[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11942-S11950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION ACT OF 1998

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report H.R. 2431.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A 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 Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. GRAMM. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I just simply want to say to my colleague, 
Senator Sarbanes, and to others who support this bill, that I am 
willing, and have continued to be willing, to sit down and try to work 
something out. It may be that nothing can be worked out, but I just 
want to reaffirm my willingness to sit down with Senator Sarbanes, or 
any other person, who is in a position to work anything out--certainly 
Senator Sarbanes is--and see if we could find some common ground. Maybe 
we cannot. But I just want to reaffirm my willingness to do it. I have 
sat down and discussed this with Senator Dodd. And I am willing to do 
it again.
  So it may be that there is no way we can accommodate the different 
views we have, but I wanted to reaffirm my willingness to make an 
effort again. Though it may or may not prove fruitless, I am willing to 
do it. And I would like to work something out because, save the so-
called CRA provisions, I am for this bill.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from 
Oklahoma wants to be heard, but I would just like to pick up on this 
last point, if I could, if my colleague from Texas would yield--
  Mr. GRAMM. I do not have the floor.
  Mr. DODD. To say to my colleague from Texas, and others, I didn't 
have the benefit of hearing my friend's comments from Maryland, but I 
fervently hope--it has taken almost 20 years for us to come to the 
point where we are with financial services modernization. And my 
colleague from Texas has been on that committee for a long time, the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland even longer and knows the agony we 
have gone through, Mr. President, over the years of coming close and 
failing, for a variety of reasons, to be able to put through a 
modernization bill that would enjoy the kind of support this bill does.
  And here we have the world looking to us. You have news today of the 
yen now having, compared to the dollar in exchange rates, in the last 
48 hours, dropped to a lower rate than it has in 50 years--50 years. We 
have a problem in Brazil of significant magnitude.
  It is no secret here that the world looks to us for a sense of 
confidence. And here we are within hours of leaving this session of 
Congress with a strong bipartisan bill, led by the Senator from 
Maryland, the Senator from New York, Senator D'Amato, the chairman of 
the committee, with a 16-2 vote coming out of that committee, and 88-11 
on a cloture motion.
  My colleague from Texas feels strongly about the CRA provisions, and 
I respect that. But I would strongly argue that there is going to be 
ample time for us, whether today or tomorrow, if we can get it done, 
but if not certainly the next Congress to deal with the CRA provisions.
  There may not be another opportunity that comes along to deal with 
this issue, I say to my friend from Texas. As he knows, we have spent 
so many years trying to put together--here we are on the threshold of 
doing something truly significant in this Congress, and as strongly as 
people feel about CRA, we should never allow that issue here to deprive 
us the opportunity to send a message not only here at home, but abroad 
that this country, that this Congress can modernize its financial 
institutions to such a degree that we send that message of confidence 
at this critical hour, a message of confidence.
  The Democrats and Republicans have been able to come together on an 
issue that has divided us over the years. So I fervently hope that we 
will not allow that one issue to outweigh the enormous benefits that 
this bill offers people at home and abroad when the world financial 
crisis is literally on our doorstep.
  So I hope that either something gets worked out or that those who are 
for it would be willing to put aside their feelings on the CRA issue 
until another day when there will literally be dozens of vehicles when 
that issue can be addressed. Mr. President, I tell you today, there 
will not be the dozens of vehicles available to us to do what we on the 
Banking Committee were able to present to all of our colleagues here 
for the first time in more than two decades, some would argue more than 
three decades. So the opportunity is here. I just hope we do not miss 
this.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. I had the floor, and I think time is running. And we 
want to get back to our bill. I appreciate the comments that were made 
by the Senator from Texas, the Senator from Connecticut. And I echo 
those comments. I hope we can come to a compromise. I hope people do 
not draw the lines too firm in the sand and not allow us to make some 
minor adjustments to save a bill that is very important.
  Mr. GRAMM. At the risk of overdoing it, could I have 30 seconds?
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield to the Senator 30 seconds, but it is my 
intention to go back to the Religious Freedom Act.
  Mr. GRAMM. It is interesting. I know what happens in these debates is 
we end up talking past each other. But the Senator's statement about 
``let's leave CRA to deal with next year'' is precisely my position. 
The problem is, the bill has six new CRA provisions. So if we were 
leaving CRA to be dealt with next year, we would have no dispute; we 
could debate it next year.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.

