[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.

                          ____________________