Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 99 (Wednesday, July 26, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 26, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7009-H7020]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DISAPPROVING EXTENSION OF MOST FAVORED NATION TRADING STATUS TO VIETNAM

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House,
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 99) 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.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of House Joint Resolution 99 is as follows:

H.J. Res. 99

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
does not

[[Page H7010]]

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 2, 2000, with respect to Vietnam.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, July 24, 2000, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and a
Member in support of the joint resolution each will control 30 minutes.
Is there a Member in support of the joint resolution?
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in support of the joint
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty)
will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes of my time to my
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and I ask unanimous
consent that he be allowed 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.

General Leave

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 99.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.

{time} 1100

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 99 and in support of
Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver. Over the past decade, the United States
has taken gradual steps to normalize our bilateral relations with
Vietnam. This process has borne tangible results on the full range of
issues on our bilateral agenda including increased accounting of our
missing in action, MIAs; substantial progress on remaining immigration
cases; and increased trade and investment opportunities for U.S. firms
and workers.
The paramount issue in our bilateral relationship with Vietnam
remains the fullest possible accounting of MIAs. Since 1993, 288 sets
of remains of U.S. servicemen have been repatriated and fate has been
determined for all but 41 of 196 persons associated with last known-
alive cases.
Future progress in terms of the ability of U.S. personnel to conduct
excavations, interview eye witnesses and examine archival items is
dependent upon continued cooperation by the Vietnamese.
On immigration, the central issue to the Jackson-Vanik waiver, more
than 500,000 Vietnamese citizens have entered the United States under
the orderly departure program in the past 10 to 15 years. As a result
of steps taken by Vietnam to streamline its immigration process, more
than 98 percent of cases in the resettlement opportunity for Vietnamese
returnees have been cleared for interview.
Currently, Vietnam has agreed to help us reinstate a refugee program
for former U.S. Government employees.
Earlier this month, the administration concluded a bilateral trade
agreement with Vietnam that will serve as the basis for a reciprocal
extension of normal trade relations once it is transmitted and approved
by Congress. The trade agreement contains provisions on market access
in goods, trade in services, intellectual property protection and
investment which are necessary for U.S. firms to compete in the
Vietnamese market, the 13th most populous in the world. Because
Congress has not yet approved a bilateral agreement, the effect of the
Jackson-Vanik waiver at this time is quite limited, enabling U.S.
exporters doing business in Vietnam to have access to U.S. trade
financing programs, provided that Vietnam meets the relevant program
criteria.
At this time, I would insert into the Record a letter I received from
over 40 trade associations supporting Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver as
an important step in the ability of the U.S. business community to
compete in the Vietnamese market.

July 19, 2000.
Hon. Philip Crane,
U.S. Congress,
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 process. We
oppose H.J. Resolution 99, which would overturn the waiver,
and urge you to vote against the resolution when it comes to
the floor Wednesday, July 26, 2000. Renewal of the Jackson-
Vanik waiver will ensure that U.S. companies and farmers
exporting 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 and maritime credit programs. Ultimately, the
Jackson-Vanik waiver, plus the bilateral trade agreement,
will lead the way for normal trade relations, enabling
American companies and products to compete effectively with
European and Asian companies and products in the Vietnamese
market.
Important progress in the bilateral relationship has been
made this year. The agreement on trade relations between the
U.S. and Vietnam has just been successfully concluded, paving
the way to full normalization of trade relations. The
bilateral trade agreement, which addresses issues relating to
trade in goods and farm products, trade in services,
intellectual property rights and foreign investment, creates
more open market access, greater transparency and lower
tariffs for U.S. exporters and investors in Vietnam.
Also this year, the Ex-Im Bank framework agreements, which
allow Ex-Im to open operations in Vietnam, were concluded and
OPIC made its first loan to a U.S. company in Vietnam. In
March Secretary of Defense William Cohen became the first
U.S. Defense Secretary to visit Vietnam in 25 years.
The American business and agricultural community believes
that a policy of economic normalization with Vietnam is in
our national interest. Last year, the House defeated the
resolution of disapproval on Jackson-Vanik by a vote of 297
to 130. We urge you to support the renewal of the Jackson-
Vanik waiver this July as an important step in the
normalization process.
We stand ready to work with Congress towards renewal of the
Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam, which will help American
businesses and farmers reach this important market.
Sincerely,
American Apparel Manufacturers Association, American
Chamber of Commerce in Hanoi, American Chamber of Commerce in
Ho Chi Minh City, American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong,
American Chamber of Commerce in Japan, American Chamber of
Commerce in Singapore, American Chemistry Council, American
Electronics Association, American Feed Industry Association,
American Council of Life Insurers, American Meat Institute,
American Potato Trade Alliance, AMT--The Association for
Manufacturing Technology, Asia Pacific Council of American
Chambers, Coalition for Employment Through Exports, Emergency
Committee for American Trade, The Fertilizer Institute,
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, The Grocery
Manufacturers of America, and Information Technology Industry
Council.
International Association of Drilling Contractors,
International Mass Retail Association, National Association
of Manufacturers, National Association of Wheat Growers,
National Corn Growers Association, National Oilseed
Processors Association, National Potato Council, National
Retail Federation, New Orleans Regional Chamber of Commerce,
National Foreign Trade Council, North American Export Grain
Association, North American Millers' Association, Oregon
Potato Commission, Pacific Basin Economic Council--U.S.
Committee, Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association,
Telecommunications Industry Association, U.S.-ASEAN Business
Council, U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and
Apparel, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S.-Vietnam Trade
Council, Washington State Potato Commission, and Wheat Export
Trade Education Commission.

Although the practical effect of Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver is
small at this time, its significance is that it permits us to stay
engaged with Vietnam and to pursue further reforms on the full range of
issues on the bilateral agenda.
Terminating Vietnam's waiver will give Vietnam an excuse to halt
further reforms. I ask my colleagues not to take away our ability to
pressure the Vietnamese for progress on issues of importance to the
United States and I urge a no vote on H.J. Res. 99.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that half of my
time be yielded to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and
that he be permitted to allocate that time as he sees fit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.

[[Page H7011]]

Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of joint resolution 99, which
disapproves the President's determination to waive the Jackson-Vanik
freedom of information requirement for Vietnam. Others will point out
that this debate is not about extension of normal trade relations with
Vietnam but rather about the more limited issue of whether Vietnam
should be eligible to participate in U.S. credit and credit-guaranteed
programs.
Technically, Mr. Speaker, that is correct. However, I think we all
know that this debate is about something much more important. As I said
last year, Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose the eventual normalization of
relations with Vietnam, but I do oppose declaring business as usual
while the remains of American servicemen are still being recovered.
According to the Department of Defense, we are receiving newly
discovered remains on a fairly frequent basis. As recently as June 3,
last month, Mr. Speaker, the possible remains of three American
military personnel were recovered. Can we not wait until this process
is completed?
Mr. Speaker, on August 9, 1970 my brother, HM3 William F. McNulty was
killed in Vietnam. He was a Navy medical corpsman transferred 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 while the pain may subside it never goes away.
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 several decades.
Mr. Speaker, until there is a more complete accounting of those
missing in action, this waiver should not be granted.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) be allowed to yield further time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 99. I support the
President's decision to waive the Jackson-Vanik prohibitions with
respect to Vietnam for an additional year.
This action takes place against a backdrop of bitter relationships in
the past with Vietnam. Memories of those years remain, and
appropriately so.
Over the past 5 years, the U.S. has gradually been reengaging with
Vietnam. In 1994, we lifted the comprehensive embargo that had been in
place since 1975. In 1995, we reopened the American Embassy in Hanoi.
In 1998, the President decided to waive the Jackson-Vanik prohibitions.
This body supported that decision with decisive margins. Each of these
steps was a long time in evolving. Each responded to positive
developments in Vietnam. Notably, the government of Vietnam has
improved cooperation in the location of U.S. servicemen and women
missing in Vietnam, and there has been improvement in the
administration of programs to facilitate the resettlement of Vietnamese
wishing to immigrate.
We must be clear concerning what today's vote is about, and what it
is not about.
Today we simply vote on whether to approve or disapprove the Jackson-
Vanik waiver for Vietnam for an additional year. Approving the waiver
will continue the availability of export-related financing from OPIC,
Ex-Im Bank, and the Department of Agriculture. Disapproving the waiver
will cut off those sources of financing with an impact on U.S. exports,
our businesspeople and our workers. Approving the waiver will not
extend most favored nation status to goods and services from Vietnam.
Imports from Vietnam will remain subject to restrictive tariffs until
the Congress approves a bilateral trade agreement.
Two weeks ago, our country did, in fact, sign a trade agreement with
Vietnam, negotiated over a period of 4 years. However, that agreement
is not before the House today. When the President eventually submits it
for approval, we will have to give careful consideration to a number of
issues, including the extent of Vietnam's commitments, the extent to
which it is implementing its commitments, our ability to monitor and
enforce those commitments and Vietnam's compliance with international
standards in areas including labor and the environment.
Fully normalizing relations with Vietnam is a long-term task. It
requires us to work with Vietnam, including through the provision of
technical assistance. For now, we must preserve the forward momentum
that has developed over the past 6 years. To cut off programs now would
be to pull out the rug from under U.S. producers of goods and services.
In short, let us keep intact the groundwork upon which a meaningful
and enduring relationship hopefully could be built.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 99. The American
people and our colleagues should listen carefully to this debate. What
is it about? It is about trade subsidies. It is about a subsidy by the
American people, the taxpayers of American businessmen that want to
invest in Vietnam. Investing in Vietnam? That does not mean selling
American products in Vietnam. That means setting up manufacturing units
in Vietnam to take advantage of the fact that that country is a brutal
dictatorship that does not permit unions, that does not permit strikes,
and thus there is virtual slave labor there at a cheap price.
Do we really want to give taxpayer subsidies and encourage American
businessmen to close factories in the United States and open them up to
take advantage of that type of market? That is immoral. It is immoral
against the people of Vietnam and it is against the well-being of our
own people. We are sinning against our own people by providing
subsidies for our businessmen to close up operations here and open up
there in a dictatorship.
It has been 2 years, Mr. Speaker, since President Clinton issued the
first Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. Each year we have been assured
by this administration and by our ambassador to Hanoi that this action
would lead to greater political openness and prosperity for the
Vietnamese people and a better economic climate for American investors
so they would not need those subsidies. Unfortunately, the exact
opposite has happened.
As The Washington Post stated on May 3, Vietnam remains a one-party
state, rampant with corruption that retards foreign investment, and the
Communist party fears more openness to the outside world could bring in
more political heterodoxy for which the party shows zero tolerance, end
of quote.
In a recent Human Rights Watch, reports link the ongoing persecution
of dissidents and religious believers in Vietnam to the pervasive
economic and political corruption in that country. There is no free
press in Vietnam. All information is controlled by the state. Radio
Free Asia broadcasts are jammed routinely.
The repeated promises by Hanoi of economic reform have been no more
credible than their pledges in 1973 at the Paris Peace Agreement that
the Communist violence against the people of South Vietnam would end
and that there would be peaceful elections rather than bombs in
resolving that war.
There is still not even the slightest hint of a free and fair
election or opposition parties in Vietnam.
In that repressive government, it is hardly surprising that foreign
investors and businessmen are bailing out. They are bailing out, but
let us come by and save them. Let us use taxpayer subsidies and give
them an encouragement to stay there in that corrupt and support that
corrupt and undemocratic society, that tyrannical regime.

{time} 1115

As this panel is aware, the Jackson-Vanik provision primarily
addresses the issue of freedom of immigration and migration for people
who fear or

[[Page H7012]]

who have had the experience of persecution. The Vietnam Exit Permit
system for immigration, including the longtime reeducation camp
survivors, Amer-Asians, Americans, Montagnards and other people who
have an interest in the United States of America, that state remains
ripe for corruption. Many Vietnamese on the U.S. migration list have
not been able to come to the United States because they could not
afford to pay the bribes.
Contrary to the claims that we have just heard here today, there has
been no progress in the MIA/POW issue. Hanoi has not even released the
records. This Member has repeatedly, and last year, I might add, I made
the same demand, but I have made this over and over again: if you want
to prove good faith to us, simply release the records that you have of
the prisons that you held Americans in during the war. Just give us
those records. How about giving us the records of the facility that
held our American ambassador, Pete Peterson. Just give us those records
so we can examine it to see how many prisoners you really had. They
have not given us those records after repeated demands. That is a sign
of bad faith, and it is bad faith in the whole MIA/POW effort.
Mr. Speaker, my joint resolution disapproving the President's waiver
for the corrupt Vietnamese dictatorship does not intend to isolate
Vietnam or to stop U.S. companies from doing business there. It simply
prevents the Communist Vietnam regime from enjoying a trade status that
enables American businessmen, now listen to this, to make increasingly
risky investments with loan guarantees and subsidies provided by the
American taxpayer.
Why are we giving this perverse incentive for American companies to
shut down their operations here or even refrain from opening up
operations in countries that are struggling to be democratic and
instead, to invest in dictatorships like Vietnam and China. If private
banks and insurance companies will not back up these private ventures,
why should the American taxpayer do that? American taxpayers should not
be asked to do this.
Rampant corruption and mismanagement, as well as the abuse of the
migration program, the lack of free trade unions, the suppression of
freedom of expression, and the persecution of dissidents and religious
believers, these are valid reasons to oppose the Jackson-Vanik waiver,
and also it is not in our interests to make sure the American people
are shortchanged by subsidizing investments in dictatorships.
Mr. Speaker, we do no favors for the Vietnamese people or American
investors by again reflexively supporting the President's bogus
Jackson-Vanik waiver. I propose that we get the Communists to give the
Communist dictators in Vietnam to give a strong message from the United
States Congress that corruption, mismanagement and tyranny will no
longer be tolerated, much less subsidized.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Our colleagues should have received a letter yesterday, in fact, and
it was initiated by our distinguished colleague on the minority side,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) on ours; and in it it explains something, and
there is one paragraph I would like to read to my colleagues: ``At this
time, Vietnam's waiver only allows that country to be reviewed for
possible coverage by U.S. trade financing programs, such as those
administered by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC; the
Export-Import Bank, Exim; and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA.
Vietnam is not automatically covered by these programs as a result of
its Jackson-Vanik waiver.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois
(Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Crane), chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose the
resolution disapproving the President's extension of the Jackson-Vanik
waiver for Vietnam. Rejecting this resolution is especially important
now that the United States and Vietnam have signed a bilateral trade
agreement which will allow Vietnam in the future to gain Normal Trade
Relations status renewable on an annual basis. But before that
bilateral agreement is approved by Congress, we must continue the
process of normalizing trade relations with Vietnam that began when we
ended our trade embargo 6 years ago.
Over these few years, good progress has been made. From its
accounting of U.S. POWs and MIAs, to its movement to open trade with
the world, to its progress on human rights, Vietnam has taken the right
steps. Vietnam is not there yet, but Vietnam is moving in the right
direction.
Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 99 is the wrong direction for us
to take today. Who is hurt if we pass this resolution? We are. It is
the wrong direction for U.S. farmers and manufacturers who do 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. It is the wrong direction for our efforts to influence the
Vietnamese people, 65 percent who were not even born when the war was
being waged.
Let us not turn back the clock on Vietnam. Let us continue to work
with them and, in doing so, teach the youthful Vietnamese the values of
democracy, the principles of capitalism, and the merits of a free and
open society.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I support the McNulty resolution to disapprove the extension
of trade waiver authority with Vietnam.
Mr. Speaker, last year I supported the exact opposite position, in
hopes that there would be signs in Vietnam that, in fact, that
government would move toward a more open society. There are no signs of
that, and political repression continues. Talk to people who live here
in the United States who have relatives in Vietnam; many live in the
Washington area.
What was even more troubling to me and the reason for this change in
my own position, and I am not going to use the person's name, but one
of the two most important Americans in charge of shaping U.S. policy
toward Vietnam was speaking with me the other day; and I said, what are
you going to do about the treatment of workers in Vietnam under this
trade authority to give them dignity, whether they are working for a
U.S.-based company or some other multinational working over there? And
this American said to me, oh, that is not a trade issue, that is
probably more cultural. That offended me so much.
Mr. Speaker, I think our government is on the wrong song sheet here.
We ought to be for developing a civil society in Vietnam, beginning
with humanitarian linkages, as our community is trying to do by helping
build schools and clinics. We ought to be having educational exchanges
to teach people something about democracy-building. We ought to have
family reunification. We ought to have arts and cultural exchanges; but
by golly, when top-ranking people from our own government fail to see
that the basis of Jackson-Vanik is that political repression is wrong
and this Nation ought to stand up for liberty at every cost, we ought
to bring back those who are missing in action and call the government
of Vietnam to task on that.
But we need to support the McNulty resolution and deny the additional
extension, because it is in freedom's interests here and abroad.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge support of the Jackson-Vanik waiver by
voting no on H.J. Res. 99, to encourage progress by Vietnam on a host
of issues important to the United States.
It is undeniable that we have had a very troubled history with
Vietnam, and we still have difficult issues. The scars of the past, as
we have seen evidenced today, and this discussion run very deep; and we
could never forget those who sacrificed their lives in the service of
that country there.
But isolating Vietnam will not heal these scars. Perhaps no one can
speak

