[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11951-S11952]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION ACT OF 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Feinstein be included as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the 
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which is the substitute 
amendment to H.R. 2431 being offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  At the outset, I would like to express my appreciation and respect 
for the distinguished Assistant Majority Leader, Senator Nickles, and 
the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. I want 
to salute their deeply held commitment to religious freedom for all 
people. I am aware that they and their staffs have been negotiating 
this bill for many months. They have been through draft after draft, 
talking with the Administration, a large number of Senators with 
different interests, and a wide range of concerned outside 
organizations.
  Their mission has been to produce a bill that would make a meaningful 
contribution to combating the problem of religious persecution in 
foreign countries, one that would pass with broad support in the 
Senate, and a bill that the President would sign. I know how long and 
hard they have been working on this effort.
  Earlier this week, they had hoped to move the bill forward. There 
were still a number of provisions which I was concerned about, and I 
felt that since the bill had not come through the Foreign Relations 
Committee, on which I sit, and would not be open to amendment on the 
floor, I wanted a chance to address those concerns.
  Despite the marathon talks the Assistant Majority Leader and the 
Senator from Connecticut had already engaged in on this bill with so 
many others, and despite my late entry into the fray, they graciously 
and without hesitation agreed to sit down with me to see if we could 
come to common agreement. We were also joined by Undersecretary of 
State Stuart Eizenstat.
  I am happy to report that, as a result of these discussions, with 
good will by all sides, we were able to reach agreement on each of the 
provisions that was of concern to me, and I think the bill is better 
for it. Let me explain what we agreed upon.
  First, I have come to the conclusion that when the Congress 
legislates sanctions, we need to provide the President with a 
reasonable amount of flexibility in the implementation, both to respond 
to changing conditions, and to protect other American interests.
  Normally, we provide the President with a waiver authority for 
sanctions, but the standard of that waiver is critical. The State 
Department believes, and I agree, that the ``national security'' waiver 
standard in the most recent draft was too high--it would be difficult 
for the President to waive the sanctions required under this act except 
in extraordinary circumstances. A waiver of ``national interest'' was 
deemed by the sponsors to be too low. So we compromised: the President 
can now waive the sanctions in this bill if the ``important national 
interest'' requires it.
  Second, the definition of what constitutes a ``particularly severe 
violation'' of religious freedom was originally drafted in such a way 
that it could have inadvertently triggered other sanctions--those 
required for gross violations of human rights --under sections 116 and 
502B of the Foreign Assistance Act. There was no intent on the part of 
the sponsors to trigger two sets of sanctions, so it was simply a 
matter of ensuring that a different standard was required for each 
trigger.
  The standard we agreed upon was proposed by Senator Lieberman. 
Particularly severe violations of religious freedom are now defined as 
``systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom.'' To 
my mind, this is neither a higher nor lower standard than the 
``consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights'' that 
requires a separate set of sanctions under the Foreign Assistance Act, 
but it is a sufficiently different standard that it a finding under one 
act should not automatically trigger sanctions under both acts. I think 
this is an important improvement in the bill.
  Third, we were concerned that there could be situations in which the 
President has already taken significant action against a country, in 
large part to respond to human rights abuses, and then a finding of 
particularly severe violations of religious freedom would require 
additional actions under this act. In the case of a country like Sudan, 
where we have already imposed extensive sanctions, it makes sense for 
the President to be able to cite an existing sanction as fulfilling the 
requirements of the International Religious Freedom Act.
  Again, to the best of my knowledge, the sponsors of the bill had no 
desire to force the President to impose redundant sanctions on a 
country. So, in section 402(C)(4) we have developed language that 
allows the President to cite an existing sanction as fulfilling the 
requirements of this act. I think this change also makes the bill 
better.
  We are all aware that there are people of faith who are suffering for 
their beliefs in many parts of the world. As a nation founded on the 
precious principle of religious freedom, a principle which is enshrined 
in the Bill of Rights, we cannot and must not turn a deaf ear to the 
cries of the oppressed. Making the protection of religious freedom a 
high priority in our foreign policy is the right thing to do.
  The challenge is to create mechanisms to promote religious freedom 
and protect persecuted believers that: provide enough flexibility to 
respond to different conditions at different times and places; avoid 
unintentionally making life harder for those we seek to help; and, make 
a meaningful contribution to the cause of religious freedom without 
unduly jeopardizing other important national interests.
