[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 112 (Tuesday, August 3, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6888-H6900]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVAL OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TREATMENT TO PRODUCTS OF VIETNAM
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House,
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 58) 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 58 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 58
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, 1999, with respect to
Vietnam.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, July 30, 1999, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and a
Member in support of the joint resolution each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
General Leave
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on House Joint Resolution 58.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield one-half of
my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) in opposition to
the joint resolution and that he be permitted to yield further blocks
of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 58 and in support of
Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver.
Over the past decade, the United States has taken gradual steps to
normalize our bilateral regulations with Vietnam. This process has
borne tangible results on the full range of issues in our bilateral
agenda, including increased accounting of our missing in action,
increased trade and investment opportunities for U.S. firms and
workers, and substantial progress toward resolution of the remaining
emigration cases.
Last week, the administration reached a bilateral trade agreement in
principle with the Vietnamese that will serve as the basis for a
reciprocal extension of normal trade relations once it is finalized and
approved by Congress.
The agreement in principle contains provisions on market access in
goods, trade, and services, intellectual property protection, and
investment, which are necessary for U.S. firms to compete in the
Vietnamese market, the 12th most populous in the world.
The Vietnamese pledge to lift import quotas and bans, reduce key
tariffs, protect intellectual property rights, ensure transparency in
rules and regulations, and ease restrictions on financial services,
telecommunications, and distribution.
Because Vietnam and the United States have not yet finalized and
approved a bilateral agreement, the effects of the Jackson-Vanik waiver
at this time is quite limited.
The waiver enables U.S. exporters doing business with Vietnam to have
access to U.S. trade financing programs, provided that Vietnam meets
the relevant program 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.
I will insert in the Record a letter I received for more than 150
U.S. companies and trade associations supporting Vietnam's Jackson-
Vanik waivers, an important step in the ability of the U.S. business
community to compete in the Vietnamese market.
Terminating Vietnam's waiver will give Vietnam an excuse to halt
further reforms.
Do not take away our ability to pressure the Vietnamese for progress
on issues of importance to the United States.
I urge a ``no'' vote on H.J. Res. 58.
Mr. Speaker, the letter I referred to is as follows:
July 23, 1999.
Hon. Philip Crane,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Crane: As members of the American
business and agricultural community, we strongly support
action to normalize trade relations with Vietnam. Renewal of
the Jackson-Vanik waiver is a key step in this direction. We
strongly oppose H.J. Res. 58, which would overturn the
waiver. Renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver will ensure that
U.S. companies and farmers selling to Vietnam will maintain
access to critical U.S. export promotion programs, such as
those of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation, and agricultural credit programs.
Furthermore, overturning the Jackson-Vanik waiver could
derail current bilateral trade negotiations at a critical
time. The talks, which have been ongoing for three years,
could be successfully completed in a matter of a few weeks.
The U.S. Trade Representative is seeking commitments from
Vietnam on market access for goods, agricultural products,
services and investment, and the protection of intellectual
property rights. The final agreement will thus bring
Vietnamese law closer to international norms, thereby helping
U.S. companies and farmers to tap the long-term potential of
Vietnam, the second most populous country in Southeast Asia.
The American business and agricultural community will work
hard for congressional approval of a trade agreement that
provides meaningful access to Vietnam's markets.
The American business and agricultural community believes
that a policy of economic normalization with Vietnam is in
our national interest. We urge you to support the renewal of
the Jackson-Vanik waiver as an important step in this
process. We also stand ready to work with Congress toward
passage of a trade agreement that opens Vietnamese markets to
U.S. goods, agricultural products, services and investment.
Sincerely,
ABB; Ablondi, Foster, Sobin, Davidow; ACE International;
AEA International SOS; Aetna International, Inc.; AgriSource
Co. Ltd.; American Apparel Manufactures Association; American
Chamber of Commerce in Australia; American Chamber of
Commerce in Guangdong, China; American Chamber of Commerce in
Hong Kong; American Chamber of Commerce in Korea; American
Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines; American Chamber of
Commerce Vietnam; American Council of Life Insurance;
American Electronics Association; American Express Company;
American Farm Bureau Federation; American International
Group, Inc.; American-Vietamese Management Consortium, Inc.;
Amstan Sanitaryware, Inc., ARCO; Arthur Anderson Vietnam;
Asia-Pacific Council of American Chamber of Commerce;
Associated General Contractors of America; Association for
Manufacturing Technology; ATKearney; Banker and McKenzie,
Vietnam; BBDO Advertising Agency; Bechtel; Black and Veatch;
Bridgecreek Group; Brown & Root; California Chamber of
Commerce; Caltex; Camp Dresser & McKee International, Inc.
Cargill; Caterpillar, Inc., Centrifugal Casting Machine
Co., Inc.; Chamber of Commerce of the Princeton Area;
Checkpoint Systems, Asia Pacific; Chevron Corporation;
Chillicothe-Ross Chamber of Commerce Citigroup; Coalition for
Employment through Exports, Inc.; Commerce Advisory Partners;
Condor Consulting; Connell Brothers Company, Ltd.; Coudert
Brothers, Vietnam; Craft Corporation; Crown Worldwide Ltd.;
DAI-Asia; Deacons Graham & James; Delco Chamber of Commerce;
Delta Equipment and Construction Company; Direct Selling
Association; Eastman Kodak Co.; East-West Trade and
Investment, Inc.; Electronic Industries Alliance; Eli Lilly
(Asia) Inc.; Ellicott International; Emergency Committee for
American Trade; Environmental-Services Inc.; ERM Hong Kong
Ltd.; Exact Software; Fashion Garments Ltd.; FDX Corporation;
Fertilizer Institute; Firmenich Inc.; Foster Wheeler
Corporation; Freehill
[[Page H6889]]
Hollingdale & Page; Freeport Area Chamber of Commerce;
Freshfields Vietnam; General Electric Company; Habersham
County Chamber of Commerce; Halliburton Company.
Hewlett-Packard Company; Hills and Co.; Humphrey
International Healthcare Inc.; IAMBIC, Ltd.; IBC Corporation;
IBM; Illinois State Chamber of Commerce; Indochina Asset
Management Ltd.; Ingersoll-Rand Company; Interior Architects,
Inc.; John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company; Johnson &
Johnson; Joseph Simon & Sons; Kansas Chamber of Commerce &
Industry; KHM Inc.; Leo Burnett/M&T Vietnam; LiG Products
Ltd.; Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce; Louis Dreyfus
Corp.; Luk, Inc.; McDermott Incorporated; Metro Atlanta
Chamber of Commerce; Mobil Corporation; Motion Picture
Association of America; Motorola; National Association of
Manufacturers; National Foreign Trade Council; National
Institute for World Trade;
National Oilseed Processors Association; National Retail
Federation; Netrak Logistics & Consultants; New Jersey
Chamber of Commerce; New York Life International; Nike;
Norpac Food Sales; North American Export Grain Association,
Inc.; Ohsman & Sons Company, Inc.; Oracle; Otis-Lilama
Elevator Company, Ltd.; Pacific Architects and Engineers,
Inc.; Pacific Ventures Inc.; Pacific View Partners, Inc.;
Parsons Corporation; PASCO Scientific; PepsiCo Inc.; Pioneer
Hi-Bred International; Polaris Co., Ltd. HCMC;
Pricewaterhousecoopers Vietnam Ltd.; Procter and Gamble
Company; Projects International, Inc.; Quaker Fabric
Corporation; Raytheon; Rotex; RRC Schneider Electric; Rural
Enterprises of Oklahoma, Inc.; Russin & Vecchi; S.C. Johnson
& Son;
Samuels International Associates, Inc.; SciClone
Pharmaceuticals International; Small Business Exporters
Association; S-Tec Corporation; Telecommunications Industry
Association; Telemobile Inc.; Texaco Inc.; The Boeing
Company; The Chamber/Southwest Louisiana; Tileke & Gibbins
Consultants Ltd.; U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles
and Apparel; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Committee Pacific
Basin Economic Council-PBEC US; U.S. Council for
International Business; U.S. Trading & Investment Company;
U.S.-ASEAN Business Council; U.S.-Vietnam Trade Council ;
Unisys Corporation; United Parcel Service; United
Technologies Corporation; Unocal; Valve Manufacturers
Association; Vietnam Auditing Company; Vietnam Venture Group,
Inc.; Vinifera Wine Growers Association;Warnaco Inc.; Wharton
Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), though we disagree perhaps at times.
{time} 1545
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentleman
yielding me this time, as I am the author of the bill; and I wanted to
have this opportunity to speak at this time.
It has been 1 year since President Clinton issued the first Jackson-
Vanik waiver for Vietnam. Unfortunately, there has been no progress
concerning democracy and human rights in Vietnam. And more
specifically, in violation of Jackson-Vanik, the U.S. Government
reports systematic corruption in Vietnam's refugee program.
My joint resolution disapproving Jackson-Vanik waivers for the
Vietnamese dictatorship does not intend to isolate Vietnam nor stop
U.S. companies from doing business there. It simply prevents Communist
Vietnam from enjoying a trade status that enables American businessmen
to invest there with loan guarantees and subsidies provided by the U.S.
taxpayer. If private banks or insurance companies will not back up or
insure private business ventures in Vietnam, American taxpayers should
not be asked to do so.