[[Page H7013]]

more authoritatively on that issue than one of our former colleagues,
Pete Peterson, who is here with us today. 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 U.S. House
as a member of my class in 1991, Pete Peterson returned to Vietnam,
this time as the first ambassador since the Communist takeover.
It is Ambassador Peterson's remarkable optimism about the changes
going on in Vietnam, I believe, that sheds the greatest light on what
our policy toward Vietnam should be. So while serious issues remain in
our relationship with Vietnam, the dialogue with the Vietnamese on a
full range of issues is the foundation on which those issues can be
resolved.
For this reason, support for the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam and
a no vote on this resolution is in our best interests, I believe.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard here that this really is not about
taxpayer subsidy, because what we are doing today only makes possible
that we will give taxpayer subsidies to American businessmen for
closing factories here and opening up in this dictatorship in Southeast
Asia, Vietnam.
The fact is, that is what this debate is all about, whether or not it
should be permitted for American companies to receive these subsidies
from the American taxpayer that are not in the interest of the American
people so that they can go over and manufacture things in Vietnam and
then to export them back to the United States. That is what this is
about, the same way it is about this in China in our China debate, and
what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) read confirms that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise today in support of the Rohrabacher resolution.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have heard about the terrible human
rights situation in Vietnam; and sadly, let me say it, in fact, is
true. If we look at the rights abolished by the socialist republic of
Vietnam, political freedoms are gone, all religious freedom is gone,
economic freedom has been systematically abolished for the people
there.
Now, the State Department tells us that the Vietnamese government
quote, ``maintains an autocratic one-party state that tolerates no
opposition.'' Earlier this year, I visited Vietnam and I saw firsthand
the Communist Party's harassment of those Vietnamese citizens who
decide to peacefully set forth dissenting political and religious
views. I visited several who were under house arrest.
Now, we can argue whether or not engagement best advocates freedom in
Vietnam. In fact, I believe engagement does. If done right, a two-track
policy of engaging Vietnam on economic reform, while pressuring it on
its political and religious repression with Radio Free Asia and other
means, promises to promote the freedom the Vietnamese people have long
sought.
Trade in investment terms with Vietnam, though, is not what this
particular piece of legislation addresses. Denying this waiver would
not make U.S. businesses any more or less free to do business in
Vietnam. Approving this resolution would simply disallow taxpayer
dollars from being used to continue subsidizing U.S. companies to do
business in Vietnam. The reforms the Vietnamese government promises to
make in its trade agreement with the U.S. generally are comprehensive.
They are comprehensive because the business climate in Vietnam right
now is so bad. The Communist Party runs the economy, making Vietnam
abjectly poor, despite the talents and drive of the Vietnamese people.
The economy is riddled with corruption, red tape, and cronyism.
Mr. Speaker, the State Department says, U.S. businesses find the
Vietnamese market is a tough place to operate. That is an
understatement. American and European companies, which eagerly entered
Vietnam a few years ago, are in retreat. If they wish to stay the
course, that is their decision; but we should not ask for a U.S.
Government subsidy to do that.
Mr. Speaker, we all hope that freedom comes to Vietnam. Today we are
debating whether the U.S. Government subsidies for American business is
a constructive way to promote this freedom. I do not think that that
case has been made for Vietnam, or from any other places, for that
matter. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I would remind our colleagues that OPIC and
Ex-Im Bank help businesses in a majority of countries around the globe;
it is not confined to Vietnam.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest).

{time} 1130

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution from the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and support the Jackson-
Vanik waiver.
In the 1870s, France colonized Vietnam. From 1940 to 1945, the
Japanese and the French collaborated to oppress and colonize Vietnam.
In 1945, President Roosevelt sent an agent, Archemedis Patti of the
OSS, the forerunner of the CIA, to see what was going on in Vietnam and
what should happen after World War II, which was fought for self-
determination around the world.
Archemedis Patti suggested that Ho Chi Minh was fighting for
independence against the French and the Japanese.
Roosevelt died. Archemedis Patti persisted with President Truman.
Throughout the 1950s, the OSS, which turned into the CIA, recommended
that the United States not become involved in the Vietnam conflict
because it was a matter of a civil war and a matter of a fight for
independence.
Now, I know the decisions were tough back then. In the 1940s and
1950s it was Communist expansion, China fell to the Communist, there
was a Korean War and so on. But the United States got involved in the
conflict. I served in Vietnam. I lost close friends in Vietnam. I knew
men who are still to this day MIAs. I was proud to fight for the
democratic process in the 1950s in Vietnam.
It is now 25 years later. The war virtually ended in 1975. The United
States does have business interests around the globe and in Vietnam.
The United States does have humanitarian interest around the world and
in Vietnam. We will not lose sight of those humanitarian interests
regardless of what anybody says about cultural interests.
So I highly recommend to my colleagues that we vote against the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), we stand firm in favor of
the Jackson-Vanik waiver; and while we do that, we salute Pete
Peterson, the Ambassador to Vietnam from the United States.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 99
and oppose the granting of the waiver for Vietnam.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe Vietnam has made significant
improvements in allowing political express or religious freedom.
I intend to support today's resolution opposing the waiver of the
Jackson-Vanik provisions of the 1974 Trade Act. The Communist
government in Hanoi still clings to the belief that any form of
individualism is a threat to their grip on power.
Every year the House is asked to make exceptions to the countries who
consistently oppress political dissent and religious freedom. When is
the United States going to say enough is enough?
I understand that we are here today because of the tremendous
economic opportunities that are available in Vietnam. I understand
that. Vietnam has the cheap labor and lax environmental regulations
that we seem to favor to produce our clothes and our shoes.
What would we get in return for waiving the Jackson-Vanik provisions
of the 1947 Trade Act? Are we going to get more help in locating our
missing servicemen? The legacy of the Vietnam War will remain open and
festering without a higher level cooperation from the government in
Hanoi.

