[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 61 (Thursday, May 14, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3263-H3294]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION ACT OF 1998
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 430, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 430
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2431) to establish an Office of Religious
Persecution Monitoring, to provide for the imposition of
sanctions against countries engaged in a pattern of religious
persecution, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on International Relations. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendments
recommended by the Committees on International Relations, the
Judiciary, and Ways and Means now printed in the bill, it
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R.
3806, modified by the amendments printed in part 1 of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. No amendment to that amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those
printed in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules.
Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments
printed in the report are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute made in order as original text. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this rule, House Resolution 430, is a structured rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 2431, The Freedom from
Religious Persecution Act of 1998. The admirable purpose of this
legislation is to reduce the widespread and ongoing religious
persecution taking place, unfortunately, in many places in the world
today.
{time} 1115
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on International Relations, which had primary jurisdiction over the
legislation.
Because the bill was referred to five committees for their
consideration, and three of those committees reported varying versions
of the bill, a new bill for the purpose of amendment, H.R. 3806, was
introduced last week.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee
on Rules announced on the House floor on May 7 that the bill, H.R.
3806, would be used as the base text for purposes of amendment. The
rule, therefore, makes in order as an original bill for purposes of
amendment an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of H.R. 3806 as modified by the amendments in Part 1 of the report
of the Committee on Rules and provides that the amendment in the nature
of a substitute shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule which allows for a broad range of
amendments on a very narrowly focused bill. The goal of the bill is to
combat religious persecution, and clearly all forms of persecution are
to be condemned. But the crafters of this bill, as I stated, created a
very focused religion-specific bill to make clear that we are focusing
on one particular aspect of unacceptable persecution which must, must
be combated.
Thus, the bill was not brought with an amendment, for example, from
the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) who offered
an amendment which would have expanded the scope of the bill to cover
all forms of persecution prohibited by the Geneva Convention. It was
felt by the framers of the legislation, however, that this bill, to
have an opportunity to be considered and to have an opportunity for
passage, should be framed as specifically and narrowly as it has been.
I believe that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), when he
moves forward, if he does, with his concept, will get tremendous
support on a bipartisan basis. I certainly would be supportive of the
effort by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), but I think
that it is important to keep in mind what the purpose of this bill is.
[[Page H3264]]
It is a very focused, I would maintain, modest and reasonable and,
hopefully, achievable piece of legislation to focus on upon that
egregious and condemnable practice which occurs all too often in
different parts of the world, religious persecution. I would urge my
colleagues to support both this fair rule and the underlying bill.
The bill prohibits Federal agencies and U.S. persons from exporting
goods to entities engaged in religious persecution. I think that is an
important step to demonstrate that we are serious about condemning and
opposing that unconscionable practice.
Mr. Speaker, though the bill has been limited in the process of
amendment and of discussion, this is a very important piece of
legislation that we are dealing with today. I would say it is somewhat
of a definitional piece of legislation for this Congress at this
particular moment in our history.
I often think about what we have witnessed in the last years and the
fact that we are in a transitional moment. I often think about the fact
that, while doubtless, we saw an ``evil empire,'' as President Reagan
often called it, collapse, I wonder what it is that has won. What is it
that has won? And what kind of world is it that we are walking into at
this stage in our history?
In a certain sense that is what we are discussing. That is what will
be discussed and debated with this particular legislation. We have to
decide, ultimately, if what we accept and what we wish to embrace as a
society and as a world, as an international community, is ethics as
some sort of guide, some sort of factor in human conduct; or whether we
are officially going to embrace the law of the jungle, if we are going
to simply embrace the concept, as Dostoyevsky said when he pointed out
that in his belief, those who say that God does not exist in effect are
saying that anything is possible. In other words, if the concept of
ethics will have no relevance whatsoever, then we might as well
officially proclaim that in this era in which we are living.
So what the framers have done, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman), and so many others who have worked so tirelessly
on this legislation, through this legislation, this very focused
legislation, is to say that that particular egregious conduct,
religious persecution, torture, being put into a dungeon, into a cage,
being tortured or killed because of a human being's religious beliefs
and practices is going to be officially, by the United States Congress,
condemned today.
Even though there are all sorts of waivers, as the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) stated earlier, and he will state subsequently, in
his legislation for the President, the same President who will be,
according to what I am told, standing, in just a few weeks, at
Tiananmen Square, being received officially by the Chinese Government
with all the symbolism that that means in the world of diplomacy, that
there could be no other place to be received in Beijing except
Tiananmen Square.
Even though this bill, as focused as it is, as limited as it is,
grants multiple waiver authority to the President of the United States,
it is, nonetheless, a very important piece of legislation. It is a
piece of legislation that is going to be watched. What we do today is
going to be watched throughout the world and, most especially, by those
who languish in dungeons and in caves and who are tortured and
oppressed because of their religious views and practices.
So I would urge my colleagues to not only support this fair rule, but
the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend the framers of the legislation.
I have great admiration for all of them: the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman), of course, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hall), who is here, my dear friend on the other side of the aisle and
to whom I have yielded the customary 30 minutes on this rule, a
tireless champion, as well, for human rights and human decency
throughout this world.
I thank them all for their hard work on this legislation and other
similar pieces of legislation that have dignified this Congress in the
past.
So I would urge my colleagues to support the rule. I know that we
have the distinguished presence here of the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) who will be speaking on the rule, also, by the way,
an extraordinary fighter for human rights.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for
yielding me the time and his very, very kind words.
Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule. It will allow debate on H.R.
2431, which is called the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act. As my
colleague has described, this rule will provide 1 hour of general
debate that will be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
the ranking minority member of the Committee on International
Relations.
The rule self-executes two amendments. In addition, it makes in order
four amendments which may be offered on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, religious freedom is one of the most fundamental rights
of Americans. It is enshrined in the first amendment to the
Constitution. It is a foundation of the American government. It is more
than just an American right. The right to freedom of religion is
recognized by international law, including the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
Unfortunately, the brutal suppression of religious expression is all
too common beyond the borders of the United States. In my travels and
in the travels of many of the sponsors of the bill, especially the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith), we have witnessed firsthand the extraordinary intolerance
against people who chose to practice their faith outside the officially
approved religions.
In Romania, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I saw churches that were burned down,
people that were thrown in prison, Bibles by the thousands that were
shredded into toilet paper under the official government policy of
repression.
In northern Uganda, I saw Catholic girls who were mutilated for no
other reason than their faith. Their ears and their noses were cut off.
I visited them in the hospitals. It goes on in so many countries in the
world that practice this brutality.
But when I and my fellow House Members would return to the United
States from these countries, there was little we could do about the
horror we saw. We did not have the legal tools necessary to stop it.
The bill before us today is such a tool. The bill was introduced by
my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who, as I have said
before, I have accompanied on many international trips to investigate
human rights abuses.
His bill establishes the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring
to identify and report on religious persecution. If the Secretary of
State determines persecution exists, then a series of sanctions take
effect, including a prohibition on exports and U.S. foreign aid.
Because of the importance of religious freedom to our Nation, it
seems fair that our government express this in our foreign policy.
While we cannot dictate the internal policies of other countries, we
can direct the State Department and our foreign assistance programs to
deny support for countries and individuals that repress religious
freedom contrary to basic American values.
President Clinton has already taken an important step towards
universal freedom of religious expression by establishing a Commission
on Religious Liberty to advise the State Department. However, I believe
we can do more.
I regret that we are taking up this bill under such a restrictive
rule. I would prefer that we would have more of an open rule, but I
strongly support this bill to express U.S. outrage over the religious
persecution in other countries and to help stop the brutality.
Reluctantly, I do support this rule so that we can proceed with the
consideration of a bill that I consider a most important piece of
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H3265]]
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), my distinguished colleague and friend.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Diaz-Balart), my colleague from Miami, for his leadership on this
issue.
Mr. Speaker, along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart)
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), I also rise in strong support
of H.R. 2431, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1998. I
especially commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International
Relations for their leadership and for their dedication in bringing
forward such a critical piece of legislation.
Jose Marti, the man who liberated my homeland of Cuba from tyranny,
said, ``To witness a crime in silence is to be an accomplice of that
crime.''
Today, my colleagues and I are making a statement to the world that
the United States will not stand by silently. We will bear witness to
the thousands of our fellow human beings who are tortured and, indeed,
even murdered for exercising their fundamental right to religious
freedom.
Today, we will give a voice to those whose cries for freedom and
justice have been equaled by violent and repressive regimes that seek
to destroy that which is so precious to us as children of God.
{time} 1130
This bill will help ensure that practicing one's faith will not
become a death sentence, as it has been, unfortunately, for so many
men, women and children throughout the world.
When we speak of religious persecution, we need to fully recognize
that in many countries this does not mean simple harassment, but it
refers to unthinkable, monstrous acts, ranging from imprisonment,
forced slavery, torture, starvation and murder. These acts, endorsed,
and in many cases imposed, by extremist, repressive regimes, have gone
unpunished for too long.
As we reflect on this issue today, we ask that you think of people
like the 18 year old girl from Laos who was arrested by government
forces and is currently sitting in a squalid prison cell. And what is
her crime? Teaching Bible classes to neighborhood children. Or think
about the student from Tibet who did nothing but record traditional
music from Tibet, and, for this offense, he was sentenced to 18 years.
I ask you to picture the father who was shot in the streets of Iran
because he was not in the mosque at prayer time. There are many
prisoners in my native homeland of Cuba who are in jail because they
dared to hold religious meetings at their homes, and there are
evangelical Christians and Jehovahs' Witnesses routinely harassed in
Cuba.
These are just a few examples of the grim destiny that so many of our
global brothers and sisters face at the hands of those who hold no
respect for religious beliefs and no respect for human life.
Religious persecution following the Cold War has not diminished.
Sadly, it has only persisted, and has now reached new heights. H.R.
2431 will provide a permanent mechanism for the United States to
investigate religious persecution and ensure that these cases receive
high priority at the State Department.
By creating an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring within the
State Department, we will help to develop a mechanism that will help to
strengthen and improve our methods of addressing religious freedom and
persecution throughout the world. If and when a country is identified
in engaging in widespread and ongoing acts of persecution, the United
States would terminate non-humanitarian U.S. foreign aid and require
U.S. opposition to loans to such regimes from taxpayer supported
international agencies. It bans the export of torture and other crime
control related supplies to offending countries, and it bans visas to
known persecutors.
This bill furthers U.S. interests by ensuring that U.S. funds do not
go to pariah states which engage in practices that run contrary to our
values and our beliefs and which violate basic human dignity. Through
this bill, we will finally shine light into the eyes of those who seek
to oppress and destroy lives, and we will hold them responsible for
their cruel acts.
Pope John Paul II has said,
Religious persecution is an intolerable and unjustifiable
violation of the most fundamental human freedom, that of
practicing one's faith openly, which for human beings is
their reason for living.
Let us not stand idly by while thousands continue to suffer. Let us
make these rogue regimes accountable for their crimes against humanity.
Let us render strong support for H.R. 2431.
I once again congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for
his tenacity, dedication, and never-wavering focus on the issue of
religious persecution worldwide. I regret the bill has been changed as
it has moved through the committee process, but it definitely is still
a powerful weapon to foster international religious freedom. We are
truly blessed in this house to have a man of vision like the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) guiding our efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for
yielding me this time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by joining my friend, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) in praising the work of the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hall). There is not a person in this body more respected on
issues related to hunger and protecting the rights of people who have
been persecuted around the world for whatever reason than the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Hall). I want to associate myself with comments that
have been made in praise of the gentleman by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Diaz-Balart).
Mr. Speaker, I am rising in opposition to the rule on this bill. I
rise in opposition to the rule because the Committee on Rules ruled
that an amendment that I attempted to offer on the floor was not in
order. I think the Committee on Rules should have made my amendment in
order.
There is not a person in this house or in our country, I believe, who
would not find offensive and abhorrent the abduction, enslavement,
killing, imprisonment, rape, crucifixion or any forms of torture, which
this bill condemns and sanctions. This bill condemns and sanctions
those forms of torture, but it does it only when the victims are
tortured because of religious beliefs.
The amendment that I sought to offer would have expanded this bill to
offer the same kind of protections for those persecuted because of
race, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political
opinion.
This bill sets up two new categories in the law, a category 1 and a
category 2, for people who have been enslaved or killed for religious
persecution, and, by doing so, implies that somehow religious
persecution is more abhorrent than persecution for other reasons, such
as race or political belief or nationality or group membership.
The very example that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart)
referred to about the President going to China and standing in
Tiananmen Square, imagine, if you would, that the tanks in Tiananmen
Square had just rolled right over the protesters there. Nothing in this
bill would address that issue, because those protesters were there for
political reasons, not for religious reasons.
So I rise to say all forms of persecution, whether they are for
religious reasons, whether they are for racial reasons, whether they
are for nationality reasons, whether they are because people are
standing up for their political beliefs, most often in defense of
democracy, all forms of persecution should be covered under this bill.
And the Committee on Rules has decided that it will not allow an
amendment to be debated on this floor, to be considered and voted on on
this floor, that would expand the coverage of this bill to those other
forms of persecution. By doing so, it is implying to the world that
somehow religious persecution should be given extra protection and
heightened priority.
[[Page H3266]]
Mr. Speaker, we should provide special protections against all forms
of persecution.
Some people would have you believe that we are paying less attention
to religious persecution in the world than we are to the other kinds of
persecution that I have made reference to, but let me suggest that that
is simply not the case.
The United States has 78,000 refugee slots allocated for 1998.
Twenty-five thousand of those funded slots are allocated to those
Bosnians who are Muslim. Religious reasons. Twenty-one thousand of
those slots are allocated to religious minorities from the former
Soviet Union. So 59 percent of our refugee allocation is set aside for
victims of religious persecution in one way or another. Does that mean
that we are treating religious persecution in some lesser fashion? I
think not.
The only thing I would say to this body is that this bill ought to be
broader, and everybody keeps telling me, ``Well, you ought to go and
introduce a separate bill.''
My response to that is, we have a bill on the floor. If everybody
thinks this is a good idea to expand the protections in this bill to
victims of persecution based on race, nationality, group membership or
political opinion, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart)
indicated everybody does, then put it in this bill, and let us vote it
up or down. Because it is not in the bill and the amendment has not
been made in order, I oppose this rule.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Watt) has said. I think we have to recognize that we have a coalition
of interests opposing us that, in effect, want there to be absolutely
no sanctions on any sort of conduct anywhere in the world, and that the
law of the world should be if there is a buck to be made anywhere, no
matter what the conditions, no matter under what the circumstances, no
matter if it is dealing in or contributing to the most horrendous
conduct conceivable, that that is acceptable. That is the coalition
against us.
The message that we will send out today to that coalition, to the
world and to those who are imprisoned, is that we will not be defeated,
and that we are going to continue to make progress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my dear friend, the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a leader in human rights throughout
the world.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I
appreciate the comments of the gentleman, and I appreciate the comments
the gentleman made about my very good friend, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Hall). I second those, and completely agree.
Passing this bill will say to the world that the United States will
no longer remain silent while people of faith are being tortured--
because that is what this bill covers--enslaved, abducted and killed
for their religious beliefs. Passing the bill will shatter the silence.
There are troubling things taking place all over the world. In the
past decade in Sudan alone, 1.5 million Christians and Muslims and
Animists have been killed for their faith. Starvation is that
government's weapon of choice, liberally spiced with high altitude
bombing in the villages, and mass murders. And there is slavery, the
selling into slavery in Sudan of young Sudanese boys and girls.
In China, Catholic priests and bishops are imprisoned today, as we
now speak, some for decades, simply for offering holy communion.
Protestant pastors are thrown in jail for having house church services,
and Muslims suffer persecution, as do Buddhist monks and nuns in Tibet.
In Tibet, where I have been, China's government has systematically
destroyed up to 4,000 to 6,000 monasteries, and the government tightly
controls all of the existing monasteries.
Many around the world are enduring hardships simply because they
practice their faith. They endure mostly in silence and away from the
public spotlight and with little hope of improvement. This bill would
apply to all faiths, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist and all
others.
This bill is moderate, it is balanced, and this bill gives the
President total waiver authority, meaning that if the President does
not want this bill to go into effect, it will not go into effect.
Finally, the bill, I think, will send a message to help so many
people. It is a bipartisan effort, Republicans and Democratic Members
alike, with 131 cosponsors.
I will tell Members, on three different occasions I personally have
looked into the eyes of young boys in southern Sudanese refugee
villages who have lost their moms and dads and had nobody to care for
them.
{time} 1145
I have seen the monasteries that are plundered in Tibet and the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I have been to Beijing Prison
No. 1 in China.
Cardinal O'Connor of New York wrote a letter yesterday where he said,
``The Freedom From Religious Persecution Act could begin the
desperately needed process of ending the legitimizing of such
persecution. In my judgment,'' Cardinal O'Connor said, ``its passage
would be an act of historic proportions.''
Catholic Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, who just returned from China
said, and I quote from a letter yesterday, ``The bill represents a
modest step that reflects the growing awareness that this vital human
rights issue has too often been overlooked, and a growing conviction
that the core American values, including religious liberty, must play a
proper role in foreign policy.''
Other supporters of the bill, and there are so many, are the
International Campaign for Tibet, the Christian Coalition, the U.S.
Catholic Bishops Conference, the Family Research Council, the National
Jewish Coalition, the Anti-Defamation League, the Religious Action
Center for Reformed Judaism. The Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious
Liberty Commission, the American Family Association, Prison Fellowship
Ministries, the Union of Orthodox Congregations of America, the
Salvation Army, the Catholic Alliance, B'Nai B'rith, and many, many
others. This bill is also supported by so many others that we will put
their names in the Record.
Mr. Speaker, when this bill hopefully becomes law, America will
reaffirm for the world that we still honor those words that Jefferson
penned where he said: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men women are created equal, endowed by their Creator, by God, with
life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''
These words by Jefferson were not just for Virginians, they were not
only for Americans, but they were for people around the world. Passage
of the bill will reaffirm the words of President Reagan where he said,
``We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole
prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of
all human beings.''
The last two points. If this bill were to fail, can we imagine what
the prison wardens would say to those who are imprisoned in Sudan
today, those who are in the ghost houses? What that would say would be
that nobody cares. On the other hand, when this Congress passes this
bill, and those in Yei and Torit and little villages in southern Sudan
and those in little villages in China, as they tune into their crystal
radio sets and listen, they will know that the people's House, the
United States Government, the United States Congress has stood on
behalf of those who are persecuted. And it will send a message, as
Natan Sharansky said when he was in the old Soviet Perm 35 and he heard
that the Congress stood for him; it will send a message that we stand
for the least of these and we stand with them boldly, whereby those
words of Jefferson hold true for everybody around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I urge and plead that everyone support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2431, the Freedom from
Religious Persecution Act. Passing this bill will say to the world that
the United States will no longer remain silent while people of faith
around the world are being tortured, enslaved, abducted and killed for
their religious beliefs. For too long the U.S. has remained silent on
this issue--passing H.R. 2431 helps shatter that silence.
[[Page H3267]]
There are troubling things taking place in the world. In just the
past decade, the government of Sudan has killed or allowed to starve
over a million of its own people. The fallen--mostly Christians,
Animists and some Muslims in southern Sudan--are victims of a religious
war. Starvation is that government's weapon of choice, liberally spiced
with high-altitude bombing, mass murder and even selling Sudanese boys
and girls as slaves.
In China, Catholic priests and bishops are in prison--some for
decades, simply for practicing their faith. Protestant pastors are
thrown in jail just for holding house church services. Muslims suffer
persecution, as do Buddhist monks and nuns.
In Tibet, the Chinese government has systematically destroyed up to
five thousand Buddhist monasteries. The monasteries still standing have
a cadre of Chinese police to monitor what goes on. The government
tightly controls the activities of the monks and nuns and even pictures
of the Dalai Lama are forbidden.
In Pakistan, Ahmadi Muslims and Christians are victimized by the
ominously named ``blasphemy'' law under which those who speak against
the prophet Mohammed can be given the death sentence. Just last week,
as we prepared to debate this bill, one of Pakistan's leading Catholic
bishops, Bishop John Joseph committed suicide to protest a death
sentence handed down to Christian Ayub Masih. Bishop Joseph reportedly
said just before putting a shot through his head ``It is no longer
possible for my people to live in Pakistan.''
Many around the world are enduring hardships simply because they
practice their faith. They endure mostly in silence and away from the
public spotlight and with little hope for a brighter tomorrow. The
Freedom from Religious Persecution Act is for them. It would apply to
people of all faiths--Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist and
others.
The bill establishes the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring
at the State Department--a permanent mechanism to monitor religious
persecution overseas. Countries found to be engaged in ``widespread and
ongoing'' persecution which involves abduction, enslavement, killing,
imprisonment, forced mass relocation, rape, torture or the imposition
of particularly severe fines, would be named and subjected to four
punitive actions. These actions are:
(1) A ban on non-humanitarian foreign aid;
(2) A ban on visas to individuals known to be responsible for
persecution;
(3) A ban on U.S. support for loans by international financial
institutions to offending countries, and
(4) Two narrowly-targeted export bans which ban the sale of items
used for torture to offending countries and the direct export of goods
to entities responsible for persecution.
The bill is moderate and balanced. It provides the President with the
authority to waive the sanctions when national security interests would
be served or if waiving the sanctions would ``promote the objectives of
the act.''
Finally, the bill imposes sanctions on the government of Sudan until
it ceases its massive campaign of religious persecution--the same
sanctions that were imposed on the government of South Africa in the
1980's for its immoral apartheid policy.
When America speaks out, it makes a difference. Just ask noted
Russian Jewish dissident Natan Sharansky, who languished for years in
Soviet gulags as a prisoner of conscience. He sent a letter to a group
of religious leaders gathered to talk about this bill, ``When the West
stood up for its most basic values and spoke up for persecuted Soviet
Jewish communities, Soviet chains around churches and political
dissidents began to shatter.''
This bill has broad bipartisan support--over 131 cosponsors. It is
supported by a broad coalition of religious and civic groups.
For example, Wei Jingsheng, one of China's most well known and well
respected political dissidents, supports H.R. 2431. I quote from his
recent letter:
I have personally witnessed the oppression and exploitation
of religious groups and individuals that occurs today in
China. The true situation may be difficult for Americans to
imagine, and it is difficult for the Chinese people to
imagine. If I did not see it myself, even I would not imagine
the shameful and despicable means the Communists use against
religious believers . . . I feel that if a government such as
China which for such a long time totally denied the rights of
freedom of religion to its citizens cannot receive sanction,
than it is completely unjust. I urge the friends of human
rights to support this effort.
I submit Wei's entire letter for the record. He knows that pressure
works--he's out of jail today because the U.S. pressed for his release.
Cardinal O'Connor of New York says, and I quote,
The Freedom from Religious Prosecution Act could begin the
desperately needed process of ending the legitimizing of such
persecution. In my judgment, its passage would be an act of
historic proportions.
Archbishop Theodore McCarrick says,
The bill represents a modest step that reflects growing
awareness that this vital human rights issue has too often
been overlooked, and a growing conviction that core American
values--including respect for religious liberty--must play
proper roles in shaping the U.S. foreign policy agenda.