[[Page S11943]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will yield to my colleague from Maryland for 1 minute 
and then I am going to return to debate on the Religious Freedom Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair must ask if there is unanimous 
consent for the Senator to yield, because questions have not been 
asked. And under the rules the Senator cannot--
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield to my colleague for a question.
  Mr. SARBANES. I simply want to say to my colleague that I listened 
carefully to the distinguished Senator from Texas and this offer to try 
to work this out. The fact of the matter is, that colleagues have been 
buzzing around the Senator from Texas all week, like bees around a 
honeypot, although I am not sure describing the Senator from Texas as a 
honeypot is necessarily a very accurate description.
  Mr. GRAMM. I like it.
  Mr. SARBANES. I think there have been very reasonable efforts to 
reach an accommodation. They have not really gotten anywhere. If the 
Senator intends, in the name of accommodation, to make very substantial 
and substantive changes, then obviously a lot of people are going to 
have great difficulty with that. We have worked through this issue, and 
we reached an overwhelming consensus about it. And it seems to me that 
the effort now to sort of significantly rewrite these provisions is 
just not going to happen.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am going to return to debate. And I ask 
unanimous consent that the hour and 40 minutes that intervened since my 
previous comments and the time allotted in the discussions and the 
quorum calls be outside the debate on the entire debate that we have on 
the religious freedom issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I was running through the potential 
sanctions, sanctions that would only apply for countries that were 
guilty of particularly severe violations of religious freedom. And 
particularly severe violations of religious freedom under our bill 
means: ``Systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious 
freedom, including violations such as torture, cruel, inhuman, 
degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, 
causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction or clandestine 
detention of those persons, and other flagrant denials of the right to 
life, liberty or the security of persons.''
  And so, Mr. President, we define that. That is really bad the actors. 
In those cases, our bill says that we would have economic sanctions. I 
was just discussing those. That would include the withdrawal, 
limitation or suspension of development assistance. It says 
``limitation.'' It didn't say ``automatically all of it be limited, but 
at least some withdrawal or some limitation.
  It gives the President the flexibility--a whole range of options. 
Also it would direct the director of OPEC or TDA or EXIM not to approve 
guarantees, extensions or credits to the governments involving gross 
violations to religious freedom.
  It also would have a sanction that would allow the withdrawal, 
limitation or suspension of security assistance. Again, it could be 
suspension. It could be limitation.
  Also, another option would be instructing U.S. directors of 
international financial institutions to vote against loans to 
governments involving gross violations of religious freedom.
  Another sanction option would be to prohibit the licenses or 
authority to export goods or technology to governments determined to be 
responsible for such persecution involving gross violations of 
religious freedom; another prohibiting any U.S. financial institution 
from providing credits totaling more than $10 million in any year to 
governments involving gross violation as to religious freedom; and one 
final one prohibiting the U.S. Government from procuring goods or 
services from foreign governments involved in gross violations.
  We have given the President a multitude of options, a range, which 
could reduce economic assistance or economic loans to those countries. 
Also, I might mention, we give the President the option to waive these 
sanctions. We have modified that to accommodate some of the concerns 
that some of our people have. The sanctions can be waived to further 
the purposes of the act.
  If persons involved--maybe the commission that studied this, maybe it 
is the Ambassador, maybe the State Department--said, ``Wait a minute, 
some of these sanctions might do more harm than good,'' the sanctions 
could be waived. It might result in greater persecution of individual 
beliefs by some governments. Our Government would have the option to 
waive these sanctions. Or we modify it to include that the sanctions 
could be waived for national security interests. We modified that to 
say ``for important national interests'' the sanctions could be waived.
  We have in this bill an ambassador-at-large for international 
religious freedom; we have a commission of high-level people appointed 
by Congress and by the President to study and to make recommendations 
to the Congress and to the President, the Commission on International 
Religious Liberty, to make recommendations on what can be done to 
promote religious liberty worldwide; and we have given some tools and 
options to encourage positive behavior, positive efforts as well as 
some punitive efforts to try to modify behavior.
  Our purpose in this bill is not to punish any country. Our purpose is 
to modify behavior to improve religious liberty worldwide. We don't 
want to be picking up the paper as we did earlier this year when the 
New York Times, for example, on May 11, had an article that said a 
Pakistani Catholic cleric was buried. It said a Roman Catholic bishop 
committed suicide last week apparently to protest religious 
discrimination. Religious discrimination and persecution must be pretty 
severe if a bishop would commit suicide to protest the degree of 
persecution.
  Other people have talked about Christians being sold into slavery in 
Sudan, or other countries where Christians, Jews, or other individuals 
were placed in prison merely for practicing their faith.
  I want to thank again my colleagues who worked with me on this 
legislation. I mentioned Senator Specter earlier. I mentioned Senator 
Lieberman who has worked with me in countless meetings for hours trying 
to work out this legislation. Senator Coats from Indiana is on the 
floor and will be called upon momentarily. No one has worked harder. I 
told him some time ago I feel that he is one of the best Senators I 
have had the opportunity to work with, and I mean that in all 
sincerity. He is a person with very strong religious beliefs and 
convictions, and his efforts to see this bill pass to make sure that we 
improve religious liberty worldwide are very much recognized, very much 
appreciated by this Senator, and I think by all Senators. I also would 
like to thank my colleagues, Senator Biden and Senator Feinstein, who 
have also worked with us in putting this legislation together.
  I want to thank a couple of other people who have also worked in this 
effort. Steve Moffitt of my staff put in a lot of energy and a lot of 
the effort. John Hanford has put in years trying to enact measures to 
protect people who have been persecuted worldwide for religious 
beliefs. Also, on Senator Lieberman's staff, Cecile Shea has worked 
countless hours on this. I thank them for their efforts.
  I see my colleague from Indiana is on the floor. I am happy to yield 
him such time as he desires on this legislation.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 41 minutes 49 
seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield my colleague as much time as he desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, first of all, I begin by thanking my 
colleague and my friend from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, for his 
friendship over the years as a Member of the Congress, in the last 10 
years as a Member of the Senate, for his tireless work on a number of 
important issues facing this country, and for his willingness to take 
on this issue, as difficult as the negotiations have been, to 
persevere, to bring it to this particular point. Senator Nickles has 
provided effective

[[Page S11944]]

