[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 157 (Sunday, November 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10509-H10524]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO GERMAN GOVERNMENT'S
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEMBERS OF MINORITY RELIGIOUS GROUPS
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 22) expressing the sense of the
Congress with respect to the discrimination by the German Government
against members of minority religious groups, particularly the
continued and increasing discrimination by the German Government
against performers, entertainers, and other artists from the United
States associated with Scientology, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 22
Whereas since World War II, Germany has been a friend and
ally of the United States;
Whereas German government discrimination against members of
minority religious groups, particularly against United States
citizens, has the potential to harm the relationship between
Germany and the United States;
Whereas artists from the United States associated with
certain religious minorities have been denied the opportunity
to perform, have been the subjects of boycotts, and have been
the victims of a widespread and well-documented pattern and
practice of discrimination by German Federal, State, local,
and party officials;
Whereas the 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 United States
Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights in
Germany all noted government discrimination against members
of the Church of Scientology in Germany;
Whereas the German State of Baden-Wuerttemberg barred Chic
Corea, the Grammy Award-winning American jazz pianist, from
performing his music during the World Athletics Championship
in 1993, and in 1996 the State of Bavaria declared its
intention to bar Mr. Corea from all future performances at
State sponsored events solely because he is a member of the
Church of Scientology;
Whereas the Young Union of the Christian Democratic Union
and the Social Democratic Party orchestrated boycotts of the
movies ``Phenomenon'' and ``Mission Impossible'' solely
because the lead actors, Americans John Travolta and Tom
Cruise, are members of the Church of Scientology;
Whereas members of the Young Union of the Christian
Democratic Union disrupted a 1993 performance by the American
folk music group Golden Bough by storming the stage solely
because the musicians are members of the Church of
Scientology;
Whereas the Evangelical Christian Church of Cologne, led by
an American clergyman, Dr. Terry Jones, had its tax-exempt
status revoked by the German government with the reason being
that the church benefits to society were of ``no spiritual,
cultural, or material value'';
Whereas the German government is constitutionally obligated
to remain neutral on religious matters, yet has violated this
neutrality by supporting and distributing information to the
general public that gives the impression that ``sect-
experts'', who are only critical of all but the major
churches, are in a position to provide the public with fair,
objective, and politically neutral information about minority
religions;
Whereas the Jehovah's Witnesses' application for
recognition as a corporation under public law, which would
have put them on equal legal status with the Catholic and
Protestant churches, was denied by the Federal Administrative
Court because the church's doctrine of political neutrality
was considered to be antidemocratic;
Whereas government officials and ``sect-experts'' are using
the decision denying the Jehovah's Witnesses recognition as a
corporation under public law as a justification for
discriminatory acts against the Jehovah's Witnesses, despite
the fact that a constitutional complaint is still pending
before the German Constitutional Court;
Whereas adherents of the Muslim faith have reported that
they are routinely subject to police violence and
intimidation because of their ethnic and religious
affiliation;
Whereas the 1994 and 1995 Reports to the Human Rights
Commission of the United Nations on the application of the
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance
and of Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief by the
Special Rapporteur for Religious Intolerance criticized
Germany for restricting the religious liberty of certain
minority religious groups;
Whereas Germany, as a signatory to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, and the Helsinki Accords, is
obliged to refrain from religious discrimination and to
foster a climate of tolerance; and
Whereas Germany's policy of discrimination against minority
religions violates German obligations under the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, and the Helsinki Accords: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Congress--
(1) continues to hold Germany responsible for protecting
the rights of United States citizens who are living,
performing, doing business, or traveling in Germany, in a
manner consistent with Germany's obligations under
international agreements to which Germany is a signatory;
(2) deplores the actions and statements of Federal, State,
local, and party officials in Germany which have fostered an
atmosphere of intolerance toward certain minority religious
groups;
(3) expresses concern that artists from the United States
who are members of minority religious groups continue to
experience German government discrimination;
(4) urges the German government to take the action
necessary to protect the rights guaranteed to members of
minority religious groups by international covenants to which
Germany is a signatory; and
(5) calls upon the President of the United States--
(A) to assert the concern of the United States Government
regarding German government discrimination against members of
minority religious groups;
(B) to emphasize that the United States regards the human
rights practices of the Government of Germany, particularly
its treatment of American citizens who are living,
performing, doing business, or traveling in Germany, as a
significant factor in the United States Government's
relations with the Government of Germany; and
(C) to encourage other governments to appeal to the
Government of Germany, and to cooperate with other
governments and international organizations, including the
United Nations and its agencies, in efforts to protect the
rights of foreign citizens and members of minority religious
groups in Germany.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] each
will control 20 minutes.
[[Page H10510]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] is in opposition to the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne]
in opposition to the resolution?
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the resolution.
Mr. BEREUTER. Then, Mr. Speaker, I would claim the time in opposition
to the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman] and gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is if Mr. Gilman would give half
of his time for those who are in favor of the amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to yield appropriate time
to the gentleman from New Jersey.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Payne] will control 10 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
General Leave
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
this measure and include extraneous materials.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, while I do not take pleasure in bringing
this resolution to the floor criticizing Germany, we must be frank with
our friends. And when repeated treaties have failed and the matter is
serious enough, we must not hesitate in speaking frankly and on the
Record.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the German public officials have
displayed an unfortunate record of speech and action against minority
religions, action that, in my opinion, amounts to discrimination and
violation of German obligations under international law.
This resolution calls attention of the public to those actions, calls
upon Germany to change its behavior, and asks the President to take
appropriate action. I will not belabor these issues and will provide a
longer statement under leave to revise and extend my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] is sponsor to
this resolution, as well as the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon] and
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], each of whom has taken a great
interest in this legislation and are deserving of our commendation. The
resolution has been considerably broadened and softened in the course
of its consideration in the committee. And Members may refer to the
amendment now at the desk, copies of which are available on the floor.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of the problem of
religious minorities in Germany well over a year ago when I had the
opportunity to visit with American citizens about the problems that
their coreligionists had in Germany.
I have had the opportunity to discuss this on several occasions with
German Government officials. I have raised this issue in the context of
my profound respect for Germany as a friend of the United States. More
than a friend, it has become an especially close ally and, in addition,
a country that has done a great deal in recent years to protect and
uphold human rights around the world. This matter may distress our
German friends. But we must be frank with friends.
The German Government perceives Scientology and certain other
religious minorities as dangerous or not valuable to their society and
as not having the right to the same privileges as other religions. I am
sympathetic with German concerns that its history requires that its
society be vigilantly protected against totalitarianism. We are all too
familiar with how small organizations can grow into important threats
to human rights and world peace.
Let me be clear. I have criticized some of the tactics of the Church
of Scientology in its public relations campaign against Germany. The
use of Nazi imagery by the church or its supporters to characterize the
present Government of Germany is improper and unacceptable. But we
cannot allow our distaste for some of the tactics of Scientology's
supporters to undermine our concern about individual rights if we
believe they are violated.
The fact is that healthy democracies such as Germany have potent
weapons against groups when they take actions that actually threaten
their societies. Democracies need not and ought not to discriminate
against people based on matters of conscience or affiliation.
I am particularly concerned when discrimination against individuals
on religious ground is encouraged. While some public officials may have
an honest belief in the truth of their accusations, the political
process can encourage politicians to engage in scapegoating and playing
to public prejudices for partisan gain. This can, as we know--as
Germans above all know--end in tragedy.
In this connection, I am dismayed with regard to some of the remarks
that have been reported to have been uttered by German officials
responsible for the protection of the Constitution.
For example, in the course of an interview printed on October 13 of
this year in Die Welt, ostensibly devoted to discussing anti-Western,
extremist trends within Islam, Peter Frisch, head of the German Federal
Office of the Protection of the Constitution, stated that ``there are
several tens of thousands of Muslims in Germany who are converts from
Christianity. There is one Islamic center that has expressly issued
instructions to marry German women. The women would then convert to
Islam and their children should be brought up accordingly.'' This sort
of irrelevant, hatemongering rhetoric is unbecoming of an official
charged with safeguarding human rights. This is the same official, by
the way, who is today investigating Scientology.
During the period leading up to the consideration of this resolution
in committee, and thereafter, there have been accusations that the
German Government has been denied the opportunity to make it case. I
would note that it is not the normal practice of our committee to call
foreign ambassadors as witnesses and there was no request from the
German Ambassador to be heard. I moreover note that I have discussed
Scientology with the German Ambassador; the sponsors of this resolution
may wish to address the accusation by the German Ambassador that they
are unwilling to meet with him. Such an accusation was denied on the
record at our committee markup.
Further, I note that the German Ambassador was invited by Senator
D'Amato from New York to appear or send a representative of the German
Government to a hearing of the Commission on Security and Cooperation
in Europe, which he chairs. The German Ambassador declined because a
German Government official could not in principle appear before the
Commission. I will include in the Record a copy of Senator D'Amato
letter dated November 6, to me on this issue, and the German
Ambassador's letter to me on the resolution, dated September 16, 1997.
The Department of State has worked on the problems of Scientologists
and other minority religions in Germany and has done a good job in
fostering the American perspective. But this dialog has gone on for
some time and has had few positive results.
We hope that adopting this resolution, which has been modified
considerably since its introduction, would indicate to our German
friends that there is widespread support for the position that the
Department has been taking and would spur a reconsideration in Germany
of the policies that the resolution addresses.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the amended resolution.
The Ambassador of the
Federal Republic of Germany,
October 29, 1997.
Hon. Benjamin Gilman,
Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing you about H. Con. Res. 22
concerning alleged discrimination by the German Government
against members of minority religious groups. The draft
resolution I have seen contains allegations against the
German federal and state governments which are entirely
unfounded and absurd, and I emphatically reject them.
As you know, Germany is a free country in which religious
freedom is guaranteed under the constitution and thus
sacrosanct. Indeed, this fact was clearly confirmed in the
latest United States Department of State Country Report on
Human Rights. Furthermore, I
[[Page H10511]]
would like to add that no artist from the United States
associated with certain religious minorities has been denied
the right to perform in Germany.
I have enclosed information about the Scientology
organization and the Cologne Christian Community, which
speaks for itself. If you review it carefully, you will find
that the German authorities have not disturbed the practice
of religious freedom. Rather, on the contrary, there are
increasing indications that the Scientology organization uses
totalitarian and thus unconstitutional means to oppress its
members and their families.
Germany is a close and trusted U.S. ally. If the current
draft resolution were to come before your committee and to
the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote, such a
move would be incomprehensible to my government, the German
Parliament, and the German public. Moreover, it would be
inconsistent with the excellent status of our bilateral
relations and, indeed, could harm them.
I would be very grateful if you could take these concerns
into account in deciding how to proceed. In the past months,
I have attempted several times to arrange an appointment with
the co-sponsors of an earlier draft of this resolution in
order to explain the German position on the Scientology
organization.
Regrettably, the Congressional members did not wish to meet
with me on this matter. It therefore goes without saying that
I would be happy to discuss this matter with you anytime.
I will send a copy of this letter to the House ranking
minority member on the International Relations Committee,
Congressman Lee Hamilton.
Sincerely,
Jurgan Chrobog.
____
nonpaper
It cannot be said that the Christliche Gemeinde Koln--the
Cologne Christian Community--is being persecuted or
discriminated against by public institutions. Freedom of
belief is fully and unconditionally guaranteed in Germany.
The members of the Christliche Gemeinde Koln also are free to
practice their belief.
nonprofit status
As in the United States, religious communities in Germany
must supply specific proof that they are nonprofit
organizations in order to become tax exempt. After a thorough
review of the Christliche Gemeinde Koln, the German tax
authorities have found that the conditions under which the
sect was originally recognized as a nonprofit organization no
longer exist. For this reason, the Christliche Gemeinde Koln
will be assessed from now on, as are other noncharitable
organizations.
The Christliche Gemeinde Koln has appealed this decision. A
judgment by the Tax Court is still pending in this appeal.
dismissals of members of the Christliche Gemeinde Koln
The German Government does not yet have any relevant
information concerning the legal background of the
dismissals. It therefore cannot take a position on the
discrimination charges at this time.
____
Commission on Security
and Cooperation in Europe,
November 6, 1997.
Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,
Chairman, Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Following your Committee's mark-up of H.
Con. Res. 22 concerning German discrimination against
individuals holding minority religions or beliefs, I noted
that the German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, Klaus
Kinkel, has reportedly said that the German Ambassador to the
United States, Jurgen Chrobog, has offered to explain the
German position to Congress, but ``. . . he has had no chance
to do this.'' (``Kinkel Rejects American Critique: `No
Persecution of Religious Minorities in Germany,' '' in the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (National), November 3, 1997.)
This assertion is false.
I have attached for your information a copy of a letter of
invitation sent to Ambassador Chrobog on August 25, 1997. The
relevant portion of the letter reads as follows: ``I write
today to invite a representative of the Federal Republic of
Germany to testify at a public hearing of the Commission to
be held at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 18, 1997, in
room SDG-50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The
subject of the hearing will be `Emerging Intolerance in the
Federal Republic of Germany.' It will focus on official
policies and actions directed at members of minority ethnic
groups and minority religions and beliefs contrary to the
Federal Republic's international obligations.''
Commission staff engaged in repeated telephonic
conversations with officials at the Embassy of the Federal
Republic of Germany to ascertain whether the German
government would provide a witness at the hearing. At no time
did any German official indicate that a witness would be
provided.
After reviewing the problem of religious intolerance, I
decided to broaden the scope of the hearing and accordingly
changed its title to ``Religious Intolerance in Europe
Today,'' so that the Commission could better address the
Europe-wide nature of the problem. On September 9, 1997 my
Chief of Staff sent Ambassador Chrobog's deputy, Mr. Thomas
Matussek, a note explaining the change in scope and
indicating that no official German witness was needed.