Both letters are submitted for the Record.
Other supporters of the bill include: the International Campaign for
Tibet, the Christian Coalition, the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference,
the Family Research Council, the National Jewish Coalition, the Anti-
Defamation League, the Religious Action Center for Reformed Judaism,
the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the
American Family Association, Prison Fellowship Ministries, the Union of
Orthodox Congregations of America, the Salvation Army, the Catholic
Alliance and B'Nai B'rith.
The bill is also supported by a number of groups representing ethnic
groups suffering persecution like the American Coptic Association, the
Cardinal Kung Foundation, the Free Vietnam Alliance, the Pakistani-
American Association, the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam and Southern
Sudanese in America.
And there are many, many more. A total list of supporters is
submitted for the Record. All have worked tirelessly to pass this bill
and I thank them for their efforts.
When H.R. 2431 becomes law, America will reaffirm for all the world
that we still honor those ringing words in the Declaration of
Independence that, ``We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all
Men [and women] are created equal * * * endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness.''
These words by Thomas Jefferson are not for America alone, but for
people everywhere. And passage of this bill will reaffirm the words of
President Ronald Reagan, spoken on a different occasion, when he said,
``We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole
prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of
all human beings.''
I urge you to vote for H.R. 2431. It will help people of faith
everywhere.
Organizations in Support of H.R. 2431
American Baptist Evangelicals
American Coptic Association
American Copts of California
American Family Association
Anti-Defamation League
Assyrian Academic Alliance
Assyrian National Congress
Assyrian National Foundation
B'Nai B'rith
Campus Crusade for Christ
Cardinal Kung Foundation
Catholic Alliance
Christian Coalition
Christian Legal Society
Christian Reformed Church
Christian Solidarity International
Concerned Women for America
Empower America
Ethics and Public Policy Center
Evangelical Free Church of America
Evangelicals for Social Action
Family Research Council
Focus on the Family
Freedom House's Puebla Program
Institute on Religion and Democracy
International Campaign for Tibet
International Christian Concern
International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
Iranian Christian International
National Association of Evangelicals
National Jewish Coalition
National Religious Broadcasters
Open Doors with Brother Andrew
Prison Fellowship Ministries
Religious Action Center for Reformed Judaism
The Rutherford Institute
The Salvation Army
Seventh Day Adventist Church
Southern Baptist Convention
U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Voice of the Martyrs
World Evangelical Fellowship-Religious Liberty Commission
The Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights Under Islamization
Advocates International
Agape International
American Coptic Association
American Coptic Union
Asian Christian Ministries
Assyrian International News Agency
Assyrian National Congress
Assyrian Political Review
Bangladesh Reformed Presbyterian Theological
Seminary
Bet-Nahrain
Canadian Coptic Association
Christian Amnesty
Christian Copts of California
Christian Voice of Pakistan
Coptic American Friendship Association
Coalition Committee of Experts
Coming Home USA
CREED
Egyptian Relief Agency
[[Page H3268]]
Eritrean Academic Committee
Federation of Hindu Associations
Foundation for Faith in Search of Understanding
Freedom USA
Institute on Religion and Democracy
Indo-American Kashmir Forum
International AWAZ
International Christian Concern
Iranian Christians International
HIS
Jubilee Campaign
Law and Liberty Trust
Lebanese Organization of New York
MECHRIC
Middle East Research Center
National Interreligious Task Force
New Sudan Foundation
Operation Nehemiah for South Sudan
Open Doors-Netherlands
Pakistani-American Association
Pakistani Apostolate
Persecution Relief
Research and Education Foundation
South Lebanese Christian Association
Southern Sudanese in America
Southern Sudan Resource Center
Society of St. Stephen
The Trinitarians Religious Freedom Program
Toronto Coptic Association
Wake-up Coalition
World Evangelical Fellowship-Religious Liberty Commission
World Lebanese Organization
World Maronite Union
Zwemer Institute of Muslim Studies
____
Christian Legal Society,
Annandale, VA, May 11, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich, Richard Gephardt, Dick Armey, and David
Bonior,
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker, Congressmen Gephardt, Armey, and Bonior:
We take great heart from recent House actions in support of a
growing, nationwide movement of conscience against religious
persecution.
We are deeply grateful for the stunning 31-5 House
International Relations Committee vote in favor of the
Freedom From Religious Persecution Act. We are further
grateful for the House Leadership's scheduling of a floor
vote on this Act on May 14. We note as well Senate Leadership
commitments to ensure 105th Congress consideration of anti-
persecution legislation. These developments are critical
steps towards achieving the imperative goal of ending today's
widespread and ongoing persecutions of vulnerable communities
of faith.
Because further Congressional action remains to be taken,
we believe it useful to set out our view of the elements
necessary for effective legislation.
In so doing we again endorse the Freedom From Religious
Persecution Act, in the strongest terms, and reiterate our
intent to work for its rapid passage. The Act's prospects in
the House result from efforts of a broad coalition of
religious groups and such House leaders as Representatives
Wolf, Berman, Gilman, Gjedenson, Hall, Pelosi, Chris Smith
and Majority Leader Armey. We believe that these efforts will
produce historic legislation, and for the following reasons:
The Act's baseline sanction of withdrawing non-humanitarian
foreign aid from persecuting regimes is both limited and
meaningful--and will be a powerful tool to end the threats of
murder, torture, rape, starvation and enslavement now faced
by millions of believers.
The Act's limited but targeted focus on hard-core
persecution ensures that its reach will not exceed its grasp.
The Act's waiver provisions fully allow the President to
maintain non-humanitarian aid to persecution regimes while
also creating real accountability on his part if he chooses
to do so.
The Act's small, distinguished and independent office will
have no policy-making authority--thus leading to fact-based,
less politicized findings of whether and where religious
persecution actually occurs.
The Act's application of the South Africa sanctions against
Sudan will ensure that we treat genocide with no less resolve
than was brought to bear against apartheid.
The Act's moderate reform of immigration practices, in a
manner fully consistent with existing immigration law, will
help secure traditional American protection for victims of
religious persecution.
Because various provisions of the Act may be the subject of
amendments on the House floor, we believe it useful to set
forth our views on a number of important matters.
Sudan: This is a regime responsible for wholesale torture,
rape, starvation, murder and enslavement of religious
communities. Thus, the Act's Sudan provision reflects a
central moral premise of our movement--the need for full
parity in America's resistance to South African apartheid and
Sudanese genocide. We urge the House to restore the most
effective sanction against this regime: a ban on imports from
the Sudan.
Immigration Reform: Given America's establishment as a
haven for victims of religious persecution, today's often-
hostile treatment of religious asylum claimants is deeply
troublesome. Yet, despite statutory provisions barring the
summary exclusion of some classes of asylum applicants, the
Act maintains the Immigration Service's right to summarily
exclude religious asylum applicants without full hearings.
The Act's modest reforms represent minimal progress in a
critical area of concern. We will fight hard to restore them.
Non-Humanitarian Foreign Aid: The Act's response to regimes
engaged in ``widespread and ongoing'' acts of hard-core
religious persecution--ending their non-humanitarian taxpayer
subsidies--qualifies as a ``sanction'' only by stretching the
meaning of that term. We believe it axiomatic that no
taxpayer subsidies should go towards such regimes, and
therefore strongly oppose the removal of Export Import Bank
subsidies from the Act's reach. Further, because Presidential
waivers can restore those subsidies, and because some hard-
core persecutors will be largely unaffected by the
Act without withdrawal of Export-Import Bank subsidies, we
strongly believe that the Act will not have its necessary
effectiveness without this vital feature.
The Freedom From Religious Persecution Act is moderate in
its responses to persecution but serious about putting those
responses into effect. It will make the President accountable
if he exercises his broad authority to waive its sanctions.
By its targeted focus on hard-core persecution it offers real
protection to vulnerable believers. It will deal evenhandedly
with all persecuting regimes, whether strong or weak. It is
modeled on the Jackson-Vanik law, which helped bring freedom
to people of all faiths in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. It
puts America on the right side of history and ensures that
the world will not see us as the Swiss are now seen to be--a
country willing to abet evil in the pursuit of expedient
goals and short-term financial gain.
Prayerfully and with full determination, we intend to work
for the Act's overwhelming adoption by the House, and for
Congressional enactment of effective legislation. We remain
at your pleasure in our continuing effort to realize this
long-needed and historic outcome.
Respectfully,
John Ackerly, President, International Campaign for
Tibet; The Right Reverend Keith Ackerman, The Episcopal
Church, Bishop of Quincy; William Armstrong, Former
U.S. Senator (1979-1990); Gary L. Bauer, President,
Family Research Council; William J. Bennett, Co-
Director, Empower America; Dr. Bill Bright, President,
Campus Crusade for Christ; Charles Colson, Chairman of
the Board, Prison Fellowship Ministries; Michael
Cromartie, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy
Center; Nathan J. Diament, Director, Institute for
Public Affairs, The Union of Orthodox Jewish
Congregation of America; Bishop Alex D. Dickson,
Director, Institute for Christian Leadership, and Vice
President, American Anglican Council; Dr. James Dobson,
President, Focus on the Family; Rev. John C. Eby,
National Coordinator, American Baptist Evangelicals;
Sam Elisha, Director, Special Ministries Division, HIS
International, Inc.; David H. Engelhard, General
Secretary, Christian Reformed Church of North America;
Edward L. Foggs, General Secretary, Leadership Council,
Church of God; Deacon Keith A. Fournier, Catholic
Alliance; Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, Anti-
Defamation League; Jim Geist, Executive Director,
Interfaith Alliance for Christian Human Rights; Chris
Gersten, President, Institute for Religious Values; Dr.
Scott M. Gibson, President, American Baptist
Evangelicals; Dr. Os Guinness, Senior Fellow, The
Trinity Forum; E. Brandt Gustavson, President, National
Religious Broadcasters; Michael Horowitz, Director,
Project for International Religious Freedom, Hudson
Institute; Clyde M. Hughes, General Overseer,
International Pentecostal Church of Christ; Charles
****, Research Director, American Anti-Slavery Group;
James Jacobson, President, Christian Freedom
International; The Right Reverend Stephen H. Jecko, The
Episcopal Church, Bishop of Florida; D. James Kennedy,
Ph. D., Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church; Ed Koch,
Former Mayor of New York City, New York; Diane
Knippers, Institute on Religion and Democracy; Bishop
Richard W. Kohl, Evangelical Congregational Church;
Shawley F. Koras, President, American Coptic
Association; Dr. Beverly LaHaye, Chairman, Concerned
Women for America; Dr. Richard Land, President and CEO,
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern
Baptist Convention; Dr. Duane Litfin, President,
Wheaton College; Michael McConnell, Presidential
Professor, University of Utah College of Law; Steven T.
McFarland, Director, Center for Law and Religious
Freedom, Christian Legal Society; Michael Medved, Film
Critic, Radio Host; Rev. Dr. Peter Moore, Dean and
President, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry;
Father Richard Neuhaus, Editor-in-Chief, First Things
Journal, Institute on Religion and Public Life; Michael
Novak, George Frederick Jewett Chair, in Religion and
Public Policy, American Enterprise Institute; Marvin
Olasky, Editor, World Magazine; The Very Rev. Keith
Roderick, Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
Under Islamization; Rabbi David Saperstein, Director,
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Nina Shea,
Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House;
Ronald J. Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social
Action; Steven L. Snyder, President, International
[[Page H3269]]
Christian Concern; Jack Stone, General Secretary,
Headquarters Operations Officer, Church of the
Nazarene; Randy Tate, Executive Director, Christian
Coalition; Jim Wallis, Editor-in-Chief, Sojourners
Magazine; The Right Reverend William C. Wantland, The
Episcopal Church, Bishop of Eau Claire; Commissioner
Robert A. Watson, National Commander, The Salvation
Army; Tom White, The Voice of the Martyrs.
____
Wei Jingsheng Foundation,
Washington, DC, May 12, 1998.
To All Members of the House of Representatives:
I have recently heard that you will soon consider the
Freedom from Religious Persecution Act that is sponsored by
my friend Congressman Frank Wolf. I want to express the great
interest I have for this effort to sanction the Chinese
communist authorities for their denial of the basic right of
freedom of religion.
I strongly believe that the freedom of religious beliefs is
one important component of man's fundamental human rights.
The Chinese communist leadership continues to trample on
freedom of religion as it tramples on the basic rights of all
Chinese people. I have personally witnessed the oppression
and exploitation of religious groups and individuals that
occurs today in China. The true situation may be difficult
for Americans to imagine, and it is difficult for the Chinese
people to imagine. If I did not see myself, even I would not
imagine the shameful and despicable means the Communists use
against religious relievers.
I feel that if a government such as China which has for
such a long time totally denied the rights of freedom of
religion to its citizens cannot receive sanction, then it is
completely unjust. I urge the friends of human rights to
support this effort.
Respectfully,
Wei Jingsheng.
____
Cardinal's Office,
New York, NY, May 12, 1998.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf: Be assured of my strong support for
the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act and my firm hope
that the House of Representatives will vote in favor of it
overwhelmingly.
I have been following the tragic course of religious
persecution with close attention for many years. No religious
body can assume itself to be exempt. The Freedom from
Religious Persecution Act could begin the desperately needed
process of ending the legitimizing of such persecution. In my
judgment, its passage would be an act of courage of historic
proportions.
I am deeply grateful for your personal role.
Faithfully,
Cardinal O'Connor,
Archbishop of New York.
____
International Campaign
for Tibet,
Washington, DC, May 13, 1998.
Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman,
Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Gilman: It has come to my attention that some
House Members are using a May 11 New York Times column by
Anthony Lewis to advance the position that the Dalai Lama
opposes ``The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act,''
scheduled for a vote in the House tomorrow.
It is the custom of the Dalai Lama not to take a position
on specific U.S. legislation. However, he has been aware for
many months of Frank Wolf's particular efforts to advance the
issue of religious freedom in the Congress. In February of
this year the Dalai Lama sent a message, which I enclose, to
a Washington meeting on religious persecution which focused
on strategies to advance the Wolf bill. I also enclose
remarks he made this morning at the Wisconsin state
legislature, the column mentioned above, and a letter to the
editor from Rabbi David Saperstein taking issue with Mr.
Lewis' ``misassessment.''
It would be unfortunate if the efforts of the International
Campaign for Tibet, Students for Free Tibet and other U.S.
Tibet support groups to bring attention to the fact of
religious persecution in Tibet and to gain Congressional
support for Mr. Wolf's bill were eclipsed by a
misrepresentation of the Dalai Lama's views in the final
hours of debate.
I hope you will share this information with your colleagues
should the need arise.
Sincerely,
Mary Beth Markey,
Director of Government Relations.
____
Message of the Dalai Lama
All religions teach compassion and aim to alleviate
suffering. It is therefore no surprise that Christian men and
women in the United States have taken on a campaign to end
the suffering of those persecuted around the world for their
religious faith. As a Tibetan and a monk, I am deeply
gratified by the efforts you are undertaking to draw
attention to China's policies in my country which are
increasingly focused on the eradication of the Tibetan
Buddhist culture.
While many people remember Mao Tse-tung's terrible
admonition that ``religion is poison,'' few people understand
that this remains China's policy on religion to this day, nor
do they understand the insidious nature of that government's
involvement in religion practice in China and Tibet. For
example, in my country, monasteries and temples are under the
purview of the Religious Affairs Bureau (a local government
body), the local Communist Party Committee, Party work teams,
and branches of police stations set up under the Public
Security Bureau. Since 1959, almost every monastery has been
overseen by a Democratic Management Committee (DMC) which
manages the monastery's affairs including religious affairs,
study, security and finances. These DMCs have supplanted the
traditional role of abbot in guiding the religious and
administrative functioning of the monastery.
The Tibetan people are deeply religious and suffer great
cruelties for their faith. From the Buddhist point of view,
this suffering is in itself a kind of teaching and benefits
the spiritual growth of the individual. I know that suffering
is of special significance in the Christian faith as Jesus
himself took on the suffering of mankind. Your campaign to
end religious persecution bears witness to the suffering of
others, challenging devout men and women to recommit to the
teachings of their faith, which includes the development of
compassion, not just to friends, but to everyone. Again, I
commend you for your compassionate work for peace in Tibet
and in the world.
____
Department of Social
Development and World Peace,
Washington, DC, May 11, 1998.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Member: I am writing to renew our support for the
Freedom from Religious Persecution Act (H.R. 2431), which
passed the House International Relations Committee by an
overwhelmingly 35-1 vote.
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. Catholic bishops have long urged for
the full range of fundamental human rights. This bill
represents a modest step that reflects growing awareness that
this vital human rights issue has too often been overlooked,
and a growing conviction that core American values--including
respect for religious liberty--must play proper roles in
shaping the U.S. foreign policy agenda.
The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act, as revised,
covers persecution against believers of all faiths in all
countries. The bill provides appropriate responses to the
most egregious forms of religious persecution involving
widespread killing, torture, enslavement, forced relocation
and the like. It ends military aid, sales and financing to
some of the world's most brutal regimes that, in many cases,
also violate the full range of fundamental human rights. The
bill also ends most other forms of U.S. assistance, while
exempting humanitarian and development aid to avoid indirect
harm to those whom the bill seeks to help. It does not impose
embargoes, but rather imposes modest, highly-targeted
sanctions against specific governmental entities directly
involved in egregious persecution.
In addition, the revised bill provides ample waivers for
national security reasons and for cases where the president
deems sanctions counter-productive. Finally, the revised bill
contains other helpful features, such as improved training
for asylum and foreign service officers.
As pastors of a universal Church we are all too familiar
with the human face of religious persecution. That is why we
respectfully urge you to support H.R. 2431 as a modest but
valuable step toward relieving the plight of those who suffer
solely for their faith.
Sincerely yours,
Theodore E. McCarrick,
Archbishop of Newark,
Chairman, International Policy Committee.
____
Religious Action Center
of Reform Judaism,
Washington, DC, May 12, 1998.
Dear Representative: 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) and to urge you to vote for its passage when the full
House considers the bill on Thursday, May 12.
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.
The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act (H.R. 2431)
works to protect people of all religions from persecution on
the basis of their faith. The coalition supporting it is
broad and unified, spanning the political
[[Page H3270]]
spectrum. 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 a serious important and modest
tool for combating the most blatant forms of religious
persecution and helping to improve the situation of millions
who suffer simply because of their faith.
As committed as we are to combating religious persecution,
the legislation as it was originally introduced was
problematic for some of us. However, the bill coming to the
House floor is substantially different from when it was
introduced in September, 1997. The current version of the
bill now addresses some of our most pressing concerns by:
broadening the coverage of the bill to include all religious
groups in all countries; 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; ending U.S. military aid, military
sales and military financing to some of the world's most
brutal regimes; broadening the exemption for humanitarian and
development aid; and restoring some vital procedural
safeguards for those seeking asylum from persecution on
account of their religion, safeguards that we urge also be
restored for those claiming persecution on grounds of race
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion.
We urge you to support this bill and to oppose any major
changes to the legislation when it comes to the floor on May
14th; in particular, to oppose efforts to change the
definition of persecution, to eliminate the automatic
sanctions requirement, or to weaken the refugee and asylum
provisions.
I hope you will help pass legislation which represents a
modest and long overdue effort to address vital human rights
concerns.
Sincerely,
Rabbi David Saperstein.
____
Anti-Defamation League,
New York, NY, March 19, 1998.
Hon. Frank Wolf,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Wolf: On behalf of the Anti-Defamation
League, we commend your longstanding efforts on behalf of
persecuted peoples and your leadership in introducing
legislation that has already sparked action to raise the
diplomatic profile of the issue internationally.
Enactment of the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act
will strengthen our nation's hand in dealing with countries
which torture and oppress individuals on the basis of their
faith. It would codify the kind of increased reporting and
training of U.S. personnel that will be critical to
monitoring and addressing this horrific problem.
We welcome recent modifications in the legislation which
take into consideration both the safety of victims on the
ground and the disparate circumstances in which persecution
may occur. While the mechanism created by the bill was always
designed to protect all persecuted peoples, the language now
makes clearer that it is inclusive of all faiths. Also, the
bill seeks to safeguard protections already in place for
victims of all human rights abuses.
ADL supports addressing all forms of oppression with equal
vigor, but also recognizes the value of spotlighting problems
such as religious persecution which is a bellwether for how
countries behave on other fronts. We view this legislation as
an important tool to make religious freedom a more prominent
factor in U.S. diplomacy. As the bill moves forward, we are
open to exploring further refinements that may ensure that
U.S. policy will alleviate the suffering of victims in the
most forceful and effective manner possible.
Sincerely,
Howard P. Berkowitz,
National Chairman.
Abraham H. Foxman,
National Director.
____
The Salvation Army,
Alexandria, VA, March 10, 1998.
Re Freedom from Religious Persecution Act (H.R. 2431).
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
241 Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Frank: I urge you to support the captioned bill.
The Salvation Army serves in 103 countries around the
world. We see enough evidence of documented religious
persecution to know it is important for the United States to
take a moral stand, which hopefully can bring some relief to
those who are suffering because of their beliefs.
You have many matters that require thought, prayer, and
action. I urge you to consider supporting this legislation.
May God bless you.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Watson,
National Commander.
____
Food & Allied Service Trades,
Washington, DC, May 13, 1998.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Wolf: I am writing to express my
support for H.R. 2431, the Freedom From Religious Persecution
Act of 1998. This bill would improve the monitoring of
religious persecution and provide for the imposition of
sanctions against countries engaged in a pattern of religious
persecution.
Sadly, people of faith continue to be tormented in many
countries. By simply exercising their beliefs they risk
bodily harm, prison, and sometimes death. Your bill reaffirms
the idea that this country stands in support of basic human
rights and human dignity and that our national interest
transcends narrow economic advantage. It places the United
States on the side of the oppressed, not the oppressors.
You are to be commended for your leadership on this issue,
and I hope this bill receives favorable consideration by the
House.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey L. Fiedler,
President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The Chair would remind the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) he has 9 minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) has 18 minutes remaining.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that I am very proud to be a
cosponsor of H.R. 2431, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act. The
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, of which I
am privileged to serve as chairman, has held extensive hearings on the
subject of religious persecution, including hearings on the rising tide
of persecution of Christians, and the rising tide of worldwide anti-
semitism. We have heard riveting and revolting first-person account
testimony of the torture of Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns, of
atrocities against Muslims in Bosnia and East Turkistan, and of Baha'i
in Iran.
The time has come, Mr. Speaker, not just to talk about the problem of
religious persecution--talk is often cheap--but to do something about
it. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a hero of the human rights
movement, has clearly shown us the way.
During the course of the legislative process, the gentleman from
Virginia worked closely with a broad coalition of evangelical
Christians, Jewish organizations, the United States Catholic
Conference, and the International Campaign for Tibet, in order to
improve the bill. It has truly been, I say to my colleagues, a work in
progress. We worked very hard to incorporate meaningful reforms and
language that were suggested by the administration. As a matter of
fact, I offered the amendments during markup in full committee that
makes it very clear that it is the Secretary of State and not the
director who makes the final call. That was a recommendation that came
from the White House, and I think the bottom line is that it probably
improves the bill.