Rampant corruption and mismanagement are as valid a reason to oppose
this waiver as repression in Vietnam. And during the last year, rather
than open up its state-managed economy, the Vietnamese Communist regime
has further tightened its grip. There has been no move whatsoever
towards free elections. And yesterday's Reuters News Agency reported
that the Vietnamese government announced that opposition parties will
not be tolerated. This morning's Washington Times reports a new
campaign in Vietnam to crush Christians.
The lack of real progress to honestly resolve the MIA-POW cases and
the continued persecution of America's former Vietnamese allies is why
House Joint Resolution 58 is strongly supported by the American Legion,
our country's largest veterans' organization, as well as other
veterans' organizations and the National League of MIA-POW Families,
and the National Alliance of POW-MIA Families.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in support of the joint
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from
New York (Mr. McNulty) is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that half the time
be yielded to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and that
he be permitted to allocate that time as he sees fit; and that,
further, I be permitted to yield the time that I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McNULTY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution
58 which disapproves the President's determination to waive the
Jackson-Vanik Freedom of Information requirements for Vietnam.
Others have pointed out that this debate is not about extension of
normal trade relations to Vietnam, but rather about the more limited
issue of whether Vietnam should be eligible to participate in U.S.
credit and credit guarantee programs. Technically, Mr. Speaker, that is
correct. However, I think we all know that this debate is about
something much more.
In granting this waiver, we send a message of support to the
government of Vietnam. We are telling the government of Vietnam that
despite their continued failure to assist us in finding lost
servicemen, despite their refusal to allow Vietnamese, including
Vietnamese who bravely fought alongside us, to leave Vietnam, despite
their blatant disregard for human rights, that we support them. These
are not the values for which 58,000 U.S. servicemen and women gave
their lives.
The trade embargo with Vietnam was lifted in 1994. In the intervening
years, what progress has Vietnam shown? There are still 2,063 Americans
still unaccounted for in southeast Asia. While the remains of some of
those Americans may not be recoverable, it strains belief that the
Vietnamese have no information as to the fate or location of all of
these men and women.
Much will be said today about increased cooperation between the
United States and Vietnam. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is too little
and it is coming too late. It has been 25 years since the communist
takeover of the entire country, and in that time the Vietnamese have
only cooperated with us when it would benefit them, and then only to
the extent that they saw fit. This is not my definition of cooperation.
Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose the eventual, eventual, normalization of
relations with the people of Vietnam. I do, however, oppose
normalization of relations with this government under these
circumstances.
Now, some may claim, Mr. Speaker, that I have an emotional attachment
to this issue, and they are correct. On August the 9th, 1970, HM3
William F. McNulty was killed in Vietnam. He was a medical Navy
corpsman transferred
[[Page H6890]]
to the Marines. He spent his time patching up his buddies, and one day
he stepped on a land mine and lost his life.
That was a tremendous loss for our family, and I can tell my
colleagues from personal experience that the pain may subside, but it
never goes away. But there is a difference between what the McNulty
family went through and what an MIA family goes through. Because Bill's
body was returned to us, we had a wake and a funeral and a burial. What
we had, Mr. Speaker, was closure. I can only imagine what the family of
an MIA has gone through over these past 25 years and longer.
Mr. Speaker, until there is a more complete accounting for those
missing in action, until there is progress on the immigration front,
and until there is respect for human rights, this waiver should not be
granted.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 58, which
disapproves of the President's determination to waive the Jackson-Vanik
Freedom of Immigration Requirements for Vietnam. This resolution, if
passed, would preclude Vietnam from participating in United States
trade financing programs, such as those sponsored by the Ex-Im Bank,
OPIC, and agricultural credit programs under the United States
Department of Agriculture.
At a broader level, passage of this resolution would seriously
undermine the progress in United States-Vietnam relations made in the
last 10 years. Since the late 1980s, Vietnam has shown an increasing
commitment towards reengaging with the United States, evidenced by
greater cooperation with the POW-MIA accounting and on immigration
issues.
As a result of this progress, beginning in 1992, the United States
has gradually normalized relations with Vietnam. This normalization
process helped to keep Vietnam on track with its reforms and has
resulted in greater cooperation on the POW-MIA accounting efforts,
immigration, and economic reform.
Most recently, the administration announced that it reached a
tentative bilateral commercial agreement with Vietnam. Clearly, our
policy of engagement is helping to create a change in that society.
Ending engagement at this juncture will end our ability to shape the
pace and the direction of this change, including undercutting our
ability to promote democratic reform.
In fact, as we have seen in our failed policy toward Cuba, a policy
of isolation does little to promote the values which we care so much
about. A policy of isolation, as we have seen in Cuba, only serves to
separate people and prevents us from sharing our ideals and our
beliefs.
I recognize that our history of Vietnam is a troubled one. The scars
of the past run deep, and we can never forget those who sacrificed
their lives in service to their country. However, isolating Vietnam
will not heal those scars.
Perhaps no one can speak more authoritatively on that issue than one
of our former colleagues, Pete Peterson. Pete Peterson was shot down
flying his 67th mission during the Vietnam War and spent 6\1/2\ years
as a prisoner of war. After serving 6 years with us in the House of
Representatives, Pete Peterson returned to Vietnam, this time as the
first United States ambassador since the Communist takeover. It is
Ambassador Peterson's remarkable optimism about the changes going on in
Vietnam that I believe sheds the greatest light on what our policy
toward Vietnam should be.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be
yielded to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, and that he be permitted to allocate that
time as he sees fit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane),
and that he be allowed to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, opponents of this resolution say they are
opposed to this resolution because they support a more free and open
Vietnam. Well, I too support a more free and open Vietnam, but I
support this resolution because by passing it we send a clear signal
that business as usual is not acceptable.
No one is looking to take away the right of American corporations to
do business in Vietnam. First, let us be clear. Since the U.S. trade
embargo on Vietnam was lifted in 1994, businesses have had the ability
to trade with and invest in Vietnam, and some have done so. The debate
over Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam is not about trade and
investment. This is about government subsidies for companies operating
in Vietnam.
This resolution is also about maintaining the focus on changes we
would like to see in Vietnam. And I thought this was why we first
normalized relations with Vietnam, with the expectation that the
government would make a genuine reform, a genuine effort at progress.
It is no secret that the Vietnamese government wants this waiver, but
in granting the waiver once again we are saying it is okay that
religious freedom continues to be restricted, it is okay that there is
minimal political freedom, it is okay to have repression and to have it
intensified this past year.
If this waiver is upheld or rejected, American companies will be no
more or less free to invest in Vietnam. It should be noted, however,
that the investment climate in Vietnam is not good and that several
American companies have pulled out and several others are considering
pulling out. We should realize that one simply cannot do business,
whether a foreigner or as a Vietnamese, in a place where the rule of
law is disregarded.
For the U.S. to subsidize companies that do business in Vietnam
through OPIC or Ex-Im would be for us to ignore this reality. As long
as the Vietnamese government continues to jam Radio Free Asia, which is
an attempt to deny the Vietnamese people access to objective news, and
as long as it violates human rights and disrespects economic freedom,
we should not waive Jackson-Vanik.
It is only through taking these steps that we can leverage and bring
about the necessary changes concerning respect for individual rights,
religious freedom and liberalized markets in one of the world's most
politically and economically repressive countries.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1600
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia
and the Pacific, I rise in opposition to the resolution.
The Jackson-Vanik waiver does not constitute an endorsement of the
communist regime in Hanoi. However, our experience has been that the
isolation and disengagement does not promote progress in human rights.
New sanctions, including the symbolic disapproval of the Jackson-
Vanik waiver, only strengthen the position of the Communist hard-liners
at the expense of those in Vietnam's leadership who are inclined to
support more openness.
Engagement with Vietnam has resulted in some improvements in
Vietnam's human rights practices, although we still remain disappointed
at the limit scope and nature of those reforms.
Mr. Speaker, Americans must conclusively recognize that the war with
Vietnam is over. With the restoration of diplomatic relationships in
1995, the U.S. and Vietnam embarked on a new relationship for the
future. It will not be an easy or quick process.
The emotional scars of the Vietnam war remain with many Americans. In
the mid-1960s, this Member was an intelligence officer with the First
Infantry Division; less than a month after
[[Page H6891]]
the completion of my service, members of our tight-knit detachment of
that division were in Vietnam taking casualties the very first night
after arrival.
Like other Vietnam-era veterans, this Member has emotional baggage. A
great many Americans have emotional baggage on Vietnam, but this Member
would suggest it is time to get on with our bilateral relationship and
not reverse course on Vietnam.
Distinguished Americans like John McCain, Pete Peterson, Robert
Kerrey, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Max Cleland, Chuck Robb, and others
support the effort to normalize our relationships with Vietnam. If they
can do it, so can we.
Passing this resolution of disapproval on the Jackson-Vanik waiver
would represent yet another reflection of animosities of the past at a
time when Vietnam is finally looking ahead and making changes towards
integration into the international community.
A retrenchment on our part by this disapproval resolution is not in
America's short- and long-term national interest.
Accordingly, this Member strongly urges the rejection of House
Resolution 58.
By law, the underlying issue is about emigration. That is what
Jackson-Vanik is all about and that is what we ought to be addressing.
