[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 106 (Thursday, July 26, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4639-H4650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DISAPPROVAL OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TREATMENT TO PRODUCTS OF VIETNAM

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, 
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 55) 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 H.J. Res. 55 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 55

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Congress does not approve the extension of the authority 
     contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     recommended by the President to the Congress on June 1, 2001, 
     with respect to Vietnam.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to the 
order of the House of Wednesday, July 25, 2001, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Sanchez) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield one-half of 
my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) the ranking member 
of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means and 
that he be permitted to yield the time as he sees fit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 55 
and, therefore, in support of extending Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver. 
I believe this waiver represents the best hope for continued political 
and economic reform in Vietnam and, therefore, greater market access 
for American companies in one of Southeast Asia's most important 
emerging economies.
  These three key issues come to bear on this question: Has Vietnam 
made

[[Page H4640]]

progress in emigration? Have we continued despite great difficulty 
improving and committing ourselves to accounting for our servicemen 
still missing in action? And on free and equal access to trade and 
investment opportunities for American companies?
  In each case, I believe the answer is yes. As we enter a new decade 
of bilateral cooperation, efforts to normalize relationships on both 
sides are bearing fruit.
  Mr. Speaker, I was part of the first trade delegation ever to go to 
Vietnam under the leadership of then chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Trade Mr. Gibbons of Florida. We ventured to Hanoi and to Ho Chi Minh 
City. Although conditions, especially in the north of Vietnam, were 
relatively bleak, even at that time you could see the potential of then 
more than 75 million individuals who had an extremely high literacy 
rate and who seemed to be more than willing to work hard. The thing 
that struck me the most was the fact that there was an enormous number 
of foreigners in the country working on various trade arrangements. 
What was most striking is that virtually none of them were American. It 
was a clear indication that Vietnam, notwithstanding the difficulties 
we have with the government structure and notwithstanding the concerns 
that many of us have about the complete ability to account for our 
servicemen and women missing in action, that the United States if we 
continued our then current position was going to miss out; miss out not 
only in terms of economic opportunities but miss out in shaping this 
country which I believe will have a significant and positive impact in 
Southeast Asia.
  Promoting emigration is at the core of the Jackson-Vanik structure. 
Vietnam, I believe, has taken significant steps to liberalize its 
emigration practices. Among other achievements, it has cleared for 
interview all but 73 of the nearly 21,000 individuals who have applied 
for consideration under the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese 
Returnees program.
  In addition to that, we really believe that the continued improvement 
in this area of human rights depends upon extending the Jackson-Vanik 
waiver, to let us positively influence the direction of Vietnam's 
economic and political future.
  We in addition to this Jackson-Vanik waiver will today in the 
Committee on Ways and Means be considering a bilateral trade agreement 
between Vietnam and the United States. That will afford us further 
opportunities both as trading partners and a growing relationship which 
will eventually hopefully move to a strong friendship, a remembrance of 
our past relationships with a commitment to make sure in Southeast Asia 
this does not occur, because frankly I believe that Vietnam will be one 
of the key nations in Southeast Asia as it continues to grow in its 
trade relationships around the world. We saw with Thailand in 1997 how 
one country's instability can quickly spread to others. I believe over 
the next several decades, Vietnam can be an anchor for economic 
improvement in Southeast Asia but probably more important a laboratory 
in how we can move toward a more democratic structure in a regime that 
currently cannot be determined to be democratic.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to yield half of my time to my friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) so that he may be permitted to yield time as he sees 
fit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to begin by saying that I have been now twice as a 
Congresswoman to Vietnam. I represent the largest Vietnamese segment of 
population outside of Vietnam in Orange County, California. Today's 
issue of the Jackson-Vanik is really an issue about emigration and our 
ability to make sure that reunification of families is happening here 
in the U.S., those who want to leave Vietnam and have been approved by 
the United States and their ability to get the right papers out of the 
Vietnamese government in order to make it here and come and join their 
families.
  As the person who represents the largest group of Vietnamese people 
here in America, certainly our office gets to deal with all the 
problems of emigration between these two countries, the United States 
and Vietnam. That is really what this Jackson-Vanik waiver is about, 
whether the country of Vietnam is working in a positive manner to help 
us get that family reunification done. I would like to say that from 
our experience, and I will get into it in a little while, they have 
not. In fact, they are obstructing our ability to reunify our families 
here in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren), another one of my California colleagues 
who has been working very much with the Vietnamese community.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 55, a 
resolution denying the President's waiver for Vietnam from Jackson-
Vanik freedom of emigration requirements. I urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of this resolution.
  I am proud to represent a community, Santa Clara County, that has 
been greatly enriched by the contributions of its Vietnamese American 
residents. For many years as an immigration attorney, a local elected 
official, and now as a Member of Congress, I have had the opportunity 
to work with these Americans on two issues close to their hearts and to 
mine, immigration and human rights. So it is these two issues that are 
at the forefront of my own thoughts as we discuss trade with Vietnam.
  I continue to hear constantly stories about religious persecution, 
political repression, and unwarranted detentions coming from the 
Vietnamese American community in San Jose and from contacts overseas. 
That is why several weeks ago I along with the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Sanchez) hosted a hearing on human rights in Vietnam here in the 
Capitol.
  Let me tell you what we learned at that hearing:
  Religious persecution is common in Vietnam despite the guarantees in 
chapter V, article 70 of the Vietnamese Constitution that citizens 
shall enjoy freedom of belief and religion.
  Portions of the Vietnamese penal code indirectly contradict 
guarantees of religious freedom. For example, Vietnamese citizens can 
be prosecuted for ``undermining national unity'' and ``promoting 
divisions between religious believers and nonbelievers.'' Additionally 
the government of Vietnam has consistently violated article 18 of the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that ``everyone 
shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.''
  This is borne out by the treatment that the Catholic church, the 
Buddhists and the Christian Montagnards have experienced at the hands 
of the Communist government.

                              {time}  1015

  In the course of this debate, we must not forget the names of those 
fighting for freedom in Vietnam:
  Father Nguyen Van Ly, Father Chan Tin, Le Quang Liem, Father Nguyen 
Huu Giai, Father Phan Van Loi, the Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, the 
Venerable Thich Quang Do, Rev. Thich Tri Sieu, and Rev. Thich Tue Si.
  Mr. Speaker, we must make sure that we use this tool that we have. I 
am a firm believer in trade, but I also know that we have individual 
relationships with each country, and we must use the tools available to 
us. We have a window of opportunity with Vietnam, and I know that if we 
insist that Vietnam improve its human rights record as a condition of 
trading with America, we would gain human rights advances in Vietnam.
  So I think it is a tragic mistake for the United States to decline to 
use this tool that is available to us that would be effective in 
gaining freedom for those who are oppressed because of their religious 
beliefs in Vietnam.
  For the priests and the devout who are persecuted today in Vietnam by 
the Communist government, I can only offer my embarrassed apologies 
that President Bush and this Republican leadership would turn a deaf 
ear to your suffering.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H4641]]

