[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.

                          ____________________