[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.

                          ____________________