We also made it very clear--and I offer this as well, because there
was some ambiguity, although never at all is the intent of the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf)--that this bill applies to everyone,
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, religious believers of every and any
faith, and I think it is important that that be underscored this
morning.
Let me repeat, we not only focused on persecuted Christians, but also
on persecuted Muslims. For example, the bill contains a specific
finding suggested by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher)
with respect to the Uighur, an overwhelmingly Muslim ethnic group in
the formerly independent Republic of East Turkistan, who are now
severely persecuted by the Communist Government of China.
The bill also makes crystal-clear that in affording heightened
protection for members of religious communities whose situation is
particularly compelling, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act
will not sacrifice any of the protections currently afforded to victims
of other forms of persecution, whether it be on religious grounds or
for any other reason. There is no hierarchy of human rights. That is an
absolutely bogus contention. Every time we pass a human rights bill, we
are saying we want to focus on that, we want to advance the bill to
protect a persecuted or somehow disadvantaged group of individuals
around the world.
I truly believe that we finely tuned and carefully calibrated the
sanctions in this bill, and I would remind Members and ask them to read
the bill. We
[[Page H3271]]
are not talking about discrimination, as bad as that is; we are talking
about persecution. We are talking about people who have severely
suffered for their faith.
We also have a waiver. The waiver states, and there are two waivers,
that if the national security interests of the United States justify a
waiver, the President has that option, or if such a waiver will
substantially promote the purposes of this act, so there are two good
waivers contained in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I do ask Members to support the rule, and I hope they
will support the underlying bill when it comes up on the floor.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, last weekend in Marietta, Ohio I had a
chance to talk with the newly appointed Chinese ambassador, and I
raised with him the issue of Christians and others of religious faith
who are imprisoned in China. He denied that that was the case.
Following that exchange, a young student attending Ohio University came
to me and thanked me for raising the issue, saying that he had been a
part of the Tiananmen Square student uprising, and he could attest to
the fact that China imprisons people of faith.
It is almost impossible for us to imagine a place where worship and
fellowship is illegal, but The New York Times has reported and others
have substantiated that for people who live in China and other
oppressive countries, religious persecution is a constant reality.
The Chinese Government likes to claim that it allows religious
pursuits and only arrests Christians who are troublemakers. But what
they do not say is that the so-called churches they point to, the
State-sanctioned churches, are actually under the control of the
Communist Party. China prohibits Christians from worshipping in any
churches except those they deem patriotic ones, that submit to the
Communist Party's religious domination, registration, regulation,
control of clerical appointments, and censorship reached to the pulpit
and to the altar, like forbidding the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
China is by no means the only country that denies religious liberty.
The Government of Sudan, for instance, uses tactics such as slavery,
forced conversion, starvation, torture and the kidnapping of children
against Christians and even Muslims they do not agree with.
All of this is why I urge support for the Freedom From Religious
Persecution Act. This act seeks to use America's leverage as the
world's only superpower to pressure oppressive countries into allowing
more religious freedom. If we do not act, who will? If not now, when?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).
Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of The Freedom From
Religious Persecution Act. This bill clearly puts America on the side
of religious liberty. Why should America give economic aid to countries
that oppress and persecute people just because of their religion? The
thought that a country can have widespread government-tolerated, and in
some cases, government-sponsored religious oppression and still receive
U.S. aid is an absolute travesty. While this bill will stop
nonessential aid to offending governments, it does allow continued
humanitarian and agricultural aid, so it will not hurt the people it
aims to help, and it gives the President broad authority to grant a
waiver if sanctions are deemed counterproductive. Clearly, this is a
very balanced and a flexible bill.
Many of our forefathers came to America to escape the same kind of
religious intolerance this bill will help to stop. So of all of the
free Nations of the world, we should have the strongest policy of
supporting religious freedom. I urge my colleagues to support this very
important measure.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to say in closing that this is a good bill, it is an important
piece of legislation. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has
provided great vision and direction in this, and along with the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman), they have given it great support and direction. I urge
support of the rule and of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hall) and others, and especially the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf)
who worked so hard on this legislation, so diligently.
In the last weeks we have witnessed a series of diplomatic gestures
which served as blank checks of acceptance for the actions of tyrants
and thugs. The U.N. Human Rights Commission failed to take up a
resolution on China completely. The U.N. Human Rights Commission voted
down a resolution condemning the tyranny in Cuba, despite an increase
in repression there in recent months.
The President, as I mentioned before, is going to be received
officially in the next weeks when he goes to Communist China at
Tiananmen Square. There can be no clearer message to the Chinese people
of what that means in terms of acquiescence to the conduct of that
regime, of brutality, and of inhumanity.
{time} 1200
This very week the First Lady is going to stay in the same hotel in
Geneva as the Cuban tyrant. Is there no other hotel that could have
been chosen by the Government of the United States in Switzerland? What
kind of message does that send to the ongoing repression that is being
suffered at this point by the Cuban people?
I remember Dr. Veguilla, a constituent of mine now, who was expelled
from Cuba because he was an evangelical; and he still is an evangelical
minister. Because of his religion and his activities in Cuba, he was
placed by the Cuban dictatorship in a cell with a bear as a form of
tyranny.
It is to the Dr. Veguillas of the world who, today we say, we
remember you, the United States of America stands with you and the
conduct of brutal regimes made up of thugs will not only not be
acquiesced, but will be condemned by the people's House, in
representation of the sovereign people of the United States of America.
I would urge passage of this rule and passage of the underlying
legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Pursuant to House Resolution
430 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 2431.
{time} 1201
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2431) to establish an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring,
to provide for the imposition of sanctions against countries engaged in
a pattern of religious persecution, and for other purposes, with Mr.
LaHood in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. As we begin today's historic debate, Mr. Chairman, on the
Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, I want to commend the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his outstanding work in drawing attention
to the problems of religious persecution around the world, and for
introducing this legislation to permanently enlist the United States in
the fight against persecution.
The tireless efforts of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) on
behalf of persecuted religious believers has been an inspiration to all
of us and a blessing for followers of all faiths.
[[Page H3272]]
Mr. Chairman, I also want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights, for his unwavering support
of human rights around the world and for his diligent efforts on behalf
of this important legislation.
Mr. Chairman, let there be no doubt that the results of the passage
of H.R. 2431, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, is going to
be felt around the world. That is what is intended. While reaffirming
our Nation's commitment to the vital protection of religious rights, it
also sends a long overdue signal to repressive governments that their
repulsive behavior is no longer going to be overlooked. We are not just
going to talk about it.
Persecuted Christians in Sudan, in China, North Korea, Cuba, Laos,
Vietnam, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other nations will be
encouraged in their struggle to freely practice their religion when
they learn that world opinion is awakening to their plight. They will
take comfort from the knowledge that at least our Nation will stop
providing economic assistance and taking other actions to prop up the
very governments that have been oppressing them.
I am aware that H.R. 2431 has been criticized as a ``sanctions bill''
by those who are concerned about making a profit by trading with
tyrants, and that it has become fashionable in some circles to
disparage economic sanctions as retrograde and being ineffective and,
indeed, even as being isolationist.
Those who espouse that view conveniently forget that economic
sanctions contributed significantly to our Nation's triumph in the Cold
War, and that the bipartisan policy we followed for nearly 50 years of
resisting communism around the world was the most internationalist
policy our Nation ever followed.
Sanctions helped bring about the end of apartheid, and the threat of
U.S. sanctions is today one of the most important tools we have in the
combatting of international drug trafficking, and to discourage the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to please bear in mind that the purpose
of this bill is not to impose sanctions on foreign nations that engage
in or condone religious persecution. The main purpose is to encourage
countries to stop persecution. The degree to which sanctions are
actually imposed under this measure will be the degree to which the
bill has failed. The degree to which sanctions are not imposed will be
the degree to which it has succeeded.
Our sanctions are targeted to make certain that only oppressive
governments will be denied foreign aid and other U.S. benefits, not the
innocent people who live under such governments. Humanitarian
assistance will never be cut off under this measure.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, is intended to make the world a better, more
humane place in accordance with the finest moral values and traditions
of our Nation. Accordingly, it deserves our full support, and I urge
its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2431.
Mr. Chairman, we all agree that the United States should do more to
promote religious freedom around the world. I think everyone in this
Chamber wants to do that. I believe that the bill that is before us is
brought forward with the very best of intentions. The question is, what
is the best way to accomplish our objective? I do not believe this
bill, as presently drafted, is the best way. I will oppose it.
I oppose it, really, for three reasons. First of all, I think the
bill will do very serious harm to the United States' national interest.
The United States' national interest in any country is multifaceted,
but this bill forces the President to conduct American foreign policy
toward countries on the basis of a single standard, tolerance of
religious freedom, as defined in the bill.
The mandatory, automatic sanctions in this bill sharply restrict the
President's ability to conduct foreign policy. A determination of
religious persecution would automatically trigger all of the sanctions
listed in this bill. Even if the President chose to waive the
sanctions, such a determination would damage relations with countries
of enormous importance to the United States.
The bill will deprive the President of the ability to determine what
to condemn and how to condemn it and how to deal with it. We are saying
in this bill that there is only one way to deal with this problem; that
is to apply sanctions.
Foreign policy is not that simple. In making sanctions decisions,
this bill gives the Secretary of State no authority to balance our
concern about religious persecution against any other national
interest, not our economic stake in a foreign country, not our security
interests, not even our interest in promoting other basic human rights.
The Secretary of State has no authority under this bill to exercise
judgment about how best to promote religious freedom in any particular
country. The Secretary would be compelled to impose sanctions. The
sanctions waiver does not mitigate the automatic public censure this
bill requires, so the bill gives the President a single tool,
sanctions, to promote religious freedom.
On a question of immense complexity in every country, this bill
shackles the United States and says, automatic sanctions is the answer.
I think it harms our ability to promote religious freedom.
Let me try to give Members some examples of what this bill will do.
In Egypt there are, of course, reports of abuse against the Coptic
Christians. How would automatic sanctions against Egypt help Coptic
Christians whose leaders are opposed to this bill? How would automatic
sanctions against Egypt, the first and most important Arab country to
make peace with Israel, help the peace process at this moment in time?
Or let us take Saudi Arabia. Christians have been beaten there,
services stopped, converts have been beheaded. How would sanctions
against Saudi Arabia advance the vital U.S. national interest in the
secure flow of oil? How would sanctions promote the goal of containing
Saddam Hussein and enforcing U.S. Security Council resolutions against
Iraq?
Or Pakistan? Right now we are making every effort, at this moment in
time, to persuade Pakistan not to conduct nuclear tests. Automatic
sanctions would make that difficult to ask, even much more difficult.
If we impose automatic sanctions, what chance do we have that the
Pakistanis would pay any attention to us?
Likewise, a similar situation in Indonesia. Catholics are persecuted
in East Timor. The State Department says that every single country in
Southeast Asia, except Australia and New Zealand, could be sanctioned
under this bill.
Would sanctions help the United States address the financial crisis
in Indonesia and in Asia today, with the threat that that poses to the
entire world's financial system? How would a financial collapse promote
religious tolerance?
On and on we can go, in Germany, in Greece, and even in Israel. In
Israel, Jehovah's Witnesses have been threatened and attacked, and
their meeting hall was firebombed. Is it really in the U.S.'s interest
to apply automatic sanctions on our friend and staunch ally, Israel,
because of such incidents?
This bill places the question of religious persecution ahead of every
other question in American foreign policy, and I think it is going to
cause harm to the American national interest.
My second objection is that the bill will harm and not promote
efforts to protect religious freedom. This is not some kind of
theoretical concern that I am spinning here. We have heard from
churches and evangelical groups with tens of thousands of missionaries.
We have heard from people like Ned Graham, Billy Graham's son, who
heads a major Christian mission in China.
What do these religious leaders say? They do not like the bill. They
worry that sanctions will produce a backlash against the persecuted
religious community that they are trying to help. The bill will put
greater pressure on minority religious communities, and these minority
communities will be accused of complicity in American sanctions.
[[Page H3273]]
The third reason I oppose this bill is because it creates a damaging
hierarchy of human rights violations. What this bill does is it makes
religious persecution the top priority of human rights and human
immigration policy. This bill says that religious persecution is more
important than any other kind of persecution: more important than
female infanticide, more important than racial discrimination, more
important than press censorship, more important than ethnic cleansing.
None of these equally serious rights abuses would be monitored by a
special State Department office and punished with its own unique set of
sanctions.
It is a mistake, in my view, to establish a hierarchy of human rights
violations in U.S. law, and when we state that one form of persecution
takes priority over another form of persecution, we invite governments
to test our tolerance for other forms of persecution.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I think it is appropriate
and important for Congress to address this important issue. I want to
say that the sponsors of this bill have been willing to make
adjustments on it, and I appreciate that, and I hope they will be
willing to make more.
I know it is very, very difficult for any Member to come into this
Chamber and vote against this bill, but we need a bill that will not
provoke a backlash against persecuted religious communities. We need a
bill that will give the President and the Secretary of State the power
to balance our interests in reducing religious persecution against the
full range of important and even vital national interests, and we need
a bill that gives the President the ability to craft an appropriate
response to each distinct instance of religious persecution. This is
not that bill.
Because it falls short in these key respects, the President's senior
advisers will recommend that he veto it, and I urge Members to vote
against it.
Congress has before it other legislative proposals designed to
promote religious freedom overseas. I am hopeful that we will
ultimately be able to agree on a bill that has strong bipartisan
support and the backing of the President, a bill to promote our shared
objective of religious freedom, without the damaging consequences of
this bill.
{time} 1215
I urge a no vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith), distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding the time to me and commend him for his great work on this, and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) as well.
Let us focus on exactly what kind of religious persecution this bill
seeks to address. We are not talking about discrimination or
harassment, although these are very bad things. This bill punishes only
the worst of the worst: governments that engage in widespread, ongoing
persecution that includes murder, torture and other particularly
shocking forms of persecution. Let us look at what we mean by this.
To my left in the photograph is Palden Gyatso, a Tibetan Buddhist
monk. Palden Gyatso testified at one of our subcommittee hearings and
told us that the Chinese Government routinely uses electric shock guns,
serrated and hooked knives, handcuffs and thumbcuffs treatment and
other forms of torture. He showed us some of the torture implements
that have been used against himself and other prisoners of conscience
in Tibet. Other witnesses at the hearing included Harry Wu and
Katherine Ho who corroborated the monk's testimony. Their witness to
torture brought tears to my eyes.
On October 10, the second picture, a mob destroyed several Christian
churches in Situbondo, Indonesia. At the time, some official sources
maintained that this might not be religious persecution, that the
churches just might have been random targets. But the slogans that were
painted on the church by the people who burned it (the translation is
``Jesus Excrement''--and they used a word far worse than that--``Mother
Mary Communist'') leave no room for doubt.
The third picture, this was a church in which an elderly minister,
his wife and two children and a young woman who worked at the church
were burned to death. The next picture shows their charred bodies
burned almost beyond recognition.
At the funeral of their five victims, the caskets had to be closed
because the persecutors had done their work so well.
This next picture, Mr. Chairman, is the last view of Reverend Noor
Alam, a Christian clergyman who was murdered in front of his family in
Pakistan by a mob who first brought down the walls of his under-
construction church building on December 6, 1997, and later killed him
by lynching. Lynching has become increasingly common in Pakistan in
recent years, as have convictions of Christians and other religious
dissenters for blasphemy. The most recent tragedy to result from this
spiral of violence was the death of Catholic Bishop John Joseph, who
took his own life in public protest after a member of his diocese was
sentenced to death for blasphemy. At Bishop Joseph's funeral, the
mourners chanted, ``End persecution of Christians.'' The police fired
tear gas and bullets that wounded three people, including a young girl.
Picture No. 6 on my left, this picture is of a Sudanese Christian boy
in a refugee camp in Kenya. A member of a congressional staff
delegation, led by my staff director, Joseph Rees, asked him why he was
afraid to return to Sudan. He said, ``Because I want to see.'' If
Members look closely, his eye has been plucked out. The staff member
asked who tortured him. He said they did it because of his religious
beliefs.
Mr. Chairman, let me speak briefly to two objections raised by the
administration in their talking points against the bill. First, they
say that by protecting victims of religious persecution in a bill that
does not address other human rights violations, we are establishing a
so-called hierarchy of human rights. This is a bogus argument and
unworthy of those who employ it. The argument clearly ignores some very
basic facts about the legislative process. Not every bill can address
every subject. By addressing one urgent problem in this bill, we are
not denying the existence of other urgent problems that should be
addressed by other legislation or by other means.
Under the administration's argument, it would have been wrong to
enact the Jackson-Vanik amendment which protected freedom of
immigration and had the laudatory consequence of protecting Soviet Jews
and others who had been denied right to emigrate. We risked superpower
confrontation with the Soviet Union because we believed Soviet Jews
mattered and we would never again turn our back on persecuted Jews?
Not even the anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa in the
1980s, which I supported and voted for would pass the test proposed by
the State Department's talking points, because those sanctions were
designed to help victims of racial discrimination and racial
persecution but did not address freedom of religion or other important
human rights. Frankly, if we stuck to the administration's talking
points, no important human rights legislation would ever pass because
no bill, no matter how good, can do everything.
Next, the administration suggests that it is wrong for Congress to
enact what they call ``automatic sanctions''--sometimes they call them
``one size fits all'' sanctions--even against the most brutal
governments. But we have to wonder whether whoever wrote those talking
points had actually read the bill. The sanctions are not automatic.
They will not go into effect if the President waives them, and he can
waive them for either national security reasons or because he believes
that the waiver will serve the objective of promoting religious
freedom.
Let me just remind my colleagues, this is a very generous waiver. The
only way we could go further would be to give the President the freedom
to do absolutely nothing at all in the face of severe, widespread and
ongoing human rights violations and persecution. In evaluating
legislation that deals with persecution of any kind, we must always
remember that tyrants understand strength. They also understand
weakness. Of all the millions of people who are victimized by tyrants
around
[[Page H3274]]
the world, many are in trouble because they share our values. This bill
is designed to help our brothers and sisters around the world who have
faith and suffer because of it.
Wei Jingsheng, who also testified before our subcommittee, a great
leader of human rights who spent his life in the gulag because of it,
said: ``If I did not see it myself, even I could not imagine the
shameful and despicable means the Communists use against religious
believers.''
Religious persecution is on the rise. This bill puts us on a track of
saying we will no longer look the other way. We will stand up for those
brethren who are suffering.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to associate
myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton).
He stated the case about as well as one can. The problem that this bill
creates for me is that it pits individuals one side on the other, as
though some Members are in favor of religious persecution and do not
want to do anything about it and other Members really care and they
want to do this.
The problem with that argument is that it is not clear what automatic
kinds of sanctions really do. We are presently in the midst of
automatic sanctions under the nuclear explosions in India. We are very
likely to have automatic sanctions against Pakistan. And the question
is, how many, what is the ramification of that when we give the
President no flexibility to tailor or to craft a response to an event
that all of us deplore? There is nobody on this floor that thinks India
should have exploded nuclear devices, absolutely none. The question is
whether or not the President has the ability to craft.
The bill before us says, on page 21, the President shall instruct the
United States executive director of each multilateral development bank
and the International Monetary Fund to vote against and use his or her
best efforts to deny any loan or other utilization of funds of their
respective institutions.
It also talks about the Eximbank.
Now, what we are talking about here? Let us just take Indonesia. We
have the largest Muslim country in the world in tremendous chaos. Their
currency is in real problems, and the International Monetary Fund has
been working with them under our leadership to gradually give them
money when they make changes. We have pushed on the issue of
corruption. We have pushed on a number of issues. And what we are
saying is, we are going to back out of Indonesia and leave it, leave
the President no way to deal with that.
I think this is wrong to put the President of the United States in
that position. Therefore, I will vote against it.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), our majority leader, a staunch
advocate of human rights and religious freedom throughout the world.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding time to me.
I want to personally, if I may, personally thank the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his work on this legislation and his
uncompromising commitment to move it through the House. I would like to
appreciate the work of the Committee on International Relations, the
Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill has been examined from every possible angle. It is
prepared. It is ready. And while it is assertive on the question of
religious liberties and freedom from religious persecution, it is also
mindful of and respectful of the affairs of state with respect to
matters of less importance in the lives of people, matters such as
monetary systems and trade relationships.
It does allow flexibility.
Let me just focus for a moment on the essential purpose of this bill.
The purpose of this bill is for this great Nation to stand before the
world and say we cannot condone and we will not tolerate nations that
persecute people on the basis of their practice of religious faith.
That is not only fundamental but I think is absolutely prerequisite to
and essential to our observation of all of our liberties.
As we study the religions of the world, in each and every case the
religions of the world define, in the hearts and the minds of their
practitioners, the fundamentals from which other understandings of
rights, liberties, and responsibilities are gathered.
In my own faith, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that freedom is a
right granted to us by God Almighty, our Creator. And from our
recognition of that and our desire to honor that, we develop an
appreciation of, a respect, a practice of and a requirement for so many
other liberties.
I do not want to stand before my colleagues as an economist and say
that monetary systems are not important, that systems of trade are not
important. Of course, these things are important. But let me ask my
colleagues: Would you not allow others to say and would you not endorse
all others across the Nation to say what you know and I know we would
say in our own heart and for our own life? If you take away from me the
right to my faith, can these other things even matter?
Without the right of each and every person on this globe to know they
are free, respected, supported and honored to practice their faith,
most certainly they will be lost and in the end so will we. So let us
stand together in support of this legislation, and with a clear
declaration we require for all the peoples of the world the same
respect, freedom, and dignity we require for ourselves.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Houghton).
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hamilton) for yielding the time.
First of all, I want to say that this is a very, very difficult
subject because it digs right down into our emotions, our religious
beliefs and what is right and what is wrong.
I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf)
and I am sure he is a far better Christian than I am. I am sure he
really has thought through this thing very carefully. I just come out
on a different side of this thing.
I talked a little bit about this last night, so therefore I will not
go into all the sort of philosophic background here. I just would like
to make a few points.
First of all, there is not anybody that I know of who likes
persecution, particularly those people who are being persecuted. The
worst kind of persecution, of course, is religious persecution.
{time} 1230
And we would all like to have it stopped, period, end of it. The
question is how do we get at it?
It seems to me that when we want to help somebody, we should make
sure that the people we want to help want to be helped. That is a sort
of a basic human axiom. And the research I have done and the contacts I
have made, particularly through the National Council of Churches, or
through other friends I have had in the world, I have traveled around
to different parts of this world and talked not only to business and
political, but also religious leaders, not a single religious group
wants this.
So I am saying, why are we doing this? Why are we superimposing our
feeling of guilt upon people who do not want us to get involved?
Now, there are a lot of horror stories, and I am sure I can give them
on either side, but the question is, do we want to put ourselves in a
position of sort of being post-colonial arbiters of what is right and
what is wrong as far as religion is concerned?
People are scared. Dr. Billy Graham's son is scared for what will
happen in China. I know some of the people in Russia are scared of what
will happen there. I know people in Sudan are scared. I have talked to
somebody who is the titular head of 29 million Muslims in Indonesia;
they are scared of what the United States is doing.
