[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6766-H6781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING EXTENSION OF WAIVER AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO VIETNAM
Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House
of Wednesday, July 29, 1998, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res.
120) disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in
section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of House Joint Resolution 120 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 120
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
does not approve the extension of the authority contained in
section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the
President to Congress on June 3, 1998, with respect to
Vietnam.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House on
Wednesday, July 29, 1998, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
General Leave
Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on House Joint Resolution 120.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield one-half
of my time to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) in support of the resolution. I further
ask that the gentleman from California be permitted to yield blocks of
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that half of the
time yielded to me be yielded further to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Matsui) and that he be permitted to yield blocks of time and that
I would be permitted to yield blocks of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the gentlewoman from
California?
[[Page H6767]]
There was no objection.
{time} 1430
Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 120 and in support
of the extension of Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver.
Since President Clinton lifted the trade embargo against Vietnam in
1994, the administration has taken steps to normalize U.S. trade
relations with that country. This process is subject to the Jackson-
Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, the provision of U.S. law
which contains emigration criteria that must be met or waived by the
President before a country subject to Jackson-Vanik can engage in
normal trade relations, including normal tariff treatment, with the
United States and gain access to U.S. trade financing programs.
Because Vietnam is not eligible for normal trade relations with the
U.S., pending the completion and approval by Congress of a bilateral
commercial agreement, the immediate effect of Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik
waiver is quite limited. Specifically, the waiver only allows Vietnam
to be reviewed for possible coverage by U.S. trade financing programs
such as OPIC, Eximbank, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vietnam
is not automatically covered by these programs as a result of its
waiver, and must still face separate individual reviews against each
program's relevant criteria.
The significance of Vietnam's waiver is that it permits us to stay
engaged with the Vietnamese and to pursue further reforms. Vietnam is
not an easy place to do business. However, our engagement enables us to
influence the pace and direction of Vietnamese reform.
Madam Speaker, I would at this time insert in the Record a letter I
received from 28 trade associations supporting Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik
waiver as an important step in the ability of the business community to
compete in the Vietnamese market which is the 12th most populous market
in the world.
I would also insert in the Record a letter from our distinguished
former colleague, Mr. Charlie Vanik. It is a letter that he sent to our
current colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) in support
of this waiver.
July 22, 1998.
Hon. Philip Crane,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Crane: The American business community
supports pursuing a policy of economic normalization with
Vietnam. We endorse the decision to grant Vietnam a waiver of
the ``Jackson-Vanik'' amendment. The waiver gives American
companies selling to Vietnam access to crucial U.S. export
promotion programs and is an important first step to
normalizing trade relations with Vietnam. We strongly oppose
H.J. Res. 120, which would overturn the waiver. A vote on
this legislation might come during the week of July 27.
Vietnam has met the requirements for a waiver. The Jackson-
Vanik amendment is meant to encourage a policy of free
emigration in countries with nonmarket economies. Since the
Administration normalized diplomatic relations with Hanoi in
1995, Vietnam has cleared for interview over 80 percent of
all remaining applicants of the Resettlement Opportunity for
Vietnamese Returnees agreement.
Pending legislation, H.J. Res. 120, would overturn the
Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam and deliver a serious
setback to U.S.-Vietnam commercial relations. Without the
waiver, American companies would be denied access to export
promotion programs offered by the U.S. Export-Import Bank and
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. These programs
are vital to meeting the challenges of doing business in
Vietnam's emerging market.
Overturning the Jackson-Vanik waiver also would derail
bilateral negotiations seeking commitments from Vietnam on
market access, services, intellectual property and
investment. The eventual agreement will bring Vietnamese law
closer to international trade norms, thereby helping U.S.
companies to tap the long-term potential of the Vietnamese
market. If we fail to remain on the path of economic
normalization, we risk ceding the potential of that market to
competitors in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere in Asia.
Finally, overturning the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam
would have important political implications. Vietnam has
cooperated with efforts to search for American POWs and MIAs.
Cooperation could be jeopardized if the House passes a
disapproval resolution.
The American business community believes that a policy of
economic normalization with Vietnam is in our national
interest. We applaud the House Ways and Means Committee and
Senate Finance Committee for reporting unfavorably
disapproval resolutions regarding the Jackson-Vanik waiver
for Vietnam. We urge you to support economic normalization
with Vietnam by voting against H.J. Res. 120.
Sincerely,
Aerospace Industries Association.
American Chamber of Commerce, Hanoi.
American Chamber of Commerce, Ho Chi Minh City.
American Chamber of Commerce, Hong Kong.
American Farm Bureau.
Asia-Pacific Council of American Chambers of Commerce.
Association for Manufacturing Technology.
Chemical Manufacturers Association.
Coalition for Employment through Exports, Inc.
Electronic Industries Alliance.
Emergency Committee for American Trade.
Fertizlier Institute.
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America.
International Energy Development Council.
International Mass Retail Association.
National Association of Manufacturers.
National Center for APEC.
National Foreign Trade Council.
National Oilseed Processors Association.
Pacific Basin Economic Council--U.S. Member Committee.
Securities Industry Association.
Telecommunications Industry Association.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
U.S. Council for International Business.
U.S. National Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation.
U.S.-Vietnam Business Committee of the U.S.-ASEAN Business
Council.
U.S.-Vietnam Trade Council.
USA*Engage.
____
Juniper, FL, July 28, 1998.
Hon. James P. Moran,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Jim: As one of the authors of the Jackson-Vanik
provision of the 1974 Trade Act, I am writing to urge you to
oppose the motion to disapprove trade credits for Vietnam
(H.J. Res. 120).
The Jackson-Vanik provision was written with the intent of
encouraging the Soviet Union to relax its restrictive
emigration policy, particularly with Soviet Jewry. It
specifically granted the President the power to waive
restrictions on U.S. government credits or investment
guarantees to communist countries if the waiver would help
promote significant progress toward relaxing emigration
controls. I am proud of the fact that the Jackson-Vanik
provision was extremely helpful by encouraging the Soviet
Union to relax its emigration policies and eventually helped
open the door to improved economic relations with the Soviet
Union.
In reviewing the current waiver that President Clinton
granted Vietnam on June 3, I believe his actions are entirely
consistent with the law. Vietnam has made significant
progress on its commitments to resettle Vietnamese returnees
and has consented to extend these more liberal emigration
procedures to other refugee programs. I also believe the
waiver will encourage the Government of Vietnam to continue
to cooperate on locating U.S. servicemen missing in action,
to become less isolated, and to follow the rule of law.
Sincerely,
Charles Vanik,
Former Member of Congress.
In the context of ongoing bilateral commercial agreement
negotiations, Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver puts the burden squarely
on the Vietnamese to come forward with the market principles needed to
conclude an agreement worthy of congressional approval and the
extension of normal trade relations to Vietnam.
Terminating Vietnam's waiver will provide the Vietnamese with an
excuse not to undertake further reforms and would reerect the barrier
to the normalization of our bilateral trade relations.
I urge my colleagues not to take away our ability to pressure the
Vietnamese for change and for progress on issues of importance to the
U.S. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.J. Res. 120.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), a leader in the efforts
for freedom.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to lend my support to H.J.
Res. 120, the resolution to disapprove the Jackson-Vanik waiver to
Vietnam.
In March of this year, the government of Vietnam was granted a waiver
from the Jackson-Vanik amendment. While this is a significant step
towards the economic revitalization of Vietnam, the decision ignores
basic human rights issues which still need to be resolved.
Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of representing one of the
largest Vietnamese-American communities in the
[[Page H6768]]
United States right in Orange County, almost 300,000 people. They are
the parents, the siblings and the offspring of families who fought
communism for 2 decades, and the majority of my constituents feel that
economic relations with Vietnam should not be established until
specific emigration, political and human rights issues are addressed.
The Orange County Register, one of the newspapers in our area,
conducted informal reader polls and found huge multiracial majorities
opposed the immediate lifting of the waiver. During this past year,
many of my constituents have also contacted my office directly. In this
debate I am their voice.
Jackson-Vanik is about emigration, then trade. Normalize emigration;
move towards normalizing trade. Waiving the Jackson-Vanik requirement
for Vietnam on March 10 was a mistake. This decision only makes it
harder for many Vietnamese to reunite with their families.
The simple truth is that the Vietnamese Government does not meet the
conditions of free emigration. Authorities have denied United States
officials access to the vast majority of returnees who are eligible to
emigrate. In other words, the way it was changed was that, first, one
had to get an exit permit in order to be interviewed by the United
States to see if one could come to the United States, and now they have
changed that. Now they have the exit permit at the back end. And what
they do is provide a list to the United States about whom we may
interview. And, of course, that list is very limited.
The only significant human rights concession recently made was this
exit permit at the back end instead of the front end.
Although this looks like an important concession, the United States
is still forbidden to interview anyone whose name is not on the list
supplied by the Vietnamese Government.
And although some of my colleagues, and I have seen these letters
going around, will lead you to believe that Vietnam has cleared for
interview over 80 percent of all of the remaining ROVR applicants, the
fact of the matter is, many of those applicants are not even on the
list.
What they leave out is the fact that the same officials who were
denying the exit permits to begin with are now in the position to keep
people off of those lists. And according to a recent report to
Congress, the State Department acknowledges that some 15,000 former
United States Government employees and their families have not been
issued those exit permits.
Besides the administrative roadblocks, pervasive corruption at all
levels of the government in Vietnam creates additional obstacles for
emigration. Let us say that one is on that list and one moves forward
to an interview by the U.S. and the U.S. says, okay, come here, and
then one has to get the exit permit; what happens? One of those
government officials says, it is going to cost you $2,000 to get this
permit. Well, in a country where the annual per capita income is
approximately $300 U.S. dollars, most Vietnamese wishing to emigrate
cannot afford to pay such an amount.
Contrary to the Vietnamese Government's pretense, it is saying that
it has no political or religious prisoners, but many Vietnamese
continue to languish in prisons because of their political or religious
beliefs.
Last September I, along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren), chaired a human rights caucus briefing on Vietnam. We heard
from representatives of the international organizations and from the
Vietnamese American community leaders about what is going on in current
social, political and economic conditions in Vietnam. And believe me,
while we may not pay much attention to what is going on in Vietnam
because we have so many other issues, the Vietnamese community in
Orange County and across the United States does pay, day in and day
out, attention to the details of what is going on in Vietnam. We
learned that we must be concerned about Vietnam's poor human rights
record and religious persecution.
Madam Speaker, I began by saying that this is about emigration, and
that is what I believe we need to discuss today, but let us not lose
sight of the fact that human rights and business interests are also
denied in Vietnam. We have learned from that briefing that we had that
all religious groups face great challenges in obtaining things in
Vietnam. For example, basic religious materials. And we also learned in
that congressional briefing that although the Vietnamese constitution
prohibits discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, religion or social
class, we find that women and children and ethnic minorities are often
the victims of repression.
Reports show that the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church, for example, continues
to be suppressed. All of their religious activities and ceremonies are
prohibited. Assembly of more than 3 persons is forbidden, and all of
the assets and properties have been confiscated.