leadership and perseverance in resolving what I think is one of the 
most important issues that this Senate will be dealing with in this 
session of Congress.
  There are many others and I will mention some of those names at a 
later point.
  The United States, which we are privileged and pleased to be citizens 
of, has long been considered a pillar of freedom around the world. Our 
Nation was founded by individuals fleeing persecution and 
discrimination throughout Europe. The founding documents of our country 
enshrine the value and principle of religious freedom. The very first 
clause of the first amendment guarantees each of us the right of free 
exercise of religion and prohibits our Government from dictating or 
establishing how we will worship and what we will believe.
  Freedom of religion is enshrined in our founding documents because 
freedom of religion is a basic human right. In our country, this 
freedom is acknowledged as a right endowed not by man, not by those who 
wrote those documents, but by our Creator. Therefore, they are 
unalienable and cannot be removed.
  Religious freedom is also recognized in the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. That declaration 
guarantees freedom of religion, including the freedom to choose one's 
own religious belief, to worship, to observe and practice one's belief 
individually or corporately. The freedom to practice one's religion 
without fear of outside intervention is the most fundamental liberty 
that any human being can possess.
  We have a history as a country of concern not only for our own 
religious freedom but also for religious freedom in other countries. We 
want to stand as a beacon for religious freedom because we believe it 
goes to the most basic and most essential of all human freedoms and all 
human rights.
  The cold war brought considerable national attention to the plight of 
Soviet Jews who faced extreme religious intolerance and persecution. 
United States concerns ultimately translated into national policy, 
including the enactment of the Jackson-Vanik law which tied trade with 
the Soviet Union and other Communist nations to their allowing Jews to 
emigrate--just one example of how this Nation has translated into 
policy these basic fundamental beliefs.
  By contrast, there has been little focus lately, unfortunately, on 
some of the increasing persecution of Christians and some of the 
horrific persecution of Christians and other peoples of faith around 
the world. As a nation, we have assumed a responsibility, a moral 
imperative, to raise the basic human rights issues, the basic examples 
of persecution, to use the tools available to us to motivate change 
toward these individuals in various countries around the world 
practicing various faiths. Individuals are persecuted for that belief 
and that practice.
  It is evident that many people--not just Christians, but several 
faiths--suffer because of their faith. The form that these attacks take 
can be everything from discrimination in employment, denial of 
participation in the political process, denial of common rights of 
citizenship. But these attacks can also take the form of extreme 
physical harm, torture, imprisonment, slavery, and even death. A fact 
of our time, the fact of the history of mankind, is that people have 
been persecuted and are being persecuted for their religious belief and 
for their faith. There are abuses in many places around the world of 
people persecuted simply because of what they believe.
  Paul Marshall, in his book, ``Their Blood Cries Out,'' effectively 
chronicles where persecution is occurring. In great detail, he presents 
a comprehensive view of this problem throughout the world. His 
exhaustive survey simply cannot be ignored. It is a powerful and 
persuasive analysis which ultimately begs the question: What will we 
do? How will we respond? Will we respond? Is there action that we can 
take?
  He talks about offenses in countries around the world--these have 
been documented--in Sudan, Pakistan, Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, 
China, and others.
  In the Sudan, possibly the worst of the offenders, it is not just 
Christians who have faced persecution, but Muslims and Animists, who 
have opposed the repressive tactics of the Islamic military regime 
which took power in 1989. Many Arab Muslims from the north have been 
arrested, imprisoned, tortured and killed. Christians driven from their 
homelands to government-controlled areas of the country are forced to 
renounce their faith in order to receive basic food. Others, including 
black Africans, are forced to convert to Islam and are even enslaved. 
All told, 1.5 million people have been killed by this totalitarian 
regime and another 5 million have been displaced from their homes.
  In Pakistan, Paul Marshall describes the problem not as one of state-
directed intolerance, but as one due to the growth of militant Islamic 
forces attacking Christians. Christian Pakistanis often become the 
victims of murder. The blasphemy law, passed in 1986, requires death 
sentences to any who blasphemes against the Prophet Mohammed or the 
Qu'ran. This law has given way to a wave of terror against Christians 
and other religious minorities.
  Buddhist and Christians in Vietnam are subject to arrest and 
harassment if they are not part of the officially recognized churches. 
As in China, government control over religion seems due to fear of loss 
of control over the people. Paul Marshall writes that ``priests and 
pastors are assaulted, harassed, fined, sentenced to re-education camps 
and imprisoned. Many die in prison, some of them after torture.''
  In Cuba as well, the government attempts to rigidly control religion. 
Churches cannot run schools or use mass communications. They are 
prohibited from performing missionary work and the distribution of 
religious material is controlled. There has, however, been tremendous 
growth in churches in Cuba, primarily in the form of house churches. 
The Cuban Government has also sought to restrict religion by imposing a 
ban on the sale of paper, ink, typewriters, computers and other 
printing device to any religious organization.
  In Iran, those who believe in the Baha'i faith are forcibly repressed 
by the Iranian Government. They are denied the right to assemble and 
elect their religious officials, their property is confiscated and they 
are denied basic civil and legal rights. More than 200 Baha'is have 
been killed in Iran since 1989. Christians and Jews likewise face 
persecution in Iran, including discrimination, imprisonment, and death. 
One Christian human rights groups describes the treatment of Christians 
and Jews as ``Religious apartheid.''
  In Saudi Arabia, only the practice of the Sunni form of Islam is 
permitted. No public expression of Christianity is allowed. Those found 
with Bibles or crosses can be tortured and arrested. The Saudi 
Government even went so far as to demand that a Christian group meeting 
in the American Consulate be disbanded. Unfortunately, our Consulate 
obliged them by closing worship service, this in an American Embassy.

  In China, the Christian home churches are flourishing despite the 
Communist government moves to strictly control churches. I trust we are 
familiar with the accounts of thousands of Catholic and Protestant 
Chinese who have been imprisoned for worshiping, preaching and 
distributing Bibles.
  This is but a handful of examples of where intolerance occurs around 
the world. Clearly, we cannot hold each nation and people to the same 
standard we have in the United States. But neither can we ignore the 
dramatic, reprehensible, and documented accounts of what is happening.
  Yet it is clear we cannot oversimplify the problem of religious 
intolerance in these and other countries. While persecution in some 
countries is the direct result of official government policy, in 
others, persecution is undertaken by groups and individuals, with no 
attempt by the governing officials to intervene. Further, while some 
religious persecution is simply part of an overall repressive regime 
eager to control the lives of the people, other persecution is 
specifically targeted at religious freedoms.
  In addition, the promotion of human rights, including religious 
freedom, is only one interest of the United States in conducting 
foreign policy. We also must promote strong relations with

[[Page S11945]]

countries vital to our national security and pursue policies designed 
to promote our economic interests.
  Yet as a Nation, especially a Nation with our heritage, we cannot 
close our eyes to real abuses and persecutions taking place. We cannot 
stand idly by, complacent, apathetic, pretending to be ignorant. 
Because we are not ignorant. We must act wisely, but we must act. We 
need a comprehensive policy which draws greater attention to specific 
problems and works to change behavior. We must have a balance, always 
keeping in mind the plight of individuals and the role the United 
States can play in changing the behavior of other governments. 
Religious liberty has been our gift from the founders of this country; 
it is also our responsibility, and our torch to bear.
  The Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom 
Abroad issued an interim report in January 1998. That report described 
our policy goals in this way:

       The aim of U.S. foreign policy in this area should be to 
     influence governments, with both positive and negative 
     inducements and through public and private diplomacy, to live 
     up to international standards of religious freedom.

