[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 115 (Thursday, September 6, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H5427-H5440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  APPROVING EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT WITH RESPECT TO 
             PRODUCTS OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM

  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the 
House, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 51) approving the 
extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to the products 
of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 51 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 51

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Congress approves the extension of nondiscriminatory 
     treatment with respect to the products of the Socialist 
     Republic of Vietnam transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress on June 8, 2001.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Wednesday, September 5, 2001, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) and a Member opposed to the joint resolution each will control 
1 hour.
  Is there a Member opposed to the joint resolution?
  Mr. McNULTY. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) 
will control 60 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield one-half 
of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and that he be 
permitted to yield 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. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Joint Resolution 51, as appropriate with its title, deals with 
a trade agreement with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. This is the 
most comprehensive trade agreement with a nonmarket economy country 
that the United States has ever entered into. That is why I want to 
underscore that it is with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
  Normal trade relations used to be called Most Favored Nation 
treatment, and frankly, it was a misnomer; most nations receive Most 
Favored Nation treatment. And so a few years ago we appropriately 
changed the terminology. I think, therefore, if we are asking that we 
have normal trade relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, who 
do we not have normal trade relations with? And in this part of the 
world, in the Far East, there are basically two nations that do not 
enjoy normal trading relations with the United States. Those are Laos 
and North Korea. All other countries in the Far East enjoy this status.
  The idea of having a bilateral trade agreement with the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam in a comprehensive way allows us to deal with 
access in areas of industrial and agricultural goods, in services, in 
intellectual property rights, in investment, and in the transparency of 
all of those activities.

[[Page H5428]]

                              {time}  1415

  It is a trade agreement that will allow us to continue to improve the 
relations between one of the fastest growing countries, both in terms 
of population and in terms of economy, in Southeast Asia.
  Madam Speaker, I would place in the Record a Statement of 
Administration Policy with regard to H.J. Res. 51.
  This statement says, ``The administration supports H.J. Res. 51 which 
would approve the extension of non-discriminatory, i.e., normal trade 
relations treatment for products of Vietnam.''
  The closing of the paragraph says that ``the Bilateral Trade 
Agreement's entry into force completes a normalization process that has 
spanned four administrations. Completion of this process will 
facilitate important bilateral engagement on other issues of concern.''

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                Washington, DC, September 6, 2001.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

    (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned 
                               agencies)

     H.J. Res. 51--Approving the Extension of Normal Trade 
         Relations Status for Vietnam)--(Rep. Armey (R) TX and 2 
         cosponsors)
       The Administration supports H.J. Res. 51, which would 
     approve the extension of nondiscriminatory, i.e., Normal 
     Trade Relations (NTR), treatment for the products of Vietnam.
       The Administration has continued to work with Vietnam to 
     incrementally normalize our bilateral political, economic, 
     and consular relationship. U.S. engagement helps promote the 
     development of a prosperous Vietnam and integrates it into 
     world markets and regional organizations, which, in turn, 
     helps contribute to regional stability. In addition, U.S. 
     involvement has secured Vietnamese cooperation and engagement 
     on a range of important U.S. policy goals, including 
     achieving the fullest possible accounting of POW/MIAs from 
     the Vietnam War. U.S. engagement also gives hope of producing 
     gains in respect for human rights as well.
       The U.S. has extended a Jackson-Vanik waiver to Vietnam for 
     the past 3 years. This waiver, which is a prerequisite for 
     NTR trade status, has permitted U.S. businesses operating in 
     Vietnam to make use of U.S. Government programs supporting 
     U.S. exports to and investments in Vietnam. U.S. business 
     views Vietnam the thirteenth most populous country in the 
     world, as an important potential market.
       On June 8th, President Bush submitted the U.S.-Vietnam 
     Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) to Congress for its approval 
     as part of extending NTR to Vietnam. This BTA binds Vietnam 
     to an unprecedented arrays of reforms, including tariff 
     reductions for key U.S. exports, elimination of non-tariff 
     barriers, intellectual property rights protection, market 
     access for American service industries, protections for 
     American investors, and mechanisms to promote the rule of 
     law.
       The BTA's entry into force completes a normalization 
     process that has spanned four Administrations. Completion of 
     this process will facilitate important bilateral engagement 
     on other issues of concern.


                         pay-as-you-go scoring

       Any law that would reduce receipts is subject to the pay-
     as-you-go requirements of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act. Accordingly, H.J. Res. 51, which would 
     reduce revenues, will be subject to the pay-as-you-go 
     requirement. The Administration will work with Congress to 
     ensure that any unintended sequester of spending does not 
     occur under current law or the enactment of any other 
     proposals that meet the President's objectives to reduce the 
     debt, fund priority initiatives, and grant tax relief to all 
     income tax paying Americans.

  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement 
marks a milestone in the strengthening of our bilateral relations. This 
agreement is a sensible and necessary step. Vietnam has emerged as one 
of Southeast Asia's more promising economies, and it has the potential 
to be a strong trading partner for America.
  Continued engagement with Vietnam must lie at the core of our 
relationship. It has already produced concrete results in terms of the 
achievement of U.S. policy objectives, such as the fullest possible 
accounting of U.S. servicemen missing in action and resolution of 
remaining emigration cases.
  This trade agreement--the product of many years of bipartisan 
effort--will allow this engagement to continue, offering us the 
opportunity to promote significant change in Vietnam's trade and 
economic policies, enhancing both internal reform and regional 
stability. It commits Vietnam to the core principles of a market 
economy: open goods and services markets, expanded rule of law, and 
broader economic freedoms.
  You get off the plane in Vietnam and sense immediately the profound 
changes that interaction with the world at large has already brought. 
Vietnam moves at a vibrant pace. Its streets teem with new enterprises 
alongside the old. Young entrepreneurs sell modern electronic goods 
beside ancient shopkeepers and purveyors of hand-painted bowls. Joint 
ventures create modern factories where remote rice paddies once lay.
  But Vietnam is a work in progress. Its commitment to reform has been 
tested by two years of slow economic growth following an extended 
period of strong improvement. The economy is now recovering, but that 
recovery remains fragile.
  The country leapt toward a market economy in the last 1980s, and its 
GDP doubled in the '90s, making it one of the fastest growing economies 
in the world with 7.6 percent growth over the last decade.
  In a country where official per capita GNP hovers at $370, poverty is 
declining sharply as a direct result of the government's recognition of 
the value of market forces.
  Vietnam's ongoing commitment to structural reform has laid the path 
for this continuing recovery. But its economic promise has yet to be 
fulfilled. The bilateral trade agreement and American engagement will 
help move Vietnam toward fulfillment of that promise. Its exports to 
the U.S. are expected to more than double once the agreement is in 
place, helping to create jobs and raise living standards.
  Just as important, what does the agreement mean for the U.S.?
  First, American business gets greater access to Vietnam's market of 
almost 80 million people, as well as lower tariffs on U.S. goods.
  The agreement also reinforces Vietnam's full commitment to cooperate 
in accounting for the remaining American servicemen still missing in 
action.
  Most of all, continued engagement maximizes U.S. influence over the 
pace and direction of Vietnam's reforms, allowing our voice to be heard 
as Vietnam determines its future. And a strong Vietnam matters to 
America. It matters because history has proved that we pay a heavy 
price for instability in Southeast Asia.
  I urge you to vote yes for H.R. 51.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McNULTY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that half of my 
time be yielded to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and 
that he be permitted to allocate that time as he sees fit, and that, 
further, I be permitted to yield the time that I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McNULTY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 51, a resolution 
approving the U.S.-Viet Nam Bilateral Trade Agreement.
  As my colleagues know, this debate is no longer about the limited use 
of issue of whether Vietnam should be eligible to participate in U.S. 
credit and credit guarantee programs, which I also oppose at this time. 
Approval of this resolution would allow Vietnam to be eligible to 
receive normal trade relation status, or NTR, on an annual basis 
similar to what China had for the last 20 years.
  I also believe, Madam Speaker, that this debate is about something 
much more important. As I said last year, I do not oppose the eventual 
normalization of relations with Vietnam, but I do oppose declaring 
business as usual when the remains of American service personnel are 
still being recovered. According to the Department of Defense Prisoner 
of War Missing Personnel Office, we are receiving newly discovered 
remains on a fairly frequent basis.
  In the most recent joint field activity accounting which concluded on 
August 7, 2001, just 4 weeks ago, Madam Speaker, the remains of five 
more American military personnel were identified. They will be formally 
repatriated in the next few weeks. Two of the identified are 
unilaterals meaning the Vietnamese simply handed over the remains. In 
my opinion, this indicates that the Vietnamese government has more 
information about our missing personnel.
  My question, Madam Speaker, is this: Cannot we just wait until this 
process is completed?
  I have stated before on this floor, Madam Speaker, the story of my 
family as it relates to Vietnam. On August 9 of 1970, my brother, Bill, 
HM-3 William F. McNulty, was killed in Vietnam. He was a Navy medical 
corpsman transferred to the Marines. He spent his time patching up his 
buddies, and

[[Page H5429]]