In my district, the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church brought my attention to
the case of Buddhist priest Nam Liem. Mr. Liem is a 58-year-old
Buddhist priest who practiced religion at a small family temple in
Vietnam, and since 1975, he has been arrested and detained by the
Communist authorities over 50 times. Today, he has not been released
from prison.
In addition, there are many pro-democracy activists, scholars, poets,
et cetera, whose only crime it was to ``injure the national unity.''
Of course, we have an ``Adopt A Voice of Conscience Campaign'' here
in Congress to show the attention to the human rights abuses, religious
persecution, and social state of Vietnam.
Madam Speaker, I would end by saying please, today, do not surrender
our principal leverage with the Communist regime. Vote ``yes'' for free
emigration, vote ``yes'' for family reunification, vote ``yes'' to end
religious persecution. Vote ``yes'' to promote free speech and
democracy. It is our honor at stake today as we honor the values which
we are sworn to uphold.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I ask my colleagues to support this disapproval of a waiver of the
Jackson-Vanik requirements of the 1974 Trade Act. What were the
Jackson-Vanik requirements in that 1974 Trade Act? They clearly stated
that we have concerns in this House dealing with human rights, things
like freedom of religion and freedom of emigration, and this President
of the United States, consistent with what he has done in many other
cases around the world, has decided they do not count, they do not
count at all. Those requirements that were laid down by former
Congresses, much less our Founding Fathers, they do not count, because
human rights does not count for this administration.
I would hope that my colleagues would today join us in affirming that
human rights and those principles that our country stands for do count
for something, and that we do not believe in just waiving them.
What are we waiving them for? The President is waiving the Jackson-
Vanik requirements in order to extend American tax dollars, our tax
dollars to subsidize or insure private corporations who want to do
business in Vietnam, who want to make money by investing in a Communist
dictatorship. This is a moral travesty, as well as bad business.
Six months ago when the President first issued this Jackson-Vanik
waiver, we basically have been looking at what Vietnam has been doing
since then. There has been no liberalization, no opening up of their
political system. There has been no major release of political
prisoners. Human rights and religious rights continue to be trampled
upon by those who hold power in Vietnam.
But what about the business end of it? Just this week I received a
briefing by the GAO on the Vietnamese economy. People are jumping out
of Vietnam because it is so corrupt. They showed me, the GAO showed me
a 1998 report by the United Nations Development Program that shows that
both the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank, and our own State Department is
convinced that Vietnam has a lack of integrity and transparency in
their economic dealings, and so businesses are pulling out.
Is this a time for us then to waive the human rights requirements so
that businesses can go in with U.S. taxpayer guarantees and invest in
Communist Vietnam? This is exactly the wrong time. They are going in
the wrong direction economically, and they have not taken a step
forward in terms of politically and morally.
[[Page H6769]]
No, what we are going to be doing is spending tax dollars with this
waiver to guarantee American businessmen to go in and use cheap slave
labor under a dictatorship to manufacture goods to export to the United
States to put our own people out of work. That is immoral, and it does
not work politically, and it does not work economically, because we are
going to lose that investment money and the taxpayers will have to make
up for it unless, of course, those big businessmen make a profit with
the slave labor and then they will take all of that profit for
themselves at our expense.
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the gentleman's
resolution not to give Most Favored Nation treatment to this Communist
dictatorship.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) in support of denying this
waiver.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint Resolution
120 and in support of continuing to normalize relations with Vietnam.
This policy will promote American interests in receiving a greater
accounting of our POWs, MIAs, promoting values of democracy and human
rights, as well as helping American workers.
It is important to be clear about what extending Jackson-Vanik
waivers will do and what it will not do. Today's vote is not about
``for or against'' normal trade relations for Vietnam; only when
Vietnam concludes a bilateral agreement on trade approved by the
Congress will it be eligible for normal trade relations.
{time} 1445
Renewal of the waiver is the most recent step in the gradual
normalization of the relationship with Vietnam in the postwar era.
I understand and appreciate the frustrations of the families seeking
a greater accounting of POWs and MIAs by the Vietnamese government. We
are all firmly committed to this goal. We will continue to make that
clear to the Vietnamese government. However, the U.S. policy of
incremental normalization has gone hand-in-hand with continued
cooperation on this very, very important issue of accounting of POWs
and MIAs.
Vietnam does in fact fall short of our standard of human rights and
political and religious freedoms. However, their continued exposure to
U.S. values on human and religious freedoms will promote progress in
Vietnam on these objectives that we all share.
I disagree with those who argue that revocation of the waiver is an
effective means to achieve further progress. Our former colleague and
prisoner of war, Ambassador Pete Peterson, has noted that improvements
in our relations have only been made since we have engaged the
Vietnamese. In addition, many of my colleagues who have served in
Vietnam support extending the waiver: Senator John McCain, Senator John
Kerry, Senator Bob Kerrey, the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Lane Evans,
Representative Jack Murtha, to name a few.
I urge a no vote on this resolution.
Mr. CRANE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to remind Members that they all received a letter from
17 of our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, Vietnam vets, all in
support of the waiver. I would urge them to make sure that they read it
critically.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the 1974
Trade Act focuses on using various U.S. trade inducements to pressure
non-market countries to allow freedom of emigration. It is not supposed
to be a total referendum on that nation's internal policies, and it has
nothing to do with MFN, and it has nothing to do with other human
rights violations, other than the freedom to emigrate. That is what we
are talking about today.
The practical effect of this waiver simply allows U.S. exporters to
operate more efficiently in Vietnam. Our exporters face an uneven
playing field when trying to sell to Vietnam. Foreign competitors have
long had the support of their home governments, equivalents of the
Eximbank, OPIC, TDA, and the USDA. Foreign countries have taken export
opportunities away from Americans, simply because our foreign
competitors obtained a government-subsidized rate for an export loan,
or dangled a foreign aid incentive before certain Vietnamese government
officials. Japan alone has an $850 million developmental assistance
package to induce countries like Vietnam to buy Japanese exports.
Finally, we got the message, and the President's waiver is making a
difference, particularly on infrastructure projects. U.S. workers are
now making products to sell to Vietnam. Vietnam prefers buying American
products. The waiver does not lower any U.S. import duties on
Vietnamese products. It is totally one-sided in our favor in terms of
our balance of trade.
If this resolution passes, only U.S. workers will be hurt. Larger
American companies may still win export deals in Vietnam, but they will
use foreign subsidiaries and foreign workers to complete the contracts.
That is, U.S. companies will use their foreign subsidiaries to sell to
Vietnam, thus displacing American jobs.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I support House Joint Resolution 120,
which would disapprove the waiver of Jackson-Vanik. I cannot say
strongly enough that 1998 is not the time to extend normal trade
relations to Vietnam, to waive our requirement for free emigration from
Vietnam.
I believe that Vietnam and the United States will be able to trade
with each other in the future, but not until Hanoi ends its human
rights abuses, allows for truly free emigration, and establishes a fair
and sound economic environment for American businesses. This is going
to take time to achieve. This also will require the U.S. to refrain
from extending normal trade relations status to Vietnam until Hanoi
makes these corrections.
I am very concerned about the human rights abuses in Vietnam that my
colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), have already spoken to.
While paying lip service to religious freedom and individual liberty,
the Communist government of Vietnam continues to persecute those who
question the authority of the state, including those in the Buddhist
church who stand not only for freedom, but also for freedom to worship.
On July 15 Vietnam imposed prison sentences of 10 months to 2 year on
10 members of a religious group for engaging in heretical propaganda
because they believe in their religious beliefs.
The heart of Jackson-Vanik focuses on freedom of emigration. Vietnam
continues to restrict the right of its citizens to emigrate. I cannot
even begin to tell you how many cases my office deals with concerning
families who are split because Vietnamese authorities will not allow
the emigration of a family member.
Despite these problems, I believe that, given time, Vietnam can make
changes. These changes really began with the reform movement in 1986.
Vietnam achieved high economic growth of 8 percent a year with low
inflation. As a result, the U.S. lifted economic sanctions in 1994 and
normalized relations in 1995.
That was the wrong thing to do, because it has all been downhill
since then. The economic growth did not produce democratic and market
reforms, as we have seen in other countries like China, South Africa,
Zimbabwe. In addition to quashing the religious, political, and social
freedom of its citizens, and restricting their right to emigrate, Hanoi
has taken giant steps backward from fostering sound policies and
stability to bolster its economy and to attract foreign investors.
As the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) pointed out, there
[[Page H6770]]
has been a dramatic retraction of business from Vietnam because of
these policies 40 percent contracted foreign investment decreased in
the last year alone. U.S. exports to Vietnam plummeted from $616
million in 1996 to $286 million last year. As my hometown newspaper,
the San Jose Mercury News, wrote, ``The ruling Communist party has
stalled further reform.''
I am someone who believes in trade. I also believe that in specific
cases, trade can be a useful tool to change behavior. I voted for
normal trade relations between the United States and China. I believe
that that has helped China to improve, and hopefully they will continue
to improve.
All of us in this Chamber believe in human rights. Sometimes we have
reasonable differences of opinion about what are the best tools in a
particular case to achieve human rights. In this case, nothing could be
clearer to me than using the tool of trade to improve human rights in
Vietnam.
We used that tool effectively with South Africa. I am glad we did. It
is very obvious to me that Vietnam is eager, for historical reasons as
well as desperate economic reasons, to have a valuable trade
relationship with the United States. Our history with Vietnam shows
that they will collaborate with us in the effort for human rights if we
just stand firm.
Now is the time for patience. While Vietnam has taken some steps
toward improvement, it has very far to go as we can see from the Hanoi
government's treatment of its own people. Vietnam has failed, it has
flunked, in its effort to earn normal trade relations. I think it would
be a dramatic mistake for our country, for the Vietnamese people, and
for world peace, if we allow the waiver of Jackson-Vanik to move
forward.
I strongly, strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of House
Joint Resolution 120.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Ben Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of House Joint
Resolution 120, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher), in disapproving the extension of the waiver, the Jackson-
Vanik amendment. The issues here are progress on human rights, freedom
of religion, and freedom of emigration.
Simply stated, the Vietnamese government has not demonstrated any
significant progress on any of these issues. Many of us have voiced our
objections to the rapid pace of normalizing relations with Vietnam.
Yet, our President insists that waiving the Jackson-Vanik amendment and
opening programs of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the
Export-Import Bank to Vietnam is in our best national interest, and
will encourage the Vietnamese government to cooperate on many issues,
including economic reforms. However, OPIC guarantees and Export-Import
Bank financing programs should be a reward for achievement, and not
offered as any fanciful incentive based on a hope for the future.
Despite the opening of relations 3 years ago, prisoners of conscience
are still in prison. Thousands of our former comrades in arms are still
unaccounted for in Vietnam.
The recent highly respected State Department Human Rights Report on
Vietnam states,
The government arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens,
including detention for peaceful expression of political and
religious objections to government policies. The Vietnamese
government denied citizens the right to fair and expeditious
trials, and still holds a number of political prisoners.