  This legislation can, first of all, alert us to the situations as 
they exist around the world, and then provide us a road map in terms of 
how we can most effectively address them.
  The bill before us, introduced by Senators Nickel, Specter and 
Lieberman, is designed to promote and elevate religious freedom in our 
Nation's conduct of foreign policy. My friends on the House side, led 
by Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia, have been tireless in pressing 
for this issue. I would like to take a moment to give credit to 
Congressman Wolf who has, without a doubt, been the most persistent and 
relentless advocate of our taking action to address the problem of 
religious freedom, together with Chris Smith, and others in the House 
of Representatives. They have provided the impetus for this action and 
they have, through persuasion and education of Members of the House, 
alerted them to the problem that exists and achieved a very significant 
vote in favor of what was then the Wolf-Specter bill. That bill has 
passed the House of Representatives and now, in the waning hours of the 
105th Congress, the Senate, after exhaustive negotiations, after a 
process that has gone on for an extraordinary amount of time, finds 
itself at this place.
  Mr. President, a great number of people deserve credit for this work, 
including John Hanford of Senator Lugar's staff, Steve Moffitt, and my 
own very able legislative assistant, Pam Sellars, and others on Senator 
Nickles' staff and Senator Lieberman's staff, have worked tirelessly to 
fashion legislation that will survive the myriad of procedural 
processes that we have to go through here in order to bring a bill to 
the floor, particularly in the waning hours. A great deal of effort and 
work has been put into making this a reality. I am so pleased that we 
stand here this evening on the verge of passage of what I think is an 
extraordinarily important piece of legislation.
  This presents a viable policy to strengthen religious freedoms 
abroad. The bill is balanced in its approach, it is comprehensive in 
its treatment, and it enables our Nation to custom-tailor our response 
to religious persecution in other lands. It puts in place measures 
which institutionalize our Nation's historic principles and religious 
liberty in our relations with other nations.
  We establish an ambassador for international religious freedom to 
help the State Department in assessing nations which engage or tolerate 
religious persecution and to help promote religious freedom. We set up 
a process to ensure that the State Department is adequately focusing on 
religious freedom issues by requiring them to report to the Congress. 
Each year, State will issue a country-wide assessment of religious 
freedom abroad with specific summaries of which countries are improving 
their records and in what ways our Government is actively engaging to 
change behavior that is not acceptable.
  Most important, this bill establishes an independent commission of 
experts, appointed by the White House, the House of Representatives, 
and the Senate, to monitor religious freedom on an ongoing basis and to 
make recommendations to Congress on actions the U.S. can take in 
countries when persecution occurs. This is important because this is 
information that we need. We no longer will be able to simply consign 
religious persecution and religious freedom to some clip we might read 
in the paper, or to some report that might come across our desk. We 
will have a commission constituted of reputable individuals, 
knowledgeable individuals, who will be able to present to us, on an 
annual basis, a detailed report of exactly what we are facing around 
the world. That can be the basis for this Congress and that can be the 
basis for the State Department and the administration--whichever 
administration is in power--to take significant action and specific 
action to address these problems. I think that is the most important 
part of this bill and the one that will provide the impetus for our 
taking effective action.
  There are a number of other provisions, and Senator Nickles has laid 
some of them out--and others will discuss those--each of which is 
important to the success of this legislation.
  On May 14, 1998, the House passed Congressman Wolf's legislation--the 
Freedom From Religious Persecution Act--by an overwhelming margin of 
375-41. Again, I commend my colleague, Frank Wolf, for his leadership 
on this issue. His efforts, along with a number of others, have brought 
recognition of the plight of people of faith throughout the world to 
our attention.
  It is now time for us to act. It is time for us to establish an 
effective foreign policy which can respond to religious persecution 
that we find around the world and which seeks to change the behavior of 
those responsible. I trust that the Senate will follow what the House 
has done and demonstrate a strong, if not unanimous, vote for this 
bill.
  Mr. President, in closing, I want to quote from the Statement of 
Conscience, issued by the National Evangelical Association on January 
23, 1996:
       Religious liberty is not a privilege to be granted or 
     denied by an all-powerful state, but a God-given human right. 
     Indeed, religious liberty is the bedrock principle that 
     animates our Republic and defines us as a people. We must 
     share our love of religious liberty with other peoples, who 
     in the eyes of God are our neighbors. Hence, it is our 
     responsibility and that of the Government that represents us, 
     to do everything we can to secure the blessing of religious 
     liberty to all those suffering from religious persecution.

  Mr. President, we in this country cannot begin to comprehend what 
people of faith in other nations have had to endure. They have had to 
put their health, their wealth, their family, their fortunes, and their 
very lives on the line. Many lives have been sacrificed in the name of 
religious expression, religious belief. The persecution, which takes 
place in many countries around this world, is almost too horrible to 
describe. As a Nation, as a people who have been so blessed with the 
freedom of religious belief, the least we can do is to hold ourselves 
out as an example and model to many nations around the world, but, more 
importantly, demonstrate through our policy that this violent human 
rights issue is an issue that cannot be ignored, sacrificed to trade, 
sacrificed to diplomatic relations, or to anything.
  The basic human right, endowed by our Creator, for freedom of 
worship, freedom of belief, is something that the world desperately 
needs, something that we can promote. This legislation is designed to 
do that. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I cannot emphasize 
enough my deep conviction that we must act swiftly on this issue on 
which our country has, unfortunately, been silent on too long. We are 
now acting. We have come to that point. It is with great joy, I 
believe, in our hearts and in the hearts of people of faith throughout 
the world that the Senate will enact this. Our deep hope and belief is 
that the President of the United States will sign it and it will become 
the official policy of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Lieberman, who will 
be managing this bill for the other side of the aisle, is not present. 
I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, tomorrow, our Founding Fathers are 
going to be proud of us. Tomorrow as we pass, hopefully, this 
International Religious Freedom Act, they will be

[[Page S11946]]

proud of the tradition that we have carried on, a tradition that finds 
its wording above our mantels here in this hall and says ``In God We 
Trust,'' a tradition that finds itself rooted in freedom, particularly 
religious freedom and religious expression of freedom. They will be 
proud that we passed this act and that we stand--and stand strong--
around the world for religious freedom, freedom from persecution, and 
allow people of conscience to express their conscience and their 
desires as they see them fit before God.

  Today, I stand to support the International Religious Freedom Act 
which addresses religious persecution worldwide. It is a noble and 
significant effort to confront an ancient prejudice which permeates 
societies and produces deep suffering.
  I fervently hope that this legislation will be passed for many 
reasons. This legislation is an expression of solidarity with embattled 
minority faith communities worldwide. It supports those who simply and 
humbly seek to practice their religion in peace without crushing 
governmental interference. It supports those who were commanded to stop 
worshiping their God and refused. It supports those who fear for safety 
and even life, yet continue against the odds.
  This is a legislative memorial to anyone who has been unjustly 
imprisoned for their faith, especially for the ones who refused to 
recant on principle and remained incarcerated for years, even decades. 
This is a memorial to peaceful believers who presently sit in jails 
throughout the world for the crime of daring to express their love of 
God. We put it above our doors in the U.S. Senate. We have written ``In 
God We Trust.'' Other people around the world sit in jail for uttering 
that same phrase.

