Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Dear Friends:

The Vietnam Human Rights bill (HR-1587) was debated at the House of Representatives on July 13, 2003 and will be brought for a vote on Monday, July 19.

As a number of US Congressmen said in their statements, approving this bill will risk damaging relationship with Vietnam and bring about unexpected and unwanted consequences.

We urge you act in your capacity to prevent the approval of this bill.

Please find bellow statements of the Congressmen who rose in opposition to the bill.

Thank you very much for your support and friendship.

Embassy of Vietnam

--------------------

Statement of Congressman Lane Evans on H.R. 1587; July 13, 2004

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my longtime colleague and friend Chris Smith. We have worked together for the veterans of America for many years. However, I do not see eye to eye with him, when it comes to the best way to address human rights in Vietnam. I am afraid that this resolution and the sanctions enclosed will damage relations. I also feel that this resolution will only embolden hard liners within Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, yes, Vietnam can improve its human rights record. But, I also realize that it is a very complex relationship. It is a relationship built on dialogue and gradual steps, not sanctions. Vietnam has provided unparalleled assistance to recover our soldier’s remains. Vietnam is working hard to protect intellectual property rights and improve the climate for foreign investment. Vietnam is also the 15th focus country for the President’s HIV/AIDS initiative. These are three important initiatives that would be endangered by the shift in relations under this legislation. Mr. Speaker, we can make progress with Vietnam, but this resolution is not the proper route.

The members supporting this legislation are good friends of mine and I respect their resolve. Indeed, I hope to work with them to further advance human rights in Vietnam. But I do not believe this legislation is the proper vehicle.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

-------------

Statement of Congressman Kolbe on H.R. 1587; July 13, 2004

Mr. KOLBE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
I have been listening with interest to what I think is a very spirited and good debate that we have had, but I do rise in opposition to H.R. 1587, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2003.

At this point, I wish to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, for the passion which he comes to the floor with and in which he expresses his views here. I know he holds these views very dearly and with great sincerity, and I do understand and respect the motivation for supporting human rights in Vietnam and other countries around the world. It is critically important we serve as a champion of human rights, just as we are in the case of Sudan, where tomorrow evening I and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) will go in an effort to try to take a look and to bring the attention of the world to the human rights violations which are taking place there today.

However, I would point out that, even as we act as a champion of human rights around the world, that does not provide us carte blanche to undertake bad policy. In 1995, we embarked on a new path with Vietnam. Many opposed that at the time. I supported it. I thought it was the right thing to do. We chose to take a direction towards better political, economic, and consular relations.
In making that decision, we recognized the need to encourage the development of Vietnam as a prosperous country and to encourage Vietnam to move on a path towards greater protection of human rights. We understood how important it was to integrate our former adversary into Asia's economic progress and ultimately into the global community.

Since we have started down that path, I think we have reaped important benefits. It secured Vietnam's cooperation on achieving the fullest possible accounting of the POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War era. It has helped to contribute to regional stability in Southeast Asia, and it has helped to open a new market for U.S. workers to the world's 13th most populous country.

Certainly the United States-Vietnam foreign policy relationship is one that still has many rocky moments to it. It is one that is still maturing. In some areas, we are certainly disappointed with the progress or lack of progress that the Vietnam government has made. I share the concerns about the human rights record, but I think this bill may actually retard our efforts in this regard, rather than accelerate them or help them.

While the House has passed this bill, or legislation similar to it, it has not passed the other body before; and just because it has passed the House before does not mean it is the right thing to do here today. The relationship has changed. It has changed in a way where passage and enactment of this bill could be harmful to the relationship of our two countries.

The bill's unprecedented definition of nonhumanitarian assistance is problematic in many ways, in ways that I am cognizant of as chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. For example, it would purport to reach some aspects of assistance provided under the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief. Vietnam, as I think my colleagues know, was recently designated as the 15th focus country under the President's plan, the only one outside of the Caribbean and of Africa.

Generally, I think this human rights act is a blunt instrument. I believe it will risk inhibiting progress in bilateral trade and affect cooperation on issues of importance to the United States, issues that are vitally important to us right now, counterterrorism, the POW-MIA accounting, which is ongoing, and HIV/AIDS; and I do not mean just the actual process of providing drugs but the technical assistance that could be affected by this. Also counternarcotics, which is vitally important for us, and refugee processing and resettlement.

I know there is a waiver authority in this bill, but to use that as an argument is simply to say that the bill has no meaning, so I do not think the sponsors really intend that to be the case.
In short, I think the imposition of unilateral sanctions is not going to lead to an improved human rights record and might actually harm the United States' efforts in our fight against HIV/AIDS, which is accelerating very rapidly in Vietnam.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Statement of Congressman George Miller on H.R. 1587; July 13, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1587 and urge a no vote by the House.

There is no one in this House who does not wish to see improvements on Vietnam's policies on democracy and freedom. I have visited the nation on four occasions in the last 5 years, meeting with everyone from workers in shoe factories to high-level government ministers. There are many and I would say a growing number of Vietnamese who share the hope of a more open and democratic society and who are working to achieve these goals.
This legislation will not help them.

There are many in our own veterans' organizations who are working closely with the Vietnamese on the POW/MIA issue. I have gone to the excavation sites and seen the close cooperation that has resulted in the repatriation of over 500 remains of their loved ones here in the United States.
This legislation will not help in that effort.

Our government is working closely with the Vietnamese to address the issues of infectious disease control, including AIDS and SARS, which are real issues because of the heavy travel between our countries. We know that many Vietnamese acted quickly in the case of the SARS crisis and controlled what might have been a far more severe pandemic.

This legislation will not promote improved cooperation on health policy.
Throughout Vietnam, in the aftermath of the normalization of relationships, the passage of the Bilateral Trade Agreement, U.S. businesses are investing hundreds of millions of dollars to build a better trade, to provide jobs, and to improve the economic relations between our countries.
This legislation is not going to enhance those investments or those benefits.

I have been working with the international labor organizations and U.S. companies to improve Vietnam's compliance with basic labor rights and standards, and we have seen improvements in many areas, although much additional work remains to be done.
This bill is not going to provide or achieve those goals.

On these, and many other areas, we are working to improve our relationship and improve the nature of the society in Vietnam for the benefit of its residents, who include the family members of millions of U.S. residents and citizens.

This bill will set back those efforts. It provides the harshest elements in the Vietnamese government with the rationale for reacting to our pressure. Does anyone in this Chamber, after our long experience in Vietnam, seriously believe that the Congress ordering them to change an internal policy in the nation, however desirous we may be of seeing that change, is going to persuade the government in Hanoi to do it because we so order it?

We all share the hope that Vietnam will evolve into a freer and more open, democratic nation. We hold the same goals for other nations in the region and around the world where records of human, labor and religious rights are no better than in Vietnam and, in some cases, worse.
Just earlier today, prior to this legislation, we considered legislation criticizing China, whose record on religious freedom, political democracy, and labor rights is certainly as unacceptable as Vietnam's, but it would not withdraw the nonhumanitarian assistance as this bill does. It urges them to improve their record on intellectual property.

We know why this legislation periodically resurfaces. We understand that there are areas in this Nation with large concentrations of Vietnamese expatriates who remain embittered about the outcome of the war and the government in control in Hanoi. Many of those same expatriates send hundreds of millions of dollars back each year to Vietnam to assist their relatives who still live in that nation. I understand their viewpoint, and I was one of the Congressmen sent in the 1970s to inspect the refugee exodus from Vietnam.

Statement of Congressman Robert Simmons on H.R. 1587

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I will place in the RECORD the text of U.S. Ambassador Raymond Burghardt's March 4 speech on U.S.-Vietnam relations, a letter from the American Chamber of Commerce Hanoi, and an article from the National Catholic Reporter following my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to H.R. 1587, the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2003, and I do so with the greatest amount of respect for my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. I appreciate his tireless efforts on behalf of human rights and religious freedom around the world; and as a Vietnam veteran, I very much appreciate his courageous leadership on veterans issues.

My concern with taking up this legislation at this time regards several issues.
First, during this 108th Congress alone we have had already three House resolutions that address alleged human rights and religious freedom issues regarding Vietnam. I cannot think of any other country that has as much negative attention by this body as Vietnam. Surely, there are other countries around the world that deserve a little bit of attention from us. I do not think it is fair that we spend this amount of time and this number of resolutions on Vietnam.

Second, Mr. Speaker, I believe we are at an important crossroads in our relationship with Vietnam. As we approach the 10th anniversary of normal relations, I think it is time to examine some of the good things that have occurred between our two countries: tourism, trade, educational exchanges. I think it is time that we begin to send a positive, clear message to the Vietnamese people that we are serious about working together in a positive and constructive fashion on issues of mutual benefit.

I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that I am a Vietnam veteran. I served there for 20 months. I spent almost 2 years there as a civilian, and I made a commitment as a Vietnam veteran to my fallen comrades and to their families to bring their remains home to their families.

I am holding in my hand a commemorative bracelet that commemorates Army Captain Arnold Edward Holm. Arnie Holm was born and raised in Waterford, Connecticut. He was an outstanding athlete in high school. He lost his life in June 1972 when his light observation helicopter was shot down in the central highlands. The family still lives in my district; and 2 years ago, they asked me to assist them in locating his remains.

A year ago, I traveled to Vietnam for the first time in 30 years in an effort to locate Arnie Holm's crash site. Working with both American and Vietnamese officials, we spent hundreds of man-hours in the sweltering jungle looking for Arnie. Although we failed at the time, the search goes on; and the only way we will ever be able to bring closure to the family of Arnie Holm is through the continued cooperation of the Vietnamese government.

I have seen firsthand their commitment to this important humanitarian recovery effort, and I thank them for it. My colleagues may be surprised to learn that since the Joint POW-MIA Accounting Command, or JPAC, began recovering American remains in Vietnam, 16 U.S. and Vietnamese officers have died. Eight Americans and eight Vietnamese were killed when a helicopter crashed on April 7, 2001. That is right. Eight Vietnamese officials died while searching for the very men that were killing their own countrymen 30 years before.

Up to May of this year, the U.S. and Vietnam have conducted 93 joint missions, resulting in the recovery of 822 remains. They have identified and returned over 500 U.S. personnel remains to their loved ones. That is 500 American families in 43 States that have been provided closure thanks to the Vietnamese, and that includes the family of Major Peter M. Cleary who lives in Colchester, Connecticut, just a few miles from my home.

If this program, Mr. Speaker, does not reflect the humanitarian spirit of the Vietnamese people, I do not know what does; and given the long and bitter experience that they had with the American war in Vietnam, their willingness to cooperate in this program merits special attention.

Just this past month, Jerry Gennings, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for POW-MIA Affairs, returned and said that the outcome of his discussions in Vietnam is promising and the Vietnam government offers us the opportunity to achieve significant results.

Last November, the USS Vandergrift returned to Ho Chi Minh City, the first time in 30 years that a U.S. Navy ship has been to Vietnam, and another ship plans to visit Danang this year.

I would also remind my colleagues that President Bush announced just last month that Vietnam would be added as the 15th focus country of the emergency plan for HIV/AIDS. The President said, ``Now, after long analysis by our staff, we believe that Vietnam deserves this special help. We're putting a history of bitterness behind us.'' Then he continued, ``Together we'll fight the disease. You've got a friend in America.'' The President of the United States has said, ``You've got a friend in America.''

This resolution before us this evening conveys no such message. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the intent of this legislation is to promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam; but the question is, does it do it in a useful manner?

The State Department has said this bill is a ``blunt instrument that risks inhibiting progress in bilateral trade, counterterrorism, POW-MIA accounting, counternarcotic and refugee processing/resettlement.'' They go on to say, ``Imposition of unilateral sanctions will not lead to an improved GVN human rights record.''

Mr. Speaker, I think we should be concerned that our own State Department does not support this legislation and is concerned that it will damage progress in our bilateral relations.

My friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), expresses his concern about the issue of human rights, and this is an important issue; but let us not forget the fact that for many years our country rained devastation upon the Vietnamese people and their country. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives were lost, many more wounded; and the countryside was devastated. Let us not forget that thousands of Vietnamese children are born today with birth defects, perhaps because of the millions of gallons of Agent Orange that we spread across their country, and let us not forget that the remains of tens of thousands of Vietnamese soldiers have not been recovered, even as the Vietnamese people help us to recover the remains of our own servicemen.

The issues of human rights cut in both directions. The United States itself must be held accountable for its own moral obligation to the Vietnamese people for our past policies and practices.

As the gospel of John says, ``He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.'' I encourage my colleagues not to judge the Vietnamese too harshly in the realm of human rights lest they judge us harshly in return.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are making progress in our relations with the Vietnamese people and with their government; and I believe this bill, in the words of our own State Department, is a blunt instrument that may do more harm than good. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to show the people that the war is over. It is time to bind up the wounds of the war and to show them, in the words of our own President, that they have a friend in America.