[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 141 (Friday, October 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12091-S12100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION ACT OF 1998

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I think the regular order is we are back 
on the International Religious Freedom Act?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). If the Senator will suspend, the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S12092]]


       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 resumed consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 15 minutes equally divided. The 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I spoke at length on this bill last 
night. I mentioned that we have had a lot of cooperation and effort on 
behalf of a lot of Senators to help make this bill a reality and 
hopefully to soon become law. Principal among those is Senator 
Lieberman from Connecticut, who is not just a principal cosponsor, but 
a tireless worker on behalf of individuals throughout the world who 
have been suffering from religious persecution or who desire religious 
freedom. Senator Lieberman has been working on their behalf. I am 
privileged to work with him on this bill and I yield him such time as 
he desires on this bill.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Oklahoma for his kind words and for his extraordinary leadership on 
this measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we are heading rapidly to the end of 
this second half of the 105th Congress. There will be time for reviews 
and evaluations. Some will say what did we accomplish in this second 
part of this 105th Congress? I hope when we are asked that, one of the 
answers we will be able to give is that we adopted the International 
Religious Freedom Act, a historic piece of legislation, genuinely 
bipartisan, representing and expressing the core beliefs and values of 
the American people and putting those beliefs and values at the center 
of our foreign policy.
  It is, in fact, a measure that has the potential to affect the 
freedom, the lives, the fates of tens of millions of people around the 
world today who are denied the basic right of freedom of religion that 
brought so many of our ancestors to the United States.
  This kind of measure does not reach the edge of passage without a lot 
of strong support. I thank particularly the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Nickles, and his outstanding staff--especially Steve Moffitt of that 
staff--for the hundreds of hours that they spent working on this 
legislation and the spirit of common purpose that guided them as we 
went on.
  I thank also my friend and colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, 
and his staff, particularly Brian McKeon, who contributed immeasurably 
to, not only the purpose, but to the way in which this legislation is 
crafted; to Senator Feinstein and her staff, particularly Dan Shapiro, 
for their very constructive contributions; and Senator Coats as well, 
about whom I have a little more to say in a few moments. And I want to 
recognize Cecile Shea who is on my staff for the literally hundreds of 
hours she worked to help craft this bill.
  This effort began with some Pied Pipers outside the Congress who 
educated us to the fact that these religious freedoms that we hold so 
dear in the United States are not real for many people, millions of 
people around the world. Surprisingly to many of us, they are 
particularly not real for people of the Christian faith around the 
world, who are subjected to discrimination, and in many cases 
persecution.
  One of the people who started this effort was Michael Horowitz of the 
Hudson Institute, and he deserves to be mentioned here and thanked for 
educating and opening our eyes to the persecution that exists. Senator 
Specter and Congressman Wolf introduced the initial bill. They were the 
pioneers here and blended together with the effort that Senator Nickles 
and I initiated here in the Senate. I thank them for their support.
  As we come to the conclusion, I want to thank the administration 
representatives, led by Under Secretary Stuart Eizenstat, who worked 
with us to craft the language that could finally be approved by 
National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and the President. The 
administration endorsement guarantees that when passed this legislation 
will become law.
  The list of groups that endorsed the act is extraordinary, a true 
expression of all of God's children:
  The Episcopal Church, the Catholic Conference, the United Methodist 
Church Women's Division, the Evangelical Lutherans, the American Jewish 
Committee, the Christian Coalition, the National Association of 
Evangelicals--the list goes on and on and on--the B'nai B'rith, the 
Anti-Defamation League, the Catholic conference of Major Superiors of 
Men's Institutes, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the National 
Conference of Soviet Jewry, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 
the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the American 
Coptic Association, Advocates International, the Religious Liberty 
Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Union of American Hebrew 
Congregations, the International Fellowship of Jews and Christians, the 
Traditional Values Coalition, the Justice Fellowship and the Church of 
the Disciples.
  What brought all of these groups together? What brought them together 
is, in many ways, what brought the founders of our country to these 
shores and what led them to declare their independence ultimately from 
England. And that was faith, shared faith in God and a belief that no 
government has the right to tell people how to worship and certainly 
does not have the right to discriminate against them or persecute them 
for the way in which they choose to express their faith in God.
  The founders of this country declared in the Declaration of 
Independence that: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all 
men are created equal'' and that they have certain endowments, not from 
the founders of the country, not from a group of politicians. The 
endowments come from their Creator, and the endowment is the right to 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then in the very first 
amendment to the Bill of Rights, they established the freedom of 
religion that has been so dear to our country, so central to our 
country and such a magnet for our fathers and grandfathers and great 
grandfathers who came here driven by a desire to have that freedom.
  On this day, I think of my grandmother who came here from Central 
Europe. My grandmother was probably one of the greatest American 
patriots I ever knew, for a simple reason: She said to me in her old 
age how much she loved the country. She said, ``It may not seem that 
profound to you, it may not seem that complicated, but the fact I can 
walk to synagogue on Saturday morning and not only is no one harassing 
me or bothering me, not only do I live free of fear, not only do I have 
no hesitation about what I will find in the synagogue, nobody bothering 
the building or any of us worshipping there, but my neighbors who are 
not Jewish, as they see me, say ``Good morning, Mrs. Manger, good 
Sabbath to you.' ''
  This to her expressed the essence of what it meant to be American and 
free and the gratitude that she felt. In some measure, I suppose many 
of us are supporting this legislation and trying to express that 
gratitude by extending as best we can that freedom and respect to 
people around the world.
  Some say, ``OK, it is good for the United States. What gives you the 
right to tell other countries how they should treat their citizens?'' 
What we are saying here is that we have the right to express our 
values; we have the right to put our values at the center of our 
foreign policy. Countries can do what they will, but we have no 
obligation to deal with countries on a normal basis, to give them aid 
and comfort if they are violating a central animating principle of 
American life, which is freedom of religion.
  Who else, if not a nation whose forebears and citizens, beginning 
with the Puritans and continuing to this day, suffered under 
persecutors in foreign lands before coming to this country? Who else 
will speak for those around the world who are denied those basic 
liberties?
  Mr. President, this legislation, finely crafted, worked on for more 
than a year, expresses, in sensible terms, those values to which I have 
spoken. It clearly states America's unwavering commitment to religious 
freedom around the world. It requires that every succeeding American 
administration report once a year on the state of religious freedom in 
every country in the world--put it on the record--and