There are always horrifying acts. We had one in Waco. Obviously,
there was one in Israel when Prime Minister Rabin was shot. But these
are fringe religious groups, and no government can control fanatical
religions. It is wrong to, therefore, label a government because of
those fanatics.
We must be sure that as we reach out to the rest of the world, we are
attuned to what they need, what they want,
[[Page H3275]]
what are those things which are so important to them, not just how we
approach it. Because it is those people that we will affect.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to
very briefly respond.
A large number of national and international religious groups support
this legislation, including the B'nai B'rith, National Association of
Evangelicals, the U.S. Catholic Bishops' Conference, the Anti-
Defamation League, the Southern Baptist Convention on Ethics and
Religious Liberty, the National Jewish Coalition, the International
Campaign for Tibet, the Religious Action Center for Reformed Judaism,
the Union of Orthodox Congregations of America, Campus Crusade for
Christ, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the Salvation Army, National
Religious Broadcasters, and I can go on and on. But large numbers of
religious bodies wholeheartedly embrace this legislation.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Houghton).
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I am sure those people the gentleman just
referred to feel very deeply about this, but I want to say in response
to that that I have not had a single letter from anybody other than
Washington or New York who has espoused this. None from overseas.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from Wei Jingsheng, who spent
17 years in prison, who was earlier with us today. He said, ``I
strongly believe that the freedom of religious belief is one important
component of man's fundamental human rights.'' And he goes on to say,
``The true situation may be difficult for Americans to imagine, and it
is difficult for the Chinese to imagine. If I did not see it myself, a
man in prison for 17 years, I would not imagine the shameful and
despicable means.''
Many of these groups around the world all support this bill, but they
are afraid to come forward because if they do, they may very well be
killed. We get communication daily from groups in all these countries
that say they support what we are doing, but they are afraid to come
forward publicly.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), for his passionate advocacy for the persecuted and
for bringing this to our attention.
I have had the opportunity to participate in the debate in the
committee on this most important issue. I do think this bill is
important for all of us in dealing with these tragedies.
I stand before my colleagues in support of this legislation, knowing
that religious persecution is a problem in this world. And we always
have to remind ourselves why the United States of America was created.
How did it get its roots? Why did people come to the United States? And
let us always be respectful to all religions and all faiths and all
beliefs in the world.
Nearly 2 years ago I cosponsored House Resolution 515, condemning
persecution of Christians worldwide. Since that time I have been
closely involved in trying to craft better policies for us to address
religious persecution worldwide. I wholeheartedly support the attention
that this bill has brought to the issue and a number of its provisions,
particularly in training our foreign service and immigration officers.
Still, we have more progress to make to reach our goal of the most
effective, comprehensive legislation possible. We must address, report
on and respond to religious persecution not only at its most violent
stage of rape, murder and torture as defined in this bill, but before
it escalates to such terrible levels.
We must also have more tools to address persecution rather than
sanctions only in an all-or-nothing approach policy for all countries
in the world. Sometimes the means will be diplomatic, sometimes
economic, but let us look at all the foreign policy tools to bring
about changes in the world and end religious Christian persecution in
the world that does exist.
Support the Wolf legislation.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith).
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I first want to stand
and show strong support for the chairman, and I believe that this
particular sponsor, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Frank Wolf), is
doing something that all America wants him to do. He is saying that all
policy in America has to have a heart and all policy has to have a
conscience.
This bill says that all constructive engagement, as the President
likes to say, will keep in mind the religious freedom of all people.
Now, earlier today several speakers have said this takes away all the
latitude from the President. This bill is drafted in a way that the
moment his administration makes a recommendation that there is gross,
very strong religious persecution in a country and there should be
sanctions, he can immediately say no to the sanctions.
It just simply says that he has to stop being silent. It simply says
that we as a Nation will declare that religious persecution, that
persecution of any kind, is wrong; that this is an America that stands
for freedom, for liberty, and for religious liberty. These are the
things America stands for.
Now, the President calls for constructive engagement, and yet he is
silent on harvesting livers and corneas from religious and political
prisoners in China. Is this constructive engagement? He was silent on
the Tibetan monks being tortured and murdered because of their faith.
He has been silent on the Government of Sudan intensifying attacks upon
Christians and tribal faiths.
I guess if that is the policy, we need this bill, because although it
does not do a whole lot toward making the President do anything, it
does make him break his silence on all of the things that are going on
in the world. Whether it be in China, whether it be in Pakistan, if
America does not stand for freedom, if America does not stand for the
worker and the family all over the world, then what is America?
I say today that this bill does one thing: It says America has a
conscience and America has a heart, and I think we should pass it
today.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10
seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this bill.
I appreciate the many changes that its sponsors have made to prevent
it from having the devastating impact it would have had in its original
form on our trade and security interests and on our ability to provide
the leadership the world needs to prevent the very persecution the bill
seeks to punish.
I oppose the bill because it is fundamentally flawed. It would force
the United States to treat government-sponsored or -permitted
persecution, that is, killing, imprisonment, enslavement, forced mass
relocation, rape, torture and the confiscation of property differently
if these crimes were committed against people for their religious
beliefs than if these crimes were committed against people for their
political beliefs or for ethnic cleansing. That is just not right.
American foreign policy has always opposed religious persecution,
political oppression, ethnic cleansing policies. It is profoundly
unwise to adopt a policy that implies that government-supported
persecution is more acceptable if used for political oppression and
ethnic cleansing than for religious persecution. This is what this bill
would do.
This bill sets up a very bureaucratic mechanism that encourages an
automatic sanctions process without any consideration as to whether or
not the sanctions would hurt American interests or have any effect on
the sanctioned country. Most seriously, it discourages the broader
range of diplomatic and multilateral actions that would have a far
greater impact.
Furthermore, government-sponsored persecution should provoke a far
more comprehensive response than this bill envisions. Under current law
we have the full range of diplomatic tools at our disposal, even
recalling our ambassador and working to mobilize multilateral
sanctions, always more effective a multilateral response than a single-
nation response.
I appreciate how deeply troubled my colleague, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), is by religious persecution,
[[Page H3276]]
but I oppose setting up a separate bureaucracy, a rigid process to
identify and respond to religious persecution as opposed to a
comprehensive response to such violations of human rights for political
and ethnic origin as well.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) 1 minute.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is
recognized for 3 minutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his leadership in bringing this legislation to
the floor and to express my gratitude to him for giving us this
opportunity today to speak out for American values.
It is interesting for me to hear some of our colleagues, who have
always opposed any initiatives that we have on this floor on human
rights in every aspect, political, freedom of the press, religious, to
come to the floor now and say, oh, no, we cannot support this because
it is only about religion and it creates a hierarchy. They were not
there for us when we had the full array.
We have an opportunity today with this religious persecution act to
begin to address the full array, and it is an opportunity that I
believe we must take.
My colleagues have said no one likes religious persecution. Of course
we do not, and I would stipulate that every person in this body is
viscerally and intellectually opposed to religious persecution. But the
business community is once again weighing in and saying, oh, this bill
does not go far enough in terms of protecting human rights throughout
the world. If this was not such a serious matter, that would almost be
laughable. It is pathetic.
But, Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to say that what this
bill does is give recognition to the persecution of people on the basis
of their religious faith. What it does not do is tie the President's
hands. Indeed, it gives the President more leverage. It gives him more
leverage because he can then say to a country that this is what the
Congress has said: I can exercise a waiver if I see that it would be
beneficial to the cause and in our national interest. But the
persecuting country must demonstrate that use of the waiver would be
beneficial.
So I believe that this is appropriate. I think the Committee on
International Relations did an excellent job in modifying the
legislation so that it would have the support of many more people here
who were concerned about the Presidential discretion.
Mr. Chairman, as we debate this bill today, I am sad to report that
in China the Catholic bishop, elderly and frail Bishop Zeng Jingmu, 78
years old, who is the unofficial bishop of Yujiang, a diocese among the
poorest in China, was at the top of the list of the jailed Catholics in
China.
Perhaps my colleagues saw recently on May 10 the news in the paper
that he had been released. Did my colleagues know that he was
imprisoned for his Catholic beliefs? Maybe not, but, oh, there was
great celebration when this was released. But released he was not; he
was assigned to house arrest.
An elderly Catholic bishop whose health is failing, who had been
assigned to 3 years in a reform-through-labor camp, was, in order to
get some kudos from the Clinton administration, freed from the labor
camp and put under house arrest.
The problems are severe. This legislation is modest and moderate. I
thank the gentleman from Virginia for giving us the opportunity to vote
our conscience today. I urge my colleagues to support the Wolf
legislation.
{time} 1245
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on
each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 11\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 11\3/
4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, while I salute the
intention of the authors of this legislation, I rise to strongly oppose
this bill, freighted as it is with unintended consequences.
This legislation would put our foreign policy and our trade policy on
auto pilot to be dictated by an unelected bureaucrat in the bowels of
the State Department. It would insert America into a surprising range
of domestic policy disputes in Muslim nations where Shihites suppress
Shunites, or vice versa, in Germany, in France, in Greece, in Turkey,
Mexico, even in Egypt and Israel.
But most importantly, Mr. Chairman, if we are to pursue the dubious
course of using clumsy, unilateral trade sanctions indiscriminately to
change the domestic policies of our trading partners, why is it that
under this bill we would restrict our ability to export to offending
nations but not their ability to export to the United States?
This bill would increase our trade deficit. And in the end, the only
human rights that this legislation is certain to affect is the right of
many American workers to earn a living. Vote it down.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3806, the Freedom
from Religious Persecution Act.
Like every American, I am committed to continued U.S. leadership on
religious freedom. But, I am deeply concerned that this bill--however
well intentioned--could backfire badly.
In addition, I am deeply worried that a one size-fits-all strategy,
based on using unilateral U.S. sanctions to promote Christianity and
religious freedom, could put American interests and security at risk.
If implemented, this legislation could impose U.S. sanctions over
such longstanding allies as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Great
Britain, Mexico, Greece and Germany.
This bill could also oblige us to impose U.S. economic sanctions on
the world's key emerging powers--China and Russia.
U.S. sanctions could be profoundly destabilizing from the standpoint
of ensuring continued global peace.
Scenario 1: Should the United States impose economic sanctions of
Saudi Arabia--a key ally--because it has put down a riot by Iranian
Shiites who are on pilgrimage to the holy sites of Mecca?
Scenario 2: Should the United States sanction Israel, because it has
imprisoned Hamas terrorists who engage in violence against the innocent
in the name of Islamic fundamentalism?
As Members of Congress, we need to look long and hard before we push
America into each and every religious conflict through unilateral
economic sanctions, which history shows can backfire on American
interests.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing).
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could join in a colloquy with
the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
I am wondering if it is the understanding of the gentleman that under
this bill there is no general prohibition of exports to a country which
is deemed to contain responsible entities who are committing religious
persecutions, as defined by the director of the Office of Religious
Persecution Monitoring, but rather, the ban on export covers only those
to the responsible entities themselves?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EWING. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) is
correct. Under this bill, exports of items other than persecution
facilitating products are prohibited from being exported only to the
responsible entities themselves, such as prisons or slave labor camps,
as the case may be, and not to the country generally. Furthermore,
under this act, ``responsible entities'' are to be defined as narrowly
as possible.
Mr. EWING. So, then, if I understand the gentleman, if a farmer
exports grain to a country that the director of the Office of Religious
Persecution Monitoring deems to contain responsible entities engaged in
religious persecution, and exports that grain to other parties either
governmental or private that are not deemed by the Director to be
responsible entities, the farmer has not violated this act?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, that is
absolutely correct. Under this act, there is no blanket prohibition on
exports but only exports to the responsible entities engaged in
persecution.
[[Page H3277]]
Furthermore, I would point out to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Ewing) that if a farmer or exporter exports grain to a country deemed
to contain responsible entities engaged in religious persecution but
sends the grain to a party other than a responsible entity, the gulag,
that farmer or exporter has not violated this act even if the grain
eventually reaches the responsible entity itself.
Mr. EWING. So there is no provision in this act that would punish the
farmer or exporter if the product exported eventually reached a
responsible entity?
Mr. WOLF. That is correct. There is no requirement that the exporter
know or be responsible for the ultimate end user of his product, but
only that the exporter does not export to those found by the director
to be responsible entities engaged in religious persecution.
Mr. EWING. And is it the understanding of the gentleman that under
this act there is no prohibition on P.L. 480, GSM, or other commodity-
related aid from the United States Government to other nations under
this act?
Mr. WOLF. Yes. Under the definition of ``United States assistance''
in this act, any assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is
barred. However, this definition of ``United States assistance''
explicitly carves out an exemption for ``assistance which involves the
provision of food, including the monetization of food.''
Mr. EWING. I thank the gentleman for answering my questions.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2431.
This bill, The Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, is a well-
intentioned piece of legislation but it is sadly misguided. I think
like every Member of this body, I share the belief that every
individual, wherever they are in the world, ought to be able to
practice their faith freely without fear of harassment or persecution.
And if I believed for one minute that this bill would enhance that
right, I would use every tool at my disposal to ensure its passage. But
the sad fact is it will not. In fact, it may do the opposite.
The problem of this bill is the problem that is at the core of all
sanctions legislation. It allows Members of Congress to feel like they
are taking actions to solve the legitimate foreign policy problem,
without taking any responsibility for the long-term consequences of
their actions or the unintended impacts of this legislation.
My greatest fear is that this bill will actually lessen tolerance for
religious freedom abroad. Let me explain why I say that. Today there
are a large number of faith-based organizations performing missionary
work abroad, organizations such as East Gates Ministries, working in
China to distribute Bibles and provide religious training to the
Chinese people. These people that work for these organizations,
empowered by their faith, work daily under very harsh and dangerous
conditions, subjecting themselves to the scrutiny and the whims of
their host governments.
A bill such as The Freedom From Religious Persecution Act could
seriously jeopardize their ability to continue performing missionary
activities abroad. Imagine for a moment that they were a foreign
government or a representative. All of a sudden they are singled out
for condemnation and automatic economic sanctions by the United States
because of their actions, even because of actions that are beyond their
control, towards Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religious sect.
In many nations the response is not going to be to openly embrace the
criticism levied but to respond in more predictable ways, to rally
around the flag, embrace their nationalistic roots, retaliate against
those who antagonize them.
In fact, we are seeing this in India today. And by the way, if we had
given away all of our sanctions on religious persecution in India, we
would not have anything today to deal with the nuclear proliferation
problem.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to have the courage to vote no on
this bill. Do not place the work of those who do missionary work abroad
in jeopardy.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) senior member
of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It has been said that the opposite of love is not hate but
indifference. And unfortunately, American indifference to religious
persecution lends our tacit, if indirect, support and approval of some
of the most awful abuses of human rights, particularly abuses of a
right we sometimes take for granted, which of course is the freedom of
religion.
As a senior member of the House Committee on International Relations,
I have heard a great deal of testimony about the persecution of
individuals abroad, persecution based solely on religious beliefs.
In committee we heard about the atrocities committed by the Chinese
Government against Tibetan Buddhists. We heard eye-witness testimony of
frightened, weak, and near starving Tibetans who traveled hundreds of
miles, often barefoot with nothing but the shirt on their back, over
the cold and often deadly Himalayan Mountains into India to seek
relief.
Most Americans would be shocked to learn that Christians in the Sudan
are actually sold into slavery on a daily basis. Those Buddhist monks
and others that I mentioned, the Chinese Government rapes, tortures,
and murders them. The execution of religious minorities in Iran is
almost commonplace.
The business community is concerned how economic sanctions will hurt
American businesses abroad. And as chairman of the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce, I take a back seat to no one in supporting
American business. But as Americans who live under the protection of
the first amendment, we must make it clear that the almighty dollar
does not and will not take precedence over American values and morals,
the beliefs upon which this great Nation was founded.
Religion is a very personal matter to me, and I am proud to be part
of this exercise today.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
(Mr. DOOLEY Of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, we all rise today in
opposition of religious persecution. There is not one Member of this
House that does not abhor the religious persecution that we find all
too often, far too frequently in many parts of the world.
But I guess where there is a fundamental difference is whether or not
we are going to be most effective in turning back religious persecution
by taking actions which further isolate some of the countries which are
the worst perpetrators of that act.
Many of us contend that by engaging both economically, socially and
culturally, we are going to be far more effective in ensuring that the
citizens of the countries throughout the world will not be subject to
the degree of religious persecution that now persists.
I rise in opposition to this bill today because I sincerely believe
that we will be shutting the door on perhaps the greatest opportunity
we have in order to improve the plight of people throughout the various
countries of the world.
I think when I look at the issues of sanctions, that is what brings
me to the greatest concern. Because I think all too often we have seen
the implementation of sanctions that in fact have actually worked to
the detriment of the very people that we are trying to help. And I am
also very concerned that when we also take actions that are going to
impose economic sanctions that are focused primarily on preventing the
exportation of goods which are produced by working men and women of the
United States, it is going to be our citizens who are going to be
paying a good portion of the economic cost of this legislation.
We need to be diligent in our efforts to ensure that we are going to
eliminate religious persecution, but let us not tie the hands of the
administration, let us not tie the hands of our President. Let us not
empower a director of this new department with the
[[Page H3278]]
sole responsibility of making a determination on which people are being
persecuted and which portion or entity of the government is responsible
for that entity.
I very much believe that this is a measure that once again will not
advance the interests of freedom and religious freedom throughout the
world, and I rise in opposition.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise
in strong support of this legislation.
I want to first of all commend my friends the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for their very
hard work on this bill. This is a very moderate and reasoned and
sensible approach to a problem that is, unfortunately, growing very
rapidly around the world.
I am pleased to be an original cosponsor, and I am also pleased that
such a wide array of religious organizations have endorsed this bill.
Many immigrants came to our country over 200 years ago to practice
religion as they chose and be free from religious persecution. And if
we just look above the Speaker's rostrum, we see the words ``in God we
trust.'' This serves as a reminder of how important religion has been
and is to this Nation.
Religious freedom is one of the most basic of all human rights, one
of the most basic human rights that any individual can have. This
legislation does not apply to simply one religion or just one religion,
it applies to them all. No matter what a person's faith or beliefs,
people around the world should be able to worship as they wish, free
from fear of abduction and enslavement, imprisonment, murder, rape,
torture and so forth. And believe me, that is occurring around this
world, those types of things, even as we speak.
I first became interested in this after reading a portion of Nina
Shea's recent book called ``The Lion's Den.'' In that book Nina Shea
said this, quote:
Millions of American Christians pray in their churches each
week, oblivious to the fact that Christians in many parts of
the world suffer brutal torture, arrest, imprisonment, and
even death, their homes and communities laid waste, for no
other reason than that they are Christians. The shocking
untold story of our time is that more Christians have died in
this century simply for being Christians than in the first 19
centuries after the birth of Christ.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is deplorable. In addition, I read a
recent interview by Michael Horowitz, a leader in speaking out against
this persecution.
{time} 1300
Mr. Horowitz, who happens to be Jewish, says in a recent interview,
``I am speaking out on behalf of persecuted Christians precisely
because I am a Jew in the most deeply rooted sense. I see eerie
parallels,'' Mr. Horowitz said, ``between the way the elites of the
world are dealing with Christians who have become the scapegoats of
choice for thug regimes around the world and the way the elites dealt
with the Jews when Hitler came to power.
``Another parallel is the tongue-tied silence of the Christian
community in the face of persecution. A similar silence was evident in
the years leading to the Holocaust. Silence, anybody's silence in the
face of persecution, is deadly. So for me'', Mr. Horowitz said,
``sparking our campaign for awareness in action is the most important
thing I expect to do. What thugs did to Jews, they are now doing to
Christians. Christians are become the Jews of the 21st Century.''
All faiths, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, people from all walks of
life have joined in support of this very important bill. This is good
legislation. I urge all my colleagues to support it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 5
minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that some Members are supporting this bill
out of frustration with what they perceive as the apparent lack of
progress on foreign religious persecution issues.
I would like to share with the body comments made in an editorial
opinion by Samuel Berger, the President's National Security Advisor.
Mr. Berger says what I believe is something critical that we need to
pay attention to. He says that, ``Moreover, the more the United States
is perceived as making unilateral, peremptory judgments on the
performance of other countries, the less we will be able to work with
those countries, including on issues of religious freedom.''
Mr. Chairman, I have had the good fortune, along with many Members in
this body, to travel to a significant number of countries in the world.
In each delegation that I participated in, be it in China or in Africa
or elsewhere, we have raised the subject of religious persecution.
I traveled to China with the chairman of the Committee on
International Relations, and the template of our remarks to all of the
Chinese interlocutors had to do with religious persecution in China.
I traveled to China with the Speaker of the House. In each instance
when we met, ranging all the way from the prime minister to the
president to various persons that we were interlocutors with, each
time, the subject of religious persecution was among our highest
priorities, including those that we share with the concerns for the
rule of law.
I traveled to China with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter),
one of the most respected Members of this body. In each instance, the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and myself and others traveling
with us raised subjects of religious persecution.
So long as we are not making those peremptory judgments, so long as
we are not acting unilaterally, we have been able to make some
progress. With reference to this administration, it needs to be clear
that there is more that can be done, but a lot has been done.
Last year, the President imposed sanctions on Sudan because of the
persistent and severe persecution of Christians and others by the
Government of Sudan. Religious persecution refugees, more than any
other category of refugees, we are granting them asylum here in the
United States.
The President sent 20,000 United States troops, and most of us in
this body backed that effort, to Bosnia to keep the peace to help end
religion-based conflict. Secretary of State Albright and other U.S.
officials have raised religious persecution in numerous meetings with
foreign officials, quiet and sometimes not so quiet.
Diplomacy has reaped dividends. Religious prisoners have been
released in China. Christian Orthodox classes have been permitted in
Turkey. I have seen evidence of substantial change in Kazakhstan and
Uzbekistan, places where, we formerly knew them as of the Soviet Union.
The Secretary of State has also instructed all United States
embassies to upgrade their reporting and advocacy on this issue. Later,
I will introduce an amendment that will discuss what we might do to
enhance the activities of our embassies with reference to advocacy on
the issue of religious persecution.
In Austria and in Greece, United States embassies have succeeded in
easing restrictions on religious practices. I, for one, have witnessed
and talked with embassy officials in each of those countries and seen
the evidence of their work.
The State Departments human rights reports now devote more attention
to religious freedom. Procedures for reviewing asylum cases have been
modified to increase sensitivity to religious persecution.
In January, the Secretary of State established a new assistant
secretary-level coordinator position for issues relating to religious
persecution. In essence, that is what this legislation is trying to do
at, yet, another level.
I urge the administration to fill that position soon, and it would
then allow that we are doing parallel activity with what the
administration has done.
At the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the United States
has led the successful effort to create a special repertoire on
religious intolerance. I can go on and on and on; I shall not at this
time, Mr. Chairman.
We need a bill that will not promote a backlash against persecuted
religious communities. We need a bill that will
[[Page H3279]]
enable the President and the Secretary of State to balance our
interests in reducing religious persecution against the full range of
important and even vital national interests.
We need a bill that gives the President of the United States the
ability to craft an appropriate response to each distinct instance of
religious persecution. This is not that bill.