Since March of 1998, the United States has granted Vietnam a waiver of
the Jackson-Vanik emigration provisions of the Trade Act of 1974. As
this is only an annual waiver, the President decided on June 3, 1999 to
renew this extension because he determined that doing so would
substantially promote greater freedom of emigration from that country
in the future. This determination was based on Vietnam's record of
progress on emigration and on Vietnam's continued cooperation on U.S.
refugee programs over the past year. As a result, we are approaching
the completion of many refugee admissions categories under the Orderly
Departure Program (ODP), including the Resettlement Opportunity for
Vietnamese Returnees, Former Re-education Camp Detainees, ``McCain
Amendment'' sub-programs and Montagnards. The Vietnamese government has
also agreed to help implement our decision to resume the ODP program
for former U.S. Government employees, which was suspended in 1996. The
renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver is an acknowledgment of that
progress. Disapproval of the waiver would, undoubtedly, result in
Vietnam's immediate cessation of cooperation.
The Jackson-Vanik waiver also symbolizes our interest in further
developing relations with Vietnam. Having lifted the trade embargo and
established diplomatic relations four years ago, the United States has
tried to work with Vietnam to normalize incrementally our bilateral
political, economic and consular relationship. This policy builds on
Vietnam's own policy of political and economic reintegration into the
world. In the judgment of this Member, this will be a lengthy and
challenging process. However, he suggests that now is not the time to
reverse course on Vietnam. Over the past four years, Vietnam has
increasingly cooperated on a wide range of issues. The most important
of these is the 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 significant efforts to
which Vietnam is now extending to address our concerns regarding the
POW/MIA issue, including their participation in remains recovery
efforts which are physically very dangerous.
The Jackson-Vanik waiver does not provide Vietnam with any new trade
benefits, including Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status. However, with
the Jackson-Vanik waiver, the United States has been able to negotiate
a new bilateral commercial trade agreement in principle with Vietnam.
Achieving such an agreement is in our own short and long term national
interest. Vietnam remains a very difficult place for American firms to
do business. Vietnam needs to undertake additional fundamental economic
reforms. A new bilateral trade agreement will require Vietnam to make
these reforms and will result in increased U.S. exports. When the final
version of this agreement is complete, Congress will then have to
decide whether to approve it or reject it and whether or not to grant
NTR. As the Jackson-Vanik waiver is only a limited prerequisite for any
future trade agreement, the renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver only
keeps this negotiating and approval process going--nothing more.
However, terminating Vietnam's waiver through passage of the resolution
of disapproval before us would certainly derail this entire process as
well as rejecting the modest trade opportunities currently available to
American businesses.
Mr. Speaker, contrary to the claims of some, renewal of the Jackson-
Vanik waiver does not automatically make Vietnam eligible for possible
coverage by U.S. trade financing programs such as those administered by
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank,
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The waiver only allows Vietnam
to be eligible for such coverage and that country must still face
separate individual reviews against each program's relevant criteria.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support House Joint
Resolution 58, the resolution to disapprove the Jackson-Vanik waiver to
Vietnam.
This provision was first waived in 1998 on the premise that it would
promote free and open emigration with Vietnam. Sadly, things have not
turned out that way.
My colleagues, let us consider the facts. An average immigrant now
must pay about $1,000 in bribes to have access to U.S. refugee
programs, three times the average annual salary of a Vietnamese worker.
A recent report to Congress stated that over 15,000 former United
States Government employees and their families have been denied exit
visas, leaving them trapped in Vietnam.
In my hand I have copies of hundreds of unresolved constituent
casework, unresolved because the emigration policy of the Vietnamese
Government still results in far too many people being prevented from
leaving Vietnam due to unfair decisions. These are the parents, the
siblings, and the offspring of families who have fought communism for
two decades.
I will support H.J. Res. 58 because I believe the Government of
Vietnam has not earned the right to improve trade privileges.
I urge my colleagues to put pressure on the Government of Vietnam to
meet the conditions of emigration and to improve their political and
human rights record by voting ``yes.''
Do not surrender our principal leverage with this regime. Vote
``yes'' for free immigration. Vote ``yes'' for family reunification.
Vote ``yes'' to end religious persecution. Vote ``yes'' to promote free
speech and democracy. Vote ``yes'' to honor the values which we are
sworn to uphold.
The fact is the Vietnamese Government does not meet the conditions of
good emigration. And by rewarding Vietnam regardless of its lack of
cooperation, we are sending them the wrong message.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) has 11 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Crane) has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin) has 12 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
McNulty) has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 58 and in support of
the President's waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment with respect to
Vietnam.
In considering this resolution, I ask my colleagues to bear a few
matters in mind. First, today's vote is not a vote on whether to give
normal trade relations, NTR, to Vietnam.
For that to happen, the United States first must enter into a
bilateral commercial agreement with Vietnam and that agreement must be
approved by Congress.
Second, if we reject this resolution, as we did last year, the result
would be a continuation of Vietnam's eligibility to participate in
financing programs, those administered by OPIC, the Export-Import Bank,
and the Department of Agriculture.
Those programs support U.S. exports to and investments in Vietnam and
thereby enable U.S. businesses and workers to compete in Vietnam with
businesses and workers from other countries.
The programs have been available since the President first waived
Jackson-Vanik for Vietnam in April of last year. To cut them off now
would be to pull the rug from under U.S. producers of goods and
services. It would be a setback in our effort to improve U.S. relations
with Vietnam and to encourage the development of a market economy in
that country.
[[Page H6892]]
By contrast, continuing those programs for another year represents a
small but important step forward. Importantly, it should bolster our
efforts to encourage the development of the bases of a free market and
rule of law in Vietnam.
Third, our trade negotiators have been negotiating a trade agreement
with Vietnam, which is a prerequisite to giving Vietnam NTR.
On July 25, the U.S. trade representative announced that an agreement
in principle had been reached. She also stated that the administration
``will now consult with Congress and others, and work toward completion
of a formal Bilateral Commercial Agreement and a mutual grant of normal
trade relations.''
We look forward to those consultations which would give us an
opportunity to review negotiations to date and other trade issues and
any other additional issues relating to trade of concern to us in the
Congress.
At the June 17 Subcommittee on Trade hearing on relations with
Vietnam, I cited a number of important issues that have to be resolved
before we can agree to full normalization. Of particular concern is the
pace of economic reform in Vietnam. They are taking steps to reform the
economy, including steps to root out corruption, enforcement of
intellectual property rights, and improvement of the reliability of
government-published data.
Another area of concern that I mentioned at that time is the
potentially disturbing effects that Vietnam's labor market structure,
including the exploitation of child labor, may have on competition.
Labor market issues are trade issues.
Progress on each of the foregoing fronts is necessary to ensure that
the benefits of U.S. businesses and workers from normalization with
commercial relations with Vietnam are real.
Our ambassador to Vietnam and our former distinguished colleague,
Pete Peterson, testified before the Subcommittee on Trade of the
Committee on Ways and Means. He stated, based on his active work as
ambassador, as follows. I urge all to listen to the conclusions or the
findings, the experiences of our ambassador:
``Vietnam has eased restrictions on emigration,'' he said. ``Over
500,000 people have left Vietnam for the U.S. under the Orderly
Departure Program.''
Next: ``Vietnam continues to cooperate fully with the U.S. on
locating Americans missing in action.''
Next: ``Last fall, the Government of Vietnam released several
prisoners of conscience.''
He also said: ``Tolerance of religious worship,'' far, far from
perfect, ``is improving.''
``In 1998,'' he also mentioned, ``there were 60 independently
organized worker strikes protesting unfair wages and working
conditions.
``The Government is in the process of writing legislation to protect
the freedom of association.''
And lastly, that ``the United States,'' he says, under his
leadership, ``continues to engage with Vietnam in a very frank dialogue
on human rights. The most recent round in this dialogue took place at
the assistant secretary level in mid-July.''
Members of Congress will be watching for further progress closely.
For now, let us support the accomplishments that have been made to date
toward normalization of our relationship with Vietnam. Let us take a
cautious step forward by continuing the Jackson-Vanik waiver for
Vietnam.
In short, let us keep intact the groundwork on which a meaningful and
enduring relationship can be built. Support the waiver. Vote against
H.J. Res. 58.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
International Relations, a veteran, and a great leader in international
relations in this Congress.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 58 offered
by the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) in
disapproving the extension of the Jackson-Vanik waiver for the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
The issue before us is progress, progress on human rights, on freedom
of religion, freedom of emigration, and obtaining the fullest possible
accounting for our POW/MIAs from the war in Southeast Asia.
Simply stated, the Vietnamese Government has not demonstrated the
progress on these issues to warrant an extension of the Jackson-Vanik
waiver. Many of us have voiced our concerns with regard to the rapid
pace of normalizing relations with Vietnam.
The President insists that extending the waiver of the Jackson-Vanik
amendment and its ensuing privileges is in our best national interest
and will encourage the Vietnamese Government to cooperate on many
issues, including economic reforms, political liberalization, and
respect for human rights.
OPIC guarantee and Export-Import Bank financing programs should be a
reward for achievement and not offered as an incentive for future
conduct.
Despite the opening of diplomatic relations 4 years ago, prisoners of
conscience are still in prison in Vietnam. Many of our former comrades
in arms are still unaccounted for in the Vietnam War.
The Vietnamese Government still arbitrarily arrests and detains its
citizens, including those who peacefully express political and
religious objections to government policies.