[[Page S12093]]

also report on the steps the administration has taken to encourage--and 
that is the way this proposal will best work--and raise the status of 
religious freedom in every country around the world to a level of 
visibility and report on it. We have given the administrations--this 
and all future administrations--a menu of choices to respond to, some 
modest and, in most extreme cases of persecution, some severe.
  In nations where violations are particularly egregious, where 
torture, execution and inhumane punishment routinely are used to limit 
the free expression of religion, today the President may choose from a 
list of economic incentives to pressure the offending government to 
reform. The menu of sanctions in this bill is narrowly focused. It is 
designed to mitigate the offending behavior without causing economic 
hardship to our own country. The President has a waiver authority on 
the sanctions and is also required to seek, first, multilateral 
cooperation in this sanctions bill.
  But this is much more than a sanctions bill. It is a reminder to the 
executive branch of the American Government, both now and in the 
future, that as it encourages human rights around the world, it must 
consider freedom of religion.
  This bill requires training in religious freedom issues for foreign 
service and immigration officials. It establishes an independent 
commission to monitor religious persecution around the world and to 
make recommendations to the administration on how to encourage greater 
religious freedom.
  Mr. President, right now somewhere in the world a man or woman 
languishes in prison, some on death row, because he or she did nothing 
more than choose faith in God over personal expediency. They probably 
wonder if anyone cares about what has happened to them. In too many 
places in this world today, a group, a village, perhaps a province, 
will suffer economic hardship, lack of access to medical care, 
systematic harassment and intimidation because its citizens refuse to 
turn their backs on the most fundamental definition of who they are. 
They wonder, I suppose, whether anyone cares or has noticed. And this 
bill, the International Religious Freedom Act, says to them that we 
notice, we care and the Government of the strongest nation in the world 
will speak up for them to protect their right to worship their God in 
the way in which they choose.
  Mr. President, just a final word about our retiring colleague from 
Indiana, Senator Dan Coats. As fine a person of faith as I have ever 
known in my life, as trustworthy a man as I have ever had the privilege 
to work with, worked very hard on this piece of legislation because the 
principles embodied in this legislation spring from the inner core of 
this man of surpassing and illuminating Christian faith.
  In some measure, I think this is one of the great testaments, one of 
the great monuments that he will leave as he leaves the Senate. With 
this act, we send a message that our Nation, founded under God, with 
freedom of conscience on religion as its cornerstone is prepared to do 
what it can to extend those values reasonably, sensibly to people 
throughout the world.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to support H.R. 2431--the 
International Religious Persecution Act of 1998--as amended by the 
substitute offered by Senator Nickles and others. I believe that the 
changes that this amendment makes to the underlying bill vastly improve 
the effectiveness of this legislation in promoting religious freedom 
around the world and in better responding to actions that would deny 
people such freedom, regardless of where they reside.
  Mr. President, we in the United States are very fortunate. Our 
Founding Fathers recognized the importance of religious freedom as a 
bedrock issue. That they did so is not surprising. It was borne out of 
their personal experiences having been forced to flee their countries 
because of religious intolerance and outright persecution. For that 
reason, religious freedom was given a prominent place by the drafters 
of the Constitution--in the Bill of Rights as the first amendment to 
the Constitution.
  We as Americans are not the only ones who cherish and hold dear our 
religious freedom. This important and unalienable right is also a part 
of the universal collection of rights that people around the globe hold 
sacred. It is recognized in both the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.
  Despite the seeming universality of the right to religious freedom, 
people throughout the planet are every day being denied the right to 
practice their religion--Christian and Jew, Moslem and Buddhist, Hindu 
and Baha'i. At its most extreme, unthinkable acts have been perpetrated 
against an entire people in the process of denying them the right to 
practice their faith, I am speaking of the annihilation of more than 6 
million Jews by Adolf Hitler while the world looked on.
  Even today, religious intolerance remains rooted in too many 
societies throughout the planet--in Iran, in Sudan, in Burma, in the 
People's Republic of China, in Russia--and this is by no means an 
exhaustive list.
  H.R. 2431, as amended, seeks to establish a policy and procedures for 
the United States government to follow in defending religious freedom 
internationally. It provides for the imposition of targeted sanctions 
against governments which practice religious persecution. However, it 
also gives the President and the Secretary of State some measure of 
flexibility in carrying out the policy.
  I am also pleased to note that it excludes the denial of food and 
medicine as a sanctions option under this legislation. I have never 
believed that to deny innocent men, women and children access to the 
very basic necessities of life places the United States as a government 
on a particularly high moral ground at the very time we are trying to 
elicit a higher standard of moral behavior by other governments. The 
bill also includes waiver authority that will enable the President to 
react with flexibility to changing events in furtherance of U.S. 
national interests. Finally, the bill includes a sunset provision that 
would lift any sanctions imposed pursuant to this act after two years, 
unless specifically reauthorized by the Congress.
  I believe that President Clinton is committed to promoting 
international religious freedom. In no way should the passage of this 
legislation be interpreted as a criticism of the administration's 
efforts to champion the cause of international religious freedom. 
Rather, my support for this legislation should be viewed as an effort 
to complement the Administration's efforts. Passage of the pending 
legislation will signal to the world that the Congress stands fully 
behind all efforts to promote religious freedom along with other 
fundamental human rights as a core component in the United States 
foreign policy agenda.
  I commend Senator Nickles and my colleague from Connecticut Senator 
Lieberman for all their work on this legislation. Thanks to their 
efforts to perfect and refine its provisions, this legislation will be 
far more effective in furthering U.S. efforts to promote respect for 
religious freedom throughout the world.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to join with them and many others in this 
Chamber in voting for final passage of this bill at the appropriate 
time.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the International Religious Freedom Act 
of 1998 represents a vitally important piece of legislation to raise 
awareness of and combat religious persecution overseas. Some would 
downplay the problem of religious persecution abroad, but preserving 
religious freedom at home and promoting it in other countries is 
central to the purpose and objectives of the United States.
  In our own history as a nation and in the histories of countries 
around the world, religious freedom has been at the center of movements 
for broader civil liberty. Efforts to restrict religious freedom strike 
at the heart of liberty itself. Thus, the United States has a duty to 
stand for religious liberty abroad as we continue to preserve it at 
home.
  If the Administration had been more aggressive in confronting 
religious persecution, such legislation might not be necessary. In 
fact, at a White House meeting to discuss one of the major bills on 
religious persecution, President Clinton told religious leaders that 
legislation which actually required him to confront persecution abroad 
would put ``enormous pressure on whoever is in the executive branch to 
fudge

