Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished service of my good friend, His Excellency Le Cong Phung, who in October 2007 was appointed by President Nguyen Minh Triet as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to the United States of America.

Prior to his appointment, the Honorable Le Cong Phung served as the First Deputy Foreign Minister, the second-highest ranking official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during which time he assisted the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister regarding Vietnam's foreign policy.

From 2001-2004, he served as Deputy Foreign Minister and as the Assistant Foreign Minister from 1999-2000. During his 39-year career, Ambassador Le Cong Phung served in foreign posts in England, China, and Indonesia. He was also Vietnam's Ambassador to Thailand.

While in Washington, Ambassador Phung became a key figure in strengthening the U.S.-Vietnam partnership. At the Ambassador's request, it was my privilege to join him, former President Bill Clinton, Senator John Kerry, Senator John McCain and Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell in offering keynote remarks on July 14, 2010 as Vietnam celebrated 15 years of diplomatic relations with the United States.

With the support of Ambassador Phung and in my capacity as the newly elected Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment, I returned to Vietnam in 2007 for the first time in 40 years, having previously served at the height of the Tet Offensive in 1967. The visit changed me.

On May 15, 2008, in close cooperation with Ambassador Phung, I held a Subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Our Forgotten Responsibility? What Can We Do to Help Victims of Agent Orange?'' This was the first time in the history of the U.S. Congress that a hearing had been held on Agent Orange which included our Vietnamese counterparts as witnesses. Two more hearings followed on June 4, 2009 and July 15, 2010, paving the way for renewed commitment on the part of the U.S. to clean up the mess it left behind.

I am proud of Ambassador Phung and what we have accomplished together. Ambassador Phung has made an indelible mark on furthering U.S.-Vietnam relations and is to be commended for his exemplary service for and on behalf of the government of Vietnam. I am also appreciative of all he has done to promote religious freedom.

On a personal note, I will miss Ambassador Phung, and I extend to him, his wife, Nguyen Thi Nhan, and their two sons my highest regards and well wishes in all their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran to Bahrain, a U.S. ally and a member of a group of U.S. allies, The Gulf Cooperation Council or the

Mr. Speaker, I'm not wanting to detract from today's spirited discussion or debate on H.R. 1, which I will discuss at a later point of time in the day, but I want to discuss with my colleagues and the American people the current crisis now happening between the government of Chile and the people of Easter Island, also known as Rapa Nui among its native people.

Easter Island was settled by Polynesian voyagers about 700 AD. The island is famous for some 887 monumental statues carved out of stones weighing tens of tons. These statues are known throughout the world for their archeological wonder and mystery in terms of how these ancient Polynesians were able to carve and move these tremendous statues to different locations on the island. Less well-known is that Easter Island is home to roughly 2,500 indigenous people, known as the Rapa Nui Nation. The people of Easter Island carry a vibrant culture dating back centuries before the arrival of Europeans.

Like many other islands in the Pacific, Easter Island has had its sovereignty determined by more powerful outside influences. In 1888, the Rapa Nui Nation entered into a disputed treaty with the government of Chile. The Chilean government used the treaty as a license to treat the island and the indigenous people as property of the State. Chile confined the people to a small area, about 1 square mile, believe this, Mr. Speaker, today known as Hanga Roa. To this day, the validity of the 1888 agreement is contested by most of the Rapa Nui people.

Chile then annexed Easter Island in 1933 without the consent of or even consultation with the Rapa Nui people. The government of Chile unilaterally leased the majority of the island to private sheepherding enterprises, without the Rapa Nui Nation's consent.

The lands that were wrongfully taken from the Rapa Nui people have not been restored. Instead of returning the lands to their rightful owners, the Chilean government continues to favor private enterprises interested in exploiting the Rapa Nui culture for private gain.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, to the serious land rights disputes, several other issues threaten the livelihood of the people of Rapa Nui. For example, roughly 50,000 tourists each year flock to Easter Island to view these huge Moai statues. Yet the Chilean policies prevent the Rapa Nui people from benefiting from the tourism industry. Non- indigenous individuals and corporations possess most of the land, while jobs related to tourism often go to continental Chileans. Uncontrolled migration to the island has caused widespread unemployment among the native people, exploitation of natural resources and increased pollution.

Within this context, Mr. Speaker, the Rapa Nui Nation began taking a stand. In July and August of last year, the Rapa Nui people wrote several letters to the President of Chile, Sebastian Pinera, to negotiate a peaceful solution to the underlying problems of Chile's relationship with the people of Easter Island. The Rapa Nui people also began to peacefully reoccupy their ancestral lands, including the Hotel Hanga Roa, a five-star hotel supposedly being built by the Schiess family, a non-indigenous family, on ancestral Rapa Nui lands.

Mr. Speaker, while the Government of Chile attempted to initiate a dialogue with Rapa Nui individuals, the problem is that the Chilean Government also sent military police to this little island which is 2,300 miles from Chile. I can't believe, Mr. Speaker--we have 17 million people, good people, living in Chile--sending police forces to take control of this little island with some 2,500 Rapa Nuians and they have not even been given any consultation or even an opportunity to conduct consultations, serious consultations, with the Government of Chile.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the Government of Chile can begin a dialogue for ways to help the Rapa Nui people achieve a greater sense of self-determination and self-governance in their lands. I ask President Pinera to advocate for a more positive approach for partnership and dialogue with the indigenous people of Easter Island. It is my honest belief that the indigenous people of Easter Island do not wish any harm to the good people of Chile. Nor is there a possibility that the people of Easter Island will ever pose a threat to the military and strategic or national security interests of the people and the Government of Chile.

Mr. Speaker, I also hope that the White House and the State Department and Assistant Secretary Valenzuela will take a stand against these violent

evictions and express solidarity with the Rapa Nui nation, especially in light of President Obama's planned visit to Chile next month and Assistant Secretary Valenzuela's recent testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday. I sincerely hope that even our international community will build pressure on President Pinera and the Government of Chile. Let's treat these poor people with justice and give them an opportunity to live in peace in this area. I ask that the good people of America make this appeal and that the Government of Chile be responsive to this request.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the goal to cut spending and reduce the deficit, which is projected to hit $1.6 trillion this year; and I am very pleased with the approach laid out by President Obama. In his budget proposal for FY 2012 and beyond, President Obama is making the case for selectively cutting spending while increasing resources in areas like education and clean-energy initiatives that hold the potential for long-term payoffs in economic growth.

This commonsense approach will help bring down annual deficits to more substantial levels, but not at the peril of programs that are vital to economic growth, job creation and the well-being of our fellow Americans.

Madam Chairman, this spending bill, H.R. 1, which proposes to cut programs and funding under section 1729 and 1730 does not help our economically struggling fellow Americans through initiatives involving education, the environment and housing and employment. It

will cut critical programs and projects that are essential to economic development and job creation, not only in the 50 States, but also in the insular areas.

Madam Chairman, in particular, the proposed bill will cut approximately $6.6 million from the current budget outlays for the Department of the Interior's Office of Insular Affairs. These cuts also include an 8 percent reduction for technical assistance, and about 4 percent reduction of OIA salaries and expenses.

Madam Chairman, the OIA budget has maintained relatively constant funding levels since FY 1998, despite disproportionate need for improvements in the territories. For instance, the OIA Office General Technical Assistance program provides critical support not otherwise available to insular areas, combating deteriorating economic and fiscal conditions and to maintain momentum needed to make and sustain meaningful systematic changes.

Reduction in the OIA and the compact association funding will translate to cuts to the vital projects including, but are not limited to, these projects which foster development of the insular areas in accountability, financial management, tax systems and procedures, insular management controls, economic development, and also with regard to energy, public safety, health, immigration, the whole thing, Madam Chairman.

And, Madam Chairman, these projects are also critically needed funding for implementation of our obligations under the Compact of Free Association for the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia.

Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to continue support for the needs of these insular areas and our obligations to our compact friends in the Pacific.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Royce, Canseco, and McClintock amendments which seek to eliminate all together any and all funding for the East-West Center.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1, the base bill put forward by the Republicans, already cuts the East-West Center from the current $23 million to $10.7 million. But my friends across the aisle want to eliminate any and all funding for this institution.

While I will agree that we need to cut the Federal budget, I do not believe we

should carelessly use a machete, a samurai sword or a sledgehammer to discard programs that are necessary to protecting U.S. interests in this region of the world. The East-West Center was established by Federal law of the U.S. Congress in 1960. President Eisenhower signed the Mutual Security Act of 1960 which authorized its creation only after the State Department conducted a study and reported back to Congress about the relevance of establishing the East-West Center.

President John Kennedy also signed an act which appropriated additional funding, and every President since then, both Republican and Democrat, have done the same. Why? Because the East-West Center promotes a better understanding among the peoples and nations of the United States, Asia, and the Pacific region, and this understanding is critical to our own economic, political, and social interests, especially our strategic and military interests in this region of the world.

The Asia Pacific region is the world's most populous region, where more than 4 billion people live, currently more than 60 percent of the world's population. Two of the three largest economies in the world are in the Asia Pacific region.

Our trade and commercial relations with the Asia Pacific region are critical to our own economic interests in this important region.

Since the East-West Center is not solely funded by the Federal Government but also receives the majority of its funding from private agencies, individuals, foundations, and corporations, I agree that the Federal support can be scaled back, and this has already been done by the committee's mark of 50 percent deductions at the urging of this institution.

My friends on the other side want to go further than their own party by a total elimination of Federal funding to help in the operations of this institution. For the information of my colleagues here, more than 50,000 people from the Asia Pacific region have participated in East- West Center programs, including many who currently hold high positions of leadership, including heads of government, cabinet members, universities, NGO presidents, corporate and media leaders coming as eminently as they were participants in this important institution.

Mr. Chairman, I think the U.S. would do well to keep its seat at this table, and for this reason, I ask my colleagues to support the base bill and the committee's mark concerning this important institution.

And I do want to say that while I have the utmost respect for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they wanted to eliminate this institution. We do have an authorizing law that continues to provide for the continuation of the activities of this important institution that has done many things in promoting and to enhance a better relationship between our country and the countries of the Asia Pacific region.

I respectfully request that these amendments not be approved.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Ranking Member of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Ed Markey, for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I also like to thank Chairman Doc Hastings for his leadership.

Every year, thousands of federal rules or regulations governing almost every aspect of society are conceived through the federal rulemaking process. Consequently, federal agencies perform quasi- legislative functions and, in many ways, serve as an extension of Congress. This notion of an unelected entity having such tremendous impact on society rests uneasily with democratic theory. For this reason, a critical feature in our democracy is to control excessive bureaucratic discretion and to ensure that rules and regulations promulgated by federal agencies are consistent with the intent of Congress as expressed in the law.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946, exists for this purpose--to constrain excessive bureaucratic discretion through procedural requirements for agency decision making, including setting goals and standards for regulations, and ensuring public participation through notice and comment. Other statutory rulemaking requirements applicable to a wide range of agencies include the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and the Information Quality Act. These statutory requirements established a clear process for agency rulemaking and standard by which the quality of regulations should be measured.

I appreciate the concerns of my Republican friends that there are problems with many federal regulations. Over the years, we have seen evidence of excessive bureaucratic discretion that result in federal regulations being too burdensome, costly, counterproductive and even prohibitive. Critics argue that mundane requirements have led to the ossification of the rulemaking process, which at times could mean years before the final regulations are put in place.

Meanwhile, federal regulations are derived from the laws that are enacted by Congress. These laws are put in place to safeguard public interest. Without federal regulations though, we could have situations such as the recent Deepwater Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The lack of regulatory oversight contributed to one of the biggest oil spills in the country, in which, the deepwater well released about 200 million gallons or 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, over a period of 84 days. To prevent such environmental disaster in the future, we need stronger federal regulations to ensure that appropriate standards are in place.

Mr. Speaker, I support a more common sense approach to federal regulations. Federal agencies should strive to protect the public interest and to ensure that proposed regulations do not stifle economic growth and job creation. For this reason, I am pleased that President Obama has ordered a government wide review of federal regulations to root out those regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.

As the lawmaking institution in our system of government, we also have a responsibility to ensure that federal agencies are given the resources and better guidance to formulate regulations that are consistent with the intent of the law.

Will the gentleman yield?

I was listening with interest to the gentleman's remarks and especially taking into interest the importance of the Clean Air Act, and I want to commend the gentleman for raising these issues not only with our colleagues, but the importance of why we have to make sure that this part of the element of our current laws are being sustained and upheld.

I think the question also is raised here in terms of this is not a new issue. This is really an issue that has been ongoing for years and years in terms of development versus conservation and the environment. I think the challenge for us as legislators is to see if we can find a sense of balance.

Currently, we have to import well over $700 billion worth of oil from foreign countries. I don't think our Republican friends think that we're antidevelopment. I think we are for development and in doing it in such a way that the sciences are there and in such a way that it provides safety and, at the same time, provides the kind of resources that are really needful to meet the needs of the American people.

And I want to again commend the gentleman for raising this issue, and I hope that in the coming weeks and months we will continue the dialogue and debate on this very important matter.

I hope that in the coming weeks and months we will continue to discuss this issue and, hopefully, our friends on the other side will understand our concerns.

Again, it's the challenge of establishing a balance between development and the environment and the conservation, and I think the American people are looking for answers to those issues and those problems.

Mr. Speaker, I generally don't come into the well to give speeches, and I realize our Nation is confronted with very serious issues in different regions of the world, for example, the current crisis in Egypt and the Middle East, our involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq, the problem of nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula, the global economic recession, and many other issues that are now before us.

This evening, however, Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues and the American people a particular issue that is now brewing in the Pacific region. It is the current crisis now happening between the Government of Chile and the people of Easter Island.

Mr. Speaker, Easter Island is a province of Chile, also known as Rapa Nui among its native people. Located some 3,800 miles east of Tahiti and some 2,300 miles from Santiago, Chile, Easter Island is one of the most isolated pieces of land on the entire planet, as you can see there with the arrow pointing. It is also the southeastern point of the Polynesian triangle, from the State of Hawaii north and as far south as New Zealand, with several other islands in between, including the Samoan Islands.

On Easter day in 1722, the Dutch explorer Jacob Roggeveen landed on the island and thus named it Easter Island. Today, Easter Island is best known throughout the world for its massive stone statues of ancient days. There are some 877 of these huge, humongous stone statues throughout the island.

They stand an average of some 13 feet in height with an average weight of some 13 tons. The largest statue measures nearly 72 feet in height and weighs approximately 145 to 165 tons.

Given that Easter Island is a remote location, many people throughout the world mistakenly considered the island to be uninhabited. However, Easter Island is a home with a population of roughly 5,000 people, but approximately half of those people are indigenous of Rapa Nui, or what was then known in ancient times, the island was known as Rapa Nui.

Mr. Speaker, Rapa Nui, the people of Easter Island are small in number, yet they carry a very vibrant culture dating back centuries before the arrival of Europeans. Their means of preparing food and living off of the land and their respect for family and nature are all ways of life dating back to the time when the first Polynesians settled the Pacific Islands on double-hulled canoes. Because all Polynesians are connected in this way, the people of Rapa Nui are very similar to that of other Polynesian people, such as the native Hawaiians, the Samoans, the Tongans, the Tahitians, and the Maoris of Aotearoa or New Zealand. For example, there's a strong connection between the older and younger generation and therefore a deep sense of respect for elders.

This is an example of a photo that shows a young man wearing traditional body painting which is used for ritual celebrations. This practice, which is characteristic of the Rapa Nui people, was passed down to him from generation to generation. The link between the old and young is further perpetuated through the study of genealogy. In the same way that the American historians study the founding documents of this Nation, the Polynesian people, including the Rapa Nui people, treasure and study their genealogy, which goes back centuries before, again, the arrival of Europeans. The point I hope to make is that the people of Rapa Nui, Mr. Speaker, their culture is still vibrant, and this is not a mysterious, uninhabited island as it has been thought of for all these years.

Like many other islands in the Pacific, Easter Island has had its sovereignty determined by more powerful outside influences. In 1888, the Chilean Government signed a disputed treaty with the leaders of Rapa Nui, and the treaty was organized in two columns. One side, written in Spanish, reads like a deed of cession. The other column, a phonetic transliteration of the native language, which did not even have a written form at that time, reads as a treaty of friendship and protection.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the poor people of Rapa Nui could not read nor do they understand the Spanish language, and therefore this so-called treaty of 1888 is highly questionable in terms of its substance. Decades after the signing of the treaty, in the early 1900s, the Chilean Government forced all the native people of Rapa Nui to live in one square mile on the island, thereby transferring the lands for sheepherding, and all such lands were deemed as property of the state. The island was later annexed by Chile in 1933 and, again, without any consultation with the people of Rapa Nui or Easter Island. This annexation was considered terra nullius, which means ``No Man's Land.'' On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, Rapa Nui was known as the ``Te Pito te Henua'' or ``The navel of the Earth.'' And as far as the people of Rapa Nui are concerned, there were people living on the island before, during, and even after the arrival of Europeans.

Mr. Speaker, Chile's current relationship with Easter Island and the treatment of the native people posed many legal, policy, and human rights problems. With the annexation of Easter Island in 1933, the Government of Chile unilaterally developed and adopted laws regarding the ancestral lands of the people, and the enforcement of these laws continue to reflect the nature of Chile's initial treaty and subsequent annexation--disputed, unclear, and still highly questionable in terms of the rights of these native people to their ancestral lands.

The Chilean law, also known as the ``Easter Island Law,'' is the current governing law for the property rights in Easter Island. This law provides for the authorization to grant land titles in favor of the people of Rapa Nui. It also prohibits transfers of real property to persons not of Rapa Nui ancestry. However, despite this clearly stated law, the administering authority on the island has conducted land transfers that directly contradict the law itself. To further emphasize how this action has disenfranchised the people of Rapa Nui, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that Chile continues to violate this law within the meager square mile of land called ``Hanga Roa'' that the native Rapa Nui people have been confined to since the early 1900s.

In addition to the serious land right disputes, there are several other issues that threaten the livelihood of the people of Rapa Nui. For instance, the people of Rapa Nui have no voice when it comes to residency and immigration to their own island. Each year, an increased number of Chilean nationals travel to and remain on Easter Island. Some roughly 50,000 tourists visit each year to see the ancient Moai statues. Despite the influx of tourists, Easter Island is also prohibited from having a television and Internet signal. The influx of travelers and residents have given way to massive unemployment among the native people, exploitation of natural resources, and increased pollution. Sustainability of natural resources is further threatened by foreign fishing boats which are allowed to fish around the island.

The parliament of Rapa Nui, clan leaders, and members have reached out to the Chilean Government through peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve the serious issues at hand. However, Chile has responded with efforts to create ``task forces'' and ``working tables.'' Despite these efforts, the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that there are many commissions that have not resulted in concrete resolutions, and the people--who have patiently withstood this treatment for decades--are no longer willing to tolerate it.

In July and August of last year, the clans among the Rapa Nui people wrote several letters to the President of the Republic of Chile voicing their concerns. They called for an end to colonialism so the Rapa Nui people can return to the people they were. The people of Rapa Nui also wrote to the Governor of Easter Island requesting permission for a peaceful demonstration. In the same time period, the clans also began to peacefully reoccupy their ancestral lands as a means to call attention to the need for serious constructive dialogue with the Government of Chile.

Mr. Speaker, Chile somewhat has made an effort to solve these issues diplomatically. In August of last year, the Minister of Interior visited Rapa Nui to announce the creation of ``working tables'' to address these issues. The

project was given 60 days for its outcome. However, despite this attempt, the very same month a squadron of Chilean armed police, or ``carabineros,'' arrived on Easter Island, signaling the beginning of a 6-month-long violent conflict between the local inhabitants and the police forces that the Chilean Government sent to Easter Island.

On September 7, the troops forcibly evicted the Hito clan from the Hotel Hanga Roa grounds. The evictions that took place on September 7 are well documented. And I must say, Mr. Speaker, not a very pleasant experience in reading some of the experiences of some of these young people. For example, these four children, ages 9, 7, 5, and 3; Mr. Eddie Hito, the father. And the children stated, ``My family was all sleeping at 5 in the morning when I heard a loud noise. Then 20 armed policemen entered into our room and held both my wife and I at gunpoint. I heard one officer radio that there were children, but his superior radioed back to proceed on with no mercy. In jail, they made us register all the children and forced us to sign forms.''

Another testimony. A nine-year old daughter said that when she awoke, police were aiming their guns at her and her younger brother. ``They overturned my mattress where I was sleeping with my brother, making me hit my head. The police threw me from the bed. They pulled my arm and threw me outside into their truck.''

The mother stated, ``The police didn't even give me a chance to dress the children nor myself. In that little time I took the two little ones. And without shoes, we were rushed and thrown into the police trucks and taken to the jails.''

``Only 2 weeks prior to this, the police had come to the children's school to present themselves as helpers and protectors. Now my kids are presented with the complete opposite. They see it as the police abusing their family. Now they don't want to go back to school or even to leave their homes. They don't want to go to school. They are worried. Every night they ask me if everything is locked up because they are afraid that the police will break in again and hurt them.''

Another testimony from Mr. Claudio Hito with his two children, ages 12 and 8 months. The mother made this statement:

``There were at least three policemen holding us at gunpoint. Claudio took the baby, and they still held us at gunpoint. My boy was at the other end of the room. The police were shining a light in his face and hitting his chest with their beating stick. They hit him until he woke up. He woke up disoriented and they ordered him to hurry up.

``The police physically threw us out, while threatening us. I had to change the baby in the police truck. I was using my cell phone light to change her, and they started to yell at me to turn off my phone, so I had to use the little light that seeped through the doors. And through the crack in the door I saw tons of policemen gathered outside.''

After the September 7 incident of last year, more evictions were conducted. The picture here is showing a man with a forehead wound.

Susan Hito made this statement in terms with her children, the same thing, being physically abused and physically assaulted by the police. These natives, Rapa Nuians, were completely taken by surprise in terms of the action taken by the police forces of the Chilean Government.

Mr. Speaker, this past Thursday, last week, Senator Daniel Akaka and I issued a joint letter to the President of Chile, Mr. Sebastian Pinera, expressing our concern over the situation unfolding in Rapa Nui or Easter Island, citing the failure of the Ministry of the Interior to seriously consider the legitimate land ownership claims of the people of Rapa Nui; the criminal prosecutions of Rapa Nui political leaders for their involvement in peaceful demonstration; and the ongoing disproportionate use of force by Chilean Special Forces against the people of Rapa Nui.

Mr. Speaker, the point is this: This is the year 2011, and this type of treatment should not be happening. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is happening. As I stated before, Chile's current relationship with Easter Island is disputed, unclear, and highly questionable. However, there is a choice to be made in how to address the many legal, policy and human rights issues that have stemmed from this unfortunate relationship.

I appeal to the Government of Chile to begin a dialogue for ways to help the Rapa Nui people achieve self-determination, economic self- sufficiency, and preservation of culture. We can learn, for example, how the Government of Nicaragua treated its people, the indigenous people of the Miskito tribe. We can learn from government-to-government relations how our own government has treated some 600 tribes here in the United States and in the same way that we ought to learn how we could better treat the people of Rapa Nui.

Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, gave the State of the Union message in which he mentioned Chile twice. First of all, he mentioned the efforts of an American who owned a small company that helped develop a special machine that helped save the lives of these 33 Chileans who were stuck in the mines. This man used his skills to save a group of people whom he had never met. In fact, even to the time when these 33 Chileans came out of mine, he took off for the United States, never bothered wanting to be recognized. President Obama also mentioned that in an effort to strengthen our ties with Latin America, he will visit three countries next month to discuss business relations and trade, one of which is Chile. This effort on the part of President Obama in Chile is geared towards strengthening our Nation's relationship with Latin America, and particularly our bilateral relations with Chile.

I appeal to President Pinera to advocate for a more positive approach for partnership and dialogue with the indigenous people of Easter Island or Rapa Nui. The Rapa Nui people are in danger of being exterminated from their own lands.

Mr. Speaker, this seemingly peaceful island, which is known throughout the world for its mysterious moai stone statues, is no longer so peaceful. Let me conclude my remarks by making this special appeal, personal appeal to the Minister of Interior, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile and more especially to the Honorable President of Chile, His Excellency Sebastian Pinera, to address the problems affecting the people of Easter Island or Rapa Nui.

It is my honest belief that the indigenous people of Easter Island do not wish to do any harm against the some 17 million people living in Chile. In fact, there are only 2,500 Easter Islanders who remain on the island. Nor is there ever a possibility that the people of Easter Island will ever pose a threat to the military and strategic or national security interests of the Chilean Government or its people.

So, Mr. Speaker, I make this personal appeal to President Pinera. I ask for a true demonstration of his leadership and capacity to exercise fair judgment and above all show common decency towards the safety and welfare of probably the most helpless people who currently live on this planet, a people who centuries ago were among the greatest in the world as navigators and voyagers of the Pacific region, a people whom scientists today can still marvel at their ability to build statues cut from stones weighing hundreds of tons, a people who only ask to be treated as any other human being would like to be treated.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 9, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, our hearts and prayers go out to our colleague and friend Gabby Giffords and her family. And equally noted are six of her constituents and fellow Americans who died as a result of this tragic incident, and several others who were injured and wounded at this time. We also pray for God's good grace and comforting Spirit to be upon them as well.

I deeply appreciate the initiative and leadership of both parties to bring this resolution to the floor for consideration, not only to give special tribute to our colleague and friend Gabby Giffords, for her courage and commitment to public service, but to also give us all an opportunity to seriously reflect on what we need to do to change the atmosphere, if you will, of what we do and say not only among ourselves, but to our fellow Americans throughout this great Nation of ours.

I'm not much for giving speeches, Madam Speaker. But today I felt it was important that our friend and colleague Gabby Giffords needs to know how much we all appreciate her friendship and admire her character and her courage to be an example of what true public service is about. One great lesson I learned from Gabby Giffords is her comment that words do have consequences. And I have also learned a couple more phrases--cut the rhetoric, let's lower the temperature in our discourse with one another.

And there is also an island expression that goes like this: E pala le ma'a ae le pala le tala--meaning while rocks and stones may deteriorate or erode, words never die. I pray we will find that balance and move our country forward to solve the problems our country is greatly confronted with at this time.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the tens of thousands of our men and women in military uniform from the U.S. territories, I just ask my good friend, the Honorable Speaker, restore our symbolic vote. That's all we are asking for.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed rules by the Republicans for the 112th Congress give unfair treatment to some 5 million Americans residing in the U.S. territories. In particular, it eliminates the rule that allows the Delegates to vote when the House resolves into the Committee of the Whole, and that provides for an automatic revote in the full House when such vote is the deciding margin.

The U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld the Delegate vote on the basis that there is automatic reconsideration of votes in the House when the Delegate vote is decisive. Automatic reconsideration preserves the House proper as the sole arbiter for changes made in the legislation that the House considers.

During the three Congresses in which the rule has been in place, the record shows that the Delegate vote in the Committee of the Whole has not in any way hindered the work of the House. From 1993 to 2010, the House had a total of 132 separate votes demanded in the House on first degree amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole. In the same period, only four such amendments were reconsidered as a result of the Delegates being the deciding votes. this proves that the Delegates vote does not impede the work of the House.

While symbolic, the Delegate vote is important for transparency and political accountability. It compels us, representatives of the U.S. Territories, to make public our views and positions on issues of national interest that are important to our constituents. Hence, the constituents are able to make an informed decision to elect those that better represent their views.

Above all, the Delegate vote underscores fairness and has moral implications for the institution and this great nation. As part of the American family, a disproportionate number of our sons and daughters are fighting in the U.S. military in defense of the values and principles upon which this country was founded.

A statistical profile of Americans killed in the war in iraq shows my district, the U.S. Territory of American Samoa, has the highest rate of deaths per 1 million population in all of the United States. Just last month, I attended the funeral of another soldier from my district killed in Iraq. Staff Sergeant Loleni Gandy, originally from American Samoa, was 36 years old, and has served in the U.S. Army for 17 years. He is survived by his wife and four young sons who now have to cope with the loss of their father. Like Americans in other States, the love and loyalty my people feel for the United States remains unchanged.

It is disconcerting therefore that under the new rules proposed for the 112th Congress, the Delegates are stripped of the power to vote in the Committee of the Whole. This is an affront to the tremendous sacrifice made by Americans in the Territories and further restricted what modest representation they have in Congress.

I urge my friends on the other side to reverse course and reinstate the rule to allow the Delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole.

Congressional Research Service,

December 29, 2010.

To: House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and

Wildlife, Attention: Jed Bullock.

From: Christopher M. Davis, Analyst on Congress and the

Legislative Process.

Subject: Amendments Reported from the Committee of the Whole

Subject to a Demand for a Separate House Vote or

Automatic House Reconsideration: 103rd-111th Congress

This memorandum responds to your request for statistical

information about amendments adopted in the Committee of the

Whole House on the State of the Union from 1993 to the

present on which a demand for a separate vote was

subsequently made in the House of Representatives or which

were subject to automatic reconsideration in the House

because the votes of the Delegates and the Resident

Commissioner were decisive in the Committee.

Separate Votes and Automatic Re-votes in the House

Under the longstanding practice of the House of

Representatives, first degree amendments adopted in the

Committee of the Whole House of the State of the Union and

reported to the House are not considered finally adopted

until agreed to by the House. The philosophy underlying this

practice is that the Committee of the Whole is only

recommending amendments to the House; the House proper is the

sole arbiter of changes made in the legislation it considers

and, as such, must act to approve or disapprove the

recommendations made by the Committee.

For this reason, when the Committee of the Whole rises and

reports legislation to the House, the House must vote on any

first degree amendments included in measure as reported. In

the vast majority of cases, the House, by unanimous consent,

acts to approve all of the committee reported amendments en

gros by voice vote, before quickly moving to the final

parliamentary steps of considering a measure. It is the right

of any Member, however, to demand a separate vote in the

House on any first degree amendment reported from the

Committee of the Whole, and Members sometimes avail

themselves of this right. There may be various motivations

for a Member demanding what is often essentially a ``re-

vote'' in the House on an amendment which a majority of

Members voted for only a short time earlier in the Committee

of the Whole. These motivations include, but are not limited

to, hoping to defeat an amendment unexpectedly agreed to by

the Committee and to force the House to expend time in taking

recorded votes.

As you know, there also exists in House rules a separate

and unique parliamentary mechanism by which an amendment

receiving a vote in the Committee of the Whole is subject to

immediate and automatic reconsideration in the House when it

has been determined that the votes of the Delegates and the

Resident Commissioner have made the difference in the vote's

outcome. Provisions contained in clause 6 of House Rule

XVIII, as adopted in the 111th Congress (2009-2010), state

that when the House is sitting as the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union, the Delegates and Resident

Commissioner have the same right to vote as Representatives,

subject to immediate and automatic reconsideration in the

House when their recorded votes ``have been decisive'' in the

committee. Rules related to the votes of the Delegates and

Resident Commissioner which were identical in effect were in

force in the 110th (2007-2008) and 103rd (1993-1994)

Congresses.

Results and Research Method

At your request, CRS conducted a search to identify first-

degree amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole

which were subject to a demand for a separate vote in the

House from the 103rd (1993-1994) through the 111th (2009-

2010) Congress. These amendments were identified by searching

the universe of House amendments in the Legislative

Information System of the U.S. Congress (LIS) using the term

``separate vote.'' These results were cross-checked with

demands for a separate vote noted in individual issues of the

Congressional Record Daily Digest.

CRS has also previously identified amendments that were

subject to automatic reconsideration in the House pursuant to

the terms of clause 6 of House Rule XVIII, described above.

Table 1 presents the number of amendments falling into these

two categories over the period examined. Material identifying

the specific amendments in question is provided under

separate cover.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 81, the Shark Conservation Act of 2009. First, I want to commend the chief sponsor, the Chairwoman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife, and my good friend, Ms. Madeleine Bordallo of Guam, for her leadership on this important issue. I also want to commend Chairman Nick Rahall and members of the Committee on Natural Resources for their strong support of this bipartisan legislation.

This piece of legislation underscores the need for the U.S. to maintain its leadership role in conserving sharks and the marine ecosystems of which they are an important part. The increasing amount of shark finning has taken an adverse impact on our efforts and warrants continued efforts from Congress to reverse these unwanted trends. Economic profits have fueled high demands for shark fins and have led to the exploitation of our marine ecosystem. Exploiters remove only shark fins and dump carcasses at sea. It is Congress' responsibility to maintain prohibition of shark finning in order to preserve the conservation of sharks and their corresponding ecosystems.

Congress enacted the Shark Finning Prohibition of 2000, to prohibit fishermen from removing the fins of sharks and discarding the carcasses at sea, and prevent the transportation of shark fins without the corresponding carcasses. Effective enforcement of these prohibitions are found wanting.

In 2008, the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals held that the shark finning prohibitions and related implementing regulations promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) do not apply to certain vessels even though they are performing fishing-related activities. According to the court ruling, the statutory definition of ``fishing vessel'' did not offer fair notice to the fishermen engaging in the at- sea purchase and transfer of shark fins that would render the fishermen subject to the shark finning laws. In effect, the court ruled that the application of the prohibition laws under the Shark Finning Prohibition of 2008 Act violates due process.

The bill before us today, H.R. 81, remedies the problem presented by the 2008 court ruling. The proposed language clarifies that all vessels, not just fishing vessels, are prohibited from having custody, control, or possession of shark fins without the corresponding carcass, thereby eliminating the unexpected loophole related to the transport of shark fins. n addition, the proposed bill would strengthen the capacity of our Federal Government to better monitor and enforce existing laws.

Madam Speaker, it is necessary that we pass this legislation immediately given the devastation confronting our national marine ecosystems. Sharks play an integral role in our ecosystem and it is our responsibility to ensure that they are protected. The future of our ecosystem is in our hands and we need to do all that we can for the sake of our natural resources and for our future generations.

I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 81.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 3447, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010.

First I want to thank the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and my very good friend, Senator Daniel Akaka, for his leadership and for continuing to look out for the needs of our veterans. I also want to thank the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Walter Minnick, for his work on this important issue.

The bill, S. 3447, embodies Congress' responsibility to those that have served and fought in defense of this great Nation. Since the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944, or the original GI Bill, Congress has continued to provide assistance through a myriad of programs designed to meet the many critical needs of our veterans. And service members. These programs include the construction of additional hospitals; extending educational assistance to disabled and non- disabled veterans; providing access to loans for home, business, and farm; job counseling and placement services and unemployment benefits.

The bill before us today, S. 3447, underscores this continued responsibility. It will make several improvements to the existing Post- 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Program, or the Post-9/11 GI Bill of 2008.

Among other improvements, S. 3447 will modify eligibility for entitlements to educational assistance; the amount of assistance and types of approved program of education; and assistance for licensure and certification tests.

Under the proposed legislation, individuals, who have been discharged or released from the Armed Forces, will be able to transfer unused education benefits to family members or dependents. Those pursuing a college degree or certificate through an accredited distance learning program will also be eligible for educational assistance. Eligible individuals entitled to supplemental educational assistance for additional service under the Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty, MGIB-AD, may also receive remaining payments if the individual elects to receive benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Veterans with service-connected disabilities will be eligible to choose the national average of BAH, or the DOD benefit to provide housing compensation, in lieu of the monthly subsistence allowance currently authorized. Commissioned officers in the Public Health Service, PHS, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, may also transfer Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to their dependents.

Overall, this piece of legislation provides the opportunity for veterans and servicemembers to maximize their benefits and to ensure that their needs are met. And again I thank Senator Akaka for his leadership on this important piece of legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I do want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and I want to state for the record I associate myself with the comments and the position taken by the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee concerning this issue that is now before the House.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the past 60 years, in my opinion, has been something that not only has got the attention of the entire world, it is trying to find a solution to the current issues and the problems existing between the Israeli and the Palestinian people. I also want to commend the Obama administration and certainly Secretary Clinton for initiating the efforts to continue the negotiation process in trying to find a peaceful solution to the current problem existing between Israel and the Palestinian people.

One thing that is quite certain, that is at least a sense of consensus and agreement, is the fact that we recognize that yes, Palestine should be given as an independent and sovereign state just as much as there should be proper recognition of Israel as a sovereign and an independent state. I think the points that have been taken by my good friend, the gentleman from Texas; Mr. Berman; and also my colleagues from New York, Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Engel, are well taken. And I just want to urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

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.

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

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.