The hard-line communist government also denies its citizens the right
to fair and expeditious trials and still hold a number of political
prisoners.
Moreover, Radio Free Asia is continuously jammed, preventing the free
flow of information which Congress has worked to promote.
Vietnam continues to ``severely restrict those religious activities
it defined as being at variance with State laws and policies,'' as
stated in the State Department Report on Human Rights Practices.
Along with a number of Members of Congress, I recently wrote to
President Clinton expressing our concern over the persecution of the
Unified Buddhist Church, the Catholic Church, Protestant Christians,
and the Montagnards in Vietnam.
In conclusion, a proposed extension of the waiver of Jackson-Vanik
would essentially reward a lack of progress on human rights, political
liberalization, economic reform, and the POW/MIA effort. This is
illogical.
Accordingly, I call upon our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
resolution of disapproval of the extension of the Jackson-Vanik waiver
and send a strong message that our Nation still values principle over
profits.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 58.
As a Vietnam War veteran, I empathize with many of the arguments that
are made by opponents to this waiver. I, too, am concerned about
freedom of emigration. I, too, want a full accounting for our MIA and
POWs. I, too, am concerned about religious freedom. But I strongly
disagree with how this solution proposes to resolve these problems.
Denying the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam will do nothing to
further progress in any of these areas. In fact, it will have the
opposite effect.
I hope my colleagues will take a moment to consider the changes that
have occurred and that are occurring to Vietnam.
Vietnam is not the same country it was 30 years ago when I was there.
Over the past 15 years, 500,000 Vietnamese have emigrated to the United
States. Over 96 percent of the resettlement opportunities for
Vietnamese returnees cases have been cleared for interview by Vietnam.
On emigration issues, we are clearly headed in the right direction.
On POW/MIA accounting, we have had and continue to have substantial
cooperation from the Vietnamese Government in all areas. On religious
freedom, progress is also being made.
Three weeks ago, a high-level U.S. delegation traveled to Vietnam to
engage in the seventh session of our annual human rights dialogue with
Vietnamese officials.
At each of these meetings, religious freedom has been a major topic
of discussion; and each time U.S. officials
[[Page H6893]]
have been able to report that progress is being made.
{time} 1615
In October of this year, five American Catholic bishops will be
visiting Vietnam, the first visit by an American bishop since 1975.
This will be a momentous event.
Let me be clear. While there is progress, the situation in Vietnam
today is far from perfect. But it is important that we put this vote in
its historical perspective. In 1991, President Bush proposed a road map
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 this cooperation, the United States was to
move incrementally toward normalized relations. We have moved in that
direction.
I urge my colleagues not to abandon decades of progress. Only with
engagement can we have commerce and only with commerce can we have
change.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York
for yielding me this time.
I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 58 and in support of trade
agreements that put people before corporate profits, trade agreements
that act as if human beings mattered.
Today we are debating whether to give the very same multinationals
that last month succeed in gaining NAFTA for Africa and higher trade
surpluses with China, whether to give those same multinationals more
government-backed guarantees to protect their investments in another
poor nation with a horrible human rights record, a nation with
absolutely no worker rights or religious or political freedoms, the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Think about that, because that is what the President's waiver does.
It is a green light for businessmen and businesswomen to take advantage
of another people's misfortune, of their inability to organize
political change in the face of overwhelming government opposition. We
are asking our constituents, the men and women who voted us into
office, to back American corporations that want to do business with a
Communist dictatorship that reviles the very form of government that
lets us debate this measure.
This is a government that for the last 20 years has arrested,
tortured and put hundreds of thousands of people into prisons and
reeducation camps for crimes like forming independent trade unions, for
worshiping in churches, for, quote, using freedom and democracy to
injure national unity.
The Vietnamese people should have the opportunity to earn better
wages, to live longer and healthier lives, to enter into better
relationships with the United States and the rest of the world.
However, rubber-stamping the President's waiver makes a mockery of our
Constitution and the provisions in the 1974 Trade Act that uphold human
rights, that uphold worker rights, that uphold religious rights.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would join us in
affirming that human rights and those principles that our country
stands for do count for something. We should not just waive them. I
urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to support trade
agreements that require nations to first enter the family of nations,
agreements that support free trade between free people.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very capable and
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today's vote on the resolution of disapproval
is really a vote on if we are truly dedicated to the hard work of
getting a full accounting of the missing in action from the Vietnam
War. As the Veterans of Foreign Wars has argued, passing this
resolution of disapproval will only hurt our efforts at a time that
they are receiving the access and cooperation we need from the
Vietnamese to determine the fate of our POW/MIAs.
There is no more authoritative voice on this issue than our former
colleague and now Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, who supports
the waiver. As a prisoner of war who underwent years of imprisonment in
the notorious Hanoi Hilton, he should have every right to be skeptical
and harbor bitterness against the Vietnamese. Yet he believes the best
course of action is to develop better relations between our countries.
We have achieved progress on the POW/MIA issue because of our
evolving relationship with the Vietnamese, not despite it. Without
access to the jungles and rice paddies, to the archival information and
documents, and to the witnesses of these tragic incidents, we cannot
give the families of the missing the answers they deserve.
Our Nation is making progress in providing these answers. Much of
this is due to the Joint Task Force-Full Accounting, our military
presence in Vietnam who are looking into missing issues. I have visited
these young men and women and they are among the finest and bravest and
most gung ho soldiers I have ever met. Every day from the searches of
battle sites in treacherous jungles or the excavation of crash sites on
precarious mountain summits, they put themselves in harm's way to
perform a mission they truly believe in.
It is moving to see these men and women in action, some of whom were
not even born when our missing served, perform a mission that they see
as a sacred duty. They tell me time and time again one thing: ``Allow
us to remain here so we can do our job.''
This resolution before us today puts that at risk. I urge my
colleagues to please vote against this resolution.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a distinguished colleague who spent 6 years as
a prisoner of war, a man who was a pilot, a man who fought for his
country and a man who has a unique opinion on this issue that we are
discussing today.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the
gentleman says, but even with the Ambassador over there, we still are
not getting into some of the places that we need to get into. If you
send our military to do a job, they are going to do it, regardless of
where they are, and they are doing that job over there.
But I ask you, who better than our Vietnamese Americans to know what
should happen in Vietnam? No waiver. They do not want a waiver. If you
recall in 1995, I think it was, or 1993, rather, Clinton said that he
would have a full and accurate accounting of all our POWs. That is our
President. Again, in 1995, if you recall, he flip-flopped and went back
on his word and recognized them. And now we want to put another nose
under the tent, or push the nose a little further and try to recognize
them for trade. Even now, we still have over 2,000 unaccounted for
servicemen in Vietnam. Our MIA, missing in action, families, deserve
our full support and that means ``yes'' to no waiver.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
(Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 58 is the wrong direction for us
to take today. Who is hurt if we pass this resolution today? We are. It
is the wrong direction for U.S. farmers and manufacturers who will not
have a level playing field when they compete with their European or
Japanese counterparts in Vietnam. It is the wrong direction for our
joint efforts with the Vietnamese to account for the last remains of
our soldiers, and to answer finally the questions of their loved ones
here. And it is the wrong direction for our efforts to influence the
Vietnamese people, 65 percent of whom were not even born when the war
was being waged.
Let us not turn the clock back on Vietnam. Let us continue to work
with the Vietnamese, and in so doing teach the youthful Vietnamese the
values of democracy, the principles of capitalism, and the merits of a
free and open society. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, Vietnam should be able to trade with
America, but only when Hanoi halts human rights abuses and establishes
a fair, sound economic environment that embraces human rights.
[[Page H6894]]
It is clear that Vietnam is eager to have an economic relationship
with the United States and is willing to take the steps necessary to do
so. Unfortunately, they are not where they need to be and they will not
get there unless we stand firm for democratic principles and for human
rights for the people of Vietnam.
Vietnam embarked down the road to reform in 1986, achieving high
economic growth of 8 percent per year with low inflation. As a result,
the U.S. lifted economic sanctions in 1994 and normalized diplomatic
relations in 1995.
It was all downhill from there. The economic growth did not produce
democratic and market reforms. In addition to quashing the religious,
political and social freedoms of its citizens and restricting their
rights to emigrate, Hanoi has taken giant steps backward from fostering
sound policies and stability to bolster its economy and attract foreign
investors. Erratic decision making, government red tape and high
overhead makes many businesses unviable.
The government's refusal to loosen its political domination and
accelerate the transition to a market economy has brought the country
to a critical juncture. We cannot abandon the Vietnamese people and
American businesses at this critical juncture. In the case of Vietnam,
trade sanctions can be an effective way of ensuring Hanoi chooses the
path of reform. As we saw in South Africa, 5 years after the U.S. first
imposed economic sanctions, the Pretoria government abolished
apartheid. While some question the economic effectiveness of U.S.
sanctions, economists agree that the psychological and political
effects were of fundamental importance to eliminating apartheid.
Economic sanctions are not the right tool in every case. But when
they are, they take time. They only are effective when we have the
patience to wait for results. The people of Vietnam deserve the same
patience.
Please support this resolution and join with the Vietnamese people in
their struggle against communism and oppression.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have a certain degree of irony being
here on the floor having this resolution debated today, when earlier
this week we had former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara here on
Capitol Hill meeting and admitting basically that the college students
were right 30 years ago and that the government and Mr. McNamara were
not telling the American people the truth.