[[Page S12094]]

an evaluation of the facts of what is going on.''
  That is a troubling statement by the President of the United States, 
which not only calls us to question this Administration's commitment to 
fight religious persecution, but the reliability of other presidential 
certifications on issues such as Chinese missile and nuclear 
proliferation. Such statements by Administration officials make it 
clear why legislation to address religious persecution is needed.
  Religious persecution is a tragic fact of life in many countries, 
from Latin America to Asia to Africa. Religious persecution in Sudan 
and China has been of particular concern to me. As Chairman of the 
Africa Subcommittee, I held a hearing on religious persecution in Sudan 
in September of last year.
  Religious persecution has become enmeshed in a brutal Sudanese civil 
war that has taken more than 1.5 million civilians since 1983, with 
over 4 million more being displaced by the fighting. An estimated 
430,000 refugees have fled Sudan to seek safety in neighboring 
countries.
  Human rights organizations working in Sudan have testified before 
Congress that the government uses ``aerial bombardment and burning of 
villages, arbitrary arrests, torture, chattel slavery--especially child 
slavery--hostage taking, summary execution, inciting deadly tribal 
conflict, the abduction and brainwashing of children, the arrest of 
Christian pastors and lay church workers, and the imprisonment of 
moderate Muslim religious leaders'' to suppress dissent and form a 
radical Islamic state. Such barbarous atrocities, along with Sudan's 
support for international terrorism, has led me to introduce 
legislation to cut off financial transactions with the Sudanese 
government.
  The viciousness of religious persecution in Sudan should not callous 
us to the very real and brutal oppression taking place in other 
countries. As Nina Shea notes in The Lion's Den, China has more 
Christians in prison because of religious activities than any other 
nation. The State Department's first comprehensive review of 
persecution against Christians, issued in July 1997 and entitled ``U.S. 
Policy in Support of Religious Freedom,'' says, ``The Government of 
China has sought to restrict all actual religious practice to 
government-subsidized religious organizations and registered places of 
worship.''
  China's efforts to restrict religious freedom are driven by 
oppressive policies which seek to make all religion subservient to the 
state's secular objectives. In the book China: State Control of 
Religion, Human Rights Watch states that ``the Chinese government 
believes that religion breeds disloyalty, separatism, and subversion.'' 
The book goes on to note: ``Chinese authorities are keenly aware of the 
role that the church played in Eastern Europe during the disintegration 
of the Soviet empire.''
  Rather than embrace and encourage the free expression of faith, the 
Chinese government is engaged in a massive, ongoing, and brutal effort 
to repress non-sanctioned religious activity. Ministers or lay people 
who seek to practice their faith free from bureaucratic interference 
and oppression are subjected to imprisonment, torture, and worse. The 
Far Eastern Economic Review noted that 15,000 religious sites were 
destroyed by government police in the first five months of 1996 alone. 
Paul Marshall and Nina Shea note that ``China's underground Christians 
are the target of what they themselves describe as the most brutal 
repression since the early 1980s when China was just emerging from the 
terror of the Cultural Revolution.''
  And yet, in spite of such repression by the Chinese Communist 
government, this Administration declined even to sponsor a resolution 
at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights condemning China's human rights 
record. Apparently, some type of back door deal was made with the 
Chinese government in which a few prisoners would be released and we 
would turn our head and close our ears to the thousands that remain in 
Chinese prisons and labor camps.
  I am aware of mounting concern in the U.S. business community on the 
damage done to U.S. competitiveness due to unilateral sanctions. I want 
U.S. companies to compete and succeed in the international marketplace. 
The Nickles legislation, however, is a carefully crafted bill which 
offers the President an array of options to promote religious liberty 
abroad and will target any resulting sanctions on those countries most 
deserving of reproach for religious persecution. This legislation is a 
necessary first step to address the problem of religious persecution.
  Mr. President, I submit that it is time for the Senate of the United 
States to take a stand on this issue of religious persecution, and 
passage of the Nickles legislation offers just such an opportunity. It 
is also time for the Executive Branch to take a stand on this issue. 
Rather than look at how we might ``fudge'' legislative requirements to 
avoid confronting oppression abroad, let us have the courage of our 
convictions. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to express my enthusiastic 
support for the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which was 
passed by the Senate earlier today. This legislation condemns religious 
persecution and promotes what is indisputably a fundamental human 
right--the right to freedom or religion.
  I am proud to have co-sponsored this legislation, which I might add 
was passed by the Senate without opposition. That is due in no small 
part to the efforts of Senators Nickles and Lieberman. I want to 
commend them and their staffs for all the hard work they've done to 
craft a bill that is meaningful and effective without being excessively 
rigid or inflexible.
  Mr. President, it has amazed me to see how Americans' awareness of 
religious persecution abroad has grown just in this decade. It is, no 
doubt, a result of the incredible resources and vast amounts of 
information that ordinary Americans now have at their fingertips. As 
more and more people gain access to the Internet, the velocity of 
information continues to increase. Americans have learned about 
religious persecution by foreign governments around the globe and they 
expect our government to take serious action to curb this behavior.
  Their can be no doubt that we have a responsibility to advocate and 
encourage freedom of religion in foreign lands. We, as a nation, have 
always held it to be the most sacrosanct of human rights. Indeed, it is 
not just enshrined in our Bill of Rights, it is a thread that is woven 
into the very fabric of our national identity.
  The International Religious Freedom Act channels U.S. assistance to 
governments that are not gross violators of human rights, in particular 
the right to religious freedom. It provides for sanctions or other 
comparable action against countries that persecute citizens on 
religious grounds. The bill establishes a Commission on International 
Religious Persecution to publish yearly recommendations to the White 
House and the Congress on how to promote religious freedom abroad. It 
also establishes an Ambassador-at-Large of Religious Freedom within the 
State Department and a Special Advisor on International Religious 
Freedom within the National Security Council. As a result, it requires 
the Administration to produce a yearly ``Annual Report on Religious 
Freedom Around the World.''
  Mr. President, these are reasonable provisions that I believe will 
help focus our efforts to stand up for religious freedom abroad while 
at the same time allowing the executive branch a degree of needed 
flexibility to deal with different facts and circumstances in different 
instances of persecution. It is an important bill, and I am hopeful 
that the Congress can send it to the President for signature before 
adjournment.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is fitting that, as we conclude the 
105th Congress, we can add to our long list of accomplishments the 
passage of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.
  This bill has been in the works throughout this Congress and is a 
fine example of the legislative results we can achieve through long, 
thoughtful study and debate. I would like to compliment the numerous 
members and their staffs who have worked on this bill since its 
inception. Senator Specter introduced the first version of this bill 
last year. Senator Lugar and Senator Lieberman worked diligently to 
develop that initial draft. And Senator Nickles took the final drafts 
and brought the bill to the version we will vote on today.