On September 16, 1997, Ambassador Chrobog wrote to the
Commission saying that ``. . . an official representative of
Germany cannot, on principle, testify before the
Commission.'' Since the Commission is an independent agency
of the United States government, duly authorized by law, a
clarification of the principle invoked by Ambassador Chrobog
would be in order to determine if it would be possible for an
official of the Federal Republic of Germany to speak on the
record in public before any U.S. government body.
The Ambassador's letter enclosed a background paper
outlining the German government's official position on the
subject. By telephone, the Embassy asked that this paper be
made available to Commissioners. I agreed to do that and
copies of the Ambassador's letter and attached information
were placed on the dais at the hearing for the use of
Commissioners.
In addition, the German Embassy requested that the paper
enclosed with the Ambassador's letter be included in the
hearing record. I have also agreed to do that. When the
hearing record is published, it will contain all of the
documents I have attached to this letter.
I provide you with this detailed record of the Commission's
interactions with the Federal Republic of Germany's official
representatives so that you may accurately respond to the
allegation that official German views have not had the
opportunity to be presented to the House or Senate on this
subject. The opportunity was offered, and, unlike the
ambassadors and official representatives of candidate NATO
member states who appeared, testified, and responded to
questions at Commission hearings on that subject during the
spring of 1997, the German position was that they would not
provide a witness. I have responded positively to their
request that their written views be made available. In
addition, staff level contacts have continued as the
Commission seeks information.
Without attempting to discuss all of the problems in the
official German position on this issue, I want to highlight
the fact that Principle VII of the Final Act of the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the
``Helsinki Accords,'' to which the Federal Republic of
Germany is a party), provides, in pertinent part, that ``. .
. the participating States will recognize and respect the
freedom of the individual to profess and practice, alone or
in community with others, religion or belief acting in
accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.'' The
repeatedly asserted official German position that Scientology
is not a ``religion'' does not meet Germany's international
human rights obligations. Whether or not Scientology is a
religion is irrelevant in this case, because ``belief'' is a
broader term than ``religion,'' and Germany's official policy
toward Scientology ignores the fact that ``belief'' is a
protected category under the Helsinki Accords. Note that
Principle VII is phrased in the disjunctive, religion or
belief, and that Germany's policy toward Scientology is, we
believe, in violation of this critically important principle.
I appreciate this opportunity to assist you in dealing with
this matter, and look forward to continuing to work with you
on issues of mutual concern.
Sincerely,
Alfonse D'Amato, U.S.S.,
Chairman.
____
Commission on Security
and Cooperation in Europe,
August 25, 1997.
His Excellency Jurgen Chrobog,
Ambassador, Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Ambassador: I write today to invite a
representative of the Federal Republic of Germany to testify
at a public hearing of the Commission to be held at 10:00 am
on Thursday, September 18, 1997, in room SDG-50 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building. The subject of the hearing
will be ``Emerging Intolerance in the Federal Republic of
Germany.'' It will focus on official policies and actions
directed at members of minority ethnic groups and minority
religions and beliefs contrary to the Federal Republic's
international obligations.
The Commission is also inviting an official witness from
the Executive Branch to present the official United States
position on these matters as reflected in the Department of
State's ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for
1996,'' and other official statements.
While detailed plans for the hearing's organization are not
yet final, I anticipate having three panels of witnesses; a
first panel of official witnesses; a second panel of non-
governmental organization and academic experts; and a third
panel of publicly prominent Scientologists who have had
experience with German policies on the Church of Scientology
and its adherents. The third panel is occasioned in
particular because of the Council of Ministers' decision to
place the Church of Scientology ``under observation'' by the
Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and
coordinate state bodies.
I appreciate your kind attention to this request and
express the hope that you or someone else who can speak with
authority and credibility on Germany's approach to these
problems can testify to present the Federal
[[Page H10512]]
Republic's official position with the accuracy and clarity it
deserves.
In order to help Members prepare for the hearing, the
Commission requests that you provide 75 copies of your
written testimony at least one day prior to the hearing. Oral
presentations should be approximately 7-10 minutes in length.
If your desire, you may provide additional written material
for inclusion in the hearing record.
I look forward to working with you on this and other issues
of common concern.
Sincerely,
Alfonse D'Amato, U.S.S.,
Chairman.
____
The Ambassador of the
Federal Republic of Germany,
September 16, 1997.
Senator Alfonse D'Amato,
Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator D'Amato: Thank you very much for your letter
dated August 25, inviting a representative of the Federal
Republic of Germany to testify at the public hearing
``Emerging Intolerance in the Federal Republic of Germany,''
to be held by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe on September 18. I am also aware that my deputy, Mr.
Thomas Matussek, has received a letter, dated September 9,
from Mr. Hathaway, Chief of Staff of the Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe, explaining that the scope
of the hearing has now been changed.
Please understand that an official representative of
Germany cannot, on principle, testify before the Commission.
As you may know, I have proposed on several occasions to meet
individually with various Members of Congress to explain
Germany's approach to the Scientology organization. While
none of your colleagues expressed an interest in an exchange
of views, I would be glad to renew my offer.
In the meantime, I enclose a background paper outlining the
German position on the Scientology organization. The
Commission staff has already been supplied with a copy.
Sincerely,
Jurgen Chrobog.
____
scientology and Germany
Since October 1996 the Church of Scientology has waged an
aggressive campaign against Germany. Using full-page ads in
the New York Times and the Washington Post, the Scientology
organization has compared the treatment of Scientologists in
present-day Germany with that of the Jews under the Nazi
regime. This is not only a distortion of the facts, but also
an insult to the victims of the Holocaust. Officials in
Germany and the U.S. have repeatedly spoken out against this
blatant misuse of the Holocaust. Ignatz Bubis, Germany's top
Jewish leader, denounced the comparison as ``false'' and most
recently, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns at a
press briefing on June 6, 1997 said:
``Germany needs to be protected, the German Government and
the German leadership need to be protected from this wild
charge made by the Church of Scientology in the U.S. that
somehow the treatment of Scientology in Germany can or should
be compared to the treatment of Jews who had to live, and who
ultimately perished, under Nazi rule in the 1930s. This
wildly inaccurate comparison is most unfair to Chancellor
Kohl and to his government and to regional governments and
city governments throughout Germany. It has been made
consistently by supporters of Scientology here in the United
States, and by Scientologists themselves. I do want to
disassociate the U.S. Government from this campaign. We
reject this campaign. It is most unfair to Germany and to
Germans in general''.
After having conducted thorough studies on the Scientology
organization, the Federal Government has come to the
conclusion that the organization's pseudo-scientific courses
can seriously jeopardize individuals' mental and physical
health and that it exploits its members. Expert testimony and
credible reports have confirmed that membership can lead to
psychological and physical dependency, to financial ruin and
even to suicide.
In addition, there are indications that Scientology poses a
threat to Germany's basic political principles.
Because of its experiences during the Nazi regime, Germany
feels a special responsibility to monitor the development of
any extreme group within its borders. German society is
particularly alert towards radicalism of any kind and has set
stiff standards for itself when dealing with aggressive,
extreme groups--even when the groups are small in number.
Every citizen in Germany has the right to challenge the
legality of government decisions which affect him or her, in
an independent court. The Scientology organization has made
ample use of its right to go to court in Germany and will
continue to do so. Up until now, no court has found that the
basic and human rights of Scientology members have been
violated.
is scientology a threat?
According to a decision of March 22, 1995, by the Federal
Labor Court, Scientology utilizes ``inhuman and totalitarian
practices.'' Often members are separated from their families
and friends. The organization is structured so as to make the
individual psychologically and financially dependent on a
Scientology system. There are cases of the Scientology
organization using this system of control and assertion of
absolute authority to exercise undue influence in certain
economic sectors--particularly in personnel and management
training--causing serious harm to some individuals.
In response to the growing number of letters from concerned
parents and family members, particularly from those with
relatives in Scientology, the German Parliament (Bundestag)
established an investigative commission which will present a
report on the activities of ``sects and psycho-cults'' in the
course of the year 1997.
In the United States, two legal cases involving Scientology
support the German Federal Government's concerns about the
organization. In the early 1980s, 11 top Scientologists were
convicted in the United States for plotting to plant spies in
federal agencies, break into government offices and bug at
least one IRS meeting. Referring to Scientology's battle with
the IRS for tax-exempt status, The New York Times in a front-
page article published March 9, 1997 ``found that the (tax)
exemption followed a series of unusual internal IRS actions
that came after an extraordinary campaign orchestrated by
Scientology against the agency and people who work there.
Among the findings . . . were these: Scientology's lawyers
hired private investigators to dig into the private lives of
IRS officials and to conduct surveillance operations to
uncover potential vulnerabilities.'' In 1994, the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld a California court's finding of
substantial evidence that Scientology practices took place in
a coercive environment and rejected Scientology's claims that
the practices were protected under religious freedom
guaranties.
In other countries, too, the Scientology organization is
increasingly seen with great concern. In France, a government
commission led by Prime Minister Juppe, and charged with
monitoring the activities of sects, convened its first
meeting in mid-November 1996. On November 22, 1996, in Lyon,
several leading Scientologists were found guilty of
involuntary manslaughter and fraud in a case where methods
taught by Scientology were found to have driven a person to
suicide.
In Italy during December 1996, an Italian court ordered
jail terms for 29 Scientologists found guilty of ``criminal
association.''
In Greece, a judge declared in January 1997 that an Athens
Scientology group was illegal after ruling that the group had
used false pretenses to obtain an operating license.
Is Scientology a Bona-fide Religion?
In its ads and writings, the Scientology organization
claims it is internationally recognized as a religion, except
in Germany. This is false.
Among the countries that do not consider Scientology a
religion are Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Spain, as well as Israel and
Mexico.
In the United States, the Scientology organization did in
fact receive tax-exempt status as a religious congregation in
1993--after a decades-long, contentious battle with the IRS.
In Germany, it is possible for organizations undertaking
non-profit activities to be exempt from taxation. Up until
now, attempts by the Scientology organization to obtain such
status have failed. Two of the highest German courts recently
dealt with cases involving the Scientology organization. The
Federal Labor Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) in its above
mentioned decision on March 22, 1995, also ruled, that the
Scientology branch in Hamburg was not a religious
congregation, but clearly a commercial enterprise. In its
decision, the court quotes one of L. Ron Hubbard's
instructions ``make money, make more money--make other people
produce so as to make money'' and concludes that Scientology
purports to be a ``church'' merely as a cover to pursue its
economic interests.
The Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht)
confirmed decisions by lower administrative courts that the
Scientology organization has to register its economic
activities as a business with the relevant authorities
(decision of February 16, 1995).
Also in France, the Scientology organization is neither a
religion nor a non-profit institution. The organization's
Paris head office was closed in early 1996 for not paying
back taxes.
In Great Britain, the Scientology organization has been
rebuffed repeatedly by the Charity Commission which insisted
as recently as 1995 that the organization could not be
considered a religion under British law and could, therefore,
not enjoy any tax-exempt status.
Federal and Regional Action Taken Against the Scientologists in Germany
On June 6, 1997, Federal and State Ministers of the
Interior agreed to place the Scientology organization under
surveillance. The Ministers have established that several
activities of the Scientology organization may operate
contrary to democratic principles and therefore warrants a
formal investigation by the Office for the Protection of the
Constitution (Verfassungschutz). The investigation will focus
on the structure of the organization and not on individual
members. Concrete details regarding the extent of the
investigation are not available at this time, but more
information will be disclosed following the investigation's
first year. Referring to the investigation, Manfred Kanther,
[[Page H10513]]
Federal Minister of the Interior, said on June 6, 1997: ``The
year's surveillance will establish whether the organization
is simply an unpleasant group, a criminal organization or an
association with anti-constitutional aims.''
Some of the German states have taken steps to protect their
citizens against Scientology:
As of November 1, 1996, all applicants for admission to
Bavarian public service and Bavarian public service employees
must indicate whether they belong to the Scientology
organization. Membership in Scientology alone does not
automatically exclude individuals from public service.
The Scientology Public Relations campaign Against Germany
The Scientology organization has financed several highly
visible public relations campaigns directed against the
Federal Republic of Germany in American publications. Among
the papers that have carried full-page ads in the last couple
of years are the New York Times, the Washington Post and the
International Herald Tribune. In addition, the International
Herald Tribune published a controversial open letter to
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.
The Scientology organization has also distributed pamphlets
such as ``The Rise of Hatred and Violence in Germany,''
reiterating its allegations.
The open letter to Chancellor Kohl, written by a Hollywood
lawyer with famous Scientology clients, appeared in early
1997 in the International Herald Tribune. The letter repeated
Scientology organization assertions against Germany and was
signed by 34 American celebrities. ``Disgraceful and
irresponsible'' is how Michel Friedman, a member of the
Central Council of Jews in Germany, described the letter. He
added: ``It's totally off the mark. Today, we have a
democracy and a state based on the rule of law.''
Following the letter, the U.S. State Department again
criticized the Scientologists' public relations campaign,
saying, ``we have advised the Scientology community not to
run those ads because the German government is a democratic
government and it governs a free people. And it is simply
outrageous to compare the current Germany leadership to the
Nazi-era leadership. We've told the Scientologists this, and
in this sense we share the outrage of many Germans to see
their government compared to the Nazis.''
Are the Cases in the Ads True?
The Scientologists' repeated allegations that artists
belonging to Scientology are being discriminated against in
Germany are false. Freedom of artistic expression is
guaranteed in Article 5(3) of the German Basic Law (Germany's
Constitution), thus artists are free to perform or exhibit in
Germany anywhere they please.
Jazz pianist Chick Corea performed in Germany as recently
as March 24, 1996, during the 27th International Jazz Week
held in Burghausen, an event which received approximately
$10,000 in funding from the Bavarian Ministry of Culture.
``Mission Impossible,'' starring Tom Cruise, was a hit in
Germany, grossing $23.6 million.