  This is a memorial to all persecuted believers who strain towards 
justice and freedom, and have no advocates.
  I admire this bill particularly because it addresses the problem of 
state-sponsored persecution of peaceful religious groups. This is the 
most insidious form of persecution. How do sincere people of faith 
stand against the crushing onslaught of a hostile government? How does 
an individual, or a small faith community, stand against a national 
security force? Imagine countries where entire divisions of the 
national police are dedicated to stalking peaceful people of faith. Now 
imagine being the victim of this onslaught without any defense or 
advocates, whatsoever. This is true in communist nations, in developing 
nations, in ultra-nationalist nations. Bottom line--any individual who 
dares to stand alone, to stand against a hostile national government 
for their peaceful faith convictions deserves our advocacy. And this 
legislation provides tools for that advocacy.
  In his 14th-century epic poem, ``The Divine Comedy,'' Dante believes 
a place reserved in the Inferno for those who refused to take a stand 
on the great moral issues of the day. I believe that religious freedom 
is one of those great moral issues. It is abundantly clear that in some 
parts of the world, your religious identity is your death-warrant. This 
is simply wrong and should not be. Knowing the generosity of the 
American spirit, I believe that we all agree that religious liberty is 
worth our defense, that our nation was founded on this principle, and 
that it is central to the core of our American character. This 
legislation powerfully expresses our national concern for the sanctity 
of this fundamental right, internationally.
  Is religious persecution advocacy our responsibility? It is certainly 
no less justified than our support for democracy dissidents in China or 
for Sakharov and Soltzenitsyn during the earlier days of Soviet Russia. 
There are striking parallels between both movements. Both, upon 
principle, refuse to bow their knee to the crushing dictates of hostile 
national governments. I am compelled by the stark image of a lone 
person refusing to recant a precious belief, and consequently 
incarcerated for the practice of fundamental rights, including free 
speech, assembly and association.
  This occurs routinely in communist countries and other fundamentalist 
regimes. There are countless Chinese Christians who have been 
incarcerated for 20 years and more for their faith. Jail is known as 
``Chinese seminary'' because the government incarcerates so many people 
for the crime of illegally sharing their faith. In North Vietnam, it's 
even worse where, routinely, people of faith are incarcerated for 10 or 
15 years. But the government does not stop there. Extended family 
members are also imprisoned, from grandparents and parents, to siblings 
and children--three generations because of one religious believer.
  If we freedom-loving people do not stand for this fundamental 
principle who will? It is my honor to continue to advance the 
elementary notion that this is an inalienable right, which no one can 
dictate, not even a government. It is a higher principle, protected, 
divine, precious, fundamental, universal and vastly personal. And it 
deserves our protest on shear principle, so I am grateful for the 
advocacy tools provided by this legislation.
  Throughout the centuries, many have fought for religious liberty at 
great personal cost. There is a magnificent cloud of witnesses who look 
down upon us, their scars bearing testimony to their commitment even to 
death for religious freedom.
  Countless, nameless believers have engaged in tremendous feats of 
faith and self-sacrifice in the name of religious freedom and 
conviction. The 6 million Jews of Nazi Europe bear witness in an 
unmatched way for the sacrifice they made as a people for their 
religious identity. There are over 200 million Christian believers 
worldwide who presently live in nations which are so hostile to their 
faith that they are in physical jeopardy. The Bahai of Iran, one of the 
most devotedly peaceful faith communities in the world was racked in 
Iran with yet another execution last month and 15 more Bahai are 
sitting on death row presently. The Tibetan Buddhists had thousands of 
monasteries destroyed, their nuns raped, their Dalai Lama forced into 
exile, their religion outlawed. The list is long, the suffering is 
great, and the goodness of their cause resonates throughout these great 
halls of freedom today.
  Religious freedom is a fundamental, universal right protected by 
treaties and constitutions worldwide. I will continue to stand for this 
principle as long as people suffer for it, along with the many other 
Members of Congress who share this conviction. In the face of crushing 
persecution, in apparent defeat, there is a light that continues to 
pierce the darkness and it will not be extinguished. If we stand for 
anything, let us stand with those whose courage is a living testimony 
to the fundamental freedoms we love so deeply in America. Let us vote 
``yes'' on this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, we would not be here today were it not for 
the tireless efforts of Senator Don Nickles. Twenty-eight other 
Republican and Democratic Senators who co-sponsored S. 1868 (which is 
essentially the pending substitute amendment) and, for that matter all 
Americans, owe Senator Nickles and his able staff a debt of gratitude.
  Now then, the pending amendment is a modification of S. 1868. I am a 
cosponsor of S. 1868, and while I will vote for the pending compromise 
language, I confess that it does not go far enough for my taste.
  To be sure, these compromises were forced upon the sponsors by a 
White House and State Department who fought us at every step and 
habitually moved the goal posts during negotiations. The Clinton 
Administration may prefer that we do nothing, but doing nothing isn't 
an option.
  As you know, Mr. President, the Foreign Relations Committee has taken 
the lead in several historic steps by the Senate in recent months to 
advance U.S. foreign policy interests--including passage of a far-
reaching State Department reorganization and U.N. reform package and 
the NATO Expansion Treaty.
  Nevertheless, I believe it is obvious that neither initiative has 
stirred the hearts and souls of the folks back home in churches and 
synagogues to the same degree as the growing persistent torture and 
abuse of Christians, Jews and other religious minorities at the hands 
of intolerant foreign governments.

[[Page S11947]]