The consequence of the Jackson-Vanik waiver granted in March of this
year by the President is that our taxpayers began paying for subsidies
for U.S. trade and investment in Vietnam through the Export-Import Bank
and Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
These programs were designed to overcome the risks for American
companies operating in a corrupt, troubled business environment in
Vietnam. Yet, the business climate in Vietnam is marked by limited
market access, lack of transparency, unpredictability in business
dealings, red tape, and corruption. Many firms are pulling out of
Vietnam, and foreign direct investment was down 40 percent last year.
An example of the risk of doing business in Vietnam is that the
Eximbank, which opened their programs to Vietnam in April of this year,
has not approved any guarantees or loans or insurance since that date
in Vietnam. Exim is offering a limited number of programs because of
Vietnam's severe credit problems. OPIC has been open for a comparable
period, and like Exim, has yet to approve any financing for any
American investments in Vietnam.
So we ask, how has a waiver of important American laws served our
interest, as promised by the President, who is determined to help U.S.
business? Furthermore, will Jackson-Vanik improve the Vietnamese record
on POW-MIA issues? In the several months since the waiver has been in
place, it certainly has not.
So, in conclusion, a proposed extension of the waiver of Jackson-
Vanik would reward a lack of progress on human rights, immigration, and
economic reform, and the POW-MIA effort. Vote yes on this resolution of
disapproval, and send a strong message that our Nation values
principles over potential profits.
Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a leader in the area of
religious freedom in Vietnam.
(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the President's decision to
extend the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam, and in strong opposition
to the resolution of disapproval.
The Jackson-Vanik waiver process is designed to promote immigration
from countries that do not have market economies. In the case of
Vietnam, the waiver is clearly working as intended. Since the waiver
was granted, Vietnam has made steady progress under both the ROVR and
the Orderly Departure programs. If the waiver is rescinded through
passage of this resolution of disapproval, that progress, which depends
entirely on the cooperation of the Vietnamese government, will almost
certainly be reversed.
I urge the defeat of this resolution, a step that will encourage
greater cooperation by Vietnam in resolving our ongoing discussions on
other issues of concern, including human rights and trade.
By the defeat of this resolution, we will also give a vote of
confidence to the outstanding work of our ambassador in Vietnam and his
very fine staff. I am pleased to urge defeat of this resolution.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me remind everyone, Mr. Speaker, that this waiver only allows
that Vietnam be reviewed for possible coverage by U.S. trade financing
programs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the waiver
extension and in opposition of the resolution of disapproval.
{time} 1500
I think that Thomas Jefferson was right on target when he said, ``Two
thinking men can be given the exact same set of facts and draw
different conclusions.''
Mr. Speaker, I obviously have the highest regard for the gentleman
from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), my very dear friend and a great
hero, a former POW himself, as well as the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) and others who are supporting the resolution, and of
course the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the
Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Solomon),
[[Page H6771]]
the chairman of my Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, when I think about the changes that all of us have
observed over the past several years in Vietnam, they are incredible. I
went in the early part of this decade and had the chance to see Negen
Kotach, who was the Foreign Minister, present to me translated copies
of Paul Samuelson's economic text. There are very bold moves being made
towards a free market, and in fact we are making progress in the area
of human rights.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of serving on the POW/MIA Task
Force. In 1986, I went with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon)
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) on my first trip to
Vietnam. It was a very, very troubling experience for all of us.
But I have concluded that over this period of time, based on every
shred of evidence that we have, we have seen a dramatic improvement in
the cooperation of the Vietnamese Government with the United States in
trying to resolve this issue.
So, I oppose the resolution of disapproval and support the extension
of the Jackson-Vanick waiver.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Rohrabacher motion. I do so
with great reluctance, because I have tremendous respect for many of
the people leading the fight against this waiver. But Jackson-Vanick is
about immigration.
Anyone who has studied the statistics, because I know there are many
anecdotal stories and there are many problems remaining, but anyone who
has studied the statistics knows that in the last year there has been a
dramatic reversal and a massive improvement in the Vietnamese
Government's cooperation with us on processing refugees, people who
were shipped back from the camps in Thailand, in Hong Kong, in
Indonesia, to Vietnam against their will. Mr. Speaker, 15,000
interviews have been granted already; 82 percent of the people we are
interviewing have been cleared for coming to the United States or other
countries that they intend to go to.
The criteria for interviews is far more liberal than the traditional
refugee definition. We cannot turn down and thereby risk the
retrenchment of this program, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the
resolution.
I urge a ``no'' vote against H.J. Res. 120. Vietnam is cooperating on
the key issue behind granting this waiver: Jackson-Vanik.
Mr. Smith and I fought long and hard with the administration to get
them to implement a Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees
(ROVR) program. This involved Vietnamese boat people who were forced
back to Vietnam after ending the program of keeping them in camps
abroad. After we got the administration to go along with it, we pressed
them hard to get the Vietnamese to ensure their cooperation. And they
have been successful.
So successful is the program that there are now 343 cases, involving
601 people, who have not left because, after receiving clearance from
the Vietnamese Government and after having been interviewed by the INS,
they have decided suddenly to get married and bring their spouses and
other relatives over.
We have submitted over 19,000 names to the Vietnamese. They have
cleared for interview 15,572. 991 have not been cleared, mainly because
we gave the Vietnamese the wrong address. Of these, 36 have not been
cleared because of criminal charges. We have put 713 on medical hold
and excluded 23 for medical reasons.
This is a great achievement. Over 5,000 people have already left for
the United States. More are coming and the administration is optimistic
that it will have completed the program by the year's end.
This is what the Jackson-Vanik requirement is all about and Vietnam
has met that requirement. Sure there has been some pushing and pulling
but Vietnam has made major and significant steps to ensure the program
works even though we allowed more liberal definitions of eligibility
than we had applied for other immigrant applicants.
We want to encourage more openness by Vietnam generally. The success
of this program and the joint accounting for POW/MIA demonstrates that
we can work with Vietnam to our mutual interest.
Vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 120.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on
International Relations, who is respected throughout this body for his
commitment to human rights.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), my good friend, for yielding me this time
and for his excellent work on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, let me just make it very clear what this vote is about.
It is about U.S. taxpayer subsidies for one of the worst dictatorships
in the world. Let us be clear on another thing. There is no freedom of
immigration from Vietnam. If there were, there would be no need for
this waiver. The administration could simply certify that Vietnam
complies with the Jackson-Vanik Freedom of Information requirement.
Instead, by waiving the requirement, the administration has conceded
that there is no such freedom.
Yes, the government allows some people to leave when it is good and
ready. But for the many thousands who have been persecuted because they
were on our side during the Vietnam war, Vietnam is still a prison.
I hope my colleagues understand that this is not a vote about free
trade. It is about subsidies; corporate welfare for Communists. Since
the President gave the waiver in March, the U.S. taxpayer has been
paying for Eximbank and OPIC subsidies of trade and investment in
Vietnam. Many of these taxpayer dollars subsidize ventures owned in
large part by the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Overregulation and widespread corruption make Vietnam a terrible place
to do business.
Mr. Speaker, let me also remind Members, I was the prime sponsor of
the amendment back in 1995. We had a hot debate, because we were
sending people back who were real refugees. Yes, there has been some
progress on ROVR. But we find that it slows to a trickle, to
nothingness, when they decide to turn off the spigot. We should not be
intimidated by that kind of opening and closing of the gates for the
ROVR program.
Let me also say that in Vietnam, human rights violations are many.
Catholic priests, Buddhists, are arrested and imprisoned. Vietnam
enforces a two-child-per-couple policy by depriving parents of
unauthorized children of employment and other government benefits. It
denies workers the right to organize independent trade unions and has
subjected many to forced labor.
The government not only denies freedom of the press, but also
systematically jams Radio Free Asia which tries to bring them the kind
of broadcasting they would provide for themselves if their government
would allow them free expression.
Many organizations support the Rohrabacher resolution: the American
Legion, the veterans groups. I urge my colleagues to please vote for
it.
So we should disapprove the Jackson-Vanik waiver at least until the
government allows all the ROVR-eligible refugees to leave. And we
should also stand up for the people who never left Viet Nam and are
still trapped there, including long-term reeducation camp survivors and
former U.S. government employees. Many of these people are members of
the Montagnard ethnic minority who fought valiantly for the U.S. and
have suffered greatly ever since. As of a few weeks ago, only 4
Montagnard applicants--out of over 800 we believe to be eligible for
U.S. refugee programs--have been cleared for refugee interviews.
Finally, we must not forget the prisoners of conscience. Hanoi
imprisons Catholic priests, Buddhist monks, pro-democracy activists,
scholars, and poets. When we complain to the Vietnamese government,
they just respond that ``we have a different system.'' They need to be
persuaded that a system like this is not one that Americans will
subsidize.
In Vietnam human rights violations are many. Hanoi arrests and
imprisons Catholic priests and Buddhist monks. Vietnam enforces a
``two-child per couple'' policy by depriving the parents of
``unauthorized'' children of employment and other government benefits.
It denies workers the right to organize independent trade unions, and
has subjected many to forced labor. The government not only denies
freedom of the press, but also systematically jams Radio Free Asia,
which tries to bring
[[Page H6772]]
them the kind of broadcasting they would provide for themselves if
their government would allow freedom of expression.
Mr. Speaker, the Vietnamese government and its victims will both be
watching this vote. We must send the message that economic benefits
from the United States absolutely depend on decent treatment of
Vietnam's own people. We may not be able to insist on perfection, but
we must insist on progress.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Crane) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) has 3 minutes remaining; the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining; and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) his 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, at times the United States has been
involved in Nation-building with our dollars. These are handouts. These
are Communists.
Every Vietnam group that helped American troops while they were over
there dying for peace, they have repressed every Vietnam group that was
supportive of our troops.
I support the resolution. We just had a strike settled where General
Motors workers won an agreement that they would not sell a couple of
their plants by the year 2000. They are desperately fighting for jobs.
The Congress of the United States and all our well-meaning, politically
correct economic strategies is shipping jobs all over the world and is
patting Communists on the back. I want no part of it.
Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution. I think we are rewarding
Communists that screwed our soldiers and screwed their own people who
tried to help our men who were protecting their buns.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the resolution. I ask Congress
to approve it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) who served as a prisoner of war in Vietnam and
knows that they are not cooperating on the MIA/POW issue, just to back
up what the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) just
stated.
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not about
Vietnam. It is about honoring and respecting the over 58,000 American
soldiers who gave their lives battling communism so we could remain
free. It is about our soldiers who still remain missing in action. It
is about keeping the hope alive for the families who still wake up
every morning asking the same question: What happened to my child, my
husband, my brother, my father?
I have seen how this Communist government conducts business. I have
personally experienced their threats, their lies, and their so-called
promises. My distrust lies with the Vietnamese Government.
To those Members of Congress and to the administration who believe
that opening up the Vietnam markets will bring closure to this chapter
in history, they are wrong. I listened to their propaganda that America
had betrayed us, left us to die. I knew they were wrong.
As a member of the U.S.-Russia Joint Commission on POW/MIAs, we have
been negotiating for the last 5 years to get a full accounting of our
missing. I can tell my colleagues that the Government of Vietnam
continually refuses to cooperate.