Likewise, the Scientologists' claim that a teacher who
taught near the city of Hannover was fired for her beliefs is
untrue. The woman was not fired, though she repeatedly
violated school regulations by using the classroom to recruit
students and their parents to Scientology. After multiple
warnings, the woman was transferred from classroom to
administrative duties to prevent further violations.
Contrary to allegations that Scientologists' children have
been prevented from attending school, all children in
Germany, including Scientologists', are legally required to
attend school. If a Scientologist's child is not enrolled in
a German school, it can only be that the parent has pulled
the child out.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and rise in strong opposition to the legislation.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation came to the House
Committee on International Relations with very little notice. It was on
the agenda one morning. We have no Europe and Middle East subcommittee,
and this legislation is one more argument why we should have so that
bad and defective legislation, which in my judgment this is, can be
vetted by the subcommittee, reworked, or stopped at that point before
it comes to the House floor.
I think this legislation, if the Members of the body were fully
familiar with it, would be voted down. We are taking it up in the last
hours of the Congress. I am very concerned about the kind of message
that it will send.
What we do on this body does matter when it comes to statements on
foreign policy. We may consider it to be a very lightly relevant issue
at times. But I will tell my colleagues, across the oceans when other
countries look at what we do, they take it very seriously. So we have
to be very careful.
The Ambassador from Germany to the United States has weighed in with
about as strong a letter as I have seen, refuting some of the arguments
that have been made by proponents of the legislation. He contends he
did not have an opportunity to meet with the Members who were
sponsoring it. That has been argued about in the committee, as I
understand it.
But I think one important point would be this: This comes down, as I
understand it, to a matter of taxation with respect to what we would
say in English would be the Cologne Christian community, because they,
in Germany, do not consider Scientology to be a religion. Therefore,
they tax it. But Germany is not alone in that respect. So does Belgium,
France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, and
Europe, plus Israel and Mexico. And those are just the countries that I
know about.
So it seems to me to bring this legislation here aiming it at
Germany, which was at first at least almost exclusively a Scientology-
oriented legislation, now been broadened with an amendment to change
it, I think is inappropriate. It is unbalanced. It is damaging to our
relations with Germany. And there is no real cause for us to be
considering this kind of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as a sponsor of this bill expressing disapproval of
religious discrimination by the German Government, I want to thank my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined in supporting a
very basic, democratic right, freedom of religion.
This bipartisan resolution was approved by the full Committee on
International Relations after performing artists associated with
religious minorities were denied the opportunity to perform in Germany
and were also kept out of the political process. As our resolution
states, the German Government is constitutionally obligated to remain
neutral on religious matters, but it has violated this neutrality.
The United States, as the leader of the free world and champion of
democracy around the globe, has an obligation to take a stand whenever
we see basic religious rights being restricted, whether their religious
affiliation is Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or any other faith.
Performing artists from the United States have been denied the right to
perform in Germany based on their personal spiritual beliefs.
When our citizens visit and work abroad, they should be able to live
in peace without the fear of religious intolerance or mistreatment by
the host government. In turn, when individuals visit the United States
or decide to live here, they have a right to be able to worship freely
and join any organization or group they choose to. These are good-faith
gestures. Discrimination against a person because of his or her
personal beliefs is always objectionable.
Congress should stand up and say that we strongly disprove of
religious intolerance. Germany is a friend, has been a friend for some
time, an ally of the United States, and we want that relationship to
remain strong and mutually beneficial. That is why we are calling on
the German Government to respect the fundamental rights of every
citizen of a democracy, the right to enjoy religious freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Pickett].
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr.
Bereuter] for yielding me the time.
I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution was
acted upon without a public hearing and without a committee report and
should, at the very least, be further considered by the committee. The
sweeping allegations in the resolution are based upon a handful of
alleged events that in no way support the allegations. This is serious
business.
Germany is one of our Nation's staunchest and most dependable allies.
The only purpose this resolution will serve is to create ill will and
less friendly relations with a steadfast
[[Page H10514]]
friend. America needs the full and enthusiastic support of strong and
dependable nations like Germany. If it is to be successful in carrying
out its mandate of world leadership, we should not be petty and elevate
every issue to embarrassing confrontation.
When folks on one side of the street start throwing rocks, it is not
long before folks on the other side start throwing them back. This
resolution is bad for our country. I urge Members to reject it.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me how much time we have
consumed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has
8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]
has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Payne] has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Salmon], a member of our committee.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful opportunity for us to
reaffirm what we stand for here in this country, whether or not we
stand for the ability of Americans, wherever they live, whether it be
in this country, whether it be Germany, Italy, wherever, to worship
according to the dictates of their own conscience.
I have heard my colleagues say that this was not given an adequate
hearing. Let me tell them that I serve on the committee dealing with
security and cooperation in Eastern Europe. We had a full day of
testimony and hearings regarding incident after incident of persecution
in Germany of minority religions.
I have heard it also referred to as the Scientology bill. Let me tell
my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, it is much broader than that. I had folks
from the Jehovah's Witness religion, folks from other Christian
religions, Muslims, come into my office and tell me some of the horrors
that they have had to endure regarding religious persecution in
Germany. It is much more than just a taxation issue.
{time} 1745
When we talk about American citizens being blacklisted or blackballed
and boycotted simply because of their religion, not allowed to go
abroad and perform simply because of their religious persuasion, that
is something that ought to give us great concern. Furthermore, I have
heard some of my colleagues on this floor in a whisper, I do not think
anybody wants to go forth publicly and say anything this ludicrous, but
I have heard some Members say behind the scenes, ``Wait a minute, this
is Scientology, they aren't Christian, or they aren't one of the
mainstream religions.'' I doubt anybody would say something that
foolish in the light of day because frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is what
this country began about, it was about religious freedom, religious
tolerance. That is why a band of people came to this country initially,
so that they could flee religious persecution. If we do not stand for
the protection of that, regardless of whether or not it is a minority
religion, then we stand for nothing. Let me also point out that
virtually every religion, yes, even Christianity, which I am proud to
be a believer in, started as a minority religion.
From that time on, people were persecuted for their beliefs. Whether
they are killed, whether they are blackballed, whether they are thrown
out of the country, whatever persecution exists, we have a
responsibility in our Government to stand up and be counted. If we
cannot do that, if we cannot speak harshly to our allies who are our
friends, if we cannot be plain spoken and honest with them, how can we
be plain spoken and honest with our enemies?
Last week we debated 8 bills decrying China for its violations on
human rights. I have heard some say that, ``Gosh, we didn't have any
officials from Germany come and testify before our committee.
Therefore, how can we give this serious credence?'' I have served on
the Committee on International Relations for 3 years and I do not
recall a public official from any of the governments that we have done
resolutions on ever coming in and testifying before that committee.
Frankly, this is all a smoke screen. Let us stand up and be counted.
Let us stand for what we profess to believe in, that is, religious
tolerance.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, just for clarification I would indicate
that the Committee on International Relations did not have hearings on
this. The Helsinki Commission organization in this body did, but not
the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Campbell], a member of the committee.
(Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, how quick we are to condemn and how quick
we are to neglect the advice of scripture to be sure about what may be
in our own eye before we go and criticize what we find in another's.
But this is particularly difficult when the criticism is against a
friend and when we have not given that friend the opportunity to be
heard.
Let me be very explicit. We, the House of Representatives, the
Committee on International Relations, has not given Germany the
opportunity to be heard. There is an allegation that Senator D'Amato
might have invited German witnesses, they might have refused. I
understand that is a give and take in that particular context. I
understand that at one point Senator D'Amato's chief of staff said that
a German witness was not going to be needed after all. But the point
about our committee and our House is that we are today condemning a
friend, an ally of the United States and we have not had the common
courtesy to ask Germany to send a representative to our committee to
answer the charges. That is no way to treat a friend and ally.
These are very strong charges. Let me quote from the resolution. We
believe that Germany has ``fostered an atmosphere of intolerance toward
certain minority religious groups.''
Given the history of Germany, these are very painful words. These are
words that we should not be saying lightly. Yet we do without having
heard from our friends. We claim that the German Government has engaged
in discrimination and we use the word several times in the resolution.
First of all, the pain and the process are emphasized in my remarks,
the pain that we inflict on a friend and the imprecision of the
process. But note as well that this really does not deal with the high
concerns that the sponsors wish to suggest. It seems to concern itself
at least as much with tax-exempt status in Germany, as to which we
would not welcome German interference in our country.
I conclude by saying this: To the German Government and to our
friends around the world who watch what we do today, please understand
this is not the overwhelming majority. Understand what we do today in
the final minutes of a session coming to a conclusion is not the
thoughtful expression of a majority of this House, in my view. It was a
voice vote in the committee. It will probably be a voice vote again.
Please note that we are not addressing you in the terms that this
resolution appears to say, that we are better friends than that.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra].
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 22 is about preserving
religious freedom, plain and simple. I learned the depth of this
problem when I was introduced to the hardships faced by scientologists
in Germany. Early in my congressional career about 5 years ago, I met
with Chick Corea the renowned jazz pianist and learned that he had been
barred from public performances in Germany. He was set to go, he had
performances all lined up. All of a sudden he was not granted a visa to
go into Germany even though most of his performances had already been
for the most part sold out. At the time I was able to work with a
number of my colleagues and we put letters together and sent them off
to the German government protesting such actions.
Back in 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in the future days
which
[[Page H10515]]
we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon 4
essential human freedoms. Those freedoms he listed were freedom of
speech, of expression, of being free from want, and freedom from fear.
He also told us of the freedom of every person to worship God in his
own way everywhere in the world. I mention that because just yesterday,
if Members read the New York Times, there was an article that said a
Federal immigration court judge in Tampa, Florida, granted asylum to a
German citizen who was a member of the Church of Scientology. Her
asylum claim was based on the fact that she would be subjected to
religious persecution had she returned to Germany.
Many of my constituents, as I suspect many of your constituents, are
members of religious minority groups like the Church of Scientology.
This resolution calls for protecting their rights if and when they
spend time in Germany. They deserve this protection. German citizens
themselves who are members of minority religious groups deserve
religious freedom as well.
As Members cast their vote on House Concurrent Resolution 22,
remember the words of President Roosevelt listing religious freedom as
one of the four essential human freedoms. As he said, freedom of every
person to worship God in his own way everywhere in the world. Today is
one of those future days that President Roosevelt spoke of. Today we
should be standing together to say aye to House Concurrent Resolution
22.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Houghton], a member of the committee.
(Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I feel very uncomfortable supporting this
measure. I do not know whether the actions of the German Government in
relationship to the Church of Scientology are right or wrong. I have a
sense, and this is probably presumptuous for me to say, had I been
given the decision to make, I might have made it a little differently.
But that is not the issue. The issue is whether we do not look just a
bit pompous sitting back here with all our many moral problems in this
country, to pass judgment on a nation, our friend, which is wrestling
with something which we ourselves and other nations of this world are
wrestling with. This is not a Martin Niemoller issue. Please let us
withhold judgment. I would not support this measure.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Weller].
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, as
amended, and ask for bipartisan support. This issue is something pretty
basic for all Americans, about basic American principles and values of
freedom and religion. I think we all wonder sometimes and think back to
why the Founding Fathers and Mothers came to our Nation. One of the
reasons was and is because we practice tolerance and freedom of
religion, and they came here, our ancestors, to avoid religious
persecution. It is a pretty basic value for all of us. Germany is our
ally. It is a first world country. It should be leading the way in
religious tolerance. But unfortunately, American citizens today are
being denied the ability to do business in Germany because of their
religious faith. Whether Members agree with the values and the
teachings of Islam, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Charismatic Christians
or the Church of Scientology, these individuals are being persecuted
today. That is why this resolution is important. The President should
be discussing this issue because he should be speaking in behalf of
Americans who are suffering persecution. Congress must speak. I ask for
bipartisan support. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
resolution. If there is discrimination then it should be pointed out,
but it should be pointed out in all the places it might occur. But here
efforts are being made to single out Germany. I rise in opposition
because there are differing views about some of the specific
allegations. One of the performers that has been mentioned here has
played in Germany as recently as last year at a function that received
funding from the State of Bavaria. The movies that have supposedly been
boycotted indeed have been shown and have been hits in Germany,
financial successes.
I rise in opposition because if we are talking about the Church of
Scientology. Our own country did not grant tax-exempt status to that
church until 1993. Indeed, there is a long list of nations, Belgium,
France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg,
Mexico, Spain that presently decline to grant that same status.
I rise in opposition because France, Italy, and Greece recently have
taken actions which could be considered as discrimination in the sense
they had made rulings against this Church of Scientology, and yet this
resolution does not mention them.
Finally, because in a statement by Michael Friedman of the Central
Council of Jews in Germany, responding to many of the charges made, he
writes, ``They are totally off the mark. Today we have a democracy in
Germany and a state based on rule of law.''
The sponsors have heightened awareness about alleged discrimination
in many places, but let us not single out an ally with relatively
unsubstantiated charges. Instead, let us engage and talk to each other
as the true friends we are. There are American men and women in Bosnia
today side by side with German men and women holding up an important
part of our European responsibilities. Germany works with us in so many
different ways. Let us recognize that and vote this resolution down, at
the same time urging that discrimination everywhere be pointed out and
that we deal with it together.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for
religious freedom and ask my colleagues to support House Concurrent
Resolution 22.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 22,
which declares that the Congress holds Germany responsible for
protecting the rights of United States citizens who are living, doing
business, or traveling in Germany and deplores the actions of certain
government officials in Germany which have fostered an atmosphere of
intolerance toward certain minority religious groups.
This country was founded on the principles of freedom of religion,
and in over 200 years of history we have not only survived but thrived.
This resolutions calls for the President to assert the concern of the
United States Government against such discrimination; to emphasize that
the United States regards the human rights practices of the German
Government as a significant factor in the relationship between the two
countries; and to encourage other governments to appeal to the
Government of Germany in efforts to protect the rights of foreign
citizens and members of minority religious groups in Germany.
