[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16659-16670]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



DISAPPROVING THE EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN SECTION 
  402(c) OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 WITH RESPECT TO VIETNAM--MOTION TO 
                               DISCHARGE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Mr. Smith, is recognized to offer a motion to discharge the 
Finance Committee of S.J. Res. 28, on which there shall be 1 hour of 
debate, equally divided.
  The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, pursuant to the Trade Act 
of 1974, and the rules of the Senate, I make a privileged motion that 
the Senate Committee on Finance be discharged from further 
consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 28, a resolution disapproving 
the President's June 3, 1999, waiver of freedom of emigration 
requirements for Vietnam as a condition for expanded U.S. trade 
benefits.
  Before going into that, Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask 
unanimous consent that the time accorded to the majority leader on the 
two motions--the one on China and the one on Vietnam--be allocated to 
the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous 
consent that the vote with respect to trade with Vietnam be postponed 
to occur in a stacked sequence following the vote with respect to trade 
with China.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.

[[Page 16660]]


  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he should desire 
to my distinguished chairman and friend, the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator from New York. I also express my 
appreciation for the cooperation of my good friend, the Senator from 
New Hampshire.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Holly Vineyard, 
a Finance Committee detailee from the Department of Commerce, be 
granted floor privileges during the pendency of S.J. Res. 27 and S.J. 
Res. 28.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senator 
Smith's motions to discharge the Finance Committee of S.J. Res 27 and 
28. These resolutions would overturn the President's extension of the 
Jackson-Vanik waiver authority with respect to China and Vietnam.
  I can understand Senator Smith's desire to have the Senator consider 
and debate these resolutions. Our economic relationship with these 
countries is clearly worth our attention.
  This, however, is not the time for such a debate. There is a process 
already underway in the House on these resolutions that we should allow 
to continue. The Ways and Means Committee has already reported out 
these resoltuions--both adversely, I might add. Floor action in the 
House on both these measures is already planned for the next few weeks. 
With the House ready to act, there is no reason for us to undercut that 
process by taking these matters up at this time.
  If the House does pass either of these resolutions, then the Senate 
should consider them on their merits. On the issue of China, I will be 
ready, along with many of my colleagues, to discuss why maintaining 
normal trade relations with that country is in our national interest. 
In short, there are--and there will continue to be--areas of 
significant disagreement between our two nations. But the record is 
clear that our commercial relationship with China has been good for our 
economy. It has also helped bring about positive change in China.
  On the issue of Vietnam, I look to my colleagues, Senators John 
Kerry, McCain, Bob Kerrey, Hagel, Robb, and Cleland. These Senators--
all Vietnam veterans--support the Jackson-Vanik waiver. In their view, 
the President's waiver has helped in resolving the problems we have had 
with Vietnam on emigration.
  While these are my views, in brief, a more substantive discussion of 
these issues should come at a later time. Until the House acts, we 
should complete our work on the matters already before us. After all, 
the motions to discharge the committee are effectively motions to 
proceed to the resolutions themselves. That means, under the Jackson-
Vanik statute, 20 hours of floor debate on each measure. That also 
means putting off our consideration of the appropriations bills.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against Senator 
Smith's motions.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose Senator Smith's motion to 
discharge from the Senate Finance Committee his resolution disapproving 
of the extension of the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. I do so 
because I believe the House should properly act first on a measure of 
this nature, because the Committee should be afforded the opportunity 
to render judgment on Senator Smith's resolution before it is taken up 
by the full Senate, and because Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver, like 
China's Normal Trade Relation status, is too important to fall victim 
to the political currents buffeting the Senate at this time.
  Procedurally, the Senate has traditionally reserved consideration of 
Jackson-Vanik waivers and the granting of Normal Trade Relation status 
until after the House has acted. As my colleagues know, the House Ways 
and Means Committee has unfavorably reported the House resolutions of 
disapproval for both Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver and China's Normal 
Trade Relation status. These measures are scheduled for floor action in 
the House. The Senate should not rush to judgment on either of these 
measures until the House has voted on them. Indeed, the Senate has over 
40 remaining days under the statutory deadline for action on the 
waiver.
  Substantively, the Jackson-Vanik amendment exists to promote freedom 
of emigration from non-democratic countries. The law calls for a waiver 
if it would enhance opportunities to emigrate freely. Opportunities for 
emigration from Vietnam have clearly increased since the President 
first waived the Jackson-Vanik amendment in 1998. The waiver has 
encouraged measurable Vietnamese cooperation in processing applications 
for emigration under the Orderly Departure Program (ODP) and the 
Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees agreement (ROVR).
  The Jackson-Vanik waiver has also allowed the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation (OPIC), the Export-Import Bank (EXIM), and the 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to support American businesses in 
Vietnam. Withdrawing OPIC, EXIM, and USDA guarantees would hurt U.S. 
businesses and slow progress on economic normalization. It would 
reinforce the position of hard-liners in Hanoi who believe Vietnam's 
opening to the West has proceeded too rapidly.
  Let me assure my colleagues that I harbor no illusions about the 
human rights situation in Vietnam. There is clearly room for 
improvement. The question is how best to advance both the cause of 
human rights and U.S. economic and security interests. The answer lies 
in the continued expansion of U.S. relations with Vietnam.
  Although the Jackson-Vanik waiver does not relate to our POW/MIA 
accounting efforts, Vietnam-related legislation often serves as a 
referendum on broader U.S.-Vietnam relations, in which accounting for 
our missing personnel is the United States' first priority. Thirty-
three Joint Field Activities conducted by the Department of Defense 
over the past six years, and the consequent repatriation of 266 sets of 
remains of American military personnel during that period, attest to 
the ongoing cooperation between Vietnamese and American officials in 
our efforts to account for our missing service men. I am confident that 
such progress will continue.
  Just as the naysayers who insisted that Vietnamese cooperation on 
POW/MIA issues would cease altogether when we normalized relations with 
Vietnam were proven wrong, so have those who insisted that Vietnam 
would cease cooperation on emigration issues once we waived Jackson-
Vanik been proven wrong by the course of events since the original 
waiver was issued in March 1998.
  The Jackson-Vanik amendment was designed to link U.S. trade to the 
emigration policies of communist countries, primarily the Soviet Union. 
The end of the Cold War fundamentally restructured global economic and 
security arrangements. As the recent expansion of NATO demonstrated, 
old enemies have become new friends. Moreover, meaningful economic and 
political reform can only occur in Vietnam if the United States remains 
engaged there.
  Last year, I initiated a Dear Colleague letter to members of the 
House of Representatives signed by every Vietnam veteran in the Senate 
but Senator Smith, who has opposed every step in the gradual process of 
normalizing our relations with Vietnam over the years. There are those 
in Congress, including Senator Smith, who remain opposed to the 
extension of Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver. But they do not include 
any other United States Senator who served in Vietnam and who, as a 
consequence, might be understandably skeptical of closer U.S.-Vietnam 
relations.
  That body of opinion reminds us that, whatever one may think of the 
character of the Vietnamese regime, such considerations should not 
obscure our clear humanitarian interest in promoting freedom of 
emigration from Vietnam. The Jackson-Vanik waiver serves that interest. 
Consequently, I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator

[[Page 16661]]

Smith's extraordinary motion to discharge consideration of his 
resolution from the Finance Committee.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the minority of the Finance 
Committee, I want to associate myself wholly with the remarks of our 
chairman.
  This is not the time to engage in protracted debate on the Senate 
floor over our economic relations with China and Vietnam. The Finance 
Committee has not yet had an opportunity to consider the disapproval 
resolutions that the Senator from New Hampshire seeks to discharge. Nor 
has the House acted on the companion measures. It will do so later this 
month. If the motions to discharge the Finance Committee are approved, 
the Senate will be committing itself, as the Trade Act of 1974 
provides, to 20 hours of debate on Vietnam and 20 hours of debate on 
China. The Senate's time is better spent on other matters.
  The Senator from New Hampshire has moved to discharge the Finance 
Committee from further consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 27 and 
Senate Joint Resolution 28. Let us be clear what is at issue here. S.J. 
Res. 27 and S.J. Res. 28 disapprove of the President's decision of June 
3, 1999 to extend for another year his waiver of the so-called 
``Jackson-Vanik'' amendment as it applies to China and Vietnam, 
respectively.
  A bit of history is in order. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was the 
vision of Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington, who, in 1972, first 
proposed:

       . . . an unprecedented measure to bring the blessings of 
     liberty to these brave men and women who have asked only for 
     the chance to find freedom in a new land.

``Scoop'' Jackson's amendment was precipitated by the decision of the 
Soviet Union, in August 1972, to assess exorbitant fees on persons 
wishing to emigrate. Cloaked as ``education reimbursement fees'' or 
``diploma taxes,'' the Soviet authorities argued that emigrants owed an 
obligation to reimburse the Government for their free education, since, 
by reason of their departure, the emigrants would no longer put their 
education to use for the benefit of Soviet society.
  The exit taxes applied to all emigrants, but affected primarily 
Soviet Jews wishing to emigrate to Israel or the United States. Thus 
was born the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Representative Charles Vanik of 
Ohio was the chief sponsor in the House. The amendment--Section 402 of 
the Trade Act of 1974--provides that no country shall be eligible to 
receive Normal Trade Relations tariff treatment or to participate in 
any United States Government programs that extend credit or credit 
guarantees or investment guarantees if that country:
  (1) denies its citizens the right or opportunity to emigrate;
  (2) imposes more than a nominal tax on emigration or on the visas or 
other documents required for emigration, for any purpose or cause 
whatsoever; or
  (3) imposes more than a nominal tax, levy, fine, fee, or other charge 
on any citizen as a consequence of the desire of such citizen to 
emigrate to the country of his choice.
  Under the law, the President may waive these restrictions if he 
determines that:

       . . . such waiver will substantially promote the objectives 
     of this section . . . and he has received assurances that the 
     emigration practices of that country will henceforth lead 
     substantially to the achievement of the objectives of this 
     section.

  The United States has granted NTR status to China since 1980, on the 
basis of a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik provisions. Vietnam does not yet 
enjoy NTR status, but, since 1998, when the President first waived the 
Jackson-Vanik requirements, U.S. exports to Vietnam and investment 
projects in that country have been eligible for certain U.S. Government 
credits and credit and investment guarantees issued by the United 
States Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation 
and the United States Department of Agriculture.
  The issue before the Senate, then, is whether the Senate agrees with 
the President's assessment of the emigration policies and practices of 
China and Vietnam. At stake are our economic relations with those 
countries.
  The first point to be made is that the authors of the Jackson-Vanik 
amendment had neither China nor Vietnam in mind when they drafted their 
provision. The amendment was a creature of the Cold War, and is today 
an anachronism in many respects.
  The President's June 3, 1999 report to the Congress, which 
accompanied his determination to extend the Jackson-Vanik waiver to 
China for another year, made the following points:

       In FY 1998, 27,776 U.S. immigrant visas were issued to 
     Chinese nationals abroad, up slightly from FY 1997 . . . and 
     up to the numerical limitation under U.S. law . . . .
       The principal constraint on increased emigration continues 
     to be the capacity and willingness of other nations to absorb 
     Chinese immigrants rather than Chinese policy.

  On Vietnam, the President reported the following:

       Overall, Vietnam's emigration policy has liberalized 
     considerably in the last decade and a half. Vietnam has a 
     solid record of cooperation with the United States in 
     permitting Vietnamese to emigrate. Over 500,000 Vietnamese 
     have emigrated as refugees or immigrants to the United States 
     under the Orderly Departure Program (ODP), and only a small 
     number of refugee applicants remain to be processed.

  The President reported particular progress in the so-called ROVR 
program--the Resettlement Opportunities for Vietnamese Returnees 
program--formalized in 1997 to facilitate the emigration of Vietnamese 
who were still in asylum camps in Southeast Asia or who had recently 
returned to Vietnam.
  As the President noted in his June 3, 1999 report:

       After a slow start, processing of eligible cases under the 
     ROVR program accelerated dramatically in 1998 and is now near 
     completion. As of June 1, 1999, the [Government of Vietnam] 
     had cleared for interview 19,975 individuals, or 96 percent 
     of the ROVR applicants.

  Given these findings, I would submit that the President's 
determination to waive the Jackson-Vanik freedom-of-emigration 
provisions with respect to both China and Vietnam was fully in 
accordance with the law. I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
motion to discharge the Finance Committee from further consideration of 
the disapproval resolutions: there is no need to take the Senate's time 
at this point.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the able Senator from New Hampshire is to 
be commended for bringing to the attention of the Senate the issue of 
normal trade relations with the communist regimes of China and Vietnam.
  Few Senators have so steadfastly opposed communism in East Asia as 
Senator Bob Smith. During this decade when it has been fashionable to 
declare the cold war over and just forget about the billion-plus people 
who continue to suffer under communist oppression, Senator Smith has 
remained firm in his commitment to freedom in East Asia and that is why 
he is bringing these motions before the Senate today.
  And on that score, I join Senator Smith in support of the policies 
that he is emphasizing here today--that of denying normal trade status 
to Communist China and Vietnam. The Senator is right on the mark. 
Neither of these illegitimate regimes merits this honor. Mr. President, 
too often, in our search for trade dollars, we neglect to ask 
ourselves: With whom are we doing business?
  Well, let's ask.
  We are dealing with a communist regime in China that has 
illegitimately held power for 50 years. The same regime, in fact, that 
killed so many U.S. soldiers in the Korean war. The same regime that 
has killed tens of millions of its own people since 1949. And the same 
regime that has consistently identified the United States as the number 
one obstacle to its strategic agenda.
  Supporters of the engagement theory dismiss all of this. They say 
that normal trade with China is in the U.S. interest and, in any event, 
will change China's behavior for the better. Reality has yet to catch 
up with the theory. Red China's behavior continues to be unacceptable 
and it is difficult to see which U.S. interests are being served by 
trade-as-usual with this regime.

[[Page 16662]]

  This year, as in the past, there is voluminous evidence to contradict 
the claims of the engagement theorists. Whether it be national security 
issues or human rights, the picture in China is even bleaker than it 
was a year ago, the exact opposite of what the engagement theorists 
have predicted.
  For starters, we have the Cox Committee's revelations of China's 
massive pilfering of our nuclear secrets. At a minimum, the Cox report 
has laid waste to the notion of China as a strategic partner. And the 
orchestration of anti-American riots by the Chinese government in May 
has reminded us that the true colors of the communist regime remain 
unchanged.
  Meanwhile, China continues its reckless foreign policies that 
engagement was supposed to help moderate. In March, ace reporter Bill 
Gertz revealed that despite its promises to the Clinton administration, 
China continues to proliferate weapons of mass destruction to fellow 
rogue regimes around the world.
  In February, the Pentagon reported that China is engaged in a massive 
buildup of missiles aimed at the democratic country of Taiwan.
  Similar to national security issues, human rights have also regressed 
after another year of normal trade with China. The State Department 
itself was forced to admit this in April in its annual Country Reports 
on Human Rights Practices. Even on the economic front, where one might 
expect some benefits to accrue to America from trade with China, the 
yield is minimal. In 1998, American exports to Communist China were 
just $14 billion, less than one-fifth of one percent of GNP and fifty 
percent less than we export to democratic Taiwan.
  The picture in Vietnam is similar. That country is still run by the 
same communist autocrats as when the U.S. trade relationship resumed in 
1994. These, of course, were the same revolutionaries who killed 58,000 
Americans in the Vietnam war. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese people today 
still don't enjoy any real freedoms of speech, assembly, religion or 
political activity. The Vietnamese government continues to put up 
roadblocks to emigration for Montagnards and other citizens who wish to 
escape the misery and tyranny of Communist Vietnam. The economy is 
still a socialist mess, riddled with bureaucracy and corruption.
  And yet again, Mr. President, we cannot stand here today and honestly 
claim that the Vietnamese government has provided a full accounting of 
our missing soldiers from the Vietnam war.
  The bottom line, Mr. President, is that granting normal trade 
relations to China and Vietnam has purchased precious little for the 
United States and we ought to revoke the status for both countries.
  But while I support Senator Smith from a policy point of view, I 
cannot agree with the method that is being used here today. I am 
concerned that utilizing a motion to discharge these resolutions 
infringes on the prerogatives of the committee of jurisdiction, in this 
case the Finance Committee. Thus, I cannot support these motions.
  However, given the gravity of the underlying policy issues, I would 
strongly encourage the Committee on Finance to report out Senate Joint 
Resolutions 27 and 28 so that the Senate can debate these important 
measures.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank Senator Helms for 
his support of both the motion to discharge on the Vietnam issue, as 
well as the China issue.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes. In response to my colleague 
from Delaware regarding what has happened in the past on the 
differences between the House and the Senate on such resolutions, I 
state for the record that the Trade Act of 1974, which is the item in 
question, on procedures in the Senate regarding discharges, says:

       If the Senate passes a resolution before receiving from the 
     House of Representatives a joint resolution that contains the 
     identical matter, the joint resolution shall be held at the 
     desk pending receipt of the joint resolution from the House.

  So there is absolutely no problem whatsoever in having the Senate 
deal with this. In the past, the Senate has deferred action on the 
Jackson-Vanik waivers, according to Senator Roth, and the House has 
acted first. But we don't have to wait for the House to pass anything 
to act on it. It is clearly within the act of 1974. And so, with all 
due respect, I am not trying to assume any powers that aren't in the 
act itself.
  I also want to respond to the point that Chairman Roth made in which 
he said: Until the House acts, there is no need to defer action on the 
critical matters currently before the Senate. Indeed, House action may 
moot the need to take up these resolutions at all.
  Let me also point out that should the discharge motion prevail, there 
is no attempt by me to bring this up immediately and get into the 
Senate's time. If the majority leader and minority leader determine 
they want to take this up at another time other than today or tomorrow 
or even this week, that is perfectly all right with me. I am not in any 
way trying to interrupt the Senate schedule. There is simply an hour 
equally divided on these motions. So it will take 2 hours of the 
Senate's time and that is it, as far as I am concerned today. Unless 
the leaders decide they want to take it up now, that would be OK.
  Also, regarding critical matters before the Senate, China has been in 
the news a lot lately, to say the least, and if the situation in China 
in terms of the human rights violations, the spy scandal, and all the 
other things that have gone on--if that is not a critical matter to 
bring before the Senate, I guess I am not sure what critical is. I 
believe it is critical, and I think it should be discussed.
  In spite of that, should the leaders determine this should not be 
discussed today, tomorrow, or next week, I am amenable to whatever 
schedule the majority leader would like to work out to bring this 
matter to the floor for the 20 hours of debate, which would follow if 
the discharge resolution prevails.
  For the information of my colleagues, the discharge motion I have 
made as a sponsor of S.J. Res. 28 is a privileged matter and in 
accordance with the Trade Act of 1974. I am very pleased to have the 
distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator 
Helms, as a cosponsor of this resolution.
  The discharge motion now before the Senate is in order under the 1974 
Trade Act simply because more than 30 days have expired since I 
introduced it on June 7, 1999. And to date, the resolution has not been 
reported by the Finance Committee. I am sure it is not being reported 
because, respectfully, the chairman disagrees with me on this. He has 
every right to not report it, and I respect that. But I also have the 
right to discharge it.
  What is S.J. Res. 128 in layman's terms, and why do I want my 
colleagues on both sides to allow this bill to be discharged and placed 
on the Senate calendar? It is a fair question and I want to answer 
directly.
  Under section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974, Communist countries--in 
this case the Socialist Republic of Vietnam--are not eligible to 
participate, either directly or indirectly, in U.S. Government programs 
that extend credit or investment guarantees if the country denies its 
citizens the right or opportunity to emigrate, if it denies its 
citizens the right to emigrate, if it imposes more than a nominal tax 
on emigration and visa papers, and more than a nominal tax, levies a 
fine, fee, or other charge on any citizen as a consequence of that 
citizen's desire to emigrate or leave their country. In other words, if 
a citizen is taxed to leave, or denied the right to leave, then this is 
what the Trade Act is all about.
  Simply put--and this would not surprise many colleagues, I hope--
Vietnam severely restricts the rights of its citizens to have the 
opportunity to emigrate. It has done so since the fall of Saigon, and 
it continues to do so. Corruption and bribery by Vietnamese officials 
is rampant with respect to those desperately trying to get out through 
the application process. Many of these people bring their life savings, 
some of them borrowing money to get out, and then after the money is 
confiscated they are still denied.
  That is why Vietnam has historically not been eligible to take 
advantage of

[[Page 16663]]

American taxpayer-funded programs which subsidize business deals 
between American companies and the Communist Government agencies in 
Hanoi; that is, until last year. It is very important.
  When President Clinton decided to use the section of this same Trade 
Act of 1974 which allows him to grant a waiver of Jackson-Vanik, the 
freedom of immigration requirement, if he determines that such a waiver 
will ``substantially promote the objections of this section,'' which, 
as I said, is to ensure that countries do not impose more than a 
nominal tax fee or fee to immigrate and they don't hinder the human 
rights--if the President determines that there are no human rights 
violations, or no fees beyond nominal fees to get out processing, then 
we grant this waiver.
  But the question is: Is that true? I don't think it is.
  I would like to have the opportunity--which is all I am asking for in 
this discharge motion--to prove that on the floor of the Senate. I know 
there are 20 hours equally divided. I don't need 10 hours, but I would 
like to have a little time to prove it. I hope my colleagues will 
respect me on that.
  The President cannot use the waiver unless he has received assurances 
that the immigration practices of that country will henceforth lead 
substantially to the achievement of the objectives I just outlined 
before, such as stopping bribery and corruption by Communist officials. 
But the President's use of this waiver authority with regard to Vietnam 
has been in effect now for a little over a year.
  My colleagues should understand that we now have the opportunity to 
go back and look over the past several months and make an informed 
judgment about whether the President's waiver of the freedom of 
immigration requirement during this period has actually resulted in 
``substantial promotion'' in Vietnam's human rights records on 
immigration matters.
  If you believe it has, then you should not be afraid to come to the 
floor and debate me on it whenever the leader decides to bring it here. 
You will have the opportunity to vote against a disapproval resolution 
I have introduced with Senator Helms to nullify the President's waiver. 
But why would you? Why would you be afraid to stand up and defend it? 
If you think that everything is fine and that all of these policies 
have not been violated, then come to the Senate floor and debate me, 
and we will see who wins on that point.
  If you think President Clinton should not abuse this waiver based on 
Vietnam's performance, if you think President Clinton should have 
instead insisted that Vietnam actually comply with the freedom of 
immigration standards, then you would vote for this discharge. You 
would vote for S.J. Res. 28, and ultimately you would vote against 
granting the waiver.
  However--this is important--in order to have the debate on the 
resolution, in order to carry out our constitutional duty under article 
I, section 8, to regulate trade matters with foreign nations, we need 
to discharge the bill and bring it to the floor.
  I want to point out, because sometimes we forget we took an oath to 
the Constitution of the United States, it says in article I, section 8, 
that ``Congress shall have Power to . . . regulate Commerce with 
Foreign Nations . . . '' It is pretty clear.
  If there is some difference of opinion as to a particular law 
regarding commerce with foreign nations, then we ought to have the 
opportunity to debate it on the floor. That is all I am asking in this 
resolution. It is that simple. As I said in my ``Dear Colleague,'' 
whether you support or whether you oppose the actual underlying 
resolution, you should at least be willing to support having a debate 
on the measure.
  That is all I am asking: Could we have a debate on it, instead of 
leaving the bill bottled up in the Finance Committee where it 
automatically becomes effective. Come down, make your arguments, and 
allow me to make mine. That is what the American people expect us to 
do. Then we will have a vote after a few hours of debate.
  I have studied it. People say there are so many other important 
things. I am not too sure about that. In the case of Vietnam, we still 
have MIA matters unresolved. We have foreign businesses that are going 
to make huge profits if we allow all of these things to go on. We have 
Vietnamese citizens in this country who escaped and who have had a lot 
of their earnings confiscated. They sent them over there to try to get 
their families out. What happened? The Vietnamese Government 
confiscated the money, and then they did not let the family members 
out.
  I have been going over this a lot over the past several months. I 
have heard from countless Vietnamese Americans all across this country 
in all 50 of our States. They have family members and friends in 
Vietnam, many of whom fought alongside the United States during the 
Vietnam war. I want to tell you their stories. I want to share the 
stories of these people who have tried so hard to get their loved ones 
out after they themselves have been able to escape. But I can't do it 
in half an hour. I can't do it in 30 minutes. I need the time to do it 
so we can make an intelligent decision on this waiver that the 
President has granted.
  Every Member of the Senate needs to hear these accounts of 
persecution and corruption that many Vietnamese continue to experience 
at the hands of Communist Government officials throughout that nation. 
Some of them have been forced to pay bribes into the thousands of 
dollars, and even after they paid the bribes, they have been denied the 
right to emigrate. I want to tell you those stories.
  I have also heard from our staff who are assisting refugees in 
Southeast Asia who are trying to help these Vietnamese. I want to share 
with you all of what they have been telling me. But I am not going to 
be able to get into any serious level of detail on these matters if 51 
of my colleagues prevent me from debating this on the Senate floor.
  Mr. President, how much time have I used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair.
  Let me say up front that I am a Vietnam veteran who feels very 
strongly about this issue. Some of my colleagues neglect to mention 
that when they are talking about Vietnam veterans. But I am one in the 
Senate. However, there are others, such as the junior Senator from 
Massachusetts, who is here today, and the senior Senator from Arizona, 
who disagree with me. That is fine. I asked them, and the four other 
Vietnam vets in the Senate--indeed, every Member in the Senate--not to 
duck the debate, to come down and debate me, to have a good debate, and 
then let the Senate decide based on what they hear. But let's not 
bottle this up in the Senate Finance Committee. Vote to let this debate 
take place. Come down and participate. I look forward to debating you. 
It is going to take a little bit of the Senate's time. It is worth it. 
It is the taxpayers' money that is being used. People's lives are being 
affected. Good American citizens, who have family members in Vietnam, 
have a right to have this heard on the Senate floor.
  I am not asking people to vote with me on the underlying resolution. 
I am just asking people to give me a chance to debate it and make a 
decision. It might take an afternoon. It might take an evening. I am 
certainly not going to use 10 hours, but I am prepared to do this in 
detail at whatever time the majority leader says so. I think we owe the 
American people that. I think it is wrong to prevent this debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. President, I rise to oppose the effort of the Senator from New 
Hampshire whose efforts on this are long and untiring. I respect his 
commitment to the opposing point of view, but I disagree with him, as I 
know a number of my colleagues do.

[[Page 16664]]

  I agree with the procedural arguments that the distinguished chairman 
of the Finance Committee has made. On the merits of the issue, I 
strongly support the President's decision to renew the waiver of the 
Jackson-Vanik amendment for Vietnam. There is no question that 
overturning that waiver would have serious consequences--negative 
consequences--for our bilateral relations with Vietnam and for our 
larger interests in the region.
  The United States has very important interests, as we know. One is 
for obtaining the fullest possible accounting of American servicemen 
missing from the war. That still remains the first priority of our 
relationship. But in addition to that, we have interests in promoting 
freedom of immigration, promoting human rights and freedoms, and 
encouraging Vietnam to maintain its course of economic reform and to 
open its markets to American and to other companies.
  We also have important political and strategic interests in promoting 
the stability of the often volatile region of Southeast Asia, as well 
as in balancing some of the interests of China in the region, and 
clearly our relationship with Vietnam is important in that effort. 
These interests, in my judgment, dictate that we should maintain a very 
active presence and a very effective working relationship with all of 
the countries in the region, including Vietnam.
  The real question to be asked is, How do you promote the most 
effective relationship in the region, and with Vietnam? It is, in my 
judgment, not by denying Vietnam trade and other benefits of 
interaction with the United States, nor do we do it by engaging them in 
an incremental process of building an effective and mutually beneficial 
policy of engagement.
  Some of us have been engaged in this issue for a long time in the 
Senate. I have been involved in it for the 15 years I have been here.
  As the former chairman of the POW/MIA committee that set up the 
policy whereby we began to get some answers to the questions regarding 
our missing servicepeople, let me just say that there is one clear fact 
that is irrefutable. For 20 years we denied a relationship. For 20 
years we didn't engage. For 20 years we refused to build the kind of 
cooperative effort in which we are currently engaged. For those 20 
years after the war, we didn't get any answers at all regarding our 
missing. The fact is that it was under President Reagan and President 
Bush that we began a process of engagement. President Bush and General 
Scowcroft moved us carefully down that road, and President Clinton has 
continued that policy of eliciting from the Vietnamese the kind of 
cooperation that has provided the answers to many families in this 
country about their loved ones who are missing in Vietnam.
  I have recounted that progress many times in this Chamber. I don't 
intend to go through it again now, in the interest of time. Let me just 
emphasis one very important point.
  Last year, those who opposed the waiver of the Jackson-Vanik 
amendment suggested as one of the arguments for opposing it that POW/
MIA accounting was going to stop or it would decrease. In fact, the 
opposite is true. Their predictions of dire impact last year have 
proven wrong, just as the predictions that, by being more hard-line and 
not involving ourselves with them, we would get answers have proven 
wrong.
  The Vietnamese have continued to conduct bilateral and unilateral 
investigations and document searches and to cooperate in the trilateral 
investigations. Leads that might help resolve outstanding discrepancy 
cases continue to be investigated by the Vietnamese and the American 
teams. In fact, the waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment last year 
served as an incentive for continued progress on immigration. As a 
result, the processing of our applicants under the orderly departure 
program and the ROVR program have continued to the point that we are 
extraordinarily satisfied.
  Although progress in the area of human rights is not everything we 
want it to be, even liberalization has continued over the last year, as 
evidenced by increased participation in religious activities, 
Vietnamese access to the Internet, 60 strikes by workers, including 
strikes against state-owned enterprises, as well as the release of 24 
prisoners of conscience.
  If we overturn the Jackson-Vanik waiver, in my judgment and in the 
judgment of Senator McCain, Senator Bob Kerrey, Senator Chuck Robb, and 
Senator Hagel, and others who have served, we run the risk of setting 
back progress on these issues as well as negating the current 
extraordinary progress on the bilateral trade agreement, which I 
believe is extraordinarily close to being signed.
  Our step-by-step approach to normalizing relations is working, and it 
is in keeping with the many interests of our Government that I have 
expressed. I believe we should stay the course and therefore oppose the 
efforts of the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote 
against the motion to discharge the Committee on Finance from further 
consideration of the resolution disapproving the extension of the 
Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam.
  The chairman of the Committee on Finance, Senator Roth, has explained 
why this is a premature and unnecessary motion because the underlying 
resolution is privileged, and if the House passes either resolution, 
then the full Senate would be required to take up the resolution. It is 
expected that the full House will vote on the measure soon. So let's 
keep our attention on the very important and timely legislation 
currently being considered by the Senate.
  But I also want to stress that even if this were the right time to 
consider the Jackson-Vanik waiver, the Senate should not adopt a 
resolution of disapproval. Although it is often forgotten in the debate 
over normal trade relations, the Jackson-Vanik waiver's chief objective 
is promoting freedom of emigration.
  The President extended Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver because he 
determined that doing so would substantially promote greater freedom of 
emigration in the future in Vietnam. I support this determination 
because of Vietnam's record of progress on emigration and on Vietnam's 
continued and intensified cooperation on U.S. refugee programs.
  According to testimony by the U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete 
Peterson, Vietnam's emigration policy has opened considerably in the 
last decade and a half. As a consequence, over 500,000 Vietnamese have 
emigrated as refugees or immigrants to the United States under the 
Orderly Departure Program, and only a small number of refugee 
applications remain.
  So on the merits, the waiver is justified. But I also believe that 
since it was first granted in March 1998, the Jackson-Vanik waiver has 
been an essential component of our policy of engagement and has 
directly furthered progress with Vietnam on furthering U.S. policy 
goals. Goals which include, first and foremost, accounting for the 
missing from the Vietnam war--our MIAs, promoting regional stability, 
improving respect for human rights, and opening markets for U.S. 
business.
  I support the President's decision because I continue to believe, and 
the evidence supports, that increased access to Vietnam leads to 
increase progress on the accounting issue.
  Resolving the fate of our MIAs has been, and will remain, the highest 
priority for our government. This nation owes that to the men and the 
families of the men that made the ultimate sacrifice for their country 
and for freedom.
  In pursuit of that goal, I have traveled to Vietnam three times and I 
held over 40 hours of hearings on the issue in 1986 as chairman of the 
Veterans' Committee. The comparison between the situation in 1986 and 
today is dramatic.
  In 1986, I was appalled to learn that we had no first hand 
information about the fate of POW/MIAs because we had no access to the 
Vietnamese government or to its military archives or

[[Page 16665]]

prisons. We could not travel to crash sites. We had no opportunity to 
interview Vietnamese individuals or officials.
  In 1993, opponents of ending our isolationist policy argued that 
lifting the trade embargo would mean an end to Vietnamese cooperation. 
This is distinctly not the case. American Joint Task Force--Full 
Accounting (JTF-FA) personnel located in Hanoi have access to Vietnam's 
government and to its military archives and prisons. They freely travel 
to crash sites and interview Vietnamese citizens and officials.
  During the post-embargo period, the Vietnam Government cooperated on 
other issues as well, including resolving millions of dollars in 
diplomatic property and private claims of Americans who lost property 
at the end of the war.
  The Jackson-Vanik waiver has helped the U.S. government influence 
Vietnam's progress toward an open, market-oriented economy. It has also 
benefited U.S. companies by making available a number of U.S. 
Government trade promotion and investment support programs that enhance 
their ability to compete in this potentially important market. And I 
hope that soon our trade negotiators will be able to complete a sound, 
commercially viable trade agreement with Vietnam that will further 
expand market opportunities for American companies.
  Before I close, let me urge my colleagues who may be unsure about 
their vote to consult with the U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete 
Peterson. Ambassador Peterson, a Vietnam veteran who himself was a 
prisoner of war, and who also served in the House of Representatives, 
has been a tireless advocate of U.S. interests in Vietnam. With his 
background and experience, his counsel should be trusted.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to discharge.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of my 
friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I 
oppose this motion to discharge S.J. Res. 28 from the Finance 
Committee. I oppose this for both procedural and substantive reasons.
  Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives must initiate 
all tax, trade, and revenue measures. The Senate has always deferred to 
the House to take first action on Jackson-Vanik waivers because they 
are tax-and-trade measures.
  On July 1, the House Ways and Means Committee voted out the House 
version of this resolution with a negative recommendation. The House 
will soon take up that resolution. I expect the full House to repeat 
its vote of last year and defeat that resolution.
  Last year, the House defeated 260 to 163 a resolution to disapprove 
the President's Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. If the House should 
pass either the China or Vietnam resolution, the Senate would then take 
up that resolution. The motions to discharge the Finance Committee of 
these two resolutions are inappropriate and premature.
  The comments made by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, in 
my opinion, capture the essence of this issue. Vietnam is still an 
authoritarian government. Much progress yet needs to be made. But it is 
the opinion of many of us that the best way to encourage that progress 
and to lead that progress is to engage. That means open not just 
dialog, but opportunities. History has been rather clear that commerce 
is the one bridge, the one vehicle that has done the most over the 
hundreds and thousands of years of human history to accomplish these 
issues we still must deal with--human rights issues, immigration issues 
and, certainly, as the Senator from Massachusetts opened his speech, 
the MIA issue.
  There is not a Senator in this body, certainly none of us who served 
in Vietnam, who does not take that as a serious responsibility. I think 
this approach is a mistaken approach but well-intended. I salute my 
friend and colleague from New Hampshire for his efforts, but I believe 
it is taking us down the wrong path.
  I am proud to stand with Ambassador Pete Peterson and the other five 
Vietnam veterans in the Senate to support the Jackson-Vanik waiver for 
Vietnam. The other Senate Vietnam veterans are: Senators McCain, John 
Kerry, Bob Kerrey, Robb, and Cleland.
  Is Vietnam a Jeffersonian Democracy and a full market economy? Of 
course not. But Vietnam has made progress. We should nurture that 
progress, not turn back the clock.
  It is ironic that we would undermine our modest trade relationship 
with Vietnam at this time. Ambassador Barshefsky is in the final stages 
of negotiating a trade agreement that would substantially open 
Vietnam's market. We should support her efforts to open Vietnam's 
markets and promote economic reform.
  The Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam primarily benefits Americans, 
not Vietnamese. It allows the U.S. Export-Import Bank and the Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation to support American exports and jobs.
  This is not about normal trading relations or expanding access to the 
U.S. market. We not yet provide NTR status to Vietnam, although Vietnam 
provides NTR status to the United States.
  We can only have normal trading relations with Vietnam if we conclude 
an agreement that would increase U.S. access to the Vietnamese market. 
That would be the time to debate whether it serves our Nation's 
interest to have normal trade relations with Vietnam.
  The Jackson-Vanik amendment was all about trying to apply leverage on 
the Soviet Union in the 1970s to increase Jewish emigration. The Soviet 
Union no longer exists. But it was written into permanent law to affect 
all ``non-market economies,'' including Vietnam.
  Is Vietnam perfect? No, far from it. But look how far Vietnam has 
come and U.S.-Vietnam relations have come in five short years:
  Before 1994, the U.S. and Vietnam had no political or economic 
relations;
  In January 1994, John McCain and John Kerry offered an amendment 
calling for and end to the U.S. economic embargo on Vietnam;
  In February 1994, President Clinton followed the lead of the Senate 
and ended the U.S. trade embargo;
  In July 1995, the President granted diplomatic recognition to 
Vietnam;
  In April 1997, the Senate confirmed our first Ambassador to Vietnam, 
Pete Peterson; and
  In March 1998, the President waived the Jackson-Vanik law and 
permitted our trade promotion agencies to operate in Vietnam. This has 
always been the first step to full compliance with the law, the 
negotiation of a trade agreement, and the establishment of normal 
trading relations.
  The Senator from New Hampshire honestly believes that turning back 
the clock of the last five years is a better policy than engagement. I 
respect the Senator's views, but believe that his position is simply 
wrong.
  I will not engage in the debate on whether emigration from Vietnam is 
totally free. Vietnam itself is not totally free. Far from it. But 
there has been tremendous improvement.
  In fiscal year 1998, 9,742 Vietnamese were granted immigrant visas to 
the United States under the ``Orderly Departure Program.'' The State 
Department expects that number to rise to 25,000 this year and 30,000 
next year.
  In the last 15 years, 500,000 Vietnamese have immigrated to the 
United States, and very few refugees remain to be processed. As a 
result of the first Jackson-Vanik waiver granted last year, Vietnam's 
cooperation on immigration matters has intensified.
  The State Department expects that processing will be completed for 
all special caseloads, including the Orderly Departure Program [ODP] 
and the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees [ROVR] 
programs.
  Again, we must consider how to encourage Vietnam to do even more to 
open up its society, its economy and its political system. Do we 
encourage openness through isolation? No, we spread American values 
through economic, cultural and political contact between our two 
peoples.
  I urge defeat of this motion, and I yield back the remainder of my 
time. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

[[Page 16666]]


  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from 
Nebraska, with respect, if there is information and evidence which 
indicates that Vietnam or China--but, in this case, Vietnam--was not 
following the spirit and intent of Jackson-Vanik, why does my colleague 
oppose the opportunity to have me present that information to the 
Senate? We may respectfully disagree after looking at all the 
information, but it seems to me a reasonable request on my part to 
discharge this. To not discharge it, I say to my colleagues, bottles it 
up, does not give us the opportunity to debate it, does not give me the 
opportunity to present to my colleagues information I have that will 
show dramatically that that is not the case.
  I only have, at the most, 15 minutes, so let me do it as quickly as I 
can with the facts at my disposal. I regret very much I am not going to 
get the opportunity, unless my colleagues support me on this.
  This is a memorandum from the Joint Voluntary Agency that runs the 
Orderly Departure Program in Bangkok, July 14, 1999:

       request for refugee statistics and assessment of odp cases

       Corruption and Bribery by the Vietnamese Government: 
     Although ODP has no formal statistics . . . over the years we 
     have received and continue to receive communications from ODP 
     applicants that point to consistent and continuing cases of 
     bribery, extortion and other kinds of malpractice. . . .
       Re-education Camp Detainee Caseload: At the present rate of 
     granting interview permission, we do not expect Re-education 
     Camp Detainee Caseload to be completed by the end of [the] 
     Fiscal Year. . . .
       Contact With the Montagnards: Prior to March, 1998, people 
     from this ethnic group experienced tremendous difficulties 
     communicating with ODP . . . Since March, 1998, contact with 
     the Montagnards has continued to be limited. The Socialist 
     Republic of Vietnam has made it clear they do not want ODP to 
     contact applicants directly. . . .

  I do not have the time to get into this. I want to take the time. 
Please give me that opportunity. This is the Joint Voluntary Agency 
that runs the Orderly Departure Program in Bangkok. They do not have an 
ax to grind with anybody. They are trying to do their job. My 
colleagues are not going to give me the time, if you defeat my motion 
to discharge, to bring this information to the forefront.
  Let's look at another one. This is a memorandum from the Joint 
Voluntary Agency, Orderly Departure Program, American Embassy, Bangkok, 
July 14, 1999:

       request for refugee statistics and assessment of odp cases

       The Socialist Republic of Vietnam has frequently determined 
     applicants did not meet ODP criteria, despite our 
     confirmation that they did; many applicants are still 
     awaiting interview authorization . . . As of July 9th, there 
     are 3,432 ODP refugee applicants and 747 ROVR applicants 
     awaiting Vietnamese Government authorization for interview . 
     . . ODP has continually received requests from applicants for 
     assistance in dealing with local officials; many applicants 
     originally applied to ODP as long ago as 1988 but have yet to 
     be given authorization by the Vietnamese Government to attend 
     an interview.
       Impact of Jackson-Vanik Waiver: It would not appear that 
     Jackson-Vanik had a telling impact on ODP activities . . . 
     Staff [of the Joint Voluntary Agency] are of the opinion that 
     there has been little, if any, indication of improvement in 
     the Vietnamese Government's efforts to deal with remaining 
     ODP cases.

  If given the opportunity, I will present to you that evidence. I do 
not have time in another 5 or 6 minutes.
  This is from the State Department, Dewey Pendergrass, most recent 
Orderly Departure director and current director of Consular Services in 
Saigon, November 24, 1998. Listen to what the State Department is 
saying. Because they support MFN with China, because they are not 
paying any attention to ODP, they do not care about these people who 
are trying to desperately get their loved ones out and paying 
exorbitant fines and fees and still cannot get them out. Listen to what 
he says and then tell me you do not want to give me opportunity to 
debate this:

       Generally speaking, I would discourage any dialogue with 
     the U.S. Catholic Conference or the International Catholic 
     Migration Commission, or any of the other refugee advocacy 
     organizations, on Vietnamese refugee processing . . . You are 
     dealing here with true believers.

  My God, true believers. They want to get these people out. They are 
trying to get them out of Vietnam. They are trying to stop the 
persecution so they are labeled ``true believers.'' What is wrong with 
that? This is a State Department official. This is a memo we are not 
supposed to have:

       I would not try to explain why we are doing what we are 
     doing. From long and unhappy experience, I can assure you 
     that you do not want to get mired in a ``dialogue'' with 
     these guys . . .

  Of course not; if you get mired in a dialog, you will find out the 
truth. God forbid we find out the truth. Let's sweep it all under the 
rug. Let's make sure we get most-favored-nation treatment for this 
communist dictator group that tramples on the human rights of its own 
people, refuses to give us answers still on our missing service 
personnel, and we are going to sweep this under the rug.
  Dewey Pendergrass from the State Department says this. Let's finish 
it:

       As I said, these are true believers, and they are fighting 
     at this very moment to expand refugee processing as we near 
     the completion of the residual caseload . . . I'm sounding 
     paranoid here, right? Believe me, I know whereof I speak . . 
     . I really am not exaggerating. Again, I recommend that you 
     do not meet with them, not explain, not apologize, regardless 
     of any professional courtesy you may think is due. Just send 
     the polite acknowledgment.

  The State Department, which is there to help these people, is making 
those kinds of comments. It is an absolute insult, and the man should 
be fired on the spot.

       To: Joint Voluntary Agency.
       From: Orderly Departure Program, Bangkok.
       Subject: JVA Failure to Destroy Denied Ameriasian Files 
     Over Two Years Old as Instructed by Department of State.

  So now we are going to destroy files to make darn sure that if they 
have any opportunity to get out, they will not be able to get out. 
Ameriasians are children of American servicemen and Vietnamese women:

       The Department has asked me to determine the reason for 
     JVA's failure to destroy the old files on Ameriasian cases 
     denied over two years ago as instructed. I note that JVA has 
     been instructed in writing to perform this task several 
     times--

  To destroy these files.

       I am hoping that you will be able to provide me with a 
     satisfactory reason why these specific directions have not 
     been carried out.

  He is chewing somebody out because they did not destroy these files 
on people who are desperately trying to make contact with their 
fathers, their loved ones.

       The goal of these reports is simple: to tell the truth 
     about human rights conditions . . . These reports form the 
     heart of United States human rights policy, for they provide 
     the official human rights information based upon which policy 
     judgments are made. They are designed to provide all three 
     branches of the Federal Government with an authoritative 
     factual basis for making decisions . . .

  Testimony before Congress.
  The 1998 country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Vietnam. Released 
February 26, 1999, by the U.S. State Department:

       The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a one-party state rule 
     and controlled by the Vietnamese Communist Party. The 
     Government's human rights record remains poor.

  Poor, yet it is supposed to be good--it is not excellent --to have a 
waiver.

       There were credible reports that security officials beat 
     detainees. Prison conditions remain harsh. The Government 
     arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens. . . .

  I say to my colleagues, give me the opportunity to get into the 
details on this before we vote. All I am asking is to discharge this so 
I can get on the floor and get into the details of these kinds of 
abuses.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes, 25 seconds.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. In the same report:

       Citizens' access to exit permits frequently was constrained 
     by factors outside the law such as bribery and corruption. 
     Refugee and immigrant visa applicants to the Orderly 
     Departure Program sometimes encountered local officials who 
     arbitrarily delayed or denied exit permits. . .There are some 
     concerns that some members of the minority

[[Page 16667]]

     ethnic groups, particularly nonethnic Vietnamese, such as the 
     Montagnards, may not have ready access to these programs. The 
     Government denied exit permits for emigration to certain 
     Montagnard applicants.

  And on and on:

       Vietnam's Politburo has issued its first-ever directive on 
     religion, in an apparent bid to tighten Communist Party 
     control over the clergy and over the places of worship. 
     Although no religions are mentioned by name, the directive, 
     published in the official Nhan Dan daily, targets the 
     unofficial Buddhist Church and the Catholic Church.

  Unofficial. Interesting.

       Banned practices include organizing meetings, printing and 
     circulating bibles, constructing and renovating places of 
     worship. . .The Communist Party strictly controls all 
     religious matters in Vietnam and many members of the Buddhist 
     Church and the Catholic Church are presently in detention or 
     under house arrest.

  French Press Agency of Hanoi, July 8, 1998.
  I say to my colleagues, we need to expose this. Why would you deny me 
the opportunity to bring this matter to the floor? I urge you, please 
give me the opportunity to get into these matters in the time allocated 
under the rules. Yes, it is 20 hours equally divided, 10 hours each. 
Will I use 10 hours? Absolutely not; a couple hours probably would do 
it.
  If my colleagues are not familiar with these issues, it will open 
their eyes. I have very specific details about what is happening to 
these people. If Senators oppose me and they do not believe it, then 
come down here and present the alternative information for my 
colleagues and let our colleagues make the choice. But give me the 
opportunity by supporting me on this discharge. Do not let it stay 
bottled up.
  That is the rule, and I respect the rule. The rule is, it stays 
there. If the Finance Committee does not discharge it, it goes away. I 
know that. That is why I am trying to discharge it. It goes away in the 
sense that the Jackson-Vanik waiver is granted because the burden is on 
us to prove otherwise. I want that opportunity, but I cannot get it if 
you leave it buried in the Finance Committee and do not discharge it. 
That is not a full debate.
  Help me look at the issue. The bill needs to be put on the Senate 
calendar so we can have debate. I repeat, if my colleagues missed it, I 
am not trying to take the Senate's time. If there is something else the 
leaders want out here, that is fine. I will work out something with the 
leaders where we can do 20 hours equally divided at any time the leader 
thinks it is appropriate.
  Also, when we delegate waiver powers to the President--let me go back 
to the Constitution of the United States, article I, section 8--we lose 
our constitutional prerogative. We have the right to debate this. Do 
not give up our constitutional prerogative to debate it. Do not be 
afraid to come out on the floor and challenge me on what I have to 
offer. I welcome it. I look forward to it.
  I hope no one will come down here and say: Let's have the House kill 
this first so we do not have to be accountable to the voters. That is 
basically the pitch being made by my friend, the chairman of the 
Finance Committee: Let's have the House kill the bill first, and then 
there will not be any need for us to debate it at all.
  Vote for the discharge motion. Let's get on with the debate, under 
the time agreement we will be bound by, and then the Senate can make an 
informed judgment and go on record in favor or in opposition as to 
whether President Clinton's waiver of freedom of emigration 
requirements, in the context of our trading with Vietnam, is 
appropriate or not. That is all I am asking.
  I pray this body will not put the concerns about business profits or 
most favored nation over principle. Support the discharge motion. Give 
me the opportunity to make these cases.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
John Sommer of The American Legion written to Congressman Philip Crane, 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, 
in support of discharge.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                          The American Legion,

                                    Washington, DC, June 22, 1999.
     Hon. Phillip M. Crane,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, 
         House of Representatives, Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: It is unacceptable to The American 
     Legion for the United States to put business concerns over 
     the fate of Vietnamese citizens who fought alongside us 
     during the Vietnam war, and who have sacrificed so much for 
     so long and are still unable to freely emigrate to this 
     country.
       The American Legion recognizes that the U.S. business 
     community is concerned with maintaining and strengthening 
     economic ties in Vietnam, but we cannot let these commercial 
     interests take precedence over the destiny of our former 
     allies who assisted us and are still loyal to our cause. The 
     retention of the Jackson-Vanik waiver can be a powerful sign 
     to show that we honor our commitments to human rights.
       Obstacles continue to exist on the road to free emigration 
     for Vietnamese who want to come to the United States and 
     other countries in the free world. Ethnic groups that were 
     allied with the Americans during the war, namely the 
     Montagnards, and former employees of the U.S. government are 
     still discriminated against by the Vietnamese government when 
     applying and processing through the Resettlement 
     Opportunities for Vietnam Returnees program (ROVR), the 
     Orderly Departure Program (ODP), and others.
       What better way to show that we truly are committed to 
     allowing those Vietnamese who have remained faithful to the 
     United States to emigrate than by denying U.S. exporters to 
     Vietnam access to U.S. Government credits. This would be a 
     powerful signal that we demand increased progress and 
     cooperation on the part of the Vietnamese government.
       The American Legion strongly urges you and sub-committee 
     members to not grant the Jackson-Vanik waiver for this year.
                                               John F. Sommer Jr.,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Montana for yielding me time.
  Mr. President, just a few facts. We process 96 percent of the ROVR 
applications. Last year we processed only 78 percent. The Jackson-Vanik 
waiver is working. Almost 16,000 applicants have been granted admission 
to the United States. Today there are only 79 outstanding ROVR cases. 
Last year there were 1,353 outstanding cases.
  Mr. President, I oppose this motion to discharge from the Senate 
Finance Committee. It disapproves the extension of the Jackson-Vanik 
waiver for Vietnam. I do so because I believe the House should properly 
act first on a measure of this nature, because the committee should be 
afforded the opportunity to render judgment on Senator Smith's 
resolution before it is taken up by the full Senate, and because 
Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver, like China's normal trade relation 
status, is too important to fall victim to the political currents 
buffeting the Senate at this time.
  As we all know, procedurally, the Senate has traditionally reserved 
consideration of Jackson-Vanik waivers and the granting of normal trade 
relation status until after the House has acted. As my colleagues know, 
the House Ways and Means Committee has unfavorably reported the House 
resolutions of disapproval for both Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver and 
China's normal trade relation status. These measures are scheduled for 
floor action in the House. The Senate should not rush to judgment on 
either of these measures until the House has voted on them. Indeed, the 
Senate has over 40 remaining days under the statutory deadline for 
action on the waiver.
  Substantively, the Jackson-Vanik amendment exists to promote freedom 
of emigration from non-democratic countries. The law calls for a waiver 
if it would enhance opportunities to emigrate freely. Opportunities for 
emigration from Vietnam have clearly increased since the President 
first waived the Jackson-Vanik amendment in 1998. The waiver has 
encouraged measurable Vietnamese cooperation in processing applications 
for emigration under the Orderly Departure Program and the Resettlement 
Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees agreement, ROVR.
  The Jackson-Vanik waiver has also allowed the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation, the Export-Import

[[Page 16668]]

Bank, and the Department of Agriculture to support American businesses 
in Vietnam. Withdrawing OPIC, EXIM, and USDA guarantees would hurt U.S. 
businesses and slow progress on economic normalization. It would 
reinforce the position of hard-liners in Hanoi who believe Vietnam's 
opening to the West has proceeded too rapidly.
  Let me assure my colleagues that I harbor no illusions about the 
human rights situation in Vietnam. There is clearly room for 
improvement. The question is how best to advance both the cause of 
human rights and U.S. economic and security interests. The answer lies 
in the continued expansion of U.S. relations with Vietnam.
  Although the Jackson-Vanik waiver does not relate to our POW/MIA 
accounting efforts, Vietnam-related legislation often serves as a 
referendum on broader U.S.-Vietnam relations, in which accounting for 
our missing personnel is the United States' first priority. Thirty-
three Joint Field Activities conducted by the Department of Defense 
over the past 6 years, and the consequent repatriation of 266 sets of 
remains of American military personnel during that period, attest to 
the ongoing cooperation between Vietnamese and American officials in 
our efforts to account for our missing servicemen. I am confident that 
such progress will continue.
  It really does not serve much of a purpose for us to have divided 
opinion on the degree of Vietnam cooperation. We should rely on the 
opinion of the U.S. military who are there on the ground in Vietnam 
doing the job. Invariably, they will attest to the cooperation, despite 
perhaps the hopes of others. They will attest that the fact is the 
Vietnamese are providing full cooperation as far as resolution of the 
Vietnamese POW/MIA issues. Again, do not take my word for it; take the 
word of the American military who are on the ground doing the job.
  Just as the naysayers who insisted that Vietnamese cooperation on 
POW/MIA issues would cease altogether when we normalized relations with 
Vietnam were proven wrong, so have those who insisted that Vietnam 
would cease cooperation on emigration issues once we waived Jackson-
Vanik been proven wrong by the course of events since the original 
waiver was issued in March 1998.
  The Jackson-Vanik amendment was designed to link U.S. trade to the 
emigration policies of communist countries, primarily the Soviet Union. 
The end of the Cold War fundamentally restructured global economic and 
security arrangements. As the recent expansion of NATO demonstrated, 
old enemies have become new friends. Moreover, meaningful economic and 
political reform can only occur in Vietnam if the United States remains 
engaged there.
  Last year, I initiated a Dear Colleague letter to Members of the 
House of Representatives, signed by every Vietnam veteran in the 
Senate, except Senator Smith, who has opposed every step in the gradual 
process of normalizing--I ask for 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Dear Colleague letter to Members of 
the House of Representatives was signed by every Vietnam veteran in the 
Senate except Senator Smith, who has opposed every step in the gradual 
process of normalizing our relations with Vietnam over the years.
  There are those in Congress, including Senator Smith, who remain 
opposed to the extension of Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver. But they do 
not include any other U.S. Senator who served in Vietnam and who, as a 
consequence, might be understandably skeptical of closer U.S.-Vietnam 
relations.
  That body of opinion reminds us that, whatever one may think of the 
character of the Vietnamese regime, such considerations should not 
obscure our clear humanitarian interest in promoting freedom of 
emigration from Vietnam. The Jackson-Vanik waiver serves that interest. 
Consequently, I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Smith's 
extraordinary motion to discharge consideration of his resolution from 
the Finance Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion 
made by the Senator from New Hampshire to discharge S.J. Res. 27, which 
would disapprove of the President's recommendation of normal trade 
relations with China, from further consideration by the Committee on 
Finance.
  My opposition to this motion is based both on procedural grounds as 
well as my opposition to the policy goals advocated by the proponents 
of this motion.
  Aside from these procedural questions raised by this motion --whether 
the Senate should act in advance of the House and whether the committee 
should be discharged of this resolution before it has the opportunity 
to give it full consideration--which have been eloquently addressed by 
the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, there is also 
a real factual question raised by this motion which must also be 
addressed.
  The factual question is this: Is it in the U.S. interest to continue 
to extend normal trade relations to China?
  In my view it is.
  The United States extends NTR to all but a handful of rouge states: 
North Korea, Afghanistan, Cuba, Laos, and the Former Republic of 
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). Even Iraq and Iran--two countries 
which the United States is trying to isolate--currently have NTR. 
Placing China on a short list or rouge nations to whom we deny NTR 
would be an irreversible step in the wrong direction and a severe blow 
to the national interest of the United States.
  Let us remember, we do not extend NTR to China as a favor to China, 
but because maintenance of NTR with China is in our national interest.
  It is in our national interest as a matter of simple economics. The 
United States benefits from, and should continue to foster, free and 
fair trade with China.
  In 1991, United States-China bilateral trade totaled $25 billion. 
Last year it was close to $85 billion. In 1991 China was our eighth 
largest trading partner. Today it is our fourth, and still moving up 
fast.U.S. trade with China supports hundreds of thousands of American 
jobs. Revoking China's NTR status would be shooting ourselves in the 
foot.
  Indeed, for my state, California, the growth of trade relations with 
China over the past decade has been just as dramatic. In 1998, exports 
to China and Hong Kong together were California's fourth largest export 
destination. In 1998, while California's total exports declined 4.17%, 
due to the Asian financial crisis, our exports to China (not including 
Hong Kong) increased 9.28%.
  Critics of United States-China trade relations may argue that even 
though U.S. exports to China have more than doubled in the past decade, 
Chinese exports to the U.S. have gone up even faster, resulting in a 
sizable trade deficit. I would reply that this underscores the 
importance of normalizing and improving our trade with China through 
continued NTR: U.S. companies must get continued and better access to 
emerging Chinese markets.
  Extension of NTR is in our national interest because the United 
States will benefit by the further integration of China into the world 
trading system. The stakes are huge. Extension of NTR is a necessary 
precursor for Chinese accession to the WTO, which presents us an 
historic opportunity to integrate China--soon to be the world's largest 
economy--into the international trading system.
  Extension of NTR is in our national interest because having China in 
the world trading system levels the playing field. The WTO's system of 
reporting, compliance, and dispute resolution would require China to 
play by same rules all WTO members follow.
  Extension of China's NTR status is in our national interest because 
history has shown us that, despite the turmoil of the past few months, 
U.S. trade and engagement with China has encouraged economic, 
political, and social change in China. These changes have improved the 
living standards for millions of Chinese and reduced cold-war tensions.

[[Page 16669]]

Those who are serious about seeing China continue to change will 
understand and realize that extension of NTR is the best course of 
action for the U.S. to follow.
  There is no question that China's political system remains 
undemocratic. But we should not fail to acknowledge the progress that 
has been made over the past two decades, thanks in part to the leverage 
provided by U.S. trade. To acknowledge this change is not to minimize 
the real problems that do exist; it is only to recognize that changes 
are taking place, and that many of these changes are a direct result of 
greater engagement with the West.
  To seek to deny China NTR status is tantamount to seeking to slam 
shut the Chinese people's door to a free world, and consigning them to 
isolation and repression. That is certainly not in our national 
interest, and it is not in the interest of the Chinese people, either.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleague to oppose this motion.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am voting in support of Senate 
Joint Resolution 27 which would disapprove normal trade relations 
treatment to products produced in the People's Republic of China. I do 
so not because I do not want to see normal trade relations with China. 
Rather, it is because I do not believe the Chinese Government deserves 
this treatment until it ceases its brutal repression of Tibetans and 
others who support democracy.
  But there is a more specific concern I have about the fate of one 
individual, which has caused me to support this Resolution.
  For over 3 years people from around the world and all walks of life 
have sought the release of and information about Mr. Ngawang Choephel, 
a Tibetan who studied ethnomusicology at Middlebury College in Vermont 
on a Fulbright Scholarship. On December 26, 1996, after detaining him 
incommunicado for months, Chinese authorities sentenced Mr. Choephel to 
18 years in prison for espionage. His crime? Making a documentary film 
about Tibetan music and dance.
  Since his arrest, Mr. Choephel's mother, Ms. Sonam Dekyi, has been 
actively seeking his release, as well as permission from the Chinese 
Government to travel to Tibet to visit her son. Although Ms. Dekyi has 
tried repeatedly to obtain a visa from the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi 
and written to the Chinese Prison Administration's Direct General about 
her request, Chinese authorities falsely deny knowledge of her request.
  United States officials have raised Mr. Choephel with the Chinese 
Government at the highest levels. I have twice discussed my concerns 
with Chinese President Jiang Zemin, once in Beijing and again in 
Washington. I asked him to personally review Mr. Choephel's case. I and 
other Members of Congress have written many letters to Chinese 
officials on Mr. Choephel's and his mother's behalf. I have tried to 
discuss his case with Chinese authorities here in Washington, DC, as 
has my staff. What has been the response? Deliberate and utter 
disregard of my inquiries.
  Mr. President, until the Chinese Government provides satisfactory 
answers to my questions about Mr. Choephel's whereabouts, his health, 
the reasons for his incarceration and the evidence against him, and 
permits his mother to visit him as she is entitled to, I cannot in good 
conscience vote for normal trade relations with China.
  Mr. BAUCUS. How much time is remaining on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 29 seconds remaining for the 
other side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I deeply appreciate the concerns of the Senator from New 
Hampshire. I think we all do. This is not an easy issue. But I think it 
is important to ask ourselves what is the best way, what is the most 
likely way, we Americans will properly help achieve the objectives we 
are looking for in Vietnam, and I daresay also with China, because the 
China discharge resolution will be up before us at a later time today.
  I oppose both of the motions to discharge. I daresay most of my 
colleagues will also oppose both of those motions. It is my judgment, 
and I think the judgment of most of us, that there are some differences 
between the United States and Vietnam and there are some differences 
between the United States and China. We know there are. But how do we 
best accomplish our objectives with these two countries?
  I believe it is best to continue with the Jackson/Vanik waiver with 
Vietnam and what is called a ``normal trading relationship'' with 
China, which, essentially, is really less than average because the 
United States has trade agreements with many other countries which, in 
effect, provide for much better than average trading relations.
  So we are really talking about the bare minimum standard for trading 
relationships. If we continue that standard for trade, that is, MFN or 
NTR, we will be more likely--working through other channels, and 
government to government or group to group--to accomplish the goals for 
which we are looking.
  The world is changing. It is changing dramatically. Trade and 
commerce are so key, so vital. The more trade is encouraged among 
countries--particularly Vietnam and China--clearly, the more help we 
provide those countries in the form of government and judicial systems 
and enforcement systems that can be relied upon with predictability 
worldwide, not only for America but for other countries.
  That is really the objective. There are certainly problems with 
Vietnam and with China. But we should deal with those issues on the 
levels in which they occur, whether it is China with human rights or 
nuclear proliferation or missile technology transfer or Taiwan or the 
accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. We should deal 
with those issues one at a time; that is, not deny minimal trade 
relationships with a country just because we have other considerations 
and other problems.
  The Senator from New Hampshire says he does not have the time to 
present his case. The Senator from New Hampshire has lots of time to 
present his evidence in many different ways before the Senate. If he 
has a strong case, a compelling case, that would encourage the Senate 
to take another position, I encourage the Senator to give it. There is 
morning business. There are lots of opportunities for the Senator to 
provide the information he says he has.
  I am not really sure he has much more than he already provided. I 
note that other Senators, on both sides of the aisle, Senators who have 
served in Vietnam--including Senator McCain from Arizona and Senator 
Kerry from Massachusetts--as the Senate has heard, very strongly oppose 
this discharge motion. They believe that non-trade issues are more 
likely to be dealt with successfully along the path that has been taken 
already in the past.
  Countries have interests. Vietnam has an interest in world affairs; 
China does; the United States does. We have to deal with this in a 
solid way. The phrase that is often used is ``engagement.'' I think 
engagement makes sense, but more importantly it should be ``engagement 
without illusions''; that is, we talk with countries, we negotiate with 
countries, we have to keep communicating with countries and looking for 
ways to find solutions. Engaging without illusions--without illusions 
that everything in that country is going along perfectly well. We have 
to be very realistic about things.
  It is also important to remember at this time in the history of the 
world that with the United States so big and so powerful, it is 
beginning to cause some resentment worldwide. That is a new challenge 
facing America, how to deal with it, how to deal with that angst, how 
to deal with that concern that maybe we are too big, we are too 
inclusive, the English language pervades too much, the Internet uses 
the English language; American culture, McDonald's, and movies are too 
pervasive in countries; American military might is just too 
overwhelming, even by European standards; the concern that we might, 
since we did not lose a

[[Page 16670]]

single life in Kosovo and won, that militarily we might deal with other 
areas in the same way.
  There are lots of different concerns people have now, watching what 
America has done in the last several years. So we have to be careful. 
We have to be prudent. To deny something that is normal and expected, 
that is, a normal trade relation with China, would be unsettling and 
would cause many more problems than it is going to solve.
  I fully understand the points of the Senator from New Hampshire, but 
often there are different ways to skin a cat. The cat we are trying to 
skin is the effective way, not the ineffective way. It is my judgment 
that the effective way is to continue the dialogue, continue the 
engagement, and continue the engagement without illusions but continue 
it nevertheless. I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote against the 
motion to discharge the petition.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. It is my understanding I have 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from 
Montana, I know he understands, but he doesn't understand enough to let 
me have the opportunity to debate it. Under the rule of Jackson-Vanik, 
I have the right to have the 20 hours equally divided on the Senate 
floor. That is the time to do it so that it is not misdirected in 
morning business somewhere.
  In response to Senator McCain, yes, there are six out of seven 
Vietnam veterans in the Senate who support not debating this, who say 
the Jackson-Vanik waiver should be granted, but there are 3 million or 
so in the American Legion, at least represented by a letter from the 
American Legion, who think otherwise. I am not sure what the point is 
on that one.
  We have to feel very confident the waiver has reduced bribery and 
corruption. Here is the law. It says to assure continued dedication to 
fundamental human rights, if these things happen, you should not grant 
the waiver. No. 1, does Vietnam deny its citizens the right to 
emigrate? Yes. I can prove it, but nobody wants to hear it. No. 2, does 
it impose more than a nominal tax on emigration and the other visas? 
Yes, and I have a stack of names of people, Vietnamese nationals, who 
have said yes.
  The bottom line is, if the Senate won't give me the chance to debate 
it, then as far as I am concerned my colleagues do not want to hear the 
facts. I can't give them, as I said before, in 30 minutes.
  I urge support of my resolution so that we have the opportunity to 
debate this on the Senate floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  All time has expired.

                          ____________________