one day he stepped on a land mine and lost his life. That was a 
tremendous loss to the members of our family. I can tell my colleagues 
from personal experience that while the pain may subside, it never goes 
away.
  There is a difference between what the McNulty family went through 
and what an MIA family goes through because Bill's body was returned. 
We had a wake and a funeral and a burial. What we had, Madam Speaker, 
was some closure. I can only imagine what the family of an MIA has gone 
through over these past several decades.
  Madam Speaker, until there is a more complete accounting for those 
missing in action, I will propose that my colleagues vote against NTR 
for Vietnam.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, clearly our relationships with Vietnam represents a 
major challenge. There is the troubled past, and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. McNulty) has once again reminded all of us here in the Nation 
of that past. The present reality is, as the chairman has indicated, we 
are dealing in relationships with an economy and a society still 
controlled by a single political entity. So the question in facing this 
major challenge is how do we respond.
  I think we are struggling once again for a formula that combines 
engagement and pressure. The bill that we just passed reflects the need 
for pressure from this country on the country of Vietnam.
  What has happened in terms of engagement is, more or less, this: we 
are dealing with a large nation of over 80 million people. As some 
progress was made in 1994 regarding POW/MIA's, the embargo was lifted. 
In 1995 diplomatic relationships were established. At that time, there 
was the beginning of negotiations for a bilateral trade agreement. 
These negotiations went on for several years. They were finalized 
within a few years, by 1997.
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) indicated, this 
agreement has some very major ingredients, and I think basically 
positive ingredients in terms of our national interest: market access 
for industrial and agricultural goods; protection of intellectual 
property rights; market access for services on a broad basis, assuming 
they are enforced in a country with a weak rule of law; investment 
provisions; and also, very importantly, some transparency provisions to 
try to strengthen the rule of law within Vietnam.
  So here we are today considering normal trade relations as a result 
of this trade agreement. We have waived Jackson-Vanik several times 
now, and that allowed an agreement to provide certain economic support 
for our businesses.
  Madam Speaker, I support this agreement, realizing and pointing out 
its shortcomings. One of those relates to the failure to address labor 
market issues. Several years ago, a number of us urged our Ambassador 
in our administration to address these issues. As we review the 
chronology that was sent to us by the former Ambassador, Pete Peterson, 
it is clear that the embassy and the administration attempted to move 
the ball in terms of labor market issues. And I will not relate the 
entire history of it, but it included involvement of OPIC, of the AFL-
CIO, of teams from the AFL-CIO under OPIC auspices, to discuss worker-
rights issues within Vietnam.
  We urged that the administration and the Ambassador go further, and I 
think in part because of that there was a Memorandum of Understanding 
that was reached with the Vietnam Government that provided for 
technical assistance, including by the ILO regarding labor market 
issues.
  However, those are provisions for technical assistance. And the 
question remains as Vietnam goes further, what efforts will be made not 
only to free up their capital markets but also to free up their labor 
markets.
  In July of this year, a letter was sent by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) and Senator Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Committee 
on Finance, and myself to the Ambassador saying the following: ``Since 
the BTA was signed last year, we have been working to ensure that as we 
move forward in strengthening the U.S.-Vietnam economic relationship, 
we also move forward to advance the issue of labor standards in 
Vietnam. Vietnam has taken some steps in that regard, including by 
signing a Memorandum of Understanding on labor issues with the United 
States last November. However, more should be done.
  ``To that end, we urge the administration to include a positive 
incentives labor provision in the eventual U.S.-Vietnam bilateral 
textile and apparel agreement. This approach would provide incentives 
for Vietnam to take additional, concrete measures to strengthen 
adherence to core labor rights and would reward Vietnam with tangible, 
commercial benefits as it continues to strengthen labor standards.
  ``We encourage the administration to make clear its intent to pursue 
a labor provision in the textile and apparel agreement as the BTA 
resolution moves through the Congress. We know that a number of Members 
of Congress share our belief that addressing these concerns will 
strengthen the bipartisan support necessary for prompt congressional 
approval of the BTA, and will represent positive action on trade 
legislation.''
  The response we received some weeks ago from Mr. Zoellick on behalf 
of the administration was disappointing, essentially noncommittal, so I 
want to say just a few things rather quickly about the labor provision.
  Number one, there is no use of calling it a social issue. It is an 
economic issue. It is part of the trade equation. I refer to a letter 
that was sent by Senator Lott and a number of other Senators and House 
Members to Mr. Zoellick on February 9, 2001. It is just one example of 
how labor market issues are relevant to the trade and competitive 
equation. I quote from this letter. ``We are concerned about imports 
from Vietnam of an Asian-type catfish displacing U.S. farm-raised 
catfish in the U.S. and world market.
  ``Most of the fish from Vietnam are grown in floating cages under the 
fishermen's homes under the Mekong River Delta. Vietnam can produce 
these fish at a much lower cost because of cheap labor and very loose 
environmental regulations for ponds, therapeutics and feed.''
  The letter continues, ``It is our hope that as the USTR, you will 
keep our concerns foremost in mind when you meet with top Vietnamese 
trade officials. It is essential that we take every action possible to 
preserve the U.S. catfish industry.''
  Another example is the agreement that was negotiated with Cambodia 
regarding the textile and apparel industry. I refer to an article of 
July 12, 2001, in the New York Times, and I urge that everybody read 
this article if they have any doubt about the importance of labor 
market issues in our relationships in our competition. This article 
talks about this negotiation, about the efforts by Cambodia to adopt a 
labor code with the help of the AFL-CIO and the ILO. I quote, ``The 
incentive to improve working conditions and permit unions has come from 
Washington where in 1998 trade negotiators were preparing to put quotas 
on fast-growing Cambodian garment imports. Amid pressure from American 
unions and public opinion, the Clinton administration pushed Cambodia 
to accept unprecedented conditions. If Washington decided in an annual 
review that its industry was in substantial compliance with Cambodian 
labor law and international standards, it would raise Cambodia's quota 
by 14 percent.''

                              {time}  1430

  This article describes how it is an uneven picture, but I think it is 
basically clear that with the help of this provision in the textile 
agreement there has been improvement in the ability of workers in 
Cambodia to associate, to represent themselves, and to get a piece of 
the action.
  So this is what I want to make clear. As we did in Cambodia, as was 
done in the Jordan agreement, as was done in the CBI agreement, it is 
important that labor market issues be part and parcel of trade 
negotiations.
  There is going to be an annual review of Vietnam and its progress; 
and I want everybody to know that for myself and many, many other 
members, we will be watching this administration. We will be watching 
Vietnam to see, if and when there is an apparel and textile agreement, 
there is due consideration

[[Page H5430]]

of labor market issues as there was with the Cambodia agreement and in 
other trade agreements.
  I consider it to be not a social issue alone. It is clearly an 
economic issue and indispensable issue. How we handle this can be basis 
for disagreement but not whether it is relevant.
  So I urge support within that statement, within these circumstances 
for this agreement, while I also indicate that we have to be vigilant. 
As we are in human rights through the agreement or the resolution we 
just passed, we have to be vigilant that as our relationship with 
Vietnam unfolds, it broadens in a way that makes sense in terms of 
Vietnam, in terms of its ability to progress; but that we, as these 
relationships unfold, take into account the full economic competitive 
picture.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bilateral trade 
agreement with the Communist government of Vietnam.
  Madam Speaker, we just had a vote in this body of 410 to 1 
reconfirming that we believe that human rights in Vietnam is something 
of importance to the people of the United States.
  I would submit that large votes like that, being followed by 
basically agreeing to a treaty to treat the Communist government of 
Vietnam the same way we treat economically democratic countries of not 
only that region but throughout the world, is one reason why, number 
one, the dictators of the world do not pay attention to us and think 
that we are being either frivolous or lying about our commitment to 
human rights.
  It also is a disheartening factor for people who live under tyranny, 
because those people who live under tyranny, their only hope for many 
of these people who live under tyranny is the commitment by the people 
of the United States of America to try to make this a better world.
  These types of contradictions between human rights, but giving 
precisely the same trade rights and economic rights to these vicious 
dictatorships as we do to democracies, is very disillusioning to most 
of the free people of the world who struggle for democracy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this Vietnam bilateral trade 
agreement. Let us remember, as we have just stated in the last debate, 
during the last 12 months, despite presidential waivers, the Communist 
regime has actually increased its brutal repression of religious 
clergy, advocates of democracy and ethnic tribal minorities, many of 
whom were actually loyal to the United States during the war.
  What does voting against this agreement really do, and what are we 
talking about? What will happen with this agreement? We are not talking 
about breaking relations or isolating Vietnam. That is not what this 
debate is about. This will not in any way, no matter how we vote, break 
our relations with Vietnam. We will not be isolating Vietnam.
  People will still be free to trade. Americans can still go over there 
and sell their goods and services, and so it is not about whether or 
not we are going to have relations or isolate Vietnam. It is not about 
whether American companies can sell their products there, because there 
will be no law in the United States preventing that.
  So what is this bill all about? I have repeated this on numerous 
occasions because we have studied this trying to find what other reason 
a bill like this has such momentum in Congress.
  This bill is about whether or not American businessmen who want to 
build factories in Vietnam to exploit the near slave labor there and 
the lack of labor rights that they have in Vietnam, whether or not 
those American businessmen will be eligible for taxpayer subsidies or 
loan guarantees so that they can set up their factories over there, 
literally putting American workers out of work and setting up factories 
to exploit the near slave labor of this Communist tyranny in Vietnam 
done with American taxpayer subsidies and guaranteed loans through the 
Export-Import Bank and other international financial institutions that 
are supported by the taxpayer.
  This is a travesty. I do not know anybody who can really defend that 
policy. But, as I have presented the case, those people on the other 
side have refused to even acknowledge this part of the debate. And over 
the years, even though I have made this charge over and over again, no 
one seems to even comment on it, the people who are advocating from the 
other side. I would like to hear the proponents of this trade agreement 
tell me why it is a good thing for the American taxpayers, our working 
people, to be taxed in order to subsidize and guarantee loans to 
American businessmen so they can build factories over there which will 
produce goods that will compete with the jobs of the American people 
over here. I want to hear a comment on that. I would hope that my 
colleagues who are supporting this trade agreement will at least take 
that into consideration. So we are extending American tax dollars to 
subsidize and insure the businesses going into a Communist 
dictatorship.
  This is bad business, for one thing, because the reason they need the 
government to guarantee, meaning our tax dollars, to guarantee their 
investments over there is that it is a risky proposition to invest in a 
dictatorship. And it is especially risky to invest in Vietnam. It is a 
risky thing, because when you do not have really the rule of law 
working in a country and it is a dictatorial regime, they can have 
their property confiscated. Many American businessmen have already fled 
Vietnam. But they will not invest with their own money and our banks 
certainly will not give them a loan, unless the taxpayers guarantee it.

