Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 97 (Wednesday, July 14, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 97 (Wednesday, July 14, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5741-H5752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1900
VIETNAM HUMAN RIGHTS ACT OF 2004

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 1587) to promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam,
as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 1587

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Vietnam
Human Rights Act of 2004''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

TITLE I--CONDITIONS ON INCREASED NONHUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF VIETNAM

Sec. 101. Bilateral nonhumanitarian assistance.

TITLE II--ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY IN VIETNAM

Sec. 201. Assistance.

TITLE III--UNITED STATES PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

Sec. 301. Radio Free Asia transmissions to Vietnam.
Sec. 302. United states educational and cultural exchange programs with
Vietnam.

TITLE IV--ANNUAL REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY IN
VIETNAM

Sec. 401. Annual report.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a one-party State,
ruled and controlled by the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV),
which continues to deny the right of citizens to change their
government. Although in recent years the National Assembly of
Vietnam has played an increasingly active role as a forum for
highlighting local concerns, corruption, and inefficiency,
the National Assembly remains subject to CPV direction. The
CPV maintains control over the selection of candidates in
national and local elections.
(2) The Government of Vietnam permits no public challenge
to the legitimacy of the one-party State. It prohibits
independent political, labor, and social organizations, and
it continues to detain and imprison persons for the peaceful
expression of dissenting religious and political views,
including Pham Hong Son, Tran Dung Tien, Father Nguyen Van
Ly, Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, Nguyen Vu Binh, Pham Que Duong, and
Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang, among others.
(3) The Government of Vietnam continues to commit serious
human rights abuses. In January 2004, the Department of State
reported to Congress that during the previous year the
Government of Vietnam had made ``no progress'' toward
releasing political and religious activists, ending official
restrictions on religious activity, or respecting the rights
of indigenous minorities in the Central and Northern
Highlands of Vietnam.
(4)(A) The Government of Vietnam limits freedom of religion
and restricts the operation of religious organizations other
than those approved by the State. While officially sanctioned
religious organizations are able to operate with varying
degrees of autonomy, some of those organizations continue to
face restrictions on selecting, training, and ordaining
sufficient numbers of clergy and in conducting educational
and charitable activities. The Government has previously
confiscated numerous churches, temples, and other properties
belonging to religious organizations, most of which have
never been returned.

[[Page H5742]]

(B) Unregistered ethnic minority Protestant congregations
in the Northwest and Central Highlands of Vietnam suffer
severe abuses, which have included forced renunciations of
faith, the closure and destruction of churches, the arrest
and harassment of pastors, and, in a few cases, there have
been credible reports that minority religious leaders have
been beaten and killed.
(C) The Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV), one of
the largest religious denominations in Vietnam, was declared
illegal in 1981. The Government of Vietnam confiscated its
temples and persecuted its clergy for refusing to join the
state-sponsored Buddhist organizations. For more than 2
decades, the Government has detained and confined senior UBCV
clergy, including the Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, the
Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, the Venerable Thich Tue Sy,
and others.
(D) The Catholic Church continues to face significant
restrictions on the training and ordination of priests and
bishops, resulting in numbers insufficient to support the
growing Catholic population in Vietnam. Although recent years
have brought a modest easing of government control in some
dioceses, officials in other areas strictly limit the conduct
of religious education classes and charitable activities.
Father Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly, who was convicted in a closed
trial in 2001 after publicly criticizing religious repression
by the Government of Vietnam, remains in prison.
(E) The Government of Vietnam continues to suppress the
activities of other religious adherents, including Cao Dai,
Baha'i, and Hoa Hao who lack official recognition or have
chosen not to affiliate with the State-sanctioned groups,
including through the use of detention and imprisonment.
(5) The Government of Vietnam significantly restricts the
freedoms of speech and the press, particularly with respect
to political and religious speech. Government and Party-
related organizations control all print and electronic media,
including access to the Internet. The Government blocks web
sites that it deems politically or culturally inappropriate,
and it jams some foreign radio stations, including Radio Free
Asia. The Government has detained, convicted, and imprisoned
individuals who have posted or sent democracy-related
materials via the Internet.
(6)(A) Indigenous Montagnards in the Central Highlands of
Vietnam continue to face significant repression. The
Government of Vietnam restricts the practice of Christianity
by those populations, and more than 100 Montagnards have been
sentenced to prison terms of up to 13 years for claiming land
rights, organizing Christian gatherings, or attempting to
seek asylum in Cambodia.
(B) The Government of Vietnam uses the separatist agenda of
a relatively small number of ethnic minority leaders as a
rationale for violating civil and political rights in ethnic
minority regions.
(C) The Government of Vietnam arrested or detained nearly
300 Montagnards during 2003 and since then many hundreds of
Montagnards have gone into hiding, fearing arrest,
interrogation, or physical abuse by government authorities.
(D) During Easter weekend in April 2004, thousands of
Montagnards gathered to protest their treatment by the
Government of Vietnam, including the confiscation of tribal
lands and ongoing restrictions on religious activities.
Credible reports indicate that the protests were met with a
violent response and that many demonstrators were arrested,
injured, or are in hiding, and that others were killed.
(E) Government officials continue to restrict access to the
Central and Northwest Highlands of Vietnam by diplomats,
nongovernmental organizations, journalists, and other
foreigners, making it difficult to verify conditions in those
areas.
(7)(A) United States refugee resettlement programs for
Vietnamese nationals, including the Orderly Departure Program
(ODP), the Resettlement Opportunities for Returning
Vietnamese (ROVR) program, the Priority One (P1) program and
the resettlement of boat people from refugee camps throughout
Southeast Asia, were authorized by law in order to rescue
Vietnamese nationals who have suffered persecution on account
of their wartime associations with the United States, as well
as those who currently have a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
political opinion, or membership in a particular social
group.
(B) While those programs have served their purposes well, a
significant number of eligible refugees were unfairly denied
or excluded, in some cases by vindictive or corrupt
Vietnamese officials who controlled access to the programs,
and in others by United States personnel who imposed unduly
restrictive interpretations of program criteria.
(C) The Department of State has agreed to extend the
September 30, 1994, registration deadline for former United
States employees, ``re-education'' survivors, and surviving
spouses of those who did not survive ``re-education'' camps
to sign up for United States refugee programs, as well as to
resume the Vietnamese In-Country Priority One Program in
Vietnam to provide protection to victims of persecution on
account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or
membership in a particular social group who otherwise have no
access to the Orderly Departure Program.
(D) The former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
agreed to resume the processing of former United States
employees under the U11 program, which had been unilaterally
suspended by the United States Government, as well as to
review the applications of Amerasians, children of American
servicemen left behind in Vietnam after the war ended in
April 1975, for resettlement to the United States under the
Amerasian Homecoming Act of 1988.
(8) Congress and people of the United States are united in
their determination that the expansion of relations with
Vietnam, a country whose government engages in serious
violations of fundamental human rights, should not be
construed as approval of or complacency about such practices.
The promotion of freedom and democracy around the world is
and must continue to be a central objective of United States
foreign policy. Congress remains willing and hopeful to
recognize improvement in the future human rights practices of
the Government of Vietnam, which is the motivating purpose
behind this Act.

TITLE I--CONDITIONS ON INCREASED NONHUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF VIETNAM

SEC. 101. BILATERAL NONHUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE.

(a) Assistance.--
(1) In general.--United States nonhumanitarian assistance
may not be provided to the Government of Vietnam in an amount
exceeding the amount so provided for fiscal year 2004--
(A) for fiscal year 2005 unless not later than 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act the President
determines and certifies to Congress that the requirements of
subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) have been met
during the 12-month period ending on the date of the
certification; and
(B) for each subsequent fiscal year unless the President
determines and certifies to Congress in the most recent
annual report submitted pursuant to section 401 that the
requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph
(2) have been met during the 12-month period covered by the
report.
(2) Requirements.--The requirements of this paragraph are
that--
(A) the Government of Vietnam has made substantial progress
toward releasing all political and religious prisoners from
imprisonment, house arrest, and other forms of detention;
(B)(i) the Government of Vietnam has made substantial
progress toward respecting the right to freedom of religion,
including the right to participate in religious activities
and institutions without interference by or involvement of
the Government; and
(ii) has made substantial progress toward returning estates
and properties confiscated from the churches;
(C) the Government of Vietnam has made substantial progress
toward allowing Vietnamese nationals free and open access to
United States refugee programs;
(D) the Government of Vietnam has made substantial progress
toward respecting the human rights of members of ethnic
minority groups in the Central Highlands and elsewhere in
Vietnam; and
(E)(i) neither any official of the Government of Vietnam
nor any agency or entity wholly or partly owned by the
Government of Vietnam was complicit in a severe form of
trafficking in persons; or
(ii) the Government of Vietnam took all appropriate steps
to end any such complicity and hold such official, agency, or
entity fully accountable for its conduct.
(b) Exception.--
(1) Continuation of assistance in the national interest.--
Notwithstanding the failure of the Government of Vietnam to
meet the requirements of subsection (a)(2), the President may
waive the application of subsection (a) for any fiscal year
if the President determines that the provision to the
Government of Vietnam of increased United States
nonhumanitarian assistance would promote the purposes of this
Act or is otherwise in the national interest of the United
States.
(2) Exercise of waiver authority.--The President may
exercise the authority under paragraph (2) with respect to--
(A) all United States nonhumanitarian assistance to
Vietnam; or
(B) one or more programs, projects, or activities of such
assistance.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Severe form of trafficking in persons.--The term
``severe form of trafficking in persons'' means any activity
described in section 103(8) of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-386 (114 Stat. 1470);
22 U.S.C. 7102(8)).
(2) United states nonhumanitarian assistance.--The term
``United States nonhumanitarian assistance'' means--
(A) any assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(including programs under title IV of chapter 2 of part I of
that Act, relating to the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation), other than--
(i) disaster relief assistance, including any assistance
under chapter 9 of part I of that Act;
(ii) assistance which involves the provision of food
(including monetization of food) or medicine;
(iii) assistance for refugees; and
(iv) assistance to combat HIV/AIDS, including any
assistance under section 104A of that Act; and
(B) sales, or financing on any terms, under the Arms Export
Control Act.