[[Page S12095]]

  Numerous compromises were made, but the lasting product of this body 
rarely passes without such compromising, and again I wish to compliment 
all the senators who so assiduously developed the bill I expect will 
pass overwhelmingly this morning.
  There is a conceptual problem whenever we seek to apply serious 
diplomatic and economic sanctions to worldwide problems. On the one 
hand, you risk over 70 cases of unintended consequences. I use that 
number because recent estimates are that at least 70 nations violate, 
abuse or proscribe outright religious freedom. One legislative solution 
mandating tangible and serious sanctions applied to over 70 cases can 
have a myriad of consequences we don't intend.
  On the other hand, a mere resolution of disapproval of such behavior 
appears weak, and can give the signal that the Congress is strong on 
denunciation, but weak on action.
  Mr. President, one of my favorite quotes on geopolitics comes from 
the British historian Paul Johnson, who wrote in his magisterial 
history of the blood-soaked 20th century, Modern Times, that ``it is of 
the essence of geopolitics to be able to distinguish between different 
degrees of evil.''
  Of course, evil is evil. But, it takes sophisticated legislating to 
address it in a geopolitically sound way, and I believe that this 
current bill has succeeded in doing that.
  By the detailed and considered list of incremental actions directed 
of the President, and by the selective waiver authorities, we have, in 
the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, a piece of legislation 
that is both substantive and flexible. It conscientiously fulfills the 
Congress's intent to act against one of the most hideous violations of 
human rights, persecution based on faith.
  We could not ignore the moral imperative to act, Mr. President. It 
would be impossible now to list all of the egregious abuses of this 
fundamental right that are occurring today, and I fear that to select a 
few examples risks suggesting other, unmentioned, abuses are less 
objectionable.
  Nor would it be accurate to suggest that abuses of religion occur 
merely in totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. The renowned human 
rights organization Freedom House recently reported that the number of 
democracies in the world has grown over the past ten years from 66 
democracies to 117. This is a remarkable accomplishment and bodes well 
for global political trends.
  But we should not believe this trend is irreversible, nor should we 
assume that all of the new democracies are well-established in their 
institutions. While democratic development is required to further the 
protection of individual rights, including the right to conscience and 
faith, certain democratic regimes around the world still constrain 
complete freedom of religion.
  There is a relation, however, between the degree of abuse of the 
right to individual faith and authoritarian regimes, because it mostly 
is in authoritarian regimes do you the horrific abuses--torture, 
imprisonment, execution and disappearance--that are most disturbing to 
Americans. That is why all of us gathered today to support this bill 
must redouble our efforts to maintain a strong commitment to the 
development and expansion of democracy as a pillar of American foreign 
policy.
  Mr. President, I take my own Mormon faith seriously; and, because of 
my faith, I am acutely aware of the historical suffering of an 
intolerant society. Perhaps that is what makes me more attuned to the 
sufferings of the faithful--of all the great religions--around the 
world. Perhaps it is because I am a conservative, who simply believes 
in a life based on faith, family and country, with faith underpinning 
the values of family and country.
  But it is probably because I am an American, a proud citizen of a 
country where we have so developed a rule of law that enshrines the 
individual right to belief that we are the envy of freedom-seeking 
people around the world and the enemies of those regimes too insecure, 
too primitive, and, in some cases, too barbaric to countenance this 
most fundamental freedom.
  Mr. President, I have traveled a great deal in this world, and I have 
met many leaders. I have met communists who believed, and believers who 
countenanced oppression of other faiths. The varieties of personal 
faith and its expressions are countless, but the fundamental political 
right to personal conscience is indivisible, and universally desired.
  This bill before demonstrates that the United States Congress, and 
all its members with all their faiths, believe that the pursuit of this 
political right must be a conscious, vocal, activist, and determined 
part of our foreign policy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor, I rise in 
strong support of the International Religious Freedom Act and hope for 
the persecuted everywhere. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle in the Senate and House for their dedicated efforts in crafting 
this legislation.
  Mr. President, the desire for religious freedom is not uniquely 
American. But as Americans we are in a unique position to advocate it. 
As a superpower, we have the resources. As a nation of free people, we 
have the responsibility. Religious freedom is at the core of our 
country and enshrined in our Constitution. Our nation's founders fled 
from religious persecution in search of a land where they could freely 
exercise their ideal of religious freedom They stood recognizing that 
the suppression of their faith was tryanny over their hearts and minds. 
They knew that without the freedom to gather, to worship, to speak 
about their God, there would be no freedom. So they laid a cornerstone 
for our democracy, establishing freedom in law. And from that day, the 
protection of religious freedom has become part of our legacy, part of 
our identify as a nation. We must exercise this identify or one day 
realize that we have lost it. For the fruits of democracy, hoarded in 
the hands of the few, become bitter and rotten.
  Mr. President this legislation takes concrete steps to promote the 
basic right to religious freedom. It establishes three entities to 
cooperatively guarantee that combating religious persecution is a 
priority in U.S. foreign policy. Within the State Department, an 
Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Liberty will serve as a high level 
diplomat, raising issues of religious persecution in bilateral meetings 
and heading up the Office of International Religious Freedom at the 
State Department. A Special Advisor on Religious Persecution at the 
National Security Council will monitor incidents of persecution and act 
as an advisor and resource for the executive branch. The Commission on 
International Religious Liberty, a ten member, bipartisan commission, 
will investigate religious persecution and provide an outside voice for 
policy recommendations to both Congress and the White House. Under this 
legislation, the U.S. government collects information on religious 
persecution, through the compilation of an Annual Report on Religious 
Persecution, and responds to these violations through a broad range of 
options, ranging from diplomatic protest to economic sanctions. The 
apparatus under this legislation is not simply reactive, however. It 
also provides for active promotion of religious freedom through 
international broadcasts, Fulbright exchanges, and training for Foreign 
Service Officers and refugee and asylum personnel on these issues. 
While the apparatus may seem extensive, it only reflects the magntitude 
of the problem. I believe that is the least that we can do to lay a 
concrete foundation for religious freedom.
  Religious persecution around the world may go unnoticed in the hectic 
run of our daily lives, but for millions of people it is a horrifying, 
incessant reality. They live in fear of arrest, imprisonment, torture, 
and death for simply exercising their faith. In Pakistan, fear reigns 
under the constitution, which stipulates the death penalty for 
blaspheny against Mohammed. Ayoob Masih, a Christian, was beaten by a 
mob for reading his Bible, arrested, imprisoned, fined, and sentenced 
to death by hanging for blasphemy. Local police have failed to control 
angry mobs destroying the homes and churches of Christians in Pakistan. 
Ahmadis, Hindus, Zakris, and other minority religious groups have also 
been targets of lynching. In Egypt, Coptic Christians are routinely 
denied permits to build or repair churches. In Cairo's Tora district, 
security forces forcibly closed the doors of the Church of St. Bishoi,

