U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

57–498PDF 2010

AGENT ORANGE IN VIETNAM: RECENT

DEVELOPMENTS IN REMEDIATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND 

THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 15, 2010

Serial No. 111–125

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Matthew Palmer, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East 

Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State ........................................ 8

John Wilson, Ph.D., Director, Office of Technical Support, Bureaus for Asia 

and the Middle East, U.S. Agency for International Development ................. 16

Nguyen Thi Ngoc Phuong, M.D., Director General, Ngoc Tam Hospital, Ho 

Chi Minh City, Vietnam (Former Vice Speaker of the Vietnam National 

Assembly; presently Member of the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue Group on Agent 

Orange/Dioxin) ..................................................................................................... 39

Ms. Tran Thi Hoan, Agent Orange Victim ............................................................ 46

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from 

American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and 

the Global Environment: Prepared statement ................................................... 6

Mr. Matthew Palmer: Prepared statement ........................................................... 12

John Wilson, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................... 18

The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Prepared statement ............................................................ 38

Nguyen Thi Ngoc Phuong, M.D.: Prepared statement ......................................... 42

Ms. Tran Thi Hoan: Prepared statement .............................................................. 49

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega: Material submitted for the record ...... 62

(1)

AGENT ORANGE IN VIETNAM: RECENT 

DEVELOPMENTS IN REMEDIATION 

THURSDAY, JULY 15, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC

AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The subcommittee hearing will come to 

order. 

This is a hearing of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, 

the Pacific and the Global Environment. A theme of today’s hearing 

that will be brought forth by our witnesses concerns the use of 

Agent Orange in Vietnam and recent developments in remediation. 

I want to offer my apologies to our witnesses for being a little 

late because of the votes that have just been completed in the 

House. I hope you are not being misled by the fact that I am the 

only member here because this is the nature of the work here. 

Members go in and out because of other commitments and other 

meetings, but I am sure that some of our colleagues will be coming 

in quite soon. 

So what I will do is begin the hearing by giving my opening 

statement, and we will then turn to our witnesses who are now before us. 

Last night, we celebrated 15 years of U.S.-Vietnam diplomatic relations, and I joined former President Bill Clinton, Senator John 

Kerry, and Senator John McCain in offering remarks at an event 

hosted by His Excellency, the Ambassador of Vietnam Le Cong 

Phung and his dear wife, as well as Assistant Secretary of State 

Kurt Campbell, and the State Department as they co-hosted the 

special event that took place last night. While this is a hallmark 

moment in U.S.-Vietnam relations, true normalization will not be 

achieved, in my humble opinion, until the Agent Orange issue has 

been addressed. 

Between 1961 and 1971, the U.S. military sprayed an estimated 

11–12 million gallons of Agent Orange chemical substance over approximately 10 percent of Vietnam. Some 30 years later we have 

not cleaned up the mess that we have left behind. It is my sincere 

hope that we will come together and agree on a way to make this 

matter right. 

2

This hearing is the third in a series that I have held since becoming chairman of this subcommittee. 

As a Vietnam veteran and an Asian-Pacific American, I am deeply committed to doing all I can to help the victims of Agent Orange 

because, like the people of Vietnam, our people in the Pacific suffer 

the lingering effects of genetic abnormalities that have resulted 

from the legacies of war. 

Specifically, from 1946 to 1958, the United States conducted 67 

nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands with an equivalent yield of 

more than 7,000 Hiroshima bombs. To put it another way, the 

equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima bombs was dropped on the Marshall 

Islands every day for a 12-day period. In fact, the nuclear test, code 

named Bravo, was a 15-megaton hydrogen bomb, the first of its 

kind, detonated on March 1, 1954. It was equivalent to 1,300 Hiroshima bombs that were dropped in Japan during World War II. 

This explosion was acknowledged as the greatest nuclear explosion 

ever detonated. The Bravo test vaporized six islands and created 

a mushroom cloud 25 miles in diameter. 

Because people were living on these Pacific Islands during the 

time of the U.S. nuclear testing program, people of the Republic of 

the Marshall Islands were also exposed to severe radiation poisoning. Even today, 64 years since the nuclear testing program 

that our Government conducted in the Marshall Islands, people 

from the Island of Rongelap are still exiled from their own island 

due to the radioactive fallout. Many women still give birth to what 

some people call ‘‘Jelly Babies’’—deformed babies who are born 

with no bones, no eyes, no heads and no limbs. They are very similar to the victims exposed to dioxin, a chemical substance in the 

Agent Orange we used in operations in Vietnam. 

While the Vietnam situation is different, in some ways it is also 

the same. During the Vietnam War, innocent civilians were exposed to dioxin, a toxic contaminant known to be one of the deadliest chemicals made by man. Dioxin was an unwanted byproduct, 

but it is thought to be responsible for most of the medical problems 

associated with exposure to Agent Orange. 

Just as the U.S. Government has questioned the Marshall Islands’ assertions about the extent of environmental and health 

problems associated with nuclear radiation, the United States has 

denied any legal liability and questioned Vietnam’s assertions 

about the problems associated with Agent Orange. But if you visit 

Tu-Du Hospital in Ho Chi Minh City and review the scientific evidence as well as the testimony of Dr. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Phuong, 

head of the women’s health department at Ho Chi Minh’s University Medical Center, you will come to know that we can and should 

do more to help the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange, just as 

we did for our own soldiers exposed to Agent Orange during the 10-

year period when we used this so-called ‘‘herbicide’’ at the time in 

the war. 

So far, the United States appropriated $3 million in 2007 and $6 

million in 2009, and a $12 million request has been made for Fiscal 

Year 2010. But this is pittance as far as I am concerned. Moreover, 

the greater portion of these appropriated funds has been used for 

environmental remediation, rather than for assistance for the victims. 

3

Today, for the first time in the history of the U.S. Congress, a 

Vietnamese Agent Orange victim will testify and share with us her 

story. Hers is like the story is like the story of many of our own 

U.S. veterans who were also exposed and yet had to fight and continue to fight for assistance from our own Government. 

As I have said many times before, after every war America has 

always made a commitment to help the affected countries rebuild. 

According to the Congressional Research Service, after Japan attacked the United States, U.S. assistance to Japan from 1945 to 

1952 amounted to about $15.2 billion in 2005 dollars. In Germany, 

from 1946 to 1952, the United States provided a total of $29.3 billion in 2005 dollars. And from 2003 to 2006, the U.S. appropriated 

$35.7 billion for Iraq’s reconstruction. 

Why aren’t we helping Vietnam more? Perhaps the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific 

Affairs from the Department of State, and Mr. John Wilson, the Director of the Office of Technical Support for the Bureaus of Asia 

and the Middle East of USAID, will shed some light on recent developments on remediation. 

At this time, I would like to offer my deepest condolences to the 

families of those USAID workers who were recently killed in Afghanistan. These individuals worked tirelessly in a dangerous place 

in order to improve the lives of the Afghan people. It is shameful 

that terrorists took their lives. In this life or in the next, my sincere hope is that justice will be served. 

Before we receive other opening statements, I want to welcome 

Dr. Phuong. Dr. Phuong, are you here? Dr. Phuong is the former 

Vice Speaker of the Vietnam National Assembly, currently a member of the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue Group. Ms. Hoan is a victim of 

Agent Orange. Both have traveled from Vietnam to testify at this 

hearing. 

What you may not know is that the U.S. Government does not 

pay for witnesses to travel or testify before Congress. Witnesses 

must pay their own travel expenses, and this has not been easy for 

our Vietnamese friends and witnesses. They have traveled at considerable expense and sacrifice, and I thank them for being here. 

Their presence highlights the importance of this issue to the people 

and Government of Vietnam, just as it is important to the people 

of our own country, especially to our veterans who were exposed to 

Agent Orange. 

The sad commentary about this is that it took so many years for 

our own Government to admit that because of the exposure of our 

soldiers and our military men and women in uniform, only just recently has the U.S. Government begun to accept the fact that our 

own soldiers were also exposed and severely affected health-wise 

just as the people of Vietnam were also exposed to this tragic situation. 

I want to say that I don’t glory myself in saying that because I 

served in Vietnam I am some kind of a hero. No, I was just one 

of the 500,000 grunts that were there because Uncle Sam said to 

go there and serve and defend this country. I would venture to say 

that 99 percent of the American people never realized the complexity of the situation in Vietnam or the historical events and sitVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:49 Dec 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\071510\57498 HFA PsN: SHIRL
4

uation affecting the people of this region of the world that we know 

very little about. 

For some 100 years, Vietnam was colonized and exploited by the 

French. During President Dwight Eisenhower’s administration, the 

French Government requested American military assistance to 

fight the Vietnamese who, under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh, 

were simply struggling for their independence from French colonial 

rule. I would say 99 percent of the American people never knew 

that this is what was going on in Asia and this part of the world. 

In fact, it is my understanding that President Eisenhower refused 

to help the French in Vietnam for the simple reason that the 

French exploitation and colonial policies of Vietnam, as well as 

Laos and Cambodia, went against the ideals upon which this country was founded as a former colony of the British Empire. 

Subsequently, in 1954, long before American intervention in 

Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh led his people to fight against French colonialism, in the famous battle of Dien Bien Phu. Ho Chi Minh simply wanted to get rid of 100 years of French colonialism and establish a better life for his own people. Regrettably, from the time 

when the U.S. entered the fray in 1955 until the Nixon administration withdrew U.S. troops in 1975, millions of U.S. troops served 

in Vietnam and more than 58,000 killed. Three to four million Vietnamese were also killed, as were 1.5–2 million Laotians and Cambodians. For what, we ask? 

As a result of this horrific war, the U.S.-Vietnam diplomatic and 

economic relationship was severed for more than 20 years following 

North Vietnam’s victory in 1975. President Bill Clinton finally announced the normalization of diplomatic relations with Vietnam on 

July 11, 1995. Prior to this, President Clinton had announced the 

end of the U.S. trade embargo in 1994; 2 months later the U.S. 

Congress passed a Foreign Relations Authorization Act containing 

a sense of the Senate resolution expressing the Chamber’s support 

for normalization of relations with Vietnam. 

In 1997, President Clinton appointed the first post-war Ambassador to Vietnam. He also signed the landmark U.S.-Vietnam bilateral trade agreement in 2000. I might note that my former colleague who also served as a member of this committee, Congressman Pete Peterson, a former prisoner of war, was appointed U.S. 

Ambassador to Vietnam at that time. Vietnam did its part, proving 

cooperative with POW and MIA refugee issues and moving forward 

in ongoing reform efforts. 

We applaud former President Clinton for his visionary leadership 

which has led to this moment, and I also commend Ambassador Le 

Cong Phung for the tremendous service that he has given to his 

country as Ambassador to our country. And I would be remiss if 

I did not mention again the names of Senators John McCain and 

also Senator Kerry for their willingness to take up the leadership 

and commitment despite the horrific effects of the war that affected 

them physically and mentally in every way. But these men stood 

their ground in saying it was time for us to put things in the past 

and look at things in the forward and reestablish normal relations 

with the people of Vietnam. 

I made a comment last night at the event that I am sure President Clinton must have thought very hard about how so many bitVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:49 Dec 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\071510\57498 HFA PsN: SHIRL
5

ter memories of veterans have come back from war. Many could 

never forgive whatever happens. You can talk about atrocities, but 

I don’t think you can say that one side ever could declare themselves to be angels in this regard. But I must say that these two 

gentlemen, Senator McCain and Senator Kerry, ought to be given 

every credit for their willingness to step up and do what was right, 

and that was to push for normalized relations with the Republic of 

Vietnam. I say if it was possible after fighting a bitter war in 

World War II with Japan, against Japan and against Germany, 

then certainly it is possible that we can do the same thing with the 

people of Vietnam. 

Today, economic ties are the most mature aspect of our bilateral relationship. It is about a $15 billion trade right now from last 

year, 10 times over 10 years ago, but I do believe that we can do 

better. With all the harm that has been done, Isincerely hope—I 

don’t know where this is going to take us. Some people have asked 

me, why are you doing this? I want to say with the deepest regret 

that one of the great supporters of this effort to build a record and 

to say before the American people that we have done something 

here that we need to correct, my dear friend, the late Congressman 

and chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Jack Murtha, was also willing to give his support when I 

was in the process of building this record, this being the third now 

of a series of holding these hearings, in the process hopefully that 

we will establish better reasons to justify why we need to have U.S. 

commitment to give more assistance on this tragic event. 

I now have with us two distinguished gentlemen of our administration, the State Department, here with us to testify. Mr. Matthew 

Palmer, a career member of the Foreign Service, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Southeast Asia, with the Bureau of East Asian and 

Pacific Affairs. Prior to that assignment, Mr. Palmer was the Director of the Southern Caucasus, the Aegean and Nordic Affairs at the 

National Security Council. His previous assignments in Washington include 3 years on the Secretary’s Policy Planning staff in 

Yugoslavia. My gosh, you were in Europe and now you are in Asia. 

How do you become an expert overnight like this, Mr. Palmer? 

Mr. Palmer is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, did 

his graduate studies at Wesleyan University, and also has a master’s from the University of Michigan. He is fluent in Japanese, 

Serbian, and Greek. I’m sure that really helps you a lot in Asia—

to speak Greek. But I do want to welcome you, Mr. Palmer. 

We also have with us Dr. John Wilson. Dr. Wilson is the director 

of the Office of Technical Support in the Asia and Middle East Bureau of USAID. Dr. Wilson joined USAID in and has been with the 

Asia and Middle East Bureaus since 1997. In his career, Dr. Wilson 

has been responsible for providing technical leadership in developing and implementing agency environmental policies and programs. He is an expert on environmental planning and management. Dr. Wilson also served as chairperson of the Tropical Ecosystems Directorate of the U.S. Man and Biosphere Program—boy, 

that is a real mouthful there. Prior to joining USAID, Dr. Wilson 

was an American Association for the Advancement of Science diplomacy fellow. He also is a graduate of Harvard University and received his doctorate in marine ecology from Boston University. 

6

Gentlemen, I welcome you both here this afternoon and would 

like to ask Mr. Palmer for his testimony. Please proceed. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]


57498e-1.eps
7


57498e-2.eps
8

STATEMENT OF MR. MATTHEW PALMER, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. PALMER. Chairman Faleomavaega and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the topic 

of U.S. engagement with Vietnam on issues related to Agent Orange. 

It is important to place U.S.-Vietnam cooperation on the complex 

and challenging issues surrounding Agent Orange in the context of 

progress in our overall bilateral relationship. This here marks the 

15th anniversary of our diplomatic relationship with Vietnam. Over 

this short period, U.S.-Vietnam cooperation has steadily matured 

into a robust, bilateral relationship characterized by mutual respect and shared interests. We continue to make progress on a 

growing range of issues, from trade liberalization, health environment, to education, nuclear safety, and security. Our strong collaboration on these issues has created a positive environment that 

has allowed frank discussions of matters on which we do not agree, 

such as human rights. 

USAID-Vietnam works in close partnership with the Vietnamese 

Government and with our colleagues in the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services and in the Environmental 

Protection Agency to implement a broad foreign assistance program. As part of that program, USAID has provided over $330 million in the last 10 years. This assistance includes development objectives such as economic reform and good governance, as well as 

programs to address genuine humanitarian needs, including 

HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention, and aid to people with disabilities regardless of cause. 

Before I turn to our cooperation on Agent Orange, it is also important to note the significant strides we have made in addressing 

other war legacy issues through our joint collaboration with the 

Government of Vietnam. Thanks to a sustained bilateral effort, we 

have succeeded in recovering and accounting for the remains of 660 

Americans lost during the Vietnam conflict. 

We also continue to make progress toward clearing unexploded 

ordinance. Since 1989, the United States, through the State DeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:49 Dec 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\071510\57498 HFA PsN: SHIRL

57498e-3.eps
9

partment, has provided over $37 million in a broad spectrum of 

programs not only to locate, remove and destroy unexploded ordinance, or UXO, land mines and other explosive materials, but also 

to address the effects of UXO on the health and livelihood of Vietnamese living in affected areas. 

While our bilateral cooperation with the Government of Vietnam 

accounting for Americans missing from the war began more than 

20 years, and on UXO issues 15 years ago, cooperation on Agent 

Orange and its contaminant, dioxin, took longer to begin. However, 

since 2001, our two governments have worked to address potential 

environmental and health issues related to Agent Orange and 

dioxin. 

After several years of information sharing and capacity building, 

in 2006 experts from the two nations attended the first meeting of 

the Joint Advisory Committee on Agent Orange/dioxin, the JAC. 

The JAC was convened to coordinate joint research and provides 

technical advice to policymakers to help develop environmental and 

health initiatives. The fifth annual JAC just concluded this month 

in Hanoi. I am pleased to report that in December 2009, the U.S. 

Government and Vietnam’s Ministry of Natural Resources and the 

Environment signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Agent 

Orange, formalizing years of cooperation and marking a new level 

of commitment to resolving this issue. The document serves as the 

framework for future cooperation on environmental health and remediation research activities and ensures that U.S. activities align 

with Vietnamese priorities. 

Both the United States and Vietnam agree that the health of the 

Vietnamese people and the safety of its environment will be vital 

for Vietnam’s future. In the spirit of humanitarian concern, we 

have provided more than $46 million in assistance for all Vietnamese living with disabilities without regard to cause, including 

nearly $25 million from the Leahy War Victims Fund. We have 

also expanded disability assistance in the communities surrounding 

the Da Nang Airport. 

With funding from the Fiscal Year 2007 and Fiscal Year 2009 appropriations, USAID is nearing the completion of the second year 

of separate 3-year cooperative agreements with Save the Children, 

East Meets West Foundation, and Vietnam Assistance to the 

Handicapped. These organizations are providing services such as 

skills training, medical support, and employment assistance to people with disabilities in Da Nang. In addition, with Ford Foundation 

support, several experts from the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention just completed a workshop with their Vietnamese counterparts to facilitate the early identification of children at risk for 

developmental disabilities and to improve birth defect and chronic 

disease surveillance systems. These projects aim to expand the 

scope of health assistance beyond support for people with disabilities toward the goal of reducing the overall disability burden in 

Vietnam. 

The United States also recognizes the importance of remediation 

at hotspots, the former air bases where dioxin contamination exceeds international safety standards. Building on past containment 

efforts, we now are collaborating to eliminate the potential for 

dioxin exposure at the Da Nang Airport. Our activities complement 

10

the efforts of a broad coalition. The Government of Vietnam, the 

United Nations Development Program, the Ford Foundation, and 

others, are committing substantial resources to dioxin remediation 

throughout the country. UNDP and the Government of Vietnam 

have just signed an agreement for $5 million to support dioxin remediation at dioxin hotspots, with an initial focus at Bien Hoa, a 

project specifically promoted by UNDP to compliment U.S. efforts. 

As requested by the Government of Vietnam and as reviewed scientifically by the bilateral multi-agency Joint Advisory Committee 

on Agent Orange, the United States is focusing its remediation efforts on Da Nang Airport. Thoughwe share the desire to implement 

remediation as soon as possible, our overriding goal is to complete 

dioxin destruction that ensures worker safety, permanently removes potential exposure to Da Nang residents, and fully complies 

with U.S. and Vietnamese law. We are moving as fast as possible 

to do this, but we want to make sure that we pay attention to the 

details and get this right. 

Last year, we reported to this committee on the beginning stages 

of a remediation project, the U.S. plan for Da Nang. I am pleased 

to note that we have made great progress toward our remediation 

goals. Working with the Ford Foundation, the EAP and the Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology are jointly piloting innovative bioremediation technology at Da Nang Airport. At the same 

time, in close consultation with the Government of Vietnam and 

consistent with U.S. and Vietnamese legal requirements, a USAID 

contractor is finalizing an environmental assessment for dioxin remediation at Da Nang and expects to begin developing engineering 

and design plans for the technology selected through the assessment process in August of this year. 

Vietnamese efforts to expand the Da Nang Airport highlight the 

need to move as quickly as possible. Ongoing construction has already displaced contaminated soil and sediment, posing risks to 

human health in the surrounding area. In consultation with central 

authorities and airport officials, we have developed a remediation 

plan that USAID estimates can be shovel ready in early 2011, consistent with airport expansion plans, and could be completed by 

2013 subject to availability of resources. 

The complete and permanent elimination of dioxin contamination 

from Da Nang due to Agent Orange would represent the most significant action we can take to alleviate the environmental concerns 

and possible health impacts to Da Nang and offer resolution to one 

of the Government of Vietnam’s high priority concerns. It could 

also provide a model for moving ahead with remediation at other 

dioxin hotspots. 

USAID estimates at least $34 million in project costs is required 

to complete this remediation. The State Department and USAID 

have identified approximately $4.9 million for this project from the 

Fiscal Year 2010 appropriation, $3 million in economic support 

funds, and $1.9 million in development assistance funds. Additionally, the Fiscal Year 2011 budget request also includes some resources for these activities. 

Over the last several years, the United States has worked with 

Vietnam to ensure that our Agent Orange activities align with Vietnamese health and environmental objectives. This cooperation 

11

has brought us closer than ever to the permanent elimination of 

dioxin at Da Nang Airport due to Agent Orange and has allowed 

us to provide much-needed assistance to vulnerable populations. 

Agent Orange has long been a sensitive topic in U.S.-Vietnam relations, and we have had some past challenges reaching agreement 

on how and where to cooperate, but we are now transforming dialogue into tangible improvements in the environment and health of 

the people of Vietnam. The United States Government has demonstrated a firm commitment on working to find a resolution to 

this lingering concern and to ensuring the continued improvement 

of U.S.-Vietnam relations. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you 

today. I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Palmer follows:]

12


57498a-1.eps
13


57498a-2.eps
14


57498a-3.eps
15


57498a-4.eps
16

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Palmer and Dr. Wilson, for 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN WILSON, PH.D., DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT, BUREAUS FOR ASIA AND THE MIDDLE EAST, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. WILSON. Chairman Faleomavaega, Ranking Member Manzullo, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me 

today to report on recent developments in remediation of Agent Orange in Vietnam. I will summarize my written statement and ask 

that it be submitted for the record. 

The United States recognizes the importance of dioxin remediation at hotspots in Vietnam. Dioxin contamination has been of 

longstanding concern to both countries, and the issue has at times 

strained our bilateral relationship. 

As the lead agency responsible for dioxin remediation, USAID is 

working collaboratively with our colleagues at the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate the 

potential for dioxin exposure at the Da Nang Airport. 

As the environmental officer for the Asia and Middle East Bureaus, I am responsible for overseeing compliance with USAID’s environmental procedures. Last fall, I led the team that initiated the 

environmental assessment for dioxin remediation at Da Nang Airport. My doctorate in ecology and geochemistry also puts me in a 

strong position to review the science behind the assessment and determine the preferred alternative for environmental remediation at 

Da Nang. 

My written statement describes in some detail USAID’s plans to 

implement the remediation effort. I won’t review all of that now in 

the interest of time. I also won’t review the state of U.S.-Vietnam 

cooperation since my colleague from the State Department has just 

done so, though I would also underscore the importance of the collaborative effort on dioxin remediation between the United States 

and the Government of Vietnam. It is the reason that we are able 

to move forward on this proposal. 

I would like to briefly describe the situation on the ground and 

the next steps for implementing USAID’s remediation program. 

Testing has shown that dioxin contamination in soils at Da 

Nang, Bien Hoa and Phu Cat exceeds international standards. As 

requested by the Government of Vietnam, the United States is providing assistance in Da Nang to remediate dioxin-contaminated soil 

and provide humanitarian support for Vietnamese residents. 

Mr. Chairman, Da Nang is the third largest city in Vietnam and 

it is rapidly growing. The airport is located in Da Nang City within 

a densely populated urban area. It is a busy international airport, 

which the Government of Vietnam is expanding to accommodate increased traffic. For the remediation effort, the airport expansion is 

an important factor because the dioxin hotspot sites are in the path 

of the construction, and in some places within meters of residential 

areas. 

The environmental assessment, which I recently approved, evaluated alternatives for addressing the remediation at Da Nang. We 

looked at three approaches and selected as the preferred alterVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:49 Dec 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\071510\57498 HFA PsN: SHIRL
17

native in-situ/in-pile thermal desorption and destruction of dioxin. 

Thermal desorption is an innovative dioxin-destruction technology 

and the only technology option that has been proven to destroy 

dioxin to levels that meet both soil and sediment national dioxin 

standards in Vietnam. The costs associated with this approach are 

similar to other alternatives. This option will result in the least exposure to residents and will also provide a permanent remedy. 

Given the extent of contamination, the imminent airport construction plans, and the potential threat to the local population, it 

is important that we act now to remediate dioxin at Da Nang Airport to ensure that airport construction work does not increase exposure to dioxin for area residents and travelers. 

USAID is wrapping up the design phase of the dioxin remediation program. With the selection of the dioxin treatment alternative, we are proceeding with the engineering design for thermal 

desorption and destruction. We expect to complete the final design 

this fall. We estimate that the final phase of this project will cost 

approximately $34 million. Subject to funding availability, USAID 

could begin the work on dioxin remediation as early as spring 2011, 

and complete the work within 2 years. Our remediation work will 

help close a difficult chapter in U.S.-Vietnam relations and ensure 

a better environment for the Vietnamese people. 

The elimination of dioxin in the soils and sediment at Da Nang 

will permanently resolve one of the Government of Vietnam’s lingering concerns about contamination associated with Agent Orange 

and demonstrate, tangibly, the United States’ commitment to the 

continued improvement of U.S.-Vietnam relations. 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to report today on the 

progress USAID has made toward implementation of the dioxin remediation program. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. I will be happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]

18


57498b-1.eps
19


57498b-2.eps
20


57498b-3.eps
21


57498b-4.eps
22


57498b-5.eps
23


57498b-6.eps
24

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to thank you both, gentlemen, for 

your most precise statements. 

I do have a couple of questions, if I may, to follow up on some 

of the good indicators that I hear with such positive reaction to 

your sharing with us the developments in dealing with this. 

Mr. Palmer, you mentioned that this is the fifth annual JAC 

meeting that was held in Hanoi. Was this last year? 

Mr. PALMER. I believe the date of that meeting was 2010, but I 

need to double check that, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. It doesn’t have to be specific. I just wanted 

to get an idea. This is the fifth time that we have had annual meetings on this? 

Mr. PALMER. It is my understanding that—yes, it is the fifth, and 

it was just held in July. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Do you think it might be the fifth and the 

last time that we might be meeting? I am just so encouraged by 

some of these decisions to appropriate $46 million here and $35 

million there. This is big-time news, the first time that I hear in 

specific terms that we are focusing on the Agent Orange issue that 

we have been trying to address. 

You mentioned that the other important issue that caused both 

of our countries to work together was dealing with POWs and those 

missing in action, over which the Vietnamese Government was 

very cooperative and very much wanted to be as much help. Ironically, there are still 30,000 of our soldiers who have not been located from World War II, especially in Asia. But that is a pretty 

good record, the fact that of the 2,000 missing and now to the point 

where we have been able to locate about another 600, as you had 

mentioned. Are we still looking for others? What are the statistics 

on those still missing in action so far? Have we developed a statistic on that? 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have those numbers with me. 

I would have to check with my colleagues at the Department of Defense. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would appreciate it if you can submit that 

for the record. I want to know that. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. MATTHEW PALMER TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

The Department of Defense, Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office has provided the following information: 

As of August 2, the most recent posting of numbers, there are 1,712 Americans 

still unaccounted for from the Vietnam War. 

The breakdown by country is:

• Vietnam: 1,310 still unaccounted for/661 recovered and identified

• Laos: 336 still unaccounted for/239 recovered and identified

• Cambodia: 59 still unaccounted for/31 recovered and identified

• China: 7 still unaccounted for/3 recovered and identified

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How was it possible that when we conducted these spraying operations for some 10-year period, until 5 

years later found out that this dioxin substance was discovered 

contained in Agent Orange? Were there other operations in previous wars where this substance was utilized as we did in Vietnam? 

25

Mr. PALMER. Again, Mr. Chairman, I need to refer that question 

to my colleagues at the Defense Department. I can check and get 

back to you. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. MATTHEW PALMER TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

As then Secretary of Defense Cohen stated publicly in 1999, in the late 1960s Republic of Korea (ROK) troops sprayed Agent Orange in the area of the Demilitarized 

Zone. Agent Orange was not used in wars prior to the Vietnam War, the Department of Defense reports. According to a study of Agent Orange (Cecil PF (1986): 

Herbicidal Warfare: The RANCH HAND Project in Vietnam. Praeger Special Studies, Praeger Scientific, New York, NY) the United States Army Chemical Corps at 

Fort Detrick, Maryland, developed the formulation for Agent Orange in 1963. Following extensive evaluation, it was first deployed in Southern Vietnam on March 

1, 1965.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, I would be interested. I am curious. 

The point I wanted to make is that I know we are very sensitive 

about chemical and biological substances that we have even participated in conventions and treaties to make sure that we do not use 

chemical and biological agents as much as we can discern, and yet 

in this specific instance where this very deadly substance, the 

dioxin, was used during the Vietnam War. I am just curious if we 

have used the same substance in some other conflicts. Have we 

ever had any previous experience to now coming to an understanding that we had used dioxin as part of our war effort in Vietnam? Were there other countries that were also exposed to this, 

whether it be during World War II or was this something that we 

just discovered in the 1960s? 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I have no information on that. I will 

address that question to my defense colleagues. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. MATTHEW PALMER TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

As noted in response to the previous question, in the late 1960s ROK troops 

sprayed Agent Orange in the area of the Demilitarized Zone, as then Secretary of 

Defense Cohen stated publicly in 1999. 

Regarding Agent Orange in Vietnam, according to the Department of Defense, the 

United States did not know until late 1968 that Dioxin was a contaminant in Agent 

Orange. The United States subsequently restricted the use of Agent Orange near 

any populated areas. Once the science was clarified, the Department of Defense terminated all spraying of Agent Orange on 15 April 1970. 

The Department of Defense is currently reviewing a report covering allegations 

that veterans were exposed to Agent Orange in countries besides Vietnam. The report is expected to be released and briefed in September 2010. There are no known 

records, documents, or staff reports that show that Agent Orange or other tactical 

herbicides, were ever sprayed on military bases in countries where (and when) U.S. 

troops were located during the Vietnam War.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I fully understand. I am not a doctor. I am 

not a scientist myself, but I am just curious and wanted to get a 

little more substance on this. 

Since your JAC meeting, have there been any estimates made on 

the number of Vietnamese victims who were exposed to Agent Orange? 

Mr. PALMER. The U.S. Government has no such estimates, sir. 

Our programming in Vietnam related to assistance to people with 

disabilities is for people regardless of cause. We do not ask people 

26

to prove what the source or cause for a particular disability is. So 

we have significant, robust assistance programs in Vietnam helping 

those who are disabled as a humanitarian concern, but we do not 

seek to identify the particular cause. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I mean, we are spending $45 million, $46 

million, $25 million. At least we should know the numbers we are 

dealing with. I mean, is it two Vietnamese, or is it 3,000 or 20,000 

victims? I am a little surprised that for the annual meeting there 

hasn’t been some kind of record keeping, at least by way of identifying how many victims there are. 

Mr. PALMER. I don’t know that there is a scientific way to do 

that, Mr. Chairman. Birth defects are due to many factors, including malnutrition, inherited disorders, parental age, environmental 

and occupational exposures. These factors add to the complexity of 

linking any particular disease or disorder with dioxin alone. So 

through our efforts we are not attempting to do that, we are attempting, to the extent possible, to provide assistance to those in 

Vietnam with disabilities without asking for proof or evidence regarding the origins or source of that disability. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How is it that we have established our national policy, especially for those of us who were there at the time 

when the Agent Orange was being utilized? I was there in 1967 

and 1968, and our Government now says any of our soldiers who 

were in Vietnam during that 10-year period can apply and get 

some kind of a restitution or effort, even though you don’t even 

have to prove that you may have been exposed to Agent Orange. 

Just the fact that you were in Vietnam is the trigger. I haven’t 

even made an application for an Agent Orange benefit yet, so I 

have high blood pressure, I have all kinds of stuff that could all 

be related my service in Vietnam. But I just wanted to know, you 

are saying that you don’t keep track of any of the records or studies. Is this one of the problems that we still have of not being able 

to specifically pinpoint the fact that these people ended up being 

disabled because of the Agent Orange/dioxin? You said there were 

other critical factors. I understand that. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, we do not believe that there is a scientific way in which to tell whether a particular disability or an individual suffering from a disability is suffering that disability as a 

consequence or a result of exposure to dioxin. As a consequence of 

that, our assistance efforts in Vietnam are very broad based. We 

provide assistance without regard to the cause of disability. 

We recognize and understand the burden that people with disabilities place on an under-resourced Vietnamese system, and we 

are doing what we can do provide assistance, but we are not, 

through our programming, seeking to differentiate between those 

who are suffering from exposure to dioxin and those who are not. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is our Government giving some kind of assistance for conducting laboratory research about dioxin and its effect on human beings? To what extent could this be one of the reasons why many Vietnamese babies end up being disabled and deformed? 

Mr. PALMER. If there is such a program, it is not a State Department program. I don’t know if there are other scientific programs 

27

that may be funded through other institutions. I would also ask my 

USAID colleague if he is familiar with any such activities. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So as far as the State Department is concerned, you are not in any way involved in any form of research 

to even find out a the connection? That is what I am trying to figure out, if there is a connection between dioxin and the Vietnamese 

people being what they are in terms of ending up being abnormal 

and deformed. 

Mr. PALMER. The programs that we support, Mr. Chairman, are 

to provide assistance to people with disabilities. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And not just on Agent Orange? 

Mr. PALMER. Without regard to cause. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. Dr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. I am unaware of any program such as you have just 

described, sir. I believe that we are providing support for laboratory equipment and testing on the presence of dioxin in soils so 

that we can proceed with the cleanup. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What is your view of the fact that our policy 

toward all the veterans who served in Vietnam from 1961 to 1971, 

our broad policy is the fact that they are entitled to some kind of 

benefit? The presumption is that they may have been exposed to 

Agent Orange. I guess that is quite a contrast from our policy toward the Vietnamese concerning this very issue. 

Mr. PALMER. I think it is a matter of effect, Mr. Chairman, that 

the programs that we have in Vietnam which don’t seek to identify 

the origins or source of a disability provide assistance equally to all 

those who are dealing with these challenges. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am sorry. I just want to say that I want 

to recognize the presence of my dear friend and ranking member 

of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo. 

And I would like to invite him to give his opening statement. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any questions. You 

have been asking the very questions that I would ask anyway, so 

I would give my time to you so you can finish up on your current 

thought. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. All right. I appreciate that. I appreciate 

that. 

I just want to be clear, do we have a policy toward Agent Orange? I mean, you are saying that whatever assistance you are giving Vietnam, Agent Orange really is not in there. I am a little 

fuzzy about this now. I thought that this JAC meeting that you 

have had for the fifth annual period now in Hanoi, that one of 

them was intended to address people with disabilities who were impacted or exposed to Agent Orange, specifically the dioxin chemical 

that I have just said is one of the deadliest chemicals that man has 

ever devised. If I am hearing correctly, you are saying that that 

really is not the basis of the assistance that we are giving Vietnam, 

that Agent Orange is not one of them. Please clarify that. I am not 

catching on here. 

Mr. PALMER. There are two prongs to the assistance efforts in 

Vietnam, Mr. Chairman. Together with our Vietnamese partners, 

we continue to refine a strategy to respond to environmental contamination and health concerns. As part of that strategy we are 

working on dioxin containment and remediation, improving the 

28

lives of people with disabilities and the development of programs 

to prevent birth defects in Vietnam. 

So on the one hand, we are providing assistance to those suffering from disabilities without regard to the source or cause of 

those disabilities, and on the other, we are working to contain and 

remediate dioxin hotspots in Vietnam. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You mentioned Da Nang Airport as one of 

the hotspots where we are conducting these remediation projects. 

How big is Da Nang Airport? 

Mr. PALMER. How big is the area that——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, 200 acres, 3,000 acres? How big is Da 

Nang Airport? 

Mr. PALMER. Dr. Wilson, do you know the answer to that? I have 

to admit I am not sure. 

Mr. WILSON. I believe that it is about 20 acres that we are dealing with. It is a substantial amount of soil, but it is not that large 

an area at Da Nang Airport that we are going to be working on. 

There is a lake that has sediment that is contaminated that needs 

to be remediated, and there is a mixing and loading area that is 

also going to be remediated. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is Da Nang the only location where we 

stockpiled these chemical agents, or were there other places in 

Vietnam where we did this? 

Mr. PALMER. There were other places in Vietnam, Mr. Chairman, 

and there are other hotspots. We are beginning with Da Nang, and 

the hope is that success in Da Nang can serve as a model for remediation efforts in other hotspot areas. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. This being the fifth time that you have had 

this annual meeting, how many other hotspots do we have in Vietnam besides Da Nang? 

Mr. PALMER. I believe there are three major hotspots and a number of smaller areas of concern, on the order of 20 to 25. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Dr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. There are three known hotspots that the donors are 

working on. The United Nations Development Program has recently signed a grant for $5 million with the Government of Vietnam to work on the remediation of Bien Hoa, and Phu Cat has also 

been identified as a hotspot that needs to be remediated. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am still learning how to speak English. 

Can you elaborate when you say ‘‘remediation?’’ Are you going to 

clean up the soil or take the dioxin? What do you do, put it in milk 

or something? When you remediate something, what do you mean? 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, we mean that in the case of Da 

Nang Airport we are going to destroy the dioxin through a thermal 

desorption and destruction——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How do you destroy dioxin? 

Mr. WILSON. You destroy it, sir, by digging it up, putting it into 

a pile, heating that pile to 350 degrees centigrade and vaporizing 

and destroying the dioxin. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Not 350 degrees Fahrenheit? 

Mr. WILSON. Not Fahrenheit, sir. Centigrade. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Centrigrade? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, it is hot. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And what is the life span of the dioxin? 

29

Mr. WILSON. The dioxin will be destroyed through this process. 

The process has been tested and proven to work in California, and 

the Japanese Government also recently tested and accepted thermal desorption as an acceptable treatment for dioxin destruction. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So you breathe the air. You are burning this 

350 degrees centigrade? 

Mr. WILSON. This is different, sir, than the incineration of the 

soil. It is a technique by which the pile is capped and the air is 

extracted and treated, but there is no release of dioxin in the air. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How deep do you dig in the soil? 

Mr. WILSON. The testing that will be carried out will determine 

the depth of soil that has to be removed. That is part of the process 

of the digging that will be done. The testing has shown that it is 

several meters deep in some places, but we are making sure that 

we capture the contaminated sediment and treat the contaminated 

sediment. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. When you say sediment, what if they are 

wetlands? 

Mr. WILSON. That is true, sir. There are two areas that are contaminated, one of them is wetlands, it is a lake. The lake will need 

to be drained, the sediment will need to be removed, and then the 

wetlands will be restored. There is also contamination of soil, and 

that will also be treated. 

The benefit of this technique is that it is the most environmentally safe way to deal with the dioxin. It removes the dioxin 

permanently, and it is the most effective way to reduce the threat 

in the future. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What was the reason dioxin was used as 

part of this chemical substance that we conducted to defoliage operations in Vietnam? I know the reason we conducted this was to 

clear the forest so we could identify the enemy soldiers, which 

blows my mind. I just can’t understand the logic of that. 

So in the process of conducting this deforestation, the substance 

ends up being exposed to human beings that are not trees or flowers, or whatever, but human beings were being exposed to this. 

Have there been any estimates by our Government on the number of soldiers, our own soldiers, who were exposed to Agent Orange? 

Mr. PALMER. None that I am familiar with, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, that is a question that I would need to refer to colleagues 

at the Department of Defense. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. I am just trying to get some connection here. I felt very encouraged. When is your next annual JAC 

meeting? Is it next year or are you having it this year again? 

Mr. PALMER. My understanding is that it should be next year. I 

don’t know that a date has been scheduled. It is intended as an annual meeting. We recently had the 2010 meeting, so my understanding is there will be another meeting in 2011, but I don’t have 

a date for you, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I don’t know if I am going to be reelected 

come November, but will I be invited if I do come back in November? 

Mr. PALMER. I will see what I can do. 

[The information referred to follows:]

30

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. MATTHEW PALMER TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

The General Counsel’s Office at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reports 

that veterans’ benefits laws reflect the assumption that veterans may have been exposed to herbicides by means of inhalation, ingestion, or skin contact during service 

in areas where herbicides were applied and could have developed health problems 

due to such exposure. For purposes of entitlement to veterans’ benefits, Congress 

has provided in 38 U.S.C. 1116(f) that any veteran who served in Vietnam between 

January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, will be presumed to have been exposed to herbicides during such service. The statute codified a longstanding VA policy of conceding 

exposure because VA concluded that it was not feasible to determine which veterans 

were actually exposed to herbicides in service, due to limitations of records documenting dates and locations of herbicide application and troop movements. For similar practical reasons, VA also concedes exposure for veterans who served in or near 

the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ) during periods when herbicides are known to 

have been applied in that area. 

The Department of Defense reports that there were only two military units in 

Vietnam known to have come into actual contact with the tactical liquid herbicide, 

the men of Operation Ranch Hand (approximately 1,200) and the men in the U.S. 

Army Chemical Corps (approximately 2,900). These were the men who handled and 

sprayed Agent Orange, Agent Blue, and Agent White. The Department of Defense 

notes that the term ‘‘tactical herbicide’’ is very important because it distinguishes 

the commercial herbicides that were used by the Base Engineers from the tactical 

herbicides used by Operation Ranch Hand and Chemical Corps personnel. Agent Orange and the other tactical herbicides were not permitted to be sprayed over or on 

bases.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, I do want to thank both of you gentlemen. I am going to have to fault my staff for not getting someone 

from the Department of Defense who basically is responsible for 

the conduct of this whole operation. So we are going to have to 

have another hearing then. It is going to be the fourth hearing now 

we are going to have on this issue. 

But I do want to thank the State Department and especially 

USAID for all that you are doing. But I am not letting you guys 

off now. I am still trying to dig in on this thing. And of course it 

isn’t just that we expect that we are going to do the work. This is 

a partnership effort and I am sure our good friends—the leaders 

of Vietnam and the people there—are going to be very cooperative 

and see what we can do to work together on this. But I am going 

to have to work this with the Department of Defense. All you do 

is sign treaties, right? So the Department of Defense is the one 

that actually puts out the poison, right? It is not the State Department. It is the Department of Defense that does the bad work. 

Mr. PALMER. We do have some programs that are currently in 

place run through the authority of the Department of State aimed, 

again, at providing assistance to those with disabilities and remediating the dioxin. So in terms of the efforts that are underway now, 

that is led by the Department of State and USAID. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. In your meeting, did both of you attend the 

JAC meeting that was held in Hanoi? 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I was invited to the JAC meeting. 

I would like to point out that the JAC meeting, the U.S. Joint Advisory Committee meeting, is a meeting to talk about research cooperation in large part. USAID is leading the thermal desorption 

destruction effort. We plan to move forward as quickly as possible 

with that, and we will keep the JAC people informed as we move 

forward. 

31

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And the Ford Foundation is still a participant in the series of meetings? 

What do you gentlemen see as something that the Congress can 

do to help in the effort? 

Mr. PALMER. Unless we have the resources necessary to carry out 

the programming in place, we will not be successful in these efforts. There is a budget process that results in a request to Congress. We stand behind the budget request, and we look forward 

to working with Congress on the administration’s budget requests 

in future fiscal years. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Dr. Wilson, you mentioned that you are going to need about $37 million to conduct a thermal desorption. 

You gave me some scientific description, but I have no idea what 

you meant by it. Can you elaborate a little further on that? How 

we are going to spend this $37 million? 

Mr. WILSON. The $37 million is to complete the destruction of the 

dioxin at the site. There are three components of the engineering 

plan. The first component is the oversight of the construction process. The second part is digging it up and hauling it and storing it 

in the stockpile. And the third component of the engineering work 

is actually working with a firm in California, TerraTherm, that will 

install the heating system and monitor and destroy the dioxin in 

the soil. So we expect to complete this exercise over 2 years, if we 

can move forward as quickly as possible. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You know, the companies, Dow and Monsanto, were the primary makers of Agent Orange. And I was just 

wondering, has the government contacted them? I would think they 

know more about the substance because they were the ones that 

created it. Have you conducted any dialogue with these two companies that produced this Agent Orange? 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of contact with those 

companies. I am aware that we have identified the firm that knows 

how to destroy dioxin. They have done it before, and we are going 

to use them. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I forgot to ask for the record, what is the 

lifespan of dioxin? 

Mr. WILSON. I did not. I understand that the half life of dioxin 

is 100 years in the environment. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What do you mean by half life? It lasts only 

50 years? 

Mr. WILSON. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. It means that after 100 

years, half of the dioxin will be gone, so it takes a long time. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My gosh, we will all be dead and it will still 

be there. 

Mr. WILSON. Sir, that is why we need to destroy the substance. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. And you are saying that there is no 

connection to the problems facing the Vietnamese people who end 

up disabled and handicapped and deformed? 

Mr. PALMER. No, Mr. Chairman. I am saying no such thing. The 

point that I was making is that the U.S. program is to provide assistance to people with disabilities without asking for evidence of 

cause or origin of the disability. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Shouldn’t we be asking for that to know specifically how we are spending our money? 

32

Mr. PALMER. Our goal in our programs is to provide humanitarian assistance to all of those in Vietnam who require assistance. 

In our view, it would be an unfair and undue burden to place on 

those suffering from disabilities to prove the cause, source, or origin of the disabilities that they struggle with. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. At the same time, have Vietnamese officials 

contacted by our Government shown us that there definitely is a 

connection between Agent Orange and these people ending up 

being deformed? 

Mr. PALMER. It is certainly the position of the Government of 

Vietnam, as understand it, that that is true. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But it is not our position? 

Mr. PALMER. We do not believe that there is sufficient scientific 

evidence that would enable us to identify the cause or origin of an 

individual’s disability. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Even though we know that dioxin is one of 

the deadliest chemical substances ever made? 

Mr. PALMER. These are the sorts of questions that Jack is discussing scientist to scientist. I have not seen any evidence—we 

have not seen any evidence that would allow us to draw those 

kinds of one-for-one conclusions that might enable the kind of thing 

that you are talking about. 

So our goal is to provide assistance to people in Vietnam who 

need assistance, to those with disabilities who struggle with their 

disabilities and who place a burden on the Vietnamese social service system, which is under-resourced. 

So, through our programming, we do provide considerable assistance to disabled individuals in Vietnam. We do not ask them to 

provide any kind of evidence or documentation regarding how it is 

that they became disabled or what the cause or source of their disability is. That seems like an unreasonable burden to us, sir. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The gentleman from Illinois. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Just a short question. Even if you knew or agreed with others 

that there is a causal link with Agent Orange and the disabilities, 

my understanding from your testimony is that you would simply 

continue in doing what you are doing now and treating everybody 

with disabilities, regardless of the cause. Would that be correct, 

Mr. Palmer? 

Mr. PALMER. Not everybody, Mr. Manzullo. As many as we can 

with the resources that we have available. 

So the fundamental underlying principle of our program efforts 

in Vietnam with respect to those, supporting those suffering from 

disabilities, is that we provide this assistance without a requirement that those benefiting from these programs provide evidence 

or documentation related to the cause of their disabilities. We have 

no such requirement. We think such a requirement would be unreasonable and scientifically unfeasible. 

Mr. MANZULLO. So you bypass that causal requirement, and go 

right to the needs of the people. 

Mr. PALMER. We see no causal requirement, sir. The program is 

to provide assistance to people with disabilities. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Okay. I think I understand. 

Thank you. 

33

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, with all due respect, I don’t understand this. 

How is it that we are able to recognize the seriousness of this 

chemical agent, Agent Orange? Of course, it took us many years 

until our veterans started screaming bloody hell after being exposed to dioxin and Agent Orange that their health was affected? 

And now we are giving them assistance. But by your statement, 

saying that our policy is not toward Agent Orange but to help anyone with disabilities, including those who were exposed to Agent 

Orange. Is this our policy right now? 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, there are two issues that we see in 

front of us. 

One is the issue of health services, and the other is the issue of 

environmental remediation. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. 

Mr. PALMER. On the issue of environmental remediation, our goal 

is to identify dioxin hot spots, come up with a plan——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, environmental remediation because of 

the dangers that dioxin poses to human beings exposed to it. 

Mr. PALMER. Certainly, in the hot spot in Danang, the levels of 

dioxin are above those that are generally accepted as international 

safety standards. So, yes, because of potential health risks, we do 

wish to complete the remediation of the dioxin hot spots in 

Danang. 

So we have on the one track that is related to environmental remediation and robust programming design to make progress in 

that area. 

In terms of the consequences that—the potential health consequences of Agent Orange, we understand that this is an important and sensitive issue for the Government of Vietnam. And we 

want to do what we can to provide assistance in this area. 

Since it is our position that there is no accepted scientific link, 

scientific method by which you can identify whether a particular 

individual is suffering from a birth defect as a consequence or result of dioxin exposure or Agent Orange, our policy is to provide assistance to those with disabilities in Vietnam without regard to 

cause. So these two things we see as mutually reinforcing, mutually supporting, and consistent with the needs and the goals of the 

Government of Vietnam. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, mutually enforcing and mutually supporting, but mutually denying that the presence of dioxin may have 

impacted the lives and the health of these people who were exposed 

to Agent Orange. 

And I am not trying to argue with you, Mr. Palmer. I am just 

trying to figure exactly what the policy of our Government is. 

You are saying that we are helping anyone with disabilities. But 

you don’t mention anything about dioxin. Is that because there has 

been no scientific research to prove that there is a connection between people with physical disabilities and exposure to dioxin? 

Mr. PALMER. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, that is not what I am saying. 

The point that I would like to make here is that our assistance 

efforts in Vietnam for those with disabilities do not ask for individVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:49 Dec 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\APGE\071510\57498 HFA PsN: SHIRL
34

uals with disabilities to prove or document the source of those disabilities. 

The science on whether or not dioxin itself is dangerous is separate and apart from this issue. 

The question before us is, if we wish to provide support and assistance to those in Vietnam who are suffering from disabilities, 

does it make sense to try through some system to identify those 

whose disabilities is a direct cause or consequence of Agent Orange? And we do not believe that there is a scientific way of doing 

that. 

Therefore, in our view, it is the most humanitarian approach to 

provide treatment to those who need treatment, to provide assistance to those who need assistance, without regard to cause and 

without asking them to document that which, in our view, cannot 

be documented. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I know that our veterans organizations filed 

suit against these two chemical companies to find a causal connection between them who produced the substance, Agent Orange, 

with the dioxin contained in it. And it went through the Federal 

courts. 

And is this one reason for the refusal to acknowledge any connection of liability for these lawsuits. Even our own veterans have felt 

that their health conditions were due to exposure to Agent Orange. 

But now, the policy basically of our Government is that there is no 

such connection. And that is the same thing with the people and 

the Government of Vietnam. 

Mr. PALMER. Sir, it is not our position that Agent Orange and 

dioxin are not dangerous. 

It is our position that you cannot identify, on an individual case, 

the cause or source of that disability. 

Given that view, it is our policy to provide assistance to those 

who need assistance in Vietnam without regard to cause. We don’t 

ask them to prove the source or the cause of the disability in question. We provide services to as many people as we can with the resources that we have. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That has been a sensitive issue for all these 

years because we refuse to admit that, because of Agent Orange, 

this is the reason why we have abnormal and deformed children 

and people out of Vietnam. I mean, that seems to be the very bottom line why we continue our policy, to admit some sense of culpability, because we are the ones who sprayed the Agent Orange, not 

the Vietnamese. 

But would you support the idea of conducting scientific research 

as much as possible to see if there is a causal connection between 

dioxin and Agent Orange and the people who were exposed to the 

substance? 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, in my view and in the view of the 

administration, the most humanitarian approach that we could 

take to dealing with this problem in Vietnam is to continue to provide assistance to people without requiring that they document the 

cause of their disability——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But that doesn’t answer my question. 

My point is that we spread this substance that impacted not only 

the flora and the fauna but also exposed a lot of human beings and 

35

caused a lot of problems. And my question is whether or not our 

Government would be willing to conduct scientific research just to 

see what the effects of dioxin are toward human beings if they are 

exposed. Would that be something that we ought to do at our next 

annual JAG meeting? 

Mr. PALMER. In my own view, sir, the best use of the resources 

that we have available is to provide assistance to those who need 

assistance. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And let’s just forget about dioxin? 

Mr. PALMER. No, sir. We think that it is very important to continue efforts to remediate the dioxin hot spots in Vietnam. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And in our programs to remediate the presence of dioxin throughout Vietnam, what are we looking at in 

terms of how that will help the people who are already exposed to 

dioxin? 

Mr. PALMER. As part of our two-track approach to dealing both 

with the environmental and the health issues, the environmental 

goals are through direct remediation of hot spots to address health 

concerns. We have robust programs in place to provide assistance 

to people with disabilities in Vietnam. Those programs are meeting 

a very important need, and we intend to continue those programs. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Are there any laboratories in other parts of 

the world that are researching the good things that come out of 

dioxin or the bad things that come out of it? Are there companies 

or countries that continue to study the effects of dioxin in that 

sense? Are there any scientific studies being conducted right now 

in labs and other countries, or do we just not even bother with it? 

Mr. PALMER. I don’t know the answer to that, Mr. Chairman. 

I will see what I can find out, but it is a very broad question and 

I don’t know the answer to that. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. MATTHEW PALMER TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

The Department of Defense reports that no known scientific studies are currently 

being undertaken on the effects of dioxin, but extensive data has been compiled 

from past examinations of the herbicides in Agent Orange.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Has there been any movement to maybe put 

a sense of convention to ban forevermore the use of Agent Orange 

which contains dioxin, just like we are in an effort to ban chemical 

and biological substances in warfare? 

Mr. PALMER. Again, Mr. Chairman, I will have to get back to you 

about whether there has been any discussions about that issue. 

None that I am familiar with. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. MATTHEW PALMER TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

There is no need to take such a step. The Department of Defense reports that 

Agent Orange was last produced in 1969 and last used on April 15, 1970, when the 

Department of Defense terminated all uses of Agent Orange in Vietnam. In March 

1972, all remaining stocks of Agent Orange in Vietnam were shipped to Johnston 

Island. All remaining ‘‘surplus’’ stocks of Agent Orange in the Continental United 

States were placed in storage in 1970 at the Naval Construction Battalion Center, 

Gulfport, Mississippi. From May through August 1977, all stocks of Agent Orange 

in Mississippi and on Johnston Island were destroyed by at-sea incineration in the 

36

Central Pacific Ocean. Agent Orange was never registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for commercial use. It was a tactical herbicide that 

could be used only in military operations.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. Well, gentleman, I really appreciate 

your participation. You are definitely going to see my ugly face 

again if I come back in November, and we are going to continue 

the dialogue. 

And I realize that this is a very sensitive issue. But sometimes, 

sensitivities aside, all we are trying to do is see that we get some 

good answers and, hopefully, a better sense of direction on how we 

can resolve this problem, not only for the people of Vietnam but 

also our soldiers and many of our veterans who were exposed to the 

substance. And that is something that I am sure that in the coming 

months is going to continue to be in the mix of issues that we are 

going to be looking at. 

I notice the Department of Veterans Administration is also looking at the Agent Orange issue again. And for those who were also 

exposed to Post-Traumatic Syndrome situation with our veterans 

coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and of course, our soldiers 

that were also in Vietnam are still affected by this. 

So, again, I want to thank both of you gentlemen for coming this 

afternoon. We will definitely keep in touch. 

Thank you very much. We appreciate it. 

We are very honored and happy to have with us our next panel 

with Dr. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Phuong, medical doctor and currently 

the director general of Ngoc Tam Hospital in Ho Chi Minh City in 

Vietnam. As I mentioned earlier, he also is a former vice speaker 

of Vietnam’s National Assembly and currently is a member of the 

U.S.-Vietnam dialogue group on Agent Orange/dioxin. Dr. Phuong 

has had a distinguished career as a medical doctor specializing in 

obstetrics and gynecology, and as a former professor. My gosh, just 

a list that goes on and on, having such a fantastic career and being 

a true hero as a medical doctor. And we are very happy to have 

her come. 

Also with us is Ms. Tran Thi Hoan, who is a second-generation 

victim of Agent Orange. Her mother was exposed to Agent Orange 

during the Vietnam war. Hoan was born without legs and is missing her left hand. She is about to graduate from college in Ho Chi 

Minh City with a degree in information technology. She is a member of the Ho Chi Minh City chapter of the Vietnam Association of 

Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin. 

I cannot say enough about how deeply grateful I am and appreciative of the efforts that our two witnesses have made to come all 

the way from Vietnam to share with us their testimony and their 

life experience as we address the problems of Agent Orange, what 

are some of the latest developments out of Vietnam, and at least 

some of the things that we had discussed earlier with Dr. Palmer 

and Dr. Wilson. I look forward to the testimony of Dr. Phuong and 

Ms. Hoan this afternoon, and I would like to ask Dr. Phuong to 

begin. 

And does she need a translator? 

The INTERPRETER. No. She can speak English herself, but I will 

just help her with the questions if she cannot hear your questions 

very well. 

37

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. 

Before we proceed, I am very honored to have along with us this 

afternoon a distinguished member of our subcommittee, Dr. Watson, a distinguished Member of Congress from the State of California and former Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia. And I would like to give her this opportunity, if she has an 

opening statement to share it with us. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I am always appreciative when you hold these important 

hearings to inquire about the recent developments in remediation 

and the efforts being made to address the continuing impact of 

dioxin, also known as Agent Orange, in Vietnam. 

We know that in between 1961 and 1971, as part of Operation 

Ranch Hand, 11 million to 12 million gallons of Agent Orange were 

sprayed onto south Vietnam. As a result of spraying of the agent, 

between 2.1 million and 4.8 million Vietnamese were directly exposed to Agent Orange and other herbicides during the Vietnamese 

war. 

While the damages and the effects of any war are devastating to 

locals and U.S. troops alike, I believe that now is the time to accurately assess the damage to the fullest extent possible and accept 

our responsibility in dealing with the aftermath of this act. 

Although Agent Orange has long been attached to uncertainty 

and controversy, I am pleased that we are seeing progress in our 

relationship with the Vietnamese Government and the nongovernmental organizations. The selfless efforts of the NGOs are to be 

commended. Included are the Ford Foundation, UNICEF, the 

United Nations Development Program, the Bill and Melinda Gates 

Foundation, as well as the Vietnamese NGOs, and the guests that 

are here on our panel today. 

Over the years, in speaking with the many Vietnamese veterans 

in my congressional district, exposure to Agent Orange has caused 

many health issues, such as but not limited to Hodgkin’s disease, 

respiratory cancer in the lungs, bronchus, the larynx, and the trachea, as well as prostate cancer and type II diabetes. Many Vietnamese veterans in my district as well as around the country are 

still feeling the effects of Agent Orange some 40 years later. 

And, Mr. Chairman, before I close, I would like to sincerely 

thank you for your personal efforts championing this issue. We so 

appreciate you and your tenacity. 

And as you know, many agencies and nongovernment organizations and individuals have put much time and resources aiding the 

Vietnamese people to remedy the effects of the dioxin. So continued 

assistance is our humanitarian responsibility, and continued study 

and research is still vital and necessary, and continued remediation 

efforts is simply the right thing to do. 

And so I am so pleased to see your panelists today. Let me stop 

here so we can hear from them, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Watson follows:]

38


57498f.eps
39

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentlelady from California for 

her most eloquent statement, and certainly a clear understanding 

of the issues and the challenges that are before us in dealing with 

this issue of Agent Orange. I appreciate deeply her support and always her commitment in serving as a member of this subcommittee, especially as our former Ambassador to the Federated 

States of Micronesia, where she was given a real deep sense of appreciation and understanding of people living in this part of the 

world, where she has also had an opportunity of visiting various 

countries throughout Asia. 

So her exposure could not have been a better and more fitting 

occasion for her to serve on this subcommittee where she can at 

least have a sense of understanding and appreciating when people 

coming from this part of the world, she can feel what it means to 

be affected and to be exposed or to be involved in this region. 

So I thank the gentlelady, and I deeply appreciate her presence. 

So Dr. Phuong, please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF NGUYEN THI NGOC PHUONG, M.D., DIRECTOR 

GENERAL, NGOC TAM HOSPITAL, HO CHI MINH CITY, VIETNAM (FORMER VICE SPEAKER OF THE VIETNAM NATIONAL 

ASSEMBLY; PRESENTLY MEMBER OF THE U.S.-VIETNAM DIALOGUE GROUP ON AGENT ORANGE/DIOXIN) 

Dr. PHUONG. Honorable Chairman Faleomavaega, and Congress 

Members, ladies and gentlemen. First, I would like to extend my 

sincere thanks to Chairman Faleomavaega and the members of the 

Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment for 

organizing this hearing on ‘‘Agent Orange in Vietnam: Recent Developments in Remediation.’’

I am pleased to have the opportunity to once again talk about 

the urgent needs of the victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam and 

what we can do together to help them. 

I am testifying today as a vice president of the only organization 

that represents the millions of victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam. 

The Vietnamese Association of Victims of Agent Orange/dioxin, or 

VAVA. Our association was founded in 2003 by a handful of victims of Agent Orange, many of whom have now died from their 

Agent Orange-related illnesses. 

From 2003 until today, VAVA has grown to over 300,000 members with chapters in 55 provinces and 326 districts. We advocate 

for the rights of those affected by Agent Orange and dioxin in Vietnam and internationally, and we provide direct aid and health 

services by and for three generations of those harmed by Agent Orange, dioxin and other agents. 

I am a physician and scientist who worked for many years at a 

big obstetrics-gynecology hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, the Tu Du 

Hospital, where I witnessed the suffering of the families having babies born with deformities related to Agent Orange and dioxin and 

other toxic chemicals exposure. I am now vice president of Ho Chi 

Minh City’s Society for Reproductive Medicine and standing vice 

president of the Association of Obstetrician and Gynecologists with 

my colleagues in Vietnam as well as in the other countries, including in the USA. 

40

I have conducted many studies on the long-term effects of dioxin 

contained in Agent Orange and in other agents sprayed over the 

southern part of Vietnam during wartime and the human health 

and human reproduction. The result of those numerous studies confirm that about 4.8 million, from 2.1 million to 4.8 million Vietnamese people were directly exposed to Agent Orange/dioxin during the wartime, with more than 3 million suffering from illnesses. 

And among those 3 million, there are about 150,000 visible children now in Vietnam alive. 

Many million more Vietnamese people have been indirectly exposed through the breast milk from the exposed mother or through 

the food chain when living around the dioxin-contaminated areas. 

Where the U.S. Air Force had stored barrels of Agent Orange that 

we call now the hot spots, the land, soil, sediment, fish, fowl in and 

around those hot spots still contain dioxin at a very high level, 

from a few hundred to 1 million parts per trillion. 

Dioxin can cause a wide range of illnesses, including cancerous 

and other diseases and birth defects. More tragically, these harmful effects can be transmitted to many generations through the 

damage to DNA molecules and genes caused by dioxin once it enters into the cells of the exposed people. 

Based on the evidence of the harmful effects of the use of Agent 

Orange and other toxic chemicals during wartime in Vietnam, the 

International Peoples’ Tribunal of Conscience in Support of the Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange/dioxin, convened on May 15 and 

16 of 2009 in Paris, concluded that all victims of Agent Orange and 

dioxin should be rightfully compensated. 

The Vietnamese people, similar to the American Vietnam veterans, are subject to all the diseases and birth defects recognized 

by the American Veterans Administration, the Institutes of Medicine and the U.S. Government. More than that, in Vietnam, we 

have identified many additional health problems due to repeated 

exposure to dioxin at a greater scale and during a very long period 

of time. 

The U.S. Veterans won a legislative victory for compensation for 

exposure to Agent Orange and received about $1.5 billion per year 

in benefits related to the use of this agent. However, their children 

and grandchildren, who are being born with dioxin-related birth 

defects, do not yet receive any assistance. We support the U.S. veterans’ efforts to gain full compensation and medical treatment for 

their children and grandchildren. 

We are also aware that some of the more than 1 million people 

in the Vietnamese-American community in the United States suffer 

from Agent Orange and dioxin-related conditions and are in need 

of health care. We hope that this will be provided to them. 

About the victims in Vietnam. The Vietnamese Government provides a monthly stipend of about $17 U.S. dollars for each of the 

300,000 victims. This totals up to $50 million per year. VAVA has 

raised money, about $20 million USA per year, to support 1 million 

families of victims who are facing lives of extreme hardship and 

poverty. VAVA is also conducting a survey to identify others affected nationwide. 

The Vietnam-U.S. Dialogue Group, of which I am a member, supported by the Ford Foundation, along with UNICEF and UNDP, 

41

has done a temporary containment of one part of Danang Airport, 

one part, and that part is the dioxin contaminated. And with the 

financial assistance from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and 

the philanthropy, one laboratory for dioxin analysis is being built 

in Hanoi. 

The Dialogue Group has just released a plan of action for the 10 coming years with a proposed $300 million for cleaning dioxin-contaminated soil and restoring damaged ecosystems and expanding 

services to people with disabilities linked to dioxin and to people 

with other forms of disabilities. The amount is modest as compared 

with what the victims need, but the effort of the Dialogue Group 

is well appreciated in Vietnam. 

Beginning in 2002, the U.S. Congress and government began to 

recognize the severity of the problem and to provide some monetary 

assistance to Vietnam to remediate the hot spots and help the victims in Danang. The U.S. Congress has allocated $9 million over 

4 years for hot spot remediation and health programs. So far, $2 

million has been allocated to three U.S. nongovernmental organizations for programs to support and care for those with disabilities 

in Danang. 

For a comparison, according to some experts, only the cleanup 

and remediation just in one area of high concentration is estimated 

to be $60 million. In Vietnam today, there are still 28 hot spots and 

many million victims of Agent Orange and dioxin. 

The first generation of victims are suffering and dying every day 

from cancers and other diseases related to Agent Orange/dioxin exposures. They cannot wait any longer for the basic treatment and 

care that will ease their agony. The youngest and most fragile victims are born with the most tragic birth defects. They cannot wait 

any longer for justice. 

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to respectfully 

suggest that you and your colleagues in the Congress continue the 

work begun by the U.S. veterans groups and other American nongovernmental organizations to decisively heal the wounds of war 

for Vietnam’s more than 3 million Agent Orange/dioxin victims. 

I propose that Congress agree to provide resources from comprehensive medical services, chronic care, rehabilitation, and educational services and facilities for Agent Orange/dioxin victims; provide assistance for impoverished families and caretakers of Agent 

Orange/dioxin victims; provide the above resources by funding Vietnamese nongovernmental organizations, including the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/dioxin, to engage in these activities; provide funding to remediate those areas in Vietnam that 

continue to contain high levels of dioxin; to stop as soon as possible 

exposure for people living around those hot spots so we can prevent 

birth defects and diseases related to dioxin exposure for the future 

generations; and, require the chemical companies who manufactured Agent Orange to recognize their responsibility and assist the 

victims. 

I hope that this third hearing convened by Mr. Chairman and 

the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment 

will build on the testimony in the previous hearings and result in 

action to address the agony and the suffering the victims of Agent 

Orange and dioxin are experiencing daily. We look forward to your 

42

understanding and empathy. The pain of our victims is too great. 

Timely and effective actions taken by this Congress to help victims 

of Agent Orange and dioxin in Vietnam are the final step in healing the wounds of war as our two peoples in two countries continue 

to build a relationship of friendship and peace. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Phuong follows:]


57498c-1.eps
43


57498c-2.eps
44


57498c-3.eps
45


57498c-4.eps
46

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Dr. Phuong. 

Ms. Hoan, for her testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MS. TRAN THI HOAN, AGENT ORANGE VICTIM 

Ms. HOAN. First, I want to thank Chairman Faleomavaega and 

Member Watson and everybody spending time to come here. 

The subject of this hearing is to understand the needs of the victims of Agent Orange. I would like to contribute to this discussion 

because I am one of those victims. I would like to share my personal experience with you today. But my experience is not unique. 

I am one of hundreds of thousands of young people whose lives 

have been marked by our parents’ or grandparents’ exposure to 

Agent Orange. 

I was born as you see me, without two legs and missing a hand. 

I was born on December 16,1986, into a farming family in Duc 

Linh district of Binh Thuan province in central Vietnam. My mother was exposed to Agent Orange earlier when she was farming her 

plot of land, which turned out to have Agent Orange canisters buried in the soil. My older sisters and my older brother were born 

without any problems, and my younger brother was stillborn in 

1988, due to an abdominal wall defect. 

When I was young, it was difficult for me to play with the other 

children or attend school because at that time, people didn’t understand about Agent Orange. They thought my condition was a result 

of bad karma in my family. 

When I was 8 years old, I met a local journalist who suggested 

I go to Tu Do Hospital in Ho Chi Minh City so that I could get better care and an education. With my parents’ encouragement, I 

moved to Peace Village II, the Agent Orange center at Tu Du Hospital. 

Since then, I have been living in Peace Village II. I share the 

ward with 60 children suffering from the effects of Agent Orange. 

Let me tell you about some of my friends who share my home. 

They suffer from spinal bifida, congenital limb deformity, 


57498c-5.eps
47

multijoint stiffness, different types of syndromes, microcephaly, hydrocephalus, cerebral palsy, and others. 

I also know others, such as Pham Thi Thuy Dung, who is 16 

years old, and Pham Thi Linh Nhi, her younger sister, 14, and 

their sufferings, but I don’t know how they are classified. She cannot speak. Dung was born in Binh Thuan province; 48 inches in 

height, 53 pounds in weight, bedridden, she cannot speak. She gets 

sick when there is a change in temperature. Linh Nhi is 64 pounds 

and 49 inches tall, she sleeps most of the time and suffers from nutritional deficiencies. Little Pham Thi Thuy Linh, born 1994 without arms, now lives in Peace Village II. She writes with her toes. 

Her grandpa was an ARVN soldier who participated in the spraying of Agent Orange. 

At Peace Village II, we all live together, and those of us who are 

able help those who are sicker. 

Some of my friends have died from their birth defects, like 

Nguyen Thi Hanh, born in 1997, who had multijoint stiffness, and 

died in 2007. Little Huynh Thurong Hoai, born in 1996 in Cu Chi 

without a left arm and without legs, had a heart defect and suffered from epilepsy and multideformity and died in 1999 from total 

heart muscle failure. Victims of Agent Orange die every day, and 

they need immediate attention and help. 

The staff of the Peace Village II is loving and kind and does their 

best to create a warm atmosphere for us. There are many other 

children who could benefit from this treatment, but there is not 

enough room for all those children who need this kind of care. 

Some of the residents, like me, can go to school and work, but others will lie in their beds until they eventually die. All over Vietnam 

there are hundreds of thousands of children like Dung and Hanh 

who lie at home without access to the services available to those 

at Peace Village II. 

I don’t know what would have happened to me if I hadn’t been 

able to come to Peace Village II. Without legs and a hand, it would 

be difficult to farm. And without education, other jobs would be out 

of reach. But I was able to go through school. I am now about to 

graduate from the Ho Chi Minh City University of Foreign Languages and Information Technology with a certificate in computer 

science. In fact, I took a week away from preparing for final exams 

to come and testify here today. 

I am considering continuing my education. I had dreamed about 

being a doctor, but I don’t know if my physical condition will allow 

me to do this. But I am confident that I will be able to find a way 

to make a contribution to my society and to continue to help other 

Agent Orange victims. 

I am one of the lucky ones. While I am missing limbs, my mental 

functioning is fine. No one knows what other effects of the dioxin/

Agent Orange may develop in my body, but many babies, children, 

and young people my age live lives of quiet agony. They are 

trapped in bodies that do not work. Their brain remains in infancy 

even as their bodies grow. Most of these children have much fewer 

medical and rehabilitative services than me. Most live with their 

families in farming communities like the one I grew up in. Some 

of their parents, the generation directly exposed to Agent Orange, 

are also sick with cancer. Whatever their health, most parents of 

48

seriously disabled victims are poor. Needing to provide constant 

care for their children, they cannot work. Many must spend money 

they don’t have each month for medicines. Some live is substandard housing. 

Our Government does provide assistance to the most seriously ill 

victims, but our country is still developing, and the system doesn’t 

meet all the needs. The organization that represents individuals, 

the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/dioxin, also 

assists the victims. VAVA, as it is called, is building daycare centers for young victims, rehabilitation centers, and providing medical care and social services. I am part of the new generation of 

VAVA members around the country. 

What do the victims need and want? We want those responsible 

for the terrible consequences of Agent Orange to hear our pain and 

then to respond as members of the human family. The chemical 

manufacturers who made the Agent Orange and the U.S. Government who sprayed and dumped it in our country should respond to 

this human tragedy by doing the right thing. This is a matter of 

justice and humanity. 

Building more centers like Peace Village II in many regions of 

Vietnam is necessary, particularly for those with severe birth defects. 

For those who are somewhat better off, daycare centers, vocational and educational rehabilitation centers, and aid to families to 

facilitate home care are crucial. Medical care specifically targeted 

to the conditions we face, as well as prosthetics and other services, 

is needed. 

For our parents and grandparents exposed during the war, treatment for their cancers and all the diseases is a responsibility. 

A comprehensive approach will be required to meet these human 

health needs. Going along with this is the requirement that the 

toxic hot spots where dioxin remains in the land and water be 

cleaned up. 

Agent Orange victims also want a say in how services for us are 

planned and delivered. That is why our organization, VAVA, should 

be central to the development of all assistance programs. 

Many youth like me were born after the war. Like other young 

people, we dream of having a family, getting a job, and having a 

peaceful life. But the aftermath of the war destroys the dreams of 

many young Agent Orange victims in Vietnam. In this 15th year 

of relations between Vietnam and the U.S., we ask the U.S. people 

and their representatives to reach out your hands in friendship and 

understanding. 

I am aware that the children and grandchildren of U.S. veterans 

exposed to Agent Orange are suffering like us. We wish to share 

common experiences with them. We hope that they receive the 

medical care and assistance they need. 

There is a Vietnamese saying, ‘‘Ngay mai troi lai sang,’’ something like the American popular song, ‘‘The sun will come up tomorrow.’’

I hope that this hearing will be testament to the power of hope, 

of dreams, and of assuring justice. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hoan follows:]

49


57498d-1.eps
50


57498d-2.eps
51


57498d-3.eps
52

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Dr. Phuong and Ms. Hoan, for 

your statements. 

Without objection, the statements of all our witnesses this afternoon will be made part of the record and any other extraneous materials they want will be added to the record as well. 

I would like to turn the time now to Dr. Watson for her line of 

questions. 

Ms. WATSON. I want to thank our two witnesses for coming here 

and giving us an update. My colleague and I almost 10 years ago 

went over to Vietnam, and we looked at some of the victims and 

their rehabilitation programs. 

However, many years later, and maybe Dr. Phuong can address 

this, have you done the long-term studies as to what generational 

effects there are? Because we are looking at 40 years later. And 

what are you seeing now among the new births? 

Dr. PHUONG. Ms. Congresswoman, yes, we do have many studies, 

but the long-term follow up we do not have. But every year, almost 

every year, we have a cross-sectional study on villages in sprayed 

areas, so that now we follow, not very continuously, but every year, 

once every year. 

So we found out in, for example, Phnom Tamao, where the 

spread was very heavy during wartime, and the third generation 

has the same as the second generation; they also have birth defects, they also have cancers very young, and many diseases like 

their parents. 

Ms. WATSON. Are you seeing a reduction in these effects? Or just 

generation after generation, when babies are born, you see the 

same defects as you did in the first generation? I am wondering if 

the spray, whatever the antibodies are, if they wear down after a 

period of time. Are you still seeing the defects as strong as they 

were in the first generation? 

Dr. PHUONG. I have many patients where the first generation is 

okay, no birth defects, but the second generation, they have cancer. 

But the third generation, the father and mother look outside normal, but the father later has cancer. But now, at the time they 

have the child, he is still normal, but the child has birth defects, 

it is invisible, and the second child is also invisible and the third 

child is also invisible. The second generation, no visibilities. But 

the third generation, there are many. 

Ms. WATSON. Well, you are seeing a pattern, sometimes it skips 

over a generation, but it is picked up. 

Dr. PHUONG. Yes. 

Ms. WATSON. The studies that you have done, could you share 

that information with us? 

Dr. PHUONG. Yes. It was published in many scientific journals, 

like the ‘‘Chemosphere’’ in the U.K. and in the journal of the APAA 

in the USA. 

Ms. WATSON. Let me now speak to the chair. I just appreciate 

you following up the way you have done. If this information is 

available, then if there is a subsequent hearing, because I do know 

you have a second panel——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. WATSON. Please. 

53

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Because I think your line of questions fits 

right into the most serious dialogue that I had with our friends 

from the State Department and USAID. Unless I am deaf or something, they suggested that there is no causal relationship between 

dioxin and Agent Orange and the people of Vietnam who were exposed it. And what I have come to understand now, from the testimony of Mr. Palmer and Dr. Wilson, is that our Government has 

done no scientific study on this issue. 

Would you believe this? If there was a study, we don’t accept it 

to say that there is a causal relationship between the deformities 

and abnormalities of the victims, the people who were exposed to 

Agent Orange and dioxin. And I was wondering if Dr. Phuong could 

help us along this line about the scientific studies, at least to her 

understanding, I was a little surprised to learn this from our 

friends from the administration that we don’t admit the connection 

between Agent Orange and the causes of what has happened to 

being exposed to it. 

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, if you will yield? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Absolutely. 

Ms. WATSON. Dr. Phuong, you mentioned that a lot of this information has appeared in some of the medical journals? 

Dr. PHUONG. Yes. 

Ms. WATSON. Would you expand on that, give us a sense of time 

when they appeared. And after you finish, I would like to suggest 

that we get a copy of her raw data. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Without objection. All materials from Dr. 

Phuong’s good office will be made part of the record on anything 

proven in terms of any scientific studies, medical journals, experiments that were done on a causal connection between birth defects 

and exposure to Agent Orange. 

Dr. PHUONG. Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Watson, I would like to 

provide you one detail, one more detail, that the American Public 

Health Association has about 14,000 members, and they are very 

informed in epidemiology and in its 2007 policy statement on Agent 

Orange recognized the responsibility of the U.S. Government and 

chemical companies to alleviate the harm caused by the use of 

Agent Orange in recommending that the U.S. Government and 

both chemical companies provide resources for the disabled, provide 

medical nursing services, et cetera. So that means that they accept 

the connection, the link between Agent Orange, dioxin, and the disability and the illnesses. So that they recommend U.S. Government 

and the chemical companies because all of them are at the top of 

epidemiologists. I think that you do know that. So I think it is 

proof that now we can rely on, I think. 

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I think in light of Dr. Phuong’s testimony, we might want to call some of them in. We can have a subsequent hearing with the data and the epidemiology studies, what 

are we doing? And since they have made the connection between 

Agent Orange and dioxin and it has had a negative effect, we need 

to query that. 

I chair a subcommittee on procurement. And since it is the responsibility of our Government to follow up, what are we doing? We 

could hold a joint hearing, Mr. Chair, and raise these questions 

with those who have received the information. 

54

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If the gentlelady will yield. I would be more 

than delighted to have a joint hearing with your subcommittee to 

follow up on this issue because I have now come to realize that 

there is resistance from the administration and from our Government to have any sense of admission that there is a causal connection between Agent Orange and its effect, especially in the substance of dioxin. That is the reason why we are making this inquiry of why the sensitivity because for many years our own veterans filed lawsuits against Monsanto and Dow Jones chemical 

companies because they were the ones responsible for manufacturing and producing Agent Orange. And I believe that is where it 

gets a little fuzzy in terms of our courts also came up with decisions that doesn’t seem to really—well, you know what lawyers can 

do with things like this, they make you go round and round and 

round and still with no clear answer. 

But I would be delighted to do a joint hearing with the 

gentlelady. 

Ms. WATSON. And I have one more question, if I may, of Ms. 

Hoan. 

You have overcome a lot of the disabilities or handicaps. I must 

commend you on your speaking of English. I could understand everything that you were saying. So that shows that you are someone 

who has gotten in there and you are fighting. It is my hope that 

you will further continue, if possible, and aid those who are suffering from the results of Agent Orange. 

What services would you suggest or would you like to see us provide to accomplish this goal to help people live, but to be sure we 

will have an impact on generations yet unborn? So can you just tell 

us what you see is missing that we might supply? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If it makes it easier for Ms. Hoan, she can 

speak in Vietnamese and then you translate in English. 

Ms. HOAN. I will try to speak by English. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. All right. Whatever is easier. 

Ms. HOAN. In my testimony, I think we need more centers like 

Peace Village II. We need vocational and educational rehabilitation 

centers, and facilitate home care and medical care and prosthetics 

because Peace Village has a lot of children that are missing a hand 

or a leg, so they need prosthetics to go to school or to do something 

they want. 

And with some other children, they need more centers to take 

care of medical to help their health. And we also need education 

for the victims who still have normal brain like me. We need education for in the future we can get a job to earn money for themselves. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Dr. Phuong, as I had mentioned earlier, I 

want to get to the bottom line on the issues that we are confronted 

with in terms of scientific studies that have been conducted. I 

would welcome your assistance in providing for the record any scientific studies or experiments that you are aware of to prove that 

there is definitely a relationship between what happened to Ms. 

Hoan as a result of the Agent Orange. Because it seems that there 

is still resistance on the part of the administration to admit the 

connection. And I believe this is one of the reasons why over the 

years the sensitivity of the case is to the extent that we just don’t 

55

want to admit liability or gullibility—or whatever you want to call 

it—to what has happened. 

And I might also add that this is just as much a tremendous 

challenge even in our own country of providing proper assistance 

to people with disabilities. It is a big issue even here in America, 

that we have been totally inadequate in providing assistance, even 

as you said, prosthetics and the proper facilities for training, for 

education, for all of these areas, even facilities to accommodate the 

needs of citizens with disabilities even to go through a door or to 

go up a stairway, a situation that most of us who are normal take 

for granted. Even having wheelchairs, just to be mobile, to be able 

to more self-sufficient. 

I really would like for you to share with us a little more. Is there 

any question in your mind about what dioxin and Agent Orange 

have done to your people? Because I hear our friends downtown 

saying we are there to help people with disabilities regardless. But 

they never say they will include those suffering from effects of 

Agent Orange. And I would like your response to that. 

Dr. PHUONG. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to help 

a little bit about proving the link between, so after going home, I 

will send you all my papers published in the U.K. or in the U.S. 

concerning the dioxin and the health effects. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Could you please do that? I would deeply 

appreciate it. Like I said, this is the third hearing that we have 

held. And the purpose of the hearing is to establish a firm record, 

establish a record with sufficient data, information and evidence to 

show that there is not only a connection, but the question following 

then, what are we doing about it in giving assistance to your people? This is what we are trying to do. 

The contradiction of this issue is the fact that my own Government, after years and years of resistance about our veterans or soldiers who were exposed—presumably exposed to Agent Orange, is 

that we now have established a policy for any soldier like myself 

who served in Vietnam during that 10-year period. The Veterans 

Administration says there may be a connection between our illnesses and exposure to Agent Orange while we were in Vietnam, 

and yet we don’t have to prove there is a connection. So this is 

where I am getting somewhat of a very interesting policy being formulated by my Government, not only because of our bilateral relationship, but internally, for the treatment of our own soldiers 

where we have had to take a lawsuit, had to file a lawsuit on this 

matter. 

Ms. WATSON. Will the chairman yield? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please. 

Ms. WATSON. I think our new administration would be more sensitive to what we are proposing and the relationship between Agent 

Orange and dioxin and the generational defects as a result. And so 

I think we ought to make a real effort, after we have our second 

hearing with the—I think we ought to have the chemical companies sitting at that table——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. If the gentlelady will yield? 

Ms. WATSON. I will yield. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would love to have a joint hearing with 

you sometime in September to bring people from DOD, the medical 

56

people, some of our veterans who have been actively engaged in 

this issue. This is just an internal matter, Dr. Phuong, that we 

have to do, but please bear with us in doing this. Absolutely, I 

would love to do this. 

But I do want to say to Ms. Hoan, I sincerely hope that the sun 

will come up tomorrow. 

Dr. Phuong, you mentioned that there was a conference held in 

Paris. Was this a medical conference discussing the issue of Agent 

Orange? You had mentioned this in your testimony. Can you elaborate a little further on that? 

Dr. PHUONG. Mr. Chairman, you are asking about the comprehensive medical care? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes. 

Dr. PHUONG. Yes. We have a lot of disabled, so that we need to 

set up many centers. We have Peace Village. Peace Village is in 

Vietnam. Each of them take care of only 50 or 60, so that we cannot take care of as many as possible because we have too many victims, disabled children. So that we wish to have more centers for 

the disabled children due to Agent Orange. 

And then we would like to have a network of the people who can 

do the rehabilitation, not only for the movement of the limbs, but 

also for speech and for the other sensory organs, and also for the 

mental retardation. And then we wish to have enough facilities for 

making diagnosis of birth defects very early during pregnancy. And 

also, we wish to have enough facilities to detect very early the cancers, many kind of cancers. 

In my country, in the big cities, in Hanoi, in Ho Chi Minh City 

and Da Nang and some more cities we can have such a facility. But 

in district or in the remote areas where the dioxin is still there, we 

cannot have a network reaching down to the district or community. 

So we wish to have more facilities for detect cancers, for detect 

birth defects at a very early stage. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Dr. Phuong and Ms. Hoan, again, I cannot 

thank you both enough for traveling all the way from Vietnam to 

come and testify before this subcommittee. Please rest assured that 

our keen interest is not lessened in any way, and that I am just 

very happy that the gentlelady from California and I are going to 

continue to do the work. 

The situation now is more of an internal matter so that we get 

a better settlement on this issue with our own administration and 

our own leaders to see what we need to do from our side. Because 

I honestly believe that the mindset of how we are looking at this 

issue for all these years has not been positive. But I do believe that 

if we continue pushing the matter and see that the proper facts 

and data and information on this matter will be such that not only 

will be as a matter to better inform the American public, but also 

our colleagues here in the Congress. 

So with that, I do want to sincerely thank you both for being 

here. I wish you Godspeed on your travels back to Vietnam. The 

gentlelady, unfortunately, decided to do better things than being a 

Member of Congress. She has decided to move on in her brilliant 

career and she will not be with us because she has decided to retire. But like I said, Dr. Phuong, assuming that I get reelected in 

57

November, you will see my ugly face again pushing this issue, all 

right? 

So thank you both. The hearing is adjourned. 

Dr. PHUONG. Mr. Chairman, Hoan told me before the hearing 

that she wishes to have a photo with you and Mrs. Watson. Is it 

possible, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Better yet, come to my office. We will have 

a photo here, and then we will go to my office. I am going to cook 

a pig there for you. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

60


57498n.eps
61


57498m.eps
62


57498g-1.eps
63


57498g-2.eps
64


57498h-1.eps
65


57498h-2.eps
66


57498h-3.eps
67

Æ


57498h-4.eps