[[Page H5743]]

TITLE II--ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY IN VIETNAM

SEC. 201. ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--The President is authorized to provide
assistance, through appropriate nongovernmental
organizations, for the support of individuals and
organizations to promote democracy and internationally
recognized human rights in Vietnam.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the President to carry out subsection
(a) $2,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2005 and 2006.

TITLE III--UNITED STATES PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

SEC. 301. RADIO FREE ASIA TRANSMISSIONS TO VIETNAM.

(a) Policy of the United States.--It is the policy of the
United States to take such measures as are necessary to
overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia by the Government of
Vietnam, including the active pursuit of broadcast facilities
in close geographic proximity to Vietnam.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to such
amounts as are otherwise authorized to be appropriated for
the Broadcasting Board of Governors, there are authorized to
be appropriated to carry out the policy under subsection (a)
$9,100,000 for the fiscal year 2005 and $1,100,000 for the
fiscal year 2006.

SEC. 302. UNITED STATES EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE
PROGRAMS WITH VIETNAM.

It is the policy of the United States that programs of
educational and cultural exchange with Vietnam should
actively promote progress toward freedom and democracy in
Vietnam by providing opportunities to Vietnamese nationals
from a wide range of occupations and perspectives to see
freedom and democracy in action and, also, by ensuring that
Vietnamese nationals who have already demonstrated a
commitment to these values are included in such programs.

TITLE IV--ANNUAL REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY IN
VIETNAM

SEC. 401. ANNUAL REPORT.

(a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act and every 12 months thereafter, the
Secretary of State shall submit to the Congress a report on
the following:
(1)(A) The determination and certification of the President
that the requirements of section 101(a)(2) have been met, if
applicable.
(B) The determination of the President under section
101(b)(2), if applicable.
(2) Efforts by the United States Government to secure
transmission sites for Radio Free Asia in countries in close
geographical proximity to Vietnam in accordance with section
301.
(3) Efforts to ensure that programs with Vietnam promote
the policy set forth in section 302 and with section 102 of
the Human Rights, Refugee, and Other Foreign Relations
Provisions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-319) regarding
participation in programs of educational and cultural
exchange.
(4) Lists of persons believed to be imprisoned, detained,
or placed under house arrest, tortured, or otherwise
persecuted by the Government of Vietnam due to their pursuit
of internationally recognized human rights. In compiling such
lists, the Secretary shall exercise appropriate discretion,
including concerns regarding the safety and security of, and
benefit to, the persons who may be included on the lists and
their families. In addition, the Secretary shall include a
list of such persons and their families who may qualify for
protection under United States refugee programs.
(5) A description of the development of the rule of law in
Vietnam, including, but not limited to--
(A) progress toward the development of institutions of
democratic governance;
(B) processes by which statutes, regulations, rules, and
other legal acts of the Government of Vietnam are developed
and become binding within Vietnam;
(C) the extent to which statutes, regulations, rules,
administrative and judicial decisions, and other legal acts
of the Government of Vietnam are published and are made
accessible to the public;
(D) the extent to which administrative and judicial
decisions are supported by statements of reasons that are
based upon written statutes, regulations, rules, and other
legal acts of the Government of Vietnam;
(E) the extent to which individuals are treated equally
under the laws of Vietnam without regard to citizenship,
race, religion, political opinion, or current or former
associations;
(F) the extent to which administrative and judicial
decisions are independent of political pressure or
governmental interference and are reviewed by entities of
appellate jurisdiction; and
(G) the extent to which laws in Vietnam are written and
administered in ways that are consistent with international
human rights standards, including the requirements of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
(b) Contacts With Other Organizations.--In preparing the
report under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, as
appropriate, consult with and seek input from nongovernmental
organizations, human rights advocates (including Vietnamese-
Americans and human rights advocates in Vietnam), and the
United States Commission on Religious Freedom.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) opposed to the motion?
Mr. LANTOS. No, Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 1 of rule XV, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Evans) will be recognized for 20 minutes in
opposition to the motion.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House H.R. 1587, the
Vietnam Human Rights Act, a bill designed to promote democracy and
human rights in Vietnam and to give hope to those voices of freedom who
today are systematically oppressed and silenced.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are considering today is almost
identical to that which has cleared the House twice, one as a stand-
alone bill which I sponsored a couple of years ago and a second time as
an amendment to the State Department bill, the reauthorization bill.
The Vietnam Human Rights Act initially cleared the House by an
overwhelming majority, 410 to 1, in September of 2001, coinciding with
legislation to ratify the bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam.
Despite the near unanimous vote, the Vietnam Human Rights Act was
subsequently blocked and never voted on in the Senate.
The message then, Mr. Speaker, as it is today, is that human rights
are central, are at the core of our relationship with governments and
the people they purport to represent. The United States of America will
not turn a blind eye to the oppression of a people, any people in any
region of the world.
As the Vietnam Human Rights Act languished in the Senate a couple of
years ago, many thought, and I would say naively but with good faith,
that the bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam would lead to improved
human rights conditions in Vietnam. Unfortunately, this has not been
the case, and for many Vietnamese the situation is dramatically worse
than it was just 3 years ago.
The government of Vietnam, Mr. Speaker, has scoffed at the Vietnam
Human Rights Act and dismissed charges of human rights abuses, pleading
the tired mantra of interference in the internal affairs of their
government and that our struggle is some way related to the war in
Vietnam. They say, Vietnam is a country, not a war. That is their
protest, and I would say that is precisely the issue.
Today's debate is about the shameful human rights record of a
country, more accurately, of a government, and it is not about the war.
And, of course, Vietnam is a country with millions of wonderful people
who yearn to breathe free and to enjoy the blessings of liberty. We
say, behave like an honorable government, stop bringing dishonor and
shame to your government by abusing your own people and start abiding
by internationally recognized U.N. covenants that you have signed.
We know, Mr. Speaker, from the State Department Human Rights Reports
and leading international human rights organizations that the
government of Vietnam inflicts terrible suffering on countless people.
It is a regime that arrests and imprisons writers, scientists,
academics, religious leaders and even veteran communists in their own
homes and lately in Internet cafes for speaking out for freedom and
against corruption.
It is a government that crushes thousands of Montagnard protestors,
as they did in the Central Highlands during the Easter weekend, killing
and beating many peaceful protestors.
They have, the government, forcibly closed over 400 Christian
churches in the Central Highlands, and the government continues to
force tens of thousands of Christians to renounce their faith. I am
happy to say that many of these folks have resisted those pressures.
One pastor put it at 90 percent

[[Page H5744]]

