[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 15 (Tuesday, February 22, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             SETTLEMENT OF VIETNAM CLAIMS OF U.S. NATIONALS

                                 ______


                       HON. ROBERT G. TORRICELLI

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 22, 1994

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago President Clinton made the 
decision to lift the trade embargo against the Government of Vietnam. 
In no way can we allow this decision to weaken our commitment for full 
settlement of all outstanding cases of missing U.S. personnel. It is 
now even more imperative that we step up our efforts to aggressively 
pursue all possible means to pressure Hanoi to resolve questions 
regarding each and every one of those servicemen. No issue is more 
important with regards to our relations with Vietnam.
  While this issue has justifiably received broad attention, there is 
another important issue that looms over the horizon that must be 
addressed before normalization can proceed, and that is the question of 
compensation of American corporations and individuals who left Vietnam 
in 1975 when the government of Saigon fell, and whose property was 
expropriated, lost, or confiscated by the North Vietnamese in clear 
violation of international law.
  Many of the claimants--individuals, Government contractors, 
corporations, and United States servicemen--remained in Vietnam at the 
specific request of the United States Government. Not only did the 
United States Government originally encourage investment into South 
Vietnam, it also urged these investors to stay on longer than many 
would have liked or sound business judgment would have suggested. They 
did so out of a sense of obligation to the foreign policy and military 
objectives of the United States. The United States Government owes them 
the same commitment and dedication.
  The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, which was established 
within the Department of Justice to adjudicate the claims of United 
States nationals against foreign countries, has examined the question 
of Vietnam claims. Starting in 1980, the Commission took 6 years to 
painstakingly receive testimony and conduct hearings to determine the 
validity of these claims. After hearing 534 claims, only 192 were found 
to meet the extensive evidence requirements of the Commission. These 
awards had an aggregate total principal value of almost $100 million. 
The Commission allows for 6 percent simple interest bringing the modern 
day total to over $200 million. These claims are legally valid and 
recognized by the United States Government.
  Fortunately, the United States controls the means to achieve an 
equitable settlement to these claims. In 1975, the Office of Foreign 
Assets Control issued regulations, pursuant to the Trading with the 
Enemy Act, that froze all assets of the South Vietnam Government in 
United States financial institutions. According to a 1983 OFAC survey, 
the total value of these blocked assets at the time exceeded $150 
million. It is reasonable to assume that the aggregate amount of 
blocked assets is now at least $200 million. Whatever the exact amount 
of the claims and blocked assets, it is clear that there are more than 
enough funds to cover the full amount of the claims. I believe this is 
the first time in history where this is the case.
  At the same time, I am urging the administration to take prompt 
action on these claims, I would also urge it to refrain from 
negotiating these claims in conjunction with the United States 
Government's own set of claims against the Vietnamese Government. The 
dollar amount of Government claims is unknown and to jointly pursue the 
claims would greatly jeopardize the satisfactory resolution of 
individual claims and would be contrary to State Department precedent.
  The historical practice has been to negotiate the public and private 
claims separately. In fact, a 1980 GAO report that urged Vietnam claims 
to be jointly pursued was strongly opposed by the State Department. In 
fact the State Department reported that ``Adoption of the GAO 
recommendation would make it extraordinarily difficult in many cases to 
conclude settlements of private claims on terms acceptable to the 
claimants and the Congress''.
  I would also urge the administration to seek the full value of the 
claims of private citizens. Historically, the Department has weighed 
several factors, including the strategic importance of reaching an 
agreement with the country, the morality of obtaining justice for U.S. 
citizens, and the availability of funds to satisfy the claims to 
determine the percentage of claims settlement. In the present case with 
Vietnam there would appear to be no legitimate reason why the 
Department would accept a figure that is less than the total principal 
and interest of the awards. There exist sufficient funds to satisfy the 
claims, the claims of the U.S. citizens have been adjudicated, and 
there is no strategic importance to justify accepting a lower 
settlement.
  The U.S. Government is the sole representative of our citizens' 
claims and has an obligation to them to reach the fairest possible 
settlement. These citizens have no legal recourse outside of the 
Government's action. I urge the Clinton administration to be as 
responsive to these citizens as they were to the Government 20 years 
ago. We must forcefully assert the right of American claimants to full 
compensation.
  In the very near future, the administration will be sending a 
delegation to Hanoi to negotiate a settlement of these claims. I urge 
the administration to seek full settlement of all adjudicated claims. 
The characteristics of the Vietnam claims dictate that there is no 
plausible reason for accepting anything less than full settlement.
  The Clinton administration has argued that the Vietnamese have been 
sufficiently forthcoming with information about our missing servicemen 
to justify a lifting of the trade embargo. We must demand that they 
also be cooperative with respect to compensating the Americans whose 
assets they seized. Until they are so forthcoming, we cannot consider a 
full normalization of relations.

                          ____________________