[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.
____________________