I think it is amazing for us to look at the progress that has in fact
occurred over the last third of a century. We have heard referenced on
the floor the 500,000 people that have been able to legally emigrate.
We had opportunities today for Members of this assembly to meet with
our former colleague Pete Peterson to talk about his experience with
the progress in terms of religious freedom in Vietnam and the
rebuilding of churches and pagodas, the progress on the MIAs where we
have more accountability than any war in American history. Even in the
area of democratic government, there were 61 people elected to the
Vietnamese Assembly who were independents, who were not Communists.
Consider this, given where they have been, that one even is a former
South Vietnamese military officer.
Pete Peterson has made huge progress in his life's work of trying to
bring 350 million people together between our two countries, the
majority of whom in both countries were not even alive during the
Vietnam War. I strongly urge a rejection of this resolution before us
today. Reject the resolution in order to hasten the day when we can get
beyond the tortured struggle that has, I think, divided our country
unnecessarily and bring about a healing and an integration of the
Vietnamese nation into the world economy and allow us to be able to
deal honestly with the history that got us here in the first place.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Davis) who represents thousands of Vietnamese Americans
who know full well what repression their family members live under in
Vietnam.
(Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J.
Res. 58, disapproving the extension of emigration waiver authority to
Vietnam.
As Members know, last year the President granted Vietnam a waiver of
the Jackson-Vanik's condition, but not much really I think has been
cited or documented in that last year. Boat People SOS, an organization
located in my district, has informed me that there is rampant
corruption in Vietnam and the Vietnamese government and it continues to
exclude thousands of former political prisoners and former U.S.
Government employees from participating in the U.S. refugee programs.
On average, an applicant has to pay $1,000 in bribes to gain access to
these programs. In a country where the average Vietnamese's salary is
$250, how can an impoverished former political prisoner or former U.S.
Government employee who the government already discriminates against
afford a $1,000 bribe per person just to apply for these programs?
Since last year's waiver, the Vietnamese government has not deemed a
single case among this group of thousands to be eligible for the
refugee program.
Corruption exists not only in the Vietnamese government but it also
undermines U.S. exchange programs as well.
{time} 1630
Our programs offer outstanding Vietnamese students the opportunity to
participate and study in the U.S.; however, the Vietnamese Government
excludes those students whose parents are not members of the Communist
cadre.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, a small business exporter of wireless
telecommunications equipment from Torrance, California, had never sold
to Vietnam. Telemobile's Japanese, French, and Canadian competitors all
had the support of their home government's export credit agencies.
Telemobile had no hope of selling to Vietnam until the President and
Congress approved the Jackson-Vanik waiver last year allowing the
Export-Import Bank and other Federal export promotion programs to
operate in Vietnam. Then Telemobile won a $6 million contract with
Vietnam to sell their product backed with the letter of interest from
the Export-Import Bank.
The purpose of the vote today is to allow those types of partnerships
so American companies can utilize our export credit agencies in order
to have American jobs. With the already large U.S. trade deficit, we
should not impose yet another sanction on our exports. We should vote
against this resolution of disapproval.
Open letter to Congress from Telemobile is as follows:
Telemobile, Inc,
Torrance, CA, July 27, 1999.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives.
Open letter to Congress: I am President of a small
electronics manufacturing company, employing about 100 people
in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. I am writing to express
my opposition to the resolution of disapproval regarding
Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik's waiver (H.J. Res. 58) because it
will have a serious impact on our business and our employees
who live and work here.
Telemobile, Inc. is a manufacturer of wireless rural
telecommunications equipment. We compete against Canadian,
French, and Japanese manufacturers of similar equipment. They
all have the support of their home governments in the area of
trade promotion, including their government-supported export
credit agencies. We had no hope of winning any business in
Vietnam until the President and Congress supported a waiver
of the Jackson-Vanik amendment last year. Since then, we
received a Letter of Interest from the Export-Import Bank of
the United States (Ex-Im) for a project we plan to do in
Vietnam worth about $6 million. We would have never won this
contract if we did not have the backing of the Ex-Im Bank.
Even still, all of our foreign competitors tell our
Vietnamese customers to abandon their project with us because
their governments do not go through this annual Jackson-Vanik
waiver process. Fortunately, the Vietnamese want to buy
American products.
But if Ex-Im is forced to leave Vietnam because of the
passage of H.J. Res. 58, then our Vietnamese customers will
have no choice but to go with one of our foreign competitors.
Thus, if this bill passes, the real-life
[[Page H6895]]
practical effect upon Telemobile is that the work on this $6
million contract will be transferred from the 100 employees
here in Torrance, California to Canada, Japan or France.
While a $6 million sale may be insignificant in the eyes of
Washington, it is significant to our small business, which is
95 percent export-oriented.
I firmly believe that renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver
is a necessary step in the process of normalizing our
relations with Vietnam and would be good for the American
people, as well as the business activities of American
workers engaged in exports. Please oppose H.J. Res. 58.
Very truly,
W.I. Thomas,
President.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
resolution and in favor of the Jackson-Vanik waiver.
I rise in opposition to this resolution and urge my colleagues to
uphold the current waiver from the Jackson-Vanik provision.
Mr. Speaker, the Jackson-Vanik provision of the 1974 Trade Act was
intended to encourage communist countries to relax their restrictive
emigration policies.
At the time, the Soviet Union was prohibiting Soviet Jewry from
emigrating to the U.S. and Israel.
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.
The co-author of this provision, Senator Scoop Jackson was a staunch
anti-communist.
Yet, he was willing to consider incentives to encourage the Soviet
Union to relax its emigration policy.
Vietnam is experiencing a new era, driven by a population where 65%
of its citizens were born after the war. Vietnam today is thirsty for
U.S. trade and economic investment.
Last year, Charles Vanik, former Member and co-author of the Jackson-
Vanik provision, sent me a letter expressing his strong opposition to
the motion to disapprove trade credits for Vietnam.
Ironically, the economic incentives provided in Jackson-Vanik are all
one sided favoring U.S. firms doing business in Vietnam.
A waiver of Jackson-Vanik does not establish normal trading relations
with Vietnam.
The Vietnamese Government has made tremendous progress in meeting the
emigration criteria in the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
Despite problems of corruption and government repression, there is
reason to believe that our presence in Vietnam can improve the
situation and encourage its government to become less isolated and to
follow the rule of law.
Through a policy of engagement and U.S. business investment, Vietnam
has improved its emigration policies.
As of June 1 of this year, the Vietnamese Government had cleared
nearly 20,000 individuals, or 96% of applicants, for interviews under
the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees (ROVR).
The Immigration and Naturalization Service has approved 15,833 ROVR
applicants for admission to the United States as refugees--14,715 of
which have left Vietnam for the U.S.
According to the State Department, we are also obtaining ``the
fullest possible accounting'' of our missing in action from the Vietnam
War.
Just last week, the U.S. and Vietnam finalized the terms of a
bilateral trade agreement to address issues ranging from import quotas,
import bans, and high tariffs to financial services,
telecommunications, and other issues that are critical to opening
Vietnam to U.S. products and services.
U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, our esteemed former
colleague and former POW, has been one of our nation's strongest
advocates for expanding trade with Vietnam. Renewing the Jackson-Vanik
waiver will increase market access for U.S. products and services in
the 12th most populous country in the world.
Disapproval of this waiver will have several negative outcomes. It
will discourage U.S. businesses from operating in Vietnam, arm Soviet-
style hardliners with the pretext to clamp down on what economic and
social freedoms the Vietnamese people now experience, and eliminate
what opportunity we have to influence Vietnam in the future.
I can see nothing gained by overturning the waiver and urge my
colleagues to defeat this resolution.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute, and I understand that
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) will also yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CRANE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute as well to our good
colleague and friend from San Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for 2
minutes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, for some of us this issue is very, very
difficult, when heart, economics, pain are all tied up into one. I
understand the version of the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) of
this, and I understand the gentleman's, and what I would do is point
out a couple things on each side because I still do not know how I am
going to vote on this issue.
When one lives through Private Ryan, it is very difficult for
something like this, and one side we see economics, like the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) talked about for his constituents, and on
the other side, Mr. Speaker, I went with the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Rogers) to Vietnam. He asked me to go four times, and I said no,
it is too hard, and then he said, Well, Pete Peterson asked you to come
and help raise the American flag for the first time in 25 years.
I saw American children there, Eurasians, that can not be helped by
this on one side, but yet I saw very strong Communism. As a matter of
fact, the Communist premier told me, he said, Duke, we don't engage in
free trade. I can't do this quickly. He is very open, he said, because
it will put us out of a job, which meant Communism.
To me on one side that says, Hey, American involvement is good
because it hammers away at Communism; but yet on the other side I see
where not even Pete Peterson can be there when an American citizen is
tried in their courts, and it is difficult, Mr. Speaker.
I had a young lady in my district named Foo Lee, had to work a year.
Her whole family escaped in a boat, lives in my district, and the mom
had to stay behind because they knew that if they were caught, they
would be put into a reeducation camp, and not many people survive; and
it took a year to get her back into the United States and rejoined with
the family.
And on that side it is very hard for this. I look at that we cannot
go in with intellectual property rights, but on the other side we have
the same problem with China, and I voted for trade with China, so why
not for this? And it is one of the more difficult. For most of my
colleagues it is not, but for us, and Sam, and I understand both sides
of this issue. I see my friend Pete Peterson spent 6 years as a POW
there, and it is very difficult to look at heart, to look at logic, to
look at economics.