Some of us, in an amendment that I offer, will be trying to make it a
little bit better. But this bill falls short in key respects.
Specifically, the President's senior advisors intend to recommend that
he veto it. I urge Members to vote against it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), a good friend
and colleague.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today of the Freedom
From Religious Persecution Act.
I would like to start my time by going back to the beginning of our
Nation, correspondence between the Hebrew Newport congregation and a
letter written to our first President, George Washington.
It says ``Deprived as we hitherto have been of the invaluable rights
of pre-citizens, we now, with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty
Disposer of all events, behold a government erected by the majesty of
the people, a government which to bigotry gives no sanction, to
persecution no assistance, but generously affording to all liberty of
conscience and immunities of citizenship, deeming everyone of whatever
nation, tongue, or language equal parts of the great government.''
George Washington's response to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport,
Rhode Island, ``The citizens of the United States of America have a
right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an
enlarged and liberal policy, a policy worthy of imitation; for,
happily, the government of the United States gives to bigotry no
sanction, to persecution no assistance.''
This is what we are trying to do today, to say that our Nation, which
was founded on the cornerstone of the freedom of conscience, of
religious liberty, that we will give no assistance to those who
persecute people of faith.
Today I would like to share a little of my own experience that I
bring to this debate, for I lived in a Communist country in 1986 and
1987, in Budapest, Hungary.
I saw during that time, before the collapse of communism, what
happens when religious freedoms are deprived. I met with ministers who
had been in prison for practicing their faith. I saw the refugees who
had fled their countries into the West with the hopes and the dream of
having the freedom to practice their faith, to capture the dream that
we cherish in this land of freedom.
Then I saw in my lifetime, and we have seen in our lifetime, the
modern-day miracle of Jericho where we saw the walls of communism
collapse. We have to ask ourselves why. If you go to Poland, it was the
church, the Catholic church that led the descent.
In Czechoslovakia and Romania, it was the Protestant church which
allowed the people of faith and courage and conviction to rise up and
to stand for their God-given rights which brought about as much as
anything that we ever did in the West with military containment. It was
the force of the religious convictions and conscience that brought
about the renewal and the reform and the collapse of a brutal and evil
system.
Today we are trying to say we should have the same policy, that we
stand with the persecuted, that we stand for the same cornerstone in
our country of religious liberty. From that, we will have greater
economic freedom, greater trade, greater democracy across the world. We
will have greater stability with our allies. This is the cornerstone of
our Nation, to stand with those to have the freedom of conscience and
faith.
I ask all of my colleagues that we follow the words of our founder
George Washington, that we give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution,
no assistance.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 30
seconds remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
(Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and all the
other Members of this House and this body who have worked to fight
against the persecution of people of faith throughout the world.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, because I believe that we
can no longer ignore the cruelty of some government authorities around
the world that has been directed towards people whose only crime is
faith in God.
We must not forget that there are those who are suffering in other
countries; people are being tortured, enslaved, and killed for their
beliefs. This bill will send a clear and resounding message that the
United States does not support this violation of human rights and
religious freedom.
Abraham Lincoln, the President who is probably best noted for his
work to free those who were enslaved and mistreated, once said, ``Those
who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and under a
just God, cannot long retain it.''
If enacted into law, this bill will impose immediate sanctions on
those countries that have mistreated and abused Christians and people
of other faiths, time and time again.
I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Freedom From Religious
Persecution Act.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 30
seconds.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining
portion of my time.
Mr. Chairman, last night, I listened to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Houghton) who, on both sides of the aisle, is respected, not only
in this arena, but for his evenhanded approach to trying to develop
bipartisan efforts.
Last night, he spoke agonizingly, as I do now, about this particular
legislation. We would want to dispel the notion that there are any
among the 435 of us who would stand and say we favor religious
persecution anywhere in the world. We do not. And that is all of the
Republicans and all of the Democrats and all of those on the committee.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, in 1984, on one of several human rights trips to
Romania, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hall), and myself pushed for the release of persecuted
Christians and, in particular, Father Calccu.
For over a decade, during both the Carter and the Reagan
administrations, Father Calccu endured unspeakable tortured beatings,
solitary confinement in coffins that were vertical. Yet, the world, the
State Department, everybody said, Ceausescu, the dictator in Romania
was somehow a good guy, we need to work with him.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) said it well. Hate is
not the opposite of love; indifference is. This bill ends our
indifference, our bipartisan indifference towards religious
persecution.
{time} 1315
Religious persecution has been and it is today the orphan of human
rights. We need to stand strong. This is against religious persecution,
things like torture. I urge support for this bill, hopefully in a very
bipartisan way.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for H.R.
2431, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act. This bill would
reassert the position that the United States is a defender of personal
liberty, including the liberty to choose and practice one's religion.
The Freedom From Religious Persecution Act makes significant changes
in U.S. policy that will help identify and terminate discrimination
against religions around the world. The bill calls for the creation of
the office of Religious Persecution Monitoring within the State
Department. This office will make an annual report on the existence and
extent of religious persecution around the world.
This report will be the basis for punitive sanctions against
countries who take part in or allow religious persecution. Some may say
[[Page H3280]]
that the United States should not interfere in others' business. Yet
the United States has always stood for personal liberties and
unalienable rights. For us to stand by and be mute while thousands of
people are discriminated against or killed for their faith, would be
unacceptable.
Did you know that in China, a 76 year-old Protestant leader was
sentenced to 15 years in prison for merely passing out bibles? And in
Iran, some religious groups are denied the right to organize and
worship and have no legal rights. Worst of all, in Sudan, government
soldiers have systematically enslaved and murdered thousands of people
because they are Christians.
I know the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act will not end
suffering throughout the world. But it will put the United States on
record as a nation that is concerned with the fundamental right of
people to follow their faith. I am pleased to be able to support
legislation that will make a real difference in the lives of those who
aren't free to practice their own religion.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, persecution for one's religious beliefs is
wrong. It should not be permitted anywhere, and this bill, the
``Freedom from Religious Persecution Act,'' has the important and
laudable goal of intending to reduce and eliminate the widespread and
ongoing religious persecution taking place throughout the world today.
The United States, as a world leader, should do what we can to
eradicate this human rights abuse. This Nation was founded on
principles of religious freedom, and we have thriving faith communities
today because of our commitment to those principles. Persecution is
reprehensible, and we need to pursue all appropriate ways to stop it.
The bill seeks to achieve its objective by increasing the priority
attached in U.S. foreign policy to the problem of religious
persecution. The bill would impose sanctions on foreign governments
that carry out or condone serious religious persecution. Also, the bill
would seek to increase the refugee and asylum protections available to
victims of religious persecution.
While I want to end religious persecution globally, there are defects
in this bill that do not permit me to support the measure as reported
to the House. The bill's automatic sanctions, which include
restrictions on exports and foreign assistance would be
counterproductive. Further, these measures will tie the President's
hands in areas of foreign policy where the executive has traditionally
had discretion in the exercise of his constitutional duties and powers
to promote the full range of U.S. interests--including national
security, economic prosperity, and respect for all human rights.
Our laws and policies already give significant weight to human
rights, and I would support strict and severe sanctions against
repressive governments under current law. Further, it is unlikely that
the imposition of sanctions, as provided in this bill, would have much
effect on governments that are of a mind to persecute people on account
of their faith.
Such automatic sanctions risk strengthening the grip of those who
permit or undertake religious intolerance in their countries. Sanctions
may trigger reprisals against victims as well as an end to American
engagement with offending governments. Furthermore, by establishing
sanctions and preferential treatment for those fleeing religious
persecution alone, the bill would signal to the world that this Nation
believes in a an inappropriate hierarchy of human rights violations.
What about our efforts toward universal respect for all civil and
political rights? Severe and violent acts of persecution on ethnic,
racial, or political grounds, for example, would not invoke these
sanctions or bring about procedural advantages in the immigration
context.
Although some religious organizations have expressed their support
for the measure, others have stated that this bill would do more harm
than good for the very people it seeks to protect. Clearly, we need to
foster religious tolerance and respect for all human rights around the
world. But we must do it in a proper fashion that helps, not hurts
those that deserve our help.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to announce that I will vote
for the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act. I am compelled,
however, to express some deep concerns that I have with this
legislation.
Religious persecution around the world is intolerable. All people
should have the freedom to express their faith without fear of
retribution. Tragically, the persecution of religious communities has
claimed the lives of millions of people in this century, and today
continues unchecked in many countries. Clearly, steps must be taken to
stop this dangerous trend and I commend the authors of this bill for
raising awareness in Congress about religious persecution.
Although I strongly support the spirit of this bill, I have some
questions about the legislation that we are voting on today.
My first concern is that this bill could possibly bring harm to those
who suffer from religious persecution, if the government in question
chooses to blame religious groups for the imposition of U.S. sanctions.
We surely would not want to endanger the safety and well-being of the
very people we are trying to protect.
Additionally, I am troubled that this bill establishes a ``hierarchy
of human rights''. If passed, religious persecution--as important as it
may be--would be seen as a higher priority than other human rights--
such as racial discrimination, violations of women's rights, and the
suppression of free speech.
Instead of establishing a new office at the White House, I wonder if
it wouldn't be more efficient to leave the issue of religious freedom
to be dealt with in the State Department's human rights bureau.
Religious persecution is an unforgivable crime around the globe, but
our efforts to combat it must not be allowed to damage our fight for
other critical human rights.
I will vote in favor of this bill today, because it sends a strong
message against intolerable religious persecution. But I hope when the
bill is considered in the Senate, and then in conference, we can roll
up our sleeves to draft a better bill, that will work not only to end
these unforgivable practices, but to help those who are oppressed all
around the world.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my
colleagues to support of H.R. 2431, the Freedom From Religious
Persecution Act. It is high time that Congress take decisive steps to
stop foreign governments from jailing, torturing or killing people,
just because of their religious beliefs. We must also hold accountable
those nations which are aware that religious bigotry is occurring
within their borders, but do nothing of consequence to stop this
injustice.
This legislation would require our government to stop giving non-
humanitarian foreign aid to nations that persecute people for their
religious beliefs. It would also require American executives who sit on
the board of international banking institutions to oppose the issuance
of loans to countries that practice or support religious persecution.
The Government of Sudan is one particular big offender in this
regard. Sudan's main political party, the National Islamic Front, is
responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1.3 million Christians and
others who failed to recognize Islam as their faith.
Of course, Sudan is not the only nation with blood on its hands. The
People's Republic of China has a history of imprisoning and killing
citizens who refuse to register with one of the state's official
religions, institutions where worship is organized and controlled by
the government.
Some countries which practice or facilitate religious persecution,
such as Pakistan, may even be allies of America when it comes to
national security issues. But we still have an obligation as Americans
to defend freedom. Just as America fought the spread of Communism
during the Cold War, today, the United States must pour its heart and
soul into stopping religious persecution. One good step towards this
goal is by Congress passing the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act.
Mr. NADLER, Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Freedom from
Religious Persecution Act.
This bill is vitally important to combat the violent religious
persecution that is tragically occurring in many nations across the
world.
We need more effective tools to end the threats of murder, torture,
rape, starvation, and enslavement now faced by millions of people of
faith. I believe this bill would strengthen the United States' ability
to promote human rights and effectively confront regimes that are
abusive to religious minorities in their countries.
However, the United States must do more to become a safe haven for
those fleeing persecution. Our current expedited removal procedures for
asylum seekers are inhumane, dangerous, and morally offensive.
Asylum seekers ought to have a fair hearing before an immigration
judge before they are sent back to a country where they may be
threatened, beaten, or even killed.
Unfortunately, the provisions in this bill that would have made our
immigration policy slightly more humane were removed from the
legislation. I think we are making a big mistake. In fact, the
provisions that would have protected asylum seekers fleeing religious
persecution should have been expanded to aid those seeking asylum based
on racial persecution, ethnicity, membership in a in a social group, or
political opinion.
Our nation must never turn its back on those fleeing persecution. It
is offensive to our American tradition, our cultural heritage, and the
very nature of our republic.
This legislation does, however, for the first time require the GAO to
conduct a study of airport deportations, so that we may gather data
about the abuses that may be occurring in our immigration practices.
What is happening to the people we turn away? How many
[[Page H3281]]
people are we sending to their deaths? We need this information, and I
am hopeful that once we have it we can revisit our immigration policy
and end the shameful practice of turning away those who are seeking
asylum from persecution.
Let me reiterate that I strongly support this legislation, I only
wish it were stronger. I urge my colleagues to take an important step
to protect human rights worldwide and vote for this legislation.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, the right to religious freedom
should be a fundamental right that every citizen enjoys.
Indeed, our nation was founded on this premise.
Yet sadly, there are nations where being a Muslim, a Jew, a
Christian, or any of a number of other religions, can cause you great
harm.
It's difficult for many of us who live in a nation where everyone can
worship as he and she chooses without fear of persecution to even
imagine the possibility of being thrown in jail or being killed because
of whom you pray to.
This brutal suppression of religious freedom, of course, is
reprehensible.
And President Clinton has made securing religious freedom for people
of all faiths a priority in our foreign policy.
The State Department has expanded coverage of religious freedom in
its annual human rights report.
And the Administration has created an Advisory Committee on Religious
Freedom Aboard.
In addition, the Secretary of State will be creating a senior-level
coordinator responsible for integrating religious freedom into our
foreign policy.
These stepped-up actions by the Clinton Administration will help us
in persuading governments to prevent limitations on religious freedom.
Our current law already provides an adequate basis for us to impose
sanctions on foreign governments when we need to take tough action.
So the question is: do we continue our policy of being quietly
effective, using the wide range of tools in our foreign policy toolbox
to get things done--or do we engage in a policy of ranting and raving
that may backfire, causing more harm than good.
Public condemnation of governments that do not provide religious
freedom often is appropriate.
Our President has not been shy about using the bully pulpit to
criticize governments that don't do right by their citizens.
But this bill would make condemnation automatic--a situation not
always appropriate that very well might put religious prisoners and
their families in further jeopardy.
It also may jeopardize our efforts in other political and economic
arenas that we use to improve relations that will result in tolerance
for religious diversity.
That is the wrong approach.
We should be bold in our actions without jeopardizing our foreign
policy and our broad global interests.
That's why our current policy is the best route to achieving the
means that all of us here want to achieve.
You can be sure that some may use this bill in the Fall campaign to
position those who are against it as being against religious freedom.
Chances are that the 30-second sound bites and the direct mail pieces
that say ``voted against the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act''
already are in the works.
It is sad that some will seek political gain on an issue so delicate,
but that is the state of politics in this day and age.
Make no mistake: no one who opposes this bill believes that killing,
enslaving, or jailing those who practice their faith is just.
We abhor it.
But we believe there's a smarter way to put an end to these
practices.
America is the greatest nation in the world because of our leadership
in foreign affairs and the bridges we have built nations around the
world.
We decry religious persecution whenever we see it.
While this legislation is good intentioned, it handcuffs our ability
to have the flexibility we need to end religious persecution.
Let's not put our best efforts to stop religious persecution at risk
with an ill-advised policy that is blind to policies that are effective
on a nation-to-nation and case-to-case business.
Allow our diplomats to work effectively to allow religious freedom
around the world.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
I cannot condone any government that abuses the rights of its
citizens whether it is for abuses in the category of human rights,
democracy, freedom of speech, press. Likewise religious persecution is
equally as important. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Today
people all over the world are still persecuted for their beliefs. Many
are living in constant terror and some even fear for their lives.
Christians, Muslims, Jews, and many others are singled out. Even in
places like Germany, China, the North of Ireland, and the Sudan people
are being persecuted for their religion.
In China officials crack down on unregistered Protestant house church
members simply for practicing their religious beliefs. The situation in
Sudan remains intolerable. In May the Popular Defense Force of the
National Islamic Front (NIF) regime raided several villages, burning
homes, schools, and two churches. Furthermore, it was reported that
children of the black Africans in Sudan are being enslaved and forced
to change their cultural identity and become Arabic-speaking Muslims.
The Christian Solidarity International (CSI) estimates that there are
tens of thousands of chattel slaves still in bondage in the borderlands
between northern and southern Sudan.
Sudan has often been described as one million miles of suffering. A
million southern Sudanese deaths over the past decade, executions of
political opponents, the thousands of slaves that are branded like
cattle to show ownership combined with the capture of some 3,000 ['95 &
'96] children by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) aided by the al-
Bashir government did not go unheeded.
Violations of religious freedom in this world are innumerable.
Hopefully, we will be able to live in a world where people can practice
their religion peacefully without any threat or fear. Once again, I
support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
2431, the ``Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997.'' As
Americans, we too often take for granted the freedoms we enjoy to
practice our faith and live according to our moral, ethical and
spiritual beliefs. What we must not forget is that all over the world,
people are being persecuted on the basis of their religious beliefs,
and I believe we have an obligation to do what we can to protect them.
It seems that every day we are greeted with horrifying accounts of
religious persecution, involving forced relocation, enslavement, rape,
starvation, torture and even murder. Perhaps most disturbing is that
these atrocities are sanctioned by and carried out under the orders of
foreign governments and local authorities. It is clearly not enough to
simply urge these brutal regimes to grant their citizens the same
religious liberties that are enjoyed in this country, and I believe
that this legislation represents a necessary step in our efforts to
combat the terrible reality of religious persecution.
H.R. 2431 is a moderate and reasoned response to a serious situation.
This legislation will link U.S. aid to a country's performance on
religious liberty and focuses on the most egregious forms of
persecution against all religious groups. It does not impose embargoes,
as some of my colleagues have sought to argue, but rather provides for
moderate, targeted sanctions against specific governmental entities
which have direct involvement in religious persecution. In addition,
the bill permits waivers for national security reasons and in
situations where sanctions are deemed by the president to be counter-
productive.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this important
legislation, and I will take great pride in casting my vote in favor of
its passage. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
religious freedom of all of our brothers and sisters around the world
by voting yes on H.R. 2431.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank my friend and
colleague Frank Wolf for his consistent and strong leadership in
bringing this vital issue in front of the Congress, and for his
determination to focus attention on one of the most critical human
rights crises of our day, religious persecution. He has been a voice
crying in the wilderness for many years, speaking out for Tibetans in
China, Christians in Sudan, and Bahai's in Iran, and I am proud of the
work we have done together on these and other important human rights
issues. I also want to thank the leadership of the House International
Relations Committee--specifically Mr. Gilman and Mr. Smith--for
shepherding this bill through the legislative process and for their
commitment to human rights.
As co-chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I have spent
many hours in hearings and briefings receiving testimony from persons
all over the world who have suffered from the most serious kinds of
persecution. In fact, the Caucus was founded in 1983 after I returned
from a trip to the former Soviet Union, where I witnessed the harsh
religious persecution practiced by that regime. I have met people who
have been imprisoned, tortured, raped and who have lost loved ones as a
result of religious intolerance. Today, the House has an opportunity to
say to the torturers, rapists and murderers ``The United States is not
going to stand by and allow you to terrorize people who are engaged
[[Page H3282]]
in the peaceful practice of their religious beliefs.'' I call on all of
my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.
There has been a great deal of talk about what H.R. 2431 does and
does not do. Once you cut through all of the hyperbole, it is clear
that this is a reasonable and modest approach to a very serious issue.
No government on this plant should receive U.S. assistance if they are
engaged in the type of gross violations of human rights that are
specified in this bill. No government should fail to take action
against those who perpetrate these abuses, and continue to receive the
benefit of U.S. foreign aid. In these times of fiscal constraint,
America's foreign assistance programs have been cut to the bone. Every
year, worthy projects and applicants go unfunded due to a lack of
funds. In this climate, it is morally and fiscally reprehensible to
allow abusive or grossly negligent regimes to receive aid. H.R. 2431
remedies this situation without punishing the innocent victims because
it only cuts off non-humanitarian aid. This is an even-handed and
compassionate response to the abuse of human rights.
I urge all Members to vote for this bill and send our support to
those who suffer for their faith in silence and obscurity around the
world.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of H.R. 3806, modified by the amendments printed
in part 1 of House Report 105-534, is considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and is considered
read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified,
is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom From Religious
Persecution Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Governments have a primary responsibility to promote,
encourage, and protect respect for the fundamental and
internationally recognized right to freedom of religion.
(2)(A) Since its inception, the United States Government
has rested upon certain founding principles. One of those
principles is that all people have the inalienable right to
worship freely, which demands that religion be protected from
unnecessary government intervention. The Founding Fathers of
the United States incorporated that principle in the
Declaration of Independence, which states that mankind has
the inalienable right to ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness'', and in the United States Constitution, the first
amendment to which states that ``Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof''. Therefore, in accordance with this
belief in the inalienable right of freedom of religion for
all people, as expressed by the Declaration of Independence,
and the belief that religion should be protected from
government interference, as expressed by the United States
Constitution, the Congress opposes international religious
persecution and believes that the policies of the United
States Government and its relations with foreign governments
should be consistent with the commitment to this principle.
(B) Numerous international agreements and covenants also
identify mankind's inherent right to freedom of religion.
These include the following:
(i) Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
states that ``Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to
change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or
in community with others and in public or private, to
manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance''.
(ii) Article 18 of the Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights declares that ``Everyone shall have the right to
freedom of thought, conscience, and religion . . .'' and
further delineates the privileges under this right.
(iii) The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion and
Belief, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on
November 25, 1981, declares that ``religion or belief, for
anyone who professes either, is one of the fundamental
elements in his conception of life . . .'' and that ``freedom
of religion and belief should also contribute to the
attainment of the goals of world peace, social justice and
friendship among peoples and to the elimination of ideologies
or practices of colonialism and racial discrimination''.
(iv) The Concluding Document of the Third Follow-Up Meeting
of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
commits states to ``ensure in their laws and regulations and
in their application the full and effective exercise of the
freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief''.
(3) Persecution of religious believers, particularly Roman
Catholic and evangelical Protestant Christians, in Communist
countries persists and in some cases is increasing.
(4) In many countries and regions thereof, governments
dominated by extremist movements persecute non-Muslims and
religious converts from Islam using means such as
``blasphemy'' and ``apostasy'' laws, and such movements seek
to corrupt a historically tolerant Islamic faith and culture
through the persecution of Baha'is, Christians, and other
religious minorities.
(5) The extremist Government of Sudan is waging a self-
described religious war against Christians, other non-
Muslims, and moderate Muslims by using torture, starvation,
enslavement, and murder.
(6) In Tibet, where Tibetan Buddhism is inextricably linked
to the Tibetan identity, the Government of the People's
Republic of China has intensified its control over the
Tibetan people by interfering in the selection of the Panchen
Lama, propagandizing against the religious authority of the
Dalai Lama, restricting religious study and traditional
religious practices, and increasing the persecution of monks
and nuns.
(7) In Xinjiang Autonomous Region of China, formerly the
independent republic of East Turkistan, where the Muslim
religion is inextricably linked to the dominant Uyghur
culture, the Government of the People's Republic of China has
intensified its control over the Uyghur people by
systematically repressing religious authority, restricting
religious study and traditional practices, destroying
mosques, and increasing the persecution of religious clergy
and practitioners.
(8) In countries around the world, Christians, Jews,
Muslims, Hindus, and other religious believers continue to be
persecuted on account of their religious beliefs, practices,
and affiliations.
(9) The 104th Congress recognized the facts set forth in
this section and stated clearly the sense of the Senate and
the House of Representatives regarding these matters in
approving--
(A) House Resolution 515, expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives with respect to the persecution of
Christians worldwide;
(B) S. Con. Res. 71, expressing the sense of the Senate
with respect to the persecution of Christians worldwide;
(C) H. Con. Res. 102, concerning the emancipation of the
Iranian Baha'i community; and
(D) section 1303 of H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997.
(10) The Department of State, in a report to Congress filed
pursuant to House Report 104-863, accompanying the Omnibus
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208)
set forth strong evidence that widespread and ongoing
religious persecution is occurring in a number of countries
around the world.
(11)(A)(i) In recent years there have been successive
terrorist attempts to desecrate and destroy the premises of
the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Fanar area of Istanbul
(Constantinople), Turkey.
(ii) Attempts against the Ecumenical Patriarchate have
intensified, including the following:
(I) On September 30, 1996, a hand grenade was thrown into
the headquarters of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate and
exploded, causing damage to the physical structure of the
grounds, most notably the Agios Georgios Church.
(II) On May 28, 1994, three powerful bombs were discovered
in the living quarters of the Patriarch, and were
subsequently defused only minutes before they were set to
detonate.
(III) In July and August 1993, the Christian Orthodox
cemetery in Yenikoy, near Istanbul, was attacked by vandals
and desecrated.
(iii) His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew and those
associated with the Ecumenical Patriarchate are Turkish
citizens and thus must be protected under Turkish law against
blatant and unprovoked attacks toward ethnic minorities.
(iv) The Turkish Government arbitrarily closed the Halki
Patriarchal School of Theology in 1971.
(v) The Ecumenical Patriarchate is the spiritual center for
more than 250,000,000 Orthodox Christians worldwide,
including approximately 5,000,000 in the United States.
(vi) It is in the best interest of the United States to
prevent further incidents regarding the Ecumenical
Patriarchate and in the overall goals of the United States to
establish peaceful relations with and among the many
important nations of the world that have substantial Orthodox
Christian populations.
(B) It is the sense of the Congress that--
(i) the United States should use its influence with the
Turkish Government and as a permanent member of the United
Nations Security Council to suggest that the Turkish
Government--
(I) ensure proper protection for the Patriarchate and all
of the Orthodox faithful residing in Turkey;
(II) provide for the proper protection and safety of the
Ecumenical Patriarch and Patriarchate personnel;
(III) establish conditions that would prevent the
recurrence of past terrorist activities and vandalism and
other personal threats against the Patriarch;
(IV) establish conditions to ensure that the Patriarchate
is free to carry out its religious mission; and
(V) do everything possible to find and punish the
perpetrators of any provocative and terrorist acts against
the Patriarchate; and
[[Page H3283]]
(ii) the Secretary of State should report to the Congress
on an annual basis on the status and progress of the concerns
expressed in clause (i).
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to reduce and
eliminate the widespread and ongoing religious persecution
taking place throughout the world today.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring established
under section 5.
(2) Legislative day.--The term ``legislative day'' means a
day on which both Houses of Congress are in session.
(3) Persecuted community.--The term ``persecuted
community'' means any religious group or denomination whose
members have been found to be subject to category 1 or
category 2 persecution in the latest annual report submitted
under section 6(a) or in any interim report submitted
thereafter under section 6(c) before the next annual report.
(4) Persecution facilitating products.--The term
``persecution facilitating products'' means those crime
control, detection, torture, and electroshock instruments and
equipment (as determined under section 6(n) of the Export
Administration Act of 1979) that are directly and
substantially used or intended for use in carrying out acts
of persecution described in paragraphs (5) and (6).
(5) Category 1 persecution.--The term ``category 1
persecution'' means widespread and ongoing persecution of
persons on account of their religious beliefs or practices,
or membership in or affiliation with a religion or religious
group or denomination, whether officially recognized or
otherwise, when such persecution--
(A) includes abduction, enslavement, killing, imprisonment,
forced mass relocation, rape, crucifixion or other forms of
torture, or the systematic imposition of fines or penalties
which have the purpose and effect of destroying the economic
existence of persons on whom they are imposed; and
(B) is conducted with the involvement or support of
government officials or agents, or pursuant to official
government policy.
(6) Category 2 persecution.--The term ``category 2
persecution'' means widespread and ongoing persecution of
persons on account of their religious beliefs or practices,
or membership in or affiliation with a religion or religious
group or denomination, whether officially recognized or
otherwise, when such persecution--
(A) includes abduction, enslavement, killing, imprisonment,
forced mass relocation, rape, crucifixion or other forms of
torture, or the systematic imposition of fines or penalties
which have the purpose and effect of destroying the economic
existence of persons on whom they are imposed; and
(B) is not conducted with the involvement or support of
government officials or agents, or pursuant to official
government policy, but which the government fails to
undertake serious and sustained efforts to eliminate, being
able to do so.
(7) Responsible entities.--The term ``responsible
entities'' means the specific government units, as narrowly
defined as practicable, which directly carry out the acts of
persecution described in paragraphs (5) and (6).
(8) Sanctioned country.--The term ``sanctioned country''
means a country on which sanctions have been imposed under
section 7.
(9) United states assistance.--The term ``United States
assistance'' means--
(A) any assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(including programs under title IV of chapter 2 of part I of
that Act, relating to the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation), other than--
(i) assistance under chapter 8 of part I of that Act;
(ii) any other narcotics-related assistance under part I of
that Act or under chapter 4 or 5 of part II of that Act, but
any such assistance provided under this clause shall be
subject to the prior notification procedures applicable to
reprogrammings pursuant to section 634A of that Act;
(iii) disaster relief assistance, including any assistance
under chapter 9 of part I of that Act;
(iv) antiterrorism assistance under chapter 8 of part II of
that Act;
(v) assistance which involves the provision of food
(including monetization of food) or medicine;
(vi) assistance for refugees; and
(vii) humanitarian and other development assistance in
support of programs of nongovernmental organizations under
chapters 1 and 10 of that Act;
(B) sales, or financing on any terms, under the Arms Export
Control Act, other than sales or financing provided for
narcotics-related purposes following notification in
accordance with the prior notification procedures applicable
to reprogrammings pursuant to section 634A of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961; and
(C) financing under the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945.
(10) United states person.--The term ``United States
person'' means--
(A) any United States citizen or alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence into the United States; and
(B) any corporation, partnership, or other entity organized
under the laws of the United States or of any State, the
District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the
United States.
SEC. 4. APPLICATION AND SCOPE.
The responsibility of the Secretary of State under section
5(g) to determine whether category 1 or category 2
persecution exists, and to identify persons and communities
that are subject to such persecution, extends to--
(1) all foreign countries in which alleged violations of
religious freedom have been set forth in the latest annual
report of the Department of State on human rights under
sections 116(d) and 502(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d) and 2304(b)); and
(2) such other foreign countries in which, either as a
result of referral by an independent human rights group or
nongovernmental organization in accordance with section
5(e)(2) or otherwise, the Director has reason to believe
category 1 or category 2 persecution may exist.
SEC. 5. OFFICE OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION MONITORING.
(a) Establishment.--There shall be established in the
Department of State the Office of Religious Persecution
Monitoring (hereafter in this Act referred to as the
``Office'').
(b) Appointment.--The head of the Office shall be a
Director who shall be appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director shall
receive compensation at a rate of pay not to exceed the rate
of pay in effect for level IV of the Executive Schedule under
section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Removal.--The Director shall serve at the pleasure of
the President.
(d) Barred From Other Federal Positions.--No person shall
serve as Director while serving in any other position in the
Federal Government.
(e) Responsibilities of Director.--The Director shall do
the following:
(1) Consider information regarding the facts and
circumstances of violations of religious freedom presented in
the annual reports of the Department of State on human rights
under sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d) and 2304(b)).
(2) Make findings of fact on violations of religious
freedom based on information--
(A) considered under paragraph (1); or
(B) presented by independent human rights groups,
nongovernmental organizations, or other interested parties,
at any stage of the process provided in this Act.
When appropriate, the Director may hold public hearings
subject to notice at which such groups, organizations, or
other interested parties can present testimony and evidence
of acts of persecution occurring in countries being
examined by the Office.
(3) On the basis of information and findings of fact
described in paragraphs (1) and (2), make recommendations to
the Secretary of State for consideration by the Secretary in
making determinations of countries in which there is category
1 or category 2 persecution under subsection (g), identify
the responsible entities within such countries, and prepare
and submit the annual report described in section 6.
(4) Maintain the lists of persecution facilitating
products, and the responsible entities within countries
determined to be engaged in persecution described in
paragraph (3), revising the lists in accordance with section
6(c) as additional information becomes available. These lists
shall be published in the Federal Register.
(5) In consultation with the Secretary of State, make
policy recommendations to the President regarding the
policies of the United States Government toward governments
which are determined to be engaged in religious persecution.
(6) Report directly to the President and the Secretary of
State, and coordinate with the appropriate officials of the
Department of State, the Department of Justice, the
Department of Commerce, and the Department of the Treasury,
to ensure that the provisions of this Act are fully and
effectively implemented.
(f) Administrative Matters.--
(1) Personnel.--The Director may appoint such personnel as
may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Office.
(2) Services of other agencies.--The Director may use the
personnel, services, and facilities of any other department
or agency, on a reimbursable basis, in carrying out the
functions of the Office.
(g) Responsibilities of the Secretary of State.--The
Secretary of State, in time for inclusion in the annual
report described in subsections (a) and (b) of section 6,
shall determine with respect to each country described in
section 4 whether there is category 1 or category 2
persecution, and shall include in each such determination the
communities against which such persecution is directed. Any
determination in any interim report described in subsection
(c) of section 6 that there is category 1 or category 2
persecution in a country shall be made by the Secretary of
State.
SEC. 6. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) Annual Reports.--Not later than April 30 of each year,
the Director shall submit to the Committees on Foreign
Relations, the Judiciary, Appropriations, and Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and to the
Committees on International Relations, the Judiciary,
Appropriations, and Banking and Financial Services of the
House of Representatives a report described in subsection
(b).
[[Page H3284]]
(b) Contents of Annual Report.--The annual report of the
Director shall include the following:
(1) Determination of religious persecution.--A copy of the
determinations of the Secretary of State pursuant to
subsection (g) of section 5.
(2) Identification of persecution facilitating products.--
With respect to each country in which the Secretary of State
has determined that there is either category 1 or category 2
persecution, the Director, in consultation with the Secretary
of Commerce, shall identify and list the items on the list
established under section 6(n) of the Export Administration
Act of 1979 that are directly and substantially used or
intended for use in carrying out acts of religious
persecution in such country.
(3) Identification of responsible entities.--With respect
to each country in which the Secretary of State has
determined that there is category 1 persecution, the Director
shall identify and list the responsible entities within that
country that are engaged in such persecution. Such entities
shall be defined as narrowly as possible.
(4) Other reports.--The Director shall include the reports
submitted to the Director by the Attorney General under
section 9 and by the Secretary of State under section 10.
(c) Interim Reports.--The Director may submit interim
reports to the Congress containing such matters as the
Director considers necessary, including revisions to the
lists issued under paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b).
The Director shall submit an interim report in the case of a
determination by the Secretary of State under section 5(g),
other than in an annual report of the Director, that category
1 or category 2 persecution exists, or in the case of a
determination by the Secretary of State under section 11(a)
that neither category 1 or category 2 persecution exists.
(d) Persecution in Regions of a Country.--In determining
whether category 1 or category 2 persecution exists in a
country, the Secretary of State shall include such
persecution that is limited to one or more regions within
the country, and shall indicate such regions in the
reports described in this section.
SEC. 7. SANCTIONS.
(a) Prohibition on Exports Relating to Religious
Persecution.--
(1) Actions by responsible departments and agencies.--With
respect to any country in which--
(A) the Secretary of State finds the occurrence of category
1 persecution, the Director shall so notify the relevant
United States departments and agencies, and such departments
and agencies shall--
(i) prohibit all exports to the responsible entities
identified in the lists issued under subsections (b)(3) and
(c) of section 6; and
(ii) prohibit the export to such country of the persecution
facilitating products identified in the lists issued under
subsections (b)(2) and (c) of section 6; or
(B) the Secretary of State finds the occurrence of category
2 persecution, the Director shall so notify the relevant
United States departments and agencies, and such departments
and agencies shall prohibit the export to such country of the
persecution facilitating products identified in the lists
issued under subsections (b)(2) and (c) of section 6.
(2) Prohibitions on u.s. persons.--(A) With respect to any
country in which the Secretary of State finds the occurrence
of category 1 persecution, no United States person may--
(i) export any item to the responsible entities identified
in the lists issued under subsections (b)(3) and (c) of
section 6; and
(ii) export to that country any persecution facilitating
products identified in the lists issued under subsections
(b)(2) and (c) of section 6.
(B) With respect to any country in which the Secretary of
State finds the occurrence of category 2 persecution, no
United States person may export to that country any
persecution facilitating products identified in the lists
issued under subsections (b)(2) and (c) of section 6.
(3) Penalties.--Any person who knowingly violates the
provisions of paragraph (2) shall be subject to the penalties
set forth in subsections (a) and (b)(1) of section 16 of the
Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 16 (a) and (b)(1))
for violations under that Act.
(4) Effective date of prohibitions.--The prohibitions on
exports under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall take effect with
respect to a country 90 days after the date on which--
(A) the country is identified in a report of the Director
under section 6 as a country in which category 1 or category
2 persecution exists,
(B) responsible entities are identified in that country in
a list issued under subsection (b)(3) or (c) of section 6, or
(C) persecution facilitating products are identified in a
list issued under subsection (b)(2) or (c) of section 6,
as the case may be.
(b) United States Assistance.--
(1) Category 1 persecution.--No United States assistance
may be provided to the government of any country which the
Secretary of State determines is engaged in category 1
persecution, effective 90 days after the date on which the
Director submits the report in which the determination is
included.
(2) Category 2 persecution.--No United States assistance
may be provided to the government of any country in which the
Secretary of State determines that there is category 2
persecution, effective 1 year after the date on which the
Director submits the report in which the determination is
included, if the Secretary of State, in the next annual
report of the Director under section 6, determines that the
country is engaged in category 1 persecution or that category
2 persecution exists in that country.
(c) Multilateral Assistance.--
(1) Category 1 persecution.--With respect to any country
which the Secretary of State determines is engaged in
category 1 persecution, the President shall instruct the
United States Executive Director of each multilateral
development bank and of the International Monetary Fund to
vote against, and use his or her best efforts to deny, any
loan or other utilization of the funds of their respective
institutions to that country (other than for humanitarian
assistance, or for development assistance which directly
addresses basic human needs, is not administered by the
government of the sanctioned country, and confers no benefit
on the government of that country), effective 90 days after
the Director submits the report in which the determination is
included.
(2) Category 2 persecution.--With respect to any country in
which the Secretary of State determines there is category 2
persecution, the President shall instruct the United States
Executive Director of each multilateral development bank and
of the International Monetary Fund to vote against, and use
his or her best efforts to deny, any loan or other
utilization of the funds of their respective institutions to
that country (other than for humanitarian assistance, or for
development assistance which directly addresses basic human
needs, is not administered by the government of the
sanctioned country, and confers no benefit on the government
of that country), effective 1 year after the date on which
the Director submits the report in which the determination is
included, if the Secretary of State, in the next annual
report of the Director under section 6, determines that the
country is engaged in category 1 persecution or that category
2 persecution exists in that country.
(3) Reports to congress.--If a country described in
paragraph (1) or (2) is granted a loan or other utilization
of funds notwithstanding the objection of the United States
under this subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
report to the Congress on the efforts made to deny loans or
other utilization of funds to that country, and shall include
in the report specific and explicit recommendations designed
to ensure that such loans or other utilization of funds are
denied to that country in the future.
(4) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term
``multilateral development bank'' means any of the
multilateral development banks as defined in section
1701(c)(4) of the International Financial Institutions Act
(22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(4)).
(d) Relationship to Other Provisions.--The effective dates
of the sanctions provided in this section are subject to
sections 8 and 11.
(e) Duly Authorized Intelligence Activities.--The
prohibitions and restrictions of this section shall not apply
to the conduct of duly authorized intelligence activities of
the United States Government.
(f) Effect on Existing Contracts.--The imposition of
sanctions under this section shall not affect any contract
that is entered into by the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation before the sanctions are imposed, is in force on
the date on which the sanctions are imposed, and is
enforceable in a court of law on such date.
(g) Effect of Waivers.--Any sanction under this section
shall not take effect during the period after the President
has notified the Congress of a waiver of that sanction under
section 8 and before the waiver has taken effect under that
section.
SEC. 8. WAIVER OF SANCTIONS.
(a) Waiver Authority.--Subject to subsection (b), the
President may waive the imposition of any sanction against a
country under section 7 for periods of not more than 12
months each, if the President, for each waiver--
(1) determines--
(A) that the national security interests of the United
States justify such a waiver; or
(B) that such a waiver will substantially promote the
purposes of this Act as set forth in section 2; and
(2) provides to the Committees on Foreign Relations,
Finance, the Judiciary, and Appropriations of the Senate and
to the Committees on International Relations, the Judiciary,
and Appropriations of the House of Representatives a written
notification of the President's intention to waive any such
sanction.
The notification shall contain an explanation of the reasons
why the President considers the waiver to be necessary, the
type and amount of goods, services, or assistance to be
provided pursuant to the waiver, and the period of time
during which such a waiver will be effective. When the
President considers it appropriate, the explanation under the
preceding sentence, or any part of the explanation, may be
submitted in classified form.
(b) Additional Information.--In the case of a waiver under
subsection (a)(1)(B), the notification shall contain a
detailed statement of the facts particular to the country
subject to the waiver which justifies the
[[Page H3285]]
President's determination, and of the alternative measures
the President intends to implement in order to achieve the
objectives of this Act.
(c) Taking Effect of Waiver.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a waiver under
subsection (a) shall take effect 45 days after its submission
to the Congress, or on the day after the 15th legislative day
after such submission, whichever is later.
(2) In emergency conditions.--The President may waive the
imposition of sanctions against a country under subsection
(b) or (c) of section 7 to take effect immediately if the
President, in the written notification of intention to waive
the sanctions, certifies that emergency conditions exist that
make an immediate waiver necessary.
(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that in
order to achieve the objectives of this Act, the waiver
authority provided in this section should be used only in
extraordinary circumstances.
SEC. 9. MODIFICATION OF IMMIGRATION POLICY.
(a) Inadmissibility of Certain Participants in Religious
Persecution.--
(1) In general.--Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(F) Participants in religious persecution.--Any alien who
carried out or directed the carrying out of category 1
persecution (as defined in section 3 of the Freedom from
Religious Persecution Act of 1998) or category 2 persecution
(as so defined) is inadmissible.''.
(2) Applicability.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to persecution occurring before, on, or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Refugees.--
(1) Guidelines for addressing bias affecting refugees.--Not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State shall
jointly promulgate and implement guidelines for identifying
and addressing improper biases, affecting the treatment of
persons who may be eligible for admission into the United
States as a refugee based upon a claim of persecution or a
well-founded fear of persecution on account of religion, on
the part of--
(A) immigration officers adjudicating applications for
admission as a refugee submitted by such persons and
interpreters assisting immigration officers in adjudicating
such applications; and
(B) individuals and entities assisting in the
identification of such persons and the preparation of such
applications.
(2) Admission priority.--For purposes of section 207(a)(3)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, an individual who is
a member of a persecuted community, and is determined by the
Attorney General to be a refugee within the meaning of
section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
shall be considered a refugee of special humanitarian concern
to the United States. In carrying out such section 207(a)(3),
applicants for refugee status who are members of a persecuted
community shall be given priority status equal to that given
to applicants who are members of other specific groups of
special concern to the United States. This paragraph shall be
construed only to require that members of a persecuted
community be accorded equal consideration in determining
admissions under section 207(a) of such Act, and shall not be
construed to require that any particular individual or group
be admitted under that section.
(3) No effect on others' rights.--Nothing in this section,
or any amendment made by this section, shall be construed to
deny any applicant for asylum or refugee status (including
any applicant who is not a member of a persecuted community
but whose claim is based on race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion) any right, privilege, protection, or eligibility
otherwise provided by law.
(4) No displacement of other refugees.--Refugees admitted
to the United States as a result of the procedures set forth
in this section shall not displace other refugees in need of
resettlement who would otherwise have been admitted in
accordance with existing law and procedures.
(5) Period for public comment and review.--Section 207(d)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, prior
to each annual determination regarding refugee admissions
under this subsection, there shall be a period of public
review and comment, particularly by appropriate
nongovernmental organizations, churches, and other religious
communities and organizations, and the general public.
``(B) Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to apply
subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, to
the period of review and comment referred to in subparagraph
(A).''.
(c) Asylees.--
(1) Guidelines for addressing bias.--Not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Attorney General shall develop and implement guidelines for
identifying and addressing improper biases, affecting the
treatment of persons who may be eligible for asylum in the
United States, based upon a claim of persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of religion, on the
part of immigration officers carrying out functions under
section 208 or 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and
interpreters assisting immigration officers in carrying out
such functions.
(2) Studies of effect of expedited removal provisions on
asylum claims.--
(A) Studies.--
(i) Participation by united nations high commissioner for
refugees.--The Attorney General shall invite the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to conduct a study,
alone or in cooperation with the Comptroller General of the
United States (as determined in the discretion of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), to determine whether
immigration officers described in clause (ii) are engaging in
any of the conduct described in such clause.
(ii) Duties of comptroller general.--The Comptroller
General of the United States shall conduct a study, alone or,
upon request by the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, in cooperation with the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, to determine whether immigration
officers performing duties under section 235(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to aliens who
may be eligible to be granted asylum are engaging in any of
the following conduct:
(I) Improperly encouraging such aliens to withdraw their
applications for admission.
(II) Incorrectly failing to refer such aliens for an
interview by an asylum officer for a determination of whether
they have a credible fear of persecution (within the meaning
of section 235(b)(1)(B)(v) of such Act).
(III) Incorrectly removing such aliens to a country where
they may be persecuted.
(IV) Detaining such aliens improperly or in inappropriate
conditions.
(B) Reports.--
(i) Participation by united nations high commissioner for
refugees.--The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
may submit to the committees described in clause (ii) a
report containing the results of a study conducted under
subparagraph (A)(i) or, if the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees elected to participate in the study
conducted under subparagraph (A)(ii), may submit with the
Comptroller General of the United States a report under
clause (ii).
(ii) Duties of comptroller general.--Not later than
September 30, 1999, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives, and
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report
containing the results of the study conducted under
subparagraph (A)(ii). If the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees requests to participate with the Comptroller
General in the preparation and submission of the report, the
Comptroller General shall grant the request.
(C) Access to proceedings.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), to
facilitate the studies and reports, the Attorney General
shall permit the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees and the Comptroller General of the United States to
have unrestricted access to all stages of all proceedings
conducted under section 235(b).
(ii) Exceptions.--Clause (i) shall not apply in cases in
which the alien objects to such access, or the Attorney
General determines that the security of a particular
proceeding would be threatened by such access, so long as any
restrictions on the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees' access under this subparagraph do not contravene
international law.
(D) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this
paragraph not to exceed $1,000,000 to the Attorney General
(for a United States contribution to the Office of the United
Nations High Commission for Refugees for the activities of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees under this
paragraph) and not to exceed $1,000,000 to the Comptroller
General of the United States.
(d) Training.--
(1) Training on religious persecution.--The Attorney
General shall provide training regarding religious
persecution to all immigration officers and immigration
judges adjudicating applications for admission as a refugee
or asylum applications, including--
(A) country-specific instruction on the practices and
beliefs of religious groups, and on the methods of
governmental and nongovernmental persecution employed on
account of religious practices and beliefs; and
(B) other relevant information contained in the most recent
annual report submitted by the Director to the Congress under
section 6.
(2) Instruction by nongovernmental experts.--It is the
sense of the Congress that the Attorney General, in carrying
out paragraph (1)(A), should include in the training under
the paragraph, where practicable, instruction by
nongovernmental experts on religious persecution.
(3) Training for immigration officers adjudicating refugee
applications.--Section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1157) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) The Attorney General shall provide training in
country conditions, refugee law, and interview techniques,
comparable to that provided to full-time adjudicators of
applications under section 208, to all immigration officers
adjudicating applications for admission as a refugee under
this section.''.
[[Page H3286]]
(e) Reporting.--Not later than March 30 of each year, the
Attorney General shall provide to the Director, for inclusion
in the Director's annual report under section 6(b)(4), a
report containing the following:
(1) With respect to the year that is the subject of the
report, the number of applicants for asylum or refugee status
whose applications were based, in whole or in part, on
religious persecution.
(2) In the case of such applications, the number that were
proposed to be denied, and the number that were finally
denied.
(3) In the case of such applications, the number that were
granted.
(4) A description of other developments with respect to the
adjudication of applications for asylum or refugee status
that were based, in whole or in part, on religious
persecution.
(5) A description of the training conducted for immigration
officers and immigration judges under subsection (d)(1),
including a list of speakers and materials used in such
training and the number of immigration officers and
immigration judges who received such training.
(6) A description of the development and implementation of
anti-bias guidelines under subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1).
SEC. 10. STATE DEPARTMENT HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTS.
(a) Annual Human Rights Report.--In preparing the annual
reports of the State Department on human rights under
sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d) and 2304(b)), the Secretary of State
shall, in the section on religious freedom--
(1) consider the facts and circumstances of the violation
of the right to freedom of religion presented by independent
human rights groups and nongovernmental organizations;
(2) report on the extent of the violations of the right to
freedom of religion, specifically including whether the
violations arise from governmental or nongovernmental
sources, and whether the violations are encouraged by the
government or whether the government fails to exercise
satisfactory efforts to control such violations;
(3) report on whether freedom of religion violations occur
on a nationwide, regional, or local level; and
(4) identify whether the violations are focused on an
entire religion or on certain denominations or sects.
(b) Training.--The Secretary of State shall--
(1) institute programs to provide training for chiefs of
mission as well as Department of State officials having
reporting responsibilities regarding the freedom of religion,
which shall include training on--
(A) the fundamental components of the right to freedom of
religion, the variation in beliefs of religious groups, and
the governmental and nongovernmental methods used in the
violation of the right to freedom of religion; and
(B) the identification of independent human rights groups
and nongovernmental organizations with expertise in the
matters described in subparagraph (A); and
(2) submit to the Director, not later than January 1 of
each year, a report describing all training provided to
Department of State officials with respect to religious
persecution during the preceding 1-year period, including a
list of instructors and materials used in such training and
the number and rank of individuals who received such
training.
SEC. 11. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.
(a) Termination.--The sanctions described in section 7
shall cease to apply with respect to a sanctioned country 45
days, or the day after the 15th legislative day, whichever is
later, after the Director, in an annual report described in
section 6(b), does not include a determination by the
Secretary of State that the sanctioned country is among those
in which category 1 or category 2 persecution continues to
exist, or in an interim report under section 6(c), includes a
determination by the Secretary of State that neither category
1 nor category 2 persecution exists in such country.
(b) Withdrawal of Finding.--Any determination of the
Secretary of State under section 5(g) may be withdrawn before
taking effect if the Secretary makes a written determination,
on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence, that the
country substantially eliminated any category 1 or category 2
persecution that existed in that country. The Director shall
submit to the Congress each determination under this
subsection.
SEC. 12. SANCTIONS AGAINST SUDAN.
(a) Extension of Sanctions Under Existing Law.--Any
sanction imposed on Sudan because of a determination that the
government of that country has provided support for acts of
international terrorism, including--
(1) export controls imposed pursuant to the Export
Administration Act of 1979;
(2) prohibitions on transfers of munitions under section 40
of the Arms Export Control Act;
(3) the prohibition on assistance under section 620A of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
(4) section 2327(b) of title 10, United States Code;
(5) section 6 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act
Amendments, 1978 (22 U.S.C. 286e-11); and
(6) section 527 of the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1998 (as
contained in Public Law 105-118);
shall continue in effect after the enactment of this Act
until the Secretary of State determines that Sudan has
substantially eliminated religious persecution in that
country, or the determination that the government of that
country has provided support for acts of international
terrorism is no longer in effect, whichever occurs later.
(b) Additional Sanctions on Sudan.--Effective 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the following
sanctions (to the extent not covered under subsection (a))
shall apply with respect to Sudan:
(1) Prohibition on financial transactions with government
of sudan.--
(A) Offense.--Any United States person who knowingly
engages in any financial transaction, including any loan or
other extension of credit, directly or indirectly, with the
Government of Sudan shall be fined in accordance with title
18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 10
years, or both.
(B) Definitions.--As used in this paragraph:
(i) Financial transaction.--The term ``financial
transaction'' has the meaning given that term in section
1956(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code.
(ii) United states person.--The term ``United States
person'' means--
(I) any United States citizen or national;
(II) any alien lawfully admitted into the United States for
permanent residence;
(III) any juridical person organized under the laws of the
United States; and
(IV) any person in the United States.
(2) Prohibitions on united states exports to sudan.--
(A) Prohibition on computer exports.--No computers,
computer software, or goods or technology intended to
manufacture or service computers may be exported to or for
use of the Government of Sudan.
(B) Regulations of the secretary of commerce.--The
Secretary of Commerce may prescribe such regulations as may
be necessary to carry out subparagraph (A).
(C) Penalties.--Any person who violates this paragraph
shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 11 of
the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2410)
for violations under that Act.
(3) Prohibition on new investment in sudan.--
(A) Prohibition.--No United States person may, directly or
through another person, make any new investment in Sudan that
is not prohibited by paragraph (1).
(B) Regulations.--The Secretary of Commerce may prescribe
such regulations as may be necessary to carry out
subparagraph (A).
(C) Penalties.--Any person who violates this paragraph
shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 11 of
the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2410)
for violations under that Act.
(4) Aviation rights.--
(A) Air transportation rights.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall prohibit any aircraft of a foreign air
carrier owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the
Government of Sudan or operating pursuant to a contract with
the Government of Sudan from engaging in air transportation
with respect to the United States, except that such aircraft
shall be allowed to land in the event of an emergency for
which the safety of an aircraft's crew or passengers is
threatened.
(B) Takeoffs and landings.--The Secretary of Transportation
shall prohibit the takeoff and landing in Sudan of any
aircraft by an air carrier owned, directly or indirectly, or
controlled by a United States person, except that such
aircraft shall be allowed to land in the event of an
emergency for which the safety of an aircraft's crew or
passengers is threatened, or for humanitarian purposes.
(C) Termination of air service agreements.--To carry out
subparagraphs (A) and (B), the Secretary of State shall
terminate any agreement between the Government of Sudan and
the Government of the United States relating to air services
between their respective territories.
(D) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the terms
``aircraft'', ``air transportation'', and ``foreign air
carrier'' have the meanings given those terms in section
40102 of title 49, United States Code.
(5) Prohibition on promotion of united states tourism.--
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by
any provision of law may be available to promote United
States tourism in Sudan.
(6) Government of sudan bank accounts.--
(A) Prohibition.--A United States depository institution
may not accept, receive, or hold a deposit account from the
Government of Sudan, except for such accounts which may be
authorized by the President for diplomatic or consular
purposes.
(B) Annual reports.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
submit annual reports to the Congress on the nature and
extent of assets held in the United States by the Government
of Sudan.
(C) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
``depository institution'' has the meaning given that term in
section 19(b)(1) of the Act of December 23, 1913 (12 U.S.C.
461(b)(1)).
(7) Prohibition on united states government procurement
from sudan.--
(A) Prohibition.--No department, agency, or any other
entity of the United States Government may enter into a
contract for the
[[Page H3287]]
procurement of goods or services from parastatal
organizations of Sudan, except for items necessary for
diplomatic or consular purposes.
(B) Definition.--As used in this paragraph, the term
``parastatal organization of Sudan'' means a corporation,
partnership, or entity owned, controlled, or subsidized by
the Government of Sudan.
(8) Prohibition on united states appropriations for use as
investments in or trade subsidies for sudan.--None of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any
provision of law may be available for any new investment in,
or any subsidy for trade with, Sudan, including funding for
trade missions in Sudan and for participation in exhibitions
and trade fairs in Sudan.
(9) Prohibition on cooperation with armed forces of
sudan.--No agency or entity of the United States may engage
in any form of cooperation, direct or indirect, with the
armed forces of Sudan, except for activities which are
reasonably necessary to facilitate the collection of
necessary intelligence. Each such activity shall be
considered as significant anticipated intelligence activity
for purposes of section 501 of the National Security Act of
1947 (50 U.S.C. 413).
(10) Prohibition on cooperation with intelligence services
of sudan.--
(A) Sanction.--No agency or entity of the United States
involved in intelligence activities may engage in any form of
cooperation, direct or indirect, with the Government of
Sudan, except for activities which are reasonably designed to
facilitate the collection of necessary intelligence.
(B) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States that no
agency or entity of the United States involved in
intelligence activities may provide any intelligence
information to the Government of Sudan which pertains to any
internal group within Sudan. Any change in such policy or any
provision of intelligence information contrary to this policy
shall be considered a significant anticipated intelligence
activity for purposes of section 501 of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413).
The sanctions described in this subsection shall apply until
the Secretary of State determines that Sudan has
substantially eliminated religious persecution in that
country.
(c) Multilateral Efforts To End Religious Persecution in
Sudan.--
(1) Efforts to obtain multilateral measures against
sudan.--It is the policy of the United States to seek an
international agreement with the other industrialized
democracies to bring about an end to religious persecution by
the Government of Sudan. The net economic effect of such
international agreement should be measurably greater than the
net economic effect of the other measures imposed by this
section.
(2) Commencement of negotiations to initiate multilateral
sanctions against sudan.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the President or, at his direction, the Secretary of
State should convene an international conference of the
industrialized democracies in order to reach an international
agreement to bring about an end to religious persecution in
Sudan. The international conference should begin promptly and
should be concluded not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(3) Presidential report.--Not less than 210 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit
to the Congress a report containing--
(A) a description of efforts by the United States to
negotiate multilateral measures to bring about an end to
religious persecution in Sudan; and
(B) a detailed description of economic and other measures
adopted by the other industrialized countries to bring about
an end to religious persecution in Sudan, including an
assessment of the stringency with which such measures are
enforced by those countries.
(4) Conformity of united states measures to international
agreement.--If the President successfully concludes an
international agreement described in paragraph (2), the
President may, after such agreement enters into force with
respect to the United States, adjust, modify, or otherwise
amend the measures imposed under any provision of this
section to conform with such agreement.
(5) Procedures for agreement to enter into force.--Each
agreement submitted to the Congress under this subsection
shall enter into force with respect to the United States if--
(A) the President, not less than 30 days before the day on
which the President enters into such agreement, notifies the
House of Representatives and the Senate of the President's
intention to enter into such an agreement, and promptly
thereafter publishes notice of such intention in the Federal
Register;
(B) after entering into the agreement, the President
transmits to the House of Representatives and to the Senate a
document containing a copy of the final text of such
agreement, together with--
(i) a description of any administrative action proposed to
implement such agreement and an explanation as to how the
proposed administrative action would change or affect
existing law; and
(ii) a statement of the President's reasons regarding--
(I) how the agreement serves the interest of United States
foreign policy; and
(II) why the proposed administrative action is required or
appropriate to carry out the agreement; and
(C) a joint resolution approving such agreement has been
enacted.
(6) United nations security council imposition of same
measures against sudan.--It is the sense of the Congress that
the President should instruct the Permanent Representative of
the United States to the United Nations to propose that the
United Nations Security Council, pursuant to Article 41 of
the United Nations Charter, impose measures against Sudan of
the same type as are imposed by this section.
(d) Additional Measures and Reports; Recommendations of the
President.--
(1) United states policy to end religious persecution.--It
shall be the policy of the United States to impose additional
measures against the Government of Sudan if its policy of
religious persecution has not ended on or before December 25,
1998.
(2) Report to congress.--The Director shall prepare and
transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and
the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate on or before February 1, 1999, and every 12 months
thereafter, a report containing a determination by the
Secretary of State of whether the policy of religious
persecution by the Government of Sudan has ended.
(3) Recommendation for imposition of additional measures.--
If the Secretary of State determines that the policy of
religious persecution by the Government of Sudan has not
ended, the President shall prepare and transmit to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on or before
March 1, 1999, and every 12 months thereafter, a report
setting forth such recommendations for such additional
measures and actions against the Government of Sudan as will
end that government's policy of religious persecution.
(e) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) Government of sudan.--The term ``Government of Sudan''
includes any agency or instrumentality of the Government of
Sudan.
(2) New investment in sudan.--The term ``new investment in
Sudan''--
(A) means--
(i) a commitment or contribution of funds or other assets,
or
(ii) a loan or other extension of credit,
that is made on or after the effective date of this
subsection; and
(B) does not include--
(i) the reinvestment of profits generated by a controlled
Sudanese entity into that same controlled Sudanese entity, or
the investment of such profits in a Sudanese entity;
(ii) contributions of money or other assets where such
contributions are necessary to enable a controlled Sudanese
entity to operate in an economically sound manner, without
expanding its operations; or
(iii) the ownership or control of a share or interest in a
Sudanese entity or a controlled Sudanese entity or a debt or
equity security issued by the Government of Sudan or a
Sudanese entity before the date of the enactment of this Act,
or the transfer or acquisition of such a share or interest,
or debt or equity security, if any such transfer or
acquisition does not result in a payment, contribution of
funds or assets, or credit to a Sudanese entity, a controlled
Sudanese entity, or the Government of Sudan.
(3) Controlled sudanese entity.--The term ``controlled
Sudanese entity'' means--
(A) a corporation, partnership, or other business
association or entity organized in Sudan and owned or
controlled, directly or indirectly, by a United States
person; or
(B) a branch, office, agency, or sole proprietorship in
Sudan of a United States person.
(4) Sudanese entity.--The term ``Sudanese entity'' means--
(A) a corporation, partnership, or other business
association or entity organized in Sudan; or
(B) a branch, office, agency, or sole proprietorship in
Sudan of a person that resides or is organized outside Sudan.
(5) Sudan.--The term ``Sudan'' means any area controlled by
the Government of Sudan or by any entity allied with the
Government of Sudan, and does not include any area in which
effective control is exercised by an entity engaged in active
resistance to the Government of Sudan.
(f) Waiver Authority.--The President may waive the
imposition of any sanction against Sudan under paragraph (2)
or (8) of subsection (b) of this section for periods of not
more than 12 months each, if the President, for each waiver--
(1) determines that the national security interests of the
United States justify such a waiver; and
(2) provides to the Committees on Foreign Relations,
Finance, the Judiciary, and Appropriations of the Senate and
to the Committees on International Relations, the Judiciary,
and Appropriations of the House of Representatives a written
notification of the President's intention to waive any such
sanction.
The notification shall contain an explanation of the reasons
why the President considers the waiver to be necessary, the
type and amount of goods, services, or assistance to be
provided pursuant to the waiver, and the period of time
during which such a waiver will be effective. When the
President considers it appropriate, the explanation under
[[Page H3288]]
the preceding sentence, or any part of the explanation, may
be submitted in classified form.
(g) Duly Authorized Intelligence Activities.--The
prohibitions and restrictions contained in paragraphs (1),
(2), (3), and (7) of subsection (b) shall not apply to the
conduct of duly authorized intelligence activities of the
United States Government.
SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), this
Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 120
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Appointment of Director.--The Director shall be
appointed not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(c) Regulations.--Each Federal department or agency
responsible for carrying out any of the sanctions under
section 7 shall issue all necessary regulations to carry out
such sanctions within 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute is in order unless printed in part 2 of that report. Each
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to
a demand for a division of the question.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in part 2 of
House Report 105-534.
Amendment No. 1 Offered By Mr. Brady
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Brady:
Page 14, line 9, strike ``and''.
Page 14, line 10, insert ``, and transmit a copy of the
report to the Commission on International Religious
Persecution established under section 14'' before the period.
Page 24, line 2 insert ``, the Trade and Development
Agency, or the Export Import Bank of the United States''
after ``Corporation''.
Insert the following after section 12 and redesignate the
succeeding section accordingly:
SEC. 13. PROMOTION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
(a) Establishment of a Religious Freedom Internet Site.--In
order to facilitate access by nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) and by the public around the world to international
documents on the protection of religious freedom, the
Director shall establish and maintain an Internet site
containing major international documents relating to
religious freedom, each annual report submitted under section
6, and any other documentation or references to other sites
as deemed appropriate or relevant by the Director.
(b) Training for Foreign Service Officers.--Chapter 7 of
title I of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 708. TRAINING FOR FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS.
``The Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of
Religious Persecution Monitoring established under section 5
of the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1998, acting
jointly, shall establish as part of the standard training for
officers of the Service, including chiefs of mission,
instruction in the field of internationally recognized human
rights. Such instruction shall include--
``(1) standards for proficiency in the knowledge of
international documents and United States policy in human
rights, and shall be mandatory for all members of the Service
having reporting responsibilities relating to human rights,
and for chiefs of mission; and
``(2) instruction on the international right to freedom of
religion, the nature, activities, and beliefs of different
religions, and the various aspects and manifestations of
religious persecution.''.
(c) High-level Contacts with NGOS.--United States chiefs of
mission shall seek out and contact religious nongovernmental
organizations to provide high-level meetings with religious
nongovernmental organizations where appropriate and
beneficial. United States chiefs of mission and Foreign
Service officers abroad shall seek to meet with imprisoned
religious leaders where appropriate and beneficial.
(d) Programs and Allocations of Funds by United States
Missions Abroad.--It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) United States diplomatic missions in countries the
governments of which engage in or tolerate religious
persecution should develop, as part of annual program
planning, a strategy to promote the respect of the
internationally recognized right to freedom of religion; and
(2) in allocating or recommending the allocation of funds
or the recommendation of candidates for programs and grants
funded by the United States Government, United States
diplomatic missions should give particular consideration to
those programs and candidates deemed to assist in the
promotion of the right to religious freedom.
(e) Equal Access to United States Missions Abroad For
Conducting Religious Activities.--
(1) In general.--Subject to this subsection, the Secretary
of State shall permit, on terms no less favorable than that
accorded other nongovernmental activities, access to the
premises of any United States diplomatic mission or consular
post by any United States citizen seeking to conduct an
activity for religious purposes.
(2) Timing and location.--The Secretary of State shall make
reasonable accommodations with respect to the timing and
location of such access in light of--
(A) the number of United States citizens requesting the
access (including any particular religious concerns regarding
the time of day, date, or physical setting for services);
(B) conflicts with official activities and other
nonofficial United States citizen requests;
(C) the availability of openly conducted, organized
religious services outside the premises of the mission or
post; and
(D) necessary security precautions.
(3) Discretionary access for foreign nationals.--The
Secretary of State may permit access to the premises of a
United States diplomatic mission or consular post to foreign
nationals for the purpose of attending or participating in
religious activities conducted pursuant to this Act.
(f) Prisoner Lists and Issue Briefs on Religious
Persecution Concerns.--
(1) Sense of congress.--To encourage involvement with
religious persecution concerns at every possible opportunity
and by all appropriate representatives of the United States
Government, it is the sense of the Congress that officials of
the executive branch of the United States Government should
promote increased advocacy on such issues during meetings
between executive branch and congressional leaders and
foreign dignitaries.
(2) Religious persecution prisoner lists and issue
briefs.--The Secretary of State, in consultation with United
States chiefs of mission abroad, regional experts, the
Director, and nongovernmental human rights and religious
groups, shall prepare and maintain issue briefs on religious
freedom, on a country-by-country basis, consisting of lists
of persons believed to be imprisoned for their religious
faith, together with brief evaluations and critiques of
policies of the respective country restricting religious
freedom. The Secretary of State shall exercise appropriate
discretion regarding the safety and security concerns of
prisoners in considering the inclusion of their names on the
lists.
(3) Availability of information.--The Secretary of State
shall provide these religious freedom issue briefs to
executive branch and congressional officials and delegations
in anticipation of bilateral contacts with foreign leaders,
both in the United States and abroad.
(g) Assistance for Promoting Religious Freedom.--
(1) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(A) In many nations where severe violations of religious
freedom occur, there is not sufficient statutory legal
protection for religious minorities or there is not
sufficient cultural and social understanding of international
norms of religious freedom.
(B) Accordingly, in its foreign assistance already being
disbursed, the United States should make a priority of
promoting and developing legal protections and cultural
respect for religious freedom.
(2) Allocation of funds for increased promotion of
religious freedoms.--Section 116(e) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 is amended by inserting ``and the right to free
religious belief and practice'' after ``adherence to civil
and political rights''.
(h) International Broadcasting.--
(1) Section 302(1) of the United States International
Broadcasting Act of 1994 is amended by inserting ``and of
conscience (including freedom of religion)'' after ``freedom
of opinion and expression''.
(2) Section 303(a) of the United States International
Broadcasting Act of 1994 is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) promote respect for human rights, including freedom
of religion.''.
(i) International Exchanges.--Section 102(b) of the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after paragraph (10);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (11) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(12) promoting respect for and guarantees of religious
freedom abroad by interchanges and visits between the United
States and other nations of religious leaders, scholars, and
religious and legal experts in the field of religious
freedom.''.
(j) Foreign Service Awards.--
(1) Performance pay.--Section 405(d) of the Foreign Service
Act of 1980 is amended by inserting after the first sentence
the following: ``Such service in the promotion of
internationally recognized human rights, including the right
to religious freedom, shall serve as a basis for granting
awards under this section.''.
(2) Foreign service awards.--Section 614 of the Foreign
Service Act of 1980 is amended
[[Page H3289]]
by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Distinguished, meritorious service in the promotion of
internationally recognized human rights, including the right
to religious freedom, shall serve as a basis for granting
awards under this section.''.
SEC. 14. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.
(a) Establishment and Composition.--
(1) Generally.--There is established the United States
Commission on International Religious Persecution
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Commission'').
