[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19220-19233]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 DISAPPROVAL OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS TREATMENT TO PRODUCTS OF VIETNAM

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, 
I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 58) disapproving the 
extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the 
Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 58 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 58

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     does not approve the extension of the authority contained in 
     section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the 
     President to Congress on June 3, 1999, with respect to 
     Vietnam.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Friday, July 30, 1999, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and a 
Member in support of the joint resolution each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on House Joint Resolution 58.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield one-half of 
my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) in opposition to 
the joint resolution and that he be permitted to yield further blocks 
of time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 58 and in support of 
Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver.
  Over the past decade, the United States has taken gradual steps to 
normalize our bilateral regulations with Vietnam. This process has 
borne tangible results on the full range of issues in our bilateral 
agenda, including increased accounting of our missing in action, 
increased trade and investment opportunities for U.S. firms and 
workers, and substantial progress toward resolution of the remaining 
emigration cases.
  Last week, the administration reached a bilateral trade agreement in 
principle with the Vietnamese that will serve as the basis for a 
reciprocal extension of normal trade relations once it is finalized and 
approved by Congress.
  The agreement in principle contains provisions on market access in 
goods, trade, and services, intellectual property protection, and 
investment, which are necessary for U.S. firms to compete in the 
Vietnamese market, the 12th most populous in the world.
  The Vietnamese pledge to lift import quotas and bans, reduce key 
tariffs, protect intellectual property rights, ensure transparency in 
rules and regulations, and ease restrictions on financial services, 
telecommunications, and distribution.

[[Page 19221]]

  Because Vietnam and the United States have not yet finalized and 
approved a bilateral agreement, the effects of the Jackson-Vanik waiver 
at this time is quite limited.
  The waiver enables U.S. exporters doing business with Vietnam to have 
access to U.S. trade financing programs, provided that Vietnam meets 
the relevant program criteria.
  The significance of Vietnam's waiver is that it permits us to stay 
engaged with the Vietnamese and to pursue further reforms. Vietnam is 
not an easy place to do business; however, our engagement enables us to 
influence the pace and direction of Vietnamese reform.
  I will insert in the Record a letter I received for more than 150 
U.S. companies and trade associations supporting Vietnam's Jackson-
Vanik waivers, an important step in the ability of the U.S. business 
community to compete in the Vietnamese market.
  Terminating Vietnam's waiver will give Vietnam an excuse to halt 
further reforms.
  Do not take away our ability to pressure the Vietnamese for progress 
on issues of importance to the United States.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on H.J. Res. 58.
  Mr. Speaker, the letter I referred to is as follows:
                                                    July 23, 1999.
     Hon. Philip Crane,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Crane: As members of the American 
     business and agricultural community, we strongly support 
     action to normalize trade relations with Vietnam. Renewal of 
     the Jackson-Vanik waiver is a key step in this direction. We 
     strongly oppose H.J. Res. 58, which would overturn the 
     waiver. Renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver will ensure that 
     U.S. companies and farmers selling to Vietnam will maintain 
     access to critical U.S. export promotion programs, such as 
     those of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private 
     Investment Corporation, and agricultural credit programs.
       Furthermore, overturning the Jackson-Vanik waiver could 
     derail current bilateral trade negotiations at a critical 
     time. The talks, which have been ongoing for three years, 
     could be successfully completed in a matter of a few weeks. 
     The U.S. Trade Representative is seeking commitments from 
     Vietnam on market access for goods, agricultural products, 
     services and investment, and the protection of intellectual 
     property rights. The final agreement will thus bring 
     Vietnamese law closer to international norms, thereby helping 
     U.S. companies and farmers to tap the long-term potential of 
     Vietnam, the second most populous country in Southeast Asia. 
     The American business and agricultural community will work 
     hard for congressional approval of a trade agreement that 
     provides meaningful access to Vietnam's markets.
       The American business and agricultural community believes 
     that a policy of economic normalization with Vietnam is in 
     our national interest. We urge you to support the renewal of 
     the Jackson-Vanik waiver as an important step in this 
     process. We also stand ready to work with Congress toward 
     passage of a trade agreement that opens Vietnamese markets to 
     U.S. goods, agricultural products, services and investment.
           Sincerely,

       ABB; Ablondi, Foster, Sobin, Davidow; ACE International; 
     AEA International SOS; Aetna International, Inc.; AgriSource 
     Co. Ltd.; American Apparel Manufactures Association; American 
     Chamber of Commerce in Australia; American Chamber of 
     Commerce in Guangdong, China; American Chamber of Commerce in 
     Hong Kong; American Chamber of Commerce in Korea; American 
     Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines; American Chamber of 
     Commerce Vietnam; American Council of Life Insurance; 
     American Electronics Association; American Express Company; 
     American Farm Bureau Federation; American International 
     Group, Inc.; American-Vietamese Management Consortium, Inc.; 
     Amstan Sanitaryware, Inc., ARCO; Arthur Anderson Vietnam; 
     Asia-Pacific Council of American Chamber of Commerce; 
     Associated General Contractors of America; Association for 
     Manufacturing Technology; ATKearney; Banker and McKenzie, 
     Vietnam; BBDO Advertising Agency; Bechtel; Black and Veatch; 
     Bridgecreek Group; Brown & Root; California Chamber of 
     Commerce; Caltex; Camp Dresser & McKee International, Inc.
       Cargill; Caterpillar, Inc., Centrifugal Casting Machine 
     Co., Inc.; Chamber of Commerce of the Princeton Area; 
     Checkpoint Systems, Asia Pacific; Chevron Corporation; 
     Chillicothe-Ross Chamber of Commerce Citigroup; Coalition for 
     Employment through Exports, Inc.; Commerce Advisory Partners; 
     Condor Consulting; Connell Brothers Company, Ltd.; Coudert 
     Brothers, Vietnam; Craft Corporation; Crown Worldwide Ltd.; 
     DAI-Asia; Deacons Graham & James; Delco Chamber of Commerce; 
     Delta Equipment and Construction Company; Direct Selling 
     Association; Eastman Kodak Co.; East-West Trade and 
     Investment, Inc.; Electronic Industries Alliance; Eli Lilly 
     (Asia) Inc.; Ellicott International; Emergency Committee for 
     American Trade; Environmental-Services Inc.; ERM Hong Kong 
     Ltd.; Exact Software; Fashion Garments Ltd.; FDX Corporation; 
     Fertilizer Institute; Firmenich Inc.; Foster Wheeler 
     Corporation; Freehill Hollingdale & Page; Freeport Area 
     Chamber of Commerce; Freshfields Vietnam; General Electric 
     Company; Habersham County Chamber of Commerce; Halliburton 
     Company.
       Hewlett-Packard Company; Hills and Co.; Humphrey 
     International Healthcare Inc.; IAMBIC, Ltd.; IBC Corporation; 
     IBM; Illinois State Chamber of Commerce; Indochina Asset 
     Management Ltd.; Ingersoll-Rand Company; Interior Architects, 
     Inc.; John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company; Johnson & 
     Johnson; Joseph Simon & Sons; Kansas Chamber of Commerce & 
     Industry; KHM Inc.; Leo Burnett/M&T Vietnam; LiG Products 
     Ltd.; Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce; Louis Dreyfus 
     Corp.; Luk, Inc.; McDermott Incorporated; Metro Atlanta 
     Chamber of Commerce; Mobil Corporation; Motion Picture 
     Association of America; Motorola; National Association of 
     Manufacturers; National Foreign Trade Council; National 
     Institute for World Trade;
       National Oilseed Processors Association; National Retail 
     Federation; Netrak Logistics & Consultants; New Jersey 
     Chamber of Commerce; New York Life International; Nike; 
     Norpac Food Sales; North American Export Grain Association, 
     Inc.; Ohsman & Sons Company, Inc.; Oracle; Otis-Lilama 
     Elevator Company, Ltd.; Pacific Architects and Engineers, 
     Inc.; Pacific Ventures Inc.; Pacific View Partners, Inc.; 
     Parsons Corporation; PASCO Scientific; PepsiCo Inc.; Pioneer 
     Hi-Bred International; Polaris Co., Ltd. HCMC; 
     Pricewaterhousecoopers Vietnam Ltd.; Procter and Gamble 
     Company; Projects International, Inc.; Quaker Fabric 
     Corporation; Raytheon; Rotex; RRC Schneider Electric; Rural 
     Enterprises of Oklahoma, Inc.; Russin & Vecchi; S.C. Johnson 
     & Son;
       Samuels International Associates, Inc.; SciClone 
     Pharmaceuticals International; Small Business Exporters 
     Association; S-Tec Corporation; Telecommunications Industry 
     Association; Telemobile Inc.; Texaco Inc.; The Boeing 
     Company; The Chamber/Southwest Louisiana; Tileke & Gibbins 
     Consultants Ltd.; U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles 
     and Apparel; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Committee Pacific 
     Basin Economic Council-PBEC US; U.S. Council for 
     International Business; U.S. Trading & Investment Company; 
     U.S.-ASEAN Business Council; U.S.-Vietnam Trade Council; 
     Unisys Corporation; United Parcel Service; United 
     Technologies Corporation; Unocal; Valve Manufacturers 
     Association; Vietnam Auditing Company; Vietnam Venture Group, 
     Inc.; Vinifera Wine Growers Association; Warnaco Inc.; 
     Wharton Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), though we disagree perhaps at times.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me this time, as I am the author of the bill; and I wanted to 
have this opportunity to speak at this time.
  It has been 1 year since President Clinton issued the first Jackson-
Vanik waiver for Vietnam. Unfortunately, there has been no progress 
concerning democracy and human rights in Vietnam. And more 
specifically, in violation of Jackson-Vanik, the U.S. Government 
reports systematic corruption in Vietnam's refugee program.
  My joint resolution disapproving Jackson-Vanik waivers for the 
Vietnamese dictatorship does not intend to isolate Vietnam nor stop 
U.S. companies from doing business there. It simply prevents Communist 
Vietnam from enjoying a trade status that enables American businessmen 
to invest there with loan guarantees and subsidies provided by the U.S. 
taxpayer. If private banks or insurance companies will not back up or 
insure private business ventures in Vietnam, American taxpayers should 
not be asked to do so.
  Rampant corruption and mismanagement are as valid a reason to oppose 
this waiver as repression in Vietnam. And during the last year, rather 
than open up its state-managed economy, the Vietnamese Communist regime 
has further tightened its grip. There has been no move whatsoever 
towards free elections. And yesterday's Reuters News Agency reported 
that the Vietnamese government announced that opposition parties will 
not be tolerated. This morning's Washington Times reports a new 
campaign in Vietnam to crush Christians.

[[Page 19222]]

  The lack of real progress to honestly resolve the MIA-POW cases and 
the continued persecution of America's former Vietnamese allies is why 
House Joint Resolution 58 is strongly supported by the American Legion, 
our country's largest veterans' organization, as well as other 
veterans' organizations and the National League of MIA-POW Families, 
and the National Alliance of POW-MIA Families.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in support of the joint 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from 
New York (Mr. McNulty) is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that half the 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. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McNULTY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 
58 which disapproves the President's determination to waive the 
Jackson-Vanik freedom of emigration requirements for Vietnam.
  Others have pointed out that this debate is not about extension of 
normal trade relations to Vietnam, but rather about the more limited 
issue of whether Vietnam should be eligible to participate in U.S. 
credit and credit guarantee programs. Technically, Mr. Speaker, that is 
correct. However, I think we all know that this debate is about 
something much more.
  In granting this waiver, we send a message of support to the 
government of Vietnam. We are telling the government of Vietnam that 
despite their continued failure to assist us in finding lost 
servicemen, despite their refusal to allow Vietnamese, including 
Vietnamese who bravely fought alongside us, to leave Vietnam, despite 
their blatant disregard for human rights, that we support them. These 
are not the values for which 58,000 U.S. servicemen and women gave 
their lives.
  The trade embargo with Vietnam was lifted in 1994. In the intervening 
years, what progress has Vietnam shown? There are still 2,063 Americans 
still unaccounted for in southeast Asia. While the remains of some of 
those Americans may not be recoverable, it strains belief that the 
Vietnamese have no information as to the fate or location of all of 
these men and women.
  Much will be said today about increased cooperation between the 
United States and Vietnam. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is too little 
and it is coming too late. It has been 25 years since the communist 
takeover of the entire country, and in that time the Vietnamese have 
only cooperated with us when it would benefit them, and then only to 
the extent that they saw fit. This is not my definition of cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose the eventual normalization of relations 
with the people of Vietnam. I do, however, oppose normalization of 
relations with this government under these circumstances.
  Now, some may claim, Mr. Speaker, that I have an emotional attachment 
to this issue, and they are correct. On August the 9th, 1970, HM3 
William F. McNulty was killed in Vietnam. He was a medical Navy 
corpsman transferred to the Marines. He spent his time patching up his 
buddies. One day he stepped on a land mine and lost his life.
  That was a tremendous loss for our family. And I can tell my 
colleagues from personal experience that the pain may subside, but it 
never goes away. But there is a difference between what the McNulty 
family went through and what an MIA family goes through. Because Bill's 
body was returned to us, we had a wake and a funeral and a burial. What 
we had, Mr. Speaker, was closure. I can only imagine what the family of 
an MIA has gone through over these past 25 years and longer.
  Mr. Speaker, until there is a more complete accounting for those 
missing in action, until there is progress on the immigration front, 
and until there is respect for human rights, this waiver should not be 
granted.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 58, which 
disapproves of the President's determination to waive the Jackson-Vanik 
Freedom of Immigration Requirements for Vietnam. This resolution, if 
passed, would preclude Vietnam from participating in United States 
trade financing programs, such as those sponsored by the Ex-Im Bank, 
OPIC, and agricultural credit programs under the United States 
Department of Agriculture.
  At a broader level, passage of this resolution would seriously 
undermine the progress in United States-Vietnam relations made in the 
last 10 years. Since the late 1980s, Vietnam has shown an increasing 
commitment towards reengaging with the United States, evidenced by 
greater cooperation with the POW-MIA accounting and on immigration 
issues.
  As a result of this progress, beginning in 1992, the United States 
has gradually normalized relations with Vietnam. This normalization 
process helped to keep Vietnam on track with its reforms and has 
resulted in greater cooperation on the POW-MIA accounting efforts, 
immigration, and economic reform.
  Most recently, the administration announced that it reached a 
tentative bilateral commercial agreement with Vietnam. Clearly, our 
policy of engagement is helping to create a change in that society. 
Ending engagement at this juncture will end our ability to shape the 
pace and the direction of this change, including undercutting our 
ability to promote democratic reform.
  In fact, as we have seen in our failed policy toward Cuba, a policy 
of isolation does little to promote the values which we care so much 
about. A policy of isolation, as we have seen in Cuba, only serves to 
separate people and prevents us from sharing our ideals and our 
beliefs.
  I recognize that our history of Vietnam is a troubled one. The scars 
of the past run deep, and we can never forget those who sacrificed 
their lives in service to their country. However, isolating Vietnam 
will not heal those scars.
  Perhaps no one can speak more authoritatively on that issue than one 
of our former colleagues, Pete Peterson. Pete Peterson was shot down 
flying his 67th mission during the Vietnam War and spent 6\1/2\ years 
as a prisoner of war. After serving 6 years with us in the House of 
Representatives, Pete Peterson returned to Vietnam, this time as the 
first United States ambassador since the Communist takeover. It is 
Ambassador Peterson's remarkable optimism about the changes going on in 
Vietnam that I believe sheds the greatest light on what our policy 
toward Vietnam should be.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be 
yielded to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and that he be permitted to allocate that 
time as he sees fit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), 
and that he be allowed to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).

[[Page 19223]]


  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, opponents of this resolution say they are 
opposed to this resolution because they support a more free and open 
Vietnam. Well, I too support a more free and open Vietnam, but I 
support this resolution because by passing it we send a clear signal 
that business as usual is not acceptable.
  No one is looking to take away the right of American corporations to 
do business in Vietnam. First, let us be clear. Since the U.S. trade 
embargo on Vietnam was lifted in 1994, businesses have had the ability 
to trade with and invest in Vietnam, and some have done so. The debate 
over Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam is not about trade and 
investment. This is about government subsidies for companies operating 
in Vietnam.
  This resolution is also about maintaining the focus on changes we 
would like to see in Vietnam. And I thought this was why we first 
normalized relations with Vietnam, with the expectation that the 
government would make a genuine reform, a genuine effort at progress. 
It is no secret that the Vietnamese government wants this waiver, but 
in granting the waiver once again we are saying it is okay that 
religious freedom continues to be restricted, it is okay that there is 
minimal political freedom, it is okay to have repression and to have it 
intensified this past year.
  If this waiver is upheld or rejected, American companies will be no 
more or less free to invest in Vietnam. It should be noted, however, 
that the investment climate in Vietnam is not good and that several 
American companies have pulled out and several others are considering 
pulling out. We should realize that one simply cannot do business, 
whether a foreigner or as a Vietnamese, in a place where the rule of 
law is disregarded.
  For the U.S. to subsidize companies that do business in Vietnam 
through OPIC or Ex-Im would be for us to ignore this reality. As long 
as the Vietnamese government continues to jam Radio Free Asia, which is 
an attempt to deny the Vietnamese people access to objective news, and 
as long as it violates human rights and disrespects economic freedom, 
we should not waive Jackson-Vanik.
  It is only through taking these steps that we can leverage and bring 
about the necessary changes concerning respect for individual rights, 
religious freedom and liberalized markets in one of the world's most 
politically and economically repressive countries.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia 
and the Pacific, I rise in opposition to the resolution.
  The Jackson-Vanik waiver does not constitute an endorsement of the 
communist regime in Hanoi. However, our experience has been that the 
isolation and disengagement does not promote progress in human rights.
  New sanctions, including the symbolic disapproval of the Jackson-
Vanik waiver, only strengthen the position of the Communist hard-liners 
at the expense of those in Vietnam's leadership who are inclined to 
support more openness.
  Engagement with Vietnam has resulted in some improvements in 
Vietnam's human rights practices, although we still remain disappointed 
at the limit scope and nature of those reforms.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans must conclusively recognize that the war with 
Vietnam is over. With the restoration of diplomatic relationships in 
1995, the U.S. and Vietnam embarked on a new relationship for the 
future. It will not be an easy or quick process.
  The emotional scars of the Vietnam war remain with many Americans. In 
the mid-1960s, this Member was an intelligence officer with the First 
Infantry Division; less than a month after the completion of my 
service, members of our tight-knit detachment of that division were in 
Vietnam taking casualties the very first night after arrival.
  Like other Vietnam-era veterans, this Member has emotional baggage. A 
great many Americans have emotional baggage on Vietnam, but this Member 
would suggest it is time to get on with our bilateral relationship and 
not reverse course on Vietnam.
  Distinguished Americans like John McCain, Pete Peterson, Robert 
Kerrey, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Max Cleland, Chuck Robb, and others 
support the effort to normalize our relationships with Vietnam. If they 
can do it, so can we.
  Passing this resolution of disapproval on the Jackson-Vanik waiver 
would represent yet another reflection of animosities of the past at a 
time when Vietnam is finally looking ahead and making changes towards 
integration into the international community.
  A retrenchment on our part by this disapproval resolution is not in 
America's short- and long-term national interest.
  Accordingly, this Member strongly urges the rejection of House 
Resolution 58.
  By law, the underlying issue is about emigration. That is what 
Jackson-Vanik is all about and that is what we ought to be addressing. 
Since March of 1998, the United States has granted Vietnam a waiver of 
the Jackson-Vanik emigration provisions of the Trade Act of 1974. As 
this is only an annual waiver, the President decided on June 3, 1999 to 
renew this extension because he determined that doing so would 
substantially promote greater freedom of emigration from that country 
in the future. This determination was based on Vietnam's record of 
progress on emigration and on Vietnam's continued cooperation on U.S. 
refugee programs over the past year. As a result, we are approaching 
the completion of many refugee admissions categories under the Orderly 
Departure Program (ODP), including the Resettlement Opportunity for 
Vietnamese Returnees, Former Re-education Camp Detainees, ``McCain 
Amendment'' sub-programs and Montagnards. The Vietnamese government has 
also agreed to help implement our decision to resume the ODP program 
for former U.S. Government employees, which was suspended in 1996. The 
renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver is an acknowledgment of that 
progress. Disapproval of the waiver would, undoubtedly, result in 
Vietnam's immediate cessation of cooperation.
  The Jackson-Vanik waiver also symbolizes our interest in further 
developing relations with Vietnam. Having lifted the trade embargo and 
established diplomatic relations four years ago, the United States has 
tried to work with Vietnam to normalize incrementally our bilateral 
political, economic and consular relationship. This policy builds on 
Vietnam's own policy of political and economic reintegration into the 
world. In the judgment of this Member, this will be a lengthy and 
challenging process. However, he suggests that now is not the time to 
reverse course on Vietnam. Over the past four years, Vietnam has 
increasingly cooperated on a wide range of issues. The most important 
of these is the progress and cooperation in obtaining the fullest 
possible accounting of Americans missing from the Vietnam War. Those 
Members who attended the briefing by the distinguished Ambassador to 
Vietnam, a former Prisoner of War and former Member of this body, the 
Honorable ``Pete'' Peterson, learned of the significant efforts to 
which Vietnam is now extending to address our concerns regarding the 
POW/MIA issue, including their participation in remains recovery 
efforts which are physically very dangerous.
  The Jackson-Vanik waiver does not provide Vietnam with any new trade 
benefits, including Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status. However, with 
the Jackson-Vanik waiver, the United States has been able to negotiate 
a new bilateral commercial trade agreement in principle with Vietnam. 
Achieving such an agreement is in our own short and long term national 
interest. Vietnam remains a very difficult place for American firms to 
do business. Vietnam needs to undertake additional fundamental economic 
reforms. A new bilateral trade agreement will require Vietnam to make 
these reforms and will result in increased U.S. exports. When the final 
version of this agreement is complete, Congress will then have to 
decide whether to approve it or reject it and whether or not to grant 
NTR. As the Jackson-Vanik waiver is only a limited prerequisite for any 
future trade agreement, the renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver only 
keeps this negotiating and approval process going--nothing more. 
However, terminating Vietnam's waiver through passage of the resolution 
of disapproval before us would certainly derail this entire process as 
well as rejecting the modest trade opportunities currently available to 
American businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, contrary to the claims of some, renewal of the Jackson-
Vanik waiver does not