[[Page H7014]]

I hope that next year, if we repeat this process, the United States
is not running a huge trade deficit with Vietnam. Injecting large
amounts of foreign investment in Vietnam to bring about social change
is a flawed theory. We have been doing that with China for years, and
it still suppresses religious expression, and it still sells weapons to
some of the most unstable nations in the world.
It is interesting that the companies and businesses who are
successful in our country because of the freedom of individualism and
initiative want to take advantage of a society that suppresses it to
the point, and that is the very reason that our society and our
government is successful because, individually, we have the right to
succeed.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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, I rise in opposition to
this resolution and in support of the continuation of the Jackson-Vanik
waiver for Vietnam.
Last year, 297 Members of the House voted against a disapproval
waiver. Since that time, major steps have been taken in many areas of
greatest concern to the Congress and the American people with respect
to issues between the United States and Vietnam.
The number of Vietnamese who have been able to leave the country to
resettle in the United States has reached merely 16,000 in the first 6
months of this year compared to 3,800 2 years ago.
Ambassador Pete Peterson, our former colleague, has declared that
``Vietnam's cooperation on emigration policy, the test issue for the
Jackson-Vanik waiver, is exemplary.'' Close cooperation between our
governments is also continuing in the location, identification, and the
return of remains, and in resolving the remaining MIA questions has
been considerable.
I had an opportunity to visit with our teams in the country that are
seeking these remains and going through this intensive, arduous
process. They will tell us the cooperation that they are getting from
the government now that they did not get before. The program is
working, not as fast as we would like, but the cooperation is in fact
there.
In reaching an accord with the United States on a comprehensive trade
agreement, which is not an issue before this Congress today, the
government of Vietnam has also demonstrated that it is prepared to move
in the direction of transparency, fair trade, and a more open economy
that will ultimately serve the people of that nation well.
Our continued waiver of Jackson-Vanik, which is strongly supported by
a number of veterans organizations, has encouraged Vietnam to implement
reforms that are needed to establish the basic labor and political
rights we believe are critical. There is still much room for
improvement, to be sure, on all of these fronts, on freedom of
expression, on religious freedom, on labor rights, on political rights;
but the fact of the matter is progress is being made because of this
engagement.
We should continue to encourage these reforms in Vietnam through
expanded trade, labor, and educational exchanges, again which are
taking place already; cooperation, environmental and scientific
initiatives which, again, are already taking place. But we need more of
them. We need these efforts to build a stronger relationship between
the two countries to promote the kind of open and democratic societies
we believe they have a right to enjoy.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair please let me know what
the time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Jefferson) has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
McNulty) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Crane) has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, let us look again at the central
issue. No matter how much people are trying to deny it, the central
issue is whether or not the American taxpayer should be subsidizing the
investment by American businesses, not to sell American products in
Vietnam but to set up factories in Vietnam, to take advantage of their,
basically, slave labor, people who have no right to form a union,
people who have no legal protections. Should we subsidize with our
taxpayers' dollars American businessmen that want to go over there and
exploit that market, closing factories in the United States, and then
exporting their produce that they produced with this slave labor back
to the United States, again, competing with our own goods made by our
own people? That is immoral.
Let us just say, yes, I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Crane). OPIC and Exim Bank, these are the vehicles that we use
taxpayers' dollars to subsidize this investment overseas. They do it
with a lot of countries. But we should put our foot down here today and
say dictatorships should not receive this kind of subsidy, especially
the dictatorship in Vietnam that has not cooperated in finding our
missing in action and POWS.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, our distinguished colleague, Ambassador Pete Peterson,
was here a moment ago. He is over here on the floor. I would like to
recognize him. He spent 6 years with us here in the House. He spent
6\1/2\ years in the Hanoi Hilton, and he is doing an outstanding job as
our Ambassador in Vietnam. He assures me that he has the records from
the prison in which he was held for 6\1/2\ years. These records are now
publicly available.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this House Joint Resolution 99.
As a Vietnam veteran, I empathize with many of the arguments that I
have heard by some of the opponents to this waiver. I am concerned
about the issue of emigration of Vietnamese from that country. I also,
of course, want a full accounting of our MIAs and POWs, and our
ambassador has been working very hard on achieving that.
Of course I am concerned about religious freedom and its state in a
country like Vietnam. But I disagree with the proposed solutions that
the other side suggested as denying the Jackson-Vanik waiver for
Vietnam does nothing to further the progress in any of these areas. In
fact, I believe it has just the opposite effect.
Let us put this vote today in its historical perspective. It was 1991
that 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 agreed to move towards normalizing relations in an
incremental fashion.
Progress has been made through the years in that. In 1994, a second
step was taken when President Clinton lifted the trade embargo against
Vietnam. In 1995, in response to further reforms by the Vietnamese,
formal diplomatic relations were established between the United States
and Vietnam. In 1998, President Clinton issued the first waiver for
Vietnam under the Jackson-Vanik procedures. This waiver, which was
approved by this House by a very substantial margin, made American
products eligible for trade investment programs such as Ex-Im and OPIC.
This year, an even more historic step was reached when the United
States and Vietnam signed a bilateral trade agreement which contained
significant concessions for the U.S. industry in Vietnam.
Now, this vote today is not going to provide us with all the benefits
of the agreement, nor will it mean that we will have normal trade
relations with Vietnam. That will require an additional vote by
Congress. But today's vote does send a message that Congress supports
the policy of continued engagement with Vietnam. I believe that has
helped us.
I urge a no vote on this resolution.

[[Page H7015]]

Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair wishes to remind all Members that
references to the presence on the floor of non-Members during debate is
not appropriate.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
McNulty) for yielding me this time.
As the Congresswoman who represents the largest Vietnamese-American
population in the United States in Orange County, California, this
Jackson-Vanik is about the immigration issue and the reunification of
the families, the Vietnamese-American families that we have here in our
country.
We have gone through the process. Our State Department has allowed
that these members of families come to the United States, and then they
run into a problem. The problem is that the corrupt government of
Vietnam charges bribes of about $2,000 to try to get an exit for each
person who is trying to come here to the United States to be with their
family members.
Well, when one considers that the household income in Vietnam is $300
a year, $2,000 is not an easy amount to get one's hands on to get one's
exit visa so that one can come here and be with one's family after our
State Department says, in fact, one should and can be here in the
United States.
So on the issue of immigration, the government of Vietnam has not
held up its end. But in addition to that, why should we, the United
States, help a government that is so against human rights?
The government continues to repress basic political and religious
freedoms and does not tolerate most types of public dissent. This is
what the United States State Department reported in its 1999 review of
the human rights situation in Vietnam.
What they are doing now in Vietnam is that, instead of holding
prisoners in prisons, they put them in house arrest so that the rest of
the nations will not criticize them internationally. In fact, the last
time I was in Vietnam, while I was talking to a dissident under house
arrest in his home, the government figured out I was there. They sent
their police knocking on the door trying to get through. I do not know,
if I had not had a couple of Marines there with me, what would have
happened.