Mr. Speaker, I will not chastise anybody for either side of this
vote.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me, and what I would like to do is address my remarks to all of
my colleagues, but especially to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham).
As a young soldier in Vietnam, I like to speak to my colleagues
through the eyes of many young soldiers in Vietnam where we would every
once in a while help corps men deliver babies, some alive and some
dead. We as very young men saw leprosy for the first time. We saw the
eyes of the dying Viet Cong. We saw the eyes and looked into the eyes
of dying young Americans and said good bye. We laughed and cried with
the Vietnamese people, the very old and the very young.
One incident, we moved into a small little village, pulled an old man
out of a grass hut with one leg, and the old woman in the grass hut
began to cry because we thought he was shooting at us and we were going
to take him away. And a little girl about 10 screamed and cried and
grabbed at our clothes as we were walking this old man away from the
village, and then suddenly we young soldiers just stopped. We looked
into the eyes of the old man. The old woman froze in fear as to what
might happen next, and the little girl just stopped crying, and then
the old man looked at us, and we looked back at him, and we suddenly
realized something. We were just all people together caught in a
horrible struggle, none of which we created.
There was an Israeli soldier in 1967 that said, We need to learn to
love our
[[Page H6896]]
children more than we hate our enemies. We can never forget the pain of
the past. But in this vote I think it is time that we start a new
future for us, for the Vietnamese children.
We remember the quote from President Kennedy at the Berlin Wall where
he said:
``We all cherish our children's future, we all breathe the same air,
and we are all mortal.''
Let us vote for America and Vietnam.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, on August 3 in 1492 Christopher Columbus set
sail on a new journey across the Atlantic, and he set sail with new
maritime instruments, a quadrant, an astrolabe, a cross staff, that
helped him find the shores of the Bahamas. Today the new instruments to
help us navigate to help our workers, to help our businesses, navigate
the complicated world of international trade are access to OPIC,
agricultural loans and Ex-Im Bank loans. That is why we should reject
this resolution and allow us the opportunity for Boeing to compete
against Airbus and sell our planes to Vietnam.
Now Pete Peterson, a good friend of mine, has been mentioned as our
ambassador who spent 6 years as a POW. Pete Peterson will never forget,
nor will Congress forget the MIAs, and we are ripping up highways and
searching in mountains for every clue to find those MIAs, and we will
never forget the 58,000 soldiers that were lost in that war.
But it is also time for us to move in a positive way to bring Vietnam
into the community of nations.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) one of the most distinguished and ferocious
champions of human rights in this body.
(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the U.S. sent a
representative to Vietnam to conduct a human rights dialog with the
government there. At the conclusion of the dialogue the Vietnamese
government issued a statement essentially denying that the U.S. had any
right whatsoever to concern itself with human rights outside of its
borders. However, less than 2 weeks later, with the obligatory dialogue
out of the way, the U.S. sent another representative to Vietnam, and
this time we signed an agreement in principle to give MFN, or normal
trading status to Vietnam, sending a clear message to the Hanoi
dictatorship that they can safely ignore everything else we say about
human rights and still get what they want from our government.
Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear on one 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 immigration requirement.
Instead, by waiving the requirement, the administration has conceded
that there is no such freedom.
Mr. Speaker, the only significant human rights concession the
Vietnamese Government has made in order to get the waiver was to
finally begin letting us interview people under the rover program. Now
I happen to be a very enthusiastic supporter of this program, and for
the Record Members will recall that I was the prime sponsor of the
amendment on this floor that stopped us from doing what I think would
have been very, very cruel, and that would be to end the CPA, the
Comprehensive Plan of Action, to just send the people back without
giving them any opportunity to get re-reviewed after some bogus reviews
were done, or interviews.
The refugee program, the rover program, works when there was a real
push, and the ambassador, Pete Peterson, did do a good job in pushing
when he had the effort of ourselves holding up the waiver. 13,000
people were cleared, but as soon as the waiver was granted, the
clearances slowed right back to a trickle.
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget the prisoners of conscience; let us
not forget the Catholic priests and the Buddhist monks. The religious
persecution situation has gotten worse since last April when additional
restrictions on exercise of religion was put on those people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the gentleman from California's (Mr.
Rohrabacher) resolution.
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the United States sent a representative
to Vietnam to conduct a ``human rights dialogue'' with the government
there. At the conclusion of the dialogue, the Vietnamese Government
issued a statement essentially denying that the United States had any
right at all to concern itself with human rights outside its own
borders. Less than two weeks later with the obligatory dialogue out of
the way, the United States sent another representative to Vietnam. This
one signed an ``agreement in principle'' to give Most Favored Nation
status to Vietnam--sending a clear message that the Hanoi dictatorship
can safely ignore everything we say about human rights, and still get
what it wants from our government. Because the waiver of the Jackson-
Vanik freedom of emigration provisions is a prerequisite to MFN, the
communist regime--and its victims--are watching today's vote very
closely.
Let use be clear, Mr. Speaker, on what this vote is about. It is
about U.S. taxpayer subsidies for one of the worst dictatorships in the
world.
And let's be clear on one other thing: there is no freedom of
emigration from Vietnam. If there were, there would be no need for a
waiver. The Administration could simply certify that Viet Nam complies
with the Jackson-Vanik freedom-of-emigration requirement. Instead, by
waving 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 many thousands who have been persecuted
because they were on our side during the war, Vietnam is still a
prison.
Finally, 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 of 1998, the
U.S. taxpayers have 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. Starting this year, foreign businesses in Vietnam
are no longer allowed to hire Vietnamese employees directly, but must
go through the government. No only does this practice encourage
corruption, it also excludes victims of persecution from what for many
is the only potential source of employment available to them. In
addition, according to a recent Ministry of finance audit, 5.8 billion
dollars--one third of Vietnam's total civil service assets--are
unaccounted for. Most of the money reportedly was spend on luxury items
for high-ranking communist officials. So U.S. taxpayers are now forced
to compensate businesses for the greed and inefficiency of their
partners in Hanoi.
The only significant human rights concession the Vietnamese
Government made in order to get the waiver was to finally begin letting
us interview people under the ``ROVER'' program (Resettlement
Opportunities for Vietnamese Refugees). Now I happen to be an
enthusiastic supporter of this program was prime sponsor of the
amendment to ensure that the Boat People refugees weren't sent back.
ROVR was the compromise, it provide a new interview for people who
managed to escape Vietnam but were forced back--althought many were
refugees. They were promised that as soon as they got back, the U.S.
would interview them and resettle them if they were eligible for our
protection. But of course the Vietnamese government broke its promise.
For over a year and a half they hardly let us interview nobody.
Finally, when we really held their feet to the fire, they cleared
13,000 people. But as soon as the waiver was granted, the clearances
slowed back to a
trickle.
In fact, the emigration situation has become worse since the waiver.
In the last year, communist officials reportedly have been demanding
much larger bribes in exchange for access to U.S. refugee programs. An
average emigrant must pay about one thousand dollars in bribes--more
than three times the average annual salary of Vietnamese workers. In
some cases, government officials have demanded tens of thousands of
dollars from eligible refugees.
Finally, we must not forget the prisoners of conscience. Hanoi
imprisons Catholic priests, Buddhist monks, pro-democracy activists,
scholars, and poets. Last April, the regime placed additional
restrictions on religious exercise and permanently appropriated
properties that it had confiscated from different churches. When we
complain to the Vietnamese Government, they just respond that ``we have
a different system.'' They need to be persuaded
[[Page H6897]]
that a system like this is not one that Americans will subsidize.
The lesson is obvious: the Vietnamese Government has no trouble
clearing refugees for interview when it really wants to. But once they
get what they want from us, they have no interest in allowing people to
leave. So we should disapprove the Jackson-Vanik waiver at least until
the government allows all the refugees to leave: not only the returnees
who are eligible for the ROVR Program, but also those who never left
Vietnam and are still trapped there, including longterm re-education
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.
The list of human rights violations goes on and on. 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 them the kind of broadcasting they would provide
for themselves if their government would allow freedom of expression.
Mr. Chairman, 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 minimal decency.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Sanchez) who represents the largest number of
Vietnamese Americans in the country.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues to
explain to Dr. Giang why the Communist government of Vietnam should be
rewarded and granted the Jackson-Vanik waiver. On March 4 of this year,
Dr. Giang was a respected geophysicist and writer and was arrested in
Hanoi for allegedly possessing anti-Communist documents. Unfortunately,
this was not the first time that he had been harassed by the
authorities for peacefully expressing his viewpoints.
In January of 1997, he wrote an essay and argued the universality of
human rights and concluded that the world needs to unite its actions
for human rights.
{time} 1645
In March of 1997, Dr. Giang was also summoned to appear before the
Communist Party for a session of public accusation. After a storm of
international protest of governments and human rights organizations,
Dr. Giang was finally released. In fact, I went to Vietnam in April to
try and find him. Officials in communist-ruled Vietnam never explained
to Giang why he was arrested on March 4 or formally charged.
In my hand, I have a copy of a letter that he sent to my office
detailing his current situation. I would like to share his thoughts
with you today.