Germany is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the
Helsinki accords, and is therefore obliged to refrain from religious
discrimination and to foster a climate of tolerance.
It is important for the Congress to make its views known with regards
to human rights by our adversaries, but especially by our allies.
Religious freedom should be a basic right of all people regardless of
their faith or nationality.
I would hope that the people of Germany will take note of the
peaceful diverse religious community that exists here in this country
and would reframe from discouraging religious diversity in their own
nation.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.
Thank you.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Pastor].
(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, when I first came to this Congress in
October of 1991, I was approached about trying to do something with
this issue. I have to tell Members since then to today, things have
gotten worse for the people
[[Page H10516]]
not only who are in Germany but also for the Americans that travel to
Germany.
Mr. Speaker, the issue is, if you are for human rights, you should be
for this resolution. If you are against religious persecution, you
should be for this resolution. If you are against the persecution of
Christians in China, you should be for this resolution. Mr. Speaker,
there is concern for many of us in this country and we are supporting
this resolution in a bilingual nature, because we want to show our
concern that we do not want history to repeat itself in Germany.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The gentleman from New York
[Mr. Gilman] has 9 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Nebraska
[Mr. Bereuter] has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am troubled and puzzled and disappointed
that the House tonight has decided to take up this resolution with
regard to the Church of Scientology in Germany when the House has
decided not to bring up the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act, a
bill that I sponsored along with 96 other Members of the House. While
we are debating this resolution tonight, millions of Christians in
Tibet, Buddhists in Tibet, Buddhists, Ahmadis in other countries, the
Baha'is in Iran, Muslims in China and people of other faith are being
brutalized, killed, raped, tortured and maimed because of their
beliefs, and yet the House does not deal with this issue and they deal
with this issue with regard to this resolution.
{time} 1800
There is real life slavery. In Sudan tonight they are going into
slave markets and taking people out, and the House does not deal with
that issue, but yet it deals with this issue.
In Egypt Coptic Christians are being persecuted today as we now
speak. The House does not deal with that issue, but it deals with this
issue.
In closing, I am troubled and puzzled and very disappointed. If we
are going to take up this resolution tonight, we basically are saying
these other issues should be taken care of, and they are not being
taken care of.
Mr. Speaker, I am troubled and disappointed that the House of
Representatives has decided to take up the resolution on the
Scientologists in Germany when the House has decided not to bring up
the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act, a bill I sponsored with
Senator Arlen Specter.
The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act has over 96 bipartisan
cosponsors and deals with persecution against people of all faiths in
all countries around the world.
While we are debating this resolution today, millions of Christians,
Tibetan Buddhists, Ahmadis, Bahai's, Muslims and other people of faith
are being brutalized--killed, raped, tortured, and maimed--because of
their religious belief and practice. Why won't the House speak out for
them in this first session of the 105th Congress.
In China, Catholic bishops and priests are in jail and being
tortured. Protestant pastors and laypeople are in jail and being
tortured. Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns are in jail and being
tortured and killed. In Xinjiang Province in Northwest China, Muslim
Uighurs are being persecuted.
In Sudan, 1.2 million people from the South, who are predominately
Christians and animists, have died in the decade-old conflict. There is
crucifixion taking place in the Nuba Mountains. Christian women and
children are kidnapped and sold into slavery.
I have submitted for the record excerpts from a recent trip report of
Christian Solidarity International, an international humanitarian
organization with vast experience in Sudan. On their recent trip, CSI
representative talked to dozens of women and children and heard of
their ordeal. They talked with slave traders and visited slave markets.
One woman, a 20-year old mother, told of her ordeal when she was
enslaved in May, 1997. She told CSI
I was sitting in my compound early in the morning when
armed men on horseback surrounded my home. they came without
warning. I did not try to run away because there was no
escape. One of the raiders lashed me and took me away with my
child. As we left, I could see the raiders looting everything
I owned, and setting my home on fire. I was taken to another
village for some hours and was then forced to carry sorghum
on my head. When I could walk no further, my captor, took my
child and tied her on a horse. [My captor] often insulted me,
calling me ``slave'' and he would beat me with a stick. He
accused me of being lazy and refusing to obey orders. He used
me as a concubine.
Real life slavery of Christians in Sudan. 1.2 million people have
died. But the House of Representatives will not speak out for them
today.
In Egypt, Coptic Christians are killed, forced to pay ``protection
money'' to local thugs, harassed and sometimes imprisoned.
In Pakistan, Christian villages have been burned, devastating the
lives of tens of thousands. Ahmadi Muslims are being persecuted.
In Vietnam, Christians and Buddhists are being persecuted.
And there are many other examples around the world. Why will this
Congress not take up the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act--a bill
that would cut off foreign aid to governments that kill, rape, torture,
enslave or engage in other gross acts of violence against religious
believers. We should speak out for these religious believers today.
There was a promise by the speaker to 40 religious leaders in August
that the bill would be a ``must do'' item. He said ``this is one of the
top priorities of this Republican Congress.''
Why take up this resolution to help Scientologists in Germany, but
not bring up a bill that would help millions of people of faith in
dozens of other countries around the world?
The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act is supported by the groups
representing the vast majority of America's religious believers. It is
supported by the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association
of Evangelicals, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the U.S.
Catholic Bishop's Conference and the International Campaign for Tibet
among others.
It is also supported by the American Coptic Association, the Assyrian
National Congress, the Catholic Alliance, Christian Coalition,
Evangelicals for Social Action, Family Research Council, Iranian
Christians International, National Jewish Coalition, Union of American
Hebrew Congregations, Pakistani-American Christian Association, World
Lebanese Organization, World Maronite Union-USA, and the South Sudan
Community of the U.S.
In May, over 90 religious leaders wrote to House leadership endorsing
the measure and I submit that letter in the record. I also submit
recent letters from the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference and Rabbi
David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center for Reform
Judaism in support of the bill.
When he met with the religious leaders in August, Speaker Gingrich
said ``As Speaker of the House, I will continue to use my bully pulpit
to speak out for those who are unable to speak for themselves.'' Mr.
Speaker, please use that bully pulpit and your extraordinary power as
Speaker of the House to bring up the Freedom from Religious Persecution
Act early in the next session.
It's puzzling and it's disappointing that this resolution is being
brought up but the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act is not.
Draft Preliminary Report: Visit to North-Eastern Bahr El Ghazal, Sudan
october 8-12, 1997
Slavery in Sudan
The primary objective of this visit was to develop CSI's
work to combat contemporary slavery in Sudan.
CSI had received various unconfirmed reports of the
practice of slavery on early visits to Sudan. But it was not
until we visited Nyamlell in Aweil West County briefly in May
1995 that we discovered slavery as a flourishing and
widespread institution. We learnt that on March 25 1995 the
Popular Defense Forces (PDF) of Sudan's ruling National
Islamic Front (NIF) regime attacked Nyamlell, killing 82
civilians, enslaving 282 women and children; burning
dwellings and looting cattle and grain.
Since then, CSI has returned 8 times to this area and has
visited other locations in northern Bahr El Ghazal, such as
Malwal Akon in Aweil East County and Turalei in Gogrial
County, to obtain further data on slavery. During these fact-
finding missions, we have interviewed slaves, slave traders,
PDF officers and the families of people who are still
enslaved. We have accumulated an abundance of evidence to
prove beyond doubt that chattel slavery thrives in these
parts of Sudan and that the NIF regime actively encourages
it. See reports of CSI visits to Sudan: May-June 1995; August
1995; October 1995; April-May 1996; June 1996, October-
November 1996, March 1997 and June 1997. The evidence
obtained during this visit amplifies our previous findings
about the pattern of the slave trade.
Interviews with some of the newly redeemed slaves give an
indication of their experiences during enslavement.
(i) Ayen Deng Ding from Akek Rot near Marial Bai. Her
village was attacked 4 years
[[Page H10517]]
ago. When the raiders came, she was in her home with her 10-
year old daughter Ajok Garang. She saw the horses coming and
started to run but she and her little girl were caught by a
horseman. She was beaten (she showed us scars on her arms),
tied with a rope and taken North to Abu Matarik, where she
was handed over to another man. She was separated from her
daughter, but they were nearby. When the trader came to
negotiate her release, she told him about her daughter and he
managed to secure her release also.
During her 4 years of slavery, she was treated very badly:
subjected to beatings while caring for the cattle; she also
had to cook, fetch water, carry firewood, wash clothes and
work in the garden. She was not given enough food--only
leftovers--and was constantly hungry.
She saw other slaves being beaten, 4 of whom died--3 men
and 1 woman. She was raped repeatedly on the forced march
north, but her owner only raped her once.
I lost hope I would ever see my home again, but I just
prayed to God. I was so happy when I saw the trader coming, I
began to dare to hope. But many other slaves are still left
behind.
She now has only her daughter left; her husband was killed
in the raid. She has gone to live with relatives, but she
also lives with the fear that the raiders will come again.
She asked us to convey this message:
We are so happy now we are feeling free. Thank you for what
you have done for us. The problem remains and there are still
people left behind as slaves, but we are comforted because
when we saw you we felt you care for us very much. When we
arrived here, we were so relieved and happy we had could meet
in a secure environment, to engage in politically
legitimate activities which are banned by the NIF in the
North.
Expectations had been raised during previous visits of Umma
Party representatives and disappointment was expressed over
the delay in fulfilling them.
Several more Arabs expressed similar sentiments, which can
be summarized in the words of two of their spokesmen:
We are the supporters of the Umma Party. We are Ansars, not
NIF. We are rivals of the NIF, but the leaders of the Umma
Party have been unseen and unheard for a long time. This has
enabled the NIF to recruit our people.
NIF Recruitment Policies: Another spokesman claimed that
the training and arming of Arab citizens by the NIF over 4 or
5 years has been very intensive. But after receiving the
messages from the Umma Party leadership, this has slowed
down, although there are still bad elements in society who
are tempted by greed still to participate in the raids.
Because of their difficulty in recruiting raiders, the NIF
are now recruiting school children from about 15 years of age
to fight in the PDF. So-called ``co-ordinators'' from the
regular Army are used to round up children from schools.
There are many children now at the military headquarters at
Daien. Airplanes come to take the children away and they are
never seen again. All tribes in Darfur are affected. It is
Omer El Bashir who gives orders for the rounding up of
children. The ones who actually do it are the Security forces
and the police, but they are just obeying orders.
Living Conditions in Darfur: These are very, very bad in
Nyala, Daien and other towns. We have no choice but to
migrate. Nomads and everyone else are badly affected. A 20-
litre barrel of fresh drinking water is K3,000 (Sudanese
pounds), a portion of bread is K250 (SP), 2cc of penicillin
cost K4,000 (SP), while the maximum pay a labourer or clerk
is K20-25,000 (SP) per month. A consultation with a doctor,
just for diagnoses, not for treatment costs K20,000 (SP).
Here is proof that life in Darfur is unbearable: I am an
old man and I had to walk through water for 7 days carrying
heavy loads to trade with the Dinka--this shows just how bad
conditions are in Darfur.
The meeting concluded with a final message from Ali Mahmoud
Dudein: Recruitment to the PDF has diminished, because of
CSI's work to promote peace and reconciliation. The NIF can
still recruit, but not like before.
We camped overnight at Manyiel.
friday, october 10
We walked on from Manyiel to Majak Bai, the village we
visited in June, shortly after it had suffered from a major
raid (CSI field trip report of June 1997). During that raid,
the school was burnt to the ground. On this occasion we met
the headteacher again, Aguek Manjok. He described the
situation: there had been 300 children in the school but some
disappeared as a result of the raid. During the attack,
everything was burnt: the building, all the books and every
piece of equipment: there was absolutely nothing left.
They now urgently need teaching resources for their
curriculum of English, Maths, Geography, History, Science,
Hygiene and Religious Education, with text books to cover
levels P1-8. At present, he said, we can only teach what is
in our minds and that is not enough.
There is also a need for help to send people for teacher
training. There is a centre for Aweil West County in Majong
Akon.
NB. The need for professional education/updating was
repeated many times. One specific request, which we would
support, was made by Simon Kuot, the nurse/medical co-
ordinator based at Nyamlell. We have seen him at work and
been very impressed by the standard of professional
competence he displays (e.g. treating the serious casualties
from the raids). His area of responsibility is very large and
makes many professional demands. We hope it will be possible
for to dance. Although we were beaten and humiliated and
though there are still problems here, like shortages of
medicines, these are not real problems--we can cope with
those. We are so happy to be back.
(ii) Abuk Atak from Panlang near Marial Bai. 3 years ago
her village was attacked and she was beaten by an Arab with a
gun during the raid. She had her 18-month old daughter with
her, but lost her in the raid and has never seen her again.
After being taken North, she was sold to Anur Mohammed in Abu
Matarik in Southern Darfur. She was raped every day,
sometimes many times, by different people; if she did not
submit voluntarily, she was beaten. Clearly embarrassed by
talking about her ordeals, fidgeting anxiously with dead
leaves, she said she had been subjected to circumcision. But
she would talk about it because ``I can't deny the facts. We
were subjected to torture and suffering and I can't deny our
humiliation.''
She never thought she would be able to come home again and
during those 3 years she lost all hope. But now she is home,
she said: We were left with nothing after the raids; we lost
our homes, our crops were burnt, our cattle stolen, we have
not even any clothes . . . but there is no problem which we
cannot endure.