  That is bad business, and it is also contrary to American values. If 
we really do believe in democracy and human rights, it is contrary to 
our values. If we are going to be using taxpayer dollars to guarantee 
loans so that American businessmen can do business in a foreign 
country, and I do not think we should even be doing it anywhere, but if 
we do, at the very least it should be with democratic countries. And by 
insuring these loans and insuring this type of an incentive for 
American businessmen to go use that slave labor, we are not only 
hurting our own people, we are hurting governments and people like who 
are in the Philippines.
  In the Philippines they are struggling to have democratic government. 
They have got opposition newspapers. They have got opposition parties. 
They have trouble with keeping a truly democratic system because of 
corruption there. But there are honest people who want to have 
democratic government in the Philippines. What are we doing? Instead of 
encouraging our businessmen to go to the Philippines, a country that 
loves us, we are subsidizing our businessmen to plant factories in a 
Communist dictatorship. This makes no sense. No wonder why the 
dictators of the world do not believe us when we pass 410-1, a 
resolution claiming that we believe in human rights and that it is 
important to us.
  Let me talk about one last element here, and I appreciate the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) yielding me the time that he has 
and the points that he made about American POWs in Vietnam. This is an 
important point. I have been in Vietnam numerous occasions. I took this 
personally upon myself.
  My chief staff member here, Al Santoli, was wounded three times in 
Vietnam. I was not in the military, but I spent time in Vietnam during 
the war in 1967 doing political work there; and so I have over these 
last 30 years had a personal interest and have gone back many times, as 
has Mr. Santoli, to Vietnam.
  The idea that the Communist regime in Vietnam has in good faith 
cooperated with us on the POW issue is a fraud. It is not true. There 
is no basis to it. They have exploited the POWs search since day one. 
Even to this day they are charging the American Government a million 
dollars every time we go out and try to search for some bones. What 
they have done is relegated our search for justice and our search for 
real truth about what happened to our POWs to a search for bones which 
they give up every now and then. The fact is that there were over 200 
Americans last seen in captivity, alive and in captivity, in Communist 
hands that were never accounted for. Since that time, during

[[Page H5431]]

this supposed cooperation, the Government of North Vietnam has done 
nothing that will help us determine what happened to those 200 men.
  I have repeatedly asked during this debate, during trips to Vietnam 
in which I talked directly to the leaders of North Vietnam, I asked for 
the records of the prisons in which American POWs were held during the 
war. Why? Because if we get those records, we can find out exactly who 
was in the prison, how many people were kept there, how much food was 
bought because they had the number of prisoners and we can determine if 
there is a difference between the number released and the number that 
they were taking care of during the war. What have I been told? ``Oh, 
those records aren't available. They were destroyed in B-52 raids near 
the end of the war.''
  Well, baloney. The Communist regimes throughout this world have been 
noted time and again for the fact that Communists keep such incredible 
records. They keep records of everything. When they have meetings of 
their central committee, they keep intricate notes. They did not throw 
away those records. They were not burned by B-52 raids. They will not 
give them to us because it indicates that they kept Americans after the 
war. Now, why with a regime like this are we going to give our 
businessmen subsidies to invest over there and create jobs over there, 
exploiting their slave labor? This is ridiculous.
  I would hope that we can see an evolution in Vietnam. The people of 
Vietnam are wonderful people. In fact, I represent many Vietnamese in 
my area, Vietnamese Americans. They came to the United States and under 
freedom these very people have prospered. They are the very best of 
citizens. They love democracy. They have taken advantage of the 
opportunity to increase the standard of living of their lives. That 
could be true of all of the millions of people who live in Vietnam if 
they were not suffering under the yoke of tyranny. This is not the time 
to ignore what that government has done about the POWs. It is not time 
for us without any democratic reform going on in Vietnam.
  We have heard about what was happening in Cambodia. In Cambodia, they 
have not had those same reforms in Vietnam that they have had in 
Cambodia. In Cambodia there are opposition parties. There are actually 
opposition newspapers. They have got nothing like that in Vietnam. Let 
us see some reform there before we bestow upon them subsidies by our 
taxpayers and incentives for our businessmen to go over there and 
create jobs over there.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bilateral trade 
agreement with Vietnam and to really take human rights seriously. If 
the United States takes human rights seriously like we did with Ronald 
Reagan and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, we will be striking a 
blow for peace. Ronald Reagan never provided most-favored-nation status 
for the Soviet Union. And the Soviet Union fell apart, and we have a 
chance for true democratic government there today. Let us do the same 
thing in China, and let us do the same thing in Vietnam. Let us do the 
same thing with dictatorships around the world. Let us let America be a 
shining light of hope of liberty and justice for all.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
  There has been such a long period now between our war on Vietnam and 
now that I think it is only appropriate to have a trade agreement which 
symbolizes how far our two countries have come.
  It was not very long ago that President Carter and President Ford 
were unable to establish any kind of relationship with Vietnam, 
accordingly, the first Bush Administration got more positive responses 
to their attempts to begin a new relationship. This set the stage for 
President Clinton in 1994 to order the lifting the trade embargo 
against Vietnam. The following year the two countries established 
ambassadorial-level diplomatic relations. And former Congressman 
Peterson who had been held as a POW in Vietnam was sent as our first 
ambassador. I think it says a lot about the need for healing that we 
have the Vietnam Trade Agreement before us today. Of course, it would 
not have occurred if the Vietnamese had not become sensitized to our 
need to return American bodies to their families. And to also have 
yearly reports made on their progress on human rights--a subject we 
will discuss later today.
  But it is here! A bilateral trade agreement which took almost five 
years to craft. When one goes to Vietnam one expects to be confronted 
as an American for what took place during the war but 50% of the 
population were not alive at that time. This is really an old country 
with very young population who do not see Americans in the same light 
as their parents and want to establish a new relationship with us.
  They are eager to open up their country to trade even though to this 
day there is disagreement between the economic hard-liners and those 
who want to really open up the Nation.
  This agreement will do that. Although we do not export much to 
Vietnam and vice versa at the present time, this is a young and vibrant 
nation that wants to participate in global economics.
  They have a high literacy rate and the desire to open up their 
markets. And American industry wants to sell them lots of goods. Who 
would have thought that all these years later that our war with Vietnam 
would result in what could be a highly productive relationship. I 
believe this is the beginning of a whole new era.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, all of us express continued regret about the loss of 
American lives in Vietnam and treatment that Americans received during 
that war. Some of those very same individuals have been and are Members 
of the United States Congress.

                              {time}  1445

  The stories that they tell are ones that truly depict a very 
difficult and troubled time. I do believe, however, that we can make a 
relatively firm statement that a no vote on this measure will not 
increase our ability to work with the Vietnamese for the fullest 
possible accounting of missing Americans.
  I also want to respond briefly to my colleague from Michigan about 
the question of a lack of a labor agreement in this particular 
provision. The last administration, in November of 2000, entered into a 
very specific labor agreement with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I 
might underscore that they are no longer on my map as a North Vietnam 
and a South Vietnam. There is a Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
  That agreement, which was announced on November 17, 2000, was a 
United States and Vietnam agreement on labor cooperation. The press 
release issued by the last administration stated, in the Secretary of 
Labor's words, ``This is a significant step in establishing labor 
issues as an important component of our overall relationship with 
Vietnam. In fact, more than $3 million in technical assistance is being 
provided in collaboration with the International Labor Organization to 
address such issues as establishing skills training and employment 
services, including placement services, development of unemployment 
insurance and pension systems, improving access to employment for 
workers with disabilities, eliminating child labor and child 
trafficking, and launching workplace education to prevent HIV and 
AIDS.''
  So although there is no specific labor component in this particular 
agreement, clearly the two countries have entered into an ongoing 
relationship to improve the labor standards and working conditions in 
Vietnam.
  I would respond to my friend from California to indicate that this is 
a bilateral trade agreement to establish normal trade relations with 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. It pertains to the tariffs that 
apply to Vietnamese goods coming into the United States. It does not 
apply to credits extended to American business people who wish to do 
business in Vietnam. That is a provision of the Jackson-Vanik 
structure, and this body voted 91 no, 324 yes on the Jackson-Vanik 
waiver. That was the structure that provided the credits to the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
  A no vote on this particular measure, House Joint Resolution 51, 
would be a vote against allowing Americans, consumers, business people, 
to bring Vietnamese goods into the United States

[[Page H5432]]

not subject to the tariff. So if you are looking for a measure to stop 
the international credits going to business people doing business with 
Vietnam, that is under the Jackson-Vanik waiver. If you vote no on this 
particular measure, you are trying to make sure that Americans do not 
get the benefit of a tax-free relationship with the products that are 
going to be imported into the United States.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Dunn), a member of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this joint resolution 
to approve the United States-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement. I am 
very happy to see that we are finally passing this important trade 
agreement with the third largest nation in ASEAN, which is the 
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and the second most populous 
country in Southeast Asia.
  This is an historic agreement. It will reduce tariffs and it will 
improve market access for United States services and for our products.
  I am also very pleased with Vietnam's commitment to adopt 
international standards to protect intellectual property rights. This 
is a very important step for Vietnam, and it will help very much in 
reducing piracy and in safeguarding American innovation.
  For the State that I represent, Washington State, this agreement 
could mean more high-paying jobs. The Vietnamese Government has made a 
commitment to purchase four 777 airplanes. These are commercial 
aircraft. Their construction will be directed by people who live in the 
district I represent.
  For our farmers in eastern Washington, lower tariffs and better 
transparency rules will reduce the red tape that has caused us great 
trouble in finding markets abroad, and it will expand the exports of 
our apples, potatoes and wheat to Vietnam.
  I think it is very important, as we continue this debate, to reaffirm 
that continuing economic engagement with Vietnam does not diminish our 
commitment for a full accounting of American soldiers still missing in 
action. I would say to the gentleman from California that engagement 
with Vietnam also does not diminish our commitment toward pressing the 
Vietnamese Government to respect basic human rights. This is important 
to all of us, and we will not take our eyes off the interaction between 
our governments.
  We appreciate that much must be done before Vietnam can join the 
global community, but by expanding economic freedom, I think that we 
can foster an environment for further political reforms that can lead 
to greater openness and tolerance.
  It seems to me that it is time that we no longer view Vietnam simply 
as a war. We have got to begin seeing the Vietnamese as a people who 
want to build a stronger relationship with us and who will provide 
enormous economic opportunity for our American producers. Continuing 
our policy of engagement is the best way, I believe, to help both our 
people and the Vietnamese people.
  I ask my colleagues to support this joint resolution.
  Mr. McNULTY. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
  (Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 51, a 
bill that would grant permanent normal trade relations with the 
communist country of Vietnam. I am especially concerned that until 
Vietnam stops illegally substituting an inferior species of fish for 
U.S. farm-raised catfish, the American consumer and the American farmer 
will continue to suffer.
  The catfish industry in Alabama and in the southeast is a very vital 
industry that employs tens of thousands of workers in primarily rural 
and economically depressed areas, and contributes hundreds of millions 
of dollars annually to these states' economies. In Alabama, for 
example, catfish production ranked second nationally and had over $81.6 
million in sales last year. Nationwide, the catfish industry accounts 
for over 50% of the total volume and value of all U.S. aquaculture at 
600 million pounds.
  Additionally, the catfish industry has contributed over $50 million 
to familiarize the American consumer with the superior quality of the 
U.S. farm-raised, grain-fed catfish product. As such, the substitution 
of fish that are not even in the same genus or species as the North 
American channel catfish has led to consumer confusion. These 
Vietnamese fish are raised in cages in rivers, the same polluted rivers 
that sewer and waste are dumped into. Moreover, they are fed a diet of 
various things including other fish, not a completely grain-fed diet 
like the U.S. farm-raised catfish.
  Efforts to substitute the cheaper Vietnamese species of fish, through 
what I and many believe is the improper use of the name ``catfish'', 
has also led to unprecedented levels of imports that have displaced 
American catfish. In fact, Vietnamese fish imports are displacing U.S. 
catfish at a rate of 70 million pounds annually according to U.S. 
Census Bureau estimates in May. This is equivalent to an estimated 15-
20% of the total U.S. farm-raised catfish market.
  It also appears that Vietnam is encouraging increased production and 
export of these fish by recently announcing new incentives for 
collateral-free loans until 2005 for investment in aquaculture. Figures 
from the Department of Commerce indicate that imports of these fish 
from Vietnam have tripled from what they were this time last year, and 
now account for 84% of catfish imports into the U.S. This has also led 
to the decreased exports of farm-raised catfish from the U.S. to other 
countries.
  U.S. catfish farmers have spent millions of dollars and years of hard 
work to build a market for their product based on its guaranteed 
quality and safety and do not deserve to have it destroyed. Moreover, 
consumers deserve to know exactly what kind of food they are putting on 
their dinner tables.
  Industry officials have met with the Administration, and with the 
government of Vietnam and so far have not had their problems addressed. 
Until the Administration and the government of Vietnam address this 
issue satisfactorily, I cannot support normalizing trade relations with 
Vietnam.
  Mr. McNULTY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
  Mr. SHOWS. Madam Speaker, I stand before you today to speak of 
something that I care deeply about and have been working hard to 
correct, irresponsible trade agreements that ignore the needs of rural 
communities. I am not opposed to free trade, but I am opposed to trade 
agreements which further harm communities, families and industries in 
Mississippi and across rural America.
  Today we are considering extending normal trade relations with 
Vietnam. We must promote reasonable, responsible trade agreements, and 
we must be mindful of some of the unintended consequences trade 
agreements have had on rural America, and especially in Mississippi.
  Where I come from in rural Mississippi, some of our trade agreements, 
like NAFTA, have failed our rural communities. The result has been 
factory shutdowns and job losses that have devastated communities 
throughout my district. This is the case in rural communities and urban 
cores across America.
  We know that NAFTA has worked fine for many of the places in our 
Nation, but our rural communities have been ignored. Hard-working 
people in places like Prentiss, Collins, Magee or Centreville have been 
hurt by these trade deals. When a factory shuts down in a rural 
community like this, it is devastating to every family.
  We have a responsibility to fight for fair trade that supports 
American workers, families and communities from unwise trade 
agreements. Today I stand in opposition to extending normal trade 
relations to Vietnam.
  One example is the damage even restrictive trade with Vietnam has 
done to the catfish industry in Mississippi. Domestically grown 
catfish, which meet strict environmental and health standards, are 
being displaced by inferior and potentially unsafe products from 
Vietnam. These fish products are disguised by labels that imitate those 
placed on legitimately farm-raised catfish to mislead the consumer 
about the origin of the product.
  I urge a no vote on this measure.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about an issue that is very 
important to some the citizens of my district. Over the August recess I 
met with a large group of Southeast Asian and Vietnamese Americans 
about issues of importance to them. The issue they expressed the 
greatest concern