[[Page S12096]]

waxing its windows and preventing any further entry and any freedom to 
worship there. An eighteen year old girl in Laos was thrown into prison 
by government forces for teaching Bible classes to neighborhood 
children. In Iran, a man was shot in the street for not being in the 
mosque during prayer time. Bahai's have also been subject to a rash of 
executions. In Sudan, where civil war has ravaged the land and claimed 
over a million lives, Christians and Animists are subject to abduction, 
imprisonment, torture, enslavement, forced conversion to Islam, and 
execution. Christian children are abducted, forced into reeducation 
camps, given Arab names, and raised as Muslims. A Muslim sheik who 
Christianity was arrested, charged with apostasy, and faced with 
execution unless he returned to Islam within two months. Only 
government-certified clergymen are allowed to talk about religion in 
Uzbekistan. Private religious instruction is also formally banned under 
pains of stiff fines and labor camp sentences.

  This type of insidious government control is also present in China, 
where Article 36 of the Chinese Constitution guarantees religious 
freedom, but religious repression is carefully meted out through an 
apparatus of government registration, intense scrutiny, unrelenting 
intimidation, and brutal punishment. Only five religions are permitted 
and control is exercised over these official churches in matters such 
as personnel selection, sermon themes, congregation size, and 
dissemination of religious materials. Unofficial, or illegal, religious 
gatherings are forcibly broken up, its participants arrested, victims 
of extortion, torture, and even fatal beatings. Zheng Muzheng, who was 
active in sharing his faith, was beaten to death in a jail in Hunan 
Province. His grieving widow has been repeatedly interrogated and held 
without arrest. Members of unofficial churches fortunate enough not to 
be imprisoned live under the glare of government surveillance. They are 
arbitrarily and repeatedly detained without formal charges, threatened 
with loss of property and employment, subject to heavy fines--all for 
believing in and worshiping an authority higher than the Communist 
Party. Under their reign of terror, Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and 
temples cannot be constructed and are often destroyed. Monks and nuns 
are restricted in numbers and tortured. Palden Gyatso, a Tibetan 
Buddhist monk, testified before the House International Relations 
Committee about the routine use by the Chinese government of electric 
shock guns, serrated and hooked knives, handcuffs and thumbcuffs on 
those who would dare to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed 
freedom of religion.
  The grim and disturbing reality is that religious persecution is not 
limited to a particular region or a particular faith. It beats on the 
backs of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Baha'is. It 
scourages over half the world's population in over seventy countries.
  Mr. President, this legislation takes comprehensive action against 
this alarming trend of oppression. Through its reporting provisions, it 
sheds light on the dark practices of persecution-- a radiant ray of 
hope for those languishing in prisons. By requiring the President to 
use those means deemed necessary to not allow these atrocious acts to 
persist, this legislation cracks the heavy yoke of persecution. In its 
active promotion of religious freedom, it sweeps open the gates of 
suppressed faith, preparing the way for the liberty.