[[Page 19224]]

automatically make Vietnam eligible for possible coverage by U.S. trade 
financing programs such as those administered by the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture. The waiver only allows Vietnam to be eligible for such 
coverage and that country must still face separate individual reviews 
against each program's relevant criteria.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support House Joint 
Resolution 58, the resolution to disapprove the Jackson-Vanik waiver to 
Vietnam.
  This provision was first waived in 1998 on the premise that it would 
promote free and open emigration with Vietnam. Sadly, things have not 
turned out that way.
  My colleagues, let us consider the facts. An average immigrant now 
must pay about $1,000 in bribes to have access to U.S. refugee 
programs, three times the average annual salary of a Vietnamese worker.
  A recent report to Congress stated that over 15,000 former United 
States Government employees and their families have been denied exit 
visas, leaving them trapped in Vietnam.
  In my hand I have copies of hundreds of unresolved constituent 
casework, unresolved because the emigration policy of the Vietnamese 
Government still results in far too many people being prevented from 
leaving Vietnam due to unfair decisions. These are the parents, the 
siblings, and the offspring of families who have fought communism for 
two decades.
  I will support H.J. Res. 58 because I believe the Government of 
Vietnam has not earned the right to improve trade privileges.
  I urge my colleagues to put pressure on the Government of Vietnam to 
meet the conditions of emigration and to improve their political and 
human rights record by voting ``yes.''
  Do not surrender our principal leverage with this regime. Vote 
``yes'' for free immigration. Vote ``yes'' for family reunification. 
Vote ``yes'' to end religious persecution. Vote ``yes'' to promote free 
speech and democracy. Vote ``yes'' to honor the values which we are 
sworn to uphold.
  The fact is the Vietnamese Government does not meet the conditions of 
good emigration. And by rewarding Vietnam regardless of its lack of 
cooperation, we are sending them the wrong message.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) has 11 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Crane) has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) has 12 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McNulty) has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 58 and in support of 
the President's waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment with respect to 
Vietnam.
  In considering this resolution, I ask my colleagues to bear a few 
matters in mind. First, today's vote is not a vote on whether to give 
normal trade relations, NTR, to Vietnam.
  For that to happen, the United States first must enter into a 
bilateral commercial agreement with Vietnam and that agreement must be 
approved by Congress.
  Second, if we reject this resolution, as we did last year, the result 
would be a continuation of Vietnam's eligibility to participate in 
financing programs, those administered by OPIC, the Export-Import Bank, 
and the Department of Agriculture.
  Those programs support U.S. exports to and investments in Vietnam and 
thereby enable U.S. businesses and workers to compete in Vietnam with 
businesses and workers from other countries.
  The programs have been available since the President first waived 
Jackson-Vanik for Vietnam in April of last year. To cut them off now 
would be to pull the rug from under U.S. producers of goods and 
services. It would be a setback in our effort to improve U.S. relations 
with Vietnam and to encourage the development of a market economy in 
that country.
  By contrast, continuing those programs for another year represents a 
small but important step forward. Importantly, it should bolster our 
efforts to encourage the development of the bases of a free market and 
rule of law in Vietnam.
  Third, our trade negotiators have been negotiating a trade agreement 
with Vietnam, which is a prerequisite to giving Vietnam NTR.
  On July 25, the U.S. trade representative announced that an agreement 
in principle had been reached. She also stated that the administration 
``will now consult with Congress and others, and work toward completion 
of a formal Bilateral Commercial Agreement and a mutual grant of normal 
trade relations.''
  We look forward to those consultations which would give us an 
opportunity to review negotiations to date and other trade issues and 
any other additional issues relating to trade of concern to us in the 
Congress.
  At the June 17 Subcommittee on Trade hearing on relations with 
Vietnam, I cited a number of important issues that have to be resolved 
before we can agree to full normalization. Of particular concern is the 
pace of economic reform in Vietnam. They are taking steps to reform the 
economy, including steps to root out corruption, enforcement of 
intellectual property rights, and improvement of the reliability of 
government-published data.
  Another area of concern that I mentioned at that time is the 
potentially disturbing effects that Vietnam's labor market structure, 
including the exploitation of child labor, may have on competition. 
Labor market issues are trade issues.
  Progress on each of the foregoing fronts is necessary to ensure that 
the benefits of U.S. businesses and workers from normalization with 
commercial relations with Vietnam are real.
  Our ambassador to Vietnam and our former distinguished colleague, 
Pete Peterson, testified before the Subcommittee on Trade of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. He stated, based on his active work as 
ambassador, as follows. I urge all to listen to the conclusions or the 
findings, the experiences of our ambassador:
  ``Vietnam has eased restrictions on emigration,'' he said. ``Over 
500,000 people have left Vietnam for the U.S. under the Orderly 
Departure Program.''
  Next: ``Vietnam continues to cooperate fully with the U.S. on 
locating Americans missing in action.''
  Next: ``Last fall, the Government of Vietnam released several 
prisoners of conscience.''
  He also said: ``Tolerance of religious worship,'' far, far from 
perfect, ``is improving.''
  ``In 1998,'' he also mentioned, ``there were 60 independently 
organized worker strikes protesting unfair wages and working 
conditions.
  ``The Government is in the process of writing legislation to protect 
the freedom of association.''
  And lastly, that ``the United States,'' he says, under his 
leadership, ``continues to engage with Vietnam in a very frank dialogue 
on human rights. The most recent round in this dialogue took place at 
the assistant secretary level in mid-July.''
  Members of Congress will be watching for further progress closely. 
For now, let us support the accomplishments that have been made to date 
toward normalization of our relationship with Vietnam. Let us take a 
cautious step forward by continuing the Jackson-Vanik waiver for 
Vietnam.
  In short, let us keep intact the groundwork on which a meaningful and 
enduring relationship can be built. Support the waiver. Vote against 
H.J. Res. 58.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, a veteran, and a great leader in international 
relations in this Congress.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.

[[Page 19225]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 58 offered 
by the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) in 
disapproving the extension of the Jackson-Vanik waiver for the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
  The issue before us is progress, progress on human rights, on freedom 
of religion, freedom of emigration, and obtaining the fullest possible 
accounting for our POW/MIAs from the war in Southeast Asia.
  Simply stated, the Vietnamese Government has not demonstrated the 
progress on these issues to warrant an extension of the Jackson-Vanik 
waiver. Many of us have voiced our concerns with regard to the rapid 
pace of normalizing relations with Vietnam.
  The President insists that extending the waiver of the Jackson-Vanik 
amendment and its ensuing privileges is in our best national interest 
and will encourage the Vietnamese Government to cooperate on many 
issues, including economic reforms, political liberalization, and 
respect for human rights.
  OPIC guarantee and Export-Import Bank financing programs should be a 
reward for achievement and not offered as an incentive for future 
conduct.
  Despite the opening of diplomatic relations 4 years ago, prisoners of 
conscience are still in prison in Vietnam. Many of our former comrades 
in arms are still unaccounted for in the Vietnam War.
  The Vietnamese Government still arbitrarily arrests and detains its 
citizens, including those who peacefully express political and 
religious objections to government policies.
  The hard-line communist government also denies its citizens the right 
to fair and expeditious trials and still hold a number of political 
prisoners.
  Moreover, Radio Free Asia is continuously jammed, preventing the free 
flow of information which Congress has worked to promote.
  Vietnam continues to ``severely restrict those religious activities 
it defined as being at variance with State laws and policies,'' as 
stated in the State Department Report on Human Rights Practices.
  Along with a number of Members of Congress, I recently wrote to 
President Clinton expressing our concern over the persecution of the 
Unified Buddhist Church, the Catholic Church, Protestant Christians, 
and the Montagnards in Vietnam.
  In conclusion, a proposed extension of the waiver of Jackson-Vanik 
would essentially reward a lack of progress on human rights, political 
liberalization, economic reform, and the POW/MIA effort. This is 
illogical.
  Accordingly, I call upon our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
resolution of disapproval of the extension of the Jackson-Vanik waiver 
and send a strong message that our Nation still values principle over 
profits.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 58.
  As a Vietnam War veteran, I empathize with many of the arguments that 
are made by opponents to this waiver. I, too, am concerned about 
freedom of emigration. I, too, want a full accounting for our MIA and 
POWs. I, too, am concerned about religious freedom. But I strongly 
disagree with how this solution proposes to resolve these problems.
  Denying the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam will do nothing to 
further progress in any of these areas. In fact, it will have the 
opposite effect.
  I hope my colleagues will take a moment to consider the changes that 
have occurred and that are occurring to Vietnam.
  Vietnam is not the same country it was 30 years ago when I was there. 
Over the past 15 years, 500,000 Vietnamese have emigrated to the United 
States. Over 96 percent of the resettlement opportunities for 
Vietnamese returnees cases have been cleared for interview by Vietnam. 
On emigration issues, we are clearly headed in the right direction.
  On POW/MIA accounting, we have had and continue to have substantial 
cooperation from the Vietnamese Government in all areas. On religious 
freedom, progress is also being made.
  Three weeks ago, a high-level U.S. delegation traveled to Vietnam to 
engage in the seventh session of our annual human rights dialogue with 
Vietnamese officials.
  At each of these meetings, religious freedom has been a major topic 
of discussion; and each time U.S. officials have been able to report 
that progress is being made.

                              {time}  1615

  In October of this year, five American Catholic bishops will be 
visiting Vietnam, the first visit by an American bishop since 1975. 
This will be a momentous event.
  Let me be clear. While there is progress, the situation in Vietnam 
today is far from perfect. But it is important that we put this vote in 
its historical perspective. In 1991, President Bush proposed a road map 
for improving our relations with Vietnam. To follow the road map, 
Vietnam had to take steps to help us account for our missing 
servicemen. In return for this cooperation, the United States was to 
move incrementally toward normalized relations. We have moved in that 
direction.
  I urge my colleagues not to abandon decades of progress. Only with 
engagement can we have commerce and only with commerce can we have 
change.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York 
for yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 58 and in support of trade 
agreements that put people before corporate profits, trade agreements 
that act as if human beings mattered.
  Today we are debating whether to give the very same multinationals 
that last month succeed in gaining NAFTA for Africa and higher trade 
surpluses with China, whether to give those same multinationals more 
government-backed guarantees to protect their investments in another 
poor nation with a horrible human rights record, a nation with 
absolutely no worker rights or religious or political freedoms, the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
  Think about that, because that is what the President's waiver does. 
It is a green light for businessmen and businesswomen to take advantage 
of another people's misfortune, of their inability to organize 
political change in the face of overwhelming government opposition. We 
are asking our constituents, the men and women who voted us into 
office, to back American corporations that want to do business with a 
Communist dictatorship that reviles the very form of government that 
lets us debate this measure.
  This is a government that for the last 20 years has arrested, 
tortured and put hundreds of thousands of people into prisons and 
reeducation camps for crimes like forming independent trade unions, for 
worshiping in churches, for, quote, using freedom and democracy to 
injure national unity.
  The Vietnamese people should have the opportunity to earn better 
wages, to live longer and healthier lives, to enter into better 
relationships with the United States and the rest of the world. 
However, rubber-stamping the President's waiver makes a mockery of our 
Constitution and the provisions in the 1974 Trade Act that uphold human 
rights, that uphold worker rights, that uphold religious rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would join us in 
affirming that human rights and those principles that our country 
stands for do count for something. We should not just waive them. I 
urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to support trade 
agreements that require nations to first enter the family of nations, 
agreements that support free trade between free people.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very capable and 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today's vote on the resolution of disapproval 
is really a vote on if we are truly dedicated to the hard work of 
getting a full

[[Page 19226]]

accounting of the missing in action from the Vietnam War. As the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars has argued, passing this resolution of 
disapproval will only hurt our efforts at a time that they are 
receiving the access and cooperation we need from the Vietnamese to 
determine the fate of our POW/MIAs.
  There is no more authoritative voice on this issue than our former 
colleague and now Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, who supports 
the waiver. As a prisoner of war who underwent years of imprisonment in 
the notorious Hanoi Hilton, he should have every right to be skeptical 
and harbor bitterness against the Vietnamese. Yet he believes the best 
course of action is to develop better relations between our countries.
  We have achieved progress on the POW/MIA issue because of our 
evolving relationship with the Vietnamese, not despite it. Without 
access to the jungles and rice paddies, to the archival information and 
documents, and to the witnesses of these tragic incidents, we cannot 
give the families of the missing the answers they deserve.
  Our Nation is making progress in providing these answers. Much of 
this is due to the Joint Task Force-Full Accounting, our military 
presence in Vietnam who are looking into missing issues. I have visited 
these young men and women and they are among the finest and bravest and 
most gung ho soldiers I have ever met. Every day from the searches of 
battle sites in treacherous jungles or the excavation of crash sites on 
precarious mountain summits, they put themselves in harm's way to 
perform a mission they truly believe in.
  It is moving to see these men and women in action, some of whom were 
not even born when our missing served, perform a mission that they see 
as a sacred duty. They tell me time and time again one thing: ``Allow 
us to remain here so we can do our job.''
  This resolution before us today puts that at risk. I urge my 
colleagues to please vote against this resolution.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a distinguished colleague who spent 6 years as 
a prisoner of war, a man who was a pilot, a man who fought for his 
country and a man who has a unique opinion on this issue that we are 
discussing today.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the 
gentleman says, but even with the Ambassador over there, we still are 
not getting into some of the places that we need to get into. If you 
send our military to do a job, they are going to do it, regardless of 
where they are, and they are doing that job over there.
  But I ask you, who better than our Vietnamese Americans to know what 
should happen in Vietnam? No waiver. They do not want a waiver. If you 
recall in 1995, I think it was, or 1993, rather, Clinton said that he 
would have a full and accurate accounting of all our POWs. That is our 
President. Again, in 1995, if you recall, he flip-flopped and went back 
on his word and recognized them. And now we want to put another nose 
under the tent, or push the nose a little further and try to recognize 
them for trade. Even now, we still have over 2,000 unaccounted for 
servicemen in Vietnam. Our MIA, missing in action, families, deserve 
our full support and that means ``yes'' to no waiver.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 58 is the wrong direction for us 
to take today. Who is hurt if we pass this resolution today? We are. It 
is the wrong direction for U.S. farmers and manufacturers who will not 
have a level playing field when they compete with their European or 
Japanese counterparts in Vietnam. It is the wrong direction for our 
joint efforts with the Vietnamese to account for the last remains of 
our soldiers, and to answer finally the questions of their loved ones 
here. And it is the wrong direction for our efforts to influence the 
Vietnamese people, 65 percent of whom were not even born when the war 
was being waged.
  Let us not turn the clock back on Vietnam. Let us continue to work 
with the Vietnamese, and in so doing teach the youthful Vietnamese the 
values of democracy, the principles of capitalism, and the merits of a 
free and open society. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, Vietnam should be able to trade with 
America, but only when Hanoi halts human rights abuses and establishes 
a fair, sound economic environment that embraces human rights.
  It is clear that Vietnam is eager to have an economic relationship 
with the United States and is willing to take the steps necessary to do 
so. Unfortunately, they are not where they need to be and they will not 
get there unless we stand firm for democratic principles and for human 
rights for the people of Vietnam.
  Vietnam embarked down the road to reform in 1986, achieving high 
economic growth of 8 percent per year with low inflation. As a result, 
the U.S. lifted economic sanctions in 1994 and normalized diplomatic 
relations in 1995.
  It was all downhill from there. The economic growth did not produce 
democratic and market reforms. In addition to quashing the religious, 
political and social freedoms of its citizens and restricting their 
rights to emigrate, Hanoi has taken giant steps backward from fostering 
sound policies and stability to bolster its economy and attract foreign 
investors. Erratic decision making, government red tape and high 
overhead makes many businesses unviable.
  The government's refusal to loosen its political domination and 
accelerate the transition to a market economy has brought the country 
to a critical juncture. We cannot abandon the Vietnamese people and 
American businesses at this critical juncture. In the case of Vietnam, 
trade sanctions can be an effective way of ensuring Hanoi chooses the 
path of reform. As we saw in South Africa, 5 years after the U.S. first 
imposed economic sanctions, the Pretoria government abolished 
apartheid. While some question the economic effectiveness of U.S. 
sanctions, economists agree that the psychological and political 
effects were of fundamental importance to eliminating apartheid.
  Economic sanctions are not the right tool in every case. But when 
they are, they take time. They only are effective when we have the 
patience to wait for results. The people of Vietnam deserve the same 
patience.
  Please support this resolution and join with the Vietnamese people in 
their struggle against communism and oppression.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have a certain degree of irony being 
here on the floor having this resolution debated today, when earlier 
this week we had former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara here on 
Capitol Hill meeting and admitting basically that the college students 
were right 30 years ago and that the government and Mr. McNamara were 
not telling the American people the truth.
  I think it is amazing for us to look at the progress that has in fact 
occurred over the last third of a century. We have heard referenced on 
the floor the 500,000 people that have been able to legally emigrate. 
We had opportunities today for Members of this assembly to meet with 
our former colleague Pete Peterson to talk about his experience with 
the progress in terms of religious freedom in Vietnam and the 
rebuilding of churches and pagodas, the progress on the MIAs where we 
have more accountability than any war in American history. Even in the 
area of democratic government, there were 61 people elected to the 
Vietnamese Assembly who were independents, who were not Communists. 
Consider this, given where they have been, that one even is a former 
South Vietnamese military officer.
  Pete Peterson has made huge progress in his life's work of trying to 
bring 350 million people together between our two countries, the 
majority

[[Page 19227]]

of whom in both countries were not even alive during the Vietnam War. I 
strongly urge a rejection of this resolution before us today. Reject 
the resolution in order to hasten the day when we can get beyond the 
tortured struggle that has, I think, divided our country unnecessarily 
and bring about a healing and an integration of the Vietnamese nation 
into the world economy and allow us to be able to deal honestly with 
the history that got us here in the first place.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis) who represents thousands of Vietnamese Americans 
who know full well what repression their family members live under in 
Vietnam.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. 
Res. 58, disapproving the extension of emigration waiver authority to 
Vietnam.
  As Members know, last year the President granted Vietnam a waiver of 
the Jackson-Vanik's condition, but not much really I think has been 
cited or documented in that last year. Boat People SOS, an organization 
located in my district, has informed me that there is rampant 
corruption in Vietnam and the Vietnamese government and it continues to 
exclude thousands of former political prisoners and former U.S. 
Government employees from participating in the U.S. refugee programs. 
On average, an applicant has to pay $1,000 in bribes to gain access to 
these programs. In a country where the average Vietnamese's salary is 
$250, how can an impoverished former political prisoner or former U.S. 
Government employee who the government already discriminates against 
afford a $1,000 bribe per person just to apply for these programs? 
Since last year's waiver, the Vietnamese government has not deemed a 
single case among this group of thousands to be eligible for the 
refugee program.
  Corruption exists not only in the Vietnamese government but it also 
undermines U.S. exchange programs as well.

                              {time}  1630

  Our programs offer outstanding Vietnamese students the opportunity to 
participate and study in the U.S.; however, the Vietnamese Government 
excludes those students whose parents are not members of the Communist 
cadre.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, a small business exporter of wireless 
telecommunications equipment from Torrance, California, had never sold 
to Vietnam. Telemobile's Japanese, French, and Canadian competitors all 
had the support of their home government's export credit agencies. 
Telemobile had no hope of selling to Vietnam until the President and 
Congress approved the Jackson-Vanik waiver last year allowing the 
Export-Import Bank and other Federal export promotion programs to 
operate in Vietnam. Then Telemobile won a $6 million contract with 
Vietnam to sell their product backed with the letter of interest from 
the Export-Import Bank.
  The purpose of the vote today is to allow those types of partnerships 
so American companies can utilize our export credit agencies in order 
to have American jobs. With the already large U.S. trade deficit, we 
should not impose yet another sanction on our exports. We should vote 
against this resolution of disapproval.
  Open letter to Congress from Telemobile is as follows:


                                              Telemobile, Inc,

                                      Torrance, CA, July 27, 1999.
     Congress of the United States,
     House of Representatives.
       Open letter to Congress: I am President of a small 
     electronics manufacturing company, employing about 100 people 
     in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. I am writing to express 
     my opposition to the resolution of disapproval regarding 
     Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik's waiver (H.J. Res. 58) because it 
     will have a serious impact on our business and our employees 
     who live and work here.
       Telemobile, Inc. is a manufacturer of wireless rural 
     telecommunications equipment. We compete against Canadian, 
     French, and Japanese manufacturers of similar equipment. They 
     all have the support of their home governments in the area of 
     trade promotion, including their government-supported export 
     credit agencies. We had no hope of winning any business in 
     Vietnam until the President and Congress supported a waiver 
     of the Jackson-Vanik amendment last year. Since then, we 
     received a Letter of Interest from the Export-Import Bank of 
     the United States (Ex-Im) for a project we plan to do in 
     Vietnam worth about $6 million. We would have never won this 
     contract if we did not have the backing of the Ex-Im Bank. 
     Even still, all of our foreign competitors tell our 
     Vietnamese customers to abandon their project with us because 
     their governments do not go through this annual Jackson-Vanik 
     waiver process. Fortunately, the Vietnamese want to buy 
     American products.
       But if Ex-Im is forced to leave Vietnam because of the 
     passage of H.J. Res. 58, then our Vietnamese customers will 
     have no choice but to go with one of our foreign competitors. 
     Thus, if this bill passes, the real-life practical effect 
     upon Telemobile is that the work on this $6 million contract 
     will be transferred from the 100 employees here in Torrance, 
     California to Canada, Japan or France. While a $6 million 
     sale may be insignificant in the eyes of Washington, it is 
     significant to our small business, which is 95 percent 
     export-oriented.
       I firmly believe that renewal of the Jackson-Vanik waiver 
     is a necessary step in the process of normalizing our 
     relations with Vietnam and would be good for the American 
     people, as well as the business activities of American 
     workers engaged in exports. Please oppose H.J. Res. 58.
           Very truly,
                                                      W.I. Thomas,
                                                        President.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
resolution and in favor of the Jackson-Vanik waiver.
  I rise in opposition to this resolution and urge my colleagues to 
uphold the current waiver from the Jackson-Vanik provision.
  Mr. Speaker, the Jackson-Vanik provision of the 1974 Trade Act was 
intended to encourage communist countries to relax their restrictive 
emigration policies.
  At the time, the Soviet Union was prohibiting Soviet Jewry from 
emigrating to the U.S. and Israel.
  It specifically granted the President the power to waive restrictions 
on U.S. government credits or investment guarantees to communist 
countries if the waiver would help promote significant progress toward 
relaxing emigration controls.
  The co-author of this provision, Senator Scoop Jackson was a staunch 
anti-communist.
  Yet, he was willing to consider incentives to encourage the Soviet 
Union to relax its emigration policy.
  Vietnam is experiencing a new era, driven by a population where 65% 
of its citizens were born after the war. Vietnam today is thirsty for 
U.S. trade and economic investment.
  Last year, Charles Vanik, former Member and co-author of the Jackson-
Vanik provision, sent me a letter expressing his strong opposition to 
the motion to disapprove trade credits for Vietnam.
  Ironically, the economic incentives provided in Jackson-Vanik are all 
one sided favoring U.S. firms doing business in Vietnam.
  A waiver of Jackson-Vanik does not establish normal trading relations 
with Vietnam.
  The Vietnamese Government has made tremendous progress in meeting the 
emigration criteria in the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
  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 less isolated and to 
follow the rule of law.
  Through a policy of engagement and U.S. business investment, Vietnam 
has improved its emigration policies.
  As of June 1 of this year, the Vietnamese Government had cleared 
nearly 20,000 individuals, or 96% of applicants, for interviews under 
the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees (ROVR).
  The Immigration and Naturalization Service has approved 15,833 ROVR 
applicants for admission to the United States as refugees--14,715 of 
which have left Vietnam for the U.S.
  According to the State Department, we are also obtaining ``the 
fullest possible accounting'' of our missing in action from the Vietnam 
War.
  Just last week, the U.S. and Vietnam finalized the terms of a 
bilateral trade agreement to address issues ranging from import quotas, 
import bans, and high tariffs to financial services, 
telecommunications, and other issues that are critical to opening 
Vietnam to U.S. products and services.
  U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, our esteemed former 
colleague and

[[Page 19228]]

former POW, has been one of our nation's strongest advocates for 
expanding trade with Vietnam. Renewing the Jackson-Vanik waiver will 
increase market access for U.S. products and services in the 12th most 
populous country in the world.
  Disapproval of this waiver will have several negative outcomes. It 
will 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.
  I can see nothing gained by overturning the waiver and urge my 
colleagues to defeat this resolution.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute, and I understand that 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) will also yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CRANE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute as well to our good 
colleague and friend from San Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, for some of us this issue is very, very 
difficult, when heart, economics, pain are all tied up into one. I 
understand the version of the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) of 
this, and I understand the gentleman's, and what I would do is point 
out a couple things on each side because I still do not know how I am 
going to vote on this issue.
  When one lives through Private Ryan, it is very difficult for 
something like this, and one side we see economics, like the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) talked about for his constituents, and on 
the other side, Mr. Speaker, I went with the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers) to Vietnam. He asked me to go four times, and I said no, 
it is too hard, and then he said, Well, Pete Peterson asked you to come 
and help raise the American flag for the first time in 25 years.
  I saw American children there, Eurasians, that can not be helped by 
this on one side, but yet I saw very strong Communism. As a matter of 
fact, the Communist premier told me, he said, Duke, we don't engage in 
free trade. I can't do this quickly. He is very open, he said, because 
it will put us out of a job, which meant Communism.
  To me on one side that says, Hey, American involvement is good 
because it hammers away at Communism; but yet on the other side I see 
where not even Pete Peterson can be there when an American citizen is 
tried in their courts, and it is difficult, Mr. Speaker.
  I had a young lady in my district named Foo Lee, had to work a year. 
Her whole family escaped in a boat, lives in my district, and the mom 
had to stay behind because they knew that if they were caught, they 
would be put into a reeducation camp, and not many people survive; and 
it took a year to get her back into the United States and rejoined with 
the family.
  And on that side it is very hard for this. I look at that we cannot 
go in with intellectual property rights, but on the other side we have 
the same problem with China, and I voted for trade with China, so why 
not for this? And it is one of the more difficult. For most of my 
colleagues it is not, but for us, and Sam, and I understand both sides 
of this issue. I see my friend Pete Peterson spent 6 years as a POW 
there, and it is very difficult to look at heart, to look at logic, to 
look at economics.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not chastise anybody for either side of this 
vote.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and what I would like to do is address my remarks to all of 
my colleagues, but especially to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).
  As a young soldier in Vietnam, I like to speak to my colleagues 
through the eyes of many young soldiers in Vietnam where we would every 
once in a while help corps men deliver babies, some alive and some 
dead. We as very young men saw leprosy for the first time. We saw the 
eyes of the dying Viet Cong. We saw the eyes and looked into the eyes 
of dying young Americans and said good bye. We laughed and cried with 
the Vietnamese people, the very old and the very young.
  One incident, we moved into a small little village, pulled an old man 
out of a grass hut with one leg, and the old woman in the grass hut 
began to cry because we thought he was shooting at us and we were going 
to take him away. And a little girl about 10 screamed and cried and 
grabbed at our clothes as we were walking this old man away from the 
village, and then suddenly we young soldiers just stopped. We looked 
into the eyes of the old man. The old woman froze in fear as to what 
might happen next, and the little girl just stopped crying, and then 
the old man looked at us, and we looked back at him, and we suddenly 
realized something. We were just all people together caught in a 
horrible struggle, none of which we created.
  There was an Israeli soldier in 1967 that said, We need to learn to 
love our children more than we hate our enemies. We can never forget 
the pain of the past. But in this vote I think it is time that we start 
a new future for us, for the Vietnamese children.
  We remember the quote from President Kennedy at the Berlin Wall where 
he said:
  ``We all cherish our children's future, we all breathe the same air, 
and we are all mortal.''
  Let us vote for America and Vietnam.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, on August 3 in 1492 Christopher Columbus set 
sail on a new journey across the Atlantic, and he set sail with new 
maritime instruments, a quadrant, an astrolabe, a cross staff, that 
helped him find the shores of the Bahamas. Today the new instruments to 
help us navigate to help our workers, to help our businesses, navigate 
the complicated world of international trade are access to OPIC, 
agricultural loans and Ex-Im Bank loans. That is why we should reject 
this resolution and allow us the opportunity for Boeing to compete 
against Airbus and sell our planes to Vietnam.
  Now Pete Peterson, a good friend of mine, has been mentioned as our 
ambassador who spent 6 years as a POW. Pete Peterson will never forget, 
nor will Congress forget the MIAs, and we are ripping up highways and 
searching in mountains for every clue to find those MIAs, and we will 
never forget the 58,000 soldiers that were lost in that war.
  But it is also time for us to move in a positive way to bring Vietnam 
into the community of nations.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) one of the most distinguished and ferocious 
champions of human rights in this body.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the U.S. sent a 
representative to Vietnam to conduct a human rights dialog with the 
government there. At the conclusion of the dialogue the Vietnamese 
government issued a statement essentially denying that the U.S. had any 
right whatsoever to concern itself with human rights outside of its 
borders. However, less than 2 weeks later, with the obligatory dialogue 
out of the way, the U.S. sent another representative to Vietnam, and 
this time we signed an agreement in principle to give MFN, or normal 
trading status to Vietnam, sending a clear message to the Hanoi 
dictatorship that they can safely ignore everything else we say about 
human rights and still get what they want from our government.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear on one thing. There is no freedom 
of immigration from Vietnam. If there were, there would be no need for 
this waiver. The administration could simply certify that Vietnam 
complies with the Jackson-Vanik freedom of immigration requirement. 
Instead, by waiving the requirement, the administration has conceded 
that there is no such freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, the only significant human rights concession the 
Vietnamese Government has made in order

[[Page 19229]]

to get the waiver was to finally begin letting us interview people 
under the rover program. Now I happen to be a very enthusiastic 
supporter of this program, and for the Record Members will recall that 
I was the prime sponsor of the amendment on this floor that stopped us 
from doing what I think would have been very, very cruel, and that 
would be to end the CPA, the Comprehensive Plan of Action, to just send 
the people back without giving them any opportunity to get re-reviewed 
after some bogus reviews were done, or interviews.
  The refugee program, the rover program, works when there was a real 
push, and the ambassador, Pete Peterson, did do a good job in pushing 
when he had the effort of ourselves holding up the waiver. 13,000 
people were cleared, but as soon as the waiver was granted, the 
clearances slowed right back to a trickle.
  Mr. Speaker, let us not forget the prisoners of conscience; let us 
not forget the Catholic priests and the Buddhist monks. The religious 
persecution situation has gotten worse since last April when additional 
restrictions on exercise of religion was put on those people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the gentleman from California's (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the United States sent a representative 
to Vietnam to conduct a ``human rights dialogue'' with the government 
there. At the conclusion of the dialogue, the Vietnamese Government 
issued a statement essentially denying that the United States had any 
right at all to concern itself with human rights outside its own 
borders. Less than two weeks later with the obligatory dialogue out of 
the way, the United States sent another representative to Vietnam. This 
one signed an ``agreement in principle'' to give Most Favored Nation 
status to Vietnam--sending a clear message that the Hanoi dictatorship 
can safely ignore everything we say about human rights, and still get 
what it wants from our government. Because the waiver of the Jackson-
Vanik freedom of emigration provisions is a prerequisite to MFN, the 
communist regime--and its victims--are watching today's vote very 
closely.
  Let use be clear, Mr. Speaker, on what this vote is about. It is 
about U.S. taxpayer subsidies for one of the worst dictatorships in the 
world.
  And let's be clear on one other thing: there is no freedom of 
emigration from Vietnam. If there were, there would be no need for a 
waiver. The Administration could simply certify that Viet Nam complies 
with the Jackson-Vanik freedom-of-emigration requirement. Instead, by 
waving the requirement, the Administration has conceded that there is 
no such freedom. Yes, the government allows some people to leave, when 
it is good and ready. But for many thousands who have been persecuted 
because they were on our side during the war, Vietnam is still a 
prison.
  Finally, I hope my colleagues understand that this is not a vote 
about free trade. It is about subsidies--corporate welfare for 
Communists. Since the President gave the waiver in March of 1998, the 
U.S. taxpayers have been paying for Eximbank and OPIC subsidies of 
trade and investment in Vietnam. Many of these taxpayer dollars 
subsidize ventures owned in large part by the government of the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
  Overregulation and widespread corruption make Vietnam a terrible 
place to do business. Starting this year, foreign businesses in Vietnam 
are no longer allowed to hire Vietnamese employees directly, but must 
go through the government. No only does this practice encourage 
corruption, it also excludes victims of persecution from what for many 
is the only potential source of employment available to them. In 
addition, according to a recent Ministry of finance audit, 5.8 billion 
dollars--one third of Vietnam's total civil service assets--are 
unaccounted for. Most of the money reportedly was spend on luxury items 
for high-ranking communist officials. So U.S. taxpayers are now forced 
to compensate businesses for the greed and inefficiency of their 
partners in Hanoi.
  The only significant human rights concession the Vietnamese 
Government made in order to get the waiver was to finally begin letting 
us interview people under the ``ROVER'' program (Resettlement 
Opportunities for Vietnamese Refugees). Now I happen to be an 
enthusiastic supporter of this program was prime sponsor of the 
amendment to ensure that the Boat People refugees weren't sent back. 
ROVR was the compromise, it provide a new interview for people who 
managed to escape Vietnam but were forced back--althought many were 
refugees. They were promised that as soon as they got back, the U.S. 
would interview them and resettle them if they were eligible for our 
protection. But of course the Vietnamese government broke its promise. 
For over a year and a half they hardly let us interview nobody. 
Finally, when we really held their feet to the fire, they cleared 
13,000 people. But as soon as the waiver was granted, the clearances 
slowed back to a
trickle.
  In fact, the emigration situation has become worse since the waiver. 
In the last year, communist officials reportedly have been demanding 
much larger bribes in exchange for access to U.S. refugee programs. An 
average emigrant must pay about one thousand dollars in bribes--more 
than three times the average annual salary of Vietnamese workers. In 
some cases, government officials have demanded tens of thousands of 
dollars from eligible refugees.
  Finally, we must not forget the prisoners of conscience. Hanoi 
imprisons Catholic priests, Buddhist monks, pro-democracy activists, 
scholars, and poets. Last April, the regime placed additional 
restrictions on religious exercise and permanently appropriated 
properties that it had confiscated from different churches. When we 
complain to the Vietnamese Government, they just respond that ``we have 
a different system.'' They need to be persuaded that a system like this 
is not one that Americans will subsidize.
  The lesson is obvious: the Vietnamese Government has no trouble 
clearing refugees for interview when it really wants to. But once they 
get what they want from us, they have no interest in allowing people to 
leave. So we should disapprove the Jackson-Vanik waiver at least until 
the government allows all the refugees to leave: not only the returnees 
who are eligible for the ROVR Program, but also those who never left 
Vietnam and are still trapped there, including longterm re-education 
camp survivors and former U.S. Government employees. Many of these 
people are members of the Montagnard ethnic minority who fought 
valiantly for the U.S. and have suffered greatly ever since.
  The list of human rights violations goes on and on. Vietnam enforces 
a ``two-child per couple'' policy by depriving the parents of 
``unauthorized'' children of employment and other government benefits. 
It denies workers the right to organize independent trade unions, and 
has subjected many to forced labor. The government not only denies 
freedom of the press, but also systematically jams Radio Free Asia, 
which tries to bring them the kind of broadcasting they would provide 
for themselves if their government would allow freedom of expression.
  Mr. Speaker, the Vietnamese Government and its victims will both be 
watching this vote. We must send the message that economic benefits 
from the United States absolutely depend on decent treatment of 
Vietnam's own people. We may not be able to insist on perfection, but 
we must insist on minimal decency.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Sanchez) who represents the largest number of 
Vietnamese Americans in the country.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues to 
explain to Dr. Giang why the Communist government of Vietnam should be 
rewarded and granted the Jackson-Vanik waiver. On March 4 of this year, 
Dr. Giang was a respected geophysicist and writer and was arrested in 
Hanoi for allegedly possessing anti-Communist documents. Unfortunately, 
this was not the first time that he had been harassed by the 
authorities for peacefully expressing his viewpoints.
  In January of 1997, he wrote an essay and argued the universality of 
human rights and concluded that the world needs to unite its actions 
for human rights.

                              {time}  1645

  In March of 1997, Dr. Giang was also summoned to appear before the 
Communist Party for a session of public accusation. After a storm of 
international protest of governments and human rights organizations, 
Dr. Giang was finally released. In fact, I went to Vietnam in April to 
try and find him. Officials in communist-ruled Vietnam never explained 
to Giang why he was arrested on March 4 or formally charged.
  In my hand, I have a copy of a letter that he sent to my office 
detailing his current situation. I would like to share his thoughts 
with you today.

[[Page 19230]]

  It says,

       Dear Ms. Sanchez: I am still being restricted by a police 
     writ which bans me to go elsewhere outside my residence. This 
     oppression causes me to suffer in my home detention status. 
     Even so, I am not dejected in this indignant circumstance. I 
     will always aspire for better conditions and freedom and 
     democracy for our people. Thank you again. I pray that global 
     allegiance for democracy and human rights will spread far and 
     wide as we build greater victories for all people.

  'This is one of the many examples of human rights abuses which occurs 
in Vietnam. The United States must take a stand on human rights, and we 
must say enough is enough. We have an opportunity to send a signal to 
Vietnam, that human rights cannot be ignored.
  Vote ``yes'' on House Joint Resolution 58.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Boucher.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the President's 
decision to extend the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam and in strong 
opposition to the resolution of disapproval. The Jackson-Vanik waiver 
process is designed to promote immigration from countries that do not 
have market economies. In the case of Vietnam, the waiver is working as 
intended.
  Since the waiver was granted, Vietnam has made steady progress under 
both the ROVR and the orderly departure programs. If the waiver is 
rescinded through the passage of this resolution, that progress, which 
depends entirely upon the cooperation of the Vietnamese government, 
will almost certainly be reversed.
  We have now negotiated a bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam and 
progress is being made on human rights and on religious freedom 
matters.
  I urge the Members to reject this resolution and, in doing so, to 
give a vote of confidence to the very fine work of our former 
colleague, the Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson, and his excellent 
staff, under whose guidance this outstanding progress is being made.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I had 
an opportunity to travel to Vietnam and to talk to members of the 
business community, to the international environmental community, to 
workers, to representatives of labor organizations, and to U.S. 
manufacturers and had an opportunity to travel throughout the country. 
I think that my conclusion is that the waiver can continue to be 
justified because of the progress that is being made.
  I think it is also clear that the waiver helps to empower our 
ambassador, Pete Peterson, who may be the greatest catalyst for change 
inside this country, so that he can continue his work to get Vietnam to 
improve its human rights conditions, to improve its labor conditions, 
to improve its environmental conditions and so many of the other issues 
that are of concern to all of us here.
  This is not about not being concerned about human rights, labor 
conditions, or any of the rest of it. It is about whether or not we can 
have a process where we can continue to make progress. Unlike the vote 
last week on China, where I voted against extending the relationship 
with China because, in fact, there we have gone backwards, here we have 
an opportunity to continue the progress forward.
  We will have much debate on the trade agreement and whether or not 
that can be justified or not be justified, but the fact of the matter 
is, in this particular case, the continued waiver for another year so 
that we can continue to monitor, continue to work with the government 
of Vietnam on all of these issues, is a positive step that we should 
and can take today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 58 so that we might 
continue the existing waiver of the Jackson-Vanik restrictions as they 
apply to Vietnam.
  Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to travel to Vietnam earlier this 
year on official business to attend an international environmental 
conference, to inspect labor conditions at factories that subcontract 
for United States manufacturers, and to meet with our Embassy officials 
on a broad range of United States-Vietnam issues.
  Vietnam today is a country struggling to become a player in the 
global economic market. It is once again a major agricultural power and 
is the world's second largest exporter of rice. Hundreds of foreign 
companies are investing in this nation of 80 million people, the 12th 
largest population in the world, because of its key role in Asia and 
its educated and diligent work force. Most of the representatives of 
American businesses with whom I spoke in Vietnam praise the local 
business opportunities and actively promote the normalization of 
economic relations so that trade between the United States and Vietnam, 
now less than $300 million a year, can expand and investment can 
flourish.
  The conditions for waiving Jackson-Vanik are quite specific, and in 
my view, Vietnam has met those tests and should again be granted the 
waiver as it was last year by nearly 100 vote margin in the House. 
Jackson-Vanik was developed to use our economic leverage to force 
political and immigration reforms, and it has had the desired effect in 
Vietnam where we have seen significant and steady movement towards 
expanded emigration.
  Our Ambassador, who is our former colleague and a distinguished 
Vietnam veteran, Pete Peterson, has documented broad cooperation by the 
Vietnamese government with the emigration program and has even noted 
that in some cases, it has been impossible to fill the slots allocated 
for some categories of applicants. Ambassador Peterson has also noted 
expanding religious activity and I was able to observe the expanded 
construction of churches in northern Vietnam. Lastly, the Vietnamese 
and United States governments now operate a Joint Task Force that 
conducts interviews, archaeological digs, genetic testing, and other 
efforts to locate the remains of United States soldiers and pilots. 
Nearly 400 remains have been repatriated since the end of the war, 
several just this past month.
  Vietnam has a considerable way to go to fully open its economy and 
bring it into conformity with international standards on transparency. 
Moreover, I remain concerned by the continued denial of labor rights by 
the government, including the fundamental right to join an independent 
labor union. Some of these issues will be addressed when we have the 
opportunity later this year to debate the United States-Vietnam Trade 
Agreement.
  Last week, this House voted on granting normal trade relations to 
China, and many members took the floor to denounce, rightly I believe, 
that nation's continued repressive government and its unacceptable 
human rights record. It is terribly important that, during this current 
debate, we distinguish what is different in Vietnam from the Chinese 
example. For Vietnam has made and continues to make major steps forward 
on economic reform, is cooperating on emigration and MIA issues, and is 
showing promising signs of political liberalization. If we see 
retrenchment in Hanoi, then I believe many of those who today are 
prepared to vote for this waiver and for expanded trade between our 
countries will reconsider their decision.
  We vote to waive Jackson-Vanik in recognition of Vietnam's changing 
political system and to encourage further liberalization. But 
understand that the Congress and the American people are serious about 
assuring that open trade is also fair trade: that working men and women 
in America are assured that their counterparts in Vietnam labor under 
reasonable conditions and with the enjoyment of basic human and labor 
rights recognized by international law.
  The continued waiver of the Jackson-Vanik restrictions should be 
voted by the House tonight to recognize Vietnam's steady steps towards 
reform. Similarly, the Congress should expect that the waiver of 
Jackson-Vanik will promote a continuation of democracy in Vietnam, 
unlike the China case where despite expanded trade relations, political 
reform has worsened.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Jackson-Vanik, this waiver we are talking about, yes, it 
deals with immigration. For the record, I have a statement issued by 
the United States embassy in Bangkok on July 14 of this year stating 
that the orderly departure program has some severe problems. So much 
for all the progress we have made for Jackson-Vanik just in terms of 
the immigration issue.
  We are also told that there has been so much progress in other areas, 
especially in the area of democratization,

[[Page 19231]]

which is not directly to Jackson-Vanik. But the fact is today all of us 
understand that we are sending a message to Vietnam, and that by moving 
forward in the area of Jackson-Vanik, we are giving them the idea that 
they can get away with the type of repression that they have been 
getting away with and still have better trading relations and make more 
money off their relations with the United States.
  I have something here, a report just yesterday, August 2, talking 
about in Hanoi where the government in Hanoi has declared they will not 
tolerate any other political parties except the Communist Party of 
Vietnam. I will submit both of those for the record.
  Let us get right down to brass tacks. Over this last year since we 
came here and went along with the Jackson-Vanik waiver that this 
administration has decided to give to the communist government of 
Vietnam, there has been no human rights progress. There has been no 
political parties that have been able to be formed. There has been no 
more free speech. There has been no examples whatsoever of more freedom 
of the press. There have been many examples also of repression of 
religious individuals. So we have no progress on that front whatsoever.
  I would hope that my colleagues, maybe they can enlighten me to the 
parties that are springing up in opposition to the Communist Party or 
these other examples of freedom of speech or freedom of press or 
freedom of religion that are nonexistent. Please, tell us about that.
  No, that does not exist in Vietnam. That is why we will not hear 
about that and have not heard about it in this debate.
  A constituent of mine, Mr. Ku Noc Dong, went back to Vietnam. He is 
an American of Vietnamese descent. He went back, and within 1 day he 
was thrown in jail. For what? For passing out leaflets talking about 
liberty and justice. He is imprisoned as we speak.
  Do not tell me there has been human rights progress in Vietnam. There 
has been none, and by moving on this legislation, we are giving the 
stamp of approval of this Congress on that type of behavior by this 
regime.
  Let me just suggest something else. We have heard about the progress 
in MIA/POWs. I totally reject that contention. I am afraid that some of 
our other Members, including our former distinguished Member, Mr. 
Peterson, are sadly misinformed about what is going on in this effort.
  I have two pictures that were taken that I would submit for the 
record of MIA/POWs who were incarcerated in Vietnam. Their remains were 
never returned. Plus, none of the records of the prisons that held our 
POWs has ever been made available to us after requests for those 
records of 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this body vote against the Jackson-
Vanik waiver, and send the Vietnamese communists a message that we 
stand for freedom.

           Vietnam Communists Say To Keep Single-Party System

       Hanoi, Aug. 2, 1999 (Reuters).--A top ideologue from 
     Vietnam's ruling Community Party said on Monday that Hanoi 
     would not tolerate a multi-party system.
       ``The Communist Party of Vietnam is the leader of Vietnam's 
     entire society, we will not accept any other parties or a 
     multi-party system,'' said Dao Duy Quat, deputy head of the 
     party's powerful Ideology and Culture Commission. He was 
     speaking at a rare news conference held for foreign media and 
     diplomats that discussed party-building and a two-year 
     criticism and self-criticism campaign.
       But one veteran diplomat in Hanoi was unconvinced, 
     questioning how legitimacy could be gauged when Vietnam's 
     vast internal security machine went to such lengths to 
     isolate or silence contradictory voices. ``They want power, 
     on that there is no compromise,'' he said. ``They stamped out 
     all opposition in the past--even those groups that supported 
     the same aims--and see absolutely no reason to liberalise.''
       Some foreign governments and international human rights 
     groups say Vietnam imprisons people for the peaceful 
     expression of political or religious beliefs--a charge that 
     Hanoi denies. Quat said the party would not repress minority 
     views unless people violated the law. Anti-socialist 
     activities in Vietnam are treated as a crime.
                                  ____


                               Memorandum


  joint voluntary agency orderly departure program, american embassy, 
                         bangkok, July 14, 1999

     Re request for refugee statistics and assessment of ODP 
         cases.
       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 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.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I, along with I think probably 30 of my 
colleagues last week, had an interesting dinner meeting with Bob 
McNamara. If there is any lesson that he has learned in looking back on 
Vietnam, it is really hearing and receiving, giving the wrong messages 
and not talking to each other. We really have an opportunity right now 
to heed some of the lessons that he talked about.
  Vietnam is making progress, contrary to the previous speaker. There 
is a great deal of evidence which our former colleague, the Ambassador, 
has articulated to us, and the press has as well. It is a relationship 
that can continue to be good for the United States as we are moving a 
young nation towards moving into the community of nations, of living 
within international standards. It is a region in the world that for 
4,000 years has faced uncertainty and conflict.
  What we are talking about is normal trading relationships. That is 
really what the issue is about. Obviously people can see it 
differently, but I urge the defeat of the resolution.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I grow older, I try to keep my priorities in proper 
order. I am not always successful at that, but I work at it. That is 
why when I get up every morning, the first two things that I do are to 
thank God for my life and veterans for my way of life. Because had it 
not been for my brother Bill and all those who gave their lives in 
service to this country through the years, had it not been for people 
like Sam Johnson and Pete Peterson and John McCain, who endured torture 
as prisoners of war, had it not been for people like Pete Dalessandro, 
a World War II Congressional Medal of Honor winner from my district who 
was just laid to rest last week in our new Veterans National Cemetery 
in Saratoga, if it had not been for them and all of the men and women 
who wore the uniform of the United States military through the years, I 
would not have the privilege of going around bragging about how I live 
in the freest and most open democracy on the face of the Earth. Freedom 
is not free. We paid a tremendous price for it.
  So today, Mr. Speaker, based upon the comments that I made earlier 
and on behalf of all 2,063 Americans who are still missing in Southeast 
Asia, I ask my colleagues to join me, the American Legion, the National 
League of POW/MIA Families, the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families, 
the National Vietnam Veterans Coalition, the Veterans of the Vietnam 
War and the Disabled American Veterans in supporting this resolution of 
disapproval.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, there have been arguments raised here, ones that I think 
are worth listening to by all of us, regardless of our position on the 
issues, and I respect the disagreements that I have with some of my 
colleagues, but I think personally that if you examine the evidence, 
you will realize that the hope for mankind in the future lies in moving 
down this path of expanding our relationships with one another and 
especially expanding our economic relationships.

                              {time}  1700

  Keep in mind, too, that as Ambassador Peterson told a group of us 
this

[[Page 19232]]

morning, 65 percent of the population over there has been born since 
the end of the Vietnam War. The overwhelming majority of these people 
know nothing about it except what they have heard from those who 
preceded them.
  In that regard, I think it is important to note, too, that we have a 
recent report that just came out from the U.S. Ambassador for 
International Religious Freedom, this was in July, last month, 
mentioning that three-fourths of the population are nominally Buddhist 
now, an estimated 6 to 7 million are Roman Catholics, and there are a 
variety of other religious affiliations, including Mormons in Vietnam. 
In addition to that, they are growing in population.
  I think further that it is important for us to recognize that in the 
last national election there, and that was last year, this was not an 
absolute Communist dictatorship in place. There were almost two 
candidates running in every race for their national assembly, 800, and 
450 seats. The result was the election of 61 National Assembly members 
who are not members of the Communist party, and as indicated earlier, 
one of those 61 was a major in the South Vietnamese army, a former 
major.
  We have also something else, I think, to keep in mind. That is a 
point that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) brought up, 
the response he got from a Communist he spoke to while he was there who 
said that they cannot advance free trade because that would put him out 
of a job. Think about that for a moment, Mr. Chairman, a Communist 
cannot participate in the advancement of free trade because that will 
put him, a Communist, out of a job; to which I say, amen. That is a 
fringe benefit.
  The immediate benefit is the material benefits to the people of 
Vietnam, and the material benefits here as we advance down that path 
creating expanded free trade worldwide.
  I would remind Members also, this is not a vote on normal trade 
relations. This simply provides an expanded opportunity for increased 
business contact in Vietnam. I would urge all of my colleagues to vote 
no on H.R. 58. I think it is in the best interests of our country and 
the best interests of the people of Vietnam.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 58. I do 
so because I am deeply concerned about the human rights situation in 
Vietnam which has not improved despite normalization of relations 
between the U.S. and Vietnam.
  Religious persecution has continued to intensify. I submit for the 
Record a recent Reuters story about The Venerable Thich Quang Do, head 
of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV). This 80-year-old 
Buddhist leader has been in prison for over twenty years. Before we 
rush down the path of providing U.S. taxpayer dollars to businesses 
wanting to get into Vietnam, we must consider people like Thich Quang 
Do.
  Earlier this year, the Religious Liberty Commission of the World 
Evangelical Fellowship issued a report describing the intense 
persecution of Christians in the Hmong minority group in Vietnam's 
Northwest province and as well as members of the Hre and Bahnar 
minority groups. It has pages and pages of testimony from persecuted 
believers and edicts from the Vietnamese government regarding its anti-
religion policies.
  The U.S. should be keeping the pressure on Vietnam to improve its 
human rights record, not rewarding them.

                Monk Urges Hanoi to Free Buddhist Leader

                           (By Andy Soloman)

       Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, Aug. 3 (Reuters)--A dissident 
     Buddhist monk in Vietnam has demanded the country's communist 
     rulers immediately release from detention the aged patriarch 
     of the banned Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV).
       Thich Quang Do, head of the UBCV's Institute for the 
     Propagation of the Dharma and a former long-term political 
     prisoner, said 80-year-old Thich Huyen Quang should either be 
     tried or unconditionally released.
       The patriarch is detained at Quang Phuoc pagoda in central 
     Quang Ngai province. The United Nations and international 
     human groups say he has been held without trial since 1981.
       Hanoi rarely makes mention of Quang, but routinely denies 
     it detains or jails people for the peaceful expression of 
     religious or political views.
       ``On what grounds have they detained him for nearly 20 
     years?'' Do said in a recent interview at the Buddhist 
     monastery where he lives in the former Saigon.
       ``If he is guilty of a crime he should be put on trial, but 
     they can find no (legitimate) reasons.''
       Quang and Do were prominent Buddhists who led protests in 
     the former South Vietnam against the U.S.-backed Saigon 
     regime during the Vietnam War.
       ``During the night there is nobody, he is alone. We are 
     very worried about his health during the night. If anything 
     happened to him there would be nobody to help,'' Do said.
       He added that Quang has no official documents or identity 
     papers and is therefore unable to travel.
       ``All his visitors are checked and questioned. We ask for 
     international help to put pressure and use influence to press 
     the government to release him as soon as possible,'' Do said.
       Following World War Two, Quang led Buddhists against French 
     colonial forces, but he also opposed the communist Viet Minh, 
     who jailed him from 1952-54.
       In the years following the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, 
     the victorious communists banned the UBCV and replaced it 
     with the state-sponsored Vietnam Buddhist Church.
       Quang, Do and other UBCV activists remained a constant 
     thorn in the side of the Hanoi authorities.
       In March, 72-year-old Do secretly travelled for his first 
     meeting with Quang in 18 years, but he was detained by police 
     and questioned for hours before being escorted back to Ho Chi 
     Minh City.
       Abdelfattah Amor, the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Religious 
     Intolerance, in a visit to Vietnam last October, said he was 
     prevented from travelling to meet the patriarch and was 
     physically barred by security personnel from meeting Do.
       In a report, Amor slammed Vietnam for failing to allow 
     basic religious freedoms--a charge Hanoi rejected.
       Do, who has spent much of the last 20 years under detention 
     or in prison, was freed under an amnesty last September after 
     serving three-and-a-half years of a five-year sentence for 
     offenses connected with attempts to send relief supplies to 
     flood victims in 1994.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). All time for 
debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 30, 1999, the 
joint resolution is considered as read for amendment, and the previous 
question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McNULTY.  Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 130, 
nays 297, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 365]

                               YEAS--130

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Baker
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Canady
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Forbes
     Frelinghuysen
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodling
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     LaHood
     Lazio
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Pombo
     Porter
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez

[[Page 19233]]


     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--297

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bilbray
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Metcalf
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)

                              {time}  1722

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Messrs. HAYWORTH, KINGSTON, STRICKLAND, GIBBONS, ROTHMAN, BUYER, 
SMITH of Texas, and WELDON of Florida changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the joint resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall no. 365, it has been brought to 
my attention that I was recorded as voting AYE. I seem to recall 
pressing the red button for a NAY vote. So that there is no 
misunderstanding of my position, I wish for the record to indicate that 
I should be recorded as a NO vote.

                          ____________________