It says,
Dear Ms. Sanchez: I am still being restricted by a police
writ which bans me to go elsewhere outside my residence. This
oppression causes me to suffer in my home detention status.
Even so, I am not dejected in this indignant circumstance. I
will always aspire for better conditions and freedom and
democracy for our people. Thank you again. I pray that global
allegiance for democracy and human rights will spread far and
wide as we build greater victories for all people.
'This is one of the many examples of human rights abuses which occurs
in Vietnam. The United States must take a stand on human rights, and we
must say enough is enough. We have an opportunity to send a signal to
Vietnam, that human rights cannot be ignored.
Vote ``yes'' on House Joint Resolution 58.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Boucher.
(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOUCHER. 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 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 the passage of this resolution, that progress, which
depends entirely upon the cooperation of the Vietnamese government,
will almost certainly be reversed.
We have now negotiated a bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam and
progress is being made on human rights and on religious freedom
matters.
I urge the Members to reject this resolution and, in doing so, to
give a vote of confidence to the very fine work of our former
colleague, the Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, and his excellent
staff, under whose guidance this outstanding progress is being made.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I had
an opportunity to travel to Vietnam and to talk to members of the
business community, to the international environmental community, to
workers, to representatives of labor organizations, and to U.S.
manufacturers and had an opportunity to travel throughout the country.
I think that my conclusion is that the waiver can continue to be
justified because of the progress that is being made.
I think it is also clear that the waiver helps to empower our
ambassador, Pete Peterson, who may be the greatest catalyst for change
inside this country, so that he can continue his work to get Vietnam to
improve its human rights conditions, to improve its labor conditions,
to improve its environmental conditions and so many of the other issues
that are of concern to all of us here.
This is not about not being concerned about human rights, labor
conditions, or any of the rest of it. It is about whether or not we can
have a process where we can continue to make progress. Unlike the vote
last week on China, where I voted against extending the relationship
with China because, in fact, there we have gone backwards, here we have
an opportunity to continue the progress forward.
We will have much debate on the trade agreement and whether or not
that can be justified or not be justified, but the fact of the matter
is, in this particular case, the continued waiver for another year so
that we can continue to monitor, continue to work with the government
of Vietnam on all of these issues, is a positive step that we should
and can take today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 58 so that we might
continue the existing waiver of the Jackson-Vanik restrictions as they
apply to Vietnam.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to travel to Vietnam earlier this
year on official business to attend an international environmental
conference, to inspect labor conditions at factories that subcontract
for United States manufacturers, and to meet with our Embassy officials
on a broad range of United States-Vietnam issues.
Vietnam today is a country struggling to become a player in the
global economic market. It is once again a major agricultural power and
is the world's second largest exporter of rice. Hundreds of foreign
companies are investing in this nation of 80 million people, the 12th
largest population in the world, because of its key role in Asia and
its educated and diligent work force. Most of the representatives of
American businesses with whom I spoke in Vietnam praise the local
business opportunities and actively promote the normalization of
economic relations so that trade between the United States and Vietnam,
now less than $300 million a year, can expand and investment can
flourish.
The conditions for waiving Jackson-Vanik are quite specific, and in
my view, Vietnam has met those tests and should again be granted the
waiver as it was last year by nearly 100 vote margin in the House.
Jackson-Vanik was developed to use our economic leverage to force
political and immigration reforms, and it has had the desired effect in
Vietnam where we have seen significant and steady movement towards
expanded emigration.
Our Ambassador, who is our former colleague and a distinguished
Vietnam veteran, Pete Peterson, has documented broad cooperation by the
Vietnamese government with the emigration program and has even noted
that in some cases, it has been impossible to fill the slots allocated
for some categories of
[[Page H6898]]
applicants. Ambassador Peterson has also noted expanding religious
activity and I was able to observe the expanded construction of
churches in northern Vietnam. Lastly, the Vietnamese and United States
governments now operate a Joint Task Force that conducts interviews,
archaeological digs, genetic testing, and other efforts to locate the
remains of United States soldiers and pilots. Nearly 400 remains have
been repatriated since the end of the war, several just this past
month.
Vietnam has a considerable way to go to fully open its economy and
bring it into conformity with international standards on transparency.
Moreover, I remain concerned by the continued denial of labor rights by
the government, including the fundamental right to join an independent
labor union. Some of these issues will be addressed when we have the
opportunity later this year to debate the United States-Vietnam Trade
Agreement.
Last week, this House voted on granting normal trade relations to
China, and many members took the floor to denounce, rightly I believe,
that nation's continued repressive government and its unacceptable
human rights record. It is terribly important that, during this current
debate, we distinguish what is different in Vietnam from the Chinese
example. For Vietnam has made and continues to make major steps forward
on economic reform, is cooperating on emigration and MIA issues, and is
showing promising signs of political liberalization. If we see
retrenchment in Hanoi, then I believe many of those who today are
prepared to vote for this waiver and for expanded trade between our
countries will reconsider their decision.
We vote to waive Jackson-Vanik in recognition of Vietnam's changing
political system and to encourage further liberalization. But
understand that the Congress and the American people are serious about
assuring that open trade is also fair trade: that working men and women
in America are assured that their counterparts in Vietnam labor under
reasonable conditions and with the enjoyment of basic human and labor
rights recognized by international law.
The continued waiver of the Jackson-Vanik restrictions should be
voted by the House tonight to recognize Vietnam's steady steps towards
reform. Similarly, the Congress should expect that the waiver of
Jackson-Vanik will promote a continuation of democracy in Vietnam,
unlike the China case where despite expanded trade relations, political
reform has worsened.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, Jackson-Vanik, this waiver we are talking about, yes, it
deals with immigration. For the record, I have a statement issued by
the United States embassy in Bangkok on July 14 of this year stating
that the orderly departure program has some severe problems. So much
for all the progress we have made for Jackson-Vanik just in terms of
the immigration issue.
We are also told that there has been so much progress in other areas,
especially in the area of democratization, which is not directly to
Jackson-Vanik. But the fact is today all of us understand that we are
sending a message to Vietnam, and that by moving forward in the area of
Jackson-Vanik, we are giving them the idea that they can get away with
the type of repression that they have been getting away with and still
have better trading relations and make more money off their relations
with the United States.
I have something here, a report just yesterday, August 2, talking
about in Hanoi where the government in Hanoi has declared they will not
tolerate any other political parties except the Communist Party of
Vietnam. I will submit both of those for the record.
Let us get right down to brass tacks. Over this last year since we
came here and went along with the Jackson-Vanik waiver that this
administration has decided to give to the communist government of
Vietnam, there has been no human rights progress. There has been no
political parties that have been able to be formed. There has been no
more free speech. There has been no examples whatsoever of more freedom
of the press. There have been many examples also of repression of
religious individuals. So we have no progress on that front whatsoever.
I would hope that my colleagues, maybe they can enlighten me to the
parties that are springing up in opposition to the Communist Party or
these other examples of freedom of speech or freedom of press or
freedom of religion that are nonexistent. Please, tell us about that.
No, that does not exist in Vietnam. That is why we will not hear
about that and have not heard about it in this debate.
A constituent of mine, Mr. Ku Noc Dong, went back to Vietnam. He is
an American of Vietnamese descent. He went back, and within 1 day he
was thrown in jail. For what? For passing out leaflets talking about
liberty and justice. He is imprisoned as we speak.
Do not tell me there has been human rights progress in Vietnam. There
has been none, and by moving on this legislation, we are giving the
stamp of approval of this Congress on that type of behavior by this
regime.
Let me just suggest something else. We have heard about the progress
in MIA/POWs. I totally reject that contention. I am afraid that some of
our other Members, including our former distinguished Member, Mr.
Peterson, are sadly misinformed about what is going on in this effort.
I have two pictures that were taken that I would submit for the
record of MIA/POWs who were incarcerated in Vietnam. Their remains were
never returned. Plus, none of the records of the prisons that held our
POWs has ever been made available to us after requests for those
records of 5 years.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this body vote against the Jackson-
Vanik waiver, and send the Vietnamese communists a message that we
stand for freedom.
Vietnam Communists Say To Keep Single-Party System
Hanoi, Aug. 2, 1999 (Reuters).--A top ideologue from
Vietnam's ruling Community Party said on Monday that Hanoi
would not tolerate a multi-party system.
``The Communist Party of Vietnam is the leader of Vietnam's
entire society, we will not accept any other parties or a
multi-party system,'' said Dao Duy Quat, deputy head of the
party's powerful Ideology and Culture Commission. He was
speaking at a rare news conference held for foreign media and
diplomats that discussed party-building and a two-year
criticism and self-criticism campaign.
But one veteran diplomat in Hanoi was unconvinced,
questioning how legitimacy could be gauged when Vietnam's
vast internal security machine went to such lengths to
isolate or silence contradictory voices. ``They want power,
on that there is no compromise,'' he said. ``They stamped out
all opposition in the past--even those groups that supported
the same aims--and see absolutely no reason to liberalise.''
Some foreign governments and international human rights
groups say Vietnam imprisons people for the peaceful
expression of political or religious beliefs--a charge that
Hanoi denies. Quat said the party would not repress minority
views unless people violated the law. Anti-socialist
activities in Vietnam are treated as a crime.
____
Memorandum
joint voluntary agency orderly departure program, american embassy,
bangkok, July 14, 1999
Re request for refugee statistics and assessment of ODP
cases.