  Mr. President, I am aware that detractors of this legislation claim 
that it establishes a false hierarchy of human rights abuses. But I 
suspect that for those same critics, treating all human rights abuses 
on an equal basis means voting against all human rights provisions on 
an equal basis. Others claim that it binds the hands of the President, 
propelling him on a course of self-defeating foreign policy, forcing 
him to ultimately ``fudge'' sanctions. This well-crafted legislation 
has taken this concern into consideration, incorporating the views of 
its sponsors, the Administration, and the business community. It 
focuses on specific and particularly egregious instances of religious 
persecution. While it requires the President to act, it also presents 
the President with a wide berth of options and requires a review of the 
potential impact on American security and economic interests and its 
intended efficacy.
  Still others claim that we should not be moralizing or imposing our 
values on other countries. Those suffering in prison for practicing 
their faith would certainly disagree. Freedom of religion is a 
universal right and aspiration, recognized and articulated in a number 
of international instruments including the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights, which states that ``Everyone has the right to freedom of 
thought, conscience, and religion . . . to manifest his religion or 
belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.'' The 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes that 
``Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and 
religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a 
religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or 
in community with others in public or private, to manifest his religion 
or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching.'' By 
advocating this freedom, we are not imposing our values on others but 
reaffirming a universal right.
  We must not cower under the covers of complacency. We must not be 
complicit actors, carried away in a current of oppression. We must not, 
for fear of taking a false step on the path of justice, refuse to walk 
at all. We must be the voice of those muted by their oppressors, crying 
out for a land of the free. We must, in the words of Ronald Reagan, ``. 
. . 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.''
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I offer my comments on the Nickles 
substitute amendment to H.R. 2431, the International Religious Freedom 
Act of 1998.
  Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] for 
all the hard work that he and others have devoted to this important 
piece of legislation. These Senators, and our House colleagues, have 
recognized the importance of promoting religious freedom abroad, and 
have tried to craft legislation that both emphasizes our serious 
concerns about this issue, and provides authority to the President to 
react to governments which abuse these fundamental rights.
  In particular, I appreciate their efforts to make improvements to the 
original bill, most of which I support.
  Mr. President, the issue of religious freedom is especially important 
for our country. Freedom of religion is one of the bedrock principles 
of American democracy. Our founders, who came to America in part to 
flee religious intolerance, championed freedom of religion as a 
universal right, and made it an integral part of the Constitution 
through the Bill of Rights.
  Throughout our history, immigrants from every corner of the globe 
have arrived on our shores seeking a community where they could 
practice their religion openly and without fear of persecution. Today, 
we value the separation of church and state as one of our guiding 
principles.
  But we are all well aware that such liberties are not fully enjoyed 
everywhere, and there are millions of people who daily face persecution 
or intolerance because of their religious beliefs. Worse yet, the 
exploitation of religious and ethnic differences for political ends has 
become all too common in the post-Cold War era.
  These trends have been around for centuries, but have been getting 
more serious press attention in the last several years. They mirror the 
myriad other abuses that are conducted, or at least tolerated, by non-
democratic regimes around the world. Examples of restrictions on basic 
freedoms--of expression, of association, of the press--abound, and 
those who dare violate such restrictions face imprisonment, repression 
or even death. As we consider this legislation today, it is likely that 
somewhere, a political prisoner is being beaten by the police or armed 
forces, or by some paramilitary group whose members might include 
police officers or soldiers. It is likely that somewhere a union 
organizer is being detained or harassed by authorities, that a woman is 
being raped by government thugs, that a newspaper is being

[[Page S12097]]