[[Page H5433]]

about had to do with human rights in Vietnam. They expressed to me 
their fear that an increase of trade with Vietnam may only serve to 
strengthen the hand of the Communist government that denies its 
citizens basic freedoms of association, religion and other human 
rights. I believe those fears are valid and important for us to 
consider.
  I do not believe we can discuss trade with Vietnam without addressing 
the human rights violations of the Vietnam Government. Therefore, I was 
very pleased that the legislation we passed earlier today addressed 
precisely these issues. Without adequately monitoring human rights 
situations and without real consequences for noncompliance, I would 
have had strong reservations about passing the Vietnam trade agreement 
we are debating now. But by considering these bills in conjunction, we 
will be able to send a message that the U.S. believes in engaging 
Vietnam and strengthening economic and political ties, but we still 
demonstrate our concern for the lack of rights afforded to the 
Vietnamese people.
  I think it is especially important to send to the Vietnamese 
Government the message that it remains unacceptable for them to 
continue to imprison religious leaders, including individuals such as 
Father Nguyen Van Ly, the Venerable Thich Tam An, Thich Khong Tanh, 
Thich Quang Hue, Ly Tong, and other religious and political prisoners.
  Madam Speaker, I will vote in favor of this legislation, but only 
because this body has assured us that we will continue to put pressure 
on this country to further human rights.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Biggert). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) has 18 minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) has 19\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 17 minutes remaining and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. McNulty) has 25 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, let us, as this debate goes on, remember that Vietnam 
as it is today does not have an independent court system, does not have 
opposition parties, does not have freedom of the press, not to mention 
all the political prisoners they have thrown in jail, et cetera, and 
the persecution of religion. But without courts, without opposition 
parties, without freedom of the press, what does that mean normally? 
What it means is exactly what you have got in Vietnam, a corrupt 
system.
  We may try to say, well, we have already given these loan guarantees 
and these subsidies with the Jackson-Vanik waiver already passed by 
this House. The fact is, this vote freezes that into place. This vote 
freezes those loan guarantees and those subsidies into place that we 
put into place over my objection with the passage of the Jackson-Vanik 
waiver.
  We should not in a situation, in an environment where there are no 
courts or opposition parties or freedom of the press, expect that our 
businessmen are going to go over there and find anything available to 
them without a bribe. What they are going to find, and that is what is 
happening there, our businessmen are faced with bribes, they are faced 
with a corrupt regime they are not used to.
  And then what happens? The American taxpayer, because we have given 
these subsidies and loan guarantees, has to pick up the check when 
these businessmen close up their operation and flee back to the United 
States of America.
  This is a bad deal. It is bad business. Not only is it bad in terms 
of American values, in terms of human rights and freedom, but it is 
just a bad deal all around, having the taxpayers subsidize loans and 
guarantee these loans in order to go into this corrupt environment 
where you do not even have a court system that can operate 
independently and provide judgments there, when you have people asking 
for bribes, et cetera, et cetera.
  This is not what we should be doing. It is bad business and contrary 
to our values.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I stand in support of H.J. 
Resolution 51. Let no one be fooled. What this basically does is 
normalize the trade relationship with Vietnam. We are trying to have a 
bilateral trade relationship with this country. I am very proud of the 
fact that the State of Oklahoma was the first State to have an office 
in Vietnam to do trade. We are still the only office basically there 
that has a presence, but we have an office there, and we have people 
there.
  Yes, Oklahomans are there trying to engage in having a normal trade 
relationship, but we are also trying to work with educational and 
cultural exchanges, because we know the only way we are going to 
resolve the human rights problems are to be able to engage and be able 
to carry on that conversation one on one with our values, our values. I 
started to say we normalized California. A lot of Okies went out that 
way, but the chairman is from California so I have to be very careful 
about what I say about California.
  But let me say I know there are conditions there, and I visited with 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) about some economic trade 
policies that we need to continue to be concerned about and aware of, 
and I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for bringing this point up.
  First let me say that I have great respect for the Committee on Ways 
and Means chairman and the subcommittee and all of my colleagues who 
have worked so feverishly and so effectively on these free trade 
policies. I am a free trader I do not deny, and I am quite proud of it, 
and I have voted for each and every bill they have brought to the 
floor. But sometimes we have to talk to our own administration and the 
only chance we have to talk to them effectively, and usually I do this 
on the appropriation bills, is by threatening to withhold their money.
  But we do have a tremendous problem in the catfish industry. The 
catfish industry in Alabama is a growing industry that is employing 
thousands of people. They have developed a hybrid catfish that is 
raised in fresh water ponds that are grain fed, that are high quality 
catfish. Now we find that the Vietnamese, and the Commerce Department 
or the FDA is allowing them, to ship into the United States, the 
Vietnamese, a poor quality fish that is not even a catfish, that is 
labeled a catfish.
  The reason I stand here today is to shoot a bow over the front of the 
ship of the FDA, and I have written Ms. Janice Oliver a letter and 
asked for her immediate decision on this classification.
  We do not mind importing any product from the Vietnamese that is a 
safe, edible product, but we do not want it mislabeled, and the FDA can 
do something about it. My message today to the FDA is to do something 
about it and do it immediately, or else they are going to be facing my 
wrath when these appropriation bills come to the floor.
  I had to do it one other time. I remember I had the same problem with 
the chairman that is sitting right behind my colleague now, and I 
threatened to withhold $1 million a day until they made a decision. I 
am not threatening to withhold $1 million a day from the FDA; I am just 
insisting that FDA make this decision today, make it as expeditiously 
as they can, and let us get on with this ability to trade with Vietnam 
and other countries.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would ask our colleague, the gentleman mentioned the catfish 
industry. Is the gentleman aware of whether or not the American company 
dealing with the catfish industry there, was there any loan guarantees 
by the Export-Import Bank to any American company that was involved or 
a subsidy from the American taxpayer involved in the creation of the 
catfish industry in Vietnam that is now wreaking such havoc in the 
gentleman's State?

[[Page H5434]]