(iii) Acol Bak, aged 12 from Panlang, who assured us at the
outset that she was not afraid to talk about here
experiences. 4 years ago she was at home in the early
morning; Arabs suddenly appeared and she was surrounded by
horses. He mother managed to escape but she and her elder
brother were caught and taken to Gross near Abu Matarik. She
doesn't know what happened to her brother. On the walk North
she was forced to carry looted property on her head; they
were given no water and could only drink from muddy puddles;
neither were they given any food during the 3-day forced
march. She was beaten and her right arm was broken. She was
forced to do housework from morning until night and beaten by
all the family if she ever complained of tiredness. She had
to sleep outside with no bedding, just trying to keep warm by
a fire. One month after her arrival in her owner's home, an
old woman came to circumcise her. She was told that unless
she was circumcised she would not be a human being; she would
be just ``like a dog''. She knew other girls who had also
been circumcised.
She said she was very, very happy to be home again and for
the people who brought her back. She is living only with her
mother as her father had been killed in the raid and her
brother has not been found.
(iv) Acol Anei Bak from Panlang was caught by surprise when
the enemy attacked her village 4 years ago, when she was
about 8 years old. Her brother, aged about 12, was caught at
the same time and she does not know what happened to him. She
was taken to Pielel, near Nyala, where she was sold to a man
called Amsal Abrahaman. She was forced to help to care for
the 5 children in the family, especially with washing them,
and to look after cattle and horses. The children were very
unfriendly and would not speak to her. She was circumcised,
and told that this was being done to her because the owner
wanted her to be an Arab.
(v) Ayen Ding Yel from Akek Rot near Marial Bai was
captured in May this year. She showed us her foot which was
injured when a horse trod on it during the raid; she was also
shot and showed us the scar caused by the bullet which
injured her left knee. She was initially left behind, after
she was injured, but then another Arab put her on his horse
and took her to Abu Matarik. She was badly treated and beaten
whenever she asked for food. Her owner asked her why she
needed food--saying she did not deserve food. She said she
never dreamt that she would be free again and that her mother
was overjoyed to see her yesterday.
(vi) Nyibol Yel Akuei is a 20-year old mother. Three of her
children have starved to death. Her only surviving child is a
one-year-old daughter, Abuk. The mother and daughter were
enslaved during the PDF raid on Majak Bai on May 16, 1997.
Nyibol explained what had happened to them: I was sitting in
my compound early in the morning when armed men on horseback
surrounded my home. They came without any warning. I did not
try to run away because there was no escape. One of the
raiders lashed me and took me away with my child. As we left,
I could see the raiders looting everything I owned, and
setting my home on fire. I was taken to another village for
some hours and then was forced to carry sorghum on my head.
When I got tired and could not walk further, my captor,
Mahmoud Abaker, took my child and tied her on a horse. I
walked for seven days to Abu Matarik. There, I had to work
from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 pm. My jobs were to carry water
from the pump, clean the compound and wash clothing.
Mahoud Abaker often insulted me, calling me ``slave'' and
he would beat me with a stick. He accused me of being lazy
and refusing to obey orders. He also used me as a
concubine. Mahmoud Abaker told me that I should practice
Muslim prayers. I had trouble praying in Arabic, so they
gave me some training. Abuk was renamed Miriam. I was not
allowed to go far from the compound. Mahmoud Abaker may
have had other slaves at his cattle camp, but I never saw
them. He had no other slaves in the
[[Page H10518]]
compound. One day, I was told to leave the compound with a
trader. I was afraid to go. They told me I would go back
to southern Sudan. I didn't believe them, but went anyway.
I was very happy to see you and to find that you spoke
nicely to us and are not going to do something terrible to
us. My husband is now away trying to find food. When he
comes back we will find a new place to live.
(vii) 11-year-old War Weng is also from Majak Bai. He was
enslaved in 1994 when he was fishing with his father. A group
of raiders came and snatched him, while his father managed to
run away. He recalled his life as both the chattel slave of a
master and a inmate in a radical Islamic youth indoctrination
centre: I was taken to Daien by Musa Osman. My jobs there
were to clear cattle dung and take the calves to the river. I
received only left-overs to eat and sour milk to drink. After
a year or so, I was taken from Musa Osman to a big camp in
the town where you can see the light even at night. There
were big lights over the compound. There were a lot of boys
in this compound. All of them were Dinka boys. We all were
given uniforms. This compound was run by the Salsabil
organisation. (War Weng was wearing a uniform with the
Salsabil logo). Every morning we would wake up early and
gather in one place to pray. Then we were taught the Koran
for the rest of the morning. At about mid-day we were given
food and allowed to rest. From 3:00 until the evening there
was more learning. The most important teacher there was Abdel
Rahman. None of us were allowed to speak Dinka. We had to
speak Arabic all the time. I was beaten for speaking Dinka
with my friends. One day, one of the teachers told me and
three others to go to the river with a man and his horses. I
thought he was going to take us to a new master. Instead he
brought us back home. I did not like the camp. It is very
good to be back here. Now I am not beaten. I expect to go
back to my father. He has already visited me one and given me
some food.
(viii) Atoc Diing is about 11 or 12 years old. She was
enslaved during the raid on Majak Bai last May. She
recounted:
We heard gunfire early in the morning. My Mother said run
quickly. We ran towards the river. When we got there, we
found Arabs all around us. We couldn't run anymore. My Mother
stopped and started to cry. One of the raiders came towards
us and beat my mother. She fell down. I was taken away and
put on horseback. I was taken from place to place before we
reached Abu Matarik. There, my captor, Ali Abdullah sold be
to another. After four days, I was sold again to another man.
His name was Mohammed. He took me to his home in the small
village of Gumbilai, near Abu Matarik. I had to fetch water
and firewood, and clean. They gave me milk to drink everyday,
but some days they gave me no food at all. The young sons of
Mohammed were very rough with me. They would beat me, and
they tried to have sex with me. But they did not succeed.
Mohammed has many slaves. Most of them were in the cattle
camp. He has three female slaves at his house. Now that I am
back, I will go to live with my sister. My father is dead,
and my mother went North to look for me and has not yet
returned.
Interview with casualty of the PDF's May 1997 raid on Majak
Bai, the 28-year-old mother, Adel Lake. She was evacuated by
CSI to the ICRC hospital in Lokichokio in Kenya last June.
The ICRC was not able to evacuate her because the NIF regime
has suspended its operations inside Sudan since November
1996. This has meant that thousands of casualties have died
slowly, painfully and needlessly from easily treatable
wounds. Adel Lake returned to Bahr El Ghazal with her health
restored while we were there. She told us:
When the enemy came we were in our tukul. We heard
gunshots. I picked up my twin one-month-old babies and ran
away to hide. I could not also carry by three-year-old son,
Wek Wol, and he was left behind. I hid in the bushes together
with my sister-in-law and some other people. The Arab
soldiers spotted us and started firing their guns. Everything
was in a mess and confused. I was show in the leg and lost
consciousness. When I regained consciousness, I could not
walk. The bullet had badly fractured my thigh. I was
horrified to find that my tukul had been burnt down, and
that my son, who had remained inside, had been burnt
alive. I also discovered that my sister-in-law had been
shot dead. I was weak and sick for many weeks after being
shot. I was in a lot of pain and could not look after my
babies by myself. I did not believe that help would come.
I thought I would never get better. When you came and
found me in my bed I felt very happy and believed that you
would do something to help me. At the hospital, they made
my leg better. The wound and fracture is healed, but I
still feel some pain. Please give my greetings to all of
those who helped me.
Saturday, October 11, departed Nyamlell and arrived in Malwal Akon;
Interviews with ex-slaves
(i) Mabior Aguik Deng From Kurwech, near Warawar, aged
about 12, was taken when he was much younger and sold to an
owner called Mohammed. He was forced to work as a cattle
herder; given very little food; had to sleep under a plastic
sheet at night. The worst thing about being a slave was being
taken away from his family and not seeing them for such a
long time. He was saved by a trader and returned to his home
in September.
(ii) Mahid Kuot Mou from the village of Kurwech. When the
PDF came with their horses, he tried to hide but was caught
and bound and forced to go `footing' for many days, during
which they were given very little food and water. He was sold
to another owner whose name was Abdullah. He was forced to
look after cattle, and lashed if he made any mistakes. He had
to sleep under a plastic sheet at night and given only
sorghum to eat. He was beaten with bamboo sticks which was
very painful. He was given the name of Mohammed. He also had
to collect the water. When he went out to collect the water,
the local boys were very cruel to him. They used to force him
to crawl and rode on his back, calling him a horse. When he
was returned by the trader, some relatives recognized him and
took him home. They were very, very happy to see him and
celebrated his return by killing a chicken.
(iii) Yak Mawien Yak from the village of Rum Marial. When
he heard the enemy coming, he ran away to hid with his father
but his father was killed. Looking down at the ground, he
spoke reluctantly about this:
The enemy slaughtered my father with knives. They took me
to the horses after beating me. During the beating they asked
me where other people were and I said there was only my
father around. We spent two days walking to the Arab area and
the owner of the horses kept me and made me work for him.
The raider who killed his father and took him with him
said: I am now you father and now you are my enemy; so if you
do not take my advice and come with me I will kill you;
otherwise you can become my son.
He slept in the same shelters as the goats and sheep, he
was only given uncooked sorghum to eat; one day another local
boy attacked him with a knife and wounded him (he showed us
his scar); a small girl came to help him. If his owner
shouted for him and he did not hear him, the owner would beat
him with a stick, calling him stupid. He was forced to walk
long distances to collect water and to pound grain. He was
given the name of Mahmoud after being forced to pray in a
mosque. All slaves are forced to go and pray in a mosque, he
said. He was away from home for seven years and almost forgot
about his own family. But, he said, with a very big smile, he
is very, very happy to be back with them.
(iv) Yak Deng Yak from the village of Warawar. His family's
original herd of cattle had been stolen by Arab raiders, and
the family was in such difficult circumstances that he was
going with his mother to seek help from the UN in Meiram. On
the Meiram. On the way they were captured in an ambush by
Arab raiders. He was separated from his mother and taken to
an Arab village. A girl used to steal `good food' for him.
When the people saw that the girl was friendly with him they
sent him to work in the field where he had to cultivate
ground nuts and to sleep on his own. He was given sorghum and
water and some days he was beaten with a stick. His owner was
called Ibrahim, who forced him to attend the mosque; if he
did not `do properly' in the mosque he was beaten. He has
been away from home for four years until an Arab came and
bought him. His mother was also in the same area and
recruiting our men into the PDF. But that was now over one
year ago. We want to have more frequent contact with our
leaders in the Umma Party. Please convey our warmest
greetings to Sayeed Sadiq El Mahdi and Mubarak El Fadil.
____
International Campaign for Tibet,
May 6, 1997.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
U.S. Congress.
Dear Senator Specter and Representative Wolf: I write to
thank you for your joint initiative in the Congress to
address the absence of religious freedom in Tibet and
elsewhere in the world, ``The Freedom from Religious
Persecution Act of 1997.''
When the Chinese army entered Tibet in 1950 to ``liberate''
the people from a lamaist theocracy and to install a
socialist atheistic state in its place, the primary target
for eradication was the Tibetan Buddhist culture. More than
six thousand monasteries, the great learning centers of a
religious tradition that spanned much of Asia and
repositories of precious scriptures and artifacts were razed
to the ground. Monks and nuns were forced to disavow their
faith and undertake acts of unspeakable cruelty. Those who
could escape their oppressors risked their lives crossing the
frozen passes of the Himalayas in flight to freedom in exile.
Today in Tibet, monks and nuns are still targeted as agents
of the old regime. Communist cadres have taken the place of
learned geshes, doctors of theology, in the monastic
schooling of young novices, and the Chinese propaganda
machine continues to spew out vituperative attacks against
His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Nonetheless, the Tibetan people
cling to their faith, for it is inextricably linked to their
very identity as Tibetans.
I believe that the Congress will support your legislation
because Americans, through succeeding generations, have been
guided by a deep sense of spirituality, tolerance for their
neighbors, and faith in fundamental human rights. The
International Campaign for Tibet looks forward to working
with your staff to move this legislation to successful
passage.
Sincerely,
Lodi G. Gyari,
President.
[[Page H10519]]
____
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Gephardt,
House Minority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Senate Majority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Thomas Daschle,
Senate Minority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Gingrich, Senators Lott and Daschle, and
Representative Gephardt: Millions of Americans--of differing
religious, ethnic and political persuasions--are coalescing
behind a Movement of Conscience against religious persecution
overseas,
The recently concluded MFN vote was but an opening chapter
of that Movement, one we believe central to America's
character and vital national interests. All Americans are
shocked by the official Chinese newspaper dispatch that first
noted how churches ``played an important role in the change
[in Eastern Europe]'' and then urged that ``[i]f China does
not want such a scene to be repeated in its land, it must
strangle the baby while it is still in the manger.'' The
anti-faith persecutions of China's regime have followed the
above script and similarly abhorrent persecutions are being
committed by other regimes elsewhere in the world.
We urge Congress to take comprehensive action that will
impose prohibitive costs on countries involved in widespread
and ongoing persecutions of vulnerable communities of faith.
As such we strongly urge support for the following consensus
principles:
Legislation should be directed against the regimes formally
condemned by the 104th Congress for anti-faith persecutions,
and should contain mechanisms to deal with all regimes
engaged in such conduct;
Hearings on such omnibus anti-religious persecution
legislation should begin no later than September, 1997; and
Floor action on such legislation should take place by early
November, since the Day of Prayer for the Persecuted church
will be conducted in tens of thousands of American churches
on November 6, 1997.
We believe that the above principles will send the
strongest possible signal to all regimes now operating as if
hunting licenses were in effect against vulnerable
communities of faith. We believe that these principles will
avoid piecemeal treatment of the issues raised by today's
growing Movement of Conscience against worldwide anti-
religious persecution. We believe that the principles will
ensure that the world hears the cries of persecuted
Christians and other believers in China and in Vietnam, Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia and other like
countries--and hears as well the cries now rising from the
unspeakable actions taking place in Sudan. Finally, we
believe that the principles will unite all Americans behind a
national policy based on universally recognized rights and
freedoms.
In this regard, we believe that the Wolf-Specter bill
provides the framework around which the coming debate should
occur. We note the broad, bipartisan support enjoyed by the
Wolf-Specter bill, and believe that its provisions would have
a powerful effect in curbing today's persecutions. We wish to
make clear that some of the bill's provisions may need to be
strengthened, and many of us may work to do so. At the same
time, we write to make clear that the critical need for
omnibus legislation requires that any legislation pertaining
to global religious persecution should be incorporated into
the Wolf-Specter hearing process and framework.
We would greatly appreciate your joint assurances that
hearings and committee votes on Wolf-Specter will be
scheduled so as to permit full debate and action on it before
the end of the year.
Each of us has made it a matter of conscience to Shatter
the Silence that in the past has sadly accompanied the
persecution of believers around the world. Doing so, and
joining in campaigns of education, action and prayer on
behalf of the residents of today's gulags of faith, is for us
a matter of simple justice we are determined and honor-bound
to make happen.
We pray and believe that you and all Members of Congress
will help lead this historic effort, doing so with the same
force and unity that made the Jackson-Vanik legislation and
the campaign against Soviet anti-Semitism the force it became
for the freedom of all.
We look forward to meeting with you at your earliest
convenience to discuss these matters.
Don Argue, Ed.D., President, National Association of
Evangelicals, Member, State Department Advisory
Committee on Religious Liberty Abroad; William L.
Armstrong, Former Senator; Joel Belz, World Magazine;
Chaplain Curt Bowers, Director, Chaplaincy Ministries,
Church of the Nazarene; Dr. Paul F. Bubna, President,
The Christian and Missionary Alliance; Dr. Joseph
Aldrich, Multnomah School of the Bible; Gary L. Bauer,
President, Family Research Council; William Bennett,
Empower America; Dr. William R. Bright, Founder, Campus
Crusade for Christ International; Dr. Tony Campolo,
Eastern College; Chuck Colson, Chairman of the Board,
Prison Fellowship Ministries; The Rev. John Eby,
National Coordinator, American Baptist Evangelicals;
Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, Founder/President,
International Fellowship of Christians and Jews; Dr.
David Englehard, General Secretary, Christian Reformed
Church; Rev. Jeff Farmer, General Superintendent, Open
Bible Standard Churches; Dr. James C. Dobson, Founder,
Focus on the Family; The Rev. Janet Roberts Echols,
Great Commission Alliance; Dr. Thomas D. Elliff,
President, Southern Baptist Convention; Rev. Bernard J.
Evans, General Overseer, Elim Fellowship; Dr. Edward L.
Foggs, General Secretary, Leadership Council, Church of
God, Anderson, IN; Rev. Cecil Johnson, General
Overseer, Church of God, Mountain Assembly; Mrs. Diane
Knippers, President, Institute on Religion and
Democracy; James M. Kushiner, Executive Director,
Fellowship of St. James; Dr. Richard D. Land, Chairman/
Christian Life Commission, Southern Baptist Convention;
Dr. Don Lyon, Senior Pastor, Faith Center, Rockford,
IL, Board Member, National Association of Evangelicals;
Dr. D. James Kennedy, Senior Pastor, Coral Ridge
Presbyterian Church; Rev. Richard W. Kohl, Presiding
Bishop, Evangelical Congregational Church; Mrs. Beverly
LaHaye, Chairman and Founder, Concerned Women for
America; William C. Larson, Executive Minister, Iowa
Baptist Conference; Rev. Stephen Macchia, President,
Vision New England; Dr. Kevin W. Mannoia, Bishop, Free
Methodist Church of North America; Steven McFarland,
Director, Center for Law and Religious Freedom,
Christian Legal Society; Rev. Dr. Daniel Mercaldo,
Senior Pastor, Gateway Cathedral, New York; Dr. John P.
Moran, President, Missionary Church, Inc.; Dr. Marlin
Mull, General Director of Evangelism and Growth, The
Wesleyan Church; Mr. Martin J. Mawyer, President,
Christian Action Network; Bishop George D. McKinney,
Saint Stephen's Cogic; Dr. Juan Carlos Miranda,
President, Hispanic Educational Association; Mr. Pedro
C. Moreno, Attorney, International Coordinator, The
Rutherford Institute; Mr. William J. Murray, Chairman,
Religious Freedom Coalition; Dr. Richard John Neuhaus,
President, The Institute on Religion and Public Life;
Michael Novak, George Frederick Jewett Chair in
Religion and Public Policy, American Enterprise
Institute; Mr. Ralph Reed, Jr.; Rev. David E. Ross,
Executive Director, Advent Christian General
Conference; Rev. Michael Scanlan, T.O.R., President,
Franciscan University of Steubenville; Mr. Frank
Nicodem, Sr., Executive Vice President, Christian
Association of Primetimers; Lenox G. Palin, Pastor,
Calvary Bible Church, Neenah, WI, Board Member,
National Association of Evangelicals; Fr. Keith
Roderick, Secretary General, Coalition for the Defense
of Human Rights Under Islamization; David Runnion-
Bareford, Executive Director, Biblical Witness
Fellowship, Confessing Movement Within the United
Church of Christ; Bishop Ray A. Seilhamer, Bishop,
Church of United Brethren in Christ.
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition;
Ronald J. Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social
Action; Bishop Chester M. Smith, General
Superintendent, Congregational Holiness Church, Inc;
Rev. Steven L. Snyder, President, International
Christian Concern; Marc D. Stern, Co-Director,
Commission on Law and Social Action, American Jewish
Congress; L. Faye Short, Director, RENEW Network; Dr.
Robert L. Simonds, President, Citizens for Excellence
in Education; Ken Smitherman, LL.D., President,
Association of Christian Schools International; The Rt.
Rev. James M. Stanton, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of
Dallas, Texas, President, American Anglican Council;
Dr. Jack Stone, General Secretary, Church of the
Nazarenc; Rev. Mr. Keith A. Fournier, Esq, President,
Catholic Alliance; Robert P. George, Department of
Politics, Princeton University; Scott M. Gibson,
President, American Baptist Evangelicals; Mr. Jerry
Goodman, Founding Executive Director, National
Conference on Soviet Jewry; Cheryl Halpern, National
Chairman, National Jewish Coalition; Mrs. Diana L. Gee,
General Director, Dept. Of Women's Ministries,
Pentecostal Church of God; Dwight L. Gibson, North
American Director, World Evangelical Fellowship; Anne
Giminez, Co-Pastor, Rock Church, Virginia Beach, VA,
Board Member, National Association of Evangelicals,
Lodi G. Gyari, President, International Campaign for
Tibet; Rev. William J. Hamel, President, Evangelical
Free Church of America; The Rev. Walter W. Hannum,
Founder, The Episcopal Church Missionary Community; Dr.
James Henry, Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church,
Orlando, FL, Former President, Southern Baptist
Convention, Member, State Department Advisory Committee
on Religious Liberty Abroad; Donald Hodel, Christian
Coalition; Rev. Clyde M. Hughes, General Oversecr,
International Pentecostal Church of Christ; Bradley P.
Jacob, Associate Dean, Geneva School
[[Page H10520]]
of Law; Dr. Jack W. Hayford, Senior Pastor, Church on
the Way; Professor Russell Hittinger, Warren Chair of
Catholic Studies, The University of Tulsa; Warren L.
Hoffman, General Secretary, Brethren in Christ Church;
Ray H. Hughes, Chairman, Pentecostal World Conference;
Dr. B. Edgar Johnson, Northwest Nazarene College; Dr.
Joseph M. Stowell III, President, Moody Bible
Institute; Thomas E. Trask, General Superintendent,
General Council of the Assemblies of God; Dr. R. Lamar
Vest, First Assistant General Overseer, Church of Good,
Cleveland, TN; Rev. Jack W. Wease, General
Superintendent, Evangelical Methodist Church; Bishop
Donald W. Wuerl, Diocese of Pittsburgh; Mr. Joseph
Tkach, President, Worldwide Church of God; Rev. Albert
Vander Meer, Synod Minister, Synod of Mid-America,
Reformed Church in America; Commissioner Robert A.
Watson, National Commander, The Salvation Army; The
Rev. Todd H. Wetzel, Executive Director, Episcopalians
United; Rev. Wayne L. Yarnell, Executive Director,
Primitive Methodist Church in the USA; Dr. Ravi
Zacharias, Founder, Ravi Zacharias International
Ministries.
____
Testimony of Tsultrim Dolma, Victim of Religious Persecution
My name is Tsultrim Dolma. I am 28 years old. I am one of
the one thousand Tibetan refugees who came to the United
States through the Tibetan Resettlement Program, authorized
by the United States Congress in 1991.
I never imagined that I would someday testify before you
esteemed gentlemen and gentleladies. Now that I am here, I
feel it is both a privilege and responsibility to tell you
about my experiences--among the thousands of Tibetans who
flee into exile, very few have their stories heard.
I am not an educated person, I don't know about politics.
But I do know what it is to live under Chinese rule. And I
know, although I was born after the Chinese came into Tibet,
that Tibet is different than China.
I have asked my friend Dorje Dolma to read the rest of my
testimony because my English is not very good.
I was born in Pelbar Dzong, Tibet, near Chamdo which prior
to the Chinese invasion in 1949 was the easternmost
administrative center of the Dalai Lama's government. For as
long as I can remember, I yearned to become a nun. It was
difficult for me to pursue my studies because the nunnery
near my village had been completely destroyed during the
Cultural Revolution.
I took my nun's vow at age 17 and, soon after, left my home
with a small group of villagers to make the customary
pilgrimage to Lhasa, the capital and spiritual center of
Tibet, and a month's journey from my home. Once there was
able to join the Chupsang nunnery on the outskirts of the
city.
In Lhasa it was unavoidable to feel the tension due to the
large differences between the Tibetans and Chinese living
there, and within a year, on October 1, 1987, China's
National Day, I experienced at first hand the consequences of
that tension.
On that day, monks from Sera and Nechung Monasteries
peacefully demonstrated for the release of their imprisoned
brothers. Hundreds of Tibetans gathered around in support.
Public Security Bureau Police moved through the crowd
videotaping demonstrators. Then, unexpectedly, opened fire on
the crowd. The Tibetans responded by throwing stones at the
cameras, but a number of monks were arrested and dragged to
the Police station.
I joined a large group that converged on the station. We
heard gun shots from the rooftop and tried to get inside, but
the police fired down into the crowd. Many Tibetans were
killed and many other badly injured. Outraged at the
massacre, some Tibetans set fire to the building. I watched
as Venerable Jampa Tenzin the caretaker of the Jokhang
Temple, led a charge into the building to try to free the
monks. When he emerged about ten minutes later, his arms were
badly burned and had long pieces of skin peeling off. Two
young novice monks came out with him and were also badly
burned. Soon afterwards, Jampa Tenzin was arrested and
detained at Sangyip Prison where he is known to have
undergone severe ill-treatment.
The Great Monlam Prayer Festival which occurred the
following spring was the next occasion for major protest.
Chinese authorities had ordered the monks of all of Lhasa's
monasteries to attend, as they had invited journalists from
many different countries to film the ceremony as an example
of religious freedom in Tibet. The monks of Sera, Drepung,
Ganden and Nechung decided to boycott the ceremony, but were
forced to attend at gun point. Under guard, the monks made
the traditional circumambulation around the Jokhang, Lhasa's
central cathedral.
After completing the ceremony, those monks joined together
in calling out loudly to Tibetan officials working for the
Chinese government who were watching the ceremony from a
stage next to the Jokhang. They demanded the release of the
highly revered incarnate lama, Yulo Dawa Tsering, who had
been arrested some months before and of whom nothing had been
heard. One of the official's bodyguards then fired at the
demonstrators, killing one Tibetan. A riot ensued and the
army proceeded to fire into the crowd. Soldiers chased a
large number of monks into the Jokhang and clubbed 30 of them
to death.
Eighteen lay Tibetans were also killed in the cathedral.
Twelve other monks were shot. Two monks were strangled to
death, and an additional eight lay Tibetans were killed
outside the cathedral. The news of the deaths spread
throughout the city.
After we saw the terror and turmoil in the streets, some
nuns from my Ani Gompa and I decided to demonstrate in order
to support our heroic brothers and sisters in Lhasa,
particularly the monks who had been arrested and are in
prison and whose cases even now have not been settled. On
April 16, about six weeks after the massacre during Monlam,
four of us demonstrated for their release and the release of
women and children. We felt the Chinese were trying to
destroy all the patriotic Tibetans in prison by maltreating
them. The Chinese government has publicized that there is
freedom of religion in Tibet, but in fact, the genuine
pursuit of our religion is a forbidden freedom. So many
difficult restrictions are placed on those entering monastic
life, and spies are planted everywhere.
My sister nuns and I were joined by two nuns from Gari
Gompa and we were all six arrested in the Barkhor while
shouting out demands. As we stood on the holy walk of
Barkhor, we were approached by eight Chinese soldiers who
spread out and grabbed us. Two soldiers took me roughly by
the arms, twisting my hands behind by back. Two of the nuns,
Tenzin Wangmo and Gyaltsen Lochoe, were put in a Chinese
police jeep and driven away. The rest of us were thrown into
a truck and taken to the main section of Gutsa prison, about
three miles east of Lhasa.
When we arrived, we were separated and taken into various
rooms. I was pushed into a room where one male and one female
guard were waiting. They removed the belt which held my nuns
robe and it fell down as they searched my pockets. While I
was searched, the guards slapped me hard repeatedly and
yanked roughly on my nose and ears.
After the search, I was led outside to another building
where two different male and female guards waited to begin
the interrogation. ``What did you say in the Barkhor? Why did
you say it?'' The cell contained a variety of torture
implements: lok-gyug, electric cattle prods, and metal rods.
I was kicked and fiercely beaten as I was interrogated until
mid-day, and then pulled to my feet and taken to the prison
courtyard where I saw the three other nuns from Chupsang.