have refused to renounce their Christian faith, but the government is
trying to compel them to renounce their faith.
This is a government that has detained the leadership of the Unified
Buddhist Church of Vietnam and continues to attempt to control the
leadership of the Catholic church.
This is a government that has imprisoned a Catholic priest by the
name of Father Ly and meted out a 10-year prison sentence. Why? Because
he submitted testimony to the International Religious Commission on
Human Rights. For that, for writing a couple of pages of facts and his
opinion, he got 10 years of prison.
My speech today, Mr. Speaker, on this floor would easily fetch me a
15-year prison sentence replete with torture if I were a Vietnamese
national making these comments in Vietnam.
And in yet another Orwellian move, Vietnam on Monday, this past
Monday, July 12, promulgated an Ordinance on Beliefs and Religions
which goes into effect on November 15. This new anti-religious law will
further worsen religious persecution in Vietnam.
Amazingly, it bans the so-called abuse of the right to religious
freedom to undermine peace, independence, and national unity, whatever
that is. This new law is the most capricious and arbitrary policy
imaginable, designed to ensnare and incarcerate believers for
undermining, again, peace, independence and national unity, whatever
that means.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, if a religious person ``disseminates
information against the laws of the State,'' in other words, disagrees
with anything that the Communist government enacts, such dissemination
is a punishable crime.
When is enough, enough, Mr. Speaker? Vietnam needs to come out of the
dark ages of repression, brutality and abuse and embrace freedom, the
rule of law, and respect for fundamental human rights.
I respectfully submit that the legislation we are considering today
offers a clear framework for improving human rights in Vietnam. It is a
bipartisan piece of legislation, and I hope the membership will support
it.
H.R. 1587 requires the President to certify each year on the progress
or the lack of it of the regime towards respecting human rights based
on an extensive report required by the law. Specifically, to avoid
possible sanction against Vietnam, the President would have to certify
substantial progress by Vietnam towards releasing all political
prisoners and religious prisoners, respect for religious freedom in
general, and return of confiscated property.
The bill requires substantial progress by the government towards
allowing Vietnam nationals free and open access to U.S. refugee
programs and calls for respect for the ethnic minority groups in the
Central Highlands.
The bill seeks to ensure that the government is not complicit in
human trafficking. Today Vietnam is on the State Department's Tier II
Watch List due to the government's failure to provide evidence of
efforts to combat severe forms of trafficking, particularly its
inadequate control of two state-controlled labor companies that sent
workers to American Samoa from 1999 to 2001.
Unless the regime shows improvement in human rights, they will be
unable to receive an increase over 2004 levels in nonhumanitarian U.S.
foreign assistance. This is a modest but not insignificant penalty to a
government that is brutalizing its own people.
H.R. 1587 also authorizes funds for NGOs to promote democracy in
Vietnam and to help to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia.
Mr. Speaker, I hope all Members will support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my long-time
colleague and friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). We
have worked together for the veterans of America for many years.
However, I do not see eye to eye with him on this issue as the best way
to address human rights in Vietnam.
I am also afraid that this resolution and the sanctions enclosed will
damage relations between our two countries. I also feel that this
resolution will only embolden hardliners within Vietnam.
Mr. Speaker, yes, Vietnam can improve its human rights record, but I
also believe it is a very complex relationship. It is a relationship
built on dialogue and gradual steps, not sanctions. The country of
Vietnam has provided unparalleled assistance to recover our soldiers'
remains. The Vietnamese are working hard to protect intellectual
property rights and improve the climate for foreign investment. Vietnam
is also the 15th focus country of the President's HIV/AIDS initiative.
These are three important steps that would be endangered by the shift
in relations under this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we can make progress with Vietnam, but this resolution
is not the proper way. The Members supporting this legislation are good
friends, and I respect their commitments. However, I hope that we work
with each other to advance human rights in Vietnam. But I do not
believe that this legislation is the proper vehicle. I urge my
colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1587;
and I would like to personally thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith) for the terrific job not only for Vietnam but for people who are
suffering under torture and under oppression throughout the world. He
is truly the conscience of this body, and he makes sure that we never
forget that people all over the world are looking to us. We are their
only hope, just like in the past century when those people who suffered
under Nazism and Communism knew that the only hope they had was the
United States that was committed to its ideals.
Today, this bill, H.R. 1587, is consistent with that concept. It is
consistent with the ideals of America, and it is telling the world we
still believe in human rights and freedom and democracy, just like
George Washington and our other Founding Fathers.
This bill, however, does not represent necessarily the opinion of
every American. Let us note that just 3 years ago we made an agreement
with this government of Vietnam, this monstrous abuser of human rights,
we made a trade agreement and a business agreement with them. And we
are always told, if we just do business with the Vietnamese or if we
just do business with the Chinese, their dictatorial government will
morph into a democratic society and people's liberties will be
protected.
What have we seen? The situation in China is worse today than it has
ever been. The situation in Vietnam is disintegrating when it comes to
democracy and human rights. The latest victims have been the Montagnard
people in the Central Highlands of Vietnam.
I have a personal attachment to the Montagnards. In 1967, I spent
considerable time with them in the Highlands near Pleiku. They
protected Americans. They gave their own lives so American soldiers
would not die. And I will tell you that they are brave, wonderful
people, just like the other people in Vietnam. They just simply want to
believe in God and have the right to worship God and to speak and to
have the right to gather together.
We should support the people of Vietnam, and that is what this does
and the people everywhere who long for freedom. It puts us on their
side.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1587 and urge a no
vote by the House.
There is no one in this House who does not wish to see improvements
on Vietnam's policies on democracy and freedom. I have visited the
nation on four occasions in the last 5 years, meeting with everyone
from workers in shoe factories to high-level government ministers.
There are many and I would say a growing number of Vietnamese who share
the hope of a more open and democratic society and who are working to
achieve these goals.

[[Page H5745]]

This legislation will not help them.
There are many in our own veterans' organizations who are working
closely with the Vietnamese on the POW/MIA issue. I have gone to the
excavation sites and seen the close cooperation that has resulted in
the repatriation of over 500 remains of their loved ones here in the
United States.
This legislation will not help in that effort.
Our government is working closely with the Vietnamese to address the
issues of infectious disease control, including AIDS and SARS, which
are real issues because of the heavy travel between our countries. We
know that many Vietnamese acted quickly in the case of the SARS crisis
and controlled what might have been a far more severe pandemic.
This legislation will not promote improved cooperation on health
policy.
Throughout Vietnam, in the aftermath of the normalization of
relationships, the passage of the Bilateral Trade Agreement, U.S.
businesses are investing hundreds of millions of dollars to build a
better trade, to provide jobs, and to improve the economic relations
between our countries.
This legislation is not going to enhance those investments or those
benefits.
I have been working with the international labor organizations and
U.S. companies to improve Vietnam's compliance with basic labor rights
and standards, and we have seen improvements in many areas, although
much additional work remains to be done.

{time} 1915

This bill is not going to provide or achieve those goals.
On these, and many other areas, we are working to improve our
relationship and improve the nature of the society in Vietnam for the
benefit of its residents, who include the family members of millions of
U.S. residents and citizens.
This bill will set back those efforts. It provides the harshest
elements in the Vietnamese government with the rationale for reacting
to our pressure. Does anyone in this Chamber, after our long experience
in Vietnam, seriously believe that the Congress ordering them to change
an internal policy in the nation, however desirous we may be of seeing
that change, is going to persuade the government in Hanoi to do it
because we so order it?
We all share the hope that Vietnam will evolve into a freer and more
open, democratic nation. We hold the same goals for other nations in
the region and around the world where records of human, labor and
religious rights are no better than in Vietnam and, in some cases,
worse.
Just earlier today, prior to this legislation, we considered
legislation criticizing China, whose record on religious freedom,
political democracy, and labor rights is certainly as unacceptable as
Vietnam's, but it would not withdraw the nonhumanitarian assistance as
this bill does. It urges them to improve their record on intellectual
property.
We know why this legislation periodically resurfaces. We understand
that there are areas in this Nation with large concentrations of
Vietnamese expatriates who remain embittered about the outcome of the
war and the government in control in Hanoi. Many of those same
expatriates send hundreds of millions of dollars back each year to
Vietnam to assist their relatives who still live in that nation. I
understand their viewpoint, and I was one of the Congressmen sent in
the 1970s to inspect the refugee exodus from Vietnam.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, we need to pass the Vietnam Human Rights
Act to send a message to Vietnam's Communist government. Vietnam cannot
continue to violate human rights and expect further normalization of
the relationship between Vietnam and the United States.
Just 2 months ago, on Easter week, Human Rights Watch reported that
peaceful protests by indigenous minority Christian Montagnards turned
violent when police used tear gas, electric truncheons, and water
cannons on protestors. Reports indicate that police arrested several
individuals, many of whose whereabouts are still unknown. Worse yet,
there are reports of torture, police beatings, and deaths associated
with this crackdown on the Montagnards.
In recent weeks, reports indicate that the Vietnamese government has
taken the vice president and the secretary general of the Vietnam
Mennonite Church into custody for simply conducting a peaceful
criticism. We know that they have also harassed and detained leaders of
the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and the Catholic Church.
Religious leaders and followers are not alone. The Vietnamese
Communists have come down on the press and have censored 2,000 of
Vietnam's 5,000 Web sites; and worse yet, they arrested a Vietnamese
writer and journalist just because he submitted written testimony to
the United States Congress. How about that?
We have repeatedly passed resolutions addressing the violations on
Vietnam Human Rights Day. We introduced a resolution recognizing those
in Vietnam who have been tortured and imprisoned; and last November, we
passed a resolution calling for religious freedom and protection of
human rights. We have introduced a resolution objecting to the
treatment of Father Ly. Now it is time to pass a bill, not just a
resolution, that will give us the tools we need to not only send a
message to Vietnam but to take action against Vietnam for their
continuous human rights violations.
We need to pass this bill. Vietnam cannot expect a friendship with us
until they finally respect the rights of their citizens.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I only have one more speaker, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the distinguished ranking
member on the Committee on International Relations, my good friend and
colleague.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Vietnam
Human Rights Act, and I urge all of my colleagues to do so as well.
I first would like to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith), my good friend and most distinguished colleague, for
introducing this important legislation and for doggedly pursuing the
Vietnam human rights issue as he does, the human rights issues across
the globe.
None of us here today should be under any illusions about the
government of Vietnam. According to the Department of State's human
rights report, the Vietnamese government is an unrepentant,
authoritarian regime which does not allow political opposition. Freedom
of expression does not exist in Vietnam. Vietnamese are locked in
prison for simply expressing their political opinions.
The Vietnamese government also places severe restrictions on the
expression of religious beliefs, particularly upon Buddhists who do not
worship as part of the official church and upon Christians in the
Vietnamese highlands.
With the approval of the U.S.-Vietnam bilateral trade agreement 3
years ago, the political security and economic relationship between the
United States and Vietnam has become increasingly complex, but we must
continue to send a strong signal to Hanoi that the United States
continues to make it a top priority to promote internationally
recognized human rights in Vietnam.
Passage of the Smith legislation will indicate to the administration
and to the Vietnamese government that the Congress expects to see real
progress on the human rights front in Vietnam and that we have not
forgotten those Vietnamese who are being persecuted for their beliefs.
Our legislation will ensure that there is not a rollback in our trade
and aid relationship with Vietnam, only a cap on the level of our
nonhumanitarian aid to the Vietnamese, unless human rights conditions
are met.
Mr. Speaker, I again commend my colleague from New Jersey, and I urge
all of my colleagues to support the passage of this important bill.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I have one last speaker, and I yield such
time as

[[Page H5746]]

he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
(Mr. SIMMONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record the text of U.S.
Ambassador Raymond Burghardt's March 4 speech on U.S.-Vietnam
relations, a letter from the American Chamber of Commerce Hanoi, and an
article from the National Catholic Reporter following my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to H.R. 1587, the Vietnam
Human Rights Act of 2003, and I do so with the greatest amount of
respect for my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith),
the chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. I appreciate his
tireless efforts on behalf of human rights and religious freedom around
the world; and as a Vietnam veteran, I very much appreciate his
courageous leadership on veterans issues.
My concern with taking up this legislation at this time regards
several issues.
First, during this 108th Congress alone we have had already three
House resolutions that address alleged human rights and religious
freedom issues regarding Vietnam. I cannot think of any other country
that has as much negative attention by this body as Vietnam. Surely,
there are other countries around the world that deserve a little bit of
attention from us. I do not think it is fair that we spend this amount
of time and this number of resolutions on Vietnam.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I believe we are at an important crossroads in
our relationship with Vietnam. As we approach the 10th anniversary of
normal relations, I think it is time to examine some of the good things
that have occurred between our two countries: tourism, trade,
educational exchanges. I think it is time that we begin to send a
positive, clear message to the Vietnamese people that we are serious
about working together in a positive and constructive fashion on issues
of mutual benefit.
I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that I am a Vietnam veteran. I served there
for 20 months. I spent almost 2 years there as a civilian, and I made a
commitment as a Vietnam veteran to my fallen comrades and to their
families to bring their remains home to their families.
I am holding in my hand a commemorative bracelet that commemorates
Army Captain Arnold Edward Holm. Arnie Holm was born and raised in
Waterford, Connecticut. He was an outstanding athlete in high school.
He lost his life in June 1972 when his light observation helicopter was
shot down in the central highlands. The family still lives in my
district; and 2 years ago, they asked me to assist them in locating his
remains.
A year ago, I traveled to Vietnam for the first time in 30 years in
an effort to locate Arnie Holm's crash site. Working with both American
and Vietnamese officials, we spent hundreds of man-hours in the
sweltering jungle looking for Arnie. Although we failed at the time,
the search goes on; and the only way we will ever be able to bring
closure to the family of Arnie Holm is through the continued
cooperation of the Vietnamese government.
I have seen firsthand their commitment to this important humanitarian
recovery effort, and I thank them for it.
My colleagues may be surprised to learn that since the Joint POW-MIA
Accounting Command, or JPAC, began recovering American remains in
Vietnam, 16 U.S. and Vietnamese officers have died. Eight Americans and
eight Vietnamese were killed when a helicopter crashed on April 7,
2001. That is right. Eight Vietnamese officials died while searching
for the very men that were killing their own countrymen 30 years
before.
Up to May of this year, the U.S. and Vietnam have conducted 93 joint
missions, resulting in the recovery of 822 remains. They have
identified and returned over 500 U.S. personnel remains to their loved
ones. That is 500 American families in 43 States that have been
provided closure thanks to the Vietnamese, and that includes the family
of Major Peter M. Cleary who lives in Colchester, Connecticut, just a
few miles from my home.
If this program, Mr. Speaker, does not reflect the humanitarian
spirit of the Vietnamese people, I do not know what does; and given the
long and bitter experience that they had with the American war in
Vietnam, their willingness to cooperate in this program merits special
attention.
Just this past month, Jerry Gennings, the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for POW-MIA Affairs, returned and said that the outcome of his
discussions in Vietnam is promising and the Vietnam government offers
us the opportunity to achieve significant results.
Last November, the USS Vandergrift returned to Ho Chi Minh City, the
first time in 30 years that a U.S. Navy ship has been to Vietnam, and
another ship plans to visit Danang this year.
I would also remind my colleagues that President Bush announced just
last month that Vietnam would be added as the 15th focus country of the
emergency plan for HIV/AIDS. The President said, ``Now, after long
analysis by our staff, we believe that Vietnam deserves this special
help. We're putting a history of bitterness behind us.'' Then he
continued, ``Together we'll fight the disease. You've got a friend in
America.'' The President of the United States has said, ``You've got a
friend in America.''
This resolution before us this evening conveys no such message. I
realize, Mr. Speaker, that the intent of this legislation is to promote
freedom and democracy in Vietnam; but the question is, does it do it in
a useful manner?
The State Department has said this bill is a ``blunt instrument that
risks inhibiting progress in bilateral trade, counterterrorism, POW-MIA
accounting, counternarcotic and refugee processing/resettlement.'' They
go on to say, ``Imposition of unilateral sanctions will not lead to an
improved GVN human rights record.''
Mr. Speaker, I think we should be concerned that our own State
Department does not support this legislation and is concerned that it
will damage progress in our bilateral relations.
My friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), expresses his
concern about the issue of human rights, and this is an important
issue; but let us not forget the fact that for many years our country
rained devastation upon the Vietnamese people and their country.
Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives were lost, many more wounded;
and the countryside was devastated. Let us not forget that thousands of
Vietnamese children are born today with birth defects, perhaps because
of the millions of gallons of Agent Orange that we spread across their
country, and let us not forget that the remains of tens of thousands of
Vietnamese soldiers have not been recovered, even as the Vietnamese
people help us to recover the remains of our own servicemen.
The issues of human rights cut in both directions. The United States
itself must be held accountable for its own moral obligation to the
Vietnamese people for our past policies and practices.

{time} 1930

As the gospel of John says, ``He that is without sin among you, let
him cast the first stone.'' I encourage my colleagues not to judge the
Vietnamese too harshly in the realm of human rights lest they judge us
harshly in return.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we are making progress in our relations with
the Vietnamese people and with their government; and I believe this
bill, in the words of our own State Department, is a blunt instrument
that may do more harm than good. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to
show the people that the war is over. It is time to bind up the wounds
of the war and to show them, in the words of our own President, that
they have a friend in America.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the documentation I referred to
earlier on this topic:

U.S. Embassy,

Hanoi, Vietnam, March 4, 2004.

U.S.-Vietnam Relations: 30 Years After the War, 10 Years After
Normalization

Yesterday afternoon I walked over to the Hong Kong Art
Museum and looked at the Asia Society's excellent exhibition
of ``Images from the War.'' The exhibition reminded me that
today in Vietnam, nearly 30 years after the war, the past
still permeates the present. The memory of the war certainly
remains among the half of the population that endured it.
But, I also was struck by how

[[Page H5747]]

much those pictures captured a past that most people in
Vietnam do not dwell on very much. The Vietnamese people and
leaders live in the present and look to the future. They
deserve a great deal of admiration for their ability to put
the past behind them.
I was in Vietnam during the war, not as a soldier, but as
a diplomat. I was in Saigon from 1970 to 1973. Now that I am
back in Vietnam 30 years later, I am conscious of that
history every day. But like the Vietnamese people and their
leaders, I keep my focus on the present and the future.
Talking about Vietnam while in Hong Kong also evokes
memories for me of the tough period in Vietnam's history that
immediately followed the war. In 1979, when war broke out
between China and Vietnam, I was working at our Consulate
here in Hong Kong. Afterwards, thousands of boat people
arrived from Vietnam and I spent the better part of a year
interviewing them to learn why they had come to Hong Kong or
Macau. I also worked with NGOs like Catholic Relief Service
to feed and clothe the refugees in the camps. During that
period, we came up with what became the Orderly Departure
Program as a way to stop the flow of refugees. The ODP was
modeled on and named after a program created by the Hong
Kong Government to bring ethnic Chinese from Haiphong and
Cholon, Saigon's Chinese quarter, to join family members
in this city.
In the last ten years, a new chapter has opened between the
United States and Vietnam. The U.S.-Vietnam relationship is
still young. President Clinton only lifted the embargo in
1994. We established a liaison office in January 1995, and we
normalized relations in July 1995. We opened our consulate in
Ho Chi Minh City in 1997. Our first Ambassador came in 1997
and I am only the second Ambassador to a unified Vietnam. Our
presence in Vietnam has grown rapidly, to a medium-sized
embassy in Hanoi and consulate in Ho Chi Minh City. And, we
will probably grow a little more in the future.
Our relationship began by building trust on issues left
over from the war, such as the accounting for MIAs, reuniting
families of refugees, and humanitarian programs. But then,
after normalization, we sought to widen the relationship with
strengthened commercial and economic ties that benefit both
countries. The fruits of that thinking, the Bilateral Trade
Agreement (BTA), took four years to negotiate and finally
took effect on December 10, 2001, five days before my
arrival.
During the past year, we have seen further remarkable
progress on a widening range of bilateral issues. A year ago,
the focus was almost exclusively on the commercial benefits
of our bilateral relations, while there was little progress
on other aspects of a normal relationship; In mid-year,
Vietnam's leadership decided to give greater priority and
attention to relations with the United States. The result has
been easier access to the leaders for Mission officers and
visitors from Washington and progress on many fronts.
Last year was a very good year for U.S.-Vietnam relations.
In the fall we had an important series of high-level
Vietnamese government visitors to the U.S. culminating with
Deputy Prime Minister Vu Khoan in December. These included
the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Planning and
Investment. The November visit to Washington by Defense
Minister Pham Van Tra represented the normalization of our
military ties and was followed a week later by the first U.S.
Navy ship visit to Vietnam in thirty years. My wife and I
traveled up the Saigon River on that ship and experienced the
excitement of the American sailors at what they knew was an
historic journey as well as the excitement of the crowds of
Vietnamese who greeted our arrival.
Breakthroughs in 2003 enabled us to conclude several
agreements that had been underway for years without apparent
progress. These were the civil aviation agreement that will
permit air service on U.S. or Vietnamese carriers between
Vietnam and the U.S. That could include between Hong Kong and
Ho Chi Minh City within the next year. Our new counter
narcotics agreement will enable the U.S. and Vietnam to work
together to stem the flow of illegal drugs through Vietnam,
as well as carry out other law enforcement and counter-
terrorism training. And our textile agreement established
parameters from the import of textiles to the U.S. We now
anticipate more dialogue and cooperation with Vietnam in
dealing with regional and transnational issues such as
fighting against narcotics, trafficking in persons, and
terrorism.
In the midst of this progress, we do still have differences
in our viewpoints on some important areas including human
rights and religious freedom. The Communist Party retains a
monopoly on political power in Vietnam. Advocacy of a multi-
party system is forbidden. Even basic freedoms of speech,
assembly, and religion guaranteed in Vietnam's own
Constitution are sometimes superseded in the interest of what
the Government calls ``national solidarity.'' We've seen
several cases over the past year in which people who did
nothing more than exchange critical e-mails received heavy
prison sentences. We also have raised with the Vietnamese
government our concerns about the harassment of ethnic
minority Protestants in the Central and Northwest Highlands.
This harassment includes cases of forced renunciation of
faith, the closing of house churches, and a very slow process
of allowing churches to legally register. The U.S. House of
Representatives has now twice passed versions of a Vietnam
Human Rights Act that would cap non-humanitarian assistance
from the USG at current levels. Although neither bill passed
the Senate, Congressional concerns remain strong. Senator
Brownback held Foreign Relation Committee Meetings just a
little over a week ago which focused on human rights. These
human rights issues certainly do affect the pace at which we
can develop bilateral relations. But I nonetheless remain
confident that we will be able to deal with those issues
while further developing our overall relationship. We speak
frankly about our disagreements while recognizing that the
longer-term trend since the beginning of Vietnam's economic
renovation policy in 1986 has in fact been a dramatic
expansion of personal freedoms.
The foreign community in Vietnam, both multilateral
agencies and bilateral donors like the U.S., are actively
involved in helping Vietnam carry out its economic reforms.
The U.S. assistance program in Vietnam predates our formal
diplomatic relations. The two largest parts of it today are
to counter the spread of HIV/AIDS--where we are the largest
bilateral donor--and to provide technical assistance in
helping Vietnam to implement the BTA and to prepare for
accession to the WTO. Our assistance programs promote civil
society development, rule of law, advocacy for persons with
disabilities and those living with HIV/AIDS, environmental
management, and trade reform.
In working with Vietnam to create a more genuine system of
rule by law, to train judges and lawyers, and to build new
standards of transparency and accountability, we are having a
major impact, not only on bringing Vietnam up to the level of
international trading norms, but also fundamentally changing,
for the better, the relations between the citizens and the
State.
As the scope of our relationship with Vietnam broadens,
mutual understanding becomes even more critical. Because of
the legacy of war and Vietnam's long period of isolation,
understanding can be particularly difficult for both
countries. Our cultural and educational exchanges have
grown dramatically. We have the largest U.S. Government-
funded Fulbright program in the world, training
economists, businessmen, public policy experts, English-
teachers, and professors in the Social Sciences and
Humanities. We now have a new program unique to Vietnam
called the Vietnam Educational Foundation, which is
focused on scientific training. The combined budgets of
the Fulbright Program and the Vietnam Education Foundation
total nearly $10 million per year--more than the U.S.
contributes towards higher education in any other country
in the world.
In our burgeoning economic relationship, the Bilateral
Trade Agreement--the (BTA)--is a key foundation and presents
enormous opportunities for expanded cooperation. This
agreement binds Vietnam to an unprecedented array of reform
commitments in its legal and regulatory structure and has
become an important catalyst for change. The BTA eliminates
non-tariff barriers, cuts tariffs on a number of U.S. exports
and gives Vietnam MFN access to the U.S. market. It also
provides for effective protection and enforcement of
intellectual property rights, opens Vietnam's market to U.S.
service providers, and creates fair and transparent rules and
regulations for U.S. investors.
Vietnam is lagging behind in some of its BTA commitments
and enforcement remains weak, but the country has made
progress in opening its markets to many U.S. products, such
as aircraft, machinery and cotton. Unfortunately, its market
still remains relatively closed to U.S. intellectual property
industry products despite some progress in revising
legislation related to intellectual property rights.
The BTA has had a significant impact on our bilateral
trade, which has grown sharply in the first two years. In
2003, two-way trade soared again by over 100%, reaching an
estimated $6 billion. As a result of our tariff reductions,
Vietnam's exports to the U.S. have risen by about 125% each
in the first two years, while our exports to Vietnam, boosted
by the sale of some Boeing aircraft, have also risen
markedly. Vietnam's official figures on U.S. investment in
Vietnam has also risen to a current total of just over $1
billion, but this seriously understates the true figure. This
data does not include investments by U.S. subsidiaries in
Singapore and elsewhere in the region, such as nearly over
$800 million by Conoco-Phillips alone.
Our deepening economic, commercial, and assistance
relationship with Vietnam promotes civil society, encourages
economic reform, draws the country further into the rules-
based international trading system, and promotes interests of
American workers, consumers, farmers, and business people.
We strongly support Vietnam's decision to adopt WTO
provisions as the basis for its trade regime. The Vietnamese
government must now demonstrate that it is prepared to
undertake the commitments that are necessary to become a WTO
member. Vietnam's implementation of a rules-based trading
system based on WTO principles of transparency and its
continued pursuit of structural economic reforms should
accelerate the development of the private sector, enhance the
rule of law, and improve the atmosphere for progress in
democracy and human rights.
So, let me conclude my comments on the past and the present
with a word about the future. Vietnam today is a dynamic,
rapidly developing economy, an increasingly popular tourist
destination, and an attractive site for foreign investment. I
expect that Vietnam will continue its journey towards a

[[Page H5748]]

more efficient economy with greater individual freedom and
that today's children will be better off than their parents.
And I hope--and fully expect--that U.S.-Vietnam relations
will continue to broaden and deepen mutual understanding to
the benefit of both of our nations.

Raymond F. Burghardt,

Ambassador, Asia Society,
Hong Kong Center.
____

The American Chamber

of Commerce,

Hanoi, Vietnam, July 14, 2004.
Hon. Rob Simmons,
Member, House International Relations Committee, Washington,
DC.
Dear Representative Simmons: On behalf of the membership of
the American Chamber of Commerce in Hanoi, I express our
regards to you and your colleagues in the Congress.
As members of the American business and development
community, we strongly believe that positive engagement is
the way to move the U.S. bilateral relationship with Vietnam
forward. Therefore, we feel compelled to bring to your
attention the Vietnam Human Rights Act (H.R. 1587) sponsored
by Representative Chris Smith that will be voted on today.
The sanctions-based approach of H.R. 1587 to improving the
situation in Vietnam is counter-productive and will not
result in constructive dialogue or action. Much of the aid
funds that would be cut go directly to legal reform programs
that strengthen due process and basic legal rights. In fact,
Vietnam continues to make progress on human rights issues,
and while we agree there is room for further improvement, we
do not feel this amendment will effect positive change.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether the imposition of
unilateral sanctions would lead to improved conditions for
those vulnerable to human rights abuses in Vietnam. In fact,
it could have the opposite effect by drawing increased
attention to those groups and individuals.
The restrictions outlined in the bill would also limit U.S.
ability to assist the Vietnamese with implementation of
structural and legal reforms called for in the Bilateral
Trade Agreement (BTA). The BTA, which addresses issues
relating to trade in goods and farm products, trade in
services, intellectual property rights and foreign
investment, creates more open market access, greater
transparency and lower tariffs for U.S. exporters and
investors in Vietnam. U.S. business views Vietnam, the
thirteenth most populous country in the world with over 80
million people, as an important potential market for U.S.
exports and investment. Increased U.S. exports to and
investment in Vietnam that result from progress towards an
open, market-oriented economy, in turn, translate into
increased jobs for American workers.
The reforms currently underway will move Vietnam towards
better rule of law. Delays in BTA implementation and economic
reform will damage American business interests in Vietnam by
reversing growth in bilateral trade since the BTA's entry
into force in December 2001.
U.S. Government policy since the establishment of
diplomatic relations in 1995 has been to work with Vietnam to
normalize incrementally our bilateral political, economic and
consular relationship. This positive approach builds on
Vietnam's own policy of political and economic reintegration
in the world. U.S. engagement will promote the development of
a prosperous Vietnam integrated into world markets and
regional organizations that, in turn, will contribute to
regional stability. With every new step, the United States
has taken with respect to Vietnam, such as ending the trade
embargo in 1994, normalizing diplomatic relations in 1995,
appointing our first ambassador in 1997, issuing the first
Jackson-Vanik waiver in 1998, and entering into the BTA in
2001, Vietnam has responded by opening further its society
and economy. In fact, even military to military relations
have resumed and an American Navy ship will be visiting
Danang later this month.
Many in the American NGO community in Vietnam are also
opposed to this bill for the same reasons. They strongly
believe that increased contact with the outside world and
positive engagement are better ways to promote progress on
human rights and development issues. The NGO community
strongly endorses recent constructive steps taken by the U.S.
government to promote human development in Vietnam, such as
opening the USAID office, approving Department of Agriculture
commodity monetization programs, and providing OFDA
assistance to Vietnam during natural disasters. These and
other positive steps will do far more to promote civil
society and improve human rights than the Smith bill.
Furthermore, passage of H.R. 1587 could jeopardize the
ability of American NGOs to implement their programs in
Vietnam by creating suspicion that they are monitoring human
rights on behalf of the U.S. Government, which would likely
create restrictions of their humanitarian work here.
Accordingly, on behalf of the growing US business and
development community in Vietnam, we appeal for your
understanding and action in continuing the good work that you
have already done to move the bilateral relationship forward.
AmCham Hanoi urges you to prevent this damaging bill from
becoming law.
With appreciation, in advance, for your consideration, I
remain
Respectfully yours,
Terence Anderson,
Chairman.
____

[From the National Catholic Reporter, June 4, 2004]

Program Aims To Foster U.S.-Vietnam Catholic Ties

(By Thomas C. Fox)

Vietnamese ministers from the Ho Chi Minh City archdiocese
will come to Boston College in the fall for training as part
of an extensive program aimed at fostering cultural ties
between the United States and Vietnam. The program also will
eventually meet some pressing pastoral needs in Vietnam.
The new program, to last at least a decade, is significant
because it has the blessing of government officials in
Vietnam, where once strained church-state relations have
warmed in recent years.
With the church in Vietnam slowly emerging from many years
of isolation and government hostility, the Ho Chi Minh
archdiocese-Boston College ``partnership,'' as it is being
called, is a hopeful sign that Vietnamese Catholics will be
allowed by the government to play a greater role in providing
social services.
Cardinal Jean-Baptiste Pham Minh Man, archbishop of Ho Chi
Minh City since 1998, supports the program, maintaining that
his church's number one challenge today is training pastoral
ministers.
The initial phase of the program calls for two women
religious, Daughters of Charity, to study health care
ministries while two priests will study various parish
related ministries. All will earn master's degrees.
Since 1975, when the war ended, the communist-led
government seized church properties, closed Catholic
hospitals and schools, limited ordinations and scrutinized
most aspects of church life. During the 1990s, Hanoi slowly
loosened its grip on society, opening Vietnam to foreign
investments and visitors. Restrictions on Catholic life also
loosened. Catholic nuns, for example, were allowed to run day
care centers and to be more involved in providing health
care.
With the 1998 appointment of Man, cooperation between the
church and government grew. Man is viewed as a moderate with
deep pastoral instincts. He believes the church in Vietnam
has much to gain by working in tandem with the government,
providing much-needed social services.
In 1996 Washington and Hanoi officially established
diplomatic relations.
As openings for Vietnamese Catholics gained ground in the
mid-1990s, Jesuit Fr. Julio Giulietti, then director at
Georgetown University's Center for Intercultural Education
and Development, began building bridges between Vietnamese
Catholics and those in the outside world. He began working
with Vietnamese Jesuits and developing other church contacts.
His efforts took him back to Vietnam 18 times since 1994.
Now head of the Ignatian Institute at Boston College,
Giulietti's passion is to bring Western Catholics into
contact with those in developing nations.
It was during a visit in March 2003 that Giulietti and Man
first began to talk about their proposed partnership. Those
discussions in Ho Chi Minh City led to Giulietti's extending
an invitation to Man in July 2003 to visit Boston College the
following November.
Just weeks before he visited, Man was named a cardinal by
Pope John Paul II, an indication of the key role he plays in
the Vietnamese church.
Some 8 percent of Vietnam's estimated 70 million people are
Catholic. Half of these Catholics reside in the Ho Chi Minh
City archdiocese.
One evening last year at his residence, Man told NCR in an
interview about the complexities of leading a church in a
communist nation. The key to effective evangelization, he
said, involves developing clergy, religious and laity to
become skilled pastoral ministers. He said that new
opportunities are opening for Catholic involvement in nation
building. Becoming involved in these areas, he said, the
church can show government authorities it is not a threat,
but a potential partner.
In an important indicator of better church-state relations,
Ho Chi Minh City officials last year returned a piece of
property to the archdiocese that had once housed a seminary.
Man hopes this property might one day become a pastoral
ministry center.
With two to four Vietnamese ministry students coming to
Boston College each year for the next decade, the partners
hope that a core group of Vietnamese ministers will learn
modern skills in pastoral care.
Giulietti emphasized the word ``partnership.'' The initial
needs all come from Man, he said. But the program will go two
days. While Vietnamese will learn skills in the United States
they cannot learn in Vietnam, they will also share their
culture and ideas on church with students and faculty at
Boston College.
According to Giulietti, half the funding will come from
Boston College. The other half will have to come from outside
sources. He said he is hopeful U.S. Catholics will respond,
recognizing the importance of building effective ties among
Catholics while doing something positive for the church in
Vietnam. Giulietti is treasurer of the NCR board of
directors.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent,

[[Page H5749]]