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I am not 
familiar with anything that the Ex-Im Bank has done there, although I 
am a big supporter of the Ex-Im Bank. I do know that the government of 
Vietnam is offering interest-free loans for people, which I think is in 
violation of all of our agreements, is offering interest-free loans to 
people to start catfish farms, and if they want to do that and play on 
the same level playing field that we are playing on here in the United 
States, that is all right with me too.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is a real 
possibility, and neither one of us knows that now, but I do not think 
there is anyone on this floor that would step up and say, no, it is 
impossible; the catfish industry in Vietnam has not been created with 
the help of subsidies from the American taxpayers. We cannot say that, 
because we do not know. We are laying down the rules now, so that would 
be a real possibility.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in 
the House to vote for this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to vote for this 
legislation to establish a bilateral trade relationship with Vietnam. 
This legislation is the product of long negotiations between our 
governments, and builds on the trade relationship we have been 
developing over the past decade. Just a few weeks ago, this House again 
voted by an overwhelming vote against imposing trade restrictions on 
Vietnam; now, we should pass this BTA by just as overwhelming a vote.
  We all recognize the sensitivity of any legislation involving Vietnam 
because of our nation's past history. But we in the House have begun a 
healthy, expanding and maturing relationship with this country of 
nearly 80 million people. And this legislation is not about the past; 
it is about the future relations of our governments and our economies.
  I have had the opportunity to visit Vietnam, to meet with government 
leaders and private citizens, and to talk at length with our former 
ambassador, Pete Peterson, who has been one of the most passionate 
supporters of improved political and economic relations with Vietnam. 
Ambassador Peterson has devoted countless hours during his years of 
service to developing improved economic and political relationships 
between Washington and Hanoi, and between the American and Vietnamese 
people. Our vote today is, in no small way, a testament to the success 
of his efforts and a credit to his hard work.
  Vietnam is a large and changing country. There are multinationals 
involved in production of oil and gas and the manufacture of 
sportswear; Vietnam is also a country where most people labor in rice 
paddies and start businesses with micro-loans of less than $100. It is 
a country of educated, industrious people that will continue to play a 
key role in the future of Southeast Asia. We should not cut ourselves 
off from that nation, but rather work closely to help it advance and to 
encourage moves towards a more open economy.
  We are building a new and positive relationship with Vietnam, which 
is the 12th largest population in the world and plays a key role in the 
political and economic security of Southeast Asia. Last year, the 
Congress enacted legislation I helped to 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.
  Some may wish to turn this debate into one over sensitive issues 
between the United States and Vietnam. That strategy is inappropriate 
here, and should be rejected. Vietnam, as illustrated by our annual 
Jackson-Vanik votes, has made great strides on immigration and is a 
full partner in the effort to locate remaining American soldiers 
missing in action. Negative and unjustified attacks on Vietnam's 
efforts at cooperation can only injure future efforts, and have no 
place in this debate.
  However, let us note that this BTA does not end our review of 
Vietnam's moves towards openness and transparency. We will still engage 
in annual reviews of its practices. Nor does this BTA or the memorandum 
of understanding concerning labor standards adequately address concerns 
I have, along with many others, about the need for a free labor 
movement in Vietnam that allows workers to organize and collectively 
bargain with their employers. As we move towards the next stages of 
trade agreements, we will continue to press for assurances that the 
working men and women of Vietnam will enjoy the basic rights to free 
association recognized by the International Labor Organization.
  Free trade unionism, improved environmental policies, expanded 
political and religious rights for all Vietnamese: these are, and 
should be, legitimate factors for securing improved and lasting trade 
relations with the United States and other democracies. We will 
continue to work with the Vietnamese to assure that these goals are 
achieved.
  Those are issues that remain to be discussed in the course of future 
negotiations. For today, we should move ahead and pass this Bilateral 
Trade Agreement which sets the stage for those future discussions, 
while helping to bring our countries and our people together.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 51, which extends temporary most favored nation status to 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The Vietnam-U.S. bilateral trade 
agreement is unwarranted until Vietnam demonstrates tangible progress 
in addressing its human rights and the moving forward to a more market-
oriented economy.
  Free trade does not mean trade at any cost. In the case of Vietnam, 
certain conditions, I believe certain conditions should be met, to have 
long, meaningful, lasting trade relations developed. I am concerned 
that we are losing our economic leverage without gaining concrete, 
verifiable steps towards reform in exchange.
  In our support for the economic revitalization of Vietnam, we cannot 
ignore basic human rights issues that need to be resolved.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing the largest 
Vietnamese community outside of Vietnam. They are the parents, the 
siblings, the children of families who fought communism for over 2 
decades, and they, the majority of these people, do not want to 
establish normal trade relations with Vietnam until we do something 
about immigration, political and human rights issues for the people of 
Vietnam.
  Recently, I have learned of the distressing case of Mr. Dac Vi Hoang, 
a former Vietnamese businessman who fled Vietnam recently to escape 
persecution. His situation is emblematic of the economic repression and 
political corruption that stifles free enterprise in Vietnam. Mr. Hoang 
was a prominent Vietnamese entrepreneur who owned Thanh My, 
Incorporated, an international exporter of lacquerware. In fact, he 
enjoyed an astounding success, this private corporation, in the midst 
of a communist regime, with annual sales of $3 million and over 400 
employees. Thanh 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. Nonetheless, just 1 year ago, in August of the 
year 2000, Mr. Hoang found himself having to flee Vietnam with his 
family, leaving this entire business behind.
  Let me take a minute and tell my colleagues the story. In February of 
1976, nearly 1 year after the end of the war, Dac Vi Hoang started his 
small, family-oriented company specializing in lacquerware products. At 
the time, the communist government was closing down large corporations 
and industrial plants because they were considered to be tools of 
capitalism, but they allowed a few small, private companies to operate, 
as long as they did not have a lot of capital or heavy machinery.
  Although the business was allowed to remain in operation, Mr. Hoang 
was imprisoned for 5 years so that he could be ``reeducated,'' which 
meant that his wife had to run the business in the meantime. During his 
time, it should be noted that Mr. Hoang was severely tortured, mentally 
and physically, when he underwent reeducation.
  Although business operations were kept to a minimum, when he was 
released, he started into the business, and by 1991, Thanh My was 
allowed by the Government of Vietnam to actually export its lacquerware 
to other countries. Ultimately, Thanh My became one of Vietnam's 
largest exporters with customers in the U.S., in France, Japan, 
Germany, Sweden, even Canada. Because of his success, however, Mr. 
Hoang became a well-known

[[Page H5435]]

member of the Vietnamese business community. He was one of the founding 
members of the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry; he was elected 
Vice President of the Union of Associations of Industry and Commerce, 
and he was also featured in Baron's Who's Who in the Asian Pacific Rim.
  Well, all of this caught the attention of the Vietnamese communist 
government. Mr. Hoang voiced the concern of the business community with 
respect to what was going on. His criticisms of the government were 
unfair and arbitrary taxing against private corporations and that there 
was corruption at virtually every level of doing business.
  In recent years, the communist government of Vietnam began cracking 
down on executives of leading private corporations. Using various 
pretexts, the communist regime has imprisoned executives of successful, 
private companies when they are considered too vocal, too vocal, in 
criticizing the government or when their companies become too 
successful, thereby threatening the regime's grip on power.
  This is what was happening to Mr. Hoang when he decided to flee with 
his family. He learned from the government ministry of public security 
task force officer who was assigned to monitor what was going on at 
Thanh My that Mr. Hoang was a target for persecution. This security 
officer was someone that Mr. Hoang gave side bribes to in addition to 
the usual money you have to pay these people to supervise what was 
going on with Thanh My. He would give this money to get good government 
reviews and not have problems with the government. Finding out that a 
change in the government supervision over Thanh My was going to occur, 
was going to be an excuse for the government to come in and bring 
somebody to try to find incriminating evidence against him, Mr. Hoang 
took his family and fled Vietnam leaving the entire business behind. He 
currently is residing in southern California while he awaits his 
political asylum hearing.

  I ask my colleagues to understand that this is continuing to happen 
in Vietnam. As the person who represents so many of the Vietnamese, we 
get all of these cases all of the time. After hearing this story, does 
Vietnam appear to be a country that is moving toward market-oriented 
reforms?
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this, and I hope that my colleagues 
will help and not support this either.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans), a very distinguished colleague who has had a very 
long and deep interest in this issue.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support normal 
trade status for Vietnam.
  The vote today is really about how we best achieve change in Vietnam, 
and I believe the record speaks for itself. We have achieved progress 
by engagement: by encouraging Vietnamese cooperation on important 
issues such as human rights, immigration and political and economic 
reform.
  I can speak about this personally. I have been to Vietnam and seen 
the work of the Joint Task Force-Full Accounting, our military presence 
in Vietnam tasked with looking for our missing servicemen and women. I 
have visited these young women and men, and they are among the bravest 
and most motivated soldiers I have ever seen. Every day, from the 
searches of jungle battle sites to the excavation of crash sites on 
precarious mountain summits, they put themselves in harm's way to 
recover our missing. In talking with them, it made it clear to me that 
they were performing a mission that they truly believed in.
  On April 7 of this year, that danger became all too real. On that 
date, 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. This tragedy was a huge blow for our 
recovery efforts, as we lost both Americans and Vietnamese who had 
deeply been involved in finding our missing. We should remember our 
deceased Americans are heroes who gave their lives in pursuit of a 
mission they believed to be a high honor and a sacred duty.
  The only way we can carry out this mission effectively is to have a 
presence in Vietnam. To maintain that presence means reciprocating on 
the promises that we made to reward Vietnamese cooperation. Failing to 
approve this resolution would definitely send the wrong signal to the 
Vietnamese, not to mention the brave American men and women who are 
still searching for our missing in the rice paddies and mountains of 
Vietnam.

                              {time}  1515

  The opponents of this argument or the opponents of this agreement 
will say that the Vietnamese Government has a terrible record on human 
rights, that they do not deserve normal trade arrangements with our 
Nation.
  I will not defend the Vietnamese human rights record. It needs 
serious improvements. We should focus on obtaining basic freedom for 
all Vietnamese. But former Ambassador and colleague here in the House 
of Representatives, Mr. Pete Peterson, demonstrated that we can achieve 
progress on human rights and a number of other issues that are 
important to our Nation by encouraging cooperation from the Vietnamese.
  As our first ambassador to this nation since the war, his stewardship 
led to tangible and dramatic progress on issues that have changed the 
lives of North Americans and Vietnamese for the better.
  By continuing this policy, the families of POWs and MIAs will get the 
answer about their missing, Vietnamese emigres will also be reunited 
with their families, and our country will have benefits from the fruits 
of Agent Orange research. We can risk all this if we turn our backs on 
this successful policy. Voting against this agreement would do just 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the House overwhelmingly supported a 
waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment restrictions on Vietnam. This is 
the fourth year in a row that the House, with growing and overwhelming 
support, voted for better relations with Vietnam.
  I believe that we should follow this course. Let us support the Joint 
Task Force for Full Accounting, and let us support our Nation's 
bipartisan policy that has only furthered our goals towards a more 
cooperative and open Vietnam. Please vote for this resolution.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the Vietnamese catfish industry is 
having a very detrimental impact on Americans who were involved with 
producing catfish for the American table. Yet also, at least I 
suggested, and I have not heard anything to the contrary, that what we 
are doing is laying down the economic ground rules so that we can 
subsidize, through American taxpayer subsidy or loan guarantees, 
businessmen to go to Vietnam and set up other businesses in order to do 
to the current businesses of the United States what the catfish 
industry from Vietnam did to the catfish industry here.
  That does not make any sense to me. What is this all about? This is 
about a dictatorship in which some American businessmen want to go over 
there and exploit the slave labor, and want to do so with loan 
guarantees and subsidies by the American taxpayer.
  I am very happy to hear that Oklahoma set up a business office in 
Vietnam. A lot of other people set up business offices in Vietnam. But 
what we need to hear about are all the offices that have closed up, all 
the businessmen who thought they were going to do business there, but 
the environment is so corrupt that they were unable to do business, and 
that they have closed shop and left.
  The only way American business companies are going to go over there 
is if we guarantee their loans and subsidize them. That makes no sense. 
We have already put all these people who grow catfish, we put them out 
of work. What is the next industry that we want the Vietnamese slave 
labor forces to be able to put out of work with the subsidy from 
American taxpayers? What industry is that?
  How about refrigerators, radios, clothing? I do not know what 
factories these people want to open. Probably I would guess it would be 
tennis shoes.
  I believe in free trade. People who oppose this particular trade 
legislation, it does not mean they are opposed to free trade. I believe 
in free trade between free people. When we sort of set

[[Page H5436]]

the same rules with vicious dictatorships as we do with democratic 
countries, surprise, surprise, we are going to bolster the strength of 
the regime, of the clique that holds power in those dictatorships.
  No, we should be having freer trade with countries like the 
Philippines, who are struggling, struggling to have a good democracy 
with human rights, instead of giving more incentives and more ways of 
making profit by setting up businesses in dictatorships like Vietnam.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), someone who has been extensively involved in a 
number of trade discussions and debates.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I thank the gentleman again for yielding me this time, and I 
appreciate the leadership he has shown with his committee on so many 
trade issues this year. This is just one of them.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 51, 
which would extend normal trade relations to the nation of Vietnam. Let 
us begin, as I know the chairman has made clear earlier, what this is 
and what this is not. This is not a free trade agreement. It is a 
bilateral trade agreement, a trade agreement that allows us to trade on 
the same basis as we trade with all the other countries of the world 
except the very small handful with whom we do have a free trade 
agreement.
  Because Vietnam is a socialist or a Communist country, it comes under 
the banner of the Jackson-Vanik requirements, and still, with this 
passage, would require an annual Jackson-Vanik waiver from the 
President of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1995 this country embarked on a new path with the 
country of Vietnam. We chose to take a different direction toward 
better political, economic, and consular relations. In making that 
decision, we recognize the need to encourage the development of Vietnam 
as a prosperous country, and believed, as I believe today, that doing 
so would begin to bring about the fruition of democracy within that 
country.
  We understood how important it is to integrate our former adversary, 
with whom some of us in this body itself fought in a war in that 
country, to integrate that former adversary into the economic progress 
of Asia and ultimately into the global community.
  Since starting down the path, our policy, I believe, has reaped some 
very important benefits. It secured Vietnamese cooperation on achieving 
the fullest possible accounting of the POWs and MIAs from the Vietnam 
War. It has helped to contribute to regional stability. It has helped 
to open a new market for U.S. businesses and U.S. workers in the 
world's 13th most populous country.
  Mr. Speaker, just 2 weeks ago today I returned from a trip to 
Vietnam. It was my first time in that country in 10 years, in exactly 
the 10 years ago that I was there, and the 22 years before that that I 
had been there during the Vietnam War. I was struck with the tremendous 
changes that have taken place over the last 10 years.
  Ten years ago, we had no embassy in Hanoi. We had no consular office 
in Ho Chi Minh City. We had no American business presence. In fact, 
there was almost no foreign business presence anywhere in Vietnam at 
that time.
  Today we find the city of Ho Chi Minh, or Saigon, with five-star 
hotels, with very upscale restaurants and shops catering to foreign 
shoppers, high-rise buildings and a skyline that is beginning more to 
resemble Hong Kong or Bangkok than the somnolent Saigon many of us knew 
during the time of the Vietnam War when we served there 30-plus years 
ago.
  It is a different city. It is changing. I believe with this agreement 
we will accelerate that change. I believe that change will be to the 
good, both for the United States, but most importantly, for the people 
of Vietnam.
  Certainly the U.S.-Vietnam foreign policy relationship is one that is 
still maturing. We would all agree that we must continue to make 
progress in our relationship along several dimensions.
  But today, this legislation marks a very important milestone in the 
development of that relationship. Today we can support the extension of 
normal trade relations between our two countries. U.S. trade and 
economic ties with Vietnam can help the country see the benefits of 
developing a society that is based upon the rule of law. That faith in 
the rule of law can then serve as a foundation upon which further 
social and political development can be based.
  Mr. Speaker, no country can engage in trade with other countries, can 
engage in foreign relations, without ultimately having to come to terms 
with the rule of law. That is the most important aspect of this 
legislation.
  So to my colleagues in the House, I urge their support for this 
resolution.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose House Joint Resolution 51, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution. I am fortunate to 
represent Santa Clara county, an area in California with a vibrant 
Vietnamese-American population. Quite a few of my constituents came to 
San Jose as refugees escaping an oppressive political regime.
  Over the last 25 years, as the Santa Clara County supervisor, as an 
administration lawyer, and as a Member of Congress, I have worked 
closely with these Americans; and many of them have become my friends. 
I value their knowledge, experience, and support, and believe they have 
a unique perspective on the United States' relationship with Vietnam.
  While we are told that the government in Vietnam is making progress 
in the area of human rights, I continue to hear about religious 
persecution, political persecution, and unwarranted detentions from my 
friends in the Vietnamese community. During the past 12 months, the 
Vietnamese Government has intensified its campaign of brutal 
oppression, especially against religious leaders and ethnic minorities.
  When I, along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) hosted a hearing on human 
rights in Vietnam this spring, we learned of this firsthand. One after 
another, religious leaders testified to the lack of religious freedom 
in Vietnam. Several invited witnesses were unable to leave Vietnam to 
deliver their testimony in the face of government threats. They 
smuggled out written or audio testimony so their stories could be 
heard.
  In light of the government crackdown on religions, dissidents, and 
minorities, unconditional ratification of the bilateral trade agreement 
will send the wrong message to the Vietnamese leadership. The U.S. 
Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended that the U.S. 
Congress ratify the BTA only on the condition that Vietnam undertake 
substantial improvements in its policy towards and treatment of 
religion.
  I am a firm believer in trade. I have voted repeatedly for trade 
agreements, but the situation in Vietnam is different. We have a clear 
opportunity to change the course of the nation's behavior by denying it 
what it desires greatly, a trading relationship with America.
  President Bush, please stand up to the communists in Vietnam and 
insist on human rights in exchange for trade. We have the tools at hand 
to improve the human rights situation in Vietnam. I ask my colleagues 
how they justify not using this tool when so many have asked for our 
help.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation, 
until such time as the administration can reach a fair agreement with 
Vietnam on the catfish issue.

                              {time}  1530

  Well, my suggestion is that they are going to continue stealing our 
software

[[Page H5437]]

in Vietnam, just as in China, now that we have liberalized trade with 
them. It has not changed their practices one iota at all.
  So let us understand that when we make agreements with these types of 
regimes, these criminal regimes around the world, surprise, surprise, 
we are not going to be treated as if we are dealing with an honest 
democratically elected government that keeps its word. Instead, we are 
dealing with gangsters who pirate, and not only pirate but repress 
their own people, even commit murder. I mean, they murder their 
opponents in these regimes, and that means Vietnam, and yet we expect 
them to abide by some nice trade agreement with us? No. The agreements 
that they make with us will only be followed to the point that they are 
beneficial to the Vietnamese Government and the clique that runs that 
country.
  Let us take a look. We have heard about the catfish industry. I am 
very happy that the catfish industry was brought up today because we do 
not know whether or not the catfish industry in Vietnam was established 
with the help of a taxpayer loan or subsidy from the U.S. taxpayers, 
but we do know that we have several Congressmen from a variety of 
States here worried about their constituents being put out of work 
because catfish from Vietnam are flooding into our market. We do not 
know whether or not that catfish industry was set up with a taxpayer 
subsidized loan; but we do know that there is slave labor in Vietnam, 
that there are none of the environmental health standards in Vietnam, 
and there are none of the other types of protections in Vietnam that 
would be required of them if they were raising those catfish in the 
United States.
  And by the way, those same requirements might be put on Vietnam if 
they had a democratic government. If they had a democratic government, 
maybe they would be forced to pay their people more, or perhaps the 
people of Vietnam would demand higher health standards. But they do not 
have a democratic government. They have a gangster clique that runs the 
country and they are going to manipulate the catfish industry for their 
benefit. I would bet some of this clique in Hanoi are making money off 
the catfish industry by putting our people out of work.
  By making this agreement today, we will just do for the rest of 
American industry, step by step, what was done to the catfish industry, 
and we will be doing it with subsidies from the American taxpayers and 
loan guarantees from the American taxpayer. It makes no sense.
  Let us talk a little bit about the issue of human rights. And I will 
just say to my colleagues that suggest that if we would just open up 
these economic ties, there will be more respect. In fact, we have heard 
some people claim there has already been progress.
  There has been no progress. There has been retrogression in China, 
and there has been no progress about opening up that system 
democratically in Vietnam whatsoever. There are more five-star hotels 
around so that there our big businessmen with guaranteed loans in their 
pockets from the American taxpayers can go over there and invest and 
set up factories over there to use slave labor. Oh, yes, there are some 
five-star hotels, but that is not progress. That is not progress at 
all.
  What we still have are no opposition parties, no independent courts 
at all. There is no rule of law in that country, no freedom of the 
press, so nobody can criticize the corruption there. And that is why 
people do not invest unless they have government guarantees and loans 
or subsidies, because it is too risky a proposition.
  Why are we setting up the rules of the game and doing trade with a 
country like that when instead we should be seeking to encourage people 
to invest in democratic countries like the Philippines or in our own 
country to protect people with our own jobs?
  Last but not least, the POW issue. I have spent so much time on this 
issue over my 13 years in Congress. I cannot say it is more than any 
other Member, but I know that I have spent considerable time on it. I 
have been to Vietnam numerous occasions and Southeast Asia numerous 
occasions on this issue. I have studied it and I, without hesitation, 
can tell my colleagues that I do not believe this government has 
cooperated in good faith with the United States in trying to have an 
accounting for those Americans who were seen alive in captivity before 
the return.
  There were over 200 of those Americans who were in captivity; we knew 
they were, yet they were not returned at the end of the war. We want to 
find out what happened to those people. We do not want to have this 
obfuscation. We do not want this issue sugar-coated or candy-coated.
  They show pictures of this issue, of our people there digging for 
bones. Yes, digging for some of those bones will bring closure to some 
people, but we want truth. We want to establish the truth. If they kept 
those people and they murdered them later on, let us hear about it, and 
we can close this chapter of the book. But let us not let them get away 
with the same falsehood they have been using on their own people.
  I would ask for my colleagues to join me in opposition to this trade 
deal. It is contrary to America's interests. It is a bad deal. It is 
contrary to our values and will not bring a close to the Vietnam era. 
It will just leave this corrupt dictatorship thinking they put one over 
on us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
allowing me to speak on this important legislation.
  I agree with one thing from the comments of my colleague from 
California, and that is that this is closing a chapter in American 
history. But I think, most important, it represents opening a new era 
in relationships between the United States and Vietnam.
  We have heard people talk on this floor about the painful experience. 
And I think there is no question why people feel so strongly and 
passionately about it. This was a chapter in our history where 
traditional measures simply do not apply.
  Traditional concepts are of winning or losing a war, for example. 
Certainly the American public has lost over the course of the last 
third of a century. Certainly we paid heavily in economic terms, 
costing billions of dollars and throwing our economy into chaos.
  Families lost. We all know people who lost loved ones. Over 56,000 
Americans did not return. And there have been massive efforts on behalf 
of both the United States and the Vietnamese Governments to try to 
account for everyone, more than any other war in American history. Yet 
we are still striving to close that chapter.
  And, of course, we have to look no further than the streets of 
America now where we see troubled and, in some cases, homeless veterans 
who returned seared by the process.
  But those of us who have experienced a little bit of the situation in 
Vietnam recently, who have talked to our constituents who are here now 
and who are of Vietnamese heritage know that this chapter exacted a 
horrible price on Vietnam itself. There were hundreds of thousands of 
casualties, tens of thousands of missing and still unaccounted for, and 
it produced a flirtation with global communism as an ally that has 
delayed the modernization of that country, including not just its 
economy and human rights, but reintegration into the family of nations.
  Thankfully, soon after the formal fighting ended, there were 
courageous people who stepped forward to try to begin this new era. No 
discussion of this issue would be complete without noting the unique 
contributions by American heroes, like Senator McCain, Senator Kerry, 
and our own former colleague on the floor of this House and ambassador 
to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, who worked to engage our two countries.
  We have made tremendous progress in reconciling our past to the new 
future. It is still not going to be easy. This terrible tragedy in 
Vietnam continues to claim victims every day. And those who visited the 
country lately cannot help but be touched by the young children who 
continue to be maimed by land mines and other unexploded ordnance, by 
people struggling with war injuries, physical and psychological, 
children with birth defects.
  We have hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese who have fled to the 
United