  Americans are eager for their government to help ease the suffering 
of their brothers and sisters overseas. They are not at all satisfied 
with the inaction they have gotten to date.
  I am sure these people--who are the backbone of this nation--have no 
quarrel with establishing special committees, or issuing reports, or 
having high level meetings with church groups. But Americans are 
looking for concrete action from the State Department and the White 
House--and certainly, people persecuted because of their faith in 
foreign lands deserve more than kind words and gestures.
  It is important to emphasize that this issue, and the growing concern 
of Americans, have not fallen on deaf ears in the Senate. The Foreign 
Relations Committee held five hearings on this issue during the 105th 
Congress--two specifically on Senator Nickles proposal. I especially 
want to thank Senators Brownback and Ashcroft for using their 
subcommittees to focus attention on this issue.
  I hope every Senator will review the video tape of Senator Ashcroft's 
moving hearing on the tragic plight of Christians in southern Sudan. 
(These innocent people have been brutally tortured, sold into slavery 
and, in some instances, literally crucified by the radical Islamic 
government simply because of their faith in Christ.)
  The point is this: the vote we are about to take is a test to see 
whether Senators finally realize that we, as a people and a government, 
must do more to advance the cause of religious freedom across the 
globe.
  Finally, Mr. President, it is often pointed out--and I believe it 
with all my heart--that no matter what laws are enacted, religious 
intolerance will never be erased from the earth. I also believe that 
the prayers of millions of Americans and other believers around the 
world will accomplish more than any Act of Congress.
  That does not mean we should not try. I hope the President will join 
with us as we attempt to strengthen U.S. leadership in this area.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the Senate is debating the International 
Religious Freedom Act of 1998. In its current form, this bill is a 
careful compromise that has been months in the making. I had serious 
concerns about earlier versions of this legislation, but I am a 
cosponsor of today's compromise.
  I am confident that we have crafted the right balance among different 
facets of American foreign policy. Economic freedom and individual 
liberties are not competitors--they go hand-in-hand! We want nations 
that are free, that respect rights and liberties, and that have free 
trade and market economies.
  This is a bill that will focus America's attention on the desire to 
advance religious freedom around the world while doing no harm to 
America's national security, diplomatic or economic interests abroad. 
This is a bill that will give the President flexibility to craft a 
complete foreign policy--a foreign policy that does not elevate one 
facet of our foreign relations above all others.
  Religious freedom and tolerance have always been America's creed. 
Freedom of religion is the first freedom guaranteed in our Bill of 
Rights. No person anywhere in the world--no Christian, no Jew, no 
Hindu, no Muslim, no Buddhist, no Baha'i . . . no one--should suffer at 
the hand of the State for worshiping as he or she sees fit. As a beacon 
of liberty and freedom, America has a moral duty to speak out against 
religious persecution around the world and to defend for people 
everywhere the fundamental right of freedom of worship.
  At the same time, this bill recognizes that America bears a heavy and 
complicated burden of international leadership. Our relationships with 
other nations are complex, and our policies must reflect those 
complexities. American leadership is essential for international peace 
and security, free and open trade, a stable international economy and 
many other vital matters. Like all leaders, America must balance 
competing needs, interests and ideals.
  This bill gives the President flexibility to use the full power of 
American engagement to promote religious liberties abroad. America's 
strong commercial and diplomatic ties with other nations remain our 
most effective leverage to alter the behavior of authoritarian 
governments. American engagement abroad acts as a catalyst for change. 
The United States government cannot mandate religious freedom around 
the world, but America can lead the world in spreading respect for 
religious beliefs--just as we used the power of our example and 
determination to spread liberty, democracy and economic freedom around 
the globe.
  This bill will focus U.S. government attention on religious 
persecution. It will make religious freedom part of American diplomacy 
from the training of foreign service officers to the granting of visa 
requests to the use of our embassy facilities.
  This bill also will shine the light of day on countries, or entities 
within countries, that engage in religious persecution. It will require 
annual reporting on the state of religious freedom in every country, as 
well as annual publication of all actions the United States Government 
is taking around the world to promote religious liberty.
  And, this bill establishes an orderly procedure for the President to 
consider taking targeted, calibrated actions against the most severe 
violators of religious liberty.
  This compromise gives the President the flexibility he needs to 
conduct a balanced foreign policy.
  The President will have substantial flexibility to calibrate the most 
appropriate action to help change the behavior of the worst violators 
of religious freedom, including broad waiver authority and broad 
latitude to take actions other than sanctions.
  Congress will not be required to undertake a new series of 
counterproductive ``mini-MFN'' or ``mini-drug decertification'' debates 
about religious persecution around the world.
  The Commission on International Religious Freedom established by the 
bill will make recommendations but will have no official role in 
shaping U.S. foreign policy.
  And the President will have substantial flexibility in deciding when 
and how to identify countries that will be subject to action under this 
bill. There will be no diplomatically damaging ``list'' of countries 
that violate religious freedoms.
  Mr. President, this is not a perfect bill. But it is a good bill. 
Congress cannot, by passing a law, put an end to religious persecution 
outside our borders. But we can ensure that America speaks out with one 
voice, with a strong voice, to make clear that we will not stand idle 
while people suffer because of their faith.
  This bill will amplify America's voice for freedom. It will 
strengthen the President's ability to craft a complete foreign policy 
in which the whole of America's national interests is not held captive 
to any single dynamic. Security, economics, diplomacy, trade, human 
rights, individual liberties--these are all part of America's national 
interests around the world. We can, we must, promote them all--we 
cannot afford to sacrifice any interest for any other interest.
  When Congress returns next year, we should continue the effort to 
expand American engagement abroad--by passing fast track trade 
negotiating authority, by reforming outdated and counterproductive 
sanctions regimes, by reviewing every international institution in 
which America participates to ensure they are relevant to today's 
challenges. And we must strengthen our military, which is the guarantor 
of our foreign policy. American leadership in all those areas is 
essential if we are to effectively promote individual liberties--
including religious liberties--around the world.
  We should pass this bill. And then Congress should resist the 
temptation to legislate further on this matter in the months and years 
ahead, and give this comprehensive new framework for religious freedom 
a chance to work.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, last week, as many of our friends and 
colleagues began the Jewish New Year with the Yom Kippur day of 
atonement--in freedom and in peace--millions of men and women elsewhere 
in the world were suffering for their faith. Mr. President, I believe 
that our freedom to pray is not complete until all people are free to 
pray.
  I am told of some specific examples which make me appreciate my 
freedom

[[Page S11948]]