shut down, or that a prisoner has ``disappeared.''
  The question for us today is this: what is the appropriate U.S. 
policy response to such acts of oppression by other nations on the 
basis of religious beliefs? We should also ask: what is the appropriate 
response to oppression of any kind?
  I firmly believe that the defense of human rights around the world 
relates directly to our ``national interests'' and therefore justifies 
leadership from the United States, a nation founded on respect for 
individual rights and liberties.
  We are bound by our country's founding principles to promote and 
defend certain ideas: that we are all created equal, that we are born 
with certain inalienable rights, that government is legitimate only 
with the consent of the people, and that government should exist to 
promote the general welfare and to secure the blessings of liberty for 
all. Our other national interests--security and economic opportunity--
have the best chance for advancement in a climate of freedom and 
respect for individual rights, and are undermined where that climate 
does not thrive.
  I have never shied away from the use of every economic, diplomatic, 
or rhetorical tool to advance our human rights agenda. It is through 
the vigorous use of these tools that the United States can exercise the 
type of leadership such fundamental violations of justice demand. To a 
certain extent, this is the approach implicit in the bill we are 
considering today, which provides a menu of presidential actions to 
respond to violations of religious freedom.
  But, with deference to my colleague from Oklahoma and the work he has 
done on this bill and although I support the bill, I have some 
outstanding concerns regarding this legislation. I believe that if we 
had been able to fully consider this bill in the Committee on Foreign 
Relations, we would have been able to work out some of these issues.
  I strongly support the basic premise of the bill, that the United 
States should defend religious liberty, but I am concerned that it 
might appear to subordinate other fundamental rights to the right to 
religious freedom. As we defend the freedom of religion, should we not 
just as vigorously defend the rule of law, basic human rights and the 
exercise of political rights? We would be pleased if, tomorrow, Sudan's 
ruling National Islamic Front suddenly lifted its Shar'ia law and 
allowed Christians to worship freely. But would we then tolerate the 
forced conscription of children, the lack of press freedom and the 
manipulation of humanitarian assistance that also takes place in the 
Sudan?
  I also have some concerns about a few specific provisions.
  First, this bill creates a new commission, the ``Commission on 
International Religious Freedom.'' Although I am open to arguments on 
this subject, I am not convinced a new commission is needed. We already 
have in operation the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom. This 
body, which is broadly representative of various religious communities, 
has been in operation since early 1997 and has already produced several 
useful reports about the state of religious freedom around the world. 
Its work has helped focus administration attention on the issue of 
religious persecution and the conditions of religious minorities.
  Second, Section 205 of the bill authorizes $6 million over two years 
to carry out the work of this new Commission. The protection of 
religious freedom is vital work that must be done, but I believe this 
is an enormous amount of money to be devoting to a commission of any 
sort, and I have seen no explanation of why $6 million is required. The 
Advisory Committee was able to conduct its work with existing resources 
from the Department of State. I understand that the Committee's work 
greatly strained the resources of the Department's Bureau for 
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, but I also understand that, even if 
staff salaries are included, the Committee could have been run with a 
budget of less than $500,000. Also, the new Commission proposed by the 
legislation would be comprised of nine commissioners, rather than the 
20 on the existing Advisory Committee, so it might be expected to 
require less resources.
  In addition, I am concerned that because of the narrow language of 
Section 205, the authorized funds might be used only for the specific 
activities of the Commission, and not for the many additional 
requirements of the bill which would then have to borne by the already 
stretched resources of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
  Mr. President, I hope there will be further clarification of the 
intended uses of these funds, and--if the Congress does appropriate 
such high levels of funding--I hope it will be used to further the 
goals of the whole bill, and not simply Title II.
  Third, another provision that raises some concerns is Section 107, 
