[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 67 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E971-E972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION ACT OF 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. PHILIP M. CRANE

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 14, 1998

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:


  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 2431, 
the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act. As a Christian, I am always 
deeply concerned when reports surface about individuals and groups 
anywhere in the world being persecuted for their faith.
  However, like so many situations that face us in the international 
arena where we seek to change the behavior of other governments, 
legislation can often do more harm than good, both for the people we 
seek to help and for U.S. national interests.
  With respect to H.R. 2431, there is no evidence that the automatic 
sanctions triggered by the bill would do anything but incite further

[[Page E972]]

persecution in the divided and troubled countries that it is designed 
to condemn. Although the sanctions in the bill have been watered down 
during the many months this legislation was stalled in the 
International Relations Committee, the premise and structure of H.R. 
2431 remain fundamentally flawed.
  The bill creates a mid-level bureaucracy within the State Department, 
the ``Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring,'' which would have 
extraordinary powers to publicly condemn and sanction a wide range of 
countries important to U.S. national security interests. The ``Office 
Director'' would be charged with identifying countries that engage in 
or tolerate religious persecution. Countries named as violators would 
be subject to an arbitrary, ``one size fits all'' list of trade 
sanctions including denial of U.S. foreign assistance, denial of visas, 
and prohibitions on U.S. exports and U.S. support for multilateral 
development bank assistance.
  The danger is that sanctions are automatic, can be waived by the 
President only in very narrow, extraordinary circumstances, and are 
limited to one year. Contrary to statements made by the bill's 
proponents, H.R. 2431 contains no authority for the President to waive 
sanctions if he determines that they would result in the loss of 
American jobs or otherwise have an adverse impact on U.S. economic 
interests. Under the bill, sanctions would be imposed on many 
governments that are important to U.S. trade, security and foreign 
policy interests. These countries include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, 
Indonesia and Morocco.
  The supporters of H.R. 2431 say that this bill will force foreign 
governments to improve their treatment of religious minorities and help 
alleviate egregious human rights abuses. Yet they fail to offer any 
evidence that this bill would be effective in achieving its intended 
result.
  In truth, the call for passing H.R. 2431 is not coming from 
persecuted religious minorities throughout the world. Indeed, many 
prominent religious leaders from countries this bill is designed to 
target recently traveled to Washington to warn us that the bill would 
only further divide them from the societies in which they live and 
struggle to worship freely. These leaders, such as the Rev. Canon 
Clement Janda, General Secretary of the All Africa Council of Churches 
and a native Sudanese Anglican priest, and The Rev. Dr. Joseph 
Pattiasina, General Secretary of the Communion of Churches in 
Indonesia, told me in the strongest possible terms that H.R. 2431 would 
exacerbate tensions between Christians and Muslims in their respective 
countries.
  Christians and clergy working in China, Saudi Arabia and Egypt say 
that the bill would make their plight worse, not better. For example, 
the United Church of Christ, which has supported missionary work for 
decades in many Middle Eastern countries, writes: ``By using U.S. power 
to accuse all Muslim countries of religious persecution, . . . radical 
Muslims will be strengthened in their efforts to associate Christianity 
with the West.'' Religious minorities and missionaries who have 
dedicated their lives to Christian education abroad fear that their 
work will be undermined because their host governments will blame them 
for the imposition of sanctions under this bill.
  Rev. Billy Graham's son, Nelson Graham, who heads a large, successful 
Christian missionary program in China, wrote to urge Congress to 
reconsider this legislation because of the potential harm it could do 
to both American missionaries and to indigenous religious organizations 
in China, as well as in other targeted countries. He believes these 
groups were given no opportunity to participate in the development of 
H.R. 2431.
  The National Council of Churches, which represents 34 Protestant 
denominations (including the Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians) 
with an aggregate membership of 53 million Americans, also strongly 
opposes this legislation because it does not take into account the 
concerns of a broad spectrum of religious leaders who are ``on the 
ground'' fighting religious persecution overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, unilateral trade sanctions are dangerous because they 
appeal to an emotional need in all of us to condemn reprehensible 
behavior in the strongest possible terms. Yet history has shown that 
unilateral trade sanctions rarely, if ever, succeed in changing rogue 
behavior.
  In my view, the United States has been the most successful in 
advancing our values of religious freedom and democracy by remaining 
active in countries where these principles are not well-established. A 
policy of engagement fosters expanded opportunities to spread the 
Christian message through direct contacts that would be denied to us if 
we pursue a policy of isolating countries through punative economic 
sanctions.
  Because there is strong evidence that the sanctions proposed in this 
bill would do more harm than good to religious minorities and American 
missionaries working abroad, I am opposed to H.R. 2431.

                          ____________________