Calling on the State Department to list the Socialist Republic of Vietnam as a "Country of Particular Concern" with respect to religious freedom.

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

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana, for our co-management of this important legislation, and thank my colleagues, Mr. Royce and Mr. Cao and my good friend Mr. Smith, for their most eloquent statements concerning this proposed resolution.

I have no doubt in my mind in terms of the concerns that have been expressed by my colleagues, as well as the substance of this proposed resolution; but I do have some concerns. While I fully understand the concerns reflected in the resolution, which was introduced almost 2 years ago, it is based on what I believe is information that somewhat did not indicate the progress that Vietnam has made over the recent years.

I think if we look at the statement that was made by our current Ambassador to Vietnam, U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Mr. Michael Michalak, in his speech that he gave before the Human Rights Day Event at the U.S. Embassy and the American Center of Vietnam just this month, a couple of weeks ago, ``Another area where over the past 3 years I have seen strong improvements is religious freedoms where individuals are now largely free to practice their deeply felt convictions. Pagodas, churches, temples, and mosques throughout Vietnam are full. Improvements include increased religious participation, large-scale religious gatherings--some with more than 100,000 participants, growing numbers of registered and recognized religious organizations, increasing number of new churches and pagodas, and bigger involvement of religious groups in charitable activities. President Nguyen Minh Triet also met with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican, and Vietnam and the Holy See agreed to a Vatican appointment of a nonresident representative for Vietnam as a first step towards the establishment of full diplomatic relations.''

Ambassador Michalak first said, ``However, some significant problems remain, including occasional harassment and excessive use of force by local government officials against religious groups in some outlying locations. Specifically, there were several problematic high-profile incidents over the past year, including where the authorities used excessive force against Catholic parishioners in land disputes outside of Hanoi at Dong Chiem parish and outside of Da Nang at Con Dau parish. These incidents called into question Vietnam's commitment to the rule of law and hurt Vietnam's otherwise positive image on religious freedom. Registration of protestant congregations also remains slow and cumbersome in some areas of the country, particularly in the Northwest Highlands.''

Even so, the U.S. Department of State has not found that these incidents rise to the level of listing Vietnam as a country of particular concern, and I am confident that while recognizing and understanding the concerns reflected by the resolution and the testimony of my colleagues, the State Department will make a determination on CPC designation in keeping with the statutory requirements of the International Religious Freedom Act rather than in some responsive consideration in terms of what we are trying to do here this evening.

Despite isolated incidents which all of us oppose, Vietnam is a multireligious country with all major religions present, including Buddhism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Islam. Vietnam boasts the second largest Christian population in Southeast Asia. Vietnam has approximately 22.3 million religious followers, accounting for one- fifth of the population, and over 25,000 religious worship establishments.

According to the Vietnamese Government, so far the government has recognized 15 new religious organizations, including seven Protestant denominations, making the total of recognized religions 32. The state has assisted in the publication of the Bible in four ethnic minority languages, including Bana, Ede, Giarai, and H'Mong, and facilitated the construction and reconstruction of over 150 religious establishments.

Vietnam has four Buddhist Academies, 32 Buddhist schools, hundreds of classes on Buddhism, six grand seminaries, and one Protestant seminary. 1,177 religious leaders are actively participating in social management.

The Vietnam Episcopal Council officials attended the ad limina at the Vatican. Thousands of Catholic followers in Vietnam joined a range of activities to celebrate the 2010 Jubilee Year, including 300 years of the presence of Catholicism and 50 years of the establishment of Catholic hierarchy in the country. In June, Vietnam and the Vatican agreed to promote the process of establishing diplomatic relations, and the Pope agreed to appoint a nonresident representative of the Holy See for Vietnam.

The training and education of religious dignitaries and priests have been maintained and expanded. Throughout the country, there are around 17,000 seminarians, and Buddhist monks and nuns are enrolled in religious training courses. Vietnam has four Buddhist academies, of which the scale and training quality are being raised. Thousands of Buddhist nuns and monks also gathered for the great Buddhist Festival that marks the 1000th anniversary of the Thang Long-Hanoi from July 27 to August 2, and Vietnam is actively preparing for the Summit of World Buddhism at the end of this year.

In February of last year, the improvement of religious freedom in Vietnam was acknowledged by the Vatican Under Secretary of State, Monsignor Pietro Parolin, the Pope's Envoy, during his visit to Vietnam more than a month after House Resolution 20 was drafted and introduced. While I am no expert on Catholic relations with the Vietnamese Government, I do believe we should seriously consider Monsignor Parolin's views, since he is in a better position to speak for and on behalf of the Catholic Church, in my humble opinion.

For example, it is my understanding that some of the claims, again, of my friends of the resolution about the Catholic Church stem from land disputes and not necessarily religious disputes at all. Regardless, the Catholic

Church is moving forward in establishing better relations with Vietnam.

If one were to single out the U.S. Government's mishandling of the Waco siege in 1993, we might find ourselves at the receiving end of this resolution if other countries had chosen to take us to task when the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives failed to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian Ranch in Mount Carmel, located 9 miles east-northeast of Waco, Texas, at which time the siege was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which ended 50 days later with the death of 76 people, including more than 20 children.

This said, Mr. Speaker, Vietnam recognizes that it has work to do, and Vietnam is trying to improve its record on all fronts.

Last month, I was in Hanoi, where I met with His Excellency Mr. Nguyen Van Son, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and His Excellency Mr. Ngo Quang Xuan, vice-chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. We had serious discussions about religious freedom, and I can assure my colleagues that there is a strong commitment on the part of the Vietnamese Government to respect and facilitate religious freedom, and the central government is working with the local government to bring about this change.

Having visited Vietnam five times, Mr. Speaker, during my tenure as chairman of this subcommittee, I have also personally worshipped in Catholic parishes with local Vietnamese and, in the case of my own church, I can verify that the Government of Vietnam has been very supportive of the LDS Church as it seeks to establish official recognition in accordance with the laws of that country.

As a member of the LDS Church, I am always reluctant to oppose any resolution dealing with religious freedom because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only religion, Mr. Speaker, the only church in the United States against which an extermination order was issued sanctioning mass removal or extermination against American citizens. The extermination order was a military order signed by then Missouri Governor Lilburn W. Boggs on October 27, 1838, directing that the Mormons be driven from the State or be exterminated.

On June 25, 1976, after some 138 years, Governor Christopher Bond, who is now a U.S. Senator, issued an executive order rescinding the extermination order, recognizing its legal invalidity and formally apologizing on behalf of the people of the State of Missouri for the suffering it had caused the Latter-Day Saints. I thank Senator Bond for this.

Knowing the history of the LDS Church and the short-term and long- term consequences that the forced exile of over 10,000 Latter-Day Saints--all United States citizens--had on those before and yet to come, I am firmly rooted in the belief that each of us should be allowed to claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege. Let them worship how, where, or what they may.

So while I agree in principle in speaking up for religious freedom, Mr. Speaker, and I do with utmost respect, my colleagues and those who worked so hard in bringing this resolution to the floor--this year we are celebrating 15 years of diplomatic relations with Vietnam. As one who served during the Vietnam War at the height of the Tet Offensive, I know we have come a long way, and I sincerely hope that we ought to continue making this a better effort to establish good relations with this country.

On the matter of human rights, I hope we will also consider that the U.S. cannot assume, Mr. Speaker, the moral high ground when it comes to Vietnam.

What I mean by this is, from 1961 to 1971, the United States Government's military sprayed more than 11 million gallons of Agent Orange in Vietnam, subjecting millions of innocent civilians to dioxin, which is a toxin known to be one of the deadliest chemicals ever made by man. Despite the suffering that has occurred ever since, there seems to be no real interest on the part of our government to clean up the mess that we left behind.

I believe we can and should do better. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly oppose the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say for the record and to make absolutely clear that in no way do I have any disagreements with the concerns and the statements made by my colleagues and of their honest opinions and assessments as to the situation of religious freedom in Vietnam.

I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

In the spirit of democracy and bipartisanship, I would glad to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Indiana.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment and thank my colleague from Louisiana. In fact, it was a high privilege and honor for me to be part of our congressional delegation that visited Vietnam.

There were some very serious issues about even allowing my colleague from Louisiana to come with us because, as we all know, this government is not a democracy. It is still a Communist country, controlled by a party structure very different from ours.

What I did insist on of the officials of the Vietnamese Government was that, if my friend Congressman Cao was not going to come with me, then I wasn't going to go to Vietnam, and they did accede to our request. I think it was a real educational experience, even for the Vietnamese officials, to see that my good friend Congressman Cao was not a bad guy after all. I tried to stress the fact that, although we may belong to two separate political parties with different beliefs and understandings, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to be friends.

In the aftermath of our visit to Vietnam, more than anything, I would say that the officials of the Vietnamese Government were very impressed by my good friend Congressman Cao--the first Vietnamese American ever elected to this sacred body, as a Member of this great institution. I am very proud as a fellow American to tell the 90-some million Vietnamese people out there that this is what America is all about, that only in America is someone of Congressman Cao's caliber able to be elected as a Member of this body.

With that, I want to say that I am very, very happy to see him, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with reluctance, I rise today in opposition to H. Res. 20, calling on the State Department to list the Socialist Republic of Vietnam as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' with respect to religious freedom.

While I fully understand the concerns reflected in H. Res. 20, this Resolution, which was introduced almost two years ago on January 6, 2009, is based on out-dated information that is not representative of Vietnam's progress.

Also, a nearly identical provision, which was also flawed, already passed the House as part of H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which begs the question--why are we doing this again?

The passage of resolutions has real-world consequences and impacts our relations with other countries. At a minimum, we should give thoughtful consideration to best ways forward and channel resolutions through the subcommittees of jurisdiction so that agreements on language can be reached before we take up these measures on the House floor.

Regrettably, this was not the case with this resolution. The Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment, which has broad jurisdiction for U.S. policy affecting the region, was bypassed for the sake of maintaining a 2-1 ratio of majority to minority suspensions, and our own U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, the Honorable Michael W. Michalak, was not consulted. While I realize that we represent separate branches of government, I believe Ambassador Michalak is in a better position than any of us to know where Vietnam stands in its progress regarding religious freedom.

Ambassador Michalak, in his remarks at the Human Rights Day Event held at the U.S. Embassy and American Center in Vietnam on December 9, 2010, stated:

Another area where over the past three years I have seen

strong improvements is religious freedom where individuals

are now largely free to practice their deeply felt

convictions. Pagodas, churches, temples and mosques

throughout Vietnam are full. Improvements include increased

religious participation, large-scale religious gatherings--

some with more than 100,000 participants, growing numbers of

registered and recognized religious organizations, increasing

number of new churches and pagodas, and bigger involvement of

religious groups in charitable activities. President Nguyen

Minh Triet also met with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican,

and Vietnam and the Holy See agreed to a Vatican appointment

of a non-resident Representative for Vietnam as a first step

toward the establishment of full diplomatic relations.

Ambassador Michalak also expressed some concerns, which I also share. He stated:

However, some significant problems remain including

occasional harassment and excessive use of force by local

government officials against religious groups in some

outlying locations. Specifically, there were several

problematic high-profile incidents over the past year

including where the authorities used excessive force against

Catholic parishioners in land disputes outside of

Hanoi at Dong Chiem parish and outside of Danang at Con Dau

parish. These incidents call into question Vietnam's

commitment to the rule of law and hurt Vietnam's otherwise

positive image on religious freedom. Registration of

Protestant congregations also remains slow and cumbersome in

some areas of the country, particularly in the Northwest

Highlands.

Even so, the U.S. Department of State has not found that these incidents rise to the level of listing Vietnam as Country of Particular Concern and I am confident that while recognizing and understanding the concerns reflected in the Resolution, the State Department will make a determination on CPC designation in keeping with the statutory requirements of the International Religious Freedom Act rather than in response to consideration, or passage, of this Resolution by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Despite isolated incidents which all of us oppose, Vietnam is a multi-religion country with all major religions present including Buddhism, Christianity, Protestantism and Islam. Vietnam boasts the second largest Christian population in Southeast Asia. Vietnam has approximately 22.3 million religious followers, accounting for one fifth of the population and over 25,000 religious worship establishments.

According to Vietnam, so far the government has recognized 15 new religious organizations including 7 Protestant denominations, making the total of recognized religions 32. The State has assisted the publication of the Bible in 4 ethnic minority languages including Bana, Ede, Giarai and H'Mong, and facilitated the construction and reconstruction of over 1,500 religious establishments.

Vietnam has 4 Buddhist Academies, 32 Buddhist schools, hundreds of classes on Buddhism, 6 grand seminaries and one Protectionist Seminary. 1,177 religious leaders are actively participating in social management.

Vietnam Episcopal Council officials attended Ad-limina at the Vatican. Thousands of Catholic followers in Vietnam joined a range of activities to celebrate the 2010 Jubilee Year including 300 years of the presence of Catholicism and 50 years of the establishment of Catholic hierarchy in the country. In June, Vietnam and the Vatican agreed to promote the process of establishing diplomatic relations and the Pope agreed to appoint a ``non-resident representative'' of the Holy See for Vietnam.

The training and education of religious dignitaries and priests have been maintained and expanded. Throughout the country, there are around 17,000 seminarians and Buddhist monks and nuns are enrolled in religious training courses. The Vietnam Buddhist has 4 Buddhist Academies, of which the scale and training quality are being raised.

Thousands of Buddhist nuns and monks also gathered for the Great Buddhist Festival to mark the 1000th anniversary of Thang Long-Hanoi from July 27 to August 2, and Vietnam is actively preparing for the Summit of World Buddhism at the end of the year 2010.

In February 2009, the improvement of religious freedom in Vietnam was acknowledged by Vatican Undersecretary of State Monsignor Pietro Parolin, the Pope's Envoy, during his visit to Vietnam, more than a month after H. Res. 20 was drafted and introduced. While I am no expert on Catholic relations with the Vietnamese government, I do believe we should seriously consider Monsignor Parolin's views since he is better positioned to speak for and on behalf of the Catholic Church rather than Members of Congress whose information from third parties may be distorted. For example, it is my understanding that some of the claims laid out in H. Res. 20 about the Catholic Church stem from land disputes and not religious disputes at all.

Regardless, the Catholic Church is moving forward in establishing better relations with Vietnam, as are the Buddhists, although H. Res. 20 also mischaracterizes Vietnam's relationship with the Buddhists by singling out isolated incidents. If one were to single out the U.S. government's mishandling of the Waco Siege in 1993, we might find ourselves at the receiving end of a resolution like H. Res. 20 if other countries had chosen to take us to task when the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) failed to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian ranch at Mount Carmel, located nine miles east-northeast of Waco, Texas, at which time a siege was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation which ended 50 days later with the death of 76 people, including more than 20 children.

This said, Vietnam recognizes it has work to do, and Vietnam is trying to improve its record on all fronts. Last month, I was in Hanoi where I met with H.E. Mr. Nguyen Van Son, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, and H.E. Mr. Ngo Quang Xuan, Vice-Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. We had serious discussions about religious freedom and I can assure my colleagues that there is a strong commitment on the part of the Vietnamese Government to respect and facilitate religious freedom, and the central government is working with the local government to bring about change.

Having visited Vietnam five times during my tenure as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment, I have also personally worshipped in parishes with local Vietnamese and, in the case of my own Church, I can verify that the Government of Viet Nam has been very supportive of efforts of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as it seeks to establish official recognition in accordance with the laws of the land.

As a Member of The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), I am always reluctant to oppose any resolution dealing with religious freedom because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only religion in the United States against which an Extermination Order was issued sanctioning mass removal or death against American citizens. The Extermination Order was a military order signed by Missouri Governor Lilburn W. Boggs on October 27, 1838 directing that the Mormons be driven from the state or exterminated.

On June 25, 1976, after some 138 years, Governor Christopher S. Bond, who is now a U.S. Senator, issued an executive order rescinding the Extermination Order, recognizing its legal invalidity and formally apologizing on behalf of the state of Missouri for the suffering it had caused the Latter-day Saints, and I thank Senator Bond for this.

Knowing the history of the LDS Church and the short-term and long- term consequences this forced exile of over 10,000 Later-day Saints had on those before and yet to come, I am firmly rooted in the belief that each of us should be allowed to claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

So, while I agree in principle with speaking up for religious freedom and respect my colleagues who authored, co-sponsored, and who will vote in favor of this resolution, in the case of H. Res. 20, I must oppose. This year, the U.S. celebrated 15 years of diplomatic relations with Vietnam. As one who served during the Vietnam War at the height of the Tet Offensive, I know we've come a long way and that resolutions like this don't serve to move us forward but may have the opposite effect when we fail to acknowledge sincere and measurable progress.

On the matter of human rights, I hope we will also consider that the U.S. cannot assume the moral high ground when it comes to Vietnam. From 1961 to 1971, the U.S. sprayed more than 11 million gallons of Agent Orange in Vietnam, subjecting millions of innocent civilians to dioxin--a toxin known to be one of the deadliest chemicals made by man. Despite the suffering that has occurred ever since, there seems to be no real interest on the part of the U.S. to clean up the mess we left behind. Instead, we spend our time offering up resolutions like this which fail to make anything right. I believe we can and should do better and this is why I oppose H. Res. 20.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana and, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

This House--the people's House--has a simple choice today: raise taxes on families and small businesses or prevent a massive job-killing tax increase from going into effect a mere 16 days from now.

If you think our economy can handle higher taxes, if you think middle class families should lose roughly $100 per week out of their paychecks, then vote ``no'' today. Make no mistake about it, a ``no'' vote today is a vote for higher taxes, taxes that would devastate families and send shock waves throughout our economy.

If you believe we should stop this massive tax increase in its tracks, especially when unemployment is stuck at nearly 10 percent, then vote ``yes.'' If you want to be sure we don't extend the failed Making Work Pay policy from the failed stimulus law that has the IRS writing checks to people who pay no income or payroll taxes, then vote ``yes.'' If you are opposed to the Federal Government taking more than half of a family farm or business due to a death, then vote ``yes.'' And if you are interested in fundamental tax reform--getting rid of exemptions, deductions, and loopholes that complicate our Tax Code-- then vote ``yes'' because this bill gives us the time that we need to rewrite the Tax Code, cut spending next year, and get our economy back on track.

I know some of my friends want to wait until January when Republicans are back in the majority because they think that we can get a better deal. That is as misguided as it is politically callous. And let me be blunt. It's irresponsible to play a game of chicken with the Senate and the White House next year when middle class Americans are literally forced to pay $100 more a week in taxes and are forced to suffer even greater job losses. If this bill fails today, that's what will happen. Paychecks and jobs will burn while Washington fiddles.

If that's your stance, then I ask, What better deal could we get? People talk about making tax rates permanent. That's something I support. That's something every Republican in this House supports. But how does waiting until January, February, March, April, or May make that a reality?

The Senate voted yesterday on the DeMint amendment which would have made the rates permanent, and it failed 37-63. Last time I looked, we didn't pick up 23 seats in the United States Senate. And the President has flatly refused to sign such legislation into law. So again, tell me, how do we get a better deal by waiting? It makes no sense to gamble with the American people's jobs and the very paychecks they rely on to put food on the table and keep the house warm this winter.

Americans are suffering through the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression. This is not a time for political speeches or electoral posturing. This is a time to act responsibly, to do what is right, and to vote ``yes.'' Employers are begging us to pass this legislation. Small businesses and the National Federation of Independent Business are supporting the bill because they know they cannot afford a tax hike. The Business Roundtable which represents the largest employers in the country with over 12 million employees is supporting this bill because they know the economy cannot afford a tax hike.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is supporting this legislation because they know we cannot afford a tax hike. The National Association of Manufacturers is supporting this legislation. Economists across the spectrum, from the far left to the far right, are supporting this legislation, and so should the Members of this House.

By no means is this bill perfect. For example, I think we should have paid for the extension of unemployment insurance and, frankly, we will. I'm committed to producing legislation next year to revamp, reform, and pay for the Federal unemployment benefits our Nation provides. We should not have to choose between adding to the deficit and providing this important help, but we cannot allow that single concern to hold this bill up.

Time has run out. This is our only chance, and the harm to our economy and the hit families would suffer is far too great a risk.

And let's be clear, this bill is about taxes, longstanding tax policy, for that matter, and preventing a tax hike. It isn't about spending. Nearly 90 percent of this bill is tax policy, and that policy is aimed at preventing a tax hike for families and employers or providing direct tax relief to the American worker.

It also protects family farms, ranches and businesses from being hit by the destructive death tax. That will go as high as 55 percent next year if we do not act. Instead, this bill reduces that rate to 35 percent, while increasing the exemption amount from $1 million to $5 million.

Now, I know $1 million sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But think about the family farmers in your districts. Think about the costs of the big machinery it takes to operate and manage their land. Some of the combines I see every day in my district cost a quarter of a million each. That isn't cash in the bank. That's equipment in the field,

and the Federal Government has no right to take half of it when mom or dad passes on.

While I support a total repeal of the death tax, at least this bill makes significant improvements to the estate and gift taxes, and it deserves our support.

Members should also know, and the American people should know, that this bill does not contain new policy. New provisions were not snuck in late in the night or behind closed doors. We took a firm stand against new policy. We took a firm stand against policy that had not been renewed repeatedly and, as a result, more than 70 provisions, some of them my own, were excluded from the bill, well over $100 billion worth.

The most notable provisions of these we terminated were from the failed stimulus bill, like the refundable Making Work Pay credit, the Build America Bonds program, which simply subsidized State and local governments going deeper into debt, and grants in lieu of the low- income housing credit. None of that is in here, nor are there the usual Washington Christmas tree ornaments. This bill is narrowly focused on tax and unemployment policy.

Unlike the omnibus Democrats are preparing, there are no earmarks like the $2 million for an Ice Age National Scenic trail in Wisconsin. There isn't a $3.5 million study on subterranean termites in New Orleans, and there certainly isn't an extra $1 billion for the new job- killing health care law.

My friends, the election's over. Let's not start the next campaign here today. Let's make the right choice. Let's stop this tax hike from going into effect in 2 weeks. Let's put our constituents' jobs before our own. Let's show the American people we can govern and we can take yes for an answer.

So let's pass this bill with broad bipartisan support, as the Senate did yesterday by a vote of 81-19. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

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

I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

I yield 4 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

I yield 5 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say, the gentleman from Arizona who spoke is a cosponsor of the legislation that would reduce the payroll tax that would give the so-called pay hike to Members of Congress. But let me just say, this payroll tax deduction applies to every working American, just as the rate reductions apply to every small business in America.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that we send this bill back to the drawing board, work with the President, so that we can really help the unemployed, the 99ers, and not just grow the deficit. Where are the good Samaritans?

We have voted over and over for tax cuts. I believe in them. The House voted for tax cuts 2 weeks ago, but this tax bill is a budget buster and just growing the deficit, the same deficit that we're going to be called upon to do something about.

I want America to thrive. So they cannot be giving tax cuts to billionaires who do not want them. We cannot cut into the Social Security, costing us $120 billion and impacting firefighters, teachers, and police who do not get a benefit from the payroll tax holiday. I want middle class tax cuts, but I want the Republicans to stop holding us hostage for hardworking Americans to get a dime from this country. They work hard.

I offered an amendment to ensure that the corporations that are getting the tax cuts really do save a job or hire the people who are unemployed. With billions being spent and trillions in the deficit, it is time now to work for middle class Americans.

Mr. Chair, I have deep reservations with portions of this bill, especially as it relates to the estate tax and tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Nevertheless, I do support portions of H.R. 4853, to extend vital tax cuts for America's middle and working class and extending unemployment insurance benefits that will otherwise expire at the end of this month. I have consistently supported and voted for middle class tax cuts, as I did two weeks ago when I voted for the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010, and the extension of unemployment benefits.

I am deeply saddened that the fate of unemployed, low and middle income Americans has been held hostage by the insistence by Republicans that this legislation include a giveaway to the wealthiest 2% of Americans that is going to irresponsibly expand the already large deficit. I have spoken to and heard from many fine, patriotic, hardworking middle income Americans from Houston, from the great State of Texas, and all across the nation. Middle class American families and small businesses are deeply concerned about our troubled economy, the skyrocketing national deficit, high unemployment rates, job creation, and sorely needed extension of the tax relief and unemployment benefits set to expire at the end of this month. The American people are asking the President and Members of Congress to move swiftly and take decisive action to help restore our economy in a fiscally responsible manner. I am disappointed that Republicans have insisted on holding unemployment benefits and tax cuts for working and middle class families' hostage in order to benefit the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

I also have some serious concerns that the temporary payroll tax cut included in this legislation could jeopardize Social Security. Although this is a temporary tax cut, there will inevitably be debate in the future about extending it before its expiration, which could create substantial shortfalls in Social Security's long term viability. Future extensions of this payroll tax at the expense of Social Security could force hard-earned retirement benefits to compete with other government programs for funding rather than remaining self-sufficient. Tax cuts must be instituted without compromising Social Security.

I would like to thank President Obama for his determined leadership, support and commitment to protecting important tax relief issues for middle-income Americans and the nation's small businesses and farmers during these challenging economic times. I would also like to thank all the Members and their staff who worked diligently to bring this essential legislation to the House floor today in an attempt to do all that we can to protect the American people and move this nation toward fiscally responsible economic recovery.

I support those provisions of H.R. 4853 as amended by Senate Amendment 4753 that provide necessary tax relief to struggling middle income Americans. Under the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act, Senate Amendment 4753, middle- class families and small businesses will see their taxes go down. This measure contains job-creating tax incentives, including incentives to create clean energy jobs, energy-efficient homes, and investments in renewable energy. It also ensures that millions of Americans still looking for work continue to have access to an emergency safety net to afford basic necessities, without extending the amount of time these benefits can be claimed for any given household.

The specific ways that this bill will benefit middle-class families and aid the economic recovery include the following:

It preserves the current income tax rate for middle-class families (2 years).

It reauthorizes the current emergency unemployment insurance program (13 months, or through the end of 2011).

It continues vital middle-class tax credits, including the American Opportunity Tax Credit to help families pay for college, the Child Tax Credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (two years).

It helps businesses by allowing them to deduct 100 percent of certain investments in 2011 and 50 percent in 2012.

It extends the state and local sales tax deduction, which is particularly important for states, like Texas, which have no state income tax (2 years).

It extends Alternative Minimum Tax relief through 2011 (2 years).

I have already voted for all of the above benefits.

Unlike those provisions of H.R. 4853 which benefit America's struggling middle class, I do not support the provisions of this legislation which condition that desperately needed relief upon the unconscionably high cost of providing an unnecessary, expensive giveaway to the wealthiest Americans by providing a two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans while lowering their estate tax rate to 35% on estates valued at more than $5 million for individuals and more than $10 million for couples. These giveaways to the wealthiest Americans during these dire economic times needlessly add billions of dollars to our skyrocketing deficit yet create no value for our ailing economy since these tax cuts are not tied to job creation and preservation.

I offered an amendment that would require all large businesses and corporations who received a tax benefit under this legislation to report how their tax savings are being used to create or save jobs. Tax cuts for America's largest corporations must be tied to job creation or preservation, which is why I offered my amendment. Failing to tie tax cuts to job creation is irresponsible since it exacerbates our growing deficit without bolstering job creation.

I would like to add my support for the Amendment to H.R. 4853 introduced by my colleague, Mr. Pomeroy of North Dakota. This amendment would strike Title III of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4583 and amend the bill to provide two years of estate tax relief at 2009 levels. In calendar years 2011 and 2012, the estate tax exemption amount would be $3.5 million ($7 million total for a married couple) and the maximum tax rate on estates would be 45%. Additionally, the amendment would provide estates from decedents in 2010 with the ability to elect to be treated under the 2009 levels or to be treated under current law for tax purposes. This election will allow estates to receive a step up in basis on inherited property rather than the 2010 carryover basis rules. The exemption level and rate are consistent with the estate tax proposal included in the President's FY2010 and FY2011 budgets.

While I am opposed to the portions of H.R. 4853 that amount to an expensive giveaway to the wealthiest 2% of Americans, I want to emphasize that I fully support President Obama's vision for change. I share his commitment to fighting for low and middle-income Americans who are the backbone of this country and our economy. However, this legislation, especially as it pertains to tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans and estate tax provisions that are regressive and inflate the deficit, does not comport with this vision. I have serious misgivings about extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of our deficit, especially if these tax cuts are not targeted towards job creation.

I strongly support the tax and unemployment insurance relief that H.R. 4853 provides to middle-income families, small businesses and farmers. But, my friends, I must express my concern that this legislation does not provide extension of unemployment benefits for those unfortunate unemployed Americans who have run up against a brick wall. These so-called ``99ers'' have been sincerely looking for work for a very long time and have run out of resources to provide for their families and pay their mortgages, pay their bills and buy food. They simply want and need a job to pay for these obligations. H.R. 4853 proposes to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, yet fails to provide for the so-called ``99ers.''

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Democratic majority in the House has made it crystal clear that we stand on the side of middle income families, of unemployed workers, of small businesses struggling in this difficult economy. The compromise before

us clearly requires painful choices. These choices relate to each of the three criteria for judging the merits of this package: Does it add to the deficit? Does it promote economic growth? And does it promote fairness?

For decades, Republicans have unwisely promoted a view that tax cuts pay for themselves. So while making deficit reduction their rhetoric, they never have had any intention of paying for tax cuts which add to the deficit, plain and simple. Adding to the deficit is defensible if the bill meets another criterion: Does it promote economic growth? Adding to the deficit in the short term as a tool to promote economic growth that will, in turn, help address the long-term deficit has been the basis of vital actions taken by the Democratic majority, actions to stem the financial crisis, jump-start the economy, and save the auto industry. These were necessary steps, sometimes unpopular ones, and steps unfortunately not effectively articulated at times by the administration.

This bill does include important provisions aimed at increasing economic growth and jobs: unemployment insurance for millions out of work who will spend money received to keep their families afloat; the middle income tax cut; the temporary reduction in payroll taxes; and business provisions like the R&D tax credit, the new markets credit, and full expensing of business investment for 1 year.

Unfortunately, in their zeal to undo the Recovery Act, Republicans have insisted that we not extend the successful 48C credit for advanced engineering manufacturing or the Build America Bond program, working to rebuild our economy. The Republicans have insisted on provisions that violate the third criterion, fairness for taxpayers.

In order for the administration to be able to include provisions that help lower and middle income families, it came at the price of assisting the very wealthy, the Republicans' priority. Their position has led to a package where the top six-tenths of 1 percent of the very wealthiest receive 20 percent of the benefits of the tax package. My amendment would strike a blow at this unfairness by replacing the highly irresponsible and unfair Kyl estate tax giveaway. The resulting $23 billion in additional borrowing won't go to create jobs. It will be used to provide an average tax cut of more than $1.5 million to the 6,600 wealthiest estates next year. This represents less than three- tenths of 1 percent of all estates.

I urge my colleagues to vote to change this egregious piece of the legislation so the American people can see clearly who puts the interests of the middle class ahead of the very wealthiest. And then the Republicans in the Senate will have a stark choice that might be painful for them. It would make it clear whose side they are on.

I will accept the remainder of the bill because after the approach taken by Republicans in the House and Senate these last weeks, obstructing and holding hostage everything until they get their way on the tax breaks for the very wealthy, I am not willing to put the fate of the middle class and the unemployed in the hands of the Republican majority next year. Especially when voiced by the Senate Republican leader that their main priority is the failure of our President.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from North Dakota, a member of our committee, Mr. Pomeroy.

I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), an active member of our committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of our committee.

(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 15 seconds to Mr. Welch of Vermont, followed by 3 minutes to Mr. Jackson of Illinois.

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an active member of our committee.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a very distinguished colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from the great State of Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to a distinguished Member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I now yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

It is now my real privilege to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a very active member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I now yield 2 minutes to another active, distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

It is now my real pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

(Mr. GARAMENDI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the active Member from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished Member from California (Ms. Eshoo).

It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to a member of our committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who has been working day and night on this issue.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

I am privileged to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. I want to thank Mr. Royce for this very, very important and timely resolution, and both the chairman and ranking member, Chairman Berman and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for bringing this very, very important resolution to the floor as the session winds down.

Mr. Speaker, in early July, Nam Nguyen, this is Nam Nguyen right here, a Catholic from Con Dau, was savagely beaten to death for his faith by the Vietnamese police. His brother, Tai Nguyen, testified at an August Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing that police repeatedly kicked his brother in the chest and the back and on his temples. Of course, that means there are fewer marks on the face, but his body was riddled with punches and broken bones.

``Blood,'' he said, ``poured out of his nose and ears.'' Tai said his brother told his wife he couldn't handle the beatings anymore. The wife, seeing her husband's broken body, kneeled in front of the police and begged them to stop. In response, they punched and kicked him again and again and again, and Nam Nguyen died in his wife's arms, this man right here.

What was Nam Nguyen's alleged crime? His faith in Jesus Christ and his devotion to his Catholic parish. The entire Catholic community and its property in Con Dau, you see, is in the process of being confiscated or stolen by the Vietnamese authorities. The faithful are a ripe target for the atheistic Government of Vietnam. The proximate cause for the crackdown and unspeakable violence was the May 4 funeral of an elderly woman and an attempt to bury her in the town's Catholic cemetery.

Nam Nguyen was a pallbearer when the police busted up the funeral procession of over 1,000 people, beating over 100 mourners, arresting dozens, and deliberately beating two pregnant women so as to kill their unborn babies. They even tried to take the casket. The reign of terror on this 85-year-old Catholic community continues to this day. At least two remain in prison, and the persecution shows no sign of abating.

What happened in Con Dau isn't an isolated incident. According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, its annual 2010 report, ``Property disputes between the government and the Catholic Church continue to lead to harassment, property destruction and violence, sometimes by contract thugs hired by the government to break up peaceful prayer vigils.'' Now we know that includes funerals as well. Other faith communities have seen a significant spike in harassment, persecution, confiscation, and violence as well.

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, I led a human rights mission to Hanoi, Hue and Ho Chi Minh City. I met with almost 60 pastors, priests and leading Buddhists, including the Venerable Thich Quang Do, who was under pagoda arrest. All expressed hope and varying degrees of optimism due to an apparent easing of religious persecution in Vietnam.

U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom John Hanford told us that there were promises of further reform made and what he called ``deliverables,'' concrete actions by the Vietnamese Government that it said it would do in the area of religious freedom, coupled with a trade agreement, and all of that led to the lifting

of the Country of Particular Concern, or CPC, designation.

Do you know what happened then? Hanoi responded with a massive retaliation against both political and religious believers. Signers of Bloc 8406, the magnificent human rights manifesto promoting respect for the rule of law and nonviolence, a manifesto that parallels China's Charter 08 and Czechoslovakia's Charter 77, were hunted down methodically and imprisoned. Many religious believers who expected a thaw and reform and openness were arrested and in some cases rearrested and sent to prison.

Father Ly, this man here, is a Catholic priest and a prisoner of conscience for 17 years in jail, a man who committed no crimes. I met Father Ly when he was under house arrest in Hue. He was rearrested in 2007, held in confinement and denied emergency medical attention. So bad is he that even the Vietnamese let him out under kind of a humanitarian parole, but he is still under arrest.

Look at this picture of him taken at trial. Look at the animosity in the eyes of these guards. And when they get behind closed doors, Mr. Speaker, they beat and they break bones and they break heads, and it leads to death or permanent maiming.

Did CPC designation help mitigate religious persecution prior to being lifted? It appears so. The U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom notes that Hanoi released prisoners, it expanded some legal protections for nationally recognized groups, and prohibited the policy of forced renunciations, at least in some cases, and expanded the zone of toleration.

Congress, the President, and all of us who espouse fundamental human rights ought to be outraged at Vietnam's turn for the worse. We should stand with the oppressed, and not the oppressors. President Obama should redesignate Vietnam a Country of Particular Concern for its egregious violations of human rights. CPC, independently prescribed by statute, the International Religious Freedom Act, has in the past and can again be a very, very useful tool in promoting religious liberty.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, worldwide, Communist dictatorships either crush or seek to control religious organizations. I have seen this in my 30 years as a Member of Congress.

I remember in the early 1980s how the Romanian apologists, as MSM was coming up for renewal every year, would rush over and meet with Members of Congress. They would have very slick talking points about the number of churches and about the number of believers in Romania. All the while, people were suffering in the prisons, or the gulags, people who happened to be pastors or believers; and it was all part of a disinformation campaign.

I would say to my colleagues that Vietnam uses the exact same tactic. They will give you numbers. They will give you some fact sheets; but if you are a believer who is not under the control of that dictatorship and if you happen to be part of the Unified Buddhist Church, like the Venerable Thich Quang Do, and not the church or the unified or the Buddhist temples that are under the control of the government, watch out. They will be knocking on your door. You will either be under pagoda arrest or find yourself in prison. The same goes for the monsignors and the others who are evangelicals who are finding themselves being severely repressed in Vietnam.

Members really have to back this resolution.