which provides equal access to the premises of diplomatic missions to 
any U.S. citizen seeking to conduct religious activities. It is in the 
best American tradition to provide a haven for Americans of faith who 
find themselves in a country that is not hospitable to their religion, 
but I wonder if some might argue that this provision would expand what 
the Supreme Court has determined constitutes a ``public forum'' with 
respect to equal access for religion. In practice, it is possible that 
it might then be deemed by some court to be an unconstitutional 
endorsement of a particular religion. That is not what we intend, so I 
hope the provision allows for discretion on the part of the chiefs of 
mission to appropriately respond to requests from the American 
community.
  My fourth concern relates to the provisions in Section 108--not what 
is in those provisions, but rather, what has been left out. Section 108 
requires the Secretary of State to prepare and maintain issue briefs on 
religious freedom on a country-by-country basis. These will be similar 
to the annual country reports on human rights, which have proven to be 
an excellent source of information on conditions in individual 
countries. However, the briefs are also required to include lists of 
``persons believed to be imprisoned, detained, or placed under house 
arrest for their religious faith.'' In cases where the production and 
publicizing of prisoner lists is useful, perhaps we should devote 
similar attention to individuals detained in the pursuit of other 
internationally recognized human rights. The Secretary should consider 
exercising her authority to broaden the list to include all prisoners 
of conscience, as appropriate. In addition, there may be cases where 
the production or publication of such a list might actually be harmful 
to the individuals in question, or indeed to our intelligence 
resources. I believe on this point the administration is given 
considerable discretion.
  Fifth, in an earlier draft of this legislation, included in the 
description of what might constitute a violation of religious freedom 
was ``arbitrary prohibitions or restrictions on the grounds of religion 
on holding public office, or pursuing educational or professional 
opportunities.'' For unknown reasons, this language unfortunately was 
deleted from all subsequent drafts of this bill, including the current 
version. However, the bill's definitional language is merely 
suggestive, indicating areas the administration can take into 
consideration when making a determination about a given country. I will 
assume that the administration will also consider restrictive 
prohibitions on education and employment, among other factors, when 
making such determinations. Any kind of religious discrimination is 
unacceptable.
  Finally, Section 103 provides for the establishment of a religious 
freedom Internet web site which would contain major international 
documents relating to religious freedom, among other items. This is a 
fantastic way to disseminate information about this issue to 
individuals around the world who can use it to help promote their 
causes in their own countries. Already we have seen the importance of 
the Internet in promoting civil society. The Internet is the modern 
version of the underground literature of the Cold War, only it does not 
require printing presses which can be taken away, and it is more 
readily available to its audience. I hope, however, that the Secretary 
of State will take the opportunity to also include in the web site 
other important documents related more generally to human rights. In 
that way, we can be sure to pursue the protection of all human rights 
through the most modern technology possible.

[[Page S12098]]

  Also, Mr. President, just to make the record clear, I do not support 
the provisions of Section 406 which allow an exception to the sanctions 
in this bill for defense contractors.
  Again, I commend the sponsors of this legislation and everyone who 
has worked so hard to produce a consensus package.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, as a co-sponsor of the International 
Religious Freedom Act, I rise today to commend my colleagues for their 
efforts to bring this bill to the Senate. This legislation takes 
concrete steps to insure continued U.S. leadership and diplomatic focus 
on issues of religious liberty around the world. Few things are more 
precious to the American people than freedom of religion, and I 
strongly support our efforts to bring this freedom to those who are 
persecuted for their faiths around the world.
  The vast majority of those who suffer abridgement of their right to 
religious liberty do not suffer torture, rape, or murder. Instead, they 
face harassment, discrimination, and onerous bureaucratic obstacles to 
registering their religious organizations. The Act covers all 
violations of religious liberty, