his
death. I did say that. The Senator needs to be accurate.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what I said was that the Senator says we do
not know what happened to this person. I will go back into the Record.
That is what the Senator says. He says it is unanswered. I have pointed
out that it is not unanswered.
The fate has been determined. This is not a handful. I heard the
Senator from Iowa say just a handful have been answered. I do not
consider when General Vessey gives them 196 cases that we are down to
73, that more than 116 cases is a handful. Those are 116 American
families that have an answer today. And I am proud to stand on this
floor advocating a policy that will get more answers for families, not
less.
The Senator suggests that when the chiefs of these veterans groups
speak they speak for all veterans. He cites the Vietnam Veterans of
America. Mr. President, I am one of the four founders of the Vietnam
Veterans of America. I know that at least one of the other four
founders believes as I do. That is 50 percent. And I know that many of
my friends are members. I am a lifetime member. Leadership does not
speak for me on this.
I also know that in the VFW there are thousands of members who do not
share the opinion of some of the leaders. That is true in all of these
organizations. And no Senator should be intimidated by the notion that
when a President of an organization or somebody writes a letter it
represents all of the views of all of the organizations.
That is true for Senator McCain who is a member of them, for Senator
Pressler, and for Senator Bob Kerrey, for Senator John Glenn who stands
here, a war hero himself, and others. Do not tell me who speaks for me
or for some other friends of mine who are veterans.
Mr. President, we have been told that there are 1,100 people who
ought to have the same treatment as all of the others. I have gone to
look at those cases too. The Senator from New Hampshire knows that I
made an issue about that during the time we had the committee, and I
insisted we have people review those cases.
We have this great number, 2,238 POW-MIA. But we know that there are
not in fact 2,238 POW's nor even MIA's about whom we know very little.
The Pentagon knows that more than 1,100 of those people are dead. They
know that, and they know their bodies will never be recovered. And of
the 1,100 others that are on that list, General Vessey went through
them and that is the list he gave to the Vietnamese.
He went through those cases, and they found almost 200 of them where
you might be able to make a presumption the person lived. I suggest
that if my colleagues read those 200 cases, they would have a hard time
deciding that truly in 100 of them they lived. But we gave the benefit
of the doubt, raised it up to 200 so that no issue would be left
unexamined, so no stone would be unturned, so nobody could come in and
say, gee, you should have done this case. Some of the cases were
missed. I agree with my colleague. It was not as complete as it should
have been. We added some cases as time went on. We found some others
that we thought legitimately should have been in the first batch.
Mr. President, I could show my colleagues in the Senate sheets that
show that every single one of these cases is being investigated. Some
of them have been investigated 8 separate times. People have gone out
into the field, talked to witnesses, tried to find out what happened.
We have this great mythology that somehow there are all these
records. I have seen the records we get in Vietnam as our investigators
have seen them. They are tattered, ragged, sheets of paper in many
cases. They have no computers. They have no filing systems. Many of
these are being pulled out of boxes. They have mildew on them, they are
dirty, they clearly have not been stored in any significant way. And in
a country that suffered enormous bombing, people were out in the Ho Chi
Minh Trail with B-52 strikes. Some prisoners were bombed by ourselves.
Some people never reached camps. Some of them we will simply never know
the answers.
So I simply want to say, I could go on a little bit further. Senator
Grassley said we are not getting documents. I called over, and we have
gotten documents from the security service on individual prisoners. The
group 875 documents, for those who took care of the prisoners when they
were in country; documents from the Department of Military Justice,
group 559 documents which was the group responsible for operations in
Laos.
We have gotten specific shoot-down documents. We have learned things
about people that we never knew anything about as a result of some of
these documents. We have private diaries of wartime battles. We have
private personnel battalion commander records of fights. We have
learned from these documents. And all I can say to my colleagues is
that the real issue here is whether we are going to try to set up a
process that guarantees we continue to get information and provide this
information to the families.
We have a difference of opinion; not that we want to serve the
families, not that we want to do everything we humanly can to resolve
this issue, but a difference as to how you do that.
I believe that we ought to trust the judgment of the people in the
field. Some people do not trust them at all. That is their prerogative.
But I find it very hard to believe that the young lieutenants that I
saw out there risking their lives, or that the generals or colonels who
have major careers ahead of them, who want to produce, who want to do
things correctly, are somehow all of them betraying their oath to the
Constitution and the uniform they wear.
I mean some people seem to make a presumption that every soldier who
ever came in touch with this, that every person in the Pentagon, that
every single person who has ever dealt with this issue, who has not
come up with a live person is somehow part of a conspiracy. And
thousands of reputations are being tarnished in the process of that.
I do not think anybody has claimed perfection in this. There
certainly is not perfection. But I think there is better faith that
some people have allowed for.
So, Mr. President, I will have more to say tomorrow. The Senator from
Ohio is waiting extremely patiently this evening. Before we close off,
I yield to him.
Mr. GLENN. I thank my colleague. My remarks will be brief.
Mr. President, this is obviously a very emotional issue with a lot of
people, and we come to this debate with a lot of people having feelings
that go back many years and with friends left behind in Vietnam. It
brings back recollections of other wars where people were left behind,
also.
The question is, at this point, how do we truly get the best answers
for the families? How do we give them the best peace of mind, to know
that everything is possibly being done that possibly can be done to
account for their loved ones? How do we get answers for the families?
How do we get answers for the veterans organization, such as AMVETS;
VFW, Vietnam Vets, the National League of Families, and others? How do
we guarantee the best chance of getting those answers? I will go beyond
that. How do you get answers for me? I do not take second place to
anybody in being interested in knowing what happened to our people and
knowing whether we have done everything we possibly could do to make
sure that unaccounted for becomes accounted for, whatever that
accounting may show. How do we get it for Senator Kerry. He has no less
interest in this than anybody else and takes second place to nobody on
that. He was in that war. Senator McCain was in that war. How do we get
a good accounting?
Nobody, least of all those who have been in battle, wants to abandon
hope for those who did not come back. We want the concrete results that
Senator Smith talked about a little while ago. So the question to me is
not what we have hoped for all these years, not what I stood for in
wanting the best accounting and making sure we were tough on Vietnam.
But we come to this time in 1994, which is now some 20 years after our
American forces pulled out in 1973 and 1975, when finally even the
embassy was abandoned and the last of our people were brought out. The
question is how best to proceed at this time in the current situation
in which we find ourselves. Do we keep the attitude we had, and I had,
and a lot of people had, back through the early 1980's when we were
really not getting much information? Or do we say we have a new tack we
can take now, and perhaps we really should abandon some of the views we
had earlier.
I do not want to admit to anybody that we are abandoning anything. We
are not abandoning anything. What we are trying to do, I believe, is
take a new tack in guaranteeing that we will continue to have the best
information coming out. That information, to me, should center on one
thing first. I hope it is not a futile hope to center on this one
thing: Is anybody still alive out there that could be brought back? Is
anyone being held against their will out there? After every war we have
had, there have been some people, for whatever their private reasons
are, who decided they would stay where they were; they either met
somebody and fell in love, or for whatever reasons, they decided they
wanted to stay. That has happened after every war. Aside from those
people, is anybody being held against their will? How do we ask for
that and make certain we can best investigate those possible
situations?
It seems to me that our situation has indeed changed. Through the
years, bit by bit by bit, there has been a cooperation, bulging at
times, cut off at others, threats at other times. Yet, there has been
an increased cooperation that nobody can deny out there. Has it been as
complete and as fast as we all would like? No, certainly not. But has
it been a real slow progress where we are getting more information than
we used to get? Yes, I think we would all have to say that is the case.
We have seen General Needham out there now, and we have had Admiral
Larson and General Vessey. General Needham is on the spot with his
team. He tells us he is absolutely free to go wherever he wants to go.
He has not been refused on requests he made to go out and investigate
sites or investigate the potential live sightings from that area and
investigate all of those things. Senator Kerry has pointed out that
General Needham has exercised those options, and in case after case and
every time some new rumor occurs, he goes and diligently investigates
again. I was wondering when we were out there and he was showing us
crash sites and telling us about some crash sites, where there is still
live ammunition and bombs around, and where they had to be careful and
mark the entryway into some of these investigative areas they were into
now, and they had to mark these with little flags, and people walk
through narrow corridors and stay out of the more dangerous areas on
each side. I was wondering then if we are not going to perhaps
inadvertently kill more people going in to look for some of these crash
sites, where the best they are coming out with are a few fragments of
bones; and the relatives here are interested in those remains,
obviously, fragmentary though they may be. You cannot equate that with
money, obviously, and the interests of the people back here. When we
were out there the previous year, the numbers of remains that had been
identified and brought back, the total cost of doing that was about
$1.7 million, as I recall. I hasten to add, again, that you cannot
equate something like this to the families with the cost involved, nor
would I propose that we limit it because of costs.
It indicates that we are spending a lot and going ahead with bringing
back those fragments, and they are making every effort they can to make
certain that everything is returned that people want returned, if we
have the option of doing it.
I submit that through the years the Vietnamese have, in their efforts
to help in our accounting, done a lot of new things in cooperation. At
this point--and I keep coming back to this point in time--in 1994, are
we liable to get more information? Are we liable to find out truly if
there are any of our people still alive out there? Should we go back
and say we are going to get tough, we will not cooperate with Vietnam?
Or is it to our own selfish advantage in trying to find out what
happened to the unaccounted for, if we go ahead and have a more
cooperative view toward Vietnam, if we open up some sort of
relationship with them that is more formal than we are exercising right
now. I submit that, in my opinion, we would probably cut off the flow
of information if we do not move to some newer relationship.
It has been 20 years since Americans left there. Are we ever going to
find out what happened to every one? No, no more so than we have for
World War II, where we have almost 79,000 still unaccounted for. Out of
Korea, over 8,000 are unaccounted for. In Vietnam, we can probably
bring that down to a pretty good estimate, to about 1,200 that we
cannot really say for sure what happened. Just to put this in
comparison also, as we were in Vietnam, the Vietnamese asked me a
question during one of our meetings: Could we supply records on their
people that are missing? I asked how many they thought they had
missing, and they said somewhere over 300,000 Vietnamese are missing,
and they said, ``We would appreciate your help in determining what
happened to them.''
I took that seriously. When we came back I called the people over at
the Pentagon who follow the aftermath of the Vietnam war and I said
could this be that they still have 300,000 unaccounted for out of the
Vietnam war? It is their country. Why do they not go look for them?
Our people said no, they think that is quite plausible.
I said can we help them get records? Their people are interested in
loved ones that disappeared in the war just as our people are. They are
human. They told us their people go to shrines every year, somewhere
near the last place they heard from their loved ones, and they continue
to this day to ask questions. And they told us about sheets that are
put out regularly and distributed throughout Vietnam still trying to
find, to this day, some of their people that are missing-- 300,000 they
claim. And our people over in the Pentagon said that is probably an
accurate figure. They did not dispute that figure.
The question is, do we have adequate records on all those people? Did
we keep records in the heat of combat when there was a fire fight and
people we are going down and dying and falling? Do you get the man 's
dogtag and get his records and take it back with you so that these
records can be kept for some post-war analyses? No; you certainly do
not.
I am not taking the sides of the Vietnamese against us on this.
Certainly not. I only bring this up to point out that war sometimes is
not very tidy and some of your record keeping is not as good as you
wish it was.
So we are not abandoning these people out there. I want to get every
single bit of information we can. If anybody says to me that I am
trying to favor the oil conditions, or I am trying to favor those who
want to sell consume goods out there and we are abandoning our
prisoners in the interest of commerce, that would make my blood boil
because certainly nothing could be further from the truth.
I want to see us get every bit of information we can, as Senator
Smith said, concrete results. Do we do that by having some form of
recognition, having some form of cooperation which will keep the lines
of communication that are now open, keep them open and expand them as
they grudgingly, slowly expanded through the years? Or do we tighten
down on that?
I know that we will never have the answer to every single person that
is unaccounted for in Vietnam. Certainly we want to have as clear a
picture of what happened as possible and to account for everyone that
we possibly can account for.
But I would say to those families that still are grieving after 20 or
25 years, or even 30 years, that we go back to the days of the
beginnings of the Vietnam conflict, to those who are still grieving for
to find out what happened to the loved ones back in those days and to
the members of veterans organizations who lost buddies and friends and
remember what that war was like all too well, I would ask them then how
do you think we will best be able to account for the people that are
still missing out there?
Do not just hold a grudge and say we will never cooperate with those
people. If we took that attitude after every war we knew what would
happen with the Germans or Koreans or whatever war we have been in.
Somehow we start getting over it, sometimes. Do not just say because
Vietnam was not a popular war that we are going to forever say that we
will never have any relationship, because I do not think that is the
way that we really find out what happened to every single person that
we can find out about.
I do believe that the time is changing, the time has come to say we
do not give full diplomatic recognition right off the bat or something
like that. I think it is time to say we are not going to put up a lot
of roadblocks here, and say we are not going to do a whole bunch of
things until we get some of the accounting we truly want. That is not
the way to get that accounting.
Maybe not to the extent that we would like, and as soon as we would
like, but I think that they have come a long ways toward providing what
information they have. Maybe it is not perfect, maybe there are
particular cases that General Needham and his team need to investigate
more. But I keep equating some of these requests for information with
the Vietnamese request of us for information and my request to the
Pentagon as to what information we have on Vietnamese combat deaths
that occurred in areas where we controlled the territory. And we have
rather sparse records in that area. We cannot give them any answers.
But I think we do need to keep a condition, we need to keep the
situation out there such that they will be forthcoming with information
they have. We have teams out there now set up to monitor that and we
try to look into the information that we get from them.
For all these reasons--I give these as reasons why I have gradually,
through the last few years, changed my mind on what we should do. I
think the best way to make certain we get information is to make
certain that we do not clam up, do not tighten up. As I said, I do not
do this for commercial reasons at all, whether we never have oil
companies out there or our consumer people out there. I think the
cooperation that we have been building slowly over a period of time,
and that they have responded to, is the best way to go to making sure
that we do have concrete results, that we do have as much information
as we ever can get, to make sure that we know to the best possible
level exactly what happened to every American that did not come back
from Vietnam.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FORD). The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr.
Kerry is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 26 minutes and 50 seconds.
Mr. KERRY. I think, Mr. President, we are anxious to try to wrap up
here. I would just like to point out a couple of things if we can as we
go along that I want the Record to reflect. I ask unanimous consent
that a history of the POW/MIA activity since the war be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
POW/MIA History re the Vietnam War
1973:
A total of 591 American POWs return to the United States.
Most returned during Operation Homecoming from February to
April 1973.
1974:
The Vietnamese repatriate the remains of 24 POWs who died
in captivity.
1975:
Saigon falls and American forces are withdrawn from
Vietnam.
1976-1978:
After the end of the war, Vietnam's objective was to be
accepted into the international community. For example, in
1977 when the U.S. opted not to veto their United Nations
membership, the Vietnamese responded by suddenly repatriating
the remains of more than 20 Americans. At the same time,
U.S.-Vietnamese negotiations explored the possibility of
normalizing relations; however, this was later scuttled by
Vietnamese demands for war reparations and their invasion of
Cambodia. U.S. policy at the time was accounting for missing
Americans as ``a hoped for by-product'' of the normalization
process.
1978-1982:
Following the breakdown of normalization talks, contact
with Vietnamese officials virtually halted, as did the return
of remains and any form of cooperation on the POW/MIA issue.
1982-1987:
The U.S. made clear that resolution of the POW/MIA issue
was a humanitarian matter that rested on international
standards and that it was in Vietnam's interest to treat it
that way, regardless of the state of U.S.-SRV diplomatic
relations. It was also made clear that the U.S. domestic
environment, absent such treatment, would dictate that the
pace and scope of U.S.-SRV relations would be directly
affected by cooperation on this issue.
U.S. policy-level delegations visit Vietnam and the
Vietnamese pledge to resolve the POW/MIA issue.
1987:
January--U.S. proposals for technical discussions in Hanoi
were rejected by the Vietnamese, as was a similar proposal
the following month. President Reagan named a former Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Vessey, Jr. USA
(Ret.), as Special Presidential Emissary to Hanoi for POW/MIA
Affairs.
August--General Vessey led an Interagency Delegation to
Vietnam. General Vessey obtained agreement to resume and
expand cooperation on POW/MIA and other humanitarian issues
of mutual concern to the United States and Vietnam.
Vietnamese were provided some representative case files.
Vietnamese repatriate 8 remains.
1988:
Vietnam agreed to initiate joint field investigations aimed
at resolving ``compelling'' cases that General Vessey had
previously provided and to expand their unilateral efforts.
Vietnamese present proposals for the joint activities and
agreed to begin joint field investigations. This resulted in
three 10 day periods of joint investigations along with a
visit by U.S. forensic specialists to examine remains
unilaterally provided by Vietnamese.
Vietnamese repatriate 62 remains.
1989:
Vietnamese pledge continued cooperation during Vessey-led
Interagency delegation visit to Hanoi and agree to measures
that would expedite resolution of the issue.
A total of 5 joint field activities and four technical
meetings are held during the year; results are disappointing.
Vietnamese repatriate 34 remains.
1990:
General Vessey and the POW/MIA Interagency Group meet with
FM Thach in Washington, DC. Vietnamese agree to all USG
requests including: improved cooperative planning for joint
investigations, increased unilateral remains repatriations
and serious cooperation to locate and make available wartime
documents and records. Thach also agreed to assist in
allowing access to witnesses of incidents where U.S.
personnel were captured or casualties occurred, and to
additional military participation during joint field
activities.
Joint field activities and technical meetings continue--
results continue to disappoint.
Vietnamese repatriate 17 remains.
1991:
April--U.S. policy concerning normalization of relations
with Vietnam, the ``roadmap,'' is presented to Vietnamese
officials in New York. The ``roadmap'' outlined a series of
quid pro quo steps the U.S. was prepared to take to improve
U.S.-SRV relations and eventually lead to normalization.
The Vietnamese agreed to allow a temporary POW/MIA office
in Hanoi during visit by General Vessey.
5 person office opened in Hanoi in July.
Vietnamese repatriate 27 remains (11 joint operations, 16
unilaterally)
1992:
Jan.--the 150 member Joint Task Force-Full Accounting (JTF-
FA) was established. The JTF-FA was designed to combine all
the specialties necessary to obtain the fullest possible
accounting of our POW/MIAs. The JTF-FA was placed under
CINCPAC to allow the full resources of the theater commander
to be brought to bear on this effort.
Feb.--General Vessey returns to Hanoi to assess progress on
POW/MIA matters. During the visit, the Vietnamese presented
the Military region IV shootdown records.
March--Assistant Secretary of State Solomon led a
delegation to Southeast Asia during which the Vietnamese
agreed to five steps: implementation of a short notice live-
sighting investigation mechanism, access to records, archives
and museums, repatriation of remains, trilateral cooperation,
and expanded joint field operations.
October--Cheney and Eagleburger meet with the Vietnamese FM
Cam in Washington and confront him with materials obtained
from Vietnamese archives. General Vessey returns to Vietnam
and the Vietnamese agree to aggressively collect and present
to the USG POW/MIA related materials from all sources and
consolidate it in military museums, thereby providing access
to joint U.S. Vietnamese research teams.
December--Vietnam announces a formal amnesty program for
private citizens holding remains.
Joint field operations continue to expand in scope and team
number and size is increased.
Vietnamese repatriate 32 remains (24 joint operations, 8
unilaterally)
1993:
January--All requested live-sighting investigations and the
initial investigation of all 135 remaining discrepancy cases
are completed.
April--General Vessey leads a delegation to Hanoi during
which the Vietnamese provide new documents and access to
several key witnesses for interview including Lt. Gen. Tran
Van Quang, reputed source of the Russians 1205 document.
Vietnamese pledge continued cooperation, offer information
refuting the Russian document and agree to all U.S. requests
including continued support of joint field operations,
increased archival access, repatriation of remains, and
continued investigation of the remaining 92 discrepancy
cases.
May--Senator Kerry leads delegation to Vietnam requesting
continued cooperation and the Vietnamese agreed to his
requests including the formation of a joint POW/MIA
information center in Hanoi.
July--President Clinton decides to drop U.S. objections to
Vietnam clearing its arrears with the International Monetary
Fund. High-level delegation visits Vietnam and conveys
President Clinton's requirement for tangible results from the
Vietnamese in four key areas. The delegation was led by the
Deputy Secretary for Veterans Affairs, Heschel Gober, and
included Assistant Secretary Winston Lord and Lt. General
Michael Ryan of the Joint Staff. The President's four areas
of concern become the bench mark for cooperation and include
the repatriation of remains, access to documents, trilateral
cooperation, and continued investigation of live sightings
and priority discrepancy cases.
September--President Clinton renews the trade embargo with
Vietnam, but allows some modifications.
December--Assistant Secretary of State, Winston Lord, led
an Interagency delegation to Vietnam to assess results in the
four areas of concern. He reported cooperation was excellent
and results have been achieved.
Joint field operations continue on the largest scale ever,
cooperation by the Vietnamese receives high marks from JTF-
FA.
Vietnamese repatriate 67 remains making 1993 the third
largest year for remains since the end of the war.
general information:
The remains of 281 Americans previously missing in Vietnam
have been identified. Several hundred other remains have been
repatriated, but not yet identified (many never will). The
identification process is often time consuming and laborious.
The delay in the positive identification of some remains is a
function of the high standards of proof we require before
making an identification, rather than a lack of Vietnamese
cooperation.
Of the 1715 first hand live-sighting report received since
1975, 1694 (99%) are resolved. No reports require further
field investigation in Vietnam. Vietnamese cooperation in
this area has been excellent.
1195 (70%) relate to Americans who are accounted for (POW
returnees, missionaries, jailed civilians, etc.)
45 (3%) relate to wartime sightings of military personnel
or pre-1975 sightings of civilians who remain unaccounted
for.
454 (26%) are fabrications.
The remaining 21 reports are under current investigation,
but these do not require field investigation in Vietnam, Not
all of these reports are Vietnam cases.
Archival research teams started work in November 1992 when
the Vietnamese began making their military museum holdings
available for review.
At the height of archival activity there were three teams
located in Hanoi, Da Nang, and Ho Chi Minh City have shut
down because they have completed the review of materials in
those locations.
Nearly 24,000 documents, photographs, and artifacts have
been reviewed with more than 600 items correlating to an
unaccounted for Americans.
Joint Document Center has been established in Vietnam's
Central Army Museum in Hanoi.
Oral History Program is designed to gain information from
the memories of Vietnamese participants of operations during
the war involving U.S. POWs or casualties.
More than 120 individuals have been identified for an
interview, and over half of the interviews have already been
conducted.
Priority Discrepancy Cases of ``last known alive cases''
are those cases where there is some indication that the
servicemen was ``last known alive'' subsequent to their loss
incident or was listed by their military service as POW at
Homecoming but did not return during Homecoming.
A total of 196 individuals in this category were presented
to the Vietnamese by General Vessey.
Total reduced to 135 by January 1992. The JTF-FA completed
an initial investigation of all cases by January 1993.
We established a Priority Case Investigation Team in June
1993 to focus solely on the remaining priority discrepancy
cases. This team has completed 34 follow-up investigations.
Policy review of additional information has resulted in a
fate determined status for 123 individuals of the original
196, as of January 1994. This leaves 73 priority discrepancy
cases requiring further investigation.
24 individuals have been accounted for through remains
identification and have been removed from the last of POW/
MIAs.
Although the other 99 individual members have been removed
from the priority discrepancy list, they are still considered
unaccounted for and remain on the overall list of 2,238. We
will continue to search for their remains.
A Special Remains Team was formed in the fall of 1993 to
focus on those cases where the possibility of remains
recovery appears best. The team works continuously,
independently of JFAs, in Vietnam and has thus far focused on
those who died in captivity. This team has recommended seven
reported burial sites for excavation.
Americans accounted for through remains identification:
Vietnam--281 (including 1 recovered from indigenous
personnel); China--2; Laos--59 (including 3 recovered from
indigenous personnel); Cambodia--3; Total--345.
Americans unaccounted for in Southeast in Asia: Vietnam--
1,647; Laos--505; Cambodia--78; China--8; Total--2,238.
Mr. KERRY. I also ask unanimous consent that Progress on POW/MIA
During 1993 be printed in the Record.
There being on objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Re: Progress on POW/MIA During 1993
remains
As of the end of the year, Joint Field Activities and the
unilateral turnover of remains by Vietnam had resulted in
nearly 67 remains, thus making 1993 the third largest year
for repatriations since the end the year.
Hanoi stepped up its publicity program for its remains
amnesty program, offering reimbursement to its citizens for
expenses incurred. Increasing numbers of Vietnamese are
coming forward with information that may help locate American
remains.
Discrepancy Cases
Since July 2, the work of the Special Priority Case
Investigation Team has enabled us to confirm the death of 12
more individuals from the last-known-alive discrepancy list.
With the help of the Vietnamese, we have now unofficially
confirmed the death of 116 of the original 196 high-priority
discrepancy case individuals.
DoD has conducted five live-sighting investigations since
July 2. As of September 10, there were no live sighting
reports that required filed investigation. A total of over
200 investigations, including some in prisons and military
facilities, have produced no evidence that Vietnam is holding
an American POW.
DoD has completed twenty-six joint US-SRV field operations.
documents and archives
Since July 2, the JTF-FA has received documents from two
important wartime North Vietnamese military units--``Group
559,'' that deal with operations along the Ho Chi Minh Trail,
and ``Group 875,'' the General Political Directorate unit
responsible for American POWs.
Of particular interest is the Group 559, Ho Chi Minh Trail
shootdown record. It provides information on many cases that
will assist in their investigation. These documents are
important in that they help confirm information we already
have concerning North Vietnamese knowledge of aircraft losses
along the Ho Chi Minh Trail areas as well as information we
already have relative to prisoners known to have been
captured. In the case of the 559 records, some of the
information is new. In many cases the new information will
provide important leads for future investigation. In some
cases, it will help answer questions about the fate of
missing Americans.
trilateral cooperation
In August, at the U.S.-SRV-LDPR Trilateral Cooperation
Meeting in Hawaii, the Vietnamese and the Lao agreed to
conduct coordinated simultaneous border-area operations with
the U.S. in December, when the rainy season ends.
New Group 559 documents provided by Vietnam appear to be
useful in the investigation of losses in the People's Army of
Vietnam controlled areas of Laos.
In December, the first trilateral field activity was
completed. While it is too early to access the results,
Vietnamese cooperation was considered excellent.
jtf-fa
JTF-FA's mission is to provide the fullest possible
accounting for the 2,239 individuals still listed as missing
or otherwise unaccounted for in Southeast Asia. Of that
number, 1,648 are unaccounted for in Vietnam, 505 in Laos,
and 86 in Cambodia.
JTF-FA has completed five joint field activities (JFAs) in
recent months. Two of the JFAs were in Vietnam, one was in
Laos, one was in Cambodia and one was trilateral. Since June,
JTF-FA teams in Vietnam and Laos have conducted operations in
16 separate Vietnamese and Lao provinces, investigated more
than 300 cases, and excavated more than a dozen sites.
24th jfa
The 24th JFA in Vietnam was conducted from June 24 through
July 20. During this operation, team members investigated a
total of 128 cases and interviewed 269 witnesses. Information
provided by these Vietnamese citizens may be essential in
determining the fate of missing servicemen.
The team also excavated five sites, resulting in the
recovery of some human remains. Remains recovered during this
operation were repatriated to the United States on August 4,
and are undergoing analysis at CIL-HI.
Team members also recovered some material evidence
including aircraft parts and aircrew equipment. That evidence
is being analyzed to determine if it correlates to any of the
task force's outstanding cases of unaccounted for Americans.
25th jfa
JTF-FA conducted the 25th JFA in Vietnam from August 17 to
September 20. During this operation, team members conducted
179 investigations and excavated eight sites. Again, some
material evidence, along with some remains were recovered
during the excavations. Other remains alleged to be those of
American servicemen killed during the war were turned over to
investigators by Vietnamese. These remains will be analyzed
by CIL-HI experts to determine if they are potentially those
of Americans before they are repatriated to the United
States.
laos
JTF-FA conducted a Lao operation from July 16 to August 16.
This was the fourth operation conducted in Laos in 1993, and
the tenth since JTF-FA was established. During this
operation, team members investigated 28 cases and excavated
three sites. Some remains and material evidence were
recovered during the operation and are being analyzed.
Ninety-seven activities involving investigations,
excavations, and surveys have been completed in Laos in 1993.
Compared to previous years, the number of activities in 1993
has increased substantially. Fifty-one activities were
completed in 1992, 20 in 1991, and 12 in 1990. Two additional
operations are planned for October and December 1993.
cambodia
In Cambodia, JTF-FA competed two operations in 1993 with 21
activities in the January and February period. However, only
7 were completed in March and April when operations were
temporarily suspended after the team received incoming mortar
and small arms fire from unidentified hostile forces. Two
operations are planned for the remainder of 1993. A total of
19 additional activities are scheduled to be conducted during
these two operations.
26th jfa
The 26th JFA in Vietnam was the Vietnamese portion of the
first trilateral field activity conducted from December 3-20,
1993. The team investigated 12 cases during the JFA and
characterized Vietnamese cooperation as excellent.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the
Biographical Summary and the letter of support from General Vessey be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Biographical Summary for General John W. Vessey
General John W. Vessey began his 46 years of military
service in 1939 as a private in the Minnesota National Guard;
he ended it in 1985 in his second term as the Chairman of the
Joint Chief of Staff of the United States.
He fought in North Africa and Italy in World War II and was
commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant on the battlefield at the Anzio
Beachhead in May 1944. President Reagan appointed him the
tenth Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in 1982.
He had a long association with our North Atlantic Treaty
Forces, serving a total of nine years in combat divisions in
Germany, commanding a NATO-committed mechanized division
stationed in the United States, and serving three years on
the NATO Military Committee. He also had extensive experience
in East Asia with combat service in Vietnam and Laos, and
additional service in Thailand, the Philippines, and Korea
where his last service was as Commander of the United Nations
Command, Commander U.S. Forces Korea, and the first Commander
of the Republic of Korea/United States Combined Forces
Command.
His other senior positions included service as the Army's
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans and as the
Vice Chief of Staff of the Army.
His military decorations include the Distinguished Service
Cross, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense Distinguished
Service Medals, the Purple Heart, and medals from 19 friendly
and allied nations. In 1992, he was awarded the Nation's
highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, by
President Bush. He is an Army Aviator.
He earned a Bachelor of Science Degree from the University
of Maryland and a Master of Science Degree from the George
Washington University. He is a member of the Honor Society of
Phi Kappa Phi.
After retirement from active military service, he served on
the Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy and the
Moscow Assessment Review Panel. He serves on the Defense
Science Board and on the Defense Policy Board. In 1987, he
was appointed by President Reagan to serve as Presidential
Emissary to Hanoi on Prisoner of War/Missing in Action
Matters. President Bush renewed his appointment in 1989, and
he continues to serve in that post.
He serves on the Board of Directors of several industrial
firms and on the boards of the National Flag Day Foundation
and Youth Services, USA. He is a member of the Board for
Mission Services of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod.
Subject: Gen Vessey Statement Regarding Vietnam
1. General Vessey has OK'd the following statement:
In the past six years, Vietnam has made huge leaps in the
direction we wanted them to go, many of them moves that we in
Washington though would never be made. Among them:
Agreed to Joint Field Investigations of ``discrepancy
cases.'' We are in the sixth year of those investigations.
Agreed to joint live sighting investigations.
Returned several hundred sets of remains of missing
Americans.
Got out of Cambodia and supported UN sponsored elections.
Released all re-education camp inmates.
Helped re-unite about 300,000 separated Vietnamese
families.
Let us get Amerasian children out of Vietnam.
Let the U.S. set up a POW/MIA office in Hanoi.
Agreed to State Department officers in Hanoi with no
reciprocal move.
Accommodated a variety of intrusive requests (such as going
through prisons) by the USG and members of Congress.
Have allowed U.S. researchers unlimited access to the
Defense Ministry Library.
I cite these Vietnam government steps not to urge rewarding
them, but as a reminder that cooperation depends on
confidence building steps. Lifting the trade embargo and
moving forward in relations is not rewarding a heinous
communist regime for past crimes! It is a move that will open
Vietnam and move it toward democracy and free enterprise as
well as help us reach our goal of fullest possible
accounting.
This is the overriding reason for lifting the trade
embargo. We now have the best cooperation we've ever had from
the Vietnamese Government in searching for evidence about the
fates of our people. Maintaining the embargo will not improve
that level of cooperation, but rather will probably lessen
it. To achieve fullest possible accounting, we will need the
help of local authorities, the Vietnamese Veterans, and the
Vietnamese people. Let me point out that lifting the trade
embargo is not granting a favor to American business at the
expense of the families of the missing and the Veterans. It
is, rather, the surest way to further the cooperation we need
to get fullest accounting.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to underscore one of the important
ways in which the current system is working and why this cooperative
effort is so important. My colleague has consistently raised some
question of the sufficiency of digging and how we are going at this and
what we do.
A couple years ago some of the most disgruntled people in this
effort, either in families or in some of the POW activist groups, were
saying we are not getting at these cases. We do not have a way of
determining what happened to people. We are not following up on the
live-sighting report, and so forth.
We went over and started negotiating that, and we began to try to
deal with those concerns. We got helicopters capable of taking us out
in the field so we could follow up on a live-sighting report. Lo and
behold, after the live-sighting report started to show we could not
find Americans or they never have been there or they went there. All of
sudden that process became irrelevant and it was not important. Step by
step, every time there have been sort of barriers set up and we have
been able to deal with the barrier and remove it. Then there is a new
issue. Now the new issue is the Vietnamese are not turning over
everything. That is a new issue. Intelligence reports or some old
reports taken out of context or something, and people say here is the
effort but it is not real evidence.
The truth is we do not know specifically whether or not they have a
document today or do not have a document today. We can surmise. We can
think they may. We can conjecture. But we do not know. We will not know
ever, unless we get it from the Vietnamese or from someone in this
country who happens to truly know about it or be able to show it by
virtue of having been there or can take us right to it.
So what we are talking about here, how are we going to prove these
cases. Let me give you another example. A few days ago in Military
Region 9, the southern portion of Vietnam, an area called you Phu Vinh
Forest, an area where I was fighting, down in the delta--this forest
was particularly an impenetrable forest area. During the time I was
there an NVA regiment was working and operating there. We lost some
people there.
Recently, the Vietnamese themselves came up with nine people that
they presented to us who had been in this Phu Vinh Forest area during
the war at the very time we had lost these people. And these were
people who were part of the cadre there who said, oh yes, we remember
that incident. They were buried. This is the kind of place where they
are buried and we will take you there.
So, a bunch of people came down. They went in. They searched around.
They found three sites that they think may be the sites. They also
learned that a doctor had treated one of these people and apparently
this doctor is in Cambodia, so they are now helping us find the doctor
in Cambodia.
Now, hopefully that effort is going to produce results. I cannot tell
you it will today. Nobody can. It is in the past. The Vietnamese have
returned more than 600 remains; 269 of those remains have been
confirmed as United States remains, United States soldiers, and another
100 are determined that they could be United States, we do not know for
certain yet. Now, we hopefully will discover these other people.
But the point I make, Mr. President, is very simple. If the
Vietnamese did not find nine people, if they did not cooperate in
finding the doctor, if they were not part of this process, we would not
be able to get answers. And that is true of every aspect of this.
My colleague complains that we are having to pay a lot of money for
this. We are paying a lot of money. But I am not too sure what people
expect. Do they expect us to make the demand that we have to go in
there for the most expensive and extensive effort to find answers in
history and the Vietnamese are going to pay for it?
It seems to me the key question before us is whether or not we have
the ability to get ultimately the fullest accounting process possible,
recognizing what Senator Chafee said, that his friend from World War II
who died while he was at Guadalcanal was only found a year and a half
ago, 50 years later.
I am confident that we are going to be struggling with aspects of
this issue years from now. My prayer and hope is that we will have kept
faith with veterans, with families, and that we will have done what is
necessary to find the answers, not to shut the door in our own faces.
I will have more to say on that tomorrow morning.
Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of our time
and I believe we will abide by the previous order.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been more than 30 years since the
first American soldier arrived in Vietnam, and almost two decades since
the last American soldier came home. Over 43 million Americans, and
over half the population of Vietnam, were not yet born when the war
ended.
The Vietnam war was a monumental tragedy for both our countries. More
bombs were dropped on Vietnam than in World War II and the Korean war
combined. Over 58,000 American soldiers, and over 2 million Vietnamese,
so many of them civilians, died. For Vietnam, the American war was only
the last chapter in a long history of violent conflict, beginning with
the Chinese, the Japanese, and the French. Today, Vietnam remains among
the poorest countries in the world, with an average per capita income
of a few hundred dollars a year.
We went to Vietnam believing we were invincible, only to see our
country torn apart over the war. We came home stunned that our enormous
firepower could not defeat such a tiny foe. Yet, despite that
experience, we are today the world's only superpower.
In the 18 years since the Vietnam war, each of us who was alive then
has dealt with the legacy of Vietnam in our own way. When I came to the
Senate in 1974, I promised myself that I would do everything possible
to prevent our country from making such a terrible mistake again. I
became the only Vermonter serving in the Congress to vote to end the
war.
I have also found ways to help our Vietnam veterans, for whom I have
the greatest respect, and I have supported efforts to locate the
remains of our POW/MIA's. For example, we provide assistance through
the foreign aid bill to help locate remains of POW/MIA's.
I started a fund in the foreign aid program that has been used to aid
Vietnamese who were disabled from war injuries. Those funds have been
used to make artificial limbs for some of the more than 60,000 amputees
in Vietnam, regardless of which side they supported in the war. We have
also given aid to orphans in Vietnam.
Throughout this period, United States-Vietnamese relations have
stayed essentially in limbo. Diplomatic relations have remained
severed. The United States has kept its trade embargo against Vietnam,
and Vietnamese assets are still frozen. In a very real sense, although
the last shot was fired long ago, the Vietnam war has not yet ended.
This is so despite the end of the cold war which got us into Vietnam
in the first place, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and even as
we give billions of dollars in aid to Russia and most-favored-nation
status for China.
Mr. President, I support this amendment. The embargo is an
anachronism, and it is self-defeating. It has been maintained primarily
because of the POW/MIA issue, but I am convinced that by maintaining
the embargo we only prolong the ordeal of finding out what happened to
our remaining POW/MIA's.
We also impede many other United States interests in Vietman--
interests in the stability of Southeast Asia, in promoting democracy
and human rights, and in expanding economic markets for American
business.
In a world dramatically different from when we left Vietnam, our
challenge today is to devise a policy towards Vietnam that has the best
chance of furthering these interests, and to finally put the tragedy of
the war behind us.
None of us will be completely satisfied until every thread of
evidence that might contain a clue about what happened to our POW/MIA's
has been pursued. There is no doubt that the Vietnamese Government has
not always been forthcoming or consistent about the information in its
possession about our POW/MIA's. It has withheld information in an
effort to gain advantage or to obtain concessions from us.
But this thorny issue is not black and white. Only this year did our
Government turn over several million pages of United States-held
documents that will help the Vietnamese solve some of their own 300,000
MIA cases.
After 18 years, are continued diplomatic isolation and economic
sanctions likely to cause Vietnam to do what it has not done during all
that time? Or is the Vietnamese Government more likely to change
through greater political, diplomatic, economic, and social contacts
with the United States?
The truth is that the past policy of denying Vietnam the benefits of
diplomatic relations and trade produced little results. Yet in the past
2 years, progress on the POW/MIA issue has been dramatic. Why? Because
of the efforts by President Bush, General Vessey, and President Clinton
to encourage cooperation.
We now have a permanent POW/MIA office in Hanoi. Our people have
access to all military museums, and have been to the prisons. They have
looked into every live sighting report. Americans are working closely
with Vietnamese to resolve remaining questions about these cases. Our
people are in the jungles of Vietnam today searching for remains. Over
the past year, 60 sets of remains have been repatriated. We have
received thousands of documents and artifacts, and the number of
discrepancy cases has been reduced from 196 to 80. Those remaining 80
cases are being investigated.
All of this has happened in the past 2 years, because we gave the
Vietnamese incentives to cooperate. According to the deputy commander
of the United States task force in Hanoi, ``When we started there was
suspicion and mistrust. We've worked long and hard to develop a sense
of mutual trust * * *. It's mind-boggling how much cooperation we now
have * * * [The Vietnamese] are doing their best to cooperate with
us.''
Mr. President, we cannot keep punishing Vietnam forever. We will only
jeopardize the very process we want to encourage as we continue to
inflict hardship on a society that has suffered terribly for
generations.
There is much that needs to change in Vietnam. Gross human rights
abuses, including arrests of political dissidents, arbitrary detention,
unfair political trials, torture and abuse of prisoners in forced labor
camps continue. Until there is substantial improvement in human rights,
relations between our countries will suffer.
There is abundant evidence that Vietnam is involved in the thriving
Asian black-market trade in endangered species. Vietnam is a wholesale
supplier for tigers, leopards, and other rare species. Many of these
animals are protected under Vietnamese law and international treaty,
but enforcement is almost nonexistent.
But I believe that even in human rights and other areas in which we
differ, Vietnam will change more through increased contact with the
west than from further isolation. If the Vietnamese Government wants
the benefits of trade, it will have to accept the influx of foreign
business and all the changes it inevitably brings. The Vietnamese
Government cannot on the one hand participate in the global economy,
and at the same time censor every conversation, magazine, or radio
broadcast it disagrees with.
If Vietnam wants to be treated as an equal, it cannot continue to
engage in activities that are abhorrent to the international community.
Mr. President, during the Vietnam war America's leaders said time and
again that we were fighting to protect democracy, but our actions often
belied those words, and in the end we failed. When the fighting
stopped, Vietnam was no closer to being a democracy.
Today, as we strive to make democracy and human rights a central goal
of our foreign policy, we need to recognize that the policy of
isolating and punishing Vietnam has failed. But just as on the POW/MIA
issue, we can make progress in other areas by giving Vietnam incentives
to change. Lifting the embargo is one incentive. Diplomatic recognition
is another. We have many ways of using leverage through our foreign aid
program, and our position in the multilateral development banks.
So, Mr. President, there are many ways that we can encourage Vietnam
to deal with the POW/MIA issue and many other differences. But the
embargo is a vestige of a war that should never have happened, and of a
policy based on ignorance, lies, confusion, and weakness. We owe it to
ourselves, and to the Vietnamese people who never wanted a war with us,
to finally show that for us, like them, the war is finally over.
____________________