along with my friends on the other side of the aisle, because we have
so many speakers, that we extend the debate 10 minutes equally divided
on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nunes). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to
respond to my good friend from Connecticut that friends do not let
friends commit human rights abuses.
Whatever present relationship we might have with Vietnam, when they
are torturing and killing and maiming and forcing people to renounce
their faith, these are egregious human rights abuses, and they should
not be put under the rug and somehow brushed aside. We need to speak
out against those abuses, and we need to do it forcefully.
Let me also say to my colleagues that the American Legion supports
this bill wholeheartedly, and I will provide their letter for
submission into the Record.
Mr. Speaker, the AID's funding announced by Ambassador Tobias and the
President just a few days ago is totally exempt, as is all medicine,
foodstuffs, and humanitarian aid. None of that can be used as a penalty
in terms of its provision to the people of Vietnam. We are talking
about nonhumanitarian aid. We are talking about capping it at the 2004
levels.
As I said in my opening, it is a very modest effort to say that we do
not want this to go on anymore, to stop this abuse; and we have proven
through the trafficking legislation and other legislation recently that
modest smart penalties or sanctions do work. They do get the attention
of offending governments.
Our solidarity is with the oppressed in Vietnam. It is not with the
oppressor. We want to see progress. I want to stand on this floor, as
does the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and others, and sing
the praises of the government, but we need to see progress. We are
seeing significant deterioration with regard to human rights abuses.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I have been listening with interest to what I think is a very
spirited and good debate that we have had, but I do rise in opposition
to H.R. 1587, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2003.
At this point, I wish to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman
from New Jersey, for the passion which he comes to the floor with and
in which he expresses his views here. I know he holds these views very
dearly and with great sincerity, and I do understand and respect the
motivation for supporting human rights in Vietnam and other countries
around the world. It is critically important we serve as a champion of
human rights, just as we are in the case of Sudan, where tomorrow
evening I and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) will go in an
effort to try to take a look and to bring the attention of the world to
the human rights violations which are taking place there today.
However, I would point out that, even as we act as a champion of
human rights around the world, that does not provide us carte blanche
to undertake bad policy. In 1995, we embarked on a new path with
Vietnam. Many opposed that at the time. I supported it. I thought it
was the right thing to do. We chose to take a direction towards better
political, economic, and consular relations.
In making that decision, we recognized the need to encourage the
development of Vietnam as a prosperous country and to encourage Vietnam
to move on a path towards greater protection of human rights. We
understood how important it was to integrate our former adversary into
Asia's economic progress and ultimately into the global community.
Since we have started down that path, I think we have reaped
important benefits. It secured Vietnam's cooperation on achieving the
fullest possible accounting of the POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War era.
It has helped to contribute to regional stability in Southeast Asia,
and it has helped to open a new market for U.S. workers to the world's
13th most populous country.
Certainly the United States-Vietnam foreign policy relationship is
one that still has many rocky moments to it. It is one that is still
maturing. In some areas, we are certainly disappointed with the
progress or lack of progress that the Vietnam government has made. I
share the concerns about the human rights record, but I think this bill
may actually retard our efforts in this regard, rather than accelerate
them or help them.
While the House has passed this bill, or legislation similar to it,
it has not passed the other body before; and just because it has passed
the House before does not mean it is the right thing to do here today.
The relationship has changed. It has changed in a way where passage and
enactment of this bill could be harmful to the relationship of our two
countries.
The bill's unprecedented definition of nonhumanitarian assistance is
problematic in many ways, in ways that I am cognizant of as chairman of
the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs. For example, it would purport to reach some aspects of
assistance provided under the President's Emergency Plan for Aids
Relief. Vietnam, as I think my colleagues know, was recently designated
as the 15th focus country under the President's plan, the only one
outside of the Caribbean and of Africa.
Generally, I think this human rights act is a blunt instrument. I
believe it will risk inhibiting progress in bilateral trade and affect
cooperation on issues of importance to the United States, issues that
are vitally important to us right now, counterterrorism, the POW-MIA
accounting, which is ongoing, and HIV/AIDS; and I do not mean just the
actual process of providing drugs but the technical assistance that
could be affected by this. Also counternarcotics, which is vitally
important for us, and refugee processing and resettlement.
I know there is a waiver authority in this bill, but to use that as
an argument is simply to say that the bill has no meaning, so I do not
think the sponsors really intend that to be the case.
In short, I think the imposition of unilateral sanctions is not going
to lead to an improved human rights record and might actually harm the
United States' efforts in our fight against HIV/AIDS, which is
accelerating very rapidly in Vietnam.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend
and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague,
the gentleman from New Jersey, for yielding me this time and for
putting forward H.R. 1587, of which I am in full support, the Viet Nam
Human Rights Act.
I know a number of my colleagues oppose this bill, so I would like to
reiterate why it is so important to pass this bill today.
First of all, we passed a very similar piece of legislation by a vote
of 410 to 1 back in 2001. Unfortunately, the Senate did not take that
up; and so the law was not enacted. But, since that time, one would
think that our relationship would have gotten stronger with Vietnam;
and in many ways it has.
The problem is that there are still very bad human rights abuses by
the government of Vietnam against its own people. In fact, things have
gotten worse.
Religious dissidents continue to be imprisoned, and crackdowns have
been intensified on religious minorities. The leaders of the Unified
Buddhist Church of Vietnam remain under house arrest 9 months after
this House overwhelmingly passed House Resolution 427 commending the
church's courageous leadership.
We have passed a resolution on Father Ly, a Catholic priest who has
been arrested and convicted, all for following religious freedom,
something that our own country is based on.
And freedom of the press? There is no freedom of the press in
Vietnam. Everything is owned by the State.

[[Page H5750]]

When I talked to the cardinal of the Catholic church, he said he is
not even allowed to pass out a newsletter in his church on Sunday
because that is press, according to the government of Vietnam.
There is no religious freedom. There is no freedom of the press.
People are arrested. I have gone twice now to Vietnam, and they are
arrested and put in jail for no reason. I think it is about time that
we support this bill and we pass it in this House.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Viet Nam
Human Rights Act, of which I am pleased to have joined the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) in introducing.
I have had the opportunity in Vietnam to sit down with some of the
religious dissidents, some of the religious leaders under house arrest
for speaking out about religious freedom, and I wanted to share with
this body that Freedom House has consistently done an analysis every
year on Vietnam and ranked that country ``not free,'' because people
there cannot practice religious liberty; and efforts by this House to
promote human rights in Vietnam have been blocked.
Meanwhile, I will just give this assessment by Freedom House, the
most recent. ``The regime jails or harasses most dissidents, controls
all media, sharply restricts religious freedom, and prevents Vietnamese
from setting up independent political or independent labor or
independent religious groups.''
My colleagues today have pointed out some horrific abuses against
those who are simply attempting to practice their religion as they
choose, but I want to point out that this regime is also one of the
world's worst violators of press and Internet freedom. Prominent
nongovernmental organizations have condemned the government of
Vietnam's attempt to silence cyberdissidents and stifle freedom of the
Internet.
I think the severity of some of these jail terms handed down, last
year, we had Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, one of Vietnam's best-known
dissidents, who was arrested for sending an email entitled ``Communique
on Freedom of Information in Vietnam.'' It was simply an analysis of
the government's refusal to implement and lift controls on the media.
I will just take one line out of this analysis that he put forward.
He said, ``The State hopes to cling to power by brainwashing the
Vietnamese people through stringent censorship and through its
absolutist control over what information the public can receive.''
Now, we have a way here, with this bill, with this legislation, to
beef up Radio Free Asia and bring information, bring objective news and
truth to the Vietnamese people in a more effective way. I think the
spread of democratic values in Asia is critical to U.S. security
interests, and I think Radio Free Asia is a large step forward in the
right direction. We know these broadcasts are effective. How do we
know? Because the Vietnamese government spends so much of their energy
trying to block these broadcasts.
So I agree we have a growing relationship with Vietnam. I do not take
issue with that. I supported the Bilateral Trade Agreement. But this
does not mean the United States should stand moot while grievous human
rights abuses occur. So I urge my colleagues to send this legislation
to the other body with a strong vote.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just heard from many
of those who are against this legislation that things have gotten
better in Vietnam, things are not great but have gotten better.
Coincidentally, today there is a story by Reuters talking about how a
73-year-old man is in prison because he used the Internet to criticize
the government of Vietnam. Whoa, things are getting real good over
there.
Another person was arrested and sentenced just last week for using
the Internet. And what was that horrible crime? Oh, geez, for being
critical about corruption in Vietnam and advocating for democratic
reforms.

{time} 1945

Things are getting better in Vietnam.
No, they are not. They have gotten worse. We can no longer just turn
away and pretend things are not happening to the oppressed people of
Vietnam. I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey for once again
standing up for the oppressed, standing up for those people who are
just trying to speak out a little bit, just a little bit, about the
atrocities that are going on around the world, in this case in Vietnam.
I thank him for doing this, for standing up for the oppressed, for
those that would love just a little bit of freedom. We need to speak up
for them as well. I support this.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time. Let me thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart) and all of the speakers, my good friend from California (Mr.
Lantos) and all of those whom I think made very, very important points
about why this bill ought to become law.
Let me just take a moment to speak on behalf of one of Vietnam's most
courageous and renowned democracy activists, Dr. Que. Dr. Que has
served two lengthy prison sentences and was arrested again for
promoting democracy and human rights last year. He has been held
incommunicado ever since, unable to see even his family. The Vietnamese
government plans to put Dr. Que on trial next Monday. We do not know
exactly what the charges are, and it appears that Dr. Que will be tried
in secret without access to a lawyer. Unfortunately, this is par for
the course for the government of Vietnam because they treat so many
dissidents this way. The government of Vietnam should release Dr. Que,
a peaceful man whose only crime is to speak out for freedom. Any
adverse action against Dr. Que will only make our point as they have
made our point regrettably over and over again.
Let me just say one brief point about the POW/MIA issue because I
take a back seat to no one in my concerns for a full and thorough
accounting about our POWs. As a matter of fact, my first human rights
trip to Asia was to Vietnam in the early 1980s on behalf of POWs and
MIAs trying to follow up on what we thought were live sightings and
also to get a full and thorough accounting. But I would point out that
Jerry Jennings, who was mentioned by my good friend from Connecticut,
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for POW/MIA Affairs, has
pointed out most recently that this is a mutual humanitarian effort
between Vietnam and the United States; and, as he pointed out, the
United States for its part has turned over hundreds of documents from
U.S. national archives containing information about Vietnamese soldiers
who died during the war.
It is to our mutual advantage to cooperate on that issue. I believe
it is to the advantage of the people of Vietnam that this effort go
forward with regards to the AIDS funding which is explicitly exempted
by this legislation, as is other humanitarian aid as recounted in the
bill.
This is all about human rights. This is about helping dissidents who
are languishing in prisons. This is about religious believers who get
that knock in the middle of the night and they are told, sorry, you are
going to the gulag, where they are beaten, where they are repressed and
where their families sometimes never hear from them again. These are
modest, modest penalties; but we want to send a clear and unambiguous
message to the government of Vietnam that human rights matter, they are
important to us, they ought to be important to them.
I urge support. There are 35 cosponsors of this legislation equally
divided between both sides of the aisle. It is truly a bipartisan piece
of legislation. I urge support.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter
for the Record.

The American Legion,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2004.
Hon. Christopher H. Smith,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Smith: The American Legion applauds
your continuing leadership in fighting for the rights of the
abused

[[Page H5751]]

minorities in Vietnam. The United States must maintain
constant pressure on the Vietnamese government to honor the
rights of its citizens and our former allies. The Legion
stands in strong support of the Vietnam Human Rights Act of
2004.
The American Legion has grave concerns about the plight of
ethnic groups such as the Montagnards, as well as religious
minorities, including Buddhists and Catholics who are under
constant attack and persecution by Vietnamese authorities for
practicing their religion. The American Legion strongly
believes that successful passage of the Vietnam Human Rights
Act of 2004 will greatly benefit the future of minority
ethnic and religious populations in Vietnam. If the U.S. does
not have the tools that would be available through the
Vietnam Human Rights Act, we will lose the only remaining
leverage we have in persuading the Vietnamese to change their
egregious behavior.
As a nation at war, I think it is important that America's
allies know they serve beside a committed, loyal partner--one
that will not desert or betray them in their time of need.
Simply ignoring the current violations of human rights is not
an acceptable option for The American Legion's membership of
wartime veterans, many who served in Vietnam side-by-side
with these current victims of tyranny.
Sincerely,
John F. Sommer, Jr.,
Executive Director.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1587, The Vietnam
Human Rights Act of 2004 and commend Representative Chris Smith for his
leadership on this issue. In 2001, the House of Representatives passed
a similar bill, but unfortunately the human rights situation in Vietnam
continues to get worse.
The United States will soon ratify the U.S.-Vietnam bilateral trade
agreement. We must send a strong message that trade with the United
States should come with a responsibility to uphold basic human rights.
The Government of Vietnam continues to commit serious abuses in
violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It continues to
jail writers, scientists, journalists, and religious leaders.
This year's State Department human rights countries report on Vietnam
is 24 pages long and cites numerous violations including:

The Government of Vietnam's human rights record remained
poor, and it continued to commit serious abuses. The
government continues to deny the right of citizens to change
their government . . . The government significantly
restricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom
of assembly, and freedom of association . . .
The government did not permit human rights organizations to
form or operate. Violence and societal discrimination against
women remained a problem. Child prostitution was a problem.

I am very concerned that religious activity is extremely restricted
in Vietnam and reports that over 400 Christian churches in the Central
Highlands have been forcibly closed. Imprisonment and harassment of
Protestants and Catholics continue and many religious leaders are under
house arrest. Many Christians have been forced to renounce their faith.
I also remain extremely concerned about the recent crackdown against
Montagnard ethnic minorities in Vietnam, many of whom are Christians.
Thousands of Montagnards who gathered to protest ongoing religious
repression and confiscation of tribal lands last Easter were met with
brutal force by Vietnamese agents and security forces.
Three years ago, Father Thaddeus Nguyen Ly, a Catholic priest,
submitted testimony to the U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom. On October 21, 2001, Father Ly was sentenced to 15 years in
prison by the Vietnam government. Father Ly has done nothing more than
call for religious freedom in Vietnam.
The U.S. House has repeatedly called for Father Ly's release and
expressed growing concern about the poor human rights record of the
Government of Vietnam. We have been met by silence from the Government
of Vietnam.
I continue to ask the State Department to designate Vietnam as a
``country of particular concern'' (CPC) for its systematic and ongoing
religious freedom abuses. The Commission on International and Religious
Freedom recommended Vietnam be listed as a CPC last year. This latest
incident in the Central Highlands, along with the Vietnamese
government's relentless repression of ethnic minority religious groups,
clearly supports the need for CPC this year. It is my hope that the
State Department will act this year.
I support the Vietnam Human Rights Act. Hanoi must begin to make
significant progress toward releasing political and religious prisoners
and respecting human rights of all minorities. In closing, we in the
United States must continue to speak out for the innocent wherever they
are. This is our duty. Those suffering persecution are encouraged when
the United States speaks out on their behalf.
Ridding the world of repressive dictators will take time, patience
and persistence, and we must press on toward the goal of freedom for
all people. We, as a country, and we, as individuals, must have the
courage to take on tough issues. Human rights are God-given rights. We
should not accept anything less.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 1587, which requires the administration to carefully monitor the
status of human rights in Vietnam.
Under this measure, if Vietnam fails to meet basic standards for
universally recognized human rights, the President will have the
authority to cap U.S. non-humanitarian aid to Vietnam.
The truth is that many of my colleagues may not be aware of the
extensive struggle which the Vietnamese people have endured for many
years in their ongoing fight for basic human rights and freedom.
Ten years ago, the United States ended its trade embargo with Vietnam
and normalized relations with Hanoi. While the U.S. continues to open
diplomatic relations with Vietnam, we must remember that many issues
remain unresolved, including human rights violations, lack of religious
freedom, and government corruption.
In 2001, the House passed a similar bill overwhelmingly by 410-1 to
send a clear message to the communist leadership in Vietnam that U.S.
trading with Vietnam does not mean approval of its repressive policies.
Unfortunately, this bill died in the Senate.
Since then, despite having the benefits of trade with the U.S., the
Vietnamese government has escalated its abuses of human rights and
crackdown on religious freedom.
I traveled to Vietnam in 1998 to learn about these issues first-hand,
as well as to raise these concerns with high-level officials. In
addition, the large Vietnamese-American community in the 11th district,
which I represent, continues to update me on continuing concerns.
As a member of the Vietnam Caucus, I am dedicated to promoting
awareness and policy debates among the U.S. Congress, the American
public, and the international community about the greater need for
fundamental human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
While many have chosen to take part in a non-violent struggle for
basic freedom and human rights, the Vietnamese communist government has
chosen to arrest and imprison the vast majority of them.
The gratuitous arrests of these men and women demonstrate the ongoing
human rights abuses and lack of religious freedom in Vietnam. We must
continue to bring attention to these issues, generate pressure on
Vietnamese officials, and hold the Vietnamese government accountable.
It is only through the hard work of these courageous individuals and
the support of the international community in which we can work to
bring an end to human rights abuses and religious persecution in
Vietnam.
I am hopeful H.R. 1587 will serve as a small stepping stone towards
the ultimate liberation and freedom of the Vietnamese people.
However, at the least, I believe it will bring much needed additional
awareness to the atrocities committed by the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam every day, on its own citizens.
I commend my good friend from New Jersey and the other sponsors for
bringing this bill to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
the passage of this important resolution.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this bill. Having spent nearly seven years in Vietnam as a prisoner of
war, I have more than a passing interest in our relations with this
country. The simple fact is that we're dealing with a communist
government whose human rights record is abhorrent at best.
As you know, during the Vietnam war the indigenous Montagnard people
were strong allies of America. Now, in the central highlands of
Vietnam, the Montagnards are facing arrest, beatings, torture and even
murder at the hands of Vietnamese so called security forces.
Churches have been destroyed and over the past 2 years human rights
watch has documented numerous incidents where authorities conduct mass
ceremonies forcing Montagnards to renounce Christianity, sometimes
while drinking sacrificed animal's blood.
Today in Vietnam the Montagnard's ancestral homelands are currently
sealed off from international observers as secret police enforce a
campaign to crush the spread of Christianity.
Amnesty International has documented hundreds of political prisoners
and even killings of Montagnard refugees who have tried fleeing to
Cambodia.
In fact, the Vietnamese/Cambodian border is patrolled by soldiers,
where Cambodian authorities hunt down and ``sell'' refugees to
Vietnamese police for bounties. This sounds like something we would
read about in history books, not in the year 2004.
This Congress cannot idly stand by. Civilized nations do not deal
with barbarians. We must ensure that our aid isn't going to the
communist thugs in Hanoi. Support this bill.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I submit an exchange of letters between Mr.
Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the Committee on

[[Page H5752]]

the Judiciary, and myself on the bill H.R. 1587 for printing in the
Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on International Relations,

Washington, DC, July 13, 2004.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter on H.R. 1587,
the `Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2003,'' which was referred
primarily to the Committee on International Relations and
additionally to the Committee on Financial Services. This
Committee ordered the bill reported favorably on June 24,
2004.
I concur that the Committee on the Judiciary has
jurisdiction over Sec. 401 of the bill pertaining to the
resettlement of refugees from Viet Nam. The manager's
amendment which the Committee will call up does not include
Sec. 401 or any other provision that fall within the Rule X
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.
I appreciate your willingness to waive further
consideration of the bill in the Committee on the Judiciary
so that the bill may proceed expeditiously to the floor. I
concur, that in taking this action, your Committee's
jurisdiction over the bill is in no way diminished or
altered. I will, as you request, include this exchange of
letters in the Congressional Record during consideration of
the legislation on the House floor.
I appreciate your cooperation in this manner.
Sincerely,
Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, July 13, 2004.
Hon. Henry Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hyde: I am writing regarding H.R. 1587, the
``Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2003'' which was referred
primarily to the Committee on International Relations and
additionally to the Committee on Financial Services. The
Committee on International Relations ordered the bill
reported favorably on June 24, 2004, but as of this time has
not filed a report.
The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over
Sec. 401 of the bill pertaining to the resettlement of
refugees from Viet Nam. I understand that you have indicated
your willingness to take the bill to the floor under
suspension of the rules with a manager's amendment that does
not include Sec. 401 or any other provisions that fall within
the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Based on your willingness to follow this course, I am
willing to waive further consideration of the bill in the
Committee on the Judiciary so that the bill may proceed
expeditiously to the floor. The Committee on the Judiciary
takes this action with the understanding that the Committee's
jurisdiction over the bill is in no way diminished or
altered. I would appreciate your including this letter and
your response in the Congressional Record during
consideration of the legislation on the House floor.
I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida.) The
question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1587,
as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________