Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the courageous leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and the urgent need for religious freedom and related human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for bringing this to the floor, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde).

Mr. Speaker, I represent the largest Vietnamese population outside of Vietnam in the world, in Orange County, California, so I have been following the relationship of the United States and Vietnam for the last 7 years that I have been in the Congress. I rise today to speak on behalf of House Resolution 427, a bipartisan resolution which highlights the courageous leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, which is currently undergoing one of the harshest crackdowns in history, and the urgent need for religious freedom, and for basic human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

This resolution, which I introduced with my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) is timely, important, and will do a great deal to advance the cause of religious freedom in Vietnam.

Now, many of my colleagues will say, well, Loretta has opposed trade relations with Vietnam, or there has always been a difficult relationship with Vietnam, and the answer is yes, but that is in the past. This is about the current situation, and the current situation is about religious freedom, or the ability for the Vietnamese people to express their religious beliefs in the way that they want.

Let us remember that the United States was based in part on those people who came to this land to seek their way of respecting and praising their Lord. And, in the same way, that is a basic human right for all people of the world.

Despite the growing bilateral and economic relations that the United States has with Vietnam, the Vietnamese government has continued to blatantly disregard religious freedom in Vietnam. It is a basic right guaranteed by the Vietnamese constitution and enshrined in the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Vietnam has both ratified and has pledged to uphold. According to the 2003 report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Vietnamese government does not, does not fully support religious freedom. I would like to quote some of the statements from that report.

It says, ``The current approach of the U.S. Government to advance religious freedom in Vietnam has failed to yield concrete results. Key religious dissidents have been imprisoned. Others remain under house arrest. In addition, the government has intensified its crackdown on religious minorities in the western provinces and in the Central Highlands.''

The report goes on to state that ``Therefore, the Commission recommends that the United States Government intensify its leverage to hold the government of Vietnam to its international obligation to protect human rights, including that of religious freedom.''

This resolution does just that.

The latest incident, which occurred just this year, the one with the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the largest religious denomination in that country, was because they held a meeting to elect new leadership, discuss their future, and to verify that the Prime Minister of Vietnam had promised a new era of understanding and respect. In stark contrast to that promise of respect and understanding, the Vietnamese authorities disrupted that meeting, intimidated the people at that meeting, and ultimately arrested most of the leadership.

The Venerables Thich Huyen Quang and Thich Quang Do were taken into custody and remain in detainment. Now, one of them is 75 years old. I have met with him in Vietnam. He is not a menace to society. In fact, he was nominated by over 60 Members of Congress in the year 2000 for the Noble Peace Prize. He has about 2 decades worth of arrests from this current government.

These actions are unconscionable but, unfortunately, they are nothing new. The Vietnamese government has routinely used intimidation, harassment, and imprisonment to punish individuals who choose to practice their own faith.

I recently spoke with a high-ranking Vietnamese official regarding the crackdown on the church, and about religious freedom in Vietnam in general, and he said, of course Vietnam supports religious freedom, but he failed to deny that, in fact, they have imprisoned the leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam.

I was informed that if these leaders want to practice their faith, they are more than welcome to do so as members of the State-authorized Buddhist Church. Having the option of joining only one State-sponsored Buddhist

Church is a far cry, in my opinion, of religious freedom. And enduring decades of imprisonment for peacefully practicing one's faith is not religious freedom. Vietnam has a long way to go.

So, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Doing so will not only send a strong message to the Vietnamese government that its actions are not going unnoticed, but it will reinforce the human rights standards that we expect of Vietnam as we move forward in strengthening our bilateral relationship with them.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 427) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the courageous leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and the urgent need for religious freedom and related human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

I rise in support of H. Res. 427 regarding the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam. This resolution congratulates the newly appointed leadership of this Buddhist Church and notes the persecutions faced by the church during the past 3 decades and urges the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to comply with its own constitutional and international pledges to protect rights of religious belief and practice.

According to the State Department, the Vietnamese government ``continues to maintain broad legal and policy restrictions on religious freedom and to ban and actively discourage participation in what it regards as illegal religious groups, including the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam.'' The most recent Country Reports on Human Rights Practices notes that religious and organizational activities by Buddhist monks associated with this church are illegal and that all of this Buddhist church's activities outside of private temple worship have been proscribed by the government.

The plight of the Unified Buddhist Church is perhaps most poignantly symbolized by the enforced isolation endured by some of its senior clerics over the past 2\1/2\ decades, notwithstanding their advanced age and sometimes frail health. Inspired by their examples of nonviolence and courage, we reaffirm our belief in the rights of all people to worship and to organize their religious communities according to the dictates of conscience, free from state coercion.

At the same time, it is important to note that H. Res. 427 is not merely critical of past transgressions. It is also aspirational. In addition to citing the Constitution of Vietnam, which formally protects religious freedom of belief, it notes certain extremely modest but welcome developments earlier this year.

This past spring the Vietnamese government allowed the Fourth Supreme Patriarch of the Buddhist Church to travel to Hanoi to seek urgent medical care and also ended the long-standing detention ordered against the Venerable Thich Quang Do. During that period the Vietnamese Prime Minister reportedly met with the Supreme Patriarch and made statements that some

hoped would presage an era of increased governmental openness towards the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam.

Unfortunately, those statements have not yet borne practical dividends, and just last month there were indications of a renewed crackdown in the Buddhist leadership, including the return of numerous senior clerics to effective detention. At a time when Vietnam is admittedly undergoing many transformations that are progressive, we urge the government of that nation to trust its citizens with the basic freedoms that they deserve.

I would like to thank the personnel of the United States Department of State and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom who worked with our committee staff and with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the sponsor, to update and refine the language of the original resolution. The text before us is a thoughtful, accurate product that deserves the support of this body.

Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California for her wonderful leadership on this initiative and also that of her colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his profound statement and for his leadership on so many human rights issues as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Speaker, I would only conclude with the observation that there are very important abstract principles at issue here but they are made concrete by references to individuals which the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has just done. Individuals matter because it is with the individual that the picture at large can be revealed. So we care about the individuals in this particular instance as well as the principle of the freedom of religion.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush and his Administration have begun a new relationship with the communist regime in Vietnam. Recently, the Vietnamese Defense Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister traveled to Washington for historic visits with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell. Shortly thereafter, the U.S.S. Vandegrift entered the port of Ho Chi Minh City, the first U.S. warship to visit Vietnam since the end of the Vietnam War nearly three decades ago.

This newly forged friendship between the Bush administration and the communist regime in Vietnam comes amidst continuous reports of human rights violations committed by the Vietnamese government.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reports that almost forty Buddhist monks and lay leaders are in prison, under house arrest, or in re-education camps, as well as twenty Hmong Protestants and at least ten Catholic priests in detention.

Freedom of speech in Vietnam is just as bad. According to a report by the Campaign for Freedom of Expression and Information in Vietnam, Vietnam's 500-plus newspapers and magazines are state-owned and vigorously censored while 2,000 of Vietnam's 5,000 websites are currently blocked for disseminating messages the state has deemed ``subversive'' or ``reactionary.'' Worse yet is the case of a Vietnamese writer and journalist imprisoned just after he submitted written testimony to a Congressional Members' briefing that I sponsored.

Yet, every time I write the State Department, I get the same response, but no action, just as the letter I am submitting for the Record today. The State Department tells me, in their words, ``we share your serious concern'' and are ``deeply troubled by the restrictions that the Government of Vietnam places on its citizens' freedom of expression, as well as other human rights.'' They tell me that ``[p]romoting human rights is a priority in our bilateral relations with Vietnam.''

If promoting human rights in Vietnam really is a priority for the Bush Administration, why are they having friendly meetings with high- level Vietnamese officials without initially demanding protection of human rights?

Why is the Bush Administration not, instead, condemning the communist regime in Vietnam for issuing a statement that attacks a human rights resolution this body passed with an overwhelming vote of 409-13? That Vietnamese statement, which I submit for the Record today, alleges that our Congressional resolution contains ``false'' and ``inaccurate'' information. Yet, our resolution is backed by reports from various respected human rights organizations, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and the U.S. State Department. Instead of condemning the reckless statement from Vietnam, the Bush Administration is embracing a communist regime it admits is a human rights violator.

The Bush Administration's hypocrisy and apathetic attitude towards human rights is unacceptable. As long as the people of Vietnam are oppressed, abused, and imprisoned, our President should not get friendly with a communist regime without first demanding protection of human rights.

U.S. Department of State,

Washington, DC, January 13, 2004.

Hon. Zoe Lofgren,

House of Representatives.

Dear Ms. Lofgren: This is in response to your December 30,

2003 letter to Secretary Powell concerning detained dissident

Mr. Nguyen Vu Binh in Vietnam. We share your serious concern

over his recent sentence and ongoing detention.

The Department strongly condemned the harsh sentence given

to Binh on December 30, 2003. No individual should be

imprisoned for the peaceful expression of his views. The

sentencing of Binh clearly violates international standards

for the protection of human rights, including freedom of

expression. The U.S. Embassy sent an officer to the court,

but he was unable to gain access to the trial, despite

repeated oral and written requests to the Vietnamese

Government.

We are deeply troubled by the restrictions that the

Government of Vietnam places on its citizens' freedom of

expression, as well as other human rights. These restrictions

violate international human rights instruments, including the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that

Vietnam has ratified. We consistently urge the Government of

Vietnam to adhere to its international obligations to protect

the human rights of its citizens. The Government of Vietnam

should release Mr. Binh and all others detained or imprisoned

for the peaceful expression of their views.

Promoting human rights is a priority in our bilateral

relations with Vietnam. We will continue to press the

Government of Vietnam to take steps to improve its human

rights record.

Let me assure you that our efforts to promote human rights

and freedom in Vietnam continue undiminished. Please do not

hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Michael C. Polt,

Acting Assistant Secretary,

Legislative Affairs.