{time} 1145

But the situation is that dissidents do not have an ability to speak
their mind under this government. So I ask again, why should we reward
that government with a Jackson-Vanik waiver?
It was just 2 months ago when the Vietnamese police placed Ha Si Phu
under house arrest and threatened to charge him with treason. The
Vietnamese authorities apparently believe that Mr. Ha is connected to
an open appeal for democracy issued by intellectual dissidents. If
convicted, he could face the death penalty.
Sadly, this is not the first time that Ha Si Phu has been harassed by
authorities for peacefully expressing his views. In recent years, he
has become well known at home and abroad for his political discourses
and for focusing international attention on Vietnam's terrible human
rights record. For his efforts, he was imprisoned in December 1995 for
a year; and he continues to be under House arrest, like the rest of the
people who speak up in Vietnam and say that what they are doing is
wrong.
How do we reward this country when it punishes its citizens for
exercising basic human rights; a country where a citizen is punished
for speaking out against what he or she believes is wrong?
Unfortunately, Mr. Ha's situation is not the only example of what we
see over and over and over in this country. Our ambassador, Mr. Pete
Peterson, says that human rights conditions are getting better. They
are not. We have only to ask the relatives who live here in the United
States.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Evans).
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, this vote today is a vote on whether we are
truly dedicated to the hard work of getting full accounting of our
missing from the Vietnam War.
As the Veterans of Foreign Wars have stated, passing this resolution
of disapproval will only hurt our efforts at a time in which we are
receiving the access and cooperation we need from the Vietnamese to
determine the fate of our POW-MIAs. There is no more authoritative
force and voice on this issue than our former colleague and now
ambassador to Vietnam, Mr. Pete Peterson, who supports this waiver. As
a prisoner of war who underwent years of imprisonment in the notorious
Hanoi Hilton, he should have every reason to be skeptical and harbor
bitterness against the Vietnamese. Yet he believes the best course is
to develop better relations between our two nations.
We have achieved progress on this POW-MIA issue because of our
evolving relationship with the Vietnamese, not despite it. Without
access to the jungles and the rice paddies, to the information and
documents, and to the witnesses of these tragic incidents, it would be
impossible to give the families of the missing the answers our country
owes them.
We are making progress and providing these answers. Much of this is
due to the Joint Task Force--Full Accounting, our military presence in
Vietnam tasked with looking for our missing. I have visited with these
young men and women, and they are among the most brave and motivated
troops I have ever met. Every day, from the searches of jungle battle
sites to 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 young men and women, some who were not even
born when our presence was so involved in Vietnam. They have told me
time and time again one thing; allow us to remain on this job.
The resolution before us today puts this at risk. I urge my
colleagues to please vote against this resolution.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia
and the Pacific, this Member rises in opposition to the resolution.
It is important for us, I think, to recognize what the Jackson-Vanik
waiver does and what it does not do. By law, the underlying issue here
is about immigration. Based on Vietnam's record of progress on
immigration and its continued cooperation on U.S. refugee programs over
the past year, renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver will continue to
promote freedom of immigration. Disapproval would undoubtedly result in
the opposite.
The Jackson-Vanik waiver also symbolizes our interest in further
developing relations with Vietnam. Having lifted the trade embargo and
established diplomatic relations 5 years ago, the United States has
tried to work with Vietnam to normalize incrementally our bilateral,
political, economic, and consular relationships. This is in America's
own short-term and long-term national interests. It builds on Vietnam's
own policy of political and economic reintegration into the world.
This will be a lengthy and challenging process. However, now is not
the time to reverse course on Vietnam. Vietnam continues to cooperate
fully with our priority efforts to achieve the fullest possible
accounting of American POW-MIAs. The Jackson-Vanik waiver supports this
process.
The Jackson-Vanik waiver certainly does not constitute an endorsement
of the Communist regime in Hanoi. We cannot approve of a regime that
places restrictions on basic freedoms, including the right to organize
political parties, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. On May
4, however, this body passed a resolution condemning just such
violations of human rights.
The Jackson-Vanik waiver does not provide Vietnam with new trade
benefits, including Normal Trade Relations, NTR, status. With the
Jackson-Vanik waiver, the United States has been able to successfully
negotiate and sign a new bilateral commercial trades agreement with
Vietnam. Congress will have an opportunity in the future whether to
approve it or not, and whether to

[[Page H7016]]

grant NTR or not, but that is a separate process. The renewal of the
Jackson-Vanik waiver only keeps this process going, nothing more.
Renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver does not automatically make
American exports to Vietnam eligible for possible coverage by U.S.
trade financing programs. The waiver only allows American exports to
Vietnam to be eligible for such coverage.
Mr. Speaker, the war with Vietnam is over, and we have embarked upon
a new, although cautious, expanded relationship with Vietnam. Now is
not the time to reverse this constructive course. Accordingly, this
Member urges a ``no'' vote on the resolution.
Having summarized the key reasons to oppose the resolution, this
Member would like to expand on a few of these points. First, the issue
of emigration, which indeed, is what the Jackson-Vanik provision is all
about. 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
2, 2000, the 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.
Second, the Jackson-Vanik waiver also symbolizes our interest in
further developing relations with Vietnam. Having lifted the trade
embargo and established diplomatic relations five years ago, the United
States has tried to work with Vietnam to normalize incrementally our
bilateral political, economic and consular relationship. This policy is
in America's own short- and long-term national interest. It 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.
Third, over the past five 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.
Fourth, the Jackson-Vanik waiver does not constitute an endorsement
of the Communist regime in Hanoi. We cannot approve of a regime that
places restrictions on basic freedoms, including the right to organize
political parties, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. However,
our experience has been that isolation and disengagement does not
promote progress on human rights. New sanctions, including the symbolic
disapproval of the Jackson-Vanik waiver, only strengthens 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, though we still remain disappointed at the very limited pace
and scope of such reforms. As this Member mentioned, on May 4, 2000,
this body adopted a resolution condemning Vietnam's human rights
record. Given the strong reaction to our resolution by Hanoi, it is
evident that our actions and concerns did not go unnoticed.
Fifth, 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
successfully negotiate a new bilateral commercial trade agreement with
Vietnam. This agreement was signed two weeks ago in Washington. In the
opinion of this Member, this 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. This new bilateral trade agreement will
require Vietnam to make these reforms and will result in increased
American exports supporting jobs here at home.
In a separate process with a separate vote Congress will have to
decide whether to approve or reject this new trade agreement and to
grant NTR status to Vietnam. Given that the agreement has yet to even
be transmitted to Congress and there are only a limited number of
legislative days before the body's scheduled adjournment, this Member
believes that these decisions will not be made until the 107th Congress
meets next year. Thus, the Jackson-Vanik waiver simply ensures that the
modest trade opportunities currently available to American businesses
will continue until Congress considers the agreement.
Sixth, contrary to the claims of some opponents of the Jackson-Vanik
waiver, renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver does not automatically make
American investment in and exports to Vietnam eligible for 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 American
exports and investments to be eligible for such coverage. Each must
still face separate individual reviews against each program's relevant
criteria.
Mr. Speaker, Americans must conclusively recognize that the war with
Vietnam is over. With the restoration of diplomatic relations in 1995,
the United States and Vietnam embarked on a new relationship for the
future. It will not be an easy or quick process. Vietnam today remains
a Communist country with very limited freedoms for its citizens.
Significant reforms must occur before relations can be truly normal.
The emotional scars of the Vietnam war remain with many Americans. In
the mid-1960's, this Member was an infantry officer and intelligence
officer with the First Infantry Division. Within a month of completing
my service, members of my tight-knit detachment of that division were
in Vietnam and taking casualties the first night after arrival. Like
other Vietnam-era veterans, this Member has emotional baggage. A great
many Americans have emotional baggage about Vietnam, but this Member
would suggest that it is time to get on with our bilateral relationship
and not reverse course on Vietnam.
Passing this resolution of disapproval of 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
its integration into the international community. A retrenchment on our
part by this disapproval resolution is not in America's short and long
term national interests. Accordingly, this Member strongly urges the
rejection of House Joint Resolution 99.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair about
the procedure for closing statements?
It is my understanding that the order would be the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), followed by the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Jefferson), followed by myself, and then followed by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Crane); is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The gentleman's understanding is
correct.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Jefferson) for yielding me this time, and I strongly associate
myself with the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. Bereuter).
I too rise in opposition to this resolution and support President
Clinton's decision to waive Jackson-Vanik requirements for the next
year. This would absolutely be the worst thing we could do at this
point, undercutting the outstanding work that Ambassador Peterson and
our team has done in terms of continued progress in immigration, in
terms of continued accounting and cooperation in dealing with prisoners
of war and missing in action. It would also undercut the progress that
has been represented by the successful conclusion of the bilateral
trade agreement, a critical, critical milepost.
This debate is absolutely not about some hypothetical huge potential
trade deficit with Vietnam. The amount of trade involved is minuscule
at this point and is not going to be, under the wildest circumstances,
anything significant in the foreseeable future.
It is absolutely not about closing United States' factories and
shipping

[[Page H7017]]

this process overseas. The goods that have been identified here as the
primary products for Vietnam are not things that the United States is
specializing in right now. Most of those products are already
manufactured overseas and simply shifting suppliers.
And it is categorically not about slave labor. That is absolute
nonsense and referenced by someone who clearly has never seen the
activity that is going on now in Vietnam factories. I am informed by
our embassy in Vietnam that there have been dozens of strikes already
this year. And if we talk to the men and women who have done work in
Vietnam, we see that even in this area progress is being achieved.
Mr. Speaker, this House is poised to make some very significant
accomplishments in foreign policy; a historic realignment of our policy
with China. Last week's vote sent signals about being real about our
relationship with Cuba and reversing some absolutely ineffectual
activities in the past. We are now on the verge of doing the same with
Vietnam. I strongly urge rejection of this resolution and keeping us
moving in this direction.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, again, we should take a look at what is being said here
today and what the central issues are. We have heard that if we vote
today for this resolution that these subsidies for businessmen who go
over there, who close factories in the United States and open up
factories to produce goods with the slave labor in Vietnam and export
them to the United States, will not ``automatically'' be granted; will
not ``automatically'' have these subsidies available.
We keep getting these words that should make it very clear that is
what this debate is about. The debate is about whether or not U.S.
taxpayers are going to subsidize American companies to close their
doors in the United States, go over there and take advantage of, yes,
slave labor.
I am not impressed when I hear that there have been strikes in
Vietnam. The question is what happened to the strikers after the
strike. The question is whether those strikers had a right to form a
union and to try to peacefully advocate their own position, which is
the right of every person in a free society.
There has been no progress reported in labor relations in Vietnam.
There is no progress in terms of a free press, no progress in terms of
religious freedom, no progress in terms of an opposition party. So
where is this progress? We are rewarding the Communist government of
Vietnam for continuing its repression.
As far as Mr. Peterson's report, this is the first time any of us
have ever heard of a report that there are records from a prison
available. Let me note this, and I have just spoken to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), chairman of the committee, that it has
never been reported to him; it has never been reported to me, a senior
member of the Committee on International Relations and the Subcommittee
on Asia and the Pacific, that those records are available.
Now, how limited are they? How long have they been available? We are
being told this right now, during this debate, that records that have
been denied us for 10 years of our demanding are now available to us.
Let me just say if that is the case, and those records have been
available and it has not been reported to the oversight committee of
the United States Congress, there is something wrong with our State
Department or something wrong with the process.
And I would put on the record today that I expect to see those prison
records. I would put this on the record for our ambassador to Vietnam
that I expect to see those prison records forthwith and immediately so
that they can be examined in relationship to the MIA-POW issue. Those
records have not been made available to us. We have not had a good
faith effort, and it is wrong to spring this in the middle of a debate
on the floor on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise this morning in support of maintaining the President's
waiver of Jackson-Vanik for Vietnam and in opposition of this
resolution.
Our policy of engagement with Vietnam is our most effective tool for
influencing Vietnamese society and achieving positive relationships
with that country. With engagement, we are able to insert American
ideals of freedom and liberty to the Vietnamese people. Furthermore, as
a global leader in economic enterprise, American companies are poised
to develop even broader commercial ties and influential relationships
throughout Vietnam.
I can tell my colleagues that our presence in Vietnam impacts their
society in all areas, from commercial relations to worker rights.

{time} 1200

Moreover, as a Vietnam veteran, I believe that the coordination and
cooperation of the Vietnamese government in the recovery of remains of
our servicemen is essential and has been extremely successful and
possible through our policy of engagement.
Clearly, additional progress must be made in Vietnam on a whole range
of issues including trade, human rights, religious freedom, and freedom
of expression. However, we can only do that through a policy of
engagement. We all agree that there must be greater political and
democratic reforms as well as more open access to Vietnamese markets in
order to address the large and growing trade imbalance.
In my view, the most effective way to bring about improvements in
trade, human rights, and political and religious freedoms and to
maintain other progress in successful joint searches for veterans'
remains is through continued engagement with the Vietnamese government
and increased contacts with the Vietnamese people so that they can
learn and appreciate the values of democracy and the values of freedom.
If we do not support the President's waiver of Jackson-Vanik for
Vietnam, the result will be that it will cause us to disengage and
withdraw. This will harm and not improve our situation with Vietnam.
Removal of Vietnam's status would likely result in the withdrawal of
American goods and, therefore, American values.
I strongly urge everyone in this House to support the waiver of
Jackson-Vanik for a status for Vietnam and vote against this
resolution.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the resolution and thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), for giving me this opportunity to speak.
There is no question that the Vietnam War strained the very fiber of
our nation, however, the time has come to reconcile the discord of the
past. Including trade in our new diplomatic relationship with Vietnam
will allow us to create a positive partnership for the future.
In January, I traveled to Vietnam and was struck by the evolution of
their economy and the progress which has occurred to provide
opportunities for both our countries.
Mr. Speaker, in our increasingly global economy, shutting Vietnam out
would be detrimental not only for the people of Vietnam and southeast
Asia but for American citizens and businesses, as well.
In the shadow of the historic market-opening agreement made only this
month thanks to the efforts of U.S. Ambassador Pete Peterson, it would
be a disaster for Congress to approve legislation to deny Vietnam
eligibility for U.S. trade credits.
Opening the Vietnamese markets will not only provide an economic boon
for both Vietnam and the U.S. but will improve trade between the two
countries, and that will go a long way toward healing the wounds both
nations have been nursing for decades.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
I rise in strong opposition to the resolution and thank my friend and
colleague from Louisiana Mr. Jefferson, for giving me the opportunity
to speak.

[[Page H7018]]

The Vietnam war is the war of my generation and I will always have
strong feelings regarding the longest war in our country's history and
the conflict which strained the fiber of our nation.
In January, I traveled to Vietnam and was struck by the evolution of
their economy and the progress which has occurred to provide
opportunities for both our countries.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, could I get the time that is left for
all of us and what sequence that we will be making our closing
arguments.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The order of close shall be the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) first, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) second, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
McNulty) third, and finally the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane)
will have the final word.
The amount of time remaining for the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) is 2\1/2\ minutes, for the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Jefferson) 1 minute, for the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) 4\1/
2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) 2 minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this
resolution. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support this
resolution. Let us today make a stand for principle. Let us send the
message to the world and to the American people about what America
stands for.
Today we are really a government that simply can be manipulated by
large financial interests, billionaires who want to invest in various
parts of the world under a guise of globalism.
Is that what we are all about? No. We have Mr. Lafayette who watches
us today. We have George Washington who watches us today. Is that the
America that they fought for? Is that the globalism they had in mind?
The globalism our forefathers had in mind were universal rights where
the concept of the United States stands as a hope of liberty and
justice for the world, not just that we are a place where people can
come and do business together. Yes, we believe in that and that our
businessmen have a right to do businesses overseas. Yes, they have a
right do that. But there is some higher value involved with our
country.
We can reaffirm that today, and not only reaffirming that principle
that human rights and democracy means something, but at the same time,
watch out for the interests of the American people.
We see this American flag behind us. What does that flag stand for?
It stands for, number one, we believe in liberty and justice and
independence and freedom. We believe in those things our Founding
Fathers talked about 225 years ago. But, number two, it also stands for
that we are going to represent the interests of those American people
who have come here to this country and become citizens of our country.
It is not in their interest, and it is not in the interest of human
freedom that we subsidize American businesses to go over and do
business in dictatorships, dictatorships where they throw the leaders
of strikes in jail 2 days after the strike is over, dictatorships where
they do not allow any opposition parties or freedom of religion.
There has been no progress in terms of human rights in Vietnam. And
now we are thinking about offering a perverse incentive again today.
That is what this debate is about, to our businessmen to close their
doors here, not watching out for the interests of the American people,
but instead making sure that these business men can go over and use
that slave labor.
Those people in Vietnam have a $300 a year per capita income, and
they are going to be exploited by American businessmen.
Let us vote for this resolution. Let us not give them this waiver.
Let us put them on notice that they have a year to clean up their act,
and then we can grant them some concessions if they have progressed in
those areas.
I ask for support of the resolution.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to keep in mind what this
legislation is all about. It is not to cure all these difficulties that
exist between the United States and Vietnam, nor between the debate
over democracy versus communism. It is strictly about providing greater
access for immigration and our review of whether or not that is taking
place in that country in sufficient capacity to permit us to continue
with the waiver.
Since the 1980s, over 500,000 Vietnamese people have emigrated as
refugees of that country to the United States. Ambassador Peterson
reports that while there are bribes and corruption, these are isolated
incidents and this is not a form of government policy in Vietnam.
And so Vietnam is meeting the requirement for us to continue the
waiver, and that is all that is important here. While incident to this
there will be permission of OPEC and Ex-Im Bank to engage and support
U.S. business there, that is not the overriding purpose of what we are
doing here. And so Vietnam has met its obligation.
It is time for our country to step up and meet its obligation as well
and to permit the Jackson-Vanik waiver to continue and to permit people
to continue to enjoy free immigration to this country.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ron Cima and Chuck Henley of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense for the briefing that they gave me last week on
the search for our MIAs. I am grateful to them, to Pete Peterson, and
to all of those who are working to bring our MIAs home.
As I grow older, Mr. Speaker, 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 in the morning the first two things I do are to thank
God for my life and veterans for my way of life.
Had it not been for my brother Bill and all of those who gave their
lives in service to this country through the years, had it not been for
people like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and Pete
Peterson and John McCain, who endured 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 year in our new veterans' cemetery in Saratoga, had it not
been for them and all of the men and women who wore the uniform of the
United States military through the years and put their lives on the
line for us, we would not have the privilege of going around bragging
about how we live in the freest and most open democracy on Earth.
Freedom is not free. We paid a tremendous price for it. And we should
always remember those who paid the price.
So today, Mr. Speaker, based upon the comments that I made earlier on
behalf of all 2,014 Americans who are still missing in southeast Asia,
on behalf of their families, I ask my colleagues to join with 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 the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to just make one brief concluding remark, and it
has to do with the events in Vietnam that all of us have recollections
of.
My two kid brothers served over there. I know that we all had a
concern not just for the welfare of our friends, neighbors and
relatives, but we had a concern about the Vietnamese people, too.
I think it is important for us to recognize that since the Vietnam
War ended that there is a whole new Vietnam that has come into
existence. Sixty-five percent of the people in Vietnam were not alive
at the end of the Vietnam War. As this new population has taken over
the country, I think it is important for us to lend our efforts in
advancing the Vietnamese country and people toward those civilized
values that we cherish.
For that reason, I think the Jackson-Vanik waiver is a very tiny but
incremental and important step in that direction. And for that reason,
with all due respect to my colleagues who are supporting H.J. Res. 99,
I would urge my colleagues to vote no on H.J. Res. 99 and keep us
moving in the right direction.

[[Page H7019]]