My only request is let us stop the suffering of the parents, the
children, the relatives, those who do not know the fate of their brave
loved ones. Let us stand up to the Vietnam Government today and say:
Give us information on our missing who died.
America demands to know what happened to our servicemen and women,
the soldiers who died for this Nation to keep it free.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for extension of
the waiver and in opposition to the resolution.
In the mid-1960s, I was an infantry officer and intelligence officer
with the First Infantry Division. I completed my service, but within a
month the members of my tight-knit unit were in Vietnam and taking
casualties the first night. I have emotional baggage, we all have
emotional baggage in this country, but I would suggest it is time to
get on and not reverse course on Vietnam.
Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sam Johnson) who just spoke, but I bring to the attention of the
Members what we know already. Another former POW, our former colleague
Pete Peterson, tells us about the dramatic progress now being made,
with the Vietnamese help, in remains recovery under some very difficult
and dangerous and treacherous conditions. And in fact, of course,
another POW, John McCain, has also, along with others who served in
Vietnam, supported a waiver in this instance.
But after all, this issue is about emigration. That is what Jackson-
Vanik is about. So, we ought to address the issue before us.
Under the statute, a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment may be
granted if it will substantially promote freedom of migration.
Vietnam's record on emigration has improved dramatically in the last 10
to 12 years. Over 480,000 Vietnamese have emigrated to the United
States under the Orderly Departure Program. And, despite some unwise
things done in this House just a year or so ago, only about 6,900 ODP
applicants remain to be processed.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear to this Member that in the case of Vietnam,
the Jackson-Vanik amendment is working. Last October, Vietnam
eliminated the requirement for applicants to obtain exit permits prior
to interviews for the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese
Returnees, ROVR, greatly facilitating the implementation of ROVR.
Subsequently, as the waiver came up for renewal, Vietnam modified its
procedures for handling the ODP cases of Montagnards and former
reeducation camp detainees to conform with the ROVR procedures. The
prospect of the initial waiver and later its renewal almost certainly
factored in Vietnam's decision to liberalize procedures under the
Orderly Departure Program and ROVR. The yearly renewal of the waiver
will maintain incentives for progress toward free emigration.
Vietnam remains a difficult place for American firms to do business.
That is sure. But we ought to extend the Jackson-Vanik waiver not to
benefit the Government of Vietnam or its people, but for the benefit of
the American people. The waiver should lead to increased U.S. exports
and to have a greater impact on the way the Vietnamese regard human
rights and democracy.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, this Member
would suggest that now is not the time to reverse course on Vietnam.
Since establishing relations three years ago, Vietnam has increasingly
cooperated with the United States on a range of issues. The most
important of these is, I am informed, dramatic progress and cooperation
in obtaining the fullest possible accounting of Americans missing from
the Vietnam War. Those Members who attended the briefing by the
distinguished Ambassador to Vietnam, a former Prisoner of War and
former Member of this body, the Honorable Pete Peterson, learned of the
great efforts to which Vietnam is now extending to address our concerns
regarding the POW/MIA issue, including their participation in
physically very dangerous remains recovery efforts.
Moreover, the Government of Vietnam is proving to be cooperative on
the issue of emigration--which, as Members of this body must know, is
actually the issue that Jackson-Vanik addresses.
This Member would not want to permit the impression to exist among
any of his colleagues that support of the Jackson-Vanik waiver is an
endorsement of the Communist regime in Hanoi. We cannot approve of a
regime that places restrictions on basic freedoms, including the right
to organize political parties, freedom of speech, and freedom of
religion.
[[Page H6773]]
But even in this problematic area, engagement is producing results.
The American presence in Vietnam exposes Vietnamese to American ideals
and principles. Vietnamese visitors to the United States including
official delegations, students and businessmen, learn about the
American way of life. We can expect that over time these contacts,
along with access to international media and telecommunications, will
have a beneficial effect on Vietnamese attitudes. Greater prosperity
will lead to increased demand for responsiveness from the government,
an important first step on the road to democracy.
Vietnam remains a difficult place for American firms to do business.
This Member is particularly concerned about the level of corruption
that has been tolerated by Hanoi. A bilateral trade agreement is under
negotiation that will improve Vietnam's trade and investment
environment to benefit and protect American business. Rejection of the
waiver would undermine the trade negotiations and remove any incentive
for Vietnam to meet United States requirements. Extending the waiver
will encourage economic reforms and maintain American firms' access to
the trade promotion and investment support programs of the Export-
Import Bank, OPIC and USDA, enabling the firms to compete with foreign
businesses that receive benefits from their own governments.
The Jackson-Vanik waiver does not give MFN to Vietnam. MFN can be
considered only following the waiver and the approval by Congress of a
completed bilateral trade agreement.
We should extend the Jackson-Vanik waiver, not to benefit Vietnam's
Government or people, but for the benefit of the American people. The
waiver should lead to increased United States exports to and investment
in Vietnam, which, in turn, will lead to more jobs for American
workers. Continued engagement with Vietnam is the way to promote the
democratic values we uphold. Approval of the waiver will encourage
Vietnam's further integration into regional organizations and world
markets. This integration is a positive force for regional stability.
I urge rejection of the resolution.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
extension of the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam and in opposition to
House Joint Resolution 120.
This resolution would deny my community and others like it the
opportunity to continue its humanitarian efforts with the Vietnamese
people to promote emigration. UPLIFT International, Heart to Heart, the
Westmoreland Scholar Foundation have made generous contributions to
those in need.
One of the recipients of the Westmoreland Scholar Foundation, Joyce
Nguyen, is an intern in my district office. As a Student Ambassador
from Rockhurst College, she traveled to Da Nang to assess the needs of
the doctors and staff. She is a first generation American whose parents
fled Vietnam after the war. Joyce learned of her cultural background
and shared her American heritage with the doctors and the students that
she taught English to. Her work in Vietnam allowed her to make
permanent life friends and retrace the history of her ancestors.
I see many positive advantages at the local and national level for
free emigration and social development. As the next millennium
approaches, we should be concerned with forming a lasting friendship
with Vietnam.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 120.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the extension of the Jackson-
Vanik waiver for Vietnam, and in opposition to House Joint Resolution
120. It is true that our relationship with Vietnam has been marked with
sorrowful memories. Unfortunately, when the word Vietnam is spoken, it
conjures up haunting images of war and not of the beautiful and
culturally rich country that it is today. In 1994, the Clinton
Administration lifted the U.S. Trade Embargo which allowed U.S. firms
to enter Vietnam's economy and compete in the international community.
This action has led to Vietnam being part of the ASEAN organization, a
qualification which show promising potential for the country to be a
significant trade partner with the U.S. Our goal is to forge a new
relationship for both nations, so that we can both benefit from a
friendship dedicated to healing and reconciliation.
Trade is important to America. More importantly, trade relations are
important to the Fifth District of Missouri. Currently, Vietnam has a
crumbling infrastructure, a shortage of medicine, and limited
technology. Companies like Black and Veatch, Hoechst Marion Roussel
(HMR), Butler Manufacturing, Burlington Air Express, and countless
other companies have business ventures with the Vietnamese which are
vital to my district.
Black and Veatch, an engineering firm, headquartered in Kansas City,
Missouri is performing a $2.4 million project for the people of
Vietnam. Black & Veatch is an 80 year old corporation which employs
2,500 engineers and architects in the Kansas City area and over 7,000
working professionals in over 90 offices worldwide. Black and Veatch
was the first engineering company to set up an office in Vietnam and is
currently upgrading water treatment plants in seven towns. HMR has a
subsidiary in Vietnam which markets the drugs it makes here in the
United States to the people of Vietnam. About 2,000 of my constituents
work at HMR World Headquarters, an established pharmaceutical company
which manufacturers and markets medicine you can find in your local
drugstores and across the world. Another company, Butler Manufacturing
and its 5,100 employees rely upon the economic ties established in Ho
Chi Minh City to deliver preengineered metal buildings and structural
frames.
In Missouri, corporations are looking overseas for opportunities to
sell American goods and services. Proctor and Gamble, United Airlines,
Ford Motor Company, Goodyear, Pfizer International, Harley Davidson,
Caterpillar, and Lucent Technologies are just a handful of companies
employing thousands of Missourians who have operations and ongoing
projects with Vietnam.
This resolution would deny my community the opportunity to continue
its humanitarian efforts with the Vietnamese people. UPLIFT
International, Heart to Heart, and the Westmoreland Scholar Foundation
have made generous contributions to those in need. Corporate sponsors
like Black and Veatch, Hoechst Marion Roussel, Federal Express, and
Boeing have helped establish trust, and placed people before profit.
What began in 1995 as a Heart to Heart airlift to supply 46 tons of
medical supplies has led to additional efforts to supply the Vietnamese
people with undertakings like UPLIFT`s Project HOPE to ensure
tuberculosis education and prevention. Under the direction and vision
of Mike Meyer, UPLIFT has gained much corporate sponsorship as well as
the trust of the Vietnamese government. When Typhoon Linda struck the
Vietnamese coastline, Mr. Meyer was specifically asked by the
Vietnamese government to help out and quickly found a way to provide
the supplies needed.
The Westmoreland Scholar Foundation, named in honor of General and
Mrs. William C. Westmoreland, is a non-political, non-profit
educational foundation established for the purpose of educating those
young people who can best contribute to reconciliation and harmony
between the people of the United States of America and the people of
Vietnam.
One of the recipients of the Westmoreland Scholar Foundation, Joyce
Nguyen, is an intern in my District Office. As a Student Ambassador,
from Rockhurst College in Kansas City, Missouri, she traveled to Da
Nang, Vietnam with the intent to assess the needs of the doctors and
staff. She and a fellow Rockhurst student, Son Do (sun doe) traveled to
Da Nang and are both first generation Americans whose parents fled from
Vietnam after the war. This was a unique experience for them to witness
their parent's homeland and to communicate what the hospital lacked in
essential equipment and medicines for its patients to UPLIFT
International. With the support of Vietnam veterans like Ret. Col.
Roger H. Donlon, the first soldier to receive a Congressional Medal of
Honor in Vietnam, his wife Norma, and many community members, Joyce
learned of her cultural background and shared her American heritage
with the doctors and students as she taught them English. Her work in
Vietnam allowed her to make permanent life friends and retrace this
history of her ancestors.
The Westmoreland Scholar Foundation has Vietnamese American students
enrolled in many colleges throughout the United States including
Rockhurst College in my district. This program is meant to build
bridges between both American and Vietnamese cultures. It ensures
opportunities for students active in the Vietnamese-American
communities for study and humanitarian services in Vietnam and for the
exchange of Vietnamese students to study in the United States. This
organization is dedicated to friendship with our Vietnamese allies, and
the opportunity to gain the respect of our former Vietnamese
adversaries in the tradition of patriotism, service, and leadership
demonstrated by the lives of the Westmorelands.
I see many positive advantages at the local and national levels for
free immigration and social development. As the next millennium
approaches, we should be concerned with forming a lasting relationship
with countries like Vietnam. I urge my colleagues to vote no on House
Joint Resolution 120.
[[Page H6774]]
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a distinguished Member who has been very
active in the area of trade.
(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the proponents on the
narrow terms of the waiver. But more importantly, I feel that they are
also wrong on the big picture.
This very day, my daughter, a college-age young woman, is in Vietnam
going anywhere she wishes, marveling at the friendliness of the people,
over 60 percent of whom are under 25 years of age with no connection to
the war, other than to live with its horrible consequences.
{time} 1515
They are looking to America for a new relationship. This decision
today is about whether we on this floor can exemplify the spirit of our
late colleague, Walter Capps, about learning and reconciliation. It is
about equipping our friend, Pete Peterson, in his mission as Ambassador
to move the relationship between these two countries into the future in
the spirit of healing and rehabilitation.
And most important, this debate is to assure that we, as Congress,
can learn from this experience so that our children, their children and
grandchildren will not be trapped by the web that so ensnared three
generations of Americans.
Please, reject the resolution.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce), the father of Radio Free Europe.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate about trade or
investment. American companies, I think we all know, are free to trade
with and invest in Vietnam. We all wish them well in that. This
resolution does nothing to change that.
What this resolution does is to say, now is not the time to send in
government agencies, OPIC and the Eximbank, which is the practical
effect of this waiver, and give us more leverage to fight for the many
interests we have in Vietnam.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Since we began
normalizing relations with Vietnam, we have extended more and more to
the Vietnamese government. As of today, we have given it recognition.
We have opened an embassy in Hanoi. We have sent an ambassador to work
out the many real interests we have in Vietnam. Today we are looking at
letting a Jackson-Vanik waiver to go by and opening the door for OPIC
and Eximbank funding, a subsidy to Vietnam. These gradual changes in
our policy I thought were to be done with a sense of expectation of the
Vietnamese government. My understanding was that this was supposed to
be a two-way street.
Since we began normalizing relations with Vietnam, we have extended
more and more to the Vietnamese government. As of today, we've given it
recognition, opened an embassy in Hanoi, and sent an ambassador to work
on the many real interests we have in Vietnam, including the POW/MIA
issue. Today we're looking at letting a Jackson-Vanik waiver go by and
opening the door for OPIC and Ex-Im Bank funding in Vietnam.
These gradual changes in our policy. I thought, were to be done with
a sense of expectation of the Vietnamese government. My understanding
was that this process was supposed to be a two-way street.
I also thought we were going to bring a healthy dose of skepticism to
the table. We were going to be skeptical, not because of any bitterness
over our past in Vietnam, but because we understood the type of
government we're dealing with: in simple terms, one of the world's most
politically and economically repressive regimes.
This is the reality we must deal with in asking whether progress has
been made on the issues we care about and also whether it's likely that
progress will be made if we give up one more lever of influence we have
over the Vietnamese government: American taxpayer subsidized trade
benefits. And we should all realize that the Vietnamese government very
much wants this waiver. This is real leverage. So, why give it up
without human rights progress from Vietnam.
And why should U.S. taxpayers support these subsidized U.S.
businesses in Vietnam, one of the least open, most state-controlled
economies in the world. This economy lacks property rights and suffers
from corruption. Patent piracy is a problem. Not surprisingly, the
first American corporation licensed to operate in Vietnam (Vatico,
Inc.) closed shop and left the country earlier this summer. So let's
send in OPIC and Ex-Im to aid U.S. businesses, and even Vietnamese
government-controlled businesses in partnership with American firms?
This reminds me of another issue before this Congress: funding for
the International Monetary Fund. There is debate over whether IMF
funding, U.S. taxpayer-supported funding, can be effective in bringing
about economic reform in aided countries. Many suggest that IMF support
prolongs reform by propping up bad government policies. That's what
happened in Indonesia. You know at least the subsidized IMF asks for
change. With OPIC and Ex-Im Bank we will support businesses with only
the hope that the Vietnamese government will change its policies. This
is the type of wishful government-funded engagement we're considering.
[By the way, the IMF has canceled loans to Vietnam.]
We've heard today that political and religious repression is
pervasive in Vietnam. So it's not surprising that the Vietnamese
government is jamming Radio Free Asia. Hanoi has done this almost from
the beginning of RFA's Vietnamese broadcasting. Radio Free Asia is
intended to provide Vietnamese with the range of information we believe
will help them build democracy and free-market driven prosperity. The
Vietnamese government wants none of this.
Let's remember the reaction many of us in this body had last month
when Beijing denied Radio Free Asia reporters the right to travel with
President Clinton to China. Many of us condemned that. Some of us
thought President Clinton should have taken a stronger stand on this
fundamental issue. Yet here we have Hanoi attacking the free press,
RFA, in even more direct terms. What's our response: send in OPIC and
the Ex-Im Bank!
Thank you Madam Speaker. This is not a debate about trade or
investment. American companies are free to trade with and invest in
Vietnam. We wish them well. This Resolution does nothing to change
that. What this Resolution does do is to say now is not the time to
send in government-agencies, OPIC and the Ex-Im Bank, which is the
practical affect of this waiver, and give up more leverage to fight for
the many interests we have in Vietnam. I urge my colleagues to support
this Resolution.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
It is the actions of the 1980s and 1990s that are moving this country
to a lower common denominator concerning basic human rights and
disregard for the fundamental values that should serve as the core of
our foreign and economic policies. We cannot change nor should we seek
to change the outcome of military events in Southeast Asia 3 decades
ago. But the United States can, through existing law and policy, assert
foreign economic policies that provide for improvement and
democratization of this part of the world, including Vietnam.
The fact is, we cannot keep spending the same dollar over and over
again, talking about progress towards, while the fundamental tenets of
Jackson-Vanik are not being met, much less basic human rights in this
country. The fact is, we need to assert our influence now at this time
to achieve that for those people in Southeast Asia that are still being
ill-treated and not provided the opportunities that they merit much
less any freedoms required by Jackson-Vanik.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this body to strongly support this
resolution that opposes this type of trade liberalization.
I rise today in support of the resolution to disapprove the waiver of
the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 for Vietnam.
Serious issues remain in our relationship with Vietnam; the government
of Vietnam is criticized by international human rights groups for a
wide range of violations including arbitrary detention, disregard of
workers rights and persecution of religious groups. The communist
government in Vietnam will not allow democracy and freedom without
pressure. What the United States does in regard to trade agreements
does have an impact; we can be a force for positive change.
Actions of the US are most important today, because of past actions
of this Congress and Administration throughout the 1980s and 1990s; the
United States is regrettably moving towards a lower common
denominator--concerning basic human rights, disregard for fundamental
values which should serve as the core of our foreign economic policies,
and yielding to political expediency. We can't change nor should we
seek to change the outcome of military events in South East Asia
[[Page H6775]]
over two decades ago. But the US can, through existing law, and policy
assert foreign economic policies that achieve an improvement in the
democratization of this region of the world, including Vietnam.
The year by year rubber stamping of normal trade relations, in light
of the absolute contradiction of actions and deeds, is wrong. We should
pass this resolution of disapproval.
The fact is that the Vietnamese government is not meeting the
conditions of free emigration. It is irresponsible to allow this
country beneficial trade relations, on a veneer argument that
``progress towards'' this goal is being made. With rights and
privileges come responsibilities and hopefully, results. Supporters
cannot keep spending the same currency piece in a circular manner--
suggesting that maintaining the waiver and allowing the trade benefits
to follow will facilitate the Vietnamese government's respect and
embracing of human rights. At this point our United States forbearance
should have produced positive results. Those who are persecuted and
denied basic human rights look to us, as citizens of the world's oldest
democracy, to responsibly pursue policies that would permit some hope
of social, political, and economic benefit.
In its origins and provisions, Jackson-Vanik is centered on freedom
of emigration. Advocates of this resolution will tell you that Vietnam
has eliminated the requirement for an applicant under the Resettlement
Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees program to obtain an exit visa
prior to an interview with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
service. They will point out this ``progress towards'' free emigration
satisfies the requirements of the Jackson-Vanik trade law.
The truth is that Vietnam has not dropped its requirement for exit
permits. Rather, this requirement was merely delayed until after the
applicant is interviewed and approved by the United States interviewing
teams. In addition to this administrative roadblock, in any instances
applicants to U.S. resettlement programs are charged inordinate and
significant fees that they cannot afford, in order to gain access to
the programs. Vietnam doesn't meet even the basic test of the
controlling law, Jackson-Vanik, much less a broader test regarding
essential human rights.
In fact, Vietnam remains one of the most repressive countries in the
world. Basic rights that we in the United States take for granted are
denied to the citizens of Vietnam. All opposition to the communist
party is crushed. Religious activities are closely regulated. Human
rights organizations are not allowed to operate. Workers are not free
to join or form unions of their choosing; such action requires
governmental approval. Children remain at risk of being exploited as
child labor workers, and women are commonly subject to serious social
discrimination. At this point, Congressional action to waive the
Jackson-Vanik provisions would symbolize ``business as usual'' for the
Vietnamese leaders. Therefore, they may continue the oppression of
their own people and still reap the benefits of trade relations with
the United States.
Consideration of waiving the Jackson-Vanik provisions should at least
be delayed until there are concrete, rather than superficial actions
demonstrating that Vietnam is prepared and willing to act in good
faith. This resolution will not stop U.S. trade with Vietnam, nor will
it hinder free trade as Vietnam is simply not currently eligible for
Normal Trade Status (NTS). Passage of this resolution would send a
clear message that our laws mean what they say, that the U.S. will
stand behind its laws and values, and that freedoms systematically
denied to the average Vietnamese citizens are worth speaking out in
defense of and standing up for. Basic human rights are not an internal
matter. Because of these unresolved issues, we should in good
conscience go forward with approving this resolution of disapproval.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, the main discussion here seems to be, on
both sides of the aisle, the question of human rights violations, the
question of religious persecution, immigration policy, and the issue of
the POW and the MIAs. So how best do we deal with that particular issue
right now 2 or 3 decades after the war is over?
I think that the U.S. needs to exert its influence in those areas. So
how best do we exert our influence to change that, when it seems to me
very obvious America's absence of engagement will create a void that
will be filled by a country with little or no interest in our POWs or
MIAs, human rights violations or their emigration policy.
It is the United States in this world that wants to be engaged in
those kinds of problems. The Vietnamese government has shown
significant improvement in all of these areas in the last couple years,
especially since our former colleague, Pete Peterson, a former POW, is
now the ambassador to Vietnam.
With the Vietnamese and the Americans working side by side on roads,
bridges, coastal hotels, dredging the harbors, et cetera, et cetera,
with the Vietnamese paying the bill, with that kind of engagement, the
human contact with this country and that country will make the
difference.
I urge a no vote on the resolution.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Davis), who knows we are not talking about the Vietnamese
paying the bill. We are paying the bill.
(Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I just say to my friend who just
spoke, this is not about staying engaged with the Vietnamese. We are
fully engaged. We have normalized relations. We have full trade with
Vietnam. Those policies are not in question.
What is in question, though, is about, and we are not refighting the
Vietnam war. We are fully engaged in this. Although the Vietnamese are
showing some improvement in the area of emigration with the Rover
program and others, I think they are woefully short of meeting the
threshold that would allow us to use American tax dollars to subsidize
American businesses doing business in Vietnam.
I have from my own district Dr. Nguyen Dan Que and Doan Viet Hoat,
who are still languishing in Vietnamese prisons, on trumped up charges,
for 15 years. Their families are not allowed to visit. When I was there
last January, I was not allowed to visit. They are not allowed to get
correspondence. They are not allowed to emigrate and come back to
Northern Virginia, where they would like to join their families.
We are in a sense, by ignoring existing prisoners there who are there
on trumped up charges, rewarding behavior that is woefully short of the
kinds of gains that we have seen in China and other places. I do not
think this behavior should be rewarded, their human rights abuses being
rewarded with tax subsidies from U.S. taxpayers. I think we need to
send Vietnam a message that more freedom of emigration has to be
accomplished, and I would urge my colleagues to support this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution
120, which would disapprove the President's renewal of his waiver of
the Jackson-Vanik amendment for the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. As
many of you know, I have been a fervent supporter of U.S. engagement
with countries who have had a history of committing human rights
violations. My positions rests on my belief that it is only through the
gradual building of trust between nations that arises when commerce and
cultural ideas flow freely, that democracy and freedom will prevail in
such societies. To my deep regret, the Vietnamese government has
demonstrated that no amount of economic engagement will compel
improvements in its human rights record, especially when it comes to
its emigration policies. The President's waiver of the Jackson-Vanik
amendment this year is clearly without any basis. Indeed, it is
contrary to the overwhelming evidence that the Vietnamese government
does not permit free emigration as the Jackson-Vanik amendment requires
before normal trading status can be conferred on Vietnam.
Having visited Vietnam this past January, I can attest to the fact
that Vietnam has done little to improve its human rights violations or
loosened its restrictions on free emigration. Unlike China, which has
made slow but measured progress in the area of human rights as
witnesses by the many Chinese religious leaders and citizens that I
spoke with during my visit to China last year, the same unfortunately
cannot be said for Vietnam.
Two Vietnamese-American families in my district intimately understand
the agony of having a family member thrown into a Vietnamese prison
simply because they promoted human and political rights. Both Dr.
Nguyen Dan Que, a 53-year-old endocrinologist, and Professor Doan Viet
Hoat each received 20 year sentences for conducting ``activities aimed
at overthrowing the people's government.'' Professor Hoat's sentence
was later reduced to 15 years of imprisonment and 5 years of house
arrest and deprivation of his civil liberties. Worried about their
health and safety, their families asked me to do all I could to learn
about their medical conditions. We had understood that both men were
suffering from serious kidney problems. However, my request was denied.
I was not permitted to visit with any political prisoners and the
medical information I did receive was unclear.
[[Page H6776]]
The Jackson-Vanik waiver exists for the express purpose of improving
emigration between nations by using the promise of economic relations
as leverage. With this in mind, I do not dispute the fact that it has
an unquestionably important role in normalizing U.S.-Vietnam relations.
However, so much work has yet to be done in the way of individual
liberty in Vietnam. I cannot help but feel that the waiver is being
improperly implemented this year.
Make no mistake, I consider productive relations with Vietnam's
Government to be very important. But a relationship must stand on
mutual understanding and clear expectations. It is time that we make a
statement to the Government of Vietnam on the state of human rights in
that country. I would hope that our support for the resolution would
also carry the message that we will not stand for continued human
rights abuses in Vietnam.
I would like to note that trade between nations implies a degree of
mutual respect and acceptance. We as a nation have demonstrated
goodwill in this endeavor and still have yet to see these efforts
reciprocated in accord with the waiver's provisions. Vietnam's
government has had adequate time to demonstrate its commitment towards
improving its emigration policies since the President ended the U.S.
trade embargo on Vietnam in 1994. Given the continued restrictions on
emigration and political freedoms in Vietnam, I feel that we must voice
our disapproval.
I am encouraged by the fact that many of my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle have found the proposed waiver renewal to be ill-
considered. Once we see concrete progress by the Vietnamese
government--that real improvements are being made so far as human
liberties are concerned--then I will be one of the first to say that
waiving the Jackson-Vanik amendment and normalizing U.S.-Vietnamese
trade relations would further the interests of civil liberty and
freedoms. Until that time, however, we must send a clear message and
vote in favor of this disapproval resolution. Doing otherwise will
reflect poorly on this nation and on the principles for which it
stands.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dooley).
(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I am joining with what I think
is one of America's greatest Vietnam war heroes, a former colleague and
our present ambassador to Vietnam, in asking all my colleagues to vote
in opposition to this bill.
The reason for it, I think, is clear. We have Vietnam now the 12th
largest country in the world in terms of population. Almost 70 percent
of those residents of Vietnam are under the age of 25, the vast
majority of which were born after the Vietnam war.
I think, clearly, this country has demonstrated, by a policy of
economic and social and cultural engagement, we have been able to have
the greatest impact in improving the quality of lives of those
countries in which we reach out to. We make the greatest difference
advancing human rights, the greatest difference in advancing the issue
of religious freedom, the greatest impact in advancing the concept of
democracy when we choose to economically and culturally and socially
engage with a country. That is what it is all about, when we continue
with the waiver for Jackson-Vanik.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, passage of House Joint Resolution 120 would
not be a message, it would be a hammer. It would be a hammer because it
sends the clear message to the people of Vietnam that we are not
serious about trying to be constructive and open up our trade and open
up our relations with this country.
If we believe that, by imposing these stricter standards of economic
engagement with Vietnam, we are going to send a message and have some
success; and if we are going to look at examples like South Africa, we
have to remember that South Africa were multilateral sanctions where we
had virtually an entire world behind those efforts to change South
Africa.
We cannot say that about Vietnam. We know for a fact that the
Europeans, Japan, other Asian countries, Latin America, they are all
ready to go in and fill a void if the U.S. disengages. That will not
just be at the expense of U.S. business, it will be at the expense of
the U.S. government and the U.S. people.
We must engage. If no one has faith with the folks that are speaking
here, please remember our former colleague, Pete Peterson, ambassador
to Vietnam, a former POW who says it is right to do this. Please oppose
House Joint Resolution 120.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President's waiver
of the Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions on Vietnam.
I am a veteran myself. I have served almost 30 years with the
National Guard. I have been on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
serve on the House Committee on International Relations. I realize that
times come when we have to move toward normal relations with Vietnam.
It was a terrible war. It was a terrible conflict. It was a war of
containment. I would not call it a war that we won.
Our former colleague, now the U.S. ambassador to Vietnam, Pete
Peterson has nothing but praise for the Vietnamese efforts to aid the
U.S. in locating and identifying the remains of POWs and MIAs. The
ambassador says that the two countries are cooperating at an
unprecedented level for former combatants.
I say to the critics of the waiver, listen to the words of the VFW.
They say, We believe that current U.S. trade policies may have resulted
in both gradual improvement in U.S.-Vietnamese relations and general
and proportional improvements.
Oppose the resolution.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, at this point I think we need to add
little, but perhaps some other observations.
I consider the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) not only
my colleague but my dear friend, and I would say that on almost
everything we have been together where human rights are concerned. I
feel that we just have a difference of view today, and I hope that his,
in this instance, does not prevail. Not because of any argument about
commitment to human rights but what the best course is today in order
to advance human rights.
I make a plea to all of my colleagues who know Pete Peterson, not
just as I do, as a colleague and dear friend, but know what he went
through as a POW. Surely, surely, as the first ambassador to Vietnam
since the war, we owe him the opportunity to carry through on all of
the elements that he thinks he can bring to bear to see not only human
rights but the relationship between Vietnam and the United States of
America blossom.
If we can conduct trade with China, surely we can conduct trade,
surely we can give Mr. Peterson the opportunity to conduct the business
of the United States. Surely, if we have this opportunity to make a
statement that individuals can make a difference, that the Vietnam war
can be healed, that those of us who have been scarred in this country
by everything that took place there can find a healing purpose in
giving Pete Peterson the opportunity to carry through on the program
that he has put forward. If that is accomplished, I can assure Mr.
Rohrabacher and my colleagues here, all of whom stand united on behalf
of human rights, that a great advancement will have taken place. We
will have made a step today in that direction that we can all be proud
of.
Mr. Speaker, I want to add to the comments that have been made this
afternoon opposing this resolution because I believe passing it will
not accomplish goals we all seek, such as greater accounting for POW's/
MIA's and economic reforms.
I firmly believe that we are more likely to succeed in our foreign
policy and human rights objectives by continuing and building on the
work already begun by our ambassador, Pete Peterson, a former Member of
Congress and a POW.
The purpose of the Jackson-Vanik amendment is to promote free
emigration. As of July 13, 4,388 Vietnamese had departed for the United
States under the Resettlement Opportunity agreement. Since the Jackson-
Vanik waiver was granted, Vietnam has greatly reduced the red tape for
prospective emigrants.
[[Page H6777]]
Both supporters and opponents must concede that progress is being
made in emigration, business development, investment opportunities, and
accounting for U.S. military personnel which are of vital interest and
concern to America and the families of missing service men and women.
This bill will not only end the progress that has been made, but
reverse the positive developments that have occurred. It will be a
setback for our efforts to account for missing U.S. military personnel
and other objectives.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the resolution.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp), my distinguished colleague from the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, there have been many references to our former colleague,
now ambassador, Pete Peterson. I wish everyone could have heard his
very powerful and compelling testimony before the Subcommittee on Trade
about reconciliation and engagement in Vietnam. This is not about MFN.
I have heard some references to MFN or normal trade relations. That
only occurs after a negotiated bilateral trade agreement. This is about
allowing private overseas investment loan guarantees.
{time} 1530
We must talk about our relations with Vietnam and what kind of
leverage we have if we do not engage Vietnam. We lose leverage in
obtaining more information from the Vietnamese government on those POWs
and MIAs that we are still not sure about.
The VFW in a statement released on July 28 said that disapproving the
waiver would harm the prospects for the cooperation between our
governments that is necessary for a successful resolution and
accounting for our missing Americans. We also lose leverage in bringing
Vietnam closer into the community of nations. We lose leverage in
encouraging Vietnam to promote the freedom of immigration, the very
point of the Jackson-Vanik amendment when it was passed back in 1974.
I urge the defeat of H.J. Res. 120.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from San Diego, CA (Mr. Hunter) a Vietnam veteran and a man
whose standards are very much respected in this body.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. A
couple of facts here are incontrovertible. One is that we have over
1,500 Americans still missing in Vietnam, including all 448 American
pilots who were shot down in Vietnam-controlled Laos. That can mean
only one thing. Not one of those pilots came home out of that 448. It
means the North Vietnamese leaders had a policy of execution of the
pilots that went down in that area. That is a war crime. There should
be war trials for the criminals, for the Vietnamese communist leaders
who propagated that policy of execution, if we could find them, if we
could apprehend them, if we could lay hands on them. If we had treated
Himmler and Goering like we are treating the Vietnamese communist
dictatorship, they would be attending World Trade Organization meetings
instead of the Nuremberg war trials. I think if we keep devaluing the
sacrifices of our veterans like we are doing with this bill, someday we
are going to have a war and they are not going to come.
Support Rohrabacher.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
(Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint
Resolution 120. I believe that this resolution is counterproductive to
the national interests of the United States and to the continued
improvement in the bilateral relationship between our Nation and
Vietnam.
I did not have the privilege of serving in this House with Ambassador
Pete Peterson, but over the course of the last 2 weeks I have had an
opportunity to sit with him on several occasions and talk to him about
his experience as ambassador to Vietnam from this country. Ambassador
Peterson, I think, more than anyone else understands the problems and
the complex nature of the issue as we transition from a very negative
relationship with Vietnam to hopefully a better and more understanding
relationship.
Ambassador Peterson tells me that Vietnam is a country in transition.
It is a country in transition culturally, philosophically,
economically, socially and even educationally. I believe that it is
important, it is vital that we remain engaged with Vietnam and that we
assist Vietnam and provide the leadership to help with that assistance
to that country so that they can transition from a dictatorship to
ultimately a democracy. I had an opportunity this morning to again be
with Ambassador Peterson in the Cannon Building where there is an
exhibition and it is simply titled ``Vietnam, The Land That We Never
Knew.''
Mr. Speaker, I was in Vietnam 30 years ago. I spent 13 months there
in the United States Army. I told Ambassador Peterson that I really did
not have any interest in going back, but he has convinced me that with
the policy of engagement, it is our obligation and our duty to go back
and see the Vietnam that we never knew.
I am opposed to this resolution and I urge my colleagues to oppose it
as well.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to distinguished
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), a combat veteran who served in
southeast Asia.
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. As
the gentleman from Illinois said, I did serve in the Vietnam War. I was
a Navy officer on swift boats patrolling rivers and canals down in the
delta region. But let me make it very clear that in my view having
served in Vietnam does not give me any special qualification to have an
opinion on this issue. Maybe it gives me some background on which to
draw in making a decision. And I would use it to draw on a historical
perspective.
In 1991, it was President Bush that proposed a road map, and I was
very much involved in the Congress at the time that was being
considered, for improving our relations with Vietnam. To follow the
road map, Vietnam had to take steps to help us account for our missing
servicemen. In return for the cooperation, the United States was to
move incrementally towards normalized relations.
Progress was made, and in 1994 a second step was taken when President
Clinton lifted the trade embargo against Vietnam. In 1995, formal
diplomatic relations were established between the United States and
Vietnam.
Today's vote is just one more step along this road. As Ambassador
Pete Peterson has said, if we grant this waiver today, he will have
some of the tools he needs to convince Vietnam's leaders to improve
human rights conditions, to continue support for the resolution of our
POW and MIA cases that are still unresolved, and to maintain their
commitment to liberalizing their economic and political institutions.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation has always recognized a clear distinction
between being at peace and being at war. We cannot, we must not forget
the pain and suffering of war. But by granting this waiver and
advocating for even greater liberalization of Vietnamese society, we
can say to Americans who served in Vietnam that their commitment is
vindicated as economic and political freedom takes root in that
country.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), a Vietnam veteran, the ranking
member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Illinois is
recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, this is really a vote on whether we are truly
dedicated to resolve the full accounting of our missing from the
Vietnam war. As the Veterans of Foreign Wars have said, passing this
resolution of disapproval will only hurt our efforts at a time when we
are receiving the access that we need from the Vietnamese to determine
the fate of our POW/MIAs.
As many of the speakers have said, there is no more authoritative
voice on this issue than our former colleague and now Ambassador to
Vietnam, Pete Peterson. He supports the Jackson-
[[Page H6778]]
Vanik waiver. As a prisoner of war who underwent years of imprisonment
in the notorious Hanoi Hilton, Ambassador Peterson should have every
reason to be skeptical and harbor bitterness towards the Vietnamese.
Yet he believes that the best course is to further develop relations
between our two nations.
He knows this because it is in our Nation's best interest. We have
achieved progress on the POW/MIA issue because of our evolving
relationship with Vietnam, not despite it. He also knows that without
access to the jungles and the rice paddies, without access to the
archival information and documents, and to the witnesses of these
tragic incidents, we cannot give the families of the missing in action
the answers they deserve.
Our Nation is making progress on providing these answers. Much of
this is due to the Joint Task Force on Full Accounting, our military
presence in Vietnam which is tasked with looking for our missing. I
have visited these young men and women and they are among the bravest
and most gung ho group of soldiers I have ever met. Every day, from the
searches of battle sites in treacherous jungles or the excavation of
crash sites on the sides of mountains, they put themselves in harm's
way to perform a mission they deeply believe in. It is truly touching
to these men and women, some of whom were not even born when our
missing served, so dedicated to a mission that they see as a sacred
duty. They told me time and time again, allow us to remain here so we
can complete this mission, so that we can do this job. If we pass this
resolution today, we risk all the progress we have made.
I ask my colleagues to please vote against the resolution.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today's debate is not about whether we respect our wonderful former
colleague and now ambassador, Mr. Peterson. We do, although we note
there are others who were prisoners of War in Vietnam who feel that we
should support this resolution. This debate is about whether we use
this tool available to us to get Vietnam to do the right thing, to
allow for free emigration. If they were doing the right thing, we would
not need to have this waiver before us at all. We must stand firm for
human rights by using this tool to increase performance.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues that
today is about reunification of families. It is not about trade. I am
for trade. This is about reunification of families. It is about doing
the right thing. I know. Because when you have a Vietnamese American in
your district who wants to get their wife over after 15 or 20 years,
after having tried to find her, after finding her in a camp and he
cannot, he calls my office because I have the Vietnamese staffer who
will help them. I get to hear the stories.
Please vote for this resolution.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is about disapproving the waiving of the
Jackson-Vanik restrictions which the President would like to do of the
1974 trade act. The fact that he is asking us to waive the restrictions
of Jackson-Vanik mean that the communist Vietnamese are not meeting the
moral standards that we set. So all of this talk about all the progress
that we have heard about going on in communist Vietnam is so much
baloney. The President himself is acknowledging that they are not doing
that because he has asked us to waive those standards.
What is the purpose behind waiving the standards, the standards we
put in place in face of the persecution of Jews in Russia that we
wanted to deal with back in the 1970s? Why he is doing this? Why are we
replacing those standards? So that our businessmen can go over, with
government guarantees and government subsidies, meaning our taxpayer
dollars, and invest in this dictatorship and make a profit and then
export their goods to the United States and put our own people out of
work. That is what this is all about.
I ask the American people to determine if you tried to set up a
business, if you are trying to pay your mortgage, do you get a loan
guarantee or a subsidy from the taxpayers? No. This is what the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) said it is. This is corporate
welfare for communists at its very worst because we are lowering our
standards in order to do so.
By the way, all this talk about MIA and POWs, I hope Members listened
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and all this talk about
Pete Peterson whom I respect and admire and served with in this House.
The communist government of Vietnam has not given us the records of the
prison that the gentleman from Texas was kept in or the prison that
Pete Peterson himself was incarcerated in for 6 years. We requested
that and they have denied even giving us those records because if we
got the records, we would know that they have not come clean on the
MIA/POW issue. That is why almost all of the veterans organizations are
asking support of my resolution because they want to keep faith with
those people who fought for freedom and keep faith with our principles
of democracy.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I saw our distinguished ambassador, Mr. Peterson, sitting back here.
I think he deserves the respect and honor of all of us not only for the
outstanding job he has done there but for his service, his tour of
duty, which included 6\1/2\ years at the Hanoi Hilton. And so we pay
tribute to you, Pete. Keep up the good work.
Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that has not been elaborated on in
this proposal deals with immigration. I want to just touch briefly on
that and point out that over the past 10 to 15 years, more than 480,000
people have entered the U.S. under the Orderly Departure Program from
Vietnam. Applicants under the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese
Returnees, what is called the ROVR program, those numbers are also
impressive. The government of Vietnam has cleared for interview over
15,500 of the ROVR applicants and permitted over 4,300 persons
qualified for ROVR already to depart to the United States.
{time} 1545
INS expects to complete most interviews of ROVR applicants by the end
of this year.
I think basically what we are talking about is maintaining an
improved relationship rather than putting barriers to increased
communication and improved relations with a country that is going
through transition and going through a transition in a positive way,
and we have encouraged that transition, and for that reason I would ask
all of my colleagues to join with us in voting to oppose H.J.Res. 120
because I think it sets us back.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to H.J. Res. 120.
America needs to heal from the tragedy of the Vietnam War.
Preserving the Presidential waiver for Vietnam will help alleviate
the pain.
Extending the waiver promises a path towards mending the horrors of
war because it provides an avenue for serious open dialogue.
The Jackson-Vanik waiver has given momentum to reconciling America's
questions regarding POWs.
It has increased humanitarian efforts, enhanced leverage in treaty
negotiations and allowed increased economic opportunities for American
businesses.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars has witnessed first-hand the positive
impact that the waiver has produced.
The Jackson-Vanik waiver has strengthened US-Vietnam cooperation by
establishing the Joint Document Center in Hanoi.
The Trilateral Recovery Operations of the U.S., Laos and Vietnam.
And the Vietnamese governments has publicized activities related to
missing Americans.
These are concrete results and real outcomes.
And these accomplishments have come about because of the Jackson-
Vanik waiver.
The Jackson-Vanik waiver has been our diplomatic leverage--without
it, we threaten America's interests.
The past makes us all uneasy--however, as we enter into the new
millennium, we must work on forging relationships for the future.
We must start now--this waiver provides the tool to achieve our
goals.
A vote against this harmful resolution sends a clear message of a
commitment to the healing of America and Vietnam.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure.
[[Page H6779]]
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 120.
The full story of how the President and his senior advisors made
decisions on Vietnam has never been told.
I am very concerned that the American people do not know the complete
story on what influenced the decision to extend normal Diplomatic
relations to the People's Republic of Vietnam.
Now we have to once again look at the President's actions and
challenge why, in spite of evidence to the contrary, he is giving a
waiver to Vietnam on an important human rights issue.
In October 1996 I began an inquiry of the current Administration and
the potential impact foreign money might have had on our Foreign and
Defense policy.
My goal was to acquire all information from the President and other
senior members of his Administration about their connections with John
Huang and the Lippo Group.
From 1996 to this day I believe the administration may have
improperly assisted the Lippo Group in developing business in the
People's Republic of Vietnam.
My fear was (and still is) that campaign contributions by Mochtar and
James Riady and John Huang all improperly influenced our Foreign policy
on Vietnam.
And to this day I feel the American people have not been given the
truth on all the activities undertaken by the President, John Huang and
the Lippo Group.
In 1992 the Riadys were the largest single campaign donors to then
Presidential candidate Clinton.
Now all Americans are finally finding out that for the last five and
a half years Foreign money may have corrupted our Foreign and Defense
Policy, especially in Asia.
It was shocking to find, as early as November 1992, the late Ron
Brown was meeting with Vietnamese government officials about lifting
the U.S. embargo while Presidential candidate Clinton was taking a much
harder line on full accounting for POW-MIAs.
Then, after being appointed Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown met with
John Huang, who at that time was the senior Lippo official in America,
to discuss Vietnam.
It took years for the truth to come out.
Years later the Wall Street Journal reported that soon after he was
first elected President, Mr. Clinton received a personal letter from
Mochtar Riady, Chairman of the Lippo Group.
In his letter to the President, Riady was strongly lobbying for the
immediate U.S. diplomatic recognition of Vietnam.
Riady's letter was very clear--not only should America move to
quickly recognize Vietnam, but Mochter brazenly informed the President
that Lippo had employees on the ground in Vietnam ready to do business.
While Riady's letter was kept secret there were important and serious
debates by well meaning members on both sides of the aisle as to the
merits of recognizing Vietnam.
Issues such as full accounting for Pow-Mias, religious freedom for
Vietnamese citizens, free emigration and free speech were debated. But
one has to ask if the fix was in all along to help the Riadys.
Now, today once again with a bipartisan spirit Congress is addressing
what to do about assisting Vietnam.
It is my position that, because of previous bad faith in providing
full disclosure to congressional oversight, we can't have a fair debate
on the merits of the assisting Vietnam until we find out exactly what
the Administration did to help the Lippo group.
The great tragedy of the ethical cloud hanging over our Foreign
Policy is that we become uncertain as to the validity of the
Administration's position on any foreign economic issue.
Did the Administration sell out American business interests by
improperly helping a foreign firm, the Lippo Group, with inside
information about the timing of our recognition of Vietnam? This type
of information could be worth millions at the expense of American
Firms.
So I look with great skepticism at the President issuing a waiver. I
am perplexed as to who will eventually benefit. On the merits of the
case I don't think the average Vietnamese will benefit, since the IMF
has held up loans to Vietnam because the government has not made
appropriate economic reforms.
The President's waiver is suspect as to why he continues to insist
his action will substantially promote the freedom of emigration
provisions.
In fact Congress has the names of hundreds of Vietnamese who have
been denied emigration since 1975. This pattern of human rights abuse
continues to this day.
Finally, as a practical matter, if Vietnamese leaders think American
Foreign Policy can be influenced by Lippo money they will have no
incentive to take our positions seriously on any issue especially
enforcing the freedom of emigration provisions in the Jackson-Vanic
amendment.
Now is the time to send a signal to the World that the Congress takes
very seriously our oversight responsibilities and we pledge to bring
sunlight on the Administration's actions.
Vote to support H.J. Res. 120 and show Vietnam and the world that
Congress will not allow our Foreign Policy to be sold for campaign
contributions.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my
colleagues to join the Congressional Dialogue on Vietnam. This group
facilitates an open exchange among Members of Congress, the
Administration, and the public on issues that affect those who have
personal interests tied to Vietnam.
In particular, I wish to call attention to the grassroots campaign,
``Adopt a Religious Prisoner in Vietnam.'' This group notifies its
members on the current state of religious persecution in Vietnam as
well as the plight of people who have been imprisoned for their
religious beliefs.
The current Vietnamese government detains individuals for a variety
of ideological reasons, including those who openly discuss religious
ideas. These prisoners of conscience are writers, philosophers, and
artists who have never served in combat and yet some have been
incarcerated since the Vietnam War.
This past January I had the unique opportunity to visit Vietnam.
Despite the advancements our countries have made in diplomatic
relations, we still differ on issues concerning religious prisoners. On
my visit I was denied the opportunity to visit with prisoners of
conscience, and what medical information I did receive was ambiguous.
In my opinion, this underscores the value of the ``Adopt a Religious
Prisoner in Vietnam'' campaign and its ties to overseas religious
institutions. I want to take a moment to tell you about my own adoptee.
The Venerable Thich Tue Sy has been a Buddhist monk from the age of
seven years. He taught himself several languages including Classical
Chinese, English, and Sanskrit. A noted scholar and founder of the Free
Vietnam Force, he was arrested by Vietnamese government authorities on
April 2nd, 1984. Four years later he was prosecuted on national
security charges and sentenced to death, but protests from the
international community helped to commute his sentence to 20 years in a
government ``re-education'' camp. He has been jailed for the past 14
years in a camp where nutrition and health conditions are typically
poor.
The ``Adopt a Religious Prisoner in Vietnam'' campaign affords
Members of Congress the opportunity to address two very important
audiences. One is the world community, and the message is that as
concerned legislators we decry the blatant oppression of individuals
worldwide, especially when it is based solely on differing ideology. We
also send a message to the adoptee, telling that person there is an
advocate who is appealing for his or her release, and encouraging that
individual to continue pursue the goals of free speech and religious
liberty.
Mr. Speaker, I again encourage my colleagues to join the
Congressional Dialogue on Vietnam as well as the ``Adopt a Religious
Prisoner in Vietnam'' program. The Congressional Dialogue was founded
by the gentlewomen from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez and Ms. Zoe
Lofgren and represents a committed bipartisan endeavor to support the
progress of US-Vietnam relations. In defense of fundamental human
rights and in the interests of our many Vietnamese-Americans who have
ties to Vietnam, I hope that all of my colleagues will participate in
these efforts.
Mr, UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 120 and
in support of waiving the Jackson-Vanik amendment for Vietnam.
Last August, I visited Vietnam as part of a Congressional delegation,
although there was a certain level of economic and political
interaction between the United States and Vietnam, there was still the
need to increase this interaction. The Jackson-Vanik waiver, enacted
for the first time on March of this year, is a tool for this
interaction, for this engagement.
Not only has the Jackson-Vanik increased the freedom of emigration in
Vietnam, our American businesses investing and exporting to Vietnam are
benefitting from federal economic programs, such as those administered
by the Export-Import Bank. Removing the waiver could mean job losses
for workers in the United States.
It will be a great setback not to grant the waiver. Let us not use
this issue to act as a referendum on our total relationship with
Vietnam. I understand that we still have many issues with Vietnam which
we are not satisfied, such as human rights and POW/MIA concerns. In
fact there are separate vehicles for these other concerns. By waiving
the Jackson-Vanik, we continue to increase our engagement with Vietnam
and we will have even greater opportunities to discuss other issues
such as human rights, issues which I agree are just as important to the
American people.
We are linked to Vietnam economically, politically and even
culturally. We should not move backwards by passing this resolution. I
[[Page H6780]]
urge my colleagues to vote against H.J. Res. 120.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J.
Res. 120 which denies President Clinton's waiver for Vietnam from the
Jackson-Vanik freedom of emigration requirement of the Trade Act of
1974. On June 3, 1998, President Clinton notified Congress of his
intention to extend Vietnam a Jackson-Vanick wavier for an additional
year from July 3, 1998 to July 3, 1998.
Vietnam's trade status is subject to the Jackson-Vanik amendment to
Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision of law governs the
extension of normal trade relations, as well as access to U.S.
government credits or credit or investment guarantees, to nonmarket
economy countries ineligible for normal trade relations tariff
treatment. A country subject to the provisions may gain MFN treatment
and coverage by U.S. trade financing programs by complying with the
freedom of emigration provisions of the Trade Act. The Trade Act
authorizes the President to waive the freedom of emigration
requirements with respect to a particular country if he determines that
such a waiver will substantially promote the freedom of emigration
provisions.
Extension of the Jackson-Venice waiver for Vietnam gives Vietnam
access to U.S. government credits or credit or investment guarantees
such as those provided by Overseas Private Investment Corporation
(OPIC) and Export-Import Bank support for U.S. businesses in Vietnam.
Vietnam has not yet concluded a bilateral commercial agreement with the
United States and therefore, Vietnam is ineligible to receive normal
trade relations tariff treatment.
Recently, the Subcommittee on Trade held a hearing on Vietnam. U.S.
Ambassador Pete Peterson and Senator John Kerry eloquently testified
about the importance of having a policy of engagement with Vietnam.
Both of these men heroically served our country during the Vietnam War
and they strongly believe that we should work with the Vietnamese
government and form a stable, fruitful relationship between the two
countries.
Vietnam has made consistent progress on its commitments under the
Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees agreement. The United
States government has made it its highest priority to obtain the
fullest possible accounting of missing U.S. citizens from the Vietnam
War. The Vietnamese government has been extremely cooperative. Human
rights in Vietnam need to be improved and hopefully, engagement will do
this.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. We should not
forget about the past or the dedication of our servicemen who fought in
Vietnam, but we should move forward. If those who were prisoners of war
in Vietnam believe that it is time to engage Vietnam and normalize
relations with Vietnam, we should listen to their advice. It is time to
move forward with Vietnam and build a relationship that benefits both
the United States and Vietnam.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint
Resolution 120. This resolution would disapprove the President's
determination that a waiver of the so-called Jackson-Vanik requirements
would substantially promote freedom of emigration objectives with
respect to Vietnam. This waiver permits U.S. Government financial
support for American businesses to invest and trade with Vietnam and is
a precondition for concluding a commercial agreement to establish
normal trading relations.
By passing this resolution, Congress would disapprove and reverse the
most recent step taken by the United States to normalize relations with
Vietnam. This policy of gradual engagement after trying to isolate
Vietnam began in the early 1990s with the lifting of the trade embargo
and the establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1995.
Since the normalization process began the Vietnamese government has
cooperated in POW/MIA accounting, made progress on its emigration
practices, and is now undertaking market-oriented reforms of its state-
controlled economy.
It is also true that Vietnam violates human rights and denies
religious and political freedoms to its citizens. But as is the case
with China, we cannot isolate Vietnam unilaterally in a global economy.
Continued exposure of the Vietnamese people to American values of human
and religious rights and democratic principles through increased trade
and investment and continued engagement with the Vietnam government
provides the best means to achieve fullest possible POW/MIA accounting
and to promote political and economic reforms.
Disapproving the waiver will signal a return to a previous policy of
isolation which failed. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J.
Res. 120.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). All time for debate has
expired.
The joint resolution is considered read for amendment.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 29, 1998, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 163,
nays 260, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 356]
YEAS--163
Aderholt
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bilirakis
Blunt
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Canady
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Duncan
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Forbes
Fossella
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilman
Goode
Goodling
Graham
Green
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Kucinich
LaHood
Lazio
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Myrick
Nadler
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Packard
Pappas
Pascrell
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Riley
Rivers
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Sanchez
Sanders
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tauzin
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Torres
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vento
Wamp
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wolf
NAYS--260
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Archer
Armey
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
[[Page H6781]]
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Livingston
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nethercutt
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (OR)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Sununu
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--11
Burr
Gonzalez
Istook
Linder
McDade
Neal
Rahall
Riggs
Smith, Linda
Towns
Young (FL)
{time} 1609
Messrs. FOLEY, RANGEL, SPRATT, LEWIS of Georgia, and Ms. LEE changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mrs. KELLY, and Messrs. SMITH of Michigan, NORWOOD,
MCCOLLUM, PETERSON of Pennsylvania, TORRES, and COLLINS changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
The joint resolution was not passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________