We were made to stand in four directions. I was near the
door so that every Chinese soldier who passed by would kick
me in passing. Our hands were uncuffed and we were told to
stand with our hands against the wall as six policemen took
each one in turn, held us down and beat us with electric
prods and a small, broken chair and kicked us. Gyaltsen
Lochoe was kicked in the face. I was kicked in the chest so
hard that I could hardly breath. We were told to raise our
hands in the air, but it was not possible to stay in that
position and we kept falling down. As soon as I fell, someone
would come and force me up. We were constantly questioned
regarding who else was involved in arranging the
demonstration.
All during the interrogation, we were not allowed to fasten
our belts and so our robes kept slipping off. We would
constantly try to lift them and adjust them. I tried to think
of what I could possibly say to answer the questions. ``How
did you choose that day? Who was behind you?'' I could only
see feet. Many different pairs of feet approaching us through
the day. We were repeatedly kicked and beaten. ``The
Americans are helping you! Where are they now? They will
never help you! Because you have opposed communism, you are
going to die!''
After some hours had passed, a large dog with pointed ears
and black and white spots was brought in, led on a heavy
chain. The police tried to force us to run, but we simply did
not have the strength. The dog looked at us with interest,
but did not approach.
Finally, as sunset approached, we were handcuffed and taken
into a building and made to walk through the hallway two by
two. Here and there were small groups of Chinese soldiers on
both sides of the corridor. As we passed, we were punched and
kicked, slapped and pulled hard by the ears. My cell,
measuring five feet by five feet, was empty except for a slop
basin and small bucket. That night, I quickly passed out on
the cold cement floor.
The following morning, I was taken to a room where three
police were seated behind a table. On its surface was an
assortment of rifles, electric prods and iron rods. I was
told ``Look down!'' Throughout my detention, I was never
allowed to look straight at their faces. While answering I
had to look to the side or face down.
One of them asked me ``Why did you demonstrate? Why are you
asking yourself for torture and beatings?'' My knees began to
shake. I told them: ``Many monks, nuns and lay people have
been arrested, but we know Tibet belongs to the Tibetans. You
say there is freedom of religion, but there is no genuine
freedom!'' My answer angered them and the three got up from
behind the table, picking up various implements. One picked
up an electric rod and hit me with it. I fell down.
They shouted at me to stand, but I couldn't and so one
pulled up my robe and the other man inserted the instrument
into
[[Page H10521]]
my vagina. The shock and the pain were horrible. He repeated
this action several times and also struck other parts of my
body. Later the others made me stand and hit me with sticks
and kicked me. Several times I fell to the floor. They would
then force the prod inside of me and pull me up to repeat the
beatings.
For some reason I began to think of a precious herb that
grows in Tibet called Yartsa Gunbu. Tibetans believe it is a
cross between the kingdoms of plants and animals because
during the summer it gives the appearance of being a worm.
This medicine herb is quite rare. In my region, the Chinese
force a monthly quota on each monk and nun which consists of
thousands and thousands of such plants. I shouted out:
``Before 1959, it was considered a sin for monks to pick the
Yartsa Gunbu! It was a sin, and you have forced them to do
it!''
I remained in detention for more than four months. For the
first month, I was beaten every morning during the
interrogations. For the first several days, different levels
of authorities came to my cell. At first I was afraid but as
time went by and I thought about the monks, and other men and
women who were imprisoned, many of whom had families to worry
about, I began to realize I had nothing to lose. My parents
could lead their lives by themselves.
I was continuously terrified of possible sexual
molestation. But as the days went by, that did not occur.
Sitting in my cell, I would remind myself that I was there
because I had spoken on behalf of the people of Tibet and I
felt proud that I had accomplished a goal and was able to say
what I thought was right.
In Gutsa prison in the summer of 1988, there were all
together about 32 nuns and lay women. All the women were kept
in the ward for political prisoners. During that time, one of
the nuns, Sonam Chodon, was sexually molested.
Fifteen days after my release from prison on August 4,
1988, a Tibetan approached me and asked if my sister nuns and
I would like to talk to a British journalist who was secretly
making a documentary in Tibet. We all felt to appear in the
interview without hiding our faces was the best way to make a
contribution. The ultimate truth would soon be known so there
was no need to hide. We had truth as our defense.
After our release from prison, we were formally expelled
from Chupsang by the Chinese authorities and sent back to our
villages. We were not allowed to wear nuns robes and were
forbidden to take part in religious activities. We were not
allowed to talk freely with other villagers. I was forced to
attend nightly re-education meetings during which the topic
of conversation often came around to me as ``a member of the
small splittist Dalai clique which is trying to separate the
motherland.'' I was so depressed and confused.
I never told my parents what had happened in prison. When
word came of the British documentary in which I took part,
everyone began to discuss it. Most Tibetans thought I was
quite brave, but some collaborators insulted me. It soon
seemed as if arrest was imminent. I began to fear for my
parents' safety and so decided to flee to the only place I
could think of--Lhasa--to appeal again to Chupsang nunnery
for re-admission.
After arriving in Lhasa, I set out for the hour's walk to
Chupsang. I found a Chinese police office has been set up at
the nunnery. I was told to register at the office and, while
there, was told re-admission was not possible. I realized
that the police officer there would arrest me if I stayed.
Greatly discouraged, I set out to make my way back to Lhasa.
Just below the nunnery there is a Chinese police compound
the Tibetans call Sera Shol Gyakhang. As I passed, I saw
three Chinese soldiers on bicycles. They followed me a
short distance before I was stopped. One of them took off
his coat and shirt and then tied the shirt around my face,
and shoved the sleeves in my mouth to stop me from crying
and yelling. I was raped by the three on the outer
boundary of the compound. After doing that bad thing to
me, they just ran away.
I remained in Lhasa for two months under the care of local
Tibetans. As expected, the release of the documentary caused
an uproar with the Chinese authorities. My sister nuns tried
to disguise themselves and wore their hair a little longer. I
had lost all hope of continuing to live in Tibet under so
many obstructions and restrictions and the ever present
possibility of re-arrest. Even if I could stay, the Chinese
would forbid me to study and I feared them in many other bad
ways. I began to think of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in
India. At that time, I didn't know there were so many other
Tibetans living there as well, but I thought if only I could
reach him, if I could only once see his face...''
Another nun and I heard of some Tibetan nomads who were
taking medicines to the remote areas and traveling to Mount
Kailash in a truck. From there we joined a group of 15
Tibetans to travel to the Nepalese border. In December 1990,
I reached northern India.
When I first met His Holiness, I could not stop crying. He
asked, ``Where do you want to go? Do you want to go to
school?'' He patted my face gently. I could not say anything.
I could only cry as I felt the reality of his presence. It
was not a dream. In Tibet so many long to see him. At the
same time, I felt an overwhelming sadness. Because I was
raped, I felt I could no longer be a nun. I had been spoiled.
The trunk of our religious vows is to have a pure life. When
that was destroyed, I felt guilty to be in a nunnery with
other nuns who were really very pure. If I stayed in the
nunnery, it would be as if a drop of blood had been
introduced into the ocean of milk.
I have been asked by esteemed persons such as yourselves
what makes Tibetan nuns, many very young, so brave in their
support of the Tibetan cause. I say that it is from seeing
the suffering of our people. What I did was just a small
thing. As a nun, I sacrificed my family and the worldly life,
so for a real practitioner it doesn't matter if you die for
the cause of truth. His Holiness the Dalai Lama teaches us to
be patient, tolerant and compassionate. Tibetans believe in
the law of Karma, cause and effect. In order to do something
to try to stop the cycle of bad effect, we try to raise our
voices on behalf of the just cause of Tibet. Thank you.
Evangelicals for Social Action,
Wynnewood, PA, October 21,1997.
Congressman Ben Gilman,
Chairman, House International Relations Committee, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Gilman:, We write to convey our strong
support for the Wolf-Specter bill on religious persecution
which is before your committee.
We write as progressive Christians long identified with
struggles for economic and racial justice. As people who
supported U.S. sanctions against South Africa because of
apartheid, we endorse the application of almost identical
measures against Sudan.
We find it both false and highly offensive that some are
seeking to portray the Wolf-Specter bill as a ``Religious
Right'' agenda. Our support for and belief that the Wolf-
Specter bill is urgently needed gives the lie to such
nonsense.
Aware that this bill was drafted to be moderate in its
reach, scope and process we urge you to pass it without
further compromise.
Sincerely,
Ronald J. Sider,
President.
Other Signers: Richard Mouw, President, Fuller Theological
Seminary.
____
Department of Social
Development and World Peace,
Washington, DC, October 22, 1997.
Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,
Chairman, House International Relations Committee, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As director of the U.S. Catholic
Bishops' Office of International Justice and Peace. I write
to renew our support for the Freedom from Religious
Persecution Act of 1997 (H.R. 2431), based on changes agreed
to by the sponsors. We very much welcome this legislation
with these changes and hope it can be the basis for a focused
and effective U.S. policy on religious persecution.
In testimony before the International Relations Committee
last month, we outlined the U.S. Bishops' teaching and action
on religious freedom, and offered our general support to an
earlier version of this bill. The bill, and the wider
campaign of which it is a part is a welcome effort to raise
the consciousness of the American public about persecution of
Christians and members of other religious communities in many
countries, and to make religious freedom a top priority of
the United States Government.
The freedom from Religious Persecution Act rightly links
U.S. aid to a country's performance on religious liberty, a
linkage that the U.S. bishops have long urged for the full
range of fundamental human rights. The fact that it singles
out only egregious acts of religious persecution does not
create a hierarchy of human rights any more than it creates a
hierarchy of religious freedoms. It simply offers a practical
corrective to U.S. policy in one area where that is much
needed. While the bill focuses on religious freedom, its
practical benefit would be to end U.S. aid given directly to
governments that, in most cases, are abusing not just
religious rights but a whole range of basic human rights.
The bill would also improve reporting on religious liberty
by the State Department and strengthened training of foreign
service and immigration officers, which, given our experience
in these areas, seem well justified. Finally, the bill would
restore some vital procedural safeguards for those seeking
asylum from persecution on account of their religion,
safeguards that we urge be restored for those claiming
persecution on the grounds of race, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion.
In our testimony we identified several areas in which the
bill might be improved. Since then, we understand that
several changes, consistent with our proposals, have been
made or agreed to by the sponsors.
Two critical changes were made in the Amendment to H.R.
2431, as reported by the Subcommittee on International
Operations and Human Rights: broadened coverage to include
victims of persecution of all religious groups in all
countries; and a broadened humanitarian exemption to include
development and related kinds of aid.
Our understanding, based on discussions with the sponsors,
is that further changes will be made to the bill, including:
a broadened presidential waiver that would cover situations
when a waiver would be necessary to meet the purposes of the
act; the addition of opportunities for public comment; and
[[Page H10522]]
changes in the multilateral development aid language to
exempt IDA programs which directly aid the poor.
In addition, we strongly support the continued inclusion of
provisions that would end military aid, financing and sales
to a sanctioned country.
The changes made so far do not address our concerns over
the immigration provisions of the bill, which we understand
will be dealt with in the Judiciary Committee. As noted in
our testimony before your committee, we welcome the effort to
expand protection for refugees fleeing religious persecution,
but believe such protections could be further strengthened
and should be available to the other four categories of
persecuted persons. Short of including the safeguards for
these other categories of asylum seekers, our continued
support for this legislation is dependent upon retaining the
minimum protections contained in the Amendment to H.R. 2431,
as reported by the Subcommittee.
The bill, with the changes proposed by the sponsors,
addresses a serious problem in a serious way. We hope it will
provide a framework for bi-partisan action in this Congress
to increase U.S. attention and action on religious liberty.
The bill is not, nor does it purport to be, a solution to all
violations of religious liberty around the world. It does,
however, offer an effective and reasonable tool for raising
the curtain on a too-often ignored problem, combating the
most blatant forms of religious persecution, and helping to
improve the situation of millions who suffer simply because
of their religious beliefs.
We are committed to continue to work to see that a focused
and effective bill will emerge from the Congress, a bill that
will serve as the framework for a serious and sustained U.S.
policy on religious persecution. The U.S. Catholic bishops
have long worked to protect religious liberty not only for
our fellow Catholics, but for all believers. We urge the
International Relations Committee to adopt the bill, with the
changes proposed by the sponsors, as a major step forward in
this urgent effort.
Sincerely yours,
Rev. Drew Christiansen, S.J.,
Director, U.S. Catholic Conference.
____
Religious Action Center
of Reform Judaism,
Washington, DC, October 24, 1997.
Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,
Chairman, House International Relations Committee, Rayburn
House Office Building, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the Union of American
Hebrew Congregations and the Central Conference of American
Rabbis, which represent 1.5 million Reform Jews and 1,800
Reform rabbis in North America, I write to express support
for the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997 (H.R.
2431).
We have been horrified by stories of religious minorities
suffering brutal persecution at the hands of governments and
local authorities. Tibetans are ruthlessly punished by the
Chinese for simply owning a picture of their spiritual
leader, the Dalai Lama; the Islamic government in Sudan
commits atrocities against its Christian population including
torture, rape and murder; and in Egypt, the Coptic Christian
minority has been the target of Islamic fundamentalist
violence. We cannot turn our back against innocent people
whose sole `'crime'' is the expression of their deepest
religious beliefs. Having so often been the victim of
persecution, it is our duty and obligation as part of the
Jewish community to not only speak out against the
persecution of other religious groups around the world, but
to take affirmative steps to prevent such persecution in the
future.
As committed as we are to combating religious persecution,
the legislation as it was originally introduced was
problematic for us. We appreciate your willingness to work
with us in responding to our concerns regarding the
legislation, and we are pleased that we are now able to
support the bill. The current version of the bill addresses
our most pressing issues by: broadening the religious
persecution definition to include all religious groups;
moving the monitoring office from the White House to the
State Department; providing a presidential waiver for
sanctions when they would endanger the persecuted group;
exempting humanitarian and development aid; and tightening
the sanctions language to limit the export ban. (We
understand that additional changes in the refugee section may
be proposed, either in advance of the markup or by amendment
at the markup itself, and we may be supportive of those
provisions as well.)
