Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 378) calling on the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Father Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Vietnam likes to say that Vietnam is a country, not a war. It is a catchy little self-evident phrase that some Members of Congress picked up during the bilateral trade agreement debate, as if to suggest that the debate was somehow about the Vietnam War, which it was not, instead of Vietnam's shameful present-day human rights record, which it was.

Of course Vietnam is a country, to which I respond: behave like an honorable country. Live up to their word as a signatory to numerous human rights covenants, including the international covenant on political and civil rights. Stop bringing dishonor and shame to their government by abusing their own people.

Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. State Department report, the ``Report on Human Rights Practices for 2003'': ``The Government's human rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit serious abuses.'' Rather than repress and jail, harass, intimidate, and torture, the government should recognize and reflect the innate goodness of the Vietnamese people, a kind, gentle, compassionate people who deserve better, much better.

Take the case of Father Ly. In February 2001, Father Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly submitted written testimony to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom for a hearing at which he was invited to testify. He was not able to testify in person, but submitted written testimony which I will include in its entirety in the Record.

Because this brave Catholic priest told the truth, spoke the truth to power, the Government of Vietnam persecuted and cruelly mistreated him;

and he is now serving a 10-year prison sentence, and he has been in prison for 3 of those years. Amnesty International calls Father Ly a prisoner of conscience, and even the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has condemned his detention.

I think it is worth focusing just for a moment on his testimony, which was incisive and compelling; and I quote it in part: ``Since their victory of April 30, 1975,'' Father Ly wrote, ``the Vietnamese Communists have extended its oppressive policy toward the different religions of South Vietnam. Laws and decrees have been promulgated to confine, restrict, or ban religious activities. The government has falsely accused clergy members and lay people as a pretext to detain and imprison those who protest its oppressive policy, or those who teach catechism, lead a church choir, or join a seminary. They have been banished to concentration camps for years. This policy has been ongoing,'' he writes, ``for nearly 50 years.

``The government has used many ruses,'' he continues to write, ``to divide and politicize the Cao Dai, Catholic and Protestant Churches; to split the Buddhist Church in two, the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and the Buddhist Church of Vietnam; and to set up the puppet Hoa Hao Buddhist Committee of Representatives, which consists of mainly Communist cadres, to claim leadership over 5 million Hoa Hao Buddhists. The government has requisitioned for its arbitrary use numerous facilities and properties belonging to different Churches.''

Father Ly continues to write: ``With regard to the Catholic Church, the Communists have severely restricted her fundamental rights,'' and he points out and lays out some 10 different instances, including the fact that the government still keeps many priests, clergy members, and lay people in prison or under house arrest.

Father Ly continues to say: ``Faced with this extremely cruel policy of the Vietnamese Communist Government to strangle religions, the Churches in Vietnam have unceasingly demanded religious freedom. Their nonviolent and persistent campaign will continue until the Vietnamese people have full religious freedom, which anyone else in the civilized world has.''

This campaign has, as he points out, the following objectives. This is number one. This is Father Ly's testimony:

``Number one: the government must fully respect the right of all citizens to true religious freedom and the right of churches to select, train and appoint their own priests, clergy members and dignitaries. The government must stop its practice of listing the religious affiliation of citizens on their identity cards and personal documents so that no citizen be discriminated against and be able to freely practice his or her faith.

``Number two,'' Father Ly writes: ``The government must return all facilities and properties it has confiscated or requisitioned from the churches, even when the documentary evidence of ownership was lost in the war if local people can confirm the rightful ownership of these facilities.

``Number three: the government must abandon the ruses and schemes it has used to oppress and destroy religions. Its interference in church affairs must cease. Committees created by the government but dressed up as religious institutions in order to serve the government's anti- religion policy must be disbanded.

``Number four: the government must unconditionally release all clergy members, priests, officials and dignitaries of the churches and lay people who are currently in prison or under administrative detention because of their faith.

``Number five: the government must fully respect every and each article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which the Vietnamese Communist Government became a signatory on September 24, 1982.''

Finally, Father Ly writes, ``However, for as long as the Vietnamese Communists keep their dogmatic and totalitarian rule and disregard the fundamental freedoms of the people as I have presented above,'' he goes on to say, ``by trading with Vietnam the U.S. and other countries only strengthen the Communists' grips on power.''

Again, I would like his full statement read by Members, because it is a very strong and compelling bit of testimony.

These are the words of Father Ly. He is now in prison 3 years of a 10-year prison term.

The resolution we are considering today, Mr. Speaker, has over 100 cosponsors and I believe, we believe, will send a strong message to the leaders of Hanoi to free Father Ly and that the ongoing systematic abuses of human rights must cease and that they will not be tolerated.

H. Con. Res. 378 also condemns, and this amendment we are offering with the language today, the brutal crackdown against the Montagnard. Largely ignored by the American press, Vietnam crushed thousands of Montagnard in the Central Highlands on April 10 and 11. In classic dictatorship style and brutality, many Montagnard, who were protesting the confiscation of tribal lands and ongoing restrictions on religious activities, were beaten and there are reports that some were killed. This comes on the heels of another brutal crackdown against the Montagnard in December of 2001 that has resulted in the closing of over 400 churches.

I would just point out to my colleagues that there are also attempts to coerce people to renounce their faith, renunciation of faith. According to Ambassador John Hanford, our Ambassador At Large For Religious Freedom, there are approximately 100,000 Montagnards who were pressured to renounce their faith. I am happy to say that most resisted, but 100,000 within the last few months and years have been pressured to say ``no'' to their faith in Christ.

H. Con. Res. 378 also urges the government of Vietnam to allow unfettered access to the Central Highlands, where all of this is going on, by foreign diplomats, the international press and nongovernmental organizations, and condemns the extent of the violence used against, as I said, the Montagnard protestors.

Mr. Speaker, finally, human rights have gotten worse, not better, since the Bilateral Trade Agreement with Vietnam of 2001. We must not remain silent while the government of Vietnam continues to persecute religious and political dissidents and ethnic minorities. As a matter of fact, I believe strongly that Vietnam should be branded a Country of Particular Concern, a CPC country, pursuant to the provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act.

We care deeply, Democrats and Republicans, Mr. Speaker. We care deeply about the people of Vietnam and respect and honor their legitimate aspirations to be free. Why does not Hanoi?

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the written testimony of Reverend Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly before the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Testimony of Rev. Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly

Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor to be perhaps the

first Vietnamese Roman Catholic priest living under a

communist regime to testify before your Commission at a

location that represents the ideals of democracy. I would

like to send my greetings of the New Millennium to you and to

the people of the United States.

In the opening statement of the Declaration of Independence

of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on September 2, 1945,

Ho Chi Minh tried to win your nation's support by solemnly

quoting the second paragraph of Declaration of Independence

of the United States: ``All men are created equal. They are

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,

that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness.''

In less than 250 years since her independence, your country

has become the shining example of freedom and independence--

anyone who wants to know what freedom and independence are

only needs to visit your country and her people.

As an eyewitness living in Communist Vietnam for more than

25 years, I would like to boldly and frankly present my ideas

on three issues as your invitation letter has suggested.

i. the realities of the religions in vietnam in the new millennium

In order to achieve independence, liberty and happiness for

the Vietnamese people, Ho Chi Minh chose Communism. This is a

fundamental contradiction because Communism calls for a

dictatorial regime that does not tolerate the concept of true

liberty. Freedom of religion will be absent for as long as

the Vietnamese government hangs on to its Communist ideology.

Since their victory of April 30, 1975, the Vietnamese

Communists have extended its oppressive policy toward the

different religions

to South Vietnam. Laws and decrees have been promulgated to

confine, restrict, or ban religious activities. The

government has falsely accused clergy members and lay people

as a pretext to detain and imprison those who protest its

oppressive policy, or those who teach catechism, lead a

church choir, or join a seminary. They are banished to

concentration camps for years. This policy has been on-going

for nearly 50 years (from 1954 to 2001).

The government has used many ruses to divide and politicize

the Cao Dai, Catholic and Protestant Churches; to split the

Buddhist Church in two--the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam

(UBCV) and the Buddhist Church of Vietnam (BCV); and to set

up the puppet Hoa Hao Buddhist Committee of Representatives,

which consists of mainly Communist cadres, to claim

leadership over five million Hoa Hoa Buddhists. The

government has requisitioned for its arbitrary use numerous

facilities and properties belonging to the different

Churches.

With regard to the Catholic Church, the communists have

severely restricted her fundamental rights. The many

petitions issued by the Catholic Bishops Conference of

Vietnam (CBCV) since 1980 have unmasked the Government's

policy. This I have analyzed in my Ten-Point Proclamation

released on November 24, 1994 and the follow-up proclamation

dated November 24, 2000, which I have sent to your

Commission. Following is the summary of the points made in

those two statements.

1. The Vietnamese Communists have brutally interfered with

CBCV's authority to organize its annual Pastoral Assembly:

the Bishops must apply for permission to organize and the

Assembly's agenda must be pre-examined by the Government.

After the Assembly, the minutes must be submitted to the

Government. All reports from the Assembly must be vetted by

the Government before they can be released to the Catholic

community and the public.

2. The Vietnamese communists have brutally interfered with

CBCV's authority to appoint bishops and ordain of priests.

The Holy See had to negotiate with the Vietnamese Government

for years on each bishop appointment. The Government often

rejects candidates selected by the Church and only accepts

those they are pleased with. The Government counts on The

Vatican having to yield eventually so as to prevent excessive

harm to dioceses facing extended absence of a bishop. The

dioceses of Hung Hoa, Hai Phong, and Bui Chu . . . have not

had a bishop for more than eight years and The Vatican is not

allowed to appoint any.

Anyone intending to join a seminary of any candidate for

priesthood elected by the Church must have the approval of

and their background examined by the Public Security Police.

These candidates must prove their docility and show no sign

of resisting the regime. The police give special preference

to those agreeing to serve as informants for the Government

within the seminary. An applicant's chance would increase if

he can afford to bribe the authorities. Applicants having

family members who worked for defunct Republic of Vietnam or

holding nonconformist views stand no chance of being approved

for admission into a seminary or priesthood regardless of

their qualifications and moral virtues and regardless of the

Church's support. I know many young men who have repeatedly

passed the Church-administered entrance exam with top scores

but have not been approved for admission into any seminary.

Any bishop intending to ordain a seminarian into priesthood

or to assign a priest to a mission must ask for permission

and negotiate with the Government in a protracted process,

which in some cases has taken nearly 20 years without

results. The approval criteria imposed by the Government has

nothing to do with the moral quality that the Church requires

of candidates for priesthood. As a result, the number of

newly ordained priests has drastically decreased and is

currently insufficient to meet the Church's pastoral needs.

Aging priests die or retire without successors. Many priests

in rural regions have to minister more than ten parishes, all

distant from each other. There is hardly normal religious

life in these parishes. It is very difficult for priests to

change their residence for new assignments.

3. Groups of faithful in new economic zones or in remote

areas are anxious to have mass for Christmas and Easter each

year but their most basic spiritual need is rarely met. The

atheist Government wants these people not to think of

religion, which it considers harmful and dangerous.

4. A Mass that brings together the faithful from different

places and priests desiring to say mass in places other than

their usual assigned location must have prior government

permission.

5. The Government still keeps many priests, clergy members,

and lay people in prison or under house arrest. (Committee

for Religious Freedom in Vietnam has made this list available

to your Commission.)

6. The Government brutally violates the Church's freedom of

the press. No local or national publication of the Church is

allowed. As a result, The Church cannot fulfill

its evangelical duties. Before 1975, there were more than

a dozen Catholic newspapers and magazines in South

Vietnam. Today there are only two weekly magazines, Cong

Giao & Dan Toc (The Catholics & The People) and Nguoi Cong

Giao Viet Nam (The Vietnamese Catholics), which are

created and financed by the Government. CBCV's only

publication is the newsletter Ban Tin Hiep Thong (The

Communion News), of which the first six issues were

``illegal.'' The Government gave the Church temporary

permission to publish issues 7-9 from February to

September 2000. In October 2000, the government rescinded

its permission and discontinued this only publication of

The Church. There is no freedom of speech in my country.

Churches of course have none. This kind of statement that

I am presenting to you cannot be circulated in Vietnam

because no photocopying store or printing shop would dare

to reproduce it. Nobody dares to keep it, fearing for his

own life and the safety of his family. Those who dare must

be prepared for martyrdom. In fact, on February 7 the

public security police searched two of my assistants and

found a floppy disk containing a draft of this statement.

These two brave young men were detained overnight at the

police station for extensive questioning.

7. The Government forces all students from all grades and

in college to study and love Socialism while in fact nobody

likes to teach or study it. Only the three million communist

party members and the five million members of the Communist

League of Youth should study this ideology if they still

believe in it. Forcing the entire Vietnamese nation to study

a bankrupt ideology that has caused them so much suffering is

outright unconscionable.

8. The Communist Government has, since 1954 in North

Vietnam and since 1975 in South Vietnam, seized or

requisitioned thousands upon thousands of Church facilities

used for education, charity, and medical service.

Consequently the Church has no means to train seminarians,

providing education and human services to the poor, the sick,

the handicapped and the orphans, and it is extremely

difficult for Church members to deliver service in a

government facility. For example, the Pius X Papal Institute

in Da Lat, run by the Jesuits, had been an outstanding

college for priesthood formation until its confiscation in

1976 by the Government, which turned it into a training

school for Communist cadres. The Hoan Thien Minor Seminary at

11 Dong Da, Hue, offering high school-level training to

seminarians, was taken by force by the Government in December

1979; all three priests teaching at the seminary and more

than 80 seminarians were evicted. These are but a few

examples.

Faced with this extremely cruel policy of the Vietnamese

Communist Government to strangle religions, the Churches in

Vietnam have unceasingly demanded religious freedom. Their

non-violent and persistent campaign will continue until the

Vietnamese people have full religious freedom, which anyone

else in the civilized world has. This campaign has the

following objectives.

1. The Government must fully respect the right of all

citizens to true religious freedom and the right of Churches

to select, train, and appoint their own priests, clergy

members and dignitaries. The Government must stop its

practice of listing the religious affiliation of citizens on

their identity cards and personal documents so that no

citizen will be discriminated against and be able to freely

practice his or her faith.

2. The Government must return all facilities and properties

it has confiscated or requisitioned from the Churches, even

when documentary evidence of ownership was lost in the war if

local people can confirm the rightful owner of these

facilities and properties.

3. The Government must abandon the ruses and schemes it has

used to oppress and destroy religions. Its interference in

Church affairs must cease. Committees created by the

government but dressed up as religious institutions in order

to serve the Government's antireligion policy must be

disbanded.

4. The Government must unconditionally release all clergy

members, priests, officials and dignitaries of the Churches

and lay people who are currently in prison or under

administrative detention because of their faith.

5. The Government must fully respect every and each article

of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

of which the Vietnamese Communist Government became a

signatory on September 24, 1982.

ii. effects of the bilateral trade agreement on human rights and

religious freedom in vietnam

I am only a priest, not a specialist in economics and

politics. I speak as a Vietnamese citizen with a deep love

for my country and my people.

Vietnam needs the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) for her

economic development. In principle I dearly want my country

to have the trust of other countries, among them the United

States, so that my country may achieve prosperity and my

people may have a better life and fully realize their

potentials.

However, for as long as the Vietnamese Communists keep

their dogmatic and totalitarian rule and disregard the

fundamental freedoms of the people as I have presented above,

by trading with Vietnam the United States and other countries

would only strengthen the Communists' grips on power; the BTA

may end up benefiting only the governing minority while

prolonging the suffering of the entire people; the vast

majority of the common people like us may at best receive

small crumbs trickling down from the top but in return must

endure our fate of the exploited and disenfranchised for so

much longer.

In regard to the ratification of the BTA, I urgently warn

the US Congress not to trust

the Vietnamese Communists' promise of good faith. The United

States and many other countries have had bitter experiences

dealing with their broken promises in the past.

The Vietnamese Communists have signed many international

accords and agreements on human rights but have never

intended to respect them. Their intention is to deceive the

international community. For example, Vietnam became

signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights in 1982 but does not abide by Articles 18

and 19 of this covenant which call for the respect for the

freedoms of thought, speech, and religion. If international

human rights institutions allow themselves to fall victim to

such deception, they will contribute to the following dire

consequences: (1) the Vietnamese Government will exploit

their signing the document to falsely claim that there are

human rights in Vietnam; (2) these international

institutions will lose their credibility as they prove to

be so easily deceived; and (3) these institutions

unknowingly prolong the Communist oppression of the

Vietnamese people--this in fact constitutes a major crime

against my people.

Therefore, if the United States and other countries truly

sympathize with my ill-fated people and truly care about

human rights, especially the right to religious freedom, of

the Vietnamese people, you must not help the Communist

Government prolong its totalitarian rule. Instead, the United

States and other countries should suspend all agreements

harmful to the Vietnamese people and do everything in your

capacity to put pressure on the Vietnamese Government to

allow freedom and democracy to dawn on our country.

iii. what can be done to help improve freedom of religion in Vietnam in

the near term, and in the long term?

The Vietnamese Communists have idolized Ho Chi Minh,

turning him into a ``god'' and creating a new religion

revolving around him. The Communist Government wants to

suppress all other religions and replace them with this new

religion in order to unify the Vietnamese people behind it.

In fact, Ho Chi Minh had made significant contributions to

our national struggle for independence but at the same time

had committed serious crimes against the Vietnamese people.

One basic endeavor that the international community needs to

undertake is to unravel the harmful myths woven by the

Communists around this historical figure.

In the short term, the United States and other countries

should help the Churches in Vietnam achieve greater

independence from the government, should show by example how

freedom of religion is respected in the free world, and

should expose the oppression that the Vietnamese Government

has imposed on the Churches. At first, the Vietnamese

Communists may feel that such independence would clash with

its totalitarian power but with time it may realize that the

power to control and interfere with Church affairs, such as

the appointment of priests, should have never been theirs to

start with.

The Vietnamese people will not enjoy religious freedom for

as long as the Communist regime remains in place. Therefore

if the United States and other countries truly desire to see

the return of religious freedom to the Vietnamese people,

they will need to create favorable conditions for the early

demise of the Communist regime.

Ladies and gentlemen,

This is a precious opportunity to speak on behalf of my

people, of the different Churches, and of the Catholic Church

in particular. I would like to extend my gratitude to you, to

the U.S. Congress, and the American people, including some

two million Vietnamese-Americans, for having given me such an

opportunity.

May God bless you, your families, your colleagues, the

American people, and your beautiful country. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), and I thank him for his support on human rights in general and human rights in Vietnam in particular.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment to support human rights in Vietnam. This important amendment will impose a significant penalty on the dictators in Hanoi for their ongoing and egregious persecution of their own people.

During the 107th Congress, I introduced H.R. 2833, legislation designed to address the human rights situation in Vietnam. It passed the House by an overwhelming 410-1 margin, but stalled in the Senate. This year, I introduced nearly identical legislation, H.R. 1587, with 30 original cosponsors.

Many felt that the ratification of the Bilateral Trade Agreement with Vietnam in 2001 would lead to an improvement in human rights. Unfortunately, the human rights situation in Vietnam has deteriorated dramatically since this agreement, especially for Montagnard Christians in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Legislation to address the serious human rights situation is needed now more than ever.

In late 2002 the Government of Vietnam launched a fresh wave of arrests and crackdowns against peaceful critics of the Vietnamese government, its policy of repression, and its corrupt practices. Unfortunately, Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, one of the country's greatest human rights leaders who has already endured two lengthy prison sentences, was arrested on March 17. This is a government that consistently pursues a policy of harassment, discrimination, and intimidation, and, increasingly in the last three years, imprisonment and other forms of detention, against those who peacefully express dissent from government's extreme policies against religion and freedom. This is a government that punishes not just individuals who oppose them, but also often their family members.

At its Seventh Plenum in January 2003, the Communist Party's Central Committee issued a resolution calling for the establishment of cells of Communist Party members within each of Vietnam's six approved religions in order to foil ``hostile forces.'' All religious groups in Vietnam face great restrictions and suffer some form of persecution.

To address these and other abuses, my amendment, based on the text of H.R. 1587: requires the President to issue a certification each year on the progress of the regime towards respecting human rights; prohibits an increase in nonhumanitarian U.S. assistance unless the regime shows improvement; seeks to fund the efforts of NGOs who promote democracy in Vietnam and help to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia; helps ensure continued access of refugees to our refugee resettlement programs; and requires the State Department to give detailed reports about the status of human rights in Vietnam that include victims lists.

Unfortunately, the list of human rights abuses carried out by the regime goes on and on. Buddhists, Protestants, Catholics and members of indigenous Vietnamese religions are subject to persecutions that include detention and imprisonment of both religious leaders and believers, church closings, and confiscation of religious and personal property. One of the most courageous religious leaders imprisoned is Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest.

Tens of thousands of children suffer exploitation as workers and many Vietnamese suffer

under the government's official export labor program, in which the government forces its own people to endure involuntary servitude and debt bondage.

As Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, I am particularly concerned about the continued persecution of the Montagnards, who were some of our greatest allies during the war. Many of our pilots are alive today and have families because they were rescued by Montagnards after bailing out of downed aircraft. We receive numerous and credible reports that allege that Montagnards are being imprisoned, tortured and systematically relocated to infertile lands by the Communist Party leaders in retaliation for their past loyalty to America. This past December, Vietnamese soldiers reportedly threatened to shoot Montagnard Christians if they celebrated Christmas, and several were arrested and tortured.

I would like to submit the findings of H.R. 1587, which lay out a more complete case of Human Rights in Vietnam, to the Congressional Record. They were kept out of this amendment because of their length, but they speak loudly with respect to the regime and the world about the egregious human rights abuses occurring in Vietnam.

Vietnam's continued policy of harassment, discrimination, intimidation, and persecution of religious and human rights leaders is shameful. The Vietnam Human Rights amendment in the State Department Authorization Bill sends as strong a message that this persecution and tyranny will not be tolerated.

Findings From H.R. 1587, ``The Vietnam Human Rights Act''

Congress finds the following:

(1) Viet Nam is a one-party state, ruled and controlled by

the Vietnamese Communist Party.

(2)(A) The Government of Viet Nam denies the people of Viet

Nam the right to change their government and prohibits

independent political, social, and labor organizations.

(B) The Government of Viet Nam prohibits and hinders the

formation of civil society in Viet Nam.

(3)(A) The Government of Viet Nam consistently pursues a

policy of harassment, discrimination, and intimidation, and

sometimes of imprisonment and other forms of detention,

against those who peacefully express dissent from government

or party policy. This policy includes collectively punishing

family members of individuals targeted for persecution. A

government decree allows detention without trial for 6 months

to 2 years.

(B) Following the United States ratification of the

Bilateral Trade Agreement with Viet Nam in 2001, the human

rights situation in Viet Nam has remained extremely poor. For

certain groups, such as the Montagnards, and other ethnic

minorities in Central and North Vietnam, conditions have

deteriorated dramatically. In late 2002, the Government of

Viet Nam launched a fresh wave of arrests and crackdowns

against peaceful critics of the Vietnamese Government, its

policy of repression, and its corrupt practices.

(C) Recent victims of such mistreatment, which violates the

rights to freedom of expression and association recognized in

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, include Dr. Nguyen

Dan Que, a leading human rights activist who was arrested on

March 17, 2003, and has already served two lengthy prison

sentences, Dr. Nguyen Thanh Giang, Most Venerable Thich Huyen

Quang, Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, linguist Tran Khue,

businessman Nguyen Khac Toan, journalist Nguyen Vu Binh,

publicist Le Chi Quang, writer Hoang Tien, military historian

Pham Que Duong, Hoang Minh Chinh, Tran Dung Tien, Hoang Trong

Dung, Nguyen Vu Viet, Nguyen Truc Cuong, Nguyen Thi Hoa, Vu

Cao Quan, Nguyen The Dam, Nguyen Thi Thanh Xuan, Father Chan

Tin, author Duong Thu Huong, poet Bui Minh Quoc, Dr. Nguyen

Xuan Tu (Ha Si Phu), Dr. Pham Hong Son, Mai Thai Linh, Most

Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, Most Venerable Thich Quang Do,

Father Nguyen Van Ly, Pastor Nguyen Lap Ma, Father Phan Van

Loi, numerous leaders of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church and of

independent Protestant churches, and an undetermined number

of members of the Montagnard ethnic minority groups who

participated in peaceful demonstrations in the Central

Highlands of Viet Nam during February 2001.

(4) The Government of Viet Nam systematically deprives its

citizens of the fundamental right or organized religious

activities outside the state's control. Although some freedom

of worship is permitted, believers are forbidden to

participate in religious activities except under

circumstances rigidly defined and controlled by the

Government:

(A)(i) In April, 1999 the Government issued a Decree

Concerning Religious Activities, which declared in pertinent

part that ``[a]ll activities using religious belief in order

to oppose the State of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, to

prevent the believers from carrying out civic

responsibilities, to sabotage the union of all the people,

and against the health culture of our nation, as well as

superstitious activities, will be punished in conformity with

the law''.

(ii) All public religious activities must be approved by

the Government in advance. The United States Commission on

International Religious Freedom in October 2002 recommended

that Viet Nam be classified as a country of particular

concern. At its Seventh Plenum in January 2003, the Communist

Party's Central Committee issued a resolution calling for the

establishment of cells of Communist Party members within each

of Vietnam's 6 approved religions in order to foil ``hostile

forces''.

(B)(i) The Unified Buddhist Church of Viet Nam (UBCV), the

largest religious denomination in the country, has been

declared illegal by the Government, and over the last 27

years its clergy have often been imprisoned and subjected to

other forms of persecution. The Patriarch of the Unified

Buddhist Church, 85-year-old Most Venerable Thich Huyen

Quang, has been detained for 25 years in a ruined temple in

an isolated area of central Viet Nam.

(ii) Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, the Executive President

of the Unified Buddhist Church, has also been in various

forms of detention since 1977, and was recently rearrested

and placed under house arrest after he had proposed to bring

Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang to Saigon for medical

treatment.

(iii) Many other leading Buddhist figures, including Thich

Hai Tang, Thich Khong Tanh, Thich Thai Hoa, Thich Tue Si,

Thich Quang Hue, Thich Tam An, Thich Nguyen Ly, Thich Thanh

Huyen, Thich Thong Dat, Thich Chi Mau, Thich Chi Thang, Thich

Chon Niem, Thich Thanh Quang are under tight surveillance.

Several members of the UBCV have fled to Cambodia

(C)(i) The Hao Hoa Buddhist Church was also declared to be

illegal until 1999, when the Government established an

organization which purports to govern the Hao Hoa. According

to the United States Commission on International Religious

Freedom, ``[t]his organization is made up almost entirely of

Communist Party members and apparently is not recognized as

legitimate by the vast majority of Hao Hoas . . .

[n]evertheless, [this government-sponsored organization] has

sought to control all Hao Hoa religious activity,

particularly at the Hao Hoa village, which is the center of

Hao Hoa religious life''.

(ii)(I) Hao Hoa believers who do not recognize the

legitimacy of the government organization are denied the

right to visit the Hao Hoa village, to conduct traditional

religious celebrations, or to display Hao Hoa symbols. Many

have been arrested and subjected to administrative detention,

and several Hao Hoa have been sentenced to prison terms for

protesting these denials of religious freedom.

(II) The Government interferes with Hao Hoa efforts to

conduct charitable works, and prohibits public celebration to

commemorate the founder's disappearance as well as the

distribution of the founder's teachings. The Government

controls greatly the leadership selection process of the

Cao Dais, another indigenous Vietnamese religion.

(III) At least the following Hao Hoa believers are known to

be in prison or house detention: Ha Hai, Tran Van Be Cao,

Tran Nguyen Huon, Phan Thi Tiem, Le Quang Liem, Nguyen Van

Dien, Le Minh Triet, and Vo Van Thanh Liem.

(D)(i) Independent Protestants, most of whom are members of

ethnic minority groups, are subjected to particularly harsh

treatment by the Government of Viet Nam. According to the

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom,

such treatment includes ``police raids on homes and house

churches, detention, imprisonment, confiscation of religious

and personal property, physical and psychological abuse, and

fines for engaging in unapproved religious activities (such

as collective worship, public religious expression and

distribution of religious literature, and performing

baptisms, marriages, or funeral services) . . . [i]n

addition, it is reported that ethnic Hmong Protestants have

been forced by local officials to agree to abandon their

faith''.

(ii)(I) According to human rights activists in Viet Nam, 2

secret central plans--Plan 184A and 184B--issued in 1999 by

the Communist Party to combat Protestant believers were fully

implemented throughout the country, and led to a crackdown on

the Protestant movement, especially in the Central and

Northern Highland areas.

(II) An estimated 14,000 Christians fled from the North to

the Central Highlands in the past 5 years. According to the

Southern Evangelical Church of Viet Nam, the Government of

Viet Nam forcibly closed 354 of the 412 churches in Dak Lak

province, 56 pastors from the Central Highlands have

disappeared, and at least 43 evangelical Montagnards have

been sentenced to prison. Freedom House has reported on the

beating death of Hmong Christian Mua Bua Senh by police

authorities.

(E)(i) Other religious organizations, such as the Catholic

Church, are formally recognized by the Government but are

subjected to pervasive regulation which violates the right to

freedom of religion. For instance, the Catholic Church is

forbidden to appoint its own bishops without Government

consent, which is frequently denied, to accept seminarians

without specific official permission, and to profess Catholic

doctrines which are inconsistent with Government policy.

Government restrictions on the seminary process have caused a

severe shortage of priests.

(ii) A Catholic priest, Father Nguyen Van Ly, was arrested

in March 2001 and remains in detention after submitting

written testimony to the United States Commission on

International Religious Freedom. On October 19, 2001, he was

sentenced to a total of 20 years of imprisonment and house

arrest; the

trial in Hue took place closed to the public and without a

defense lawyer.

(iii) In October 2002, the Vietnamese Bishops Conference

took an unprecedented step when they protested to the

National Assembly about the persecutions endured by Catholic

ethnic minorities.

(F) The Government has also confiscated numerous churches,

temples, and other properties belonging to religious

organizations. The vast majority of these properties--even

those belonging to religious organizations formally

recognized by the Government--have never been returned.

(5)(A) Since 1975 the Government of Viet Nam has persecuted

veterans of the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam and other

Vietnamese who had opposed the Viet Cong insurgency and the

North Vietnamese invasion of South Viet Nam. Such persecution

typically included substantial terms in ``re-education

camps'', where detainees were often subjected to torture and

other forms of physical abuse, and in which many died.

(B) Re-education camp survivors and their families were

often forced into internal exile in ``New Economic Zones''.

Many of these former allies of the United States, as well as

members of their families, continue until the present day to

suffer various forms of harassment and discrimination,

including denial of basic social benefits and exclusion from

higher education and employment.

(6)(A) The Government of Viet Nam has been particularly

harsh in its treatment of members of the Montagnard ethnic

minority groups of the central Highlands of Viet Nam, who

were the first line in the defense of South Viet Nam against

invasion from the North and who fought courageously beside

members of the Special Forces of the United States, suffering

disproportionately heavy casualties, and saving the lives of

many of their American and Vietnamese comrades-in-arms.

(B) Since 1975 the Montagnard peoples have been singled out

for severe repression, in part because of their past

association with the United States and in part because their

strong commitment to their traditional way of life and to

their Christian religion is regarded as inconsistent with the

absolute loyalty and control demanded by the Communist

system. The Government employs a policy of assimilation and

oppression against the Montagnards, forcibly displacing them

from their ancestral lands to make way for North Vietnamese

settlers, coffee plantations, and logging operations.

(C) Between February and March 2001, several thousand

members of the mountain tribes Djarai, Bahnar, and Rhade from

the provinces of Pleiku, Gialai, and Daklak took part in a

series of peaceful demonstrations to demand the release of 2

Montagnard Christians, religious freedom and restoration of

their confiscated lands. The Government responded by closing

off the Central Highlands and sending in military forces,

tanks and helicopter gunships. Hundreds of demonstrators were

injured. Altogether, more than 200 people, among them 60

evangelical priests and tribal chieftains, were arrested.

Some regions of the Central Highlands remain closed to

journalists and foreign diplomats.

(D) Credible reports by refugees who have escaped to

Cambodia indicate that the Government has executed some

participants in the demonstrations and has subjected others

to imprisonment, torture, and other forms of physical abuse.

(E) The Government of Viet Nam has also taken steps to

prevent further Montagnards from escaping, and there are

credible reports that Vietnamese security forces in Cambodia

are offering bounties for the surrender of Montagnard asylum

seekers.

(F) According to Human Rights Watch, in December 2002 `[The

Government] arrested or detained dozens of highlanders and

banned Christmas church services in order to prevent minority

Christians from gathering. Six highlanders were detained

during the third week in December in Krong Ana and Cu Jut

districts, Dak Lak, during Christmas prayer services, while

another eight were taken into custody as they are attempting

to cross the border to Cambodia. Villagers throughout the

Central Highlands were warned they would face fines and even

imprisonment if they organized Christmas services. In many

areas authorities banned gatherings of four or more people'.

(7) The Government of Viet Nam has also persecuted members

of other ethnic minority groups, including the Khmer Kron

from the Mekong Delta, many of whom fought alongside United

States military personnel during the Viet Nam war and whose

Hinayana Buddhist religion is not among those recognized by

the Government.

(8) The Government of Viet Nam also engages in or condones

serious violations of the rights of workers. In August 1997,

the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) reported that

child labor exploitation is on the rise in Viet Nam with tens

of thousands of children under 15 years of age being subject

to such exploitation. The government's official labor export

program also has subject workers, many of whom are women, to

involuntary servitude, debt bondage, and other forms of

abuse, and the reaction of government officials to worker

complaints of such abuse has been to threaten the workers

with punishment if they do not desist in their complaints.

The government of Viet Nam has made some minor efforts to

improve this situation, but enforcement of child labor laws

remains weak, and the child exploitation still persists.

(9)(A) United States refugee resettlement programs for

Vietnamese nationals, including the Orderly Departure Program

(ODR), the Resettlement Opportunities for Returning

Vietnamese (ROVR) program, and 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) In general, these programs have served their purposes

well. However, many refugees who were eligible for these

programs were unfairly denied or excluded, in some cases by

vindictive or corrupt Communist officials who controlled

access to the programs, and in others by United States

personnel who imposed unduly restrictive interpretations of

program criteria. These unfairly excluded refugees include

some of those with the most compelling cases, including many

Montagnard combat veterans and their families.

(C) The Department of State has agreed to extend the

September 30, 1994, registration deadline for former United

States employees, ``re-reduction'', survivors, and surviving

spouses spouses of those who did not survive ``re-education''

camps to sign for United States refugee programs.

(D) The Department of State has agreed to resume the

Vietnamese In-Country Priority One Program in Viet Nam 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.

(E) The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service in

the Department of Homeland Security has agreed to resume the

processing of former United States employees under the U11

program, which had been unilaterally suspended by the United

States Government.

(F) The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service has

agreed to review the applications of Americans, children of

America servicemen left behind in Viet Nam after the war

ended in April 1975, for resettlement to the United States

under the Amerasian Homecoming Act of 1988..

(10) The Government of Viet Name systematically jams

broadcasts by Radio Free Asia, and indepdent broadcast

service funded by the United States in orderly to provide

news and entertainment to the people of countries in Asia

whose government deny the right to freedom of expression and

of the press.

(11) In 1995 the Governments of the United States and Viet

Nam announced the ``normalization'' of diplomatic relations.

In 1998 then-President Clinton waived the application of

section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974 (commonly) known as the

``Jackson-Vanik Amendments'', which restircts economic

assistance to countries with non-market economies whose

government also restrict freedom of emigration. In 1999 the

Governments of the United States and Viet Nam announced ``an

agreement in principle,'' on a bilateral trade agreement.

This agreement was signed in 2000 and came into effect on

December 10, 2001.

(12) The Congress and the American People are united in

their determination that the extension or expansion of trade

relations with a country whose Government engaged in serious

and systematic violations of fundamental human rights must be

considered as a statement of approval or complacency about

such practices. The promotion of freedom and democracy around

the world--and particularly for people who have suffered in

large part because of their past association with the United

States and because they share our values--is and must

continue to be a central objective of United States foreign

policy.

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.

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

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

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.

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I speak to you today regarding a pressing matter that deserves attention as we balance out the debate on H.R. 1950. While the stringent nature of the Rules governing the amendment process for this bill preclude my input by way of amendment, I submit that the issue of famine in Ethiopia is worthy of inclusion with the report language on this bill.

Unfortunately, even as we speak now, some 11-14 million people will go hungry in the coming months.

Effect of Famine on the Agriculture Industry

Severe drought conditions destroyed over 15 percent of the October- November 2002 harvest in Ethiopia. The resultant failure of root vegetables and green crops to grow has caused families that depend on subsistence farming to not only lack food, but also seeds for replanting next year. This situation makes the availability of genetically modified organism (GMO) seeds dangerously attractive to the hungry, inuring them to the host of side affects and ailments that have yet to be confirmed or denied by the Food and Drug Administration.

As a result of the poor arability of the land and other adverse conditions, not only are the people's crops suffering, but their livestock as well. With the mortality rate steadily rising, those remaining are experiencing a lowered body weight, which results in reduced traction, power and milk production, which again will lead to insecure food sources. Unless veterinary services improve, the death toll will continue to increase as the livestock's immune system grows weaker resulting from poor conditions and common diseases.

The combined effect of plummeting livestock prices and skyrocketing cereal prices, the poorer households face an even worse predicament in obtaining food. Their wage rate is reported to be 3 times lower in the current year than in the same period last year.

According to recent studies, there were 35,000 people in Ziquala, 34,920 people in Ambassel, 16,300 in Wadla, 17,455 in Kewet and 156,200 in the three words of South Gondar who were in need of external assistance through the upcoming months.

Ethiopian Economy in the Face of Famine

Ethiopia's poverty-stricken economy is based on agriculture, which accounts for half of GDP, 85% of exports, and 80% of total employment. The agricultural sector suffers from frequent drought and poor cultivation practices, and as many as 4.6 million people need food assistance annually. Coffee is critical to the Ethiopian economy with exports of some $260 million in 2000. Other important exports include live animals, hides, and gold.

The war with Eritrea in 1999-2000 and recurrent drought have buffeted the economy, in particular coffee production. In November 2001, Ethiopia qualified for debt relief from the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. Under Ethiopia's land tenure system, the government owns all land and provides long-term leases to the tenants; the system continues to hamper growth in the industrial sector as entrepreneurs are unable to use land as collateral for loans. Despite this limitation, strong growth is expected to continue in the near term as good rainfall, the cessation of hostilities, and renewed foreign aid and debt relief push the economy forward.

short-term consequences of inaction or lack of timely remedial measures

An estimated six children die of drought-related conditions daily in Ethiopia, according to one estimate. Many of them have collapsed from disease or dehydration after walking for days with their families in search of nourishment. Thousands are fleeing remote villages where wells have dried up and agencies have yet to establish food stations.

who is at risk?

The U.N. warns that as many as 16 million people are at risk of starvation in 10 countries across East and central Africa, from Burundi to Eritrea on the Red Sea. The crisis is most severe in Ethiopia's perpetually dry Ogaden region, where wells have gone dry, crops have withered and the skeletons of cattle and sheep lay in barren fields. Camels in Ogaden have stopped lactating, leaving children without milk, a staple in the impoverished nation.

Some Ethiopians are fortunate enough to have access to feeding centers, which supply rehydration treatments and high protein biscuits. Relief agencies are struggling to set up more centers in remote regions before residents migrate elsewhere for food. Sometimes, lack of clean drinking water, which is needed to mix the children's food into gruel, makes it impossible for centers to be stationed in some areas.

a rich history of fighting hunger in the 18th congressional district

The late Honorable Mickey Leland established the House Select Committee on Hunger in 1984 and served as its chairman until his tragic death in 1989. The Select Committee was instrumental in drawing attention to the problem of hunger internationally and within the United States. On a humanitarian mission to Africa, Mickey experienced the death of a starving child in his arms. This eye-opening experience led him to redouble his efforts to fight hunger, resulting in 350,000 tons of food to aid famine victims in Ethiopia. Congressman Leland lost his life in Ethiopia trying to save more lives. I would like to work with this committee to include report language in this bill that encourages a greater emphasis on the ongoing famine and a solution to this deadly problem.

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I speak to you today regarding a pressing matter that deserves attention as we balance out the debate on H.R. 1950. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you an issue, the relevance of which, will potentially merit inclusion into the House Reports on H.R. 1950, the State Department Authorization bill. The issue concerns the initiative of achieving international peace by way of the leadership of women.

women leaders as the universal Hub in the peace process

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I propose that women play any and all roles that will give them an opportunity to use their leadership skills in the peace process. Therefore, this request would include diplomatic as well as formal organizational leadership roles. I support the International Leadership Act of 2003, co-authored by you and Representative David Dreier, Chairman of the House Committee on Rules and included in the bill provisions.

women's role in the international leadership act of 2003

I see women leading and adding important skills to the ``Democracy Caucus'' proposed in the Act. The Democracy Caucus would work as a very timely vehicle for women to lead the way, especially in the area of rebuilding democratic government in post-war Iraq. With the help of the United Nations, we can prevent rogue regimes from assuming dangerous amounts of influence and taking advantage of the vulnerabilities of rebuilding nations such as Iraq and even Liberia. I would posit that fashioning the proposed diplomacy program under the Act to give women particular attention will greatly enhance the multilateral character of our ambassador fleet.

The Oslo Summit: Women's Partnership for Peace

Mr. Chairman, I took advantage of a unique experience when I served as an Honorary Chair for the Women's Partnership for Peace in the Middle East in Oslo, Norway in June of this year. I shared a panel with an unprecedented group of more than 70 women from Israel, Palestine, the United States, Europe and Asia who met in Oslo, Norway at the Nobel Peace Institute to launch the Women's Partnership for Peace in the Middle East.

The objective of the Oslo Summit was to set clear goals and devise a plan of action for achieving a greater role for women in peace negotiations in the region and in the overall effort to achieve peace, a movement largely devoid of women's perspectives and participations. I would like to see women play a more pronounced role not only in the establishment of business opportunity but also in the peace process, and this kind of forum offers a platform that is both transnational as well as international. In training our diplomats to act as more efficient international ``joints,'' it is critical that we deputize our strong women leaders.

her excellency dr. inonge mbikusita-lewanika: an icon of peace

As a final remark and by way of example, I would like to highlight the experience and achievement of Her Excellency Dr. Inonge Mbikusita- Lewanika, Ambassador to Zambia. This woman, whom I had the honor and pleasure of presenting the Freedom Magazine Award for Human Rights Leadership on July 9, 2003 is an example of the impact a woman can have on international peace negotiations and efforts.

If I may chronicle a few of her accomplishments, she was appointed as a special envoy to the African Union and allowed to advance the movement of women in her nation in the effort for peace. Her various posts have decorated her career with great international breadth and astute conflict-resolution skill: UNICEF Regional Advisor for Families and Children in 19 countries; as stated above, a Peace Envoy convening numerous peace missions such as the Organization for African Unity; and the United Nations-sponsored peace mission to Rwanda amidst the period of human rights atrocity and genocide. In fact, Her Excellency Lewanika is one of the few prominent African women to serve in United Nations missions for war-torn African nations. Moreover, she understands the importance and the benefits of structuring and maintaining an organized democratic government and an effective electoral process. These initiatives are evidenced by her audacious efforts to lead a 1,000- member observe team from the Electoral Institute of Southern Africa to Zimbabwe's parliamentary elections and to spearhead the nine-member resignation from the Ruling Party in Zambia due to findings of corruption and lack of vision in 1993, whereupon she was elected Founding President of the Opposition National Party. Furthermore, her positions of leadership in organizations such as the Forum for Parliamentarians for Peace in Eastern and Southern Africa; the African Women Committee for Peace and Development; the Women Development Association; and the Federation of African Women's Peace Networks, heading the first delegation of women for peace to Ethiopia and Eritrea during the bloody and tumultuous border war Zambia's Opposition Party, Agenda for Zambia as President, exemplifies her tenacity and willingness to commit the time and effort that is required to follow through on organization mission statements rather than spewing forth rhetoric and flowery speeches absent any real action.

For the reasons stated above, I would hope that these concerns regarding women involved in international peace efforts can be included in report language during conference.

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I speak to you today regarding a pressing matter that deserves attention as we balance out the debate on H.R. 1950. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you an issue, the relevance of which, will potentially merit inclusion into the House Reports on H.R. 1950, the State Department Authorization bill. The issue concerns a nation that was founded during the nineteenth century by freed American slaves. Once a nation founded on the premises of freedom and opportunity, the Liberia of today is wrought with political upheaval and social unrest.

Within the last twenty years, Liberia has been the site of intense devastation and profound loss due to almost two decades of civil war. The latest war has lasted for approximately three years and has caused immense disruption to the social and political fabric of the region.

The health infrastructure in Liberia has crumbled, schools have become refugee camps, and the people have taken the law into their own hands. Nearly half of the Liberian population has been forced to flee to neighboring countries or to internationally assisted camps in Liberia. Large numbers of innocent, young children are being made into

child soldiers. Those children that are fortunate enough to escape the life of forced military service are often left with little to no options aside from living on the streets. This conflict has brought about political destablization on a mass scale, increased economic disparity, and what can only be described as societal chaos. And although a ceasefire was recently agreed upon, fighting and civil disobedience within the country has yet to subside.

Charles Taylor has exacerbated the civil war in Liberia since 1989 when he led the armed military faction that initiated a seven-year civil war in Monrovia. Of the emerging military factions in Liberia during this unsettling time, the group led by Charles Taylor was arguably the most dangerous and recalcitrant. An attempted peace process in mid-1996 resulted in the unexpected election of Charles Taylor as president. Although Liberia appeared to have entered into a time of normalcy, the killing and harassment of notable opposition leaders and the censure of Liberia's print and radio media raised doubts among many observers and prompted immediate concern from the U.S. as well as the rest of the international community. In 1999, President Taylor was charged with aiding the Revolutionary Front (RUF) rebels fighting the Sierra Leonean government. The U.S. has subsequently pursued unilateral policies that directly target the Taylor government.

The U.S. has had a long historical relationship with Liberia dating back to its original founding. Views diverge on whether the U.S. should provide Liberia with any assistance and if so what type of how much. The extensive historical involvement between U.S. and Liberia obligates, in my opinion, our government to take special responsibility to answer Liberia's humanitarian and developmental needs, promote an effective democracy, and work diligently to stop human rights abuses. Liberia has served as an important ally for the U.S. particularly during the Cold War era; it is in recognition of this long-standing relationship that the U.S. should serve as a vigilant presence in the efforts to bring calm and civility to this war-ravaged country.

Of course this is not the first time that U.S. presence has been requested to aid in the restoration of civility in a nation. Our involvement with conflicts and civil strife in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo are a few of the more recent examples of successful humanitarian interventions. We were certainly more than willing to involve ourselves in Iraq under the auspices of terrorism and global peace; if peace be our aim, then we should have no qualms about coming to the aid of Liberian citizens. The question we should ask is why there is any hesitation to become involved with Liberia when there are well- established historical ties to this country. It is vital that the U.S. send in U.S. peacekeeping and humanitarian aid to support the Economic Community of West African States.

We know that Charles Taylor needs to go. He has been negating the peace process for years and it is therefore high time that he make his exit, once and for all.

The rhetoric put forth by those on the other side of the table, on the surface, speak to the dangers and long-term global implications of external intervention. However, we are quite selective about the dangers we are willing to face and the implications we are willing to make in the name of peace. What determines this difference? I think that those on the other side simply view Liberia as a region of non- strategic importance for U.S. foreign policy interests. This type of biased selectivity is unproductive and ineffective in the global community in which we live.

A consistent supply of humanitarian aid in the form of shelter, food, water, and medical care should be supplied to the region as well. In essence, we must do all we can to ensure that peace and stability return to Liberia once and for all. I hope to monitor the debate on this need and would hope that report language could be included in the report of the bill on helping Liberia now!

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1587) to promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam, as amended.

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

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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.)

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent,

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

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. 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

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. 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.