ODP Cases: The Socialist Republic of Vietnam has frequently
determined applicants did not meet ODP criteria, despite our
confirmation that they did; many applicants are still
awaiting interview authorization. . . . As of July 9th, there
are 3,432 ODP refugee applicants and 747 ROVR applicants
awaiting Vietnamese Government authorization for interview. .
. . ODP has continually received requests from applicants for
assistance in dealing with local officials; many applicants
originally applied to ODP as long ago as 1988 but have yet to
be given authorization by the Vietnamese Government to attend
an interview.
Impact of Jackson-Vanik Waiver: It would not appear that
Jackson-Vanik had a telling impact on ODP activities. . . .
Staff are of the opinion that there has been little, if any,
indication of improvement in the Vietnamese Government's
efforts to deal with remaining ODP cases.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I, along with I think probably 30 of my
colleagues last week, had an interesting dinner meeting with Bob
McNamara. If there is any lesson that he has learned in looking back on
Vietnam, it is really hearing and receiving, giving the wrong messages
and not talking to each other. We really have an opportunity right now
to heed some of the lessons that he talked about.
Vietnam is making progress, contrary to the previous speaker. There
is a great deal of evidence which our former colleague, the Ambassador,
has articulated to us, and the press has as well. It is a relationship
that can continue to be good for the United States as we are moving a
young nation towards moving into the community of nations, of living
within international standards. It is a region in the world
[[Page H6899]]
that for 4,000 years has faced uncertainty and conflict.
What we are talking about is normal trading relationships. That is
really what the issue is about. Obviously people can see it
differently, but I urge the defeat of the resolution.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as I grow older, I try to keep my priorities in proper
order. I am not always successful at that, but I work at it. That is
why when I get up every morning, the first two things that I do are to
thank God for my life and veterans for my way of life, because had it
not been for my brother Bill and all those who gave their lives in
service to this country through the years, had it not been for people
like Sam Johnson and Pete Peterson and John McCain, who endured the
torture as prisoners of war, had it not been for people like Pete
Dalessandro, a World War II Congressional Medal of Honor winner from my
district who was just laid to rest last week in our new Veterans
National Cemetery in Saratoga, if it had not been for them and all of
the men and women who wore the uniform of the United States military
through the years, I would not have the privilege of going around
bragging about how I live in the freest and most open democracy on the
face of the Earth. Freedom is not free. We paid a tremendous price for
it.
So today, Mr. Speaker, based upon the comments that I made earlier
and on behalf of all 2,063 Americans who are still missing in Southeast
Asia, I ask my colleagues to join me, the American Legion, the National
League of POW/MIA Families, the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families,
the National Vietnam Veterans Coalition, the Veterans of the Vietnam
War and the Disabled American Veterans in supporting this resolution of
disapproval.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, there have been arguments raised here, ones that I think
are worth listening to by all of us, regardless of our position on the
issues, and I respect the disagreements that I have with some of my
colleagues, but I think personally that if you examine the evidence,
you will realize that the hope for mankind in the future lies in moving
down this path of expanding our relationships with one another and
especially expanding our economic relationships.
{time} 1700
Keep in mind, too, that as Ambassador Peterson told a group of us
this morning, 65 percent of the population over there has been born
since the end of the Vietnam War. The overwhelming majority of these
people know nothing about it except what they have heard from those who
preceded them.
In that regard, I think it is important to note, too, that we have a
recent report that just came out from the U.S. Ambassador for
International Religious Freedom, this was in July, last month,
mentioning that three-fourths of the population are nominally Buddhist
now, an estimated 6 to 7 million are Roman Catholics, and there are a
variety of other religious affiliations, including Mormons in Vietnam.
In addition to that, they are growing in population.
I think further that it is important for us to recognize that in the
last national election there, and that was last year, this was not an
absolute Communist dictatorship in place. There were almost two
candidates running in every race for their national assembly, 800, and
450 seats. The result was the election of 61 National Assembly members
who are not members of the Communist party, and as indicated earlier,
one of those 61 was a major in the South Vietnamese army, a former
major.
We have also something else, I think, to keep in mind. That is a
point that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) brought up,
the response he got from a Communist he spoke to while he was there who
said that they cannot advance free trade because that would put him out
of a job. Think about that for a moment, Mr. Chairman, a Communist
cannot participate in the advancement of free trade because that will
put him, a Communist, out of a job; to which I say, amen. That is a
fringe benefit.
The immediate benefit is the material benefits to the people of
Vietnam, and the material benefits here as we advance down that path
creating expanded free trade worldwide.
I would remind Members also, this is not a vote on normal trade
relations. This simply provides an expanded opportunity for increased
business contact in Vietnam. I would urge all of my colleagues to vote
no on H.R. 58. I think it is in the best interests of our country and
the best interests of the people of Vietnam.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 58. I do
so because I am deeply concerned about the human rights situation in
Vietnam which has not improved despite normalization of relations
between the U.S. and Vietnam.
Religious persecution has continued to intensify. I submit for the
Record a recent Reuters story about The Venerable Thich Quang Do, head
of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV). This 80-year-old
Buddhist leader has been in prison for over twenty years. Before we
rush down the path of providing U.S. taxpayer dollars to businesses
wanting to get into Vietnam, we must consider people like Thich Quang
Do.
Earlier this year, the Religious Liberty Commission of the World
Evangelical Fellowship issued a report describing the intense
persecution of Christians in the Hmong minority group in Vietnam's
Northwest province and as well as members of the Hre and Bahnar
minority groups. It has pages and pages of testimony from persecuted
believers and edicts from the Vietnamese government regarding its anti-
religion policies.
The U.S. should be keeping the pressure on Vietnam to improve its
human rights record, not rewarding them.
Monk Urges Hanoi to Free Buddhist Leader
(By Andy Soloman)
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, Aug. 3 (Reuters)--A dissident
Buddhist monk in Vietnam has demanded the country's communist
rulers immediately release from detention the aged patriarch
of the banned Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV).
Thich Quang Do, head of the UBCV's Institute for the
Propagation of the Dharma and a former long-term political
prisoner, said 80-year-old Thich Huyen Quang should either be
tried or unconditionally released.
The patriarch is detained at Quang Phuoc pagoda in central
Quang Ngai province. The United Nations and international
human groups say he has been held without trial since 1981.
Hanoi rarely makes mention of Quang, but routinely denies
it detains or jails people for the peaceful expression of
religious or political views.
``On what grounds have they detained him for nearly 20
years?'' Do said in a recent interview at the Buddhist
monastery where he lives in the former Saigon.
``If he is guilty of a crime he should be put on trial, but
they can find no (legitimate) reasons.''
Quang and Do were prominent Buddhists who led protests in
the former South Vietnam against the U.S.-backed Saigon
regime during the Vietnam War.
``During the night there is nobody, he is alone. We are
very worried about his health during the night. If anything
happened to him there would be nobody to help,'' Do said.
He added that Quang has no official documents or identity
papers and is therefore unable to travel.
``All his visitors are checked and questioned. We ask for
international help to put pressure and use influence to press
the government to release him as soon as possible,'' Do said.
Following World War Two, Quang led Buddhists against French
colonial forces, but he also opposed the communist Viet Minh,
who jailed him from 1952-54.
In the years following the end of the Vietnam War in 1975,
the victorious communists banned the UBCV and replaced it
with the state-sponsored Vietnam Buddhist Church.
Quang, Do and other UBCV activists remained a constant
thorn in the side of the Hanoi authorities.
In March, 72-year-old Do secretly travelled for his first
meeting with Quang in 18 years, but he was detained by police
and questioned for hours before being escorted back to Ho Chi
Minh City.
Abdelfattah Amor, the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Religious
Intolerance, in a visit to Vietnam last October, said he was
prevented from travelling to meet the patriarch and was
physically barred by security personnel from meeting Do.
In a report, Amor slammed Vietnam for failing to allow
basic religious freedoms--a charge Hanoi rejected.
Do, who has spent much of the last 20 years under detention
or in prison, was freed under an amnesty last September after
serving three-and-a-half years of a five-year sentence for
offenses connected with attempts to send relief supplies to
flood victims in 1994.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). All time for
debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 30, 1999, the
joint resolution is considered as read for amendment, and the previous
question is ordered.
[[Page H6900]]
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 the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McNULTY. 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 130,
nays 297, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 365]
YEAS--130
Aderholt
Andrews
Baker
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bilirakis
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Canady
Carson
Chabot
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Cook
Costello
Cox
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Duncan
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Forbes
Frelinghuysen
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodling
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
King (NY)
Kingston
LaHood
Lazio
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Martinez
McCollum
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Norwood
Paul
Pelosi
Pombo
Porter
Radanovich
Regula
Riley
Rivers
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sanders
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Serrano
Shadegg
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
NAYS--297
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Lampson
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Sununu
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Bilbray
Lantos
McDermott
Metcalf
Mollohan
Peterson (PA)
{time} 1722
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Messrs. HAYWORTH, KINGSTON, STRICKLAND, GIBBONS, ROTHMAN, BUYER,
SMITH of Texas, and WELDON of Florida changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the joint resolution was not passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall no. 365, it has been brought to
my attention that I was recorded as voting AYE. I seem to recall
pressing the red button for a NAY vote. So that there is no
misunderstanding of my position, I wish for the record to indicate that
I should be recorded as a NO vote.
____________________