[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 71 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5636-S5637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

       By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. Helms):
  S.J. Res. 47. A joint resolution disapproving the extension of the 
waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 
with respect to Vietnam; to the Committee of Finance.


       Joint Resolution Disapproving Waiver Authority for Vietnam

 Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I am 
introducing legislation to require Vietnam to provide freedom of 
emigration for the Vietnamese people before tax dollars from our 
constituents across America are used to further expand our government's 
trade relations with this communist regime. As provided for in the 
Trade Act of 1974, my resolution prohibits implementation of the 
President's decision yesterday to waive the freedom of emigration 
requirements with Vietnam.

[[Page S5637]]

  I am pleased that Senator Helms, the distinguished Chairman of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has joined me as a sponsor of this 
joint resolution, and I commend my colleague, Congressman Rohrabacher, 
for introducing a companion measure in the House. I also note that our 
efforts are strongly supported by the Chairman of the House 
International Relations Committee, Congressman Gilman, the Chairman of 
that Committee's panel on International Operations and Human Rights, 
Congressman Christopher Smith, and several other Members on both sides 
of the aisle in that chamber. Frankly, Mr. President, given the support 
for this resolution by the relevant Committee chairmen, one has to 
question why the Administration moved forward on this in March of this 
year and again yesterday. This is particularly troublesome given the 
fact that the President's own National Security Advisor stated this 
past December that the President would not move forward unless 
consultations with Congress went well. Clearly, the consultations did 
not go well.
  When Congress considered and passed the amendment by Senator Jackson 
and Representative Vanik in the Trade Act of 1974, everyone at the time 
understood Congressional intent--free emigration was to be a condition 
for expanding U.S. trade relations with non-market communist nations.
  Today, nearly two and a half decades later, we do not have free 
emigration provided to the people of Vietnam by the communist regime 
that took over that entire country by force in 1975. Moreover, the 
Administration has failed to make a convincing case to the Congress to 
justify President Clinton's decision to waive freedom of emigration 
requirements. Hanoi's record does not support this decision. Yes, Hanoi 
has taken some steps to permit more orderly departures in recent years, 
but there are still unwarranted delays, and I am very concerned that 
recent promises and pledges of cooperation have yet to be 
satisfactorily fulfilled.
  Congressional intent was clear in 1974, and it has not changed since 
that time. U.S. policy is supposed to put freedom of emigration ahead 
of the trade interests some might have with this one-party communist 
state. We are supposed to be putting principle over profit, not the 
other way around.
  I believe America should not abandon the Vietnamese people who long 
for respect for human rights and democratic freedoms. They were 
abandoned over two decades ago, and we simply cannot let it happen 
again. Jackson-Vanik requirements should not be waived for Vietnam if 
it is not absolutely clear that such a waiver would ``substantially 
promote'' freedom of emigration requirements as the law requires. This 
past March, State Department witnesses testified there had been 
``measurable'' progress. The term measurable does not imply to me that 
we are seeing dramatic positive changes by Vietnam. I do not believe we 
have seen ``significantly more rapid progress'' which was the standard 
set by Secretary of State Albright herself last year during her visit 
to Vietnam. And I fail to see how the President's first waiver for 
Vietnam on March 9, 1998 has substantially promoted progress these past 
three months. If more people had been permitted to leave Vietnam in the 
last three months than we had seen over the last three years, then 
maybe the waiver would have, indeed, substantially promoted progress, 
but that has not happened, Mr. President, from what I have been told.
  Today, as we introduce this joint resolution, there are still people 
in Vietnam who supported us and fought for us during the war who have 
not been allowed to freely emigrate. Some of them have not even been 
allowed to meet with U.S. officials for interviews. I understand that 
others have been forced to pay exorbitant bribes in order to be 
considered for exit visas.
  Under the Trade Act of 1974, Congress has an opportunity to ensure 
that freedom of emigration requirements are met by Vietnam before 
further trade benefits are extended. The joint resolution introduced 
today by myself and Senator Helms provides my colleagues the 
opportunity to go on record in support of the people of Vietnam. If you 
want to send a message to the Government of Vietnam that they must 
fully comply with the promises and commitments they have made in recent 
years, this is the way to do it.
  Additionally, for those of my colleagues who continue to be 
concerned, as I am, that Hanoi has not been fully forthcoming in their 
accounting for American POWs and MIAs, and their progress on human 
rights, then you should support this resolution. Some of my colleagues 
may recall that both the POW/MIA issue and human rights concerns were, 
indeed, central to the provisions first adopted in the Trade Act of 
1974, and so it is appropriate that these concerns are made part of the 
current debate as well.
  How far must we go, Mr. President, to embrace this communist regime 
before they fully address our long-standing concerns on all these 
important issues? I am certain that the time has come once again for 
Congress to go on record in support of the objectives behind this 
resolution.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would note that the resolution we are 
introducing today is strongly supported by numerous organizations of 
Vietnamese-Americans, many of our national veterans and POW/MIA family 
organizations, several international refugee organizations, and a host 
of other concerned groups of Americans.
  I look forward to the forthcoming debate on this timely and important 
issue.

                          ____________________