(2) Membership.--
(A) Appointment.--The Commission shall be composed of--
(i) the Director; and
(ii) 4 other members, who shall be appointed as follows:
(I) 2 Senators, 1 of whom shall be appointed by the
President pro tempore of the Senate upon the recommendations
of the Majority Leader, and 1 of whom shall be appointed by
the Minority Leader.
(III) 2 Members of the House of Representatives, 1 of whom
shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives upon the recommendations of the Majority
Leader, and 1 of whom shall be appointed by the Minority
Leader.
(B) Chair.--The Commission shall elect one of its members
as chair.
(C) Time of appointment.--The appointments required by
subparagraph (A) shall be made not later than 120 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) Terms.--The term of office of each member of the
Commission shall be 2 years, except that an individual may
not serve more than 2 terms.
(4) Quorum.--Three members of the Commission constitute a
quorum of the Commission.
(5) Meetings.--Not more than 15 days after the issuance of
an annual report under section 6, the Commission shall
convene.
(6) Administrative support.--The Director shall provide to
the Commission such staff and administrative services of the
Office as may be necessary for the Commission to perform its
functions. The Secretary of State shall assist the Director
and the Commission by detailing staff resources as needed and
as appropriate.
(7) Compensation.--
(A) Travel expenses.--Members of the Commission shall
receive no pay for services performed as such a member, but
shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu
of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(B) No compensation for government employees.--Any member
of the Commission who is an officer or employee of the United
States shall receive no additional compensation for services
performed as a member of the Commission.
(b) Duties of the Commission.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall have as its primary
responsibility the consideration of the facts and
circumstances of category 1 or category 2 persecution
presented in each annual report issued under section 6 and
the consideration of United States Government policies to
promote religious freedom and prevent religious persecution,
and to make appropriate policy recommendations to the
President, the Secretary of State, and the Congress.
(2) Policy review and recommendations in response to
violations.--The Commission, in evaluating United States
Government policies, shall consider and recommend policy
options to further enhance the effectiveness of sanctions
related to religious persecution and human rights.
(3) Policy review and recommendations in response to
progress.--The Commission shall make and provide an
assessment of--
(A) the progress of sanctions imposed under section 7 on a
country or responsible entity toward achieving termination of
religious persecution, as well as the potential deterrence of
religious persecution as a result of this Act in countries on
which sanctions have not been imposed under this Act;
(B) diplomatic and other steps the United States has taken
or should take to further accomplish the intended objectives
of the sanctions, including the promotion of multilateral
adoption of comparable measures;
(C) comparable measures undertaken by other countries;
(D) additional policy options to promote the objectives of
this Act and an assessment of their potential effectiveness;
(E) any obligations of the United States under
international treaties or trade agreements with which
sanctions imposed under section 7 have conflicted or proposed
policy options under paragraph (2) may conflict;
(F) any retaliation resulting from sanctions imposed under
section 7 and the likelihood that a proposed policy option
under paragraph (2) will lead to retaliation against United
States interests, including agricultural interests; and
(G) the estimated impact from sanctions imposed under
section 7 and proposed policy options under paragraph (2) on
United States foreign policy, national security, economic,
and humanitarian interests, including benefit or harm to
United States businesses, agriculture, and consumers, the
competitiveness of United States businesses, and the
international reputation of the United States as a reliable
supplier of products, technology, agricultural commodities,
and services.
(4) Effects on religious communities and individuals.--
Together with specific policy recommendations provided under
paragraphs (2) and (3), the Commission shall also indicate
its evaluation of the potential effects of such policies, if
implemented, on the religious communities and individuals
whose rights are found to be violated in the country in
question.
(5) Monitoring.--The Commission shall, on an ongoing basis,
monitor facts and circumstances of religious persecution, in
consultation with independent human rights groups and
nongovernmental organizations, including churches and other
religious communities, and make such recommendations as may
be necessary to the appropriate agencies and officials of the
United States Government.
(c) Report of the Commission.--
(1) In general.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the
Commission shall submit a report to the President and the
Congress setting forth its recommendations for changes in
United States policy based on its evaluations under
subsection (b).
(2) Classified form of report.--The report may be submitted
in classified form, together with a public summary of
recommendations.
(3) Individual or dissenting views.--Each member of the
Commission may include the individual or dissenting views of
the member.
(d) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 8 years
after the initial appointment of its members.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 430, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, America has never run from taking a stand on injustice
in this world. It is not in our history, it is not in our heart. I know
that the right to freedom of religion is under assault, renewed
assault, throughout the world. Religious believers in many countries
face severe forms of persecution, torture, beatings, rape, slavery and
death for their peaceful beliefs.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that we take a stand, not simply
denounce, but take a stand. So I appreciate the author of this bill,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the leadership of the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), in bringing this dialogue and
bill to the floor.
The goal of my amendment is simple, to strengthen the impact of the
act, to provide more tools to fight religious persecution, to enhance
the accountability and heighten a year-round profile in the fight
against religious persecution.
Specifically, this amendment provides more tools, among them
establishment of a religious freedom Internet site, expanded
international broadcasting, publication of religious prisoner lists,
training for foreign service officers and equal access to U.S. missions
abroad.
The amendment also expands contract sanctity and establishes a five
member U.S. Commission on International Religious Persecution, four
Members of Congress and the new director, to promote accountability, to
evaluate the progress, to tell us how we are doing and what we can do
to do it better, to report on efforts to secure multilateral
cooperation, to put more pressure on these sanctioned countries and
entities, to identify how America is being retaliated against, to
assess the impact on American jobs and interests, and make
recommendations to Congress on how we can further effectively act to
end religious persecution around this globe.
Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady). While the gentleman from Texas
may be one of the most junior members of our Committee on International
Relations, he is one of the most significant, and a key participant in
our committee's deliberations on this bill and many other policy
initiatives. The gentleman has offered many helpful suggestions along
the way, and has demonstrated over and over again his commitment to the
struggle against religious persecution, and I deeply, deeply, respect
him.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) today
makes further positive contribution to
[[Page H3290]]
the bill, and enhances the bill, as he pointed out, in a variety of
ways.
I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for his work on behalf
of this legislation and his very constructive amendment, and I do urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition at this time to the amendment,
but I wish to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for
attempting to improve this bill. I know that Mr. Brady has worked
diligently, and I compliment him on his efforts.
The gentleman's amendment contains a number of useful provisions. I
do not think these provisions have been as carefully examined as we
would like, and, in my view, they do not work well within the context
of H.R. 2431. So while at this time I withdraw any of those
reservations and will not oppose the efforts of the gentleman, I did at
least want to register the reservation, in the hopes that we will
continue in the effort to improve this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis.)
(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Brady.) I would like to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) for his important work crafting this important bill to protect
fundamental human rights.
I support this bill because it sends a clear message that the United
States supports freedom of religion and human rights worldwide. The
bill also contains language I offered to stop the religious persecution
of Orthodox Christians in Turkey. The Ecumenical Patriarchate in
Istanbul, Turkey, is the spiritual center for nearly 300 million
Orthodox Christians worldwide, including 5 million in the United
States. It has repeatedly been the target of attacks which have
resulted in the deaths of its personnel.
The latest act of violence against the Patriarchate came in December
1997, just months after Congress awarded the Congressional Gold Medal
to Patriarch Bartholomew. When he accepted the Congressional Gold Medal
last year, the Patriarch emphasized that the Orthodox Church: ``May be
opposed, but opposes no one; may be persecuted, but does not persecute;
is fettered, but chains no one; is derived of her freedom, but does not
trample on the freedom of others.''
It is incumbent upon us as leaders of the greatest democratic
republic in the world, a Nation founded on the free exercise of
religion, to ensure that the Patriarchate is free to carry out its non-
political religious mission.
My language urges the United States to use its influence with the
Turkish government to protect the Patriarch, the Patriarchate
personnel, and all Orthodox faithful residing in Turkey. It also
requires the administration to reported to Congress annually on the
status of its efforts to achieve these goals.
H.R. 2431 states: ``Governments have a primary responsibility to
promote, encourage and protect respect for the fundamental and
internationally recognized right to freedom of religion.''
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Brady).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed
in part 2 of House Report 105-534.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
Page 15, line 4, insert the following after line 4:
(7) In consultation with the Secretary of State, make
policy recommendations to the President that would make a
priority of promoting and developing legal protections and
cultural respect for religious freedom, including by--
(A) ensuring that funds made available for development
assistance are used, among other things, to encourage and
promote increased adherence to the right to free religious
belief and practice;
(B) ensuring that United States international broadcasting
is designed to promote respect for human rights, including
freedom of religion, among other broadcasting goals; and
(C) ensuring that United States cultural and educational
exchanges promote, among other goals, respect for and
guarantees of religious freedom abroad, including through
interchanges and visits between the United States and other
countries of religious leaders, scholars, and religious and
legal experts in the field of religious freedom.
(8) Assist the Secretary of State in establishing a program
of granting awards to members of the Foreign Service who have
provided distinguished, meritorious service in the promotion
of internationally recognized human rights, including the
right to religious freedom.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 430, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the bill in committee for a number of reasons,
none of which have been addressed by the legislative process up to this
point.
One of my key concerns is that this bill takes a negative approach to
trying to solve a very, very complex issue. That is why I offer this
amendment, which would institute positive incentives to promote
religious freedom.
The amendment would authorize the director to weigh in on policy
decisions that promote and develop legal protections and cultural
respect for religious freedom in several United States programs. This
does not mean increasing program costs. It does, however, mean that the
current programs attempt to do something to alleviate religious
persecution.
The Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom
Abroad has recommended that the Secretary promote a greater awareness
of religious freedom in United States development programs in the
broadcast of Radio Asia and the other radio services throughout the
world, and in our culture and educational exchanges. The amendment
follows through on these very productive suggestions.
The amendment would also reinforce United States Embassies' promotion
of religious freedom by rewarding diplomats who have made valuable
contributions to international human rights efforts, including the
right to religious freedom. I hope and expect this amendment to get
unanimous support from my colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, while I seek to improve the bill, I must continue to
point to two of the very serious concerns with the heart of the bill.
First, this bill, in my view, will not help those who suffer from
religious persecution, and risks harm to the very communities it seeks
to protect. Religious minorities in countries likely to be targeted
under this bill fear that they will be blamed and they will suffer for
the imposition of U.S. sanctions on their countries.
This was the concern raised by Dr. Youssef Boutros-Ghali, a Coptic
Christian and Egypt's Minister of Economy, and by Reverend Joseph
Pattiasina, the General Secretary of the Communion of Churches in
Indonesia, who said the bill will jeopardize the relationship between
the Christians and Islam.
Second, the mandatory automatic sanctions, although that has been
modified in many respects, restricts the President's ability to manage
the full range of United States national interests, including securing
peace and security, economic prosperity, and even protection of other
human rights.
A determination of religious persecution against any country would
automatically trigger a fixed set of assistance and trade sanctions. No
other U.S. interest could be considered in a decision of whether or not
to impose such sanctions. This bill forces the United States to use a
single, inflexible preemptory unilateral weapon, sanctions,
[[Page H3291]]
to address issues of immense complexity and scope.
Many countries would be exposed to sanctions under this bill,
including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan and India. As
pointed out by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), we have
several national security interests in these countries, heightened only
more by the events in the world today, the Middle East peace process,
secure oil supplies, nonproliferation, and peace and stability in Asia.
These countries buy American products. Sanctions mandated by this bill
can and will surely harm some of these interests.
While H.R. 24312 is well-intentioned, it is harmful to American
national interests and counterproductive to our shared goal of ending
religious persecution. My amendment strengthens this bill, and I urge
its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the
amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time, since nobody
seems to be opposed.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the distinguished member of our
Committee on International Relations for his amendment. I strongly urge
its adoption.
The amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) expands
the responsibilities of the director of the new Office of Religious
Persecution Monitoring in several ways. The net effect would be to give
the director a role in advising the President and the Secretary of
State on additional steps that the United States can take to advance
religious freedom around the world, including in such areas as
international broadcasting and international exchanges in personnel
incentives for State Department employees.
Just to respond, and not to get back to general debate, but the
gentleman from Florida raised a couple of issues against the bill. I do
hope Members will realize that there is a very generous waiver
provision, I think perhaps it is too generous, but it does provide for
national security concerns. Also under the provisions of the bill, the
sanctions can be waived if the President believes that it would
substantially promote the purposes of this act.
It is about time we took religious freedom seriously. This
legislation does so.
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) earlier in the debate
talked about the beheadings going on in Saudi Arabia. Usually they
occur when somebody converts from being a Muslim to Christianity.
That is serious stuff. If we are going to look askance and act
indifferent or raise our voice with nothing behind it, those beheadings
will continue. But we must say very clearly and unambiguously that
beheading people is something out of bounds and is truly egregious
behavior, and certainly it is violative of all of the UN conventions,
including the Declaration on Intolerance on Religion.
{time} 1330
And so the stories need to conform, as do others, to these
internationally recognized norms, and beheadings certainly are totally
out of bounds, as is any other form of torture.
Mr. Chairman, I hope Members will support the bill, and again, I
think this is a good amendment and I support it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to
thank my good friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 415,
noes 3, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 154]
AYES--415
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H3292]]
NOES--3
Chenoweth
Johnson (WI)
Paul
NOT VOTING--14
Bateman
Cannon
Fowler
Gonzalez
Harman
Hefner
Lewis (CA)
Quinn
Riggs
Skaggs
Souder
Torres
Traficant
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1351
Mr. GOODLATTE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in part 2 of House Report 105-534.
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Campbell
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part 2 Amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 105-534
offered by Mr. Campbell:
In section (12)(f), in the matter preceding paragraph (1),
strike ``paragraph (2) or (8) of subsection (b) of''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 430, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes the national security waiver
complete. As the bill left the Committee on International Relations
regarding Sudan, because of a jurisdictional dispute between the
Committee on Ways and Means and Committee on International Relations,
the waiver authority given to the President did not extend to all of
the sanctions in the Sudan provision of the bill. With my amendment, it
would do so.
Mr. Chairman, I will take an additional moment to say that if this
amendment is adopted, and I am assured by my good friends that it shall
be, I will then be very proud to support this bill. I am proud to stand
with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith), with the chairman of our committee, with many
Members on the other side of the aisle, as well.
I suggest that with this amendment there is really no concern
sufficient to oppose this bill from the point of view of the
President's conduct with foreign affairs, because with this amendment
every aspect of the bill that imposes a sanction can, in appropriate
circumstances, be waived.
I also would note the kindness, the consideration that I have
received from the authors of this bill through a very long process of
drafting it, so that the sanctions which deal with the definition of an
agency of a foreign nation are defined as narrowly as practicable, and
so that the items regarding the barriers to export of those items that
could facilitate persecution are defined to be only those which are
specific, and I read, ``directly and substantially used or intended for
use in carrying out acts of religious persecution in such country.''
With these understandings, the bill, it seems to me, remains a
powerful statement against religious persecution, and yet does not
interfere with the appropriate role of the President of the United
States in foreign policy.
Mr. Chairman, my understanding is, if my amendment is accepted, all
sanctions provided for in section 12, referred to in section 2, may be
waived.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the author of the bill, so that he
might perhaps speak to whether my understanding is correct. I am not
seeking a colloquy, I am seeking merely to yield 1 minute.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. I thank the gentleman very,
very much.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I am proud to stand with the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Wolf).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman), the distinguished chairman of our committee.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am
pleased to rise in support of the amendment offered by the
distinguished member of our Committee on International Relations, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores to the bill a feature first
suggested to us by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) that we
had intended to adopt during markup during our committee, but were
unable to adopt because of limitations on our committee's jurisdiction.
The gentleman from California rightly points out that if the
President is to have authority to waive sanctions imposed on Sudan
pursuant to the bill, he should have authority to waive all of those
sanctions, and not just some of them. That is the purpose of the
amendment. We welcome the improvement to our bill.
We thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for the close
attention he has paid to our bill while we were considering it within
our committee. I am grateful for his many positive contributions.
I urge my colleagues to adopt the Campbell amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, we have worked very
constructively with the gentleman from California on this amendment, as
well as on the bill itself. It has been through a very long and arduous
process, two full hearings in the full committee last September, a
whole series of hearings in my subcommittee on religious persecution,
and then the drafting and redrafting. The gentleman from California
(Mr. Campbell) has been very vital for that. We thank him for that. We
appreciate his support for the full bill in final passage.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) claim
the time in opposition?
Mr. HAMILTON. I am not opposed to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent to control the time, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would say, while I do not support the bill, I do
think this amendment improves the bill and it would be my intention to
support it and vote for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas,
Ms. Jackson-Lee.
{time} 1400
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member,
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), very much for his overall
leadership throughout the years on so many important international
issues. I also thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the
Committee on International Relations.
I rise to support the Campbell amendment, as well to support this
legislation. In particular, I think it is extremely important to note
that the President has already issued a broad range of waivers and
sanctions against Sudan, and I think that this particular legislation
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) has gives the
President greater flexibility but as well recognizes that we have
responsibility to uphold the needs of the people in Sudan. So I do
appreciate this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I know how committed the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) has been to these issues. That is why I join him, along with my
good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) who has been
very studious on these questions. I think when we begin to educate the
American people about persecution, as we have seen and heard and as it
has been expressed, abduction and enslavement, killing and
imprisonment, forced mass relocation, rape, crucifixion or other forms
of torture, then we recognize that the legislation is extremely
important.
While many of my constituents have raised those concerns because they
are
[[Page H3293]]
aware of it, there are others likewise who bring to the table questions
of whether or not we should be involved and engaged in unilateral
sanctions.
I would simply say that I am looking forward to looking at both sides
of the issue and have considered certainly the legislation of the
Crane-Hamilton bill. But I think this issue is so very important to us
as Americans. It is such an abiding issue for me, religious freedom,
the lack of religious persecution, that it begs to be answered.
So I rise to be able to lend my support for the leadership of the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and to add to the supporters, to
acknowledge the International Campaign of Tibet, His Holiness, the
Dalai Lama, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Religious Action Center
for Reformed Judaism, the Salvation Army, the Anti-defamation League, a
noted Chinese dissident, John Cardinal O'Connor, Archbishop of New
York, and Jeff Fiedler, President of the Food and Allied Service
Trades.
I think we are being begged for a response. We would be certainly
remiss. More than that, it would be tragic not to stand up for
religious freedom around this world. We must stand up for those to be
allowed to express their beliefs. I thank the leadership, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2431, the Freedom from
Religious Persecution Act of 1998. Essentially, this bill is an effort
to protect one of the most sacred rights that human beings can enjoy,
the right to seek out and worship the divine as they may deem fit. All
over the world, nations, sovereign powers and totalitarian groups are
restricting the religious freedom of others. From Christians to Jews to
Muslims to Bahai's, religious persecution, as we stand on the brink of
the next millennium, is a widespread as ever. So, in response to the
crisis, this bill establishes a new office in the State Department to
monitor religious persecution overseas called the Office of Religious
Persecution Monitoring, directs U.S. sanctions against countries and
individuals determined to have engaged in religious persecution and
provides asylum for religious refugees as determined by a series of
guidelines mandated by the bill.
As our history teaches us, many of the founders of this great nation
crossed the imposing gulf of the Atlantic Ocean in order to preserve
the sanctity of their personal religious choices. Without reservation,
they flatly refused to let others dictate for them who they could
worship and how that worship should be conducted. Instead of bowing to
the suppression of their beliefs, these brave pioneers of a new and
enlightened sense of public governance, chose to protect their freedom
above all. Well over two centuries later, this same struggle is being
fought again by literally millions of people around the globe who
simply refuse to betray their most sacred beliefs about God.
In Sudan, in particular, this struggle has taken on genocidically
proportions. Some reports estimate that well over one million people
have been killed by the Sudanese government, both Christians and
Muslims, fighting to preserve their most fundamental religious beliefs.
In China, millions of ``house church'' Christians are forced to worship
in absolute secrecy in order to prevent the government from interfering
in the practice of their worship. In Tibet, Buddhists have been
brutalized, their religious leaders jailed, and their most holy of
worship places completely desecrated. In Iran, practicing Bahai's have
been met with a rash of sudden executions. And most recently, we have
learned about the violent terrorism against Christians in both Pakistan
and Egypt, while the government of these nations have simply stood back
and watched. So now that we know what is happening around us, what are
we going to do about these on-going travesties of justice?
For me, the answer is as simple as this, we must take a stand on
these important issues of principle. This bill, in my opinion, is a
workable solution to these growing threats to religious freedom surging
abroad. First of all, the bill does not exclude any religious groups
from its protections. Whether you are Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or
something else, if you are persecuted because of your religious
beliefs, this bill and its provisions will protect you. Furthermore,
this bill is in no way mutually exclusive to any protections that may
exist in current law for any other persecuted group. If you are
persecuted for race, national origin, political affiliation or some
other defining characteristic of personhood, existing federal law still
addresses these concerns. Religion, I believe, because of the many on-
going tragedies of persecution, terrorism and violence that I listed
above, definitely deserves some form of special consideration and
treatment. Thus, the necessity of creating a new federal sub-agency to
be responsible for this volatile issue.
The newly created Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring in the
State Department will be headed by a Director appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate. This director should be
recognized as an expert in the area of religious persecution and is
barred specifically by the language of the bill, from holding any other
federal position while serving in this capacity. More importantly
though, this office is empowered by the bill to make findings of fact
on any potential violations as discovered by the State Department and
submit these findings to the Secretary (of State) and President with
recommendations for action. This bill, in sum, is a powerful statement
to nations of the world, that we will not countenance the rampant
disregard of our fellow man's unalienable rights.
As for the bill's remaining provisions, in regard to the sanctions
against aid given to countries that violate the religious freedom of
their citizens; we should not, we must not, and we can not sit back and
enrich governments that either conduct or condone the persecution of
citizens on the basis of their religious beliefs. In all of our policy
decisions, we need to show our displeasure with this kind of heinous
conduct. And finally, the creation of a structured asylum program for
religious refugees is a noble objective; an objective some believe is
long overdue.
As people all around the world are celebrating the fiftieth
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in their own
special way, let's do so in ours. Let's support H.R. 2431, and help to
ensure the protection of a freedom for others, that we in this nation
often take for granted. The freedom to practice and express one's
religious beliefs without interference or persecution. Vote for H.R.
2431.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
modified, as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Miller of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that the Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2431)
to establish an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring, to provide
for the imposition of sanctions against countries engaged in a pattern
of religious persecution, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 430, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not,
the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 375,
nays 41,
[[Page H3294]]
answered ``present'' 1, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 155]
YEAS--375
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dixon
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--41
Blumenauer
Bonilla
Brown (CA)
Chenoweth
Clay
Conyers
Crane
Crapo
DeGette
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
English
Fazio
Gibbons
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Houghton
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Kolbe
Matsui
McDermott
Mink
Moran (VA)
Oberstar
Paul
Pickett
Pombo
Rangel
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Stokes
Stump
Tauscher
Waters
Watt (NC)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Bonior
NOT VOTING--15
Bateman
Dickey
Fowler
Gonzalez
Harman
Hefner
Lewis (CA)
Mollohan
Obey
Quinn
Riggs
Sanders
Skaggs
Torres
Traficant
{time} 1426
Mr. CONYERS, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, and Mr. CLAY changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. MINGE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________