Floor Statement - Trade with Vietnam

In Opposition to Expanded Trade with Communist Vietnam

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank Senator Helms for his support of both the motion to discharge on the Vietnam issue, as well as the China issue.

Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes. In response to my colleague from Delaware regarding what has happened in the past on the differences between the House and the Senate on such resolutions, I state for the record that the Trade Act of 1974, which is the item in question, on procedures in the Senate regarding discharges, says:

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

So there is absolutely no problem whatsoever in having the Senate deal with this. In the past, the Senate has deferred action on the Jackson-Vanik waivers, according to Senator Roth, and the House has acted first. But we don't have to wait for the House to pass anything to act on it. It is clearly within the act of 1974. And so, with all due respect, I am not trying to assume any powers that aren't in the act itself.

I also want to respond to the point that Chairman Roth made in which he said: Until the House acts, there is no need to defer action on the critical matters currently before the Senate. Indeed, House action may moot the need to take up these resolutions at all.

Let me also point out that should the discharge motion prevail, there is no attempt by me to bring this up immediately and get into the Senate's time. If the majority leader and minority leader determine they want to take this up at another time other than today or tomorrow or even this week, that is perfectly all right with me. I am not in any way trying to interrupt the Senate schedule. There is simply an hour equally divided on these motions. So it will take 2 hours of the Senate's time and that is it, as far as I am concerned today. Unless the leaders decide they want to take it up now, that would be OK.

Also, regarding critical matters before the Senate, China has been in the news a lot lately, to say the least, and if the situation in China in terms of the human rights violations, the spy scandal, and all the other things that have gone on—if that is not a critical matter to bring before the Senate, I guess I am not sure what critical is. I believe it is critical, and I think it should be discussed.

In spite of that, should the leaders determine this should not be discussed today, tomorrow, or next week, I am amenable to whatever schedule the majority leader would like to work out to bring this matter to the floor for the 20 hours of debate, which would follow if the discharge resolution prevails.

For the information of my colleagues, the discharge motion I have made as a sponsor of S.J. Res. 28 is a privileged matter and in accordance with the Trade Act of 1974. I am very pleased to have the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, as a cosponsor of this resolution.

The discharge motion now before the Senate is in order under the 1974 Trade Act simply because more than 30 days have expired since I introduced it on June 7, 1999. And to date, the resolution has not been reported by the Finance Committee. I am sure it is not being reported because, respectfully, the chairman disagrees with me on this. He has every right to not report it, and I respect that. But I also have the right to discharge it.

What is S.J. Res. 128 in layman's terms, and why do I want my colleagues on both sides to allow this bill to be discharged and placed on the Senate calendar? It is a fair question and I want to answer directly.

Under section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974, Communist countries—in this case the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—are not eligible to participate, either directly or indirectly, in U.S. Government programs that extend credit or investment guarantees if the country denies its citizens the right or opportunity to emigrate, if it denies its citizens the right to emigrate, if it imposes more than a nominal tax on emigration and visa papers, and more than a nominal tax, levies a fine, fee, or other charge on any citizen as a consequence of that citizen's desire to emigrate or leave their country. In other words, if a citizen is taxed to leave, or denied the right to leave, then this is what the Trade Act is all about.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair.

Let me say up front that I am a Vietnam veteran who feels very strongly about this issue. Some of my colleagues neglect to mention that when they are talking about Vietnam veterans. But I am one in the Senate. However, there are others, such as the junior Senator from Massachusetts, who is here today, and the senior Senator from Arizona, who disagree with me. That is fine. I asked them, and the four other Vietnam vets in the Senate—indeed, every Member in the Senate—not to duck the debate, to come down and debate me, to have a good debate, and then let the Senate decide based on what they hear. But let's not bottle this up in the Senate Finance Committee. Vote to let this debate take place. Come down and participate. I look forward to debating you. It is going to take a little bit of the Senate's time. It is worth it. It is the taxpayers' money that is being used. People's lives are being affected. Good American citizens, who have family members in Vietnam, have a right to have this heard on the Senate floor.

I am not asking people to vote with me on the underlying resolution. I am just asking people to give me a chance to debate it and make a decision. It might take an afternoon. It might take an evening. I am certainly not going to use 10 hours, but I am prepared to do this in detail at whatever time the majority leader says so. I think we owe the American people that. I think it is wrong to prevent this debate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Nebraska, with respect, if there is information and evidence which indicates that Vietnam or China—but, in this case, Vietnam—was not following the spirit and intent of Jackson-Vanik, why does my colleague oppose the opportunity to have me present that information to the Senate? We may respectfully disagree after looking at all the information, but it seems to me a reasonable request on my part to discharge this. To not discharge it, I say to my colleagues, bottles it up, does not give us the opportunity to debate it, does not give me the opportunity to present to my colleagues information I have that will show dramatically that that is not the case.

I only have, at the most, 15 minutes, so let me do it as quickly as I can with the facts at my disposal. I regret very much I am not going to get the opportunity, unless my colleagues support me on this.

This is a memorandum from the Joint Voluntary Agency that runs the Orderly Departure Program in Bangkok, July 14, 1999:

REQUEST FOR REFUGEE STATISTICS AND ASSESSMENT OF ODP CASES

Corruption and Bribery by the Vietnamese Government: Although ODP has no formal statistics . . . over the years we have received and continue to receive communications from ODP applicants that point to consistent and continuing cases of bribery, extortion and other kinds of malpractice. . . .

Re-education Camp Detainee Caseload: At the present rate of granting interview permission, we do not expect Re-education Camp Detainee Caseload to be completed by the end of [the] Fiscal Year. . .

Contact With the Montagnards: Prior to March, 1998, people from this ethnic group experienced tremendous difficulties communicating with ODP . . . Since March, 1998, contact with the Montagnards has continued to be limited. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam has made it clear they do not want ODP to contact applicants directly. . . .

I do not have the time to get into this. I want to take the time. Please give me that opportunity. This is the Joint Voluntary Agency that runs the Orderly Departure Program in Bangkok. They do not have an ax to grind with anybody. They are trying to do their job. My colleagues are not going to give me the time, if you defeat my motion to discharge, to bring this information to the forefront.

Let's look at another one. This is a memorandum from the Joint Voluntary Agency, Orderly Departure Program, American Embassy, Bangkok, July 14, 1999:

REQUEST FOR REFUGEE STATISTICS AND ASSESSMENT OF ODP CASES

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam has frequently determined applicants did not meet ODP criteria, despite our confirmation that they did; many applicants are still awaiting interview authorization . . . As of July 9th, there are 3,432 ODP refugee applicants and 747 ROVR applicants awaiting Vietnamese Government authorization for interview . . . ODP has continually received requests from applicants for assistance in dealing with local officials; many applicants originally applied to ODP as long ago as 1988 but have yet to be given authorization by the Vietnamese Government to attend an interview.

Impact of Jackson-Vanik Waiver: It would not appear that Jackson-Vanik had a telling impact on ODP activities . . . Staff [of the Joint Voluntary Agency] are of the opinion that there has been little, if any, indication of improvement in the Vietnamese Government's efforts to deal with remaining ODP cases.

If given the opportunity, I will present to you that evidence. I do not have time in another 5 or 6 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

Dewey Pendergrass from the State Department says this. Let's finish it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Testimony before Congress.

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

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

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

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

I say to my colleagues, give me the opportunity to get into the details on this before we vote. All I am asking is to discharge this so I can get on the floor and get into the details of these kinds of abuses.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes, 25 seconds.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. In the same report:

Citizens' access to exit permits frequently was constrained by factors outside the law such as bribery and corruption. Refugee and immigrant visa applicants to the Orderly Departure Program sometimes encountered local officials who arbitrarily delayed or denied exit permits. . .There are some concerns that some members of the minority ethnic groups, particularly nonethnic Vietnamese, such as the Montagnards, may not have ready access to these programs. The Government denied exit permits for emigration to certain Montagnard applicants.

And on and on:

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

Unofficial. Interesting.

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

French Press Agency of Hanoi, July 8, 1998.

I say to my colleagues, we need to expose this. Why would you deny me the opportunity to bring this matter to the floor? I urge you, please give me the opportunity to get into these matters in the time allocated under the rules. Yes, it is 20 hours equally divided, 10 hours each. Will I use 10 hours? Absolutely not; a couple hours probably would do it.

If my colleagues are not familiar with these issues, it will open their eyes. I have very specific details about what is happening to these people. If Senators oppose me and they do not believe it, then come down here and present the alternative information for my colleagues and let our colleagues make the choice. But give me the opportunity by supporting me on this discharge. Do not let it stay bottled up.

That is the rule, and I respect the rule. The rule is, it stays there. If the Finance Committee does not discharge it, it goes away. I know that. That is why I am trying to discharge it. It goes away in the sense that the Jackson-Vanik waiver is granted because the burden is on us to prove otherwise. I want that opportunity, but I cannot get it if you leave it buried in the Finance Committee and do not discharge it. That is not a full debate.

Help me look at the issue. The bill needs to be put on the Senate calendar so we can have debate. I repeat, if my colleagues missed it, I am not trying to take the Senate's time. If there is something else the leaders want out here, that is fine. I will work out something with the leaders where we can do 20 hours equally divided at any time the leader thinks it is appropriate.

Also, when we delegate waiver powers to the President—let me go back to the Constitution of the United States, article I, section 8--we lose our constitutional prerogative. We have the right to debate this. Do not give up our constitutional prerogative to debate it. Do not be afraid to come out on the floor and challenge me on what I have to offer. I welcome it. I look forward to it.

I hope no one will come down here and say: Let's have the House kill this first so we do not have to be accountable to the voters. That is basically the pitch being made by my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee: Let's have the House kill the bill first, and then there will not be any need for us to debate it at all.

Vote for the discharge motion. Let's get on with the debate, under the time agreement we will be bound by, and then the Senate can make an informed judgment and go on record in favor or in opposition as to whether President Clinton's waiver of freedom of emigration requirements, in the context of our trading with Vietnam, is appropriate or not. That is all I am asking.

I pray this body will not put the concerns about business profits or most favored nation over principle. Support the discharge motion. Give me the opportunity to make these cases.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from John Sommer of The American Legion written to Congressman Philip Crane, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, in support of discharge.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

The American Legion,

Washington, DC, June 22, 1999.

Hon. Phillip M. Crane,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,
Longworth HOB,
Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: It is unacceptable to The American Legion for the United States to put business concerns over the fate of Vietnamese citizens who fought alongside us during the Vietnam war, and who have sacrificed so much for so long and are still unable to freely emigrate to this country.

The American Legion recognizes that the U.S. business community is concerned with maintaining and strengthening economic ties in Vietnam, but we cannot let these commercial interests take precedence over the destiny of our former allies who assisted us and are still loyal to our cause. The retention of the Jackson-Vanik waiver can be a powerful sign to show that we honor our commitments to human rights.

Obstacles continue to exist on the road to free emigration for Vietnamese who want to come to the United States and other countries in the free world. Ethnic groups that were allied with the Americans during the war, namely the Montagnards, and former employees of the U.S. government are still discriminated against by the Vietnamese government when applying and processing through the Resettlement Opportunities for Vietnam Returnees program (ROVR), the Orderly Departure Program (ODP), and others.

What better way to show that we truly are committed to allowing those Vietnamese who have remained faithful to the United States to emigrate than by denying U.S. exporters to Vietnam access to U.S. Government credits. This would be a powerful signal that we demand increased progress and cooperation on the part of the Vietnamese government.

The American Legion strongly urges you and sub-committee members to not grant the Jackson-Vanik waiver for this year.
John F. Sommer Jr.,
Executive Director.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. It is my understanding I have 1 ½ minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Montana, I know he understands, but he doesn't understand enough to let me have the opportunity to debate it. Under the rule of Jackson-Vanik, I have the right to have the 20 hours equally divided on the Senate floor. That is the time to do it so that it is not misdirected in morning business somewhere.

In response to Senator McCain, yes, there are six out of seven Vietnam veterans in the Senate who support not debating this, who say the Jackson-Vanik waiver should be granted, but there are 3 million or so in the American Legion, at least represented by a letter from the American Legion, who think otherwise. I am not sure what the point is on that one.

We have to feel very confident the waiver has reduced bribery and corruption. Here is the law. It says to assure continued dedication to fundamental human rights, if these things happen, you should not grant the waiver. No. 1, does Vietnam deny its citizens the right to emigrate? Yes. I can prove it, but nobody wants to hear it. No. 2, does it impose more than a nominal tax on emigration and the other visas? Yes, and I have a stack of names of people, Vietnamese nationals, who have said yes.

The bottom line is, if the Senate won't give me the chance to debate it, then as far as I am concerned my colleagues do not want to hear the facts. I can't give them, as I said before, in 30 minutes.

I urge support of my resolution so that we have the opportunity to debate this on the Senate floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.