  That is why I have so much respect for what the distinguished 
Assistant Majority Leader and the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut have been

[[Page S11952]]

trying to do these many months. They have worked hard to listen to the 
concerns of the Administration, other Senators, religious organizations 
of every denomination, the business community, and other interested 
parties. They have tried to develop a bill that will help the United 
States protect those in danger of persecution for their faith, while 
taking into account the broad and deep requirements of U.S. foreign 
policy interests. I think they have succeeded.
  Evidence of their success is in the broad and diverse coalition of 
religious organizations and human rights groups who have worked 
tirelessly to support the bill. Further evidence of this success, I 
believe, will be evident by the overwhelming support I expect the 
Senate will demonstrate when it votes shortly. And perhaps the most 
impressive evidence of their success is that earlier today, National 
Security Adviser Sandy Berger informed the Minority Leader that the 
Administration now supports the bill as drafted. After so many months, 
we know that the President will sign this bill, and it will become law.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Connecticut will 
be here shortly. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. 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. COATS. Mr. President, I know our colleague, Senator Lieberman, is 
on his way over to speak on this bill. I want to take this opportunity 
to say how much his presence and his involvement on this issue was 
necessary to our forging a bipartisan consensus on this.
  I think it is important that we speak with one voice as a nation on 
an issue as critical as religious persecution. It was the work of 
Senator Lieberman, primarily on the other side of the aisle, that 
allowed us to address some of the concerns of some of our colleagues--
many of them legitimate concerns--and to work through the process, 
convince his colleagues that what we were attempting to do was done in 
a way that addressed their concerns. Really, without his help we could 
not have forged this bipartisan consensus. So while he is not here for 
me to praise him personally, I just want to let the Record show that 
the combination of Republicans and Democrats, liberals and 
conservatives, and everybody in between, resulted in a consensus bill 
that I think sends a very, very important message and, really, a beacon 
of hope and light.
  I am hoping the vote tomorrow will be unanimous, and I think it may 
be. A lot of that credit goes to Senator Lieberman and also, as I said 
earlier, a lot of that credit goes to the bill's chief sponsor here in 
the Senate, Senator Nickles, who patiently worked through trials and 
tribulations, weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, in order to 
pull this together and get everybody on board. That appears to be what 
we have, and we are looking forward to a solid vote tomorrow. Again, my 
compliments to all of those who played such an important role in that.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Indiana for his 
compliments. I want to reiterate my statement that Senator Coats was 
there from the beginning, and he was there at almost every meeting 
saying, ``Let's get this done,'' and, ``Let's forge the consensus,'' 
``Let's make the compromise,'' and he helped make it happen.
  He is also very correct in complimenting Senator Lieberman for making 
it happen. I mentioned that earlier. Senator Lieberman has been with us 
on this bill for a long time. He has worked with us. He has helped us 
craft the bill and helped make compromises to make sure it is enacted.
  I also thank our colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, whom 
we met with last night at length to be sure, again, that this bill 
would be acceptable and we could get it through. We did. We made a 
change. We changed the waiver provision from ``national security'' to 
``important national interests,'' which, again, is something the 
administration wanted.
  I think it is still compatible with our goals and objectives of 
passing a good bill that will help move countries, that have been 
persecuting people because of their religious beliefs, away from that 
behavior.
  I thank my colleague from California for her work, and also the 
Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, who worked with us, as well, in 
negotiating with us, and helped us craft a package that I am confident 
we will pass tomorrow with an overwhelming vote.
  I am confident the House, likewise, will pass the bill, as we will 
pass it in the Senate, and this bill will be on the President's desk 
and will become law. As a result, I think it will save lives and it 
will help alleviate persecution of individuals because they are 
practicing their faith.
  Again, I thank all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
making this happen.
  I yield the floor and 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. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, as I indicated before to the majority 
leader, I have about a 30-minute speech for morning business. He 
indicated that I could do this at the end of the proceedings tonight. 
But since the floor is now not occupied--I understand Senator Lieberman 
may be on his way--I thought I would proceed now, and it is my 
intention to do so. If Senator Lieberman comes, then we will try to 
make whatever accommodation we can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________