[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.

                          ____________________