[[Page H5438]]

States, who are now citizens of our country, who are trying to 
reconcile it as well, struggling with the past, and who are hungry for 
reconciliation with divided families. This trade agreement is an 
opportunity to open up whole new avenues of commerce and contact 
between our two countries, but particularly for Vietnamese Americans.
  Vietnam today is an entirely different nation, unlike what some would 
lead us to believe. It is entirely different from what we saw 40 and 50 
years ago. The architects of the Vietnam War on the side of the 
Vietnamese, like Ho Chi Minh and his contemporaries, are gone. It is an 
oft-cited statistic that 60 percent of the Vietnamese people have been 
born after the conclusion of that war and the vast majority have no 
memory of those efforts.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) yielding me this 
time, and I apologize if I got carried away a little bit, but we see 
this new country that is emerging that can take advantage of this trade 
agreement to forge new links. Southeast Asia is a cauldron today of 
over 600 million people, of diverse countries rich in natural 
resources, economic energies and rich cultures, and Vietnam is right in 
the middle of it. It is a country that has a long history of being 
leery of the country of China, for instance, and a thousand years of 
experience to back it up.
  We have seen people labor mightily over this trade agreement. We are 
going to see a new era of economic prosperity in Vietnam. It is going 
to help us economically, but it will be transformational for them, and 
it is going to empower a new generation of leaders, of entrepreneurs, 
speed the healing, and give them the energy to slam the pages closed on 
this chapter and open a new one.
  I deeply appreciate the leadership of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), in 
bringing this forward, the many people who have labored mightily for 
this agreement, and I strongly urge its passage.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I had a chance at the beginning to lay out a perspective of mine and, 
I think, many, many of my colleagues on the Democratic side. I think 
this has been a useful discussion, and I hope many have heard it, 
though not here. I simply want to reemphasize that this is not an easy 
relationship. It is a complex relationship because of the past, but 
also because of the present and likely the near future.
  There should be no rose-colored lenses. We are dealing with a 
society, a structure, that is very different from ours. Very different. 
A political structure that is very different and an economic structure 
that is very different. As a result, there is no automatic factor here. 
There is no magic wand. One thing will not lead automatically to 
another. I do not think a free capital market will lead automatically 
to a free labor market or to human rights.
  I think, as a result, we need a well-rounded comprehensive approach. 
I think included must be engagement, including on intellectual 
property. This agreement covers intellectual property. It has 
restrictions in terms of how the Vietnamese handle it.
  But beyond that, I think comprehensiveness must increasingly include, 
with this authoritarian society, their movement towards a free market 
in labor as well as in capital. That is why I think we need to both 
engage and pressure Vietnam. That is why I think, as we negotiate 
further agreements with Vietnam, we must consider the factors, 
including the labor market factors and perhaps even the environmental 
factors that at this point are not as critical.

                              {time}  1545

  So, in a word I think we need to move forward but in a comprehensive 
way. And on balance, I believe that this bill represents a movement 
forward, as long as we keep in mind the reality of a very different 
society with a very different structure that requires a different 
formula as we did with Cambodia, as we have wrestled with, with other 
countries, we would apply, if we were negotiating or approving an 
agreement with another industrialized democratic society.
  So with this, I close, hoping that we will pass this within the 
framework that I have suggested and I believe so many of my colleagues 
agree with.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, my other colleagues who are in opposition to this 
measure have eloquently outlined the many reasons to oppose it. I will 
close by concentrating again just on the MIA issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Boyd Sponaugle, Ron Cima and Chuck Henley of the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense for the updated information on the 
search for our MIA's. I am grateful to them and all who are working to 
bring our MIA's home.
  As I grow older, Mr. Speaker, I try to keep my priorities straight. 
That is why when I get up in the morning, the first two things I do are 
to thank God for my life and then veterans for my way of life. Because 
had it not been for my brother Bill and all of those who gave their 
lives in service to this country through the years, had it not been for 
people like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and Pete 
Peterson and Senator McCain who endured torture as prisoners of war, 
had it not been for people like Pete Dalessandro, a World War II 
Congressional Medal of Honor winner from my district who was laid to 
rest 2 years ago in our new cemetery in Saratoga, had it not been for 
them and all of those who wore the uniform of the United States 
military over the years, I would not have the privilege as an American 
citizen to go around bragging, as I often do, how we live in the freest 
and most open democracy on the face of the Earth. Because freedom is 
not free. We paid a tremendous price for it.
  So today, Mr. Speaker, based upon the comments that I made earlier 
and the comments of my colleagues, and on behalf of all 1,474 Americans 
who are still missing in Vietnam, I ask my colleagues to join me, the 
American Legion, the Veterans of the Vietnam War, the National Vietnam 
Veterans Coalition, and the Disabled American Veterans in opposing this 
measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that ordinarily in this debate 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), would be heavily involved in 
the debate; but due to a family circumstance, the gentleman is not here 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, in my response to my friend, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. McNulty) and his poignant comments, I too share the concern that 
he expresses.
  I think it is important to note, however, that, for example, in World 
War II there were more than 50,000 missing in action. It is true we 
have a better capability and we have carried on a much longer search to 
verify each and every individual who was missing in action; but the two 
former major Axis Powers are now two of our major trading partners. I 
do have to say we engage in trade disputes periodically, but we do so 
in an ordered process.
  I believe most of us who are in support of this resolution to enter 
into normal trade relations with the Socialist or Communist Government 
of Vietnam is to believe that this too will have a better outcome.
  I do want to respond to my colleague, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher), about his concern in terms of taxpayers' money. 
While this debate has gone on, we have engaged in a number of 
conversations. For example, the Export-Import Bank of the United States 
has indicated that there have been no transactions, therefore, no funds 
have been authorized for participation in Vietnam by American 
businessmen.
  We pursued farther. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation has 
indicated that there has been no activity. Beyond that they are 
required by law to examine any project to determine if it would have a 
negative impact on the U.S. economy and business. They would be 
required by law to turn a project down. So although there may be 
somebody's private dollars involved in the catfish operation, at this 
point I believe I can offer a degree of assurance to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) that there has been no taxpayer dollars.
  But the point he makes, if not specific to the catfish industry, is 
one that

[[Page H5439]]