and move me to come to the floor today. In Pakistan, a young man faces 
a death sentence based on trumped-up blasphemy charges. In Laos, ten 
courageous men and women of faith serve out harsh prison sentences for 
the crime of meeting for Bible study, an act which many of us take part 
in regularly. In China, millions of Catholics and Protestants are 
forced to worship in secret, paying the price of prison, fines, and 
even torture if they are discovered. Muslims and Tibetan monks in China 
suffer a similar fate. In the Sudan, Christians and animists are sold 
into slavery or brutally murdered by an extremist Muslim government.
  These things ought not to be, and I believe that silence is no longer 
an option. We must act, and we must act wisely. For this reason, I join 
my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, in introducing S. 1868, 
the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. This bill presents a 
responsible, flexible structure for responding to violations of 
religious freedom around the world. It allows for action that is 
comprehensive but calibrated. It requires consultation with those who 
best know the country in order to devise the most effective policy. It 
ensures that the action we take truly benefits the people who are 
suffering. The only option this bill does not allow is silence.
  The International Religious Freedom Act is not merely a short-term 
reaction to religious persecution. It has been carefully researched and 
crafted to promote long-term change, not simply to punish. There are 
numerous provisions for training our front lines in human rights 
policy--Foreign Service officers, ambassadors and refugee and asylum 
personnel. It incorporates religious freedom into numerous long-term 
avenues for change, such as broadcasting, Fulbright exchanges and legal 
protections for religious freedom.
  This bill has strong support from a broad base of religious and 
grassroots organizations. With my colleague Don Nickles, we have 
listened to all who desired to contribute, and have worked with both 
sides of the aisle to address areas of concern. This bill is truly a 
collaborative product of countless hours of work among members of the 
Congress and the administration.
  As Americans, we prize the right to freedom of religion. Our founding 
fathers sought to establish, as George Washington, said, ``effectual 
barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of 
religious persecution.''
  We now have an historic opportunity to act on behalf of millions of 
religious believers around the world who cannot speak for themselves. 
We have a solemn responsibility to stand by those suffering for their 
faith. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. It is the right 
thing to do.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the bill, as 
modified, before us. I cosponsored S. 1868, the ``International 
Religious Freedom Act'', sponsored by the honorable Senator from 
Oklahoma because I have become concerned with the trends or continued 
policies of religious discrimination and persecution in certain 
countries. I applaud his efforts to work with all interested parties in 
forming a consensus bill with 29 cosponsors--one that even prior 
opponents can support. He has been persistent in his efforts to form a 
bill that addresses the legitimate concerns of most of the bill's 
previous detractors, including the Administration. I must also commend 
the senior Senator from Pennsylvania for focusing Congress' attention 
on this important issue.
  I feel it is extremely important, as a nation that firmly believes in 
the freedom of an individual to practice his or her religious belief, 
that our foreign policy reflect and promote this basic right of 
individuals. The manner in which we deal with other nations should 
include, but not be exclusive to, the way these nations honor the 
religious liberty of their citizens and visitors. I believe this bill 
as amended, strikes a responsible balance between the national security 
or economic interests, and the importance America places in the freedom 
of religious thought and practice for all throughout the world. The 
goal of promoting religious liberty in other countries is entirely 
consistent with the United States' policies of promoting human rights 
and democracy throughout the world.
  Many Europeans first settled this continent for the very reason of 
gaining freedom of religious thought and practice. We can look to 
William Penn as just one example of an individual in American history 
that strove to promote the rights of individuals to practice their 
religion without interference. His goal was to create a land of 
religious toleration--that land was called Pennsylvania. He even drew 
up Pennsylvania's colonial Constitution, which included in its first 
article the protection of the freedom to worship according to one's own 
conscience. To this day, America continues to be a beacon to the world, 
guaranteeing the freedom to worship as one desires.
  As a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles, it especially 
saddens me when I learn about the increase in the persecution of 
Christian individuals worldwide. However, it is not just Christians in 
certain parts of the world that are being punished simply because of 
their beliefs--it is also those who practice Islam, Judaism, and just 
about every other religion or belief. Our Founding Fathers made it 
clear in the Declaration of Independence that the basic Laws of Nature 
and of Nature's God are entitled to all individuals. This guiding 
document, a unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of 
America, says that:

       . . . all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by 
     their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among 
     these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

  The ability to practice ones religious beliefs without undue 
government interference is a fundamental right--an unalienable right. 
The American Founders believed in this right so much that they included 
the freedom to exercise one's religion in the First Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States of America. The basic right to the 
freedom of thought, conscience and religion has also been declared by 
many other countries, as evidenced by the member signatories of the 
Helsinki Accords and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
  I believe this legislation will promote ideals that America stands 
for--specifically the freedom of religion--in the international 
community. This bill is especially important because religious 
persecution takes many forms and even seems to be on the rise in some 
parts of the world. The bill before us will deal with countries that 
disregard the basic right of individuals to believe as they choose in a 
manner that is consistent, yet flexible--one that allows the President 
to choose from a variety of measures to address the injustices of the 
violating country. It allows a flexible response from the 
Administration, which recognizes that religious persecution takes many 
different forms, with varying degrees of severity. The bill's 
flexibility also recognizes the importance of a foreign policy that can 
be both pro-active and reactive to our national security and economic 
interests. The one action in dealing with violators of religious 
freedom that would not be allowed by this bill would be that of 
inaction or silence. If we, as defenders of freedom, are silent in 
matters so fundamental to our political belief system as religious 
liberty, then we are no better than the perpetrators of this unjust 
persecution and discrimination. This bill would help create a 
consistent U.S. foreign policy with respect to how we deal with 
countries that do not respect individuals' freedom of thought and 
conscience. I urge my colleagues to join with me and the 28 other 
cosponsors to vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield my colleague from Minnesota 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I thank Senator 
Nickles also.
  Mr. President, I rise to support the International Religious Freedom 
Act of 1998. While I continue to have serious questions about the 
general concept that threatening to impose sanctions on a country 
considered a ``country of particular concern'' will enable us to make 
progress toward ending religious persecution, I have co-sponsored this 
legislation, considerable progress has been made to redraft the 
legislation in a far more positive manner. Since it has significant 
support, it was important to ensure we will pass a version

[[Page S11949]]

that had a better chance to work--not one that could have been 
counterproductive.
  The Nickles compromise to the Wolf-Specter version I believe is far 
superior, and has addressed the concerns of many religious leaders. 
There was a fear the original legislation could have actually harmed 
believers in other countries. Let me repeat--those who served as 
missionaries and promoters of religious freedom abroad told me this 
legislation could actually have been counterproductive. In fact, some 
of them questioned a government involvement in this debate at all, 
other than through normal diplomatic efforts--or, even better than the 
efforts of religious leaders and missionaries themselves, who have been 
able to make progress on their own.
  Yet, many Washington stakeholders, supported an approach, to publicly 
humiliate and punish countries which meet our definition of ``a country 
of particular concern'' that is engaging in ``particularly severe 
violations'' of religious persecution by publishing a list of them and 
imposing automatic sanctions.
  Mr. President, I didn't believe this approach would work. I didn't 
believe that this was the right way to address religious persecution. 
Fortunately, many religious leaders have stepped forward, often 
severely criticized, to tell us they did not believe the original 
approach was the right approach.
  Senator Hagel and I asked the Foreign Relations Committee to hold a 
hearing on the legislation, a hearing that would allow some of those 
who believed the legislation could have been counterproductive to 
testify. It is ironic that when we sought changes to the legislation, 
again changes suggested by those who had served abroad, I was publicly 
attacked by some individuals claiming to understand how best to address 
religious persecution. And some of these individuals, I believe, may 
have placed their own personal agendas ahead of the very people that 
we, through this bill and this legislation, want to help in these 
countries.
  Mr. President, I strongly commend my colleague, Senator Nickles, for 
his understanding, his patience and his dedication to work with us on 
this legislation. I know he made many revisions to the bill which were 
recommended by myself and others that we thought would help change the 
focus from an approach that was more negative to one that was very 
positive and had a better opportunity to work.
  There is far more emphasis now on working with countries, working 
with them quietly to try to end those violations of religious freedom, 
and to working with our allies in order to try to reach multilateral 
solutions rather than a far less effective unilateral approach and 
solution.
  The revised Nickles substitute before us, I think, gives the 
President more flexibility regarding how efforts to achieve religious 
freedom are reported and that we talk not only about the progress that 
must be made, but also the progress that has been made. The report that 
discusses the progress that needs to be made is less inflammatory and 
it does not link any suggested sanctions to each country of particular 
concern.
  The President's waiver authority has been also expanded to permit a 
waiver if an action, including sanctions, would be counterproductive. 
And just this week the waiver authority has been further expanded to a 
national interest waiver which is significant progress, I believe, to 
improve this bill. A waiver could be communicated to Congress the same 
day it is exercised rather than the earlier notice requirement.
  One concern of mine, however, does still remain, and it relates to 
the commission which provides its own report on religious freedom. 
While the commission should be advisory using, I believe, detailed 
employees from the Government, language was added late in the 
negotiations that awarded the commission $3 million for each of the 2 
years for its own staff. That is a lot of staff when ``free'' staff was 
available.
  Now, I agree that the commission needs some autonomy, but in my 
judgment this could further politicize the commission, which would make 
it less effective. But I am pleased that Senator Nickles added my 
requirement that commission members must have some direct experience 
abroad in order to be appointed to the commission. We must have a 
commission with members who have direct knowledge of religious freedom 
issues in targeted countries, those who have been there, those who know 
the problems that these people could face in the form of any kind of 
retribution toward any US government action taken.
  I was also pleased that language was added to track some of Senator 
Lugar's Sanctions Reform Act in several sections of the bill. Those 
were the provisions that would require consultation with interested 
parties in order to achieve a multilateral solution as well as an 
analysis of whether an action would achieve the purpose of promoting 
religious freedom, whether it would be counterproductive, and what the 
cost would be of that action to the rest of the economy.
  Because so many changes were made to improve this legislation and 
because so many wanted to support some kind of bill, I worked very hard 
with Senator Nickles and others to improve the bill. I now believe that 
we must also exercise our oversight function over the commission as 
well as the overall approach of this legislation in the years ahead. We 
must continue to ask ourselves whether this kind of public approach 
really works. We must consider whether we want a commission or our 
Government deciding what religious persecution is, which religions are 
we going to help, and which ones will we ignore, and which countries we 
will label a ``country of particular concern,'' and which will escape 
that designation for some foreign policy reason. Where will we draw the 
line? Will we factor in every kind of discrimination against religion, 
including many we may have questions about? Will we be drawn into 
disputes with other countries that question why they were named and not 
other equally violative countries?
  Mr. President, we will need to monitor its results, and we need to do 
that in order to make sure that it accomplishes its purpose. There may 
be some fine tuning that we need to do to the bill to improve it to 
make it work better.
  This is a dangerous area in which we are treading. It is full of 
pitfalls, I believe, but I think we can overcome them if we are ready 
and willing to have oversight authority. My support of the revised 
Nickles bill is based on that willingness to see how this approach 
works, but we must pay attention to how it is working and to have the 
good sense to end it if it is not.
  As we exercise our oversight over this legislation, I ask my 
colleagues also to listen to the advice of The Reverend John N. Akers, 
of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Chairman of the East 
Gates Ministry International. He has been very helpful in forwarding 
concerns of missionaries serving abroad. Dr. Akers, who also testified 
before the Foreign Relations Committee, requested in a September 28 
letter to my office, ``Do all you can to ensure that the final version 
will help religious believers in other countries and not actually, if 
unintentionally, make their situation worse.''
  Mr. President, this is good advice, and it shall dictate how I 
personally analyze the success or failure of this legislation.
  But tonight I want to urge all my colleagues to strongly support this 
as a beginning. Again, I thank Senator Nickles for all the hard work to 
get us to this point on this legislation.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for 
his leadership on this, for his willingness to meet with us for hours 
to work out some of the concerns that he had, the latest concern he 
mentioned being where some people who are in foreign countries who are 
missionaries wanted to make sure this wouldn't have a counterproductive 
effect. We actually put in a waiver of any sanction that could be 
imposed if the administration felt like it would be counterproductive 
to the goals and purposes of the act.
  Again, I thank my colleague, Senator Grams from Minnesota, for his 
willingness to work with us, to cosponsor this legislation.
  Mr. President, I did not do this at the beginning of the debate and I 
should have. I ask unanimous consent to, in addition to myself and 
Senator Lieberman, have the following Senators be included as original 
cosponsors of this bill: Senators Mack, Kempthorne, Craig, Hutchinson, 
Enzi,

[[Page S11950]]

Helms, Sessions, Faircloth, Allard, DeWine, Brownback, Inhofe, Coats, 
Collins, Hutchison, Lott, Coverdell, Akaka, Ashcroft, Santorum, Breaux, 
Hagel, Grams, Specter, McConnell, D'Amato, Hollings, and Senator Smith 
from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I also have a list of organizations, 
religious organizations that have been supporting this bill and endorse 
this bill. I will name those for the record: Religious Liberty 
Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association 
of Evangelicals, the International Fellowship of Jews and Christians, 
the Christian Coalition, the Anti-Defamation League, the National 
Jewish Coalition, the American Jewish Community, the Catholic 
Conference, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Catholic 
Conference of Major Superiors of Men's Institutes, the Jewish Council 
for Public Affairs, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the 
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the National 
Conference on Soviet Jewry, United Methodist Church Women's Division, 
American Coptic Association, Episcopal Church, Advocates International, 
Traditional Values Coalition, Justice Fellowship, and B'nai B'rith 
International.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides on the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Oklahoma has 
7\1/2\ minutes and the opposition has 75.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, several colleagues have requested time to 
speak. I also know we went a little bit later than anticipated. Most of 
the colleagues on my side of the aisle have spoken. I know Senator 
Lieberman is returning to the floor momentarily and wishes to speak. So 
I reserve the remainder of time on our side and ask colleagues, if they 
wish to speak, to please come to the floor and do so. If not, we will 
be happy to accommodate requests of other colleagues who wish to speak 
as in morning business.
  Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent we, Senator Lieberman and 
I, have 5 minutes to speak prior to the vote tomorrow morning. That 
will be at 9:25.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________