  Mr. Speaker, I join in opposition to this resolution, and I support 
the waiver for another year. We should be clear what is before us 
today. This waiver relates to the availability of export-related 
financing from OPIC and Ex-Im and the Department of Agriculture, and 
not broader than that.
  Last year's vote in favor of the resolution was 93 and opposed 332. 
It was a bipartisan vote, with 23 Democrats voting in favor of it. I do 
not see any reason why we should step back. I do not think there is any 
rationale for moving backwards instead of sustaining this approach.
  Our relationship with Vietnam, as we all know so well, has been a 
very complicated one. The war was indeed a bitter one and a deep and 
bitter experience for this country. We had very difficult relations 
with Vietnam for good reasons.
  Then, in the nineties, a decision was made to lift the trade embargo 
that had been in place for 20 years, and in 1995 we opened a U.S. 
embassy in Hanoi, and it was in 1998 that the waiver of this nature 
first occurred. Since then, the waiver has been upheld.
  There has been some progress, progress in terms of missing in action 
issues that are of deep concern to us. Recently nine Vietnamese died 
helping us in the search for U.S. MIA's. There has also been some 
improvement in emigration. It is far from perfect, but I do not think 
anybody would say the situation today is the same as it was 4 or 5 
years ago.
  I think that we need to find, as we did last year with China, a 
combination of engaging and pressuring of Vietnam, and it seems to me 
that to pass this resolution does not find at all the right 
combination.
  We are endeavoring to help promote a free market economy in Vietnam. 
There are some steps in that direction.
  We are going to be considering, as the chairman said earlier, a 
bilateral trade agreement in the Committee on Ways and Means this 
afternoon. That was negotiated about a year ago, and has only recently 
been submitted to us for action.
  In that bilateral trade agreement, we will be considering a number of 
issues. It does not, in my judgment, address all the issues that need 
to be considered in our economic relationship with Vietnam. At some 
point there is going to be a desire to negotiate a textile and apparel 
agreement.
  As I have expressed to the administration and to colleagues on my 
committee, and will express again this afternoon, it is vital as we go 
forth in our relationship with Vietnam that we consider all of the 
relevant economic and trade-related issues, including those of labor 
markets and the economy. The bilateral agreement before us this 
afternoon does not fully do that, though I favor moving ahead with it, 
with the proviso I have mentioned.
  But the issue today before us is whether we should continue this 
waiver, whether it is a useful and, as I think, important part of the 
continuing efforts to find the right combination in our relationship 
with this country. It remains a command economy, there is no doubt 
about it. It remains a country where there is command by a central 
party over much of Vietnamese life. There is no doubt about it.
  Therefore, we have to continue to press on the economic end in a 
broad way; we have to continue to press in terms of human rights, never 
give that up. But voting for this resolution today I think misses the 
best way to do that, and, therefore, while understanding and indeed 
lauding the concerns of those who support this, I would urge that we 
continue the path that was set a number of years ago of engaging and 
pressuring Vietnam.
  The vote last year was really an overwhelming one, and I think the 
evidence since then indicates we should continue that approach and not 
step backwards.
  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 have introduced House Joint Resolution 55, a 
resolution disapproving the extension of the President's waiver for the 
corrupt communist regime in Vietnam on the Jackson-Vanik provision of 
the Trade Act of 1974.
  During the past 12 months, despite previous Presidential waivers, the 
communist regime in Vietnam has actually increased its brutal 
repression, especially against religious leaders and other members of 
the clergy; it has increased its repression of those who are advocating 
democracy; and it has increased its repression against ethnic tribal 
minorities.
  When we take a look, especially at that last category, today, as we 
speak, the Montagnards, who were great allies of the United States of 
America, who risked their lives in order to save thousands of 
Americans, are under severe attack by the government of Vietnam. Yet we 
sit here and extend to them, again, a waiver on their conduct? I do not 
think so.
  This Member of Congress spent some time with the Montagnards in 1967. 
I was in a small camp near Pleiku, Vietnam, and I found the Montagnard 
people, although they are very short people, to be some of the most 
courageous people in the world. Yet they cast their lot with us, and we 
abandoned them at that time at the end of the war. In 1967, probably 
some of those Montagnards were responsible for my life.
  I did not spend a great deal of time up there, it was part of a 
political operation in the highlands of Vietnam, but I will say this: 
These people who risked their lives for us and then were abandoned at 
the end of the war, I remember thinking, whatever happened to those 
people? In 1975, I remember asking myself that.
  Well, today, let us not abandon those people who fought for democracy 
in Vietnam again. Let us not abandon America's friends, again, by 
giving a waiver to a corrupt and tyrannical dictatorship that now 
controls Vietnam.
  Mr. Speaker, what does this waiver really do? By the way, we are 
talking about waivers. I would like to thank my colleague from Michigan 
for outlining exactly what it does do and what we are really talking 
about today. Are we talking about breaking relations with Vietnam? No, 
this waiver would not do that. By rejecting this waiver, we would not 
be isolating Vietnam.
  We are not talking about embargoing Vietnam. That is not what 
rejecting this waiver is all about. We are not even talking about 
whether American companies will be able to sell their products in 
Vietnam. That is not what rejecting this waiver would do.
  What we are talking about today and what this debate is really all 
about is if we reject this waiver, we are preventing American 
businessmen who want to build factories in Vietnam, we are preventing 
them from an eligibility, from having eligibility for taxpayer-funded 
subsidies and loan guarantees. As my friend from Michigan stated, what 
we are really talking is OPIC and Export-Import bank loan guarantees 
and their credit.
  What does that mean? That means the American people are going to be, 
through their tax dollars, subsidizing American businessmen for taking 
advantage of slave labor, meaning labor that cannot unionize, cannot 
demand its own wage, cannot quit. We are going to subsidize American 
businessmen to close their factories in the United States and set up 
their factories in Vietnam.
  Does that make any sense? I do not think it makes sense to do that 
with a democratic country, much less to a country that is a 
dictatorship and stands for everything that America is supposed to be 
against.
  Extending American tax dollars to subsidize or insure business with 
Communist Vietnam is bad business in and of itself and a betrayal of 
American values. Bad business, because of what? Well, why do these 
businessmen who want to set up these factories need these subsidized 
and guaranteed loans in the first place? I will tell you why they need 
that, because private banks will not give them the loans at the rates 
they need, because it is too risky for these American businessmen to 
set up their factories in Vietnam, because Vietnam is a corrupt 
dictatorship that nobody can count on. If it is bad business for 
American banks, should we put the taxpayers' money at risk? I do not 
think so.
  It is not only bad business, but it is a betrayal of American values. 
The communist regime represents a repressive and corrupt dictatorship 
that is reprehensible and contrary to everything we believe in. They do 
not share our values and have not shown the slightest willingness to 
change.

[[Page H4642]]

  We keep hearing, well, there has been progress. There has not been 
progress. There has been retrogression, just like we have seen in 
Communist China; retrogression. When we extend loan guarantees and we 
help out the regime, these gangsters do not say, oh, gee, how nice; 
maybe we should actually have some liberalization because they have 
been so nice to us.
  No. They think we are a bunch of saps. They do not think we have the 
courage of our convictions. That is what is going on.
  One last issue, the POW issue. There has been no progress on the POW 
issue. America spends $1 million every time there is a dig for remains 
of some American serviceman killed in Vietnam and left behind, $1 
million. They are making a profit off of that. But they have done 
nothing but put obstacles in our way of finding out what happened to 
the 200 Americans who were reported and seen alive in captivity, but 
never came home after the war. Roadblock after roadblock.
  I have made demands every year that we see the records of the prisons 
in which Americans were kept during the Vietnam War so that we can 
verify by those records that all of those people got home. Guess what? 
Those records have never been made available. Of course, the 
explanation is they were all destroyed by B-52 raids at the end of the 
war. Give me a break. They have not been forthcoming about POW's. They 
have, in fact, put roadblocks up in the way.
  We should not reward this repressive regime by guaranteeing American 
businessmen's investments in their country. Of course, the American 
businessmen will make hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions. 
The Vietnamese regime will benefit. But the Vietnamese people 
themselves will continue to suffer this repression, and the American 
taxpayer is going to be taken for a ride.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question, given the tragic history of the 
relationship in recent decades between the United States and Vietnam, 
that there would not be strong personal feelings.

                              {time}  1030

  We have to approach this legislation looking at it on the whole but, 
because of that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to serve notice that at the 
end of the debate, we intend to ask for a recorded vote so that all 
Members may express their own particular position on this issue.
  As the gentleman from Michigan indicated, he has a concern beyond a 
bilateral trade agreement with the Government of the United States and 
Vietnam; and I want to indicate to him that I look forward to exploring 
with him and other Members of Congress the appropriateness of 
negotiating an incentive-based textile and apparel agreement with 
Vietnam, which I believe will begin to address the very concerns that 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), my friend and 
colleague, indicated about the fact that if, in fact, there is going to 
be economic progress in Vietnam on the basis of American investment and 
involvement, that the Vietnamese people themselves also benefit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. 
Biggert), but prior to that, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and that 
he control the balance of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 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.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been 7 years since we ended our trade embargo and 
began the process of normalizing relations with Vietnam. 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 moved in the right direction. Granted, 
Vietnam certainly is not there yet, but Vietnam is moving in the right 
direction.
  Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 55 is the wrong direction for us 
to take today. Who is hurt if we pass this resolution today? We are.
  It is the wrong direction for U.S. farmers and manufacturers who will 
not have a level playing field when they compete with their European or 
Japanese counterparts in Vietnam. It is the wrong direction for our 
joint efforts with the Vietnamese to account for the last remains of 
our soldiers and to answer finally the questions of their loved ones 
here, and it is the wrong direction for our efforts to influence the 
Vietnam people, 65 percent of whom were not even born when the Vietnam 
War was being waged.
  Let us not turn the clock back on Vietnam; let us continue to work 
with them and, in doing so, teach the youthful Vietnamese the value of 
democracy, the principles of capitalism, and the merits of a free and 
open society.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) mentioned that we would be 
taking a recorded vote on this; and part of that, he mentioned, is 
because of the emotions that many of the Members in this House feel 
over the Vietnam war and situation. I am one of those whom the Vietnam 
war, in many ways, bypassed, having been a very young child during that 
time; but I do know that my emotions are very strong on this because I 
do represent a group of people who are trying to reunify their 
families.
  Probably, nobody else has as many cases open, over 1,000; and 
probably nobody in this Chamber has two Vietnamese-speaking people who 
deal only with the reunification of families in our home district 
office. Many of my colleagues do not get to see what I get to see or 
see the cases that come before us, the cases like my colleague from 
Michigan mentioned that there has been positive change with respect to 
emigration from Vietnam to the United States.
  I will tell my colleagues that 5 years ago when I started as a 
Congresswoman, one had to get an exit visa from the Vietnamese 
government before the United States would clear you for entrance into 
the United States. That has changed. Now, you get cleared by the United 
States, and then you go to the Vietnamese government and you ask for an 
exit visa, an ability to leave their country. When you go to that 
point, if you are in Vietnam, it usually costs you a $2,000 or $3,000 
bribe in order to get that exit visa.
  The annual wage for the annual household income in Vietnam today is 
about $300 a year, which means that if one is being asked for a $2,000 
or $3,000 bribe in order to get an exit visa in order to come to the 
United States after you have been approved by the United States, there 
is just not a way that math works out, which means we have lots of open 
cases and people who are not able to come over, even though we in the 
United States said, yes, they are eligible under the laws passed to 
come and be reunited with their families in the United States.
  This is why this issue is so important, because this is giving 
financial instruments to people who want to do business in Vietnam 
because Vietnam's government has opened up and has helped us on the 
emigration issues, but they have not done that. They have made it, in 
some cases, more difficult.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California, both for her passion and leadership on this issue.
  It is difficult, Mr. Speaker, to stand up against those veterans who 
have served in Vietnam, many of them who are pursuing this trade 
opportunity; but I think it is important to explain the extent of what 
the waiver actually means.
  I am glad my colleagues who have debated this have already mentioned 
that we have been engaged in trade with Vietnam for a number of years. 
We are trading with Vietnam. On the basis of that trade, one would 
expect, and the American people would expect, that as we engage with 
Vietnam and we are not engaging in trade in Cuba, that we would see a 
decided and definitive

[[Page H4643]]

change; that those in this country who we represent from Vietnam who 
are seeking reunification of their family members, that the country and 
the leadership in Vietnam would be eager to cooperate and collaborate 
so that loving families could be reunited.
  This waiver is to waive the emigration requirement, and that is where 
we are suffering. Those who want to leave Vietnam in freedom are not 
being allowed to do so. How much more trade and engagement do we need 
to be involved in to have the leadership of Vietnam see the light?
  Since 1982, authorities have detained, without trial, an 82-year-old 
patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church. He is in poor health and 
requires immediate medical care; I said 82 years old. Today we will 
greet Gao Zhan home from China with a medical condition, a young woman 
who should not have been held in China, yet we are doing trade there. 
But here there is an 82-year-old man in jail, and they refuse to 
release him.
  So there are questions that are pending in Vietnam. Based upon their 
lack of sensitivity to human rights, their lack of sensitivity to 
religious freedom, and the fact that we are engaged with them, it seems 
that they are making no decided efforts to change.
  I believe that this particular resolution is an appropriate one, 
sends a message. If we trade with people, they need to understand that 
we believe in human rights and religious freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 55. This resolution puts 
the principles of the United States first, and is required of this 
House in light of both the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the 1974 Trade 
Act and recent events affecting our diplomatic relationship with this 
developing nation.
  Mr. Speaker, United States' law requires that permanent normal trade 
relations be granted to non-market economies that the president can 
certify have free emigration. Absent this showing, the President can 
waive the provisions of the amendment if doing so will promote 
emigration in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, last year the U.S. signed a sweeping bilateral trade 
agreement with Vietnam. The World Bank estimates that this would 
increase U.S. imports from Vietnam $800 million from last year--a gain 
of 60%. The year 2000 trade imbalance with Vietnam was $496.9 million.
  Mr. Speaker, the year 2000 review of human rights in Vietnam by the 
State Department noted that Vietnam has made improvements in its human 
rights record. Despite these improvements, the State Department still 
rated Vietnam as ``poor'' overall on human rights.
  The State Department noted that the Vietnam Government continues to 
repress basic political freedoms, is intolerant of dissenting 
viewpoints, and selectively represses the religious rights of its 
citizens.
  The Speaker last week I voted for the revocation of China's waiver 
authority under the 1974 Trade Act. In that case we were faced with a 
formerly hostile nation, a severe trade imbalance, and a nation 
unwilling to accept either the winds of change or the obligations of 
international citizenship.
  In the instant case, Mr. Speaker, we have a similar situation. A 
formerly hostile nation with a large trade surplus and a questionable 
human rights record is up for trade waiver authority review. Although I 
rise in favor of this resolution, I do not seek to disparage the gains 
Vietnam has made in re-engaging the world. I seek a consistent balance 
between our trade priorities and the principles we use to steer this 
nation. We cannot continue to hold ourselves out as a nation of laws 
and turn our back on our convictions at every economic opportunity. We 
also need a faster response to our MIA's so their families can have 
closure.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution because our trade 
policy must be balanced with a sense of moral leadership. We should not 
hold our trade relationship over Vietnam, nor should we allow 
globalization to commit us to policies against our best sense as a 
nation. Vietnam has done much, but it can do more. Other countries may 
turn a blind eye to issues such as the rights of workers and the 
environment, but we are not other nations.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 55, 
disapproving trade waiver authority with respect to Vietnam. It is time 
to begin thinking about what trade should mean; huge deficits for the 
U.S. for the sake of a few reforms is not the answer.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), who has been deeply involved in 
this issue.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the resolution before us today.
  This vote really is about how we best can achieve change in Vietnam. 
I believe the record stands for itself. We have achieved progress by 
engagement, by encouraging Vietnamese cooperation on important issues, 
such as human rights and political economic reform.
  I can speak personally about this progress. I have been to Vietnam 
and seen the work of the Joint Task Force-Full Accounting, our military 
presence in Vietnam tasked with looking into the issue of missing 
servicemen and women. I have visited these young people and they are 
among the best and well-motivated group of soldiers I have ever met. 
Every day, from the searches of the jungle battle sites to the 
excavation of crash sites on precarious mountain summits, they put 
themselves in harm's way to recover our missing. In talking with them, 
it was clear to me that they were performing a mission that they truly 
believed in.
  On April 7 of this year, the danger became all too real. On that day, 
seven American members of the Joint Task Force, along with nine 
Vietnamese, lost their lives in a helicopter crash as they were on 
their way to a recovery mission. The tragedy was a huge blow to the 
recovery efforts, as we lost both Americans and Vietnamese who had been 
deeply involved in finding our missing. We should remember our deceased 
as American heroes who gave their lives in pursuit of a mission they 
believed was a high honor and sacred duty.
  If we pass this resolution of disapproval, we will be hindering that 
mission. The only way we can carry out this mission is to effectively 
have a presence in Vietnam, and to maintain the presence means 
reciprocating on the promises that we have made to reward the 
Vietnamese cooperation. Passing this resolution would definitely send 
the wrong signal to Vietnam, not to mention the brave American men and 
women who are still searching in the rice paddies and mountains of 
Vietnam.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the 4th year that this House will vote on a 
resolution of disapproval. Since we first voted on this, the House has, 
each time, with growing and overwhelming support, voted down the 
resolution. Let us stay the course. Let us support our Joint Task 
Force-Full Accounting. Let us support our nation's bipartisan policy 
which has only furthered our goals toward a more open and cooperative 
Vietnam. Please vote against the resolution.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.J. Res. 55, Disapproving the Extension of Immigration Waiver 
Authority to Vietnam.
  The resolution on the House floor today addresses the issue of 
whether the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam allows free 
and open emigration for its citizens. In 1999, President Clinton 
granted Vietnam a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment on this 
condition. Unfortunately, little improvement has been made since.
  Boat People, SOS, an organization headquartered in my district, 
informed me that the official Communist government in Vietnam is still 
riddled by corruption. Additionally, the government continues to export 
thousands of political prisoners and former U.S. Government employees 
from participating in the U.S. refugee programs. Applicants, in some 
cases, are forced to pay $1,000 or more in bribes to gain access to 
these programs; this in a country where the average annual salary is 
$250.
  The corruption that exists in the Vietnamese Communist government 
also undermines U.S. exchange programs. Our programs offer exceptional 
Vietnamese students the opportunity to study in the United States. 
However, the Vietnamese government excludes those students whose 
parents are not members of the Communist cadre. Thus, many qualified 
students are denied the opportunity to study in the U.S. exchange 
programs simply because their parents are not card-carrying members of 
the Communist

[[Page H4644]]

party. This bias is one of many examples of the apartheid system that 
the government has implemented to punish those who do not agree with 
their ideology.
  On the human rights front, the government has released some political 
prisoners, but many more individuals, including religious leaders, 
remain imprisoned indefinitely. Meanwhile, the government continues to 
arrest others who dare to speak out against them.
  The Vietnamese Communist government simply does not tolerate basic 
civil liberties, such as the right to free speech, the right to freely 
exercise one's religion, and the right to peaceably assemble. Reports 
reveal that the Vietnamese police have forced many religious groups who 
renounce their beliefs or face the threat of imprisonment, beatings, or 
torture. When I visited Vietnam in 1998, a Catholic priest told me the 
Communist government does not even allow him to wear his vestments in 
public.
  Even more egregious is the government's persecution of the Hmong. 
Over 10,000 of them have had to flee their ancestral lands in the 
north, traveling 800 miles in the south central highlands in Dak Lak 
Province because of government harassment and persecution. Many of them 
were arrested as ``illegal migrants'' or charged with practicing and 
``illegal religion'' as part of the government crackdown on Hmong 
Christians.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of the resolution.
  While the Vietnamese government may claim to have made strides, I 
would like to share with you evidence to the contrary. For example, 
four prominent individuals are presently imprisoned or under house 
arrest for practicing their religions. They are: Venerable Thich Huyen 
Quang, Patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam; the 
Venerable Thich Quang Do; Father Nguyen Van Ly; and Mr. Le Quang Liem 
of the banned Hoa Hoa Buddhish Church.
  In addition, 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 and Mr. Le Chi Thien former prisoners of 
conscience who had been imprisoned for over 20 years for promoting 
democratic ideals, were forced to leave Vietnam as a condition of their 
release.
  Additionally, since the fall of Saigon, the Government of the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam has been systematically abusing the 
rights of the indigenous Montagnard peoples of Vietnam's central 
highland. There have been reports of summary executions, mysterious 
disappearances, arbitrary arrests, interrogations, beatings, torture, 
and forcible relocations of the Montagnard people from their 
traditional homes.
  In 1999, the Vietnamese Communist Government ordered and carried out 
the destruction of a sacred religious site of the Khmer Krom in the 
former city of Saigon. They destroyed the Pali School building, and 
desecrated the Bodhi Tree where the remains of Khmer Krom soldiers--who 
fought bravely with the U.S. Special Forces during the war--are buried. 
To this day, the Khmer Krom continue to be harassed and persecuted for 
their role in the conflict.
  In February of this year, thousands of Christian Montagnards 
peacefully demonstrated in the three of the four Central Highland 
provinces. In response, the Vietnamese Communist Government deployed 
military forces into the area, cutting off telephone communications, 
banning diplomatic international organizations from visiting the 
region, and terrorizing the Montagnard population. There have also been 
numerous reports of jungle executions. The situation in the highlands 
has deteriorated to the extent that many Montagnards are now fleeing 
into Cambodia. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Refuge 
International, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 
have all called for urgent action to protect them.
  Mr. Speaker, in light of these offenses, I believe H.J. Res. 55 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.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, shortly after the last election in November 
of last year, I traveled to Hanoi. I spent about a week there on a 
volunteer surgical mission. I found the people to be friendly and 
courteous. Make no mistake, though: the Communist government is not 
friendly to freedom. There is very little freedom of speech. There was 
a lot of soccer on TV, but there was not much discussion, and as the 
gentleman from Virginia just pointed out, the government has done bad 
things.
  The question is, how do we affect a change in that? I oppose this 
resolution because I think the communication between Americans doing 
business in Vietnam brings a fresh perspective and information to the 
people of Vietnam.

                              {time}  1045

  I think that trade will actually help bring down that Communist 
government and that the communications between Americans doing business 
in Vietnam will actually end it. And the opening up of the 
communication that is necessary for that shows the Vietnamese what a 
true democracy is like.
  There were lots and lots of questions that we all fielded on that 
surgical mission about what it is like to live in a democracy, and that 
is very useful. So cultural interchanges, professional interchanges, 
and, I think, business interchanges will actually help promote the type 
of democratic changes that we all want to see. For that reason, I 
oppose this resolution. I think we should continue trade with Vietnam 
just like we are doing with China.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  A comment to the good doctor. This is not a trade vote. The bilateral 
trade agreement I know is going through the Committee on Ways and 
Means, and we can discuss the issues of trade and whether working with 
the people of Vietnam will allow for more open issues with respect to 
human rights and other things that I think we should be concerned about 
as a Nation. But this really is about does Vietnam allow its people to 
emigrate to the United States, does it work with us on issuing visas. 
And if it does a good job with that, we, in return, allow them, allow 
our business people to have these government programs that allow for 
financing and doing business in that country. That is the real issue.
  Again, I believe that the government of Vietnam has not been 
forthright in its policies of emigration. Currently, religious 
persecution, human rights violations, economic restrictions, we know 
that they all still exist in Vietnam. And one does not have to go to 
Vietnam to see it. We hear it, we read it in reports that come back, 
reports from the United States Department of State as well as witnesses 
that we have had here, dialogue with our colleagues here. And the 
dialogue on Vietnam reveals the government still pursues a policy of 
repressing free expression and religious choice.
  Those that oppose the government's mandates continue to be the target 
of mental and economic terrorism, and the administrative detainment of 
political and religious leaders who disagree with that Communist party 
platform still occurs. The U.S. State Department's 2000 Country Report 
on Vietnam states that the government's human rights record in Vietnam 
remains poor. It says that there are serious problems regarding 
religious freedom and the advancement of human rights.
  In April of this year, the United States Commission on International 
Religious Freedom, a body that was created by this Congress in 1998 to 
monitor religious freedom in other countries, recommended that we 
withhold our support for most International Monetary Fund and World 
Bank loans to that government of Vietnam until it agrees to make 
substantial improvements in the protection of religious freedom. Our 
own body that we created has told us in a report just this past April 
that we should not be doing these types of financing mechanisms for 
that government until it cleans up its act.
  Contrary to the Vietnamese government's pretense that it has no 
political or religious prisoners, many Vietnamese continue to languish 
in prisons because of their beliefs. The detention of these religious 
leaders, whether or not they tell us where they are or whether they put 
them under house arrest and do not let them leave their homes, is 
persecution. Police arbitrarily arrest and detain citizens for reasons 
including the peaceful expression of political and religious views and 
sometimes even beat them when they are arrested.
  The judiciary is not independent. The government denies citizens the 
right to fair trials. The government continues

[[Page H4645]]

to grossly violate human rights by incarcerating prisoners of 
conscience. Pro-democracy activists, scholars, and poets are still in 
prison for crimes such as using freedom and democracy to ``injure the 
national unity.'' Vietnam continues to deny freedom of religion.
  Mr. Speaker, this past year, I traveled to Vietnam; and I had the 
opportunity to meet with four of the six leading dissidents in Vietnam 
for human rights and for advocation of collective bargaining in the 
workplace, Professor Nguyen Thanh Giang, who used to be a member of the 
Communist party and then was kicked out because he did not support what 
this government is doing with respect to religious freedom and basic 
human rights; Mr. Pham Que Duong; and Mr. Hoang Minh Chinh. I met with 
all of them, and we discussed this whole issue of trade. The issue is 
that human rights violations continue, and there has been no movement.
  Our reports say time after time that there is no movement on human 
rights. Even our own Ambassador, Pete Peterson, when he was out in my 
district in front of the Vietnamese community, when he was pressed for 
details about what positive things had happened in human rights, could 
not come up with one answer, at least not when he was in front of 
people who understand and have their families back there.
  I also visited with the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, someone I 
nominated to win the Nobel Peace Prize. There are 28 of my colleagues 
in this House who also signed that letter asking for that. Right now he 
is under arrest. It is not the first time in his life; it probably will 
not be the last time in his life. But it simply happens over and over 
and it does not change. If an individual is with the Buddhists, and 
they do not like that, then they have problems. If someone is with the 
Catholic faith, and they do not like what that individual is doing, if 
they are going out to help flood victims, they are put under house 
arrest. Right now, they have Father Ly under persecution simply because 
he went to try to help flood victims in the Delta area.
  Nevertheless, Vietnam continues over and over to insist it has no 
political or religious prisoners. I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
resolution. It is time we became aware of what is really happening in 
Vietnam.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this resolution 
and urge Members to continue the MFN status for Vietnam, as we have 
done in the past with an overwhelming and bipartisan majority.
  I, like many Members of Congress, have had an opportunity to travel 
to Vietnam and to visit with governmental leaders and with private 
citizens there, and with workers and others that are a part of that 
community, and with our former ambassador, Pete Peterson, who has been 
one of the most passionate supporters of improved political and 
economic relations with Vietnam. He has devoted countless hours to 
improving these relationships and to addressing the key issues that are 
before us today, and I think we ought to salute his tenure as our first 
ambassador to Hanoi.
  I think we have to understand that, in fact, progress has been made. 
Many of my colleagues have raised a number of troubling subjects to us 
that I think we have to continue to bear down on and understand that 
problems do exist, but I think also in my discussions with Ambassador 
Peterson and with people in Vietnam, improvements, in fact, I believe, 
have been made. Enough? No, not at all. Do we need further progress? 
Clearly we do on the issues of emigration.
  I also have had an opportunity to witness the Joint Task Force's 
efforts to locate and identify and to recover the remains of our many 
missing soldiers and airmen and see this extraordinary effort that is 
taking place. We are, hopefully, building a new and a positive 
relationship with Vietnam, which is the 12th largest population in the 
world and plays a key role in political and economic security in 
Southeast Asia.
  Last year, Congress enacted legislation that I helped write creating 
a program to promote higher education exchanges between our countries. 
We should continue to build on these efforts because they are in the 
best interests of both nations. At the same time, we must be very 
clear, and many of our colleagues have touched upon these subjects here 
today, we must continue to work with this government and to include 
this government to assure the rights of all working people to form 
independent unions and engage in collective bargaining as provided 
under the rules of the International Labor Organization.
  Vietnam clearly must accelerate its policies to ensure freedom of 
religion and political expression. We need to continue to work with 
several local and international environmental organizations to reduce 
the water pollution and protect the threatened species and generally 
ensure that economic development is not undertaken at the expense of 
the Nation's natural resources, which not only affects Vietnam but the 
entire region.
  Free trade unionism, improved environmental policies, expanded 
political religious rights for all Vietnamese. These are all legitimate 
factors for securing improved and lasting trade relations with the 
United States and other democracies, and we should continue to work for 
those in Vietnam. But we must understand that this is a step that 
allows us to continue to engage with the Vietnamese on these matters, 
and we also know that there are other instruments that are waiting in 
terms of trade agreements, bilateral agreements, and, obviously, at 
some point, Vietnam's seeking, down the road, to engage with the WTO. 
Clearly, these thresholds must be continued to be raised as we grant 
those other relations.
  So I think it is incumbent upon all of us to understand here and in 
Vietnam that this debate is about an evolving relationship, not about 
an acceptance of the status quo that we have today.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman), one of the most distinguished foreign policy 
leaders or perhaps the most distinguished foreign policy leader in the 
House of Representatives and former chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his kind 
introduction, and I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 
55, resolution disapproving the extension of the waiver authority 
contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to 
Vietnam. I commend my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), for his continual oversight of Vietnam and for 
introducing this important initiative.
  Amnesty International has reported to us that the government of 
Vietnam continues to prevent independent human rights monitors from 
visiting Vietnam, and dozens of prisoners of conscience remained in 
prison and have remained there throughout the year 2000, and some are 
still in prison. Restrictions on released prisoners continue to be 
harsh. Political dissidents, independent labor leaders, and religious 
critics of the government have been subjected to imprisonment, to 
beatings, to torture, to surveillance, harassment, and denial of basic 
freedoms, including the freedom of expression.
  In September, five members of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church, and we met 
some of them in our committee just the other day, were sentenced to 
between 1 and 3 years imprisonment on trumped-up charges, where they 
still remain.
  The State Department points out that the government of Vietnam 
prohibits independent political labor and social organizations. Such 
organizations exist only under government control. The Vietnamese 
government also restricts freedom of religion and significantly 
restricts the operation of religious organizations other than those 
entities that have been approved by the State. Dissident groups of 
Buddhists, Hoa Hao, and Protestants, in particular, face harassment by 
authorities.
  Accordingly, we should not be rewarding the Vietnamese Communist 
dictatorship with trade benefits at this time. It is an insult to the 
thousands of

[[Page H4646]]

American and Vietnamese men and women who were wounded or died in the 
war fighting for democracy, the rule of law, and for human rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to fully support this resolution.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Seattle, Washington (Ms. Dunn), who graciously 
permitted the transfer of Boeing's headquarters to my home town of 
Chicago.
  Ms. DUNN. I thank our gracious chairman for yielding me this time and 
thereby allowing me the opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this joint resolution to 
disapprove normal trade relations with Vietnam. I believe that we need 
to continue our policy of economic engagement with Vietnam.

                              {time}  1100

  President Clinton already signed a historic bilateral agreement that 
will require Vietnam to open its markets, to reduce tariffs, to ease 
barriers to our products in the United States and our services.
  I am very pleased that the Committee on Ways and Means will be 
considering this agreement today in committee.
  Twenty-six years after the end of the war, many of us are still 
haunted by Vietnam. It touched my generation. I saw boys go away from 
college and from our communities to fight in Vietnam; and we also saw 
our colleague, Sam Johnson, and former ambassador to Vietnam, Pete 
Peterson, our good friends, people we care about, who served our Nation 
honorably in Vietnam and made terrible sacrifices as prisoners of war. 
But I believe we can honor their service while still strengthening our 
economic relations with Vietnam.
  Renewing normal trade relations does not diminish our commitment to 
address POW/MIA issues. I am from Seattle, and we have a large Asian/
Vietnamese community. Many have become citizens, contributing to our 
communities. I do not think establishing normal trade relations with 
Vietnam diminishes the commitment that we all believe in our 
communities and in this Congress to POW/MIA issues, to human rights 
issues, and to issues of religious liberty.
  Trade is an effective tool to pressure Vietnam to make economic and 
social reforms. I ask my colleagues today to oppose this bill and to 
support trade with Vietnam.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that really is a very 
central issue that we ought to be discussing on many levels. That is 
the question of what relationship we are going to have with the rest of 
the world.
  I am one of those people who was involved in the Vietnam War, not in-
country, but I saw what happened; and there are lots of reasons why we 
ought to keep them isolated. Yesterday we had an argument here about 
Cuba. We have tried to isolate them. We have isolated them for 50 
years. It has not done any good. We tried it with China. It did not do 
any good. We finally opened up to them.
  Now we have the Vietnamese. Let us isolate them, and somehow they 
will change. It will not do any good. The only way we are going to get 
anything done is when we begin to embrace and involve yourself with 
them. Nobody who is going to vote against this resolution is in 
agreement with communism. We do not agree with what the Vietnamese 
government is doing, but we have a difference of opinion about how we 
involve ourselves in bringing about that change.
  My colleagues talk about the terrible Communist government and all 
these awful things. The next issue we are going to do on the floor 
here, sort of an irony, is that we are going to come out and pass a 
martial law rule in the House of Representatives.
  The rules of the House are to protect the minority, and we do not 
have any problem standing up here and running over the minorities, and 
then we stand back and say, those awful people over there in that 
country who run over those minorities. So we have to be careful about 
being consistent.
  If we do not want to deal with China, I can understand that; and 
there were some of my colleagues who are very consistent. They do not 
want to deal with China. They do not want to deal with Vietnam. They do 
not want to deal with Cuba. Those people I can understand. But the ones 
who pick and choose really need to do some thinking.
  Why are we having this martial law in the next issue up here? The 
reason we are having it is because the leadership of the House wants to 
deal with a crisis. There is a real crisis out there. They have had a 
hurricaine in Texas. So we have to come out here and ram through help 
for people in Texas.
  The White House says we should not do anything for the Indians. A 
hundred thousand houses flattened. Thirty thousand people killed. The 
United States can give $5 million to India, and that is fine.
  I heard one of my colleagues say, we cannot let down the Montagnards. 
They were our allies. What about the people in El Salvador who we 
dragged through a whole war? Now they have an earthquake, the worst 
earthquake in the history of El Salvador, and the White House says, no, 
we are not going to help these El Salvadorans. They are living in the 
wrong place. They should have moved to Texas or Florida or somewhere we 
would help them.
  The question of how we are going to relate and how we are going to 
get our people into these countries and how we are going to bring about 
change is a very complicated one.
  I was in China when China was very tight, back in 1977. I have seen 
enormous changes. Has it gone far enough? No, it has not. Has Vietnam 
changed? Yes. Far enough? No. But the question is, at this point should 
we step back and say these folks are not doing it our way enough so we 
are not going to deal with them?
  My view is nothing works that way. That is why I will vote to oppose 
this resolution. Not because I endorse communism or anything about that 
regime, but because we will never bring about any change simply by 
forcing, trying unilaterally for the United States to economically 
squeeze them into our mold. They will get there because the forces that 
we have are very powerful, and they will bring it about.
  Vote against this kind of resolution.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who knows this issue is mainly about 
subsidizing American businessmen for building factories in Vietnam.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, let us not kid ourselves. The government of Vietnam is 
not making progress on human rights. On the contrary, in recent months 
the government has substantially increased the frequency and the 
severity of its human rights violations and just recently, beginning in 
late winter, began a new and very cruel crackdown on the Montagnards, 
torturing, murdering, cordoning off. Mr. Speaker, this is the reality 
on the ground in Vietnam.
  Let me also point out to my colleagues that there is no real 
religious freedom allowed by the government of Vietnam. The Unified 
Buddhist Church, the largest religious denomination in the country, has 
been declared illegal by the government, and over the last 25 years its 
clergy have often been imprisoned and subjected to other forms of 
persecution.
  The patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church, 83-year-old Thich Huyen 
Quang, has been detained for 21 years in a ruined temple, an isolated 
area in central Vietnam. Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, the executive 
president of the Unified Buddhist Church, has been in detention for 
many years and was recently rearrested when he sought medical care for 
Thich Huyen Quang.
  The Hoa Hao Buddhist Church has also been under severe repression. 
According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, 
``this organization is made up of almost entirely,'' that is to say, 
the governing body of it, ``of members of the Communist party,'' and 
they have not recognized and have not been recognized by the majority 
of the Hoa Haos.
  Let me just say, recently Father Ly gave testimony to the U.S. 
Commission

[[Page H4647]]

on Religious Freedom. We know what happened when he gave that 
testimony, and it was written testimony. He did not come here and 
present it. He, too, was arrested by the government of Vietnam and is 
being held.
  So Catholic priests in Vietnam who speak out against religious 
persecution, sorry, they are going to be arrested and persecuted. That 
is the government that we are subsidizing.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to take the side of human rights and the 
oppressed, and not stand with the oppressor. Let us see some real 
progress before we lavish trade on the government of Vietnam.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I served in Vietnam as a young marine. I 
met many extraordinary, wonderful people in Vietnam. I have visited 
Vietnam as a Member of Congress. I have had many, many conversations 
with Pete Peterson, the distinguished ambassador to Vietnam. My 
conclusion is this: Those Vietnamese, young and old, who are being 
persecuted religiously, basic human rights violations, torture, et 
cetera, are painfully, patiently waiting the return of the Americans to 
once again, but in a much different way, and perhaps much more 
effective, bring the opportunity for freedom to Vietnam to prevail.
  Mr. Speaker, communism cannot exist against a tidal wave of hope, 
knowledge and a clear avenue of opportunity. The Jackson-Vanik waiver 
offers a portion of that avenue to open up. I urge a ``no'' vote on 
this opposition to Jackson-Vanik.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, who will close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The Chair will recognize for 
closing speeches in the reverse order of the original allocations. 
Thus, Members should expect to close out their time in the following 
sequence: the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Crane). The time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) 
has expired.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this is an emotional issue for many of 
us. I have seen a lot of my friends die in Vietnam, as has my friend, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), who was a POW for six and a 
half years. Even we have different feelings on this particular issue, 
and it is hard.
  I look, and people outside the United States could look, and point 
out the bad things about the United States. The gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith) did about Vietnam.
  Look at a young African American that was drug down a country road, 
drug to his death. Look at the inequities to minorities in our judicial 
system sometimes. I acknowledge those and say we want to trade with the 
United States. But there is so much good. Most of the people who live 
in Vietnam today were not alive during the war.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) asked me to go to Vietnam a 
couple of years ago and raise a flag over Ho Chi Minh City. I told him, 
no, I do not go on CODELS; and it would be too hard for me to go back. 
But I did go. I am glad I did.
  Mr. Speaker, if you walk on the streets of Vietnam today, those 
people welcome Americans openhandedly. They want a chance, much like 
the people in Tiananmen Square did. I met the prime minister, and I 
asked him, why will you not get involved in trade that President 
Clinton is trying to get you involved in?
  He said, Congressman, I am a Communist. If those people have things, 
I will be out of business as a Communist.
  I said, trade is good. If we look at it that way, there is no 
movement with Saddam Hussein. There is no movement in Cuba with Fidel 
Castro, but there is in Vietnam.
  Yes, there are a lot of pitfalls with this. I have a constituent that 
was arrested in Vietnam. I ask my colleagues to think about if we have 
a country like Vietnam that definitely are Communists, but they have 
made movement like the gentleman from Washington stated, I think we 
ought to support that trade and deny this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) 
have any further speakers?
  Mr. CRANE. No, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) is recognized for his closing.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to myself to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, what are we debating here? Let us once again be 
reminded. Rejecting this waiver means one thing in policy. One policy 
decision is being made today, and that is whether or not we are going 
to subsidize American businessmen, take taxpayer dollars and guarantee 
the loans that they are getting and give them a lower rate of interest 
in order to set up factories in a Communist country, in Vietnam.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a good idea for Democratic 
countries, and it certainly is not a good idea for dictatorships like 
Vietnam. Vietnam does not deserve a subsidy for American businessmen to 
set up factories, closing their factories in the United States, so 
these businessmen can take advantage of the slave labor in Vietnam. 
They do not deserve it.
  As we have heard, Pete Peterson, one of our former colleagues, a 
former POW, could not come up with one example of where Vietnam was 
progressing in the right direction after all of these years of 
engagement.
  We are not talking about trade. We are not talking about isolating 
Vietnam. We are talking about subsidizing businessmen to set up 
factories there. That is immoral as long as that country is such a 
dictatorship.
  Let me add, this same government continues to stonewall us on the POW 
issue. Although they let us dig, we can dig, and they get millions of 
dollars for letting us dig in Vietnam for the bones of the 200 
Americans left that we knew were in captivity at one point in Vietnam. 
They have put roadblock after roadblock which continues to prevent us 
from finding out what happened to those last 200 American POWs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support my reject of the Jackson-
Vanik waiver for this dictatorship in Vietnam.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter addressed to me.

                                    Quinn Emanuel Los Angeles,

                                   Los Angeles, CA, July 17, 2001.
     Re U.S.-Vietnam Trade Agreement.

     Hon. Dan Rohrabacher,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Rohrabacher: I represent Mr. Dac Vi Hoang, 
     a former Vietnamese businessman who fled Vietnam recently to 
     escape persecution. I am writing to you to offer the 
     testimony of Mr. Hoang regarding the political corruption and 
     economic repression that stifle free enterprise in Vietnam.
       Mr. Hoang was a prominent Vietnamese entrepreneur who owned 
     Thanh My, Inc., an international exporter of lacquerware. 
     Thanh My, Inc. enjoyed astounding success as a private 
     corporation in the midst of a Communist regime, with annual 
     sales of U.S. $3 million and 400 employees. Than My was 
     internationally recognized as the first private corporation 
     in Vietnam to receive permission to sell its shares to a 
     foreign entity (although that permission was eventually 
     revoked by the Vietnamese government).
       Mr. Hoang accomplished this success despite having spent 
     five years in a Vietnamese re-education camp because of his 
     participation as an intelligence officer in the South 
     Vietnamese army and cooperation with American armed forces 
     during the Vietnam War. Mr. Hoang was severely tortured, both 
     mentally and physically, while he underwent his ``re-
     education.''
       The prominence Mr. Hoang achieved motivated him to advocate 
     on behalf of private enterprise in Vietnam. In so doing, he 
     repeatedly criticized, both privately and publicly, the 
     repression of private enterprise and the economic policies of 
     the Vietnamese government. This activity led to warnings, 
     threats, and surveillance by the Vietnamese government. 
     Eventually, Mr. Hoang received information that his arrest 
     was imminent.
       Mr. Hoang and his immediate family fled to the United 
     States soon thereafter and they currently are seeking 
     political asylum before the United States Immigration Court 
     in Los Angeles. Mr. Hoang was one of the wealthiest people in 
     Vietnam, and now he has nothing except the prospect of 
     freedom in this Country. The hearing on his case was 
     originally scheduled for July 13, 2001, but was continued 
     until January 20, 2002 at the request of the I.N.S.
       Attached is Mr. Hoang's declaration to the U.S. Immigration 
     Court and a newspaper article that describes his plight. Mr. 
     Hoang has continued to criticize the Communist regime in 
     Vietnam since his arrival in this Country,

[[Page H4648]]

     and his comments have been widely broadcast in the media. Mr. 
     Hoang was recently interviewed by Radio Free Asia, which 
     broadcasts in Vietnam. If Mr. Hoang's testimony is relevant 
     to the U.S.-Vietnam trade agreement ratification process, 
     please do not hesitate to contact me at the telephone number 
     listed above, or via e-mail at [email protected].
           Respectfully yours,
                                                Sandra L. Rierson.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, Vietnam represents another challenge, how we integrate a 
command economy and a command society into the rule of law. It needs 
the right combination of engagement and pressure. I do not think trade 
is a magic wand. It is more than about market access. It is about labor 
market issues. It is about environmental issues. It is about a widened 
nature of issues. It is not an either/or proposition. We need to move 
forward on these issues, not backwards.
  To vote ``yes'' on this is to vote to move backwards. I think it 
would be a mistake. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I rise 
in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 55 and in support of extending 
Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver. Failure to extend the waiver here at 
the threshold of congressional consideration of the U.S.-Vietnam 
bilateral trade agreement would send terribly mixed diplomatic signals 
and would undermine the great economic reforms now gaining momentum in 
Vietnam.
  On emigration, the central issue for 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 emigration process, all but 
73 of the nearly 21,000 individuals who have applied for consideration 
under the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees program 
have been cleared for interview.
  Another critical issue in our bilateral relationship with Vietnam 
continues to be the fullest possible accounting of U.S. MIAs. As of 
last week, the fate has been determined for all but 41 of the so-called 
``last known-alive'' cases. Future progress in terms of the ability of 
U.S. personnel to conduct excavations, interview eyewitnesses and 
examine archival items is dependent upon continued cooperation by the 
Vietnamese.
  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. Nevertheless, the significance of Vietnam's Jackson-
Vanik waiver 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.
  Extending Vietnam's waiver will give reformers within the government 
much-needed support to continue economic reforms. Therefore, I urge a 
``no'' vote on H.J. Res. 55.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House 
Joint Resolution 55, which would deny Normal Trade Relations (NTR) with 
Vietnam, the world's 13th largest nation with a population of 80 
million people. I urge our colleagues to vote against the measure.
  Mr. Speaker, the decision before us is much like the debate we had 
recently over trade relations with China. In the case of Vietnam, as 
with China, many opponents of NTR focus on the serious human rights 
violations committed by the Communist government. These are valid and 
compelling criticisms, as in Vietnam the practice of religion is 
routinely restricted and political freedom is brutally suppressed, 
especially public dissent.
  However, these human rights abuses, as well as our concerns over 
minimum labor standards and environmental protection, will not be 
addressed by America continuing to turn its back to Vietnam.
  I believe engaging with Vietnam by support of Normal Trade Relations 
and the Bilateral Trade Agreement will not only create new and fair 
business opportunities for America but, more importantly, will bring 
about significant political and social progress in Vietnam. Committing 
the Vietnamese Government to enact market-oriented reforms will enhance 
respect for the rule of law, ultimately leading to a more democratic 
society that respects and protects the rights of its citizens. 
Additionally, this will lay the foundation for Vietnam's eventual entry 
into the World Trade Organization, further reinforcing Vietnam's 
obligation and duty to conduct itself as a civilized and responsible 
member of the international community.
  In supporting Normal Trade Relations for China last week, Mr. 
Speaker, I found particularly persuasive and enlightening the voices of 
those Chinese dissidents who have been persecuted and imprisoned for 
years--individuals who are among China's harshest and most vocal 
critics.
  Prominent Chinese democracy activists such as Bao Tong, Xie Wanjun, 
Ren Wanding, Dai Qing, Zhou Litai and Wang Dan have urged the United 
States to extend China Normal Trade Relations as it would hasten 
China's entry into the WTO, forcing China's adherence to international 
standards of conduct and respect for the rule of law. Moreover, they 
argue that closer economic relations between the U.S. and China allows 
America to more effectively monitor human rights and push for political 
reforms in China.
  Mr. Speaker, the wisdom of these courageous Chinese dissidents also 
applies in the case of Vietnam.
  For a year, Hanoi's leaders have delayed signing the Bilateral Trade 
Agreement with us precisely because they fear economic reform and U.S. 
engagement will undermine the socialist foundation and monopoly on 
power of their Communist regime.
  Mr. Speaker, the Communist leadership in Hanoi is right to be 
fearful. Normalizing trade relations between our nations will allow 
America to engage--promoting democracy and spurring political, social 
and human rights progress in Vietnam that in the long-run cannot be 
controlled nor stopped. I strongly urge our colleagues to engage the 
people of Vietnam, and oppose the legislation before us.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in opposition to the 
H.J. Res. 55, which would disapprove the Bush Administration's 
extension of the waiver of Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions on Vietnam. 
Therefore, in voicing this opposition to the resolution, it is 
important for us to recognize what the Jackson-Vanik waiver does and 
does not do.
  By law, the underlying issue here is about emigration. Based on 
Vietnam's record of progress on emigration and its continued 
cooperation on U.S. refugee programs over the past year, renewal of the 
Jackson-Vanik waiver will continue to promote greater freedom of 
emigration. 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 five years ago, the United States has 
tried to work with Vietnam to normalize incrementally our bilateral 
political, economic and consular relationship. This is in America's own 
short-term and long-term national interest. It builds on Vietnam's own 
policy of political and economic re-integration into the world. This 
will be a lengthy and challenging process. However, now is not the time 
to reverse course on gradually normalizing our relations with Vietnam.
  Vietnam now continues to cooperate fully with our priority efforts to 
achieve the fullest possible accounting of American POW-MIAs. The 
Jackson-Vanik waiver contributes to 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 severe restrictions on basic freedoms, including the right to 
organize political parties, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. 
On many occasions, with this Member's support, this body passed 
resolutions condemning just such violations of civil and human rights.
  The Jackson-Vanik waiver does not provide Vietnam with any 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 trade agreement with 
Vietnam. Congress will have an opportunity to decide in the future 
whether to approve it or not and whether to grant NTR to Vietnam. But, 
that is a separate process. The renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver 
only keeps this process going--nothing more.
  Also it is important to note that the renewal of the Jackson-Vanik 
waiver does not aututomatically 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 Vietnam War is over and we have embarked on a new, 
though cautious and expanding, relationship with Vietnam. Now is not 
the time to reverse course. Accordingly, this Member urges a ``no'' 
vote on the resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
resolution and urge my colleagues to uphold the current Jackson-Vanik 
waiver.

[[Page H4649]]

  The Jackson-Vanik provision of the 1974 Trade Act was intended to 
encourage communist countries to relax their restrictive emigration 
policies.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 urged the 
Congress to uphold the current waiver.
  Vietnam is experiencing a new era, driven 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.
  The economic incentives provided in Jackson-Vanik are all one-sided 
favoring U.S. firms doing business in Vietnam. I am among many of my 
colleagues who support approval of the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade 
Agreement that will be marked up by the Ways and Means Committee later 
today. This bilateral agreement will advance U.S. economic interests 
and further integrate Vietnam into the global economy.
  Recently departed 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, we have debated and soundly rejected similar disapproval 
resolutions in past years. I urge my colleagues to do the same today 
and uphold the presidential waiver of the Jackson-Vanik requirements.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 25, 2001, the 
joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment, and 
the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CRANE. 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.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this vote on the passage of House 
Joint Resolution 55 will be followed by a vote on the motion to suspend 
the rules and pass H.R. 1954, the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act extension.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 91, 
nays 324, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 275]

                                YEAS--91

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Baca
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Berry
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Chabot
     Coble
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cox
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Everett
     Flake
     Gilman
     Goode
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kucinich
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     McIntyre
     Menendez
     Mink
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Shows
     Smith (NJ)
     Solis
     Souder
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--324

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Akin
     Allen
     Armey
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wu

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
       
     Kaptur
       

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bachus
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Chambliss
     Cubin
     Deal
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Fletcher
     Gekas
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Jones (NC)
     Lipinski
     McNulty
     Snyder
     Spence

[[Page H4650]]



                              {time}  1144

  Messrs. ALLEN, DeLAY, GIBBONS and LEWIS of California and Mrs. MEEK 
of Florida changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. SOLIS, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia and Messrs. WAMP, HONDA, 
BERRY, FLAKE and BONILLA changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the joint resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________