We look forward to working with you for the swift enactment
of this legislation
Sincerely,
Rabbi David Saperstein,
Director.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Blunt], a member of the committee.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me. I rise in opposition to the bill, and I do that reluctantly
because of my great respect for the chairman, but I think it would be
wrong to pass this legislation through this House and to do it in this
atmosphere. We need more time to look at this.
But more importantly, I would like to refer back to my colleague from
Virginia's [Mr. Wolf] comments. There is surely religious persecution
in the world today. This may even be part of it. But to pass this
legislation to single out this kind of religious persecution in the
face of what we know is happening all over the world turns our back on
people who are in prison tonight, turns our back on people who are in
slave camps tonight, turns our back on people whose lives have been
given up over the issue of taxation.
Now it could very well be, Mr. Speaker, that we should get to
taxation as an issue we are concerned about, but we should not address
that first. We should not address that at the expense of these other
issues. We need to look at persecution, we need to look at it
realistically, we need to look at it all over the world, and we need to
address those cases first that are worse, not those cases that are
about whether somebody is allowed to perform in a tax-exempt atmosphere
or not, whether somebody's movie is boycotted in another country or
not, boycotting would seem to me to be a pretty specific freedom of
speech right that we would defend in America, or whether or not
somebody pays taxes as a church in another country or not before we
deal with people whose lives are in danger all over the world, people
in Sudan, Buddhists in Tibet, Christians in Shanghai. We need to deal
with those issues first.
I urge my colleagues not to vote for this resolution.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I really respect the folks that have gotten
up to speak in opposition. I believe that they believe very strongly in
their position, and we cannot criticize somebody for speaking their
beliefs. That is what this is all about. But I am flabbergasted at
those who might suggest that since there is other persecution,
religious persecution, going on in the world that we should not start
with this.
Mr. Speaker, frankly I am pretty appalled to hear that kind of
language because there is religious persecution going on in the world,
and we have to start somewhere. Here we have an opportunity to stand up
and reaffirm what this country is all about, and I am very, very
dismayed that some have picked up on this taxation comment. This is
simply a sense of Congress. It was one of the examples used of many.
We are not asking Germany to change their taxation policies. We would
be as offended if they did that to us. We are simply using many, many
examples whereby minority religions, again this is much broader than
Scientology, are persecuted in Germany. We are asking for them to
reaffirm a position, simply to reaffirm their position which their
Constitution states, and that is that they endorse religious tolerance
in the country of Germany.
Yes, they are an ally, and yes we treasure that relationship, but we
ought to be able to go to them and tell them the things which trouble
us.
I was talking with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], and he pointed
out in the paper this morning that there was a German citizen who was
just granted asylum in this country because of religious persecution in
Germany. Yes, that is right, granted asylum in this country because of
religious persecution in Germany. We have got to do all that we can to
stop that.
And again, I want to reaffirm it is much more than taxation. That was
simply one of the ideas that we enumerated in the many ideas or the
many examples of religious intolerance in Germany. Let us get beyond
that. Let us read the bill, because it is much broader than that, and
let us practice what we preach and stand for religious tolerance across
the globe.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this
resolution, and I think that I am as sensitive to the issue of
persecution as anyone. I believe I am the leader in minority group
membership in the House, claiming two myself, and I am going to vote
against this resolution.
I would not vote for a resolution that approved of the way Germany is
dealing with the Scientologists and others, but I do not believe a case
has been
[[Page H10523]]
made to do the very, very solemn act of having this House of
Representatives single them out for condemnation. There are a lot of
things in this world of which we disapprove, and I think the gentleman
from Virginia quite correctly pointed out that if we were going to make
a list of practices worthy of condemnation in this great democratic
institution, even those critical of Germany's treatment of
Scientologists would put it much lower on the list than practices that
have gone unmentioned here. So there is a disproportion.
Secondly, and I understand from my friend from Arizona that is in the
resolution, my colleagues cannot disclaim it, they also have in the
resolution a specific example that people in the youth wing of two
political parties boycotted movies. Well, I do not always like people
who boycott movies, but are we going to have a resolution condemning
the Baptists for condemning Disney? I mean, to intermingle genuine
religious persecution with a decision by private individuals to boycott
a movie is a mistake. It is also inappropriate.
Also I do think we should practice what we preach, but I do not think
we should preach what we do not practice. If we are going to look at
people who are engaging in inappropriate religious persecution, I think
the Governor of Alabama would be on my list. I think people who are
atheists and agnostics in parts of Alabama are under assault and having
their constitutional rights impinged by the Governor of Alabama.
The fact is that Germany is overall a very democratic nation. It is
not perfect. There are not a lot of perfect countries around. But to
single out Germany this way while other countries that have far worse
patterns of abuse are ignored, to intermingle legitimate efforts like a
boycott by political parties with actual persecution and to ignore some
of the problems we have ourselves is wholly inappropriate.
So, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this resolution ought to pass.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for his strong statement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum].
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me, and I rise today in opposition to this resolution mainly
because I have experienced a discussion over a period of time as a
member of the Congressional study group on Germany with German members
of Parliament about the issue, particularly of persecution of
Scientologists and those reports we have had.
I recall going over there earlier this year and engaging in quite a
lengthy discussion with several of their members over this matter, and
I have examined the paperwork and the documents and the press accounts
and so on, and I am not here today to be able to talk about every
instance of allegation of somebody being persecuted with respect to a
particular religion, but with respect to the Scientologists in
particular I am unconvinced that the Germans are in any way persecuting
them.
Germany has a different kind of system for recognizing religions over
there than we do, and I do not necessarily agree with that, but they
have a system in which there is not tithing like we have. They collect
the taxes from the people, the contributions, if my colleagues will, to
the churches, and apportion them out to the various churches that are
recognized, if my colleagues will, by the government. I do not, again
like I say, necessarily agree with that, but the fact that they do not
think that Scientology merits their giving them this status and the,
quote, persecution that people perceive occurring simply because they
are not recognized for purposes under the German Government's auspices
to practice religion is not a reason to have this resolution out here
today.
The truth of the matter is that Scientologists are perceived over
there, rightly or wrongly, and some have said that here in this
country, I do not know if it is right or wrong, as having persecuted
some of their own members. There are those who I have heard over the
years allege that it is difficult to ever quit the Church of
Scientology. There are parents that have complained their children have
been held in against their will. There are all kinds of arguments like
that.
But I was hearing in Germany, again I do not know the merits of them,
but that is what the German Government believes. It is not just an
issue of taxation. They do not think that this group, that is the
Scientologists, are truly deserving of their recognition. It is not a
matter of are they Christian, are they Buddhists, are they whatever, it
is a matter of the way they behaved in Germany and their belief that
they are not indeed entitled to this recognition.
So I would urge a defeat of this resolution. It is very, very
damaging to our relationship with Germany.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his
strong statement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Oxley] the chairman of the German American study group.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to this, I think,
well-intentioned effort, but what is really the purpose behind this
resolution? Is it to embarrass the German Government? Is it to
embarrass the German people? What will ultimately come out of passage
of this resolution? I frankly fail to see what good it would do.
As the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] indicated, I am the
chairman this year of the congressional study group on Germany and have
had numerous discussions with our colleagues from the Bundestag
particularly and also with the German Ambassador about this very
sensitive issue.
I was concerned, frankly, when I looked at a copy of the letter from
the German Ambassador to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
International Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], in
which he indicates that he had offered to have a discussion with those
who would support this amendment, and as near as I can tell, and this
was dated October 29, has had no opportunity whatsoever to tell the
German side of the story on this matter. I find that frankly appalling
when Germany is one of our staunchest allies and ones who have a great
deal at stake in our success in Europe, expanding NATO, expanding trade
relations and the like. And so instead of trying to stick a needle in
the eye of the Germans, it seems to me we ought to be more helpful in
trying to come to understand what these problems are.
I find the language in this resolution quite strong, particularly
when it talks about a German fostering an atmosphere of intolerance
toward certain minority religious groups. Then it goes on to say the
resolution expresses concerns that artists from the United States,
members of minority religious groups, continue to experience German
Government discrimination. Now, I fail to see how the German government
is somehow behind these boycotts of certain movies. There may be
particular political groups, but as the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Frank] said, that happens all the time over here.
So I would say to our friends, let us defeat this resolution and look
toward a more positive attitude as we relate to our strong allies such
as Germany.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr, Speaker, I understand the other side has a closing statement, and
so I will conclude the opposition to the resolution, and I do rise and
continue my strong opposition to the resolution.
Germany is a free country in which religious freedom is guaranteed
under the Constitution and thus sacrosanct. The U.S. State Department
country report on human rights clearly confirms this in its most recent
report.
I would add that I think we need to be reminded every time that what
we do as a body expressing our views on foreign policy is taken very
seriously. This resolution is not balanced. It singles out Germany for
a variety of practices, particularly those related to Scientology where
their position is no different than seven or eight other European
countries and several other countries outside the European Continent.
[[Page H10524]]
{time} 1815
This is a troubling situation for them. It is a matter that is
pending currently in their tax court. But I think it is important we
not have Tom Cruise or John Travolta setting foreign policy in this
country, and I think that is a driving factor behind this legislation.
It is very unfortunate. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], who will give our concluding remarks.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, it is probably pretty good we are coming down
to the closure, because now we are coming down to the ridiculous, to
mention that Tom Cruise and John Travolta are setting foreign policy.
John Travolta and Tom Cruise and Ann Archer and Chick Corea are
fortunate enough to have a celebrity status that can bring attention to
the issue of discrimination, not alleged, not taxation, but
discrimination.
So I am glad that their intent is not to set foreign policy, but they
have given of their time to set forth a cause that is very, very
important to those who cannot be on this floor to speak or, to those
who do not have celebrity status, to be able to be heard, not only
here, but in Germany.
This is not about taxation. Let me tell you about support, as far as
people saying this does not have support. Things do not get lightly
here to the floor. This was not introduced yesterday. This has been
around. It has support, because Democrats and Republicans have voiced
that they want this on the floor tonight, Mr. Speaker. They want the
people of this country and the people around the world to understand
this issue, Mr. Speaker.
And the fact that now our Government has gone a step further and has
officially granted asylum, do you know how hard it is to get asylum?
Our Government stated yesterday, it was in the Washington Post today,
that asylum has been granted to a German citizen because they dared to
be something different, of a different religion, than us. That is how
far this has gone.
Painful words, someone said. It is a shame we are to the point of
what someone may consider painful words. The reason we have painful
words is because there have been painful deeds, not something someone
has made up, but posters that say ``no thank you'' to a play on the
word of ``sect,'' of minority religions.
It goes a little beyond that. Those official sanction posters that
have a fly swatter to swat at those pesky little minority members of a
religion. It has gone to the point of not someone saying, let's not
watch a movie, but of a government that has told citizens of the United
States that you in fact shall not perform in the country of Germany
because you are a different religion that we just simply do not like
that is the type of thing that has occurred.
I went to Germany. We tried to talk about this and got the fist
pounding that, we will not talk about it. As far as primary sponsors, I
would ask any of my colleagues if either side of the aisle sitting on
the floor of this House tonight, Mr. Speaker, if anybody from the
German Embassy called them, because I have been out front on this issue
for religious freedom for minorities, and we haven't had any calls, and
I did a quick check, and nobody I know of supporting this has had any
type of call in fact.
All we know is in the press. Today in Germany, they just said, as a
matter of fact, an official of the German Government simply said this
will not be brought up by the U.S. Congress until after January maybe
to be discussed, because I guess they set our foreign policy now.
So no matter how good an ally, the real shame tonight is the fact
that they have not wanted to communicate on this issue. The fact is,
they continue to want to choose who in fact from this country can go to
their country, who in fact they will put under surveillance because
they simply do not like the type of religion they are.
These are Americans we are talking about. We are not out to destroy
the relationship of our country, but we are talking about standing up
for the rights of our own American citizens. That is what this is about
tonight.
We cannot turn our back any longer on this issue. It has been
mentioned about the other religions, about the Baha'is. It has been
mentioned about persecution of people around the world. I am sorry
other things have not hit the floor. I am not saying they are not
important. I believe that we should stand up for persecution around the
world. We have done it in some votes, obviously, with Chinese
resolutions.
But just because those resolutions didn't hit the floor of this House
tonight does not mean this is not any more important.
So this is not something fabricated, this is not something we are
anti-German and we just wanted to bring this up tonight because we
didn't have anything to do. These are serious true incidents that have
happened over and over and over. Members of Congress have stated their
feelings about this and tried the diplomatic route over and over and
over. And, yes, this does have support, and that is how this did end up
on the floor of this House tonight.
This is about standing up, no matter what you think of another
religion, for American citizens' rights, and if the Democrat or the
Republican Party dared, dared, on the registration forms in the United
States to say, ``Are you a Catholic or not?'' or, ``Are you a
Protestant, or are you a Muslim, or are you a Jew?'' if that dared to
happen in this country, do you know what type of outcry there would be?
On the forms, it happens over there about certain religions only: Are
you a member or not?
It does exist; it is real; we need to stand up.
In closing, I am a Roman Catholic of German background tonight that
stands on the floor simply saying, in fact, we have to stand up for
religious freedom tonight. Our country was found that way. They didn't
say bring in your tired, your poor, and the religion that we choose
that can come here. This is so basic to American principles that
everybody should voice their support of this.
I urge the bipartisan support of standing up tonight, not to slap at
another country, but to stand up tonight for religious freedom.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] that the
House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, House
Concurrent Resolution 22, as amended.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Bereuter)
there were--ayes 3, noes 12.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________