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear for the first
time today that the Vietnamese communists have made available the
records of one of the prisons where Ambassador Peterson was held. In
response, I just asked Ambassador Peterson which records he was
referring to. Unfortunately, the records he is speaking of are not from
the prisons in which he was held early during his captivity, for which
I am most concerned that some Americans may not have returned from. I
do not doubt that Ambassador Peterson is being honest that commanders
from those prisons told him that they do not know where the records are
after so many years. However, they as individuals were not the record
keepers. The Vietnamese communist government kept many overlapping
records on prisoners they held in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia or
transferred from Indochina to other communist countries. It is those
meticulous records that I am concerned about and to which my request to
communist officials in Hanoi has not been addressed.
Former American POWs such as Mike Benge and Colonel Ted Guy have told
my staff and I how they were repeatedly interviewed and had written
records made by overlapping Vietnamese communist intelligence and
military organizations while they were transferred between Laos and a
number of prison camps in Vietnam. U.S. officials have to this day, not
had those records made available to them by the Vietnamese regime.
In addition, there are some 400 Americans who U.S. intelligence
agencies have identified as having been alive or who perished under
Vietnamese communist control. The Vietnamese regime could easily
account for these men, but to this day, refuse to do so. Finally, the
CIA and DIA have verified the validity of the testimony before Congress
by a Vietnamese mortician who testified to processing hundreds of
deceased American prisoners' remains in Hanoi during the war. He
testified that the organization he worked for kept meticulous records
of the deceased Americans, processed the remains for storage, and
carefully packaged and labeled personal belongings of the deceased
Americans. To this day, none of the records of that organization--which
could resolve the fates of scores of missing American servicemen--have
been made available by the Vietnamese regime.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
resolution and urge my colleagues to uphold the current Jackson-Vanik
waiver.
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 United States and Israel.
The Jackson-Vanik waiver specifically granted the President the power
to waive the restrictions on U.S. government credits or investment
guarantees to communist countries if the waiver would help promote
significant progress toward relaxing emigration controls.
To avoid confusion among some of my colleagues, this waiver does not
provide Vietnam with normal trade relations. Ironically, the economic
incentives provided in the Jackson-Vanik are all one-sided favoring
U.S. firms doing business in Vietnam.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Scoop Jackson was a staunch anti-communist.
Yet, he was willing to consider to incentives to encourage the Soviet
Union to relax its emigration policy.
In 1998, 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 and upholding the
current waiver.
Vietnam is experiencing a new era, driving by a population where 65
percent of its citizens were born after the war. Vietnam today welcomes
U.S. trade and economic investment.
The Vietnamese Government has made significant progress in meeting
the emigration criteria in the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Through a
policy of engagement and U.S. business investment, Vietnam has improved
its emigration policies, cooperated on U.S. refugee programs, and
worked with the United States on achieving the fullest possible
accounting of POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War.
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 more open, respect
human rights and follow the rule of law.
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. goods and services in the
12th most populous country in the world.
Disapproval of this waiver will only 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.
Mr. Speaker, last year we debated and soundly rejected a similar
disapproval resolution. I urge my colleagues to do the same today and
uphold the presidential waiver of the Jackson-Vanik requirements.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 99.
I represent San Jose California, a community greatly enhanced by the
presence of immigrants. Many years ago, as a Supervisor on the Santa
Clara County Board of Supervisors I worked with refugees escaping a
brutal and oppressive political regime.
As an immigration lawyer, I did my best to help these courageous
individuals adjust to their new life. During that time, I met families
torn apart by a government that would not let them leave unless they
escaped. All of these families sacrificed--so that some of them could
see freedom.
Over the past two decades these brave people have become my friends
and my neighbors. I have learned lessons about freedom and liberty from
them. These same people tell me that we must not waive the Jackson-
Vanik amendment.
I am a strong supporter of fair trade. I believe that an economic
search for open markets often results in a more open society. I believe
that an economic dialogue often results in an enhanced political one. I
also believe that a trusted economic partner can evolve into a trusted
political ally.
However, not every nation travels the same path to a more open
society. In the case of Vietnam, I believe we can achieve more by
making Vietnam live up to the free emigration requirements of the
Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974.
Why? Because Vietnam is so eager for a trade relationship with
America that they would improve their human rights policies in order to
get it--but only if we insist.
One cornerstone of our trade policy with nonmarket economies has been
the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. This amendment requires that a country
make progress in allowing free emigration in order to achieve normal
trade status. More than two decades after the end of the Vietnam War,
my congressional staff in San Jose continues to receive letters from
Vietnamese American families seeking reunification with a brother or
sister, a mother or a father, a son or a daughter.
Think of what this resolution says to them. More than two decades
after the end of the Vietnam War, they are still waiting for a loved
one. And in the face of their wait, we are exploring the extension of
normal trade relations to a nation that still holds those captive who
would leave if only they could.
I understand my colleagues when they say Vietnam has changed. It has
changed, but not enough. In a 1999 review of Vietnam's human rights
record, the State Department reached the conclusion that Vietnam's
overall human rights record remained poor. The report pointed out that
``the government continued to repress basic political and some
religious freedoms and to commit numerous abuses.'' The report pointed
out that the government was ``not tolerating most types of public
dissent.''
Additionally, reports from human rights organizations indicate that
he Vietnamese government has tried to clamp down on political and
religious dissidents through isolation and intimidation. Dissidents are
confined through house arrest and subject to constant surveillance.
During her trip to Vietnam Secretary Albright said that the bilateral
relationship between Vietnam and the United States ``can never be
totally normal until we feel that the human rights situation has been
dealt with.'' I agree.
The essence of this debate is freedom--how we can best achieve
greater freedom for the Vietnamese people and how we as a nation can
more greatly influence the government to create a more open society. I
believe that course is to pass this resolution. After all, leverage is
no longer leverage once it is given away. I urge my colleagues to
support H.J. Res. 99.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J.
Res. 99, Disapproving the Extension of Emigration Waiver Authority to
Vietnam.
While the United States and Vietnam signed a trade agreement last
week which requires Vietnam to overhaul its economy, by reducing
tariffs on a range of goods and allowing foreign firms to participate
in businesses in Vietnam; the resolution on the House floor today is
whether Vietnam allows free and open emigration for its citizens. In
1999, President Clinton granted Vietnam a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik
Amendment's on this condition. Unfortunately, not much improvement can
be cited nor documented. Boat People, SOS an organization in my
district, informed me that there is significant corruption in Vietnam
and the Vietnamese government continues to exclude thousands of former
political prisoners and

[[Page H7020]]

former U.S. government employees from participating in U.S. refugee
programs. On average, an applicant must pay $1,000 in bribes to gain
access to these programs. In a country where the average Vietnamese's
annual salary is $250--impoverished former political prisoners and
former U.S. government employees simply cannot afford these outrageous
bribes to apply for these programs.
Corruption exists not only in the Vietnamese government but also
undermines U.S. exchange programs as well. Our programs offer
outstanding Vietnamese students the opportunity to study in the U.S.
However, the Vietnamese government excludes those students whose
parents are not members of the Communist cadre. Thus, many qualified
Vietnamese students are denied the opportunity to study in U.S.
exchange programs simply because their parents are not card-carrying
members of the Communist party. This discrepancy is only one example of
the apartheid system that the Vietnamese government has implemented to
punish those who do not agree with their ideology.
On the issue of human rights, while Vietnam has released some
political prisoners, many more remain imprisoned while the Communist
government continues to arrest others for speaking out against the
government. While the Vietnamese government may claim to make strides,
I would like to share with you 2 prominent cases: Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, a
prominent prisoner of conscience who was released in late 1998, remains
under house arrest in Saigon; while Professor Doan Viet Hoat, a former
prisoner of conscience who had been imprisoned for over 20 years for
promoting democratic ideals, was forced to leave Vietnam as a condition
of his release. The government of Vietnam does not tolerate liberties,
such as the right to free speech, the right to freely practice one's
religion, and the right to peacefully assemble. Reports reveal that the
Vietnamese police have forced many religious groups to renounce their
beliefs or face the threat of imprisonment. Furthermore, when I visited
Vietnam in 1998, a Catholic priest told me that the Communist
government did not allow him to wear vestments in public.
Even more egregious is the persecution of the Hmong, approximately
10,000 of them have had to flee their ancestral lands in the north,
traveling 800 miles to the south central highlands in Dak Lak Province.
Many have been arrested as ``illegal migrants'' or on charges of
``illegal religion'' as part of a government crackdown on Hmong
Christians.
Mr. Speaker, in light of these offenses, I believe H.J. Res. 99 is an
important bill that deserves the support of every Member, and I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, July 24, 2000, the
joint resolution is considered read for amendment and the previous
question is ordered.
The question is on 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. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 91,
nays 332, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 441]

YEAS--91

Aderholt
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Barr
Bartlett
Bonilla
Bonior
Brown (OH)
Burton
Buyer
Canady
Chabot
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Collins
Cook
Cox
Davis (VA)
Deal
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Duncan
Ehrlich
Everett
Forbes
Fossella
Goode
Goodling
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Holden
Hunter
Hyde
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
King (NY)
Kucinich
LaHood
Lazio
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Paul
Pitts
Pombo
Riley
Rivers
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Sanchez
Sanders
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Shadegg
Sherwood
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Strickland
Stump
Sweeney
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NAYS--332

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Archer
Armey
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--11

Barton
Clay
Cubin
Ewing
Gilman
Granger
Jenkins
McIntosh
Radanovich
Smith (WA)
Vento

{time} 1235

Messrs. EHLERS, DeMINT, CROWLEY and Ms. BERKLEY changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. DUNCAN, SOUDER, WAMP, SHERWOOD, BACHUS, FOSSELLA, BONILLA,
BARTLETT of Maryland, and JONES of North Carolina changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the joint resolution was not passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________