we have to be concerned about. And that is why this agreement can be 
revoked at any time by the President under the structure that we have 
established. This is a year-to-year renewal. It is an embarkation on an 
attempt with a nonmarket economy to improve not only the labor areas 
that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has indicated he has a 
concern about, but the intellectual property rights guarantee that has 
caused so much pain by the copying around the world. Of course, the key 
to that is the transparency in the transactions. This will be a good 
test of the Government of Vietnam to see if they can be trustworthy.
  In fact, I find it entirely appropriate to reflect on the comments of 
the President of Mexico in the address he gave to the joint session 
today. He indicated one of the key commodities to improve the 
relationship between the United States and Mexico is a degree of trust. 
He indicated that notwithstanding the democratic title of the country 
over a number of years, it was far more authoritarian, that was his 
word, than democratic, but that there is a new era.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot say the same for the current government of 
Vietnam, but I do believe sincerely that this agreement will move us 
more in the direction of an open opportunity for Vietnamese citizens to 
express themselves.
  Currently, this will be in the more economic realm rather than in the 
political realm. There is no question they have what they believe to be 
a semblance of what they call a democracy; but the fundamental core of 
a democracy is that the decisions be made quantitatively with each 
person getting equal weight. We know that is not now the case in the 
Socialist or Communist Republic of Vietnam.
  All of those facts laid bare on the table, House Joint Resolution 51, 
introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority 
leader, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority 
leader, with the support of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), is worthy of a ``yes'' vote. 
We should move forward with this ongoing engagement with the Socialist 
or Communist Republic of Vietnam. It will be a yearly test to see if, 
in fact, our trust is well placed. If it is not, we can change. But for 
today, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on House Joint Resolution 
51.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 51, 
a resolution approving the extension of the waiver authority contained 
in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam.
  Amnesty International reports that the government of Vietnam 
continued to prevent independent human rights monitors from visiting 
the country and dozens of prisoners of conscience remained in prison 
throughout 2000. Restrictions on released prisoners continued to be 
harsh. Political dissidents, independent labor leaders and religious 
critics of the government were subjected to imprisonment, beatings, 
torture, surveillance, harassment and denial of basic freedoms, 
including freedom of expression.
  Last year, five members of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church were sentenced 
to between one and three years' imprisonment on trumped up charges.
  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 approved by the State. Dissident groups of Buddhists, Hoa Hao, 
and Protestants, in particular, faced harassment by authorities.
  Accordingly, we should not reward the Vietnamese communist 
dictatorship with trade benefits. It is an insult to the thousands of 
American and Vietnamese men and women who were wounded or died during 
the war fighting for democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.J. Res. 51.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, last January, I traveled to South Korea, 
Cambodia and Vietnam to discuss issues of peace, reconciliation, trade 
and security between the United States and Asia. It was a remarkable 
trip that helped us to learn. We learned so much about Vietnam and I 
became convinced that implementation of this Bilateral Trade Agreement 
is the right policy both for the Vietnamese and the American people. 
Therefore, I urge Members to vote for the Vietnam trade agreement to 
establish a regular trade regime between the United States and Vietnam.
  Thanks to Pete Peterson, former Ambassador to Vietnam, thousands of 
American and Vietnamese veterans, and the hard work of literally 
millions of people we have made large strides in reconciling our two 
nations after the agony of the Vietnam war. Over 50,000 Americans died 
in that conflict, thousands more were injured, and the war took the 
lives of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and left the country 
devastated. Pete Peterson has said: ``We cannot change the past. What 
we can change is the future.''
  Working in this spirit, America and Vietnam have established 
diplomatic ties, undertaken joint efforts to locate the remains of 
those still missing in action, and trade between our countries has 
increased. Last year, the United States and Vietnam completed this 
bilateral trade agreement, to set the stage for an even closer 
relationship between our nations and a trade regime that is more 
robust.
  On the last night of our trip, I spoke in Hanoi to the American 
Chamber of Commerce. That night, it became clear that both Americans in 
Vietnam and the Vietnamese wanted free and fair trade to lift up the 
lives of both our peoples. There is a hunger not to forget but to use 
the war as a springboard for healing and hope for the future of both 
countries. Virtually everyone we met said they wanted to join the 
global community and reap the benefits of the twin revolutions in trade 
and technology that are sweeping the globe.
  Our challenge is to work with Vietnam among other partners in trade 
to bend globalization for progressive ends: to make sure globalization 
produces higher living standards and stronger economies in developing 
and developed nations alike. This agreement is only a first step to 
raise living standards in Vietnam. It is not a free trade agreement. It 
establishes a formal trade relationship between our countries, lowering 
tariffs, increasing the flow of trade, and providing important new 
protections of intellectual property and investments in Vietnam by 
American companies.
  I hope that passage of this agreement will eventually help to 
strengthen labor rights and human rights for the Vietnamese people. We 
must continue the dialogue developed by Ambassador Peterson on labor 
rights and the U.S. technical assistance program. Also, I strongly 
support the suggestion from Congressman Levin, among others, that any 
textile agreement between Vietnam and the United States include a 
provision to promote labor rights. The model for such a provision lies 
in the agreement between America and Cambodia, to provide positive 
incentives in which we have promised to increase textile quotes once 
progress on labor issues has been established.
  I urge the Bush administration to continue to press in Vietnam for 
progress on human rights and religious freedom. If Vietnam moves 
towards the rule of law in commerce, I believe that it must also make 
progress in freedom for the Vietnamese people.
  Since the war ended in 1975, our countries have traveled on a 
journey, often difficult and agonizing, yet remarkable all the same; a 
journey defined by peace and reconciliation, motivated by healing and 
deeper human understanding. This trade agreement moves both countries 
forward in this remarkable effort. It is a positive development for 
both people. I hope all of my colleagues will support this resolution, 
and help us take another step on the road to healing and hope for all.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in firm support of House Joint 
Resolution 51, which approves the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade 
Agreement, grants NTR status to Vietnam, completes the normalization of 
our diplomatic relations begun in 1995. A failure to support this key 
legislation risks undercutting longstanding U.S. foreign policy 
objectives in Southeast Asia, damaging the credibility of the reform 
faction within the Hanoi government, and causing Vietnam's 80 million 
people to slide backwards toward isolationism.
  In 1986, Hanoi initiated a policy of doi moi, or ``economic 
renovation.'' For the first time the government encouraged private 
business start-ups and permitted inward foreign investment. As a 
result, Vietnam sustained on average nearly 8 percent annual GDP growth 
and welcomed $8.3 billion in foreign investment during the 1990s.
  I visited Vietnam this past April and was struck by its 92 percent 
literacy rate, its thriving entrepreneurship, and the thousands of 
zooming motorbikes. Industrial parks now line the suburbs of the major 
cities, and government is planning to open a stock exchange in downtown 
Ho Chi Minh City. As GDP has doubled and per capita income has risen 60 
percent since 1990, a small but growing, consumer-oriented middle class 
is taking root.
  Signed in July 2000, the U.S.-Vietnam BTA will buttress these 
enormous economic and social reforms. The BTA represents the most

[[Page H5440]]

far-reaching and comprehensive trade agreement ever negotiated with a 
non-market economy country. It grants the United States vastly improved 
access to Vietnam's potentially enormous consumer class, and improves 
market access for industrial and agricultural goods, services, 
intellectual property rights, and investment, while requiring greater 
transparency.
  The U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement will help Vietnam's 
reformers lock in the economic transformation that slower growth after 
the Asian financial crisis threatens to unravel. Continued engagement 
with the Vietnamese government also advances key U.S. foreign policy 
objectives, including the fullest possible accounting of Prisoners of 
War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA), freedom of emigration, increased U.S. 
business opportunities in Vietnam, and promoting Asian regional 
stability.
  Former Vietnamese Ambassador to the United States, Le Van Bang 
recently noted the positive influence that continued engagement has had 
on the Vietnamese people. He said that since we first reestablished 
diplomatic ties, the Vietnamese people have changed their attitudes 
toward Americans from ``the bitterness of war to a love of America.'' 
In such a fresh and positive atmosphere, our values in other key areas 
surely stand a much better hearing and more open consideration if we 
continue down this road. Approval of the U.S.-Vietnam BTA demonstrates 
we too are healing from one of the most divisive wars in our nation's 
history and that we seek to begin a new and truly productive era in 
U.S.-Vietnamese relations.
  Congressional approval of the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement 
and the expansion of business contacts between our two nations provides 
the strongest foundation for encouraging even further progress and 
reform in Vietnam. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote yes for H.J. 
Res. 51.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
measure to expand our trade relations with Vietnam.
  This resolution, which ratifies the U.S.-Vietnam bilateral trade 
agreement and extends normal trade relations to Vietnam, enjoys broad 
bipartisan support. The agreement represents a milestone toward 
building a stronger commercial relationship with Vietnam and promoting 
U.S. security and diplomatic interests in the region.
  We have seen tremendous progress in our diplomatic and economic 
relations with the Vietnamese Government. The country 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.
  Through a policy of engagement and U.S. business investment, Vietnam 
has improved its policies on immigration, 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. Former 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.
  However, this resolution is not a blank check to Vietnam. Before the 
United States grants NTR status to Vietnam, the Vietnamese Government 
is required to sharply lower most tariffs; phase out all non-tariff 
measures; and adhere to WTO standards in applying customs, import 
licensing another measures.
  This measure also takes an important step in requiring Vietnam to 
allow U.S., firms over a period of time to enter its services market in 
a full range of areas, including financial, telecom, engineering, 
computing, education, health and other services. Two other critical 
areas of this agreement require Vietnam to protect U.S. investments 
from expropriation and adopt a fully transparent trade and investment 
regime.
  Mr. Speaker, disapproval of this resolution 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.
  Approval of this bilateral agreement will advance U.S. economic 
interests and, more importantly to our regional interests in Asia, 
further integrate Vietnam into the global economy. I urge my colleagues 
to support this resolution.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H.J. Res. 
51. I am pleased to have the opportunity to vote in favor of free trade 
while respecting my commitment to Human Rights.
  Mr. Speaker, last year the U.S. signed a sweeping bilateral trade 
agreement with Vietnam.
  The State Department year 2000 review of Vietnam human rights 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, highlighting continued government 
repression of basic political freedoms. The State Department also noted 
that the Vietnam Government is intolerant of dissenting viewpoints, and 
selectively represses the religious rights of its citizens.
  Because of these factors, I voted in favor of H.J. Res. 55, 
legislation disapproving Waiver Authority with respect to Vietnam. Mr. 
Speaker, my vote was a protest vote, for I believe we cannot continue 
to hope that trade alone will guarantee the basic human rights of our 
trading partners.
  Today, this House also considers H.R. 2368, the ``Vietnam Human 
Rights Act,'' which establishes a commission to monitor human rights in 
Vietnam. I regard this as a step in a new direction, and one that I 
applaud. By discussing trade with Vietnam in the same context as its 
human rights situation, we are finally moving in a more comprehensive 
direction that respects our global obligations.
  As the leader of the free world, we have an obligation to promote 
core values when engaging the rest of the world. Thus, I have fewer 
reservations about moving forward with Vietnam.
  As we move into this new millennium, our actions here today signal a 
commitment to expanding the marketplace in a manner that benefits both 
the United States and Vietnam. The extension of Normal Trade Relations 
will grant market access to American industrial and agricultural 
products previously denied from competition. U.S. firms are also 
granted access to the Vietnam services market. We will be allowed to 
compete in telecommunications, financial services, engineering, 
accounting, and a variety of industries that will help develop an 
infrastructure in Vietnam to support our new commitment to engage 
Vietnam on all levels of concern.
  The approval of this legislation will ensure that U.S. firms 
committed to trade with Vietnam receive the protection of investments 
necessary to commit resources in a foreign country. By requiring a 
fully transparent trade regime with the promulgation of laws and 
regulations though a public process, this legislation helps Vietnam 
develop policies that will help this nation fully engage the world.
  This legislation cannot be evaluated, however, without the approval 
of H.R. 2368. Advancing the agenda of global trade in countries that do 
not respect their citizens is tantamount to modern day feudalism, and 
should not be supported by this House.
  Establishing a trade regime with Vietnam that will ease this nation's 
transition into the WTO means nothing unless prisoners like Catholic 
Priest Nguyen Van Ly, Mr. Le Quang Liem of the Inter-Religious Council, 
and Buddhist leaders the Venerable Thieh Huyen Quang and the Venerable 
Thieh Quang Do are ensured their right to freely exercise their 
respective religions.
  Mr. Speaker, today this House goes a long way toward reconciling the 
concerns of all parties interested in global trade and its 
consequences. Passage of H.J. Res. 51 ensures that American products 
will be given fair access to the Vietnamese marketplace. By combining 
the extension of this trade with the recognition of Human Rights here 
on the House Floor, we set a positive precedent for future trade 
legislation. I therefore support H.J. Res. 51.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has 
expired. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, September 5, 
2001, the joint resolution is considered 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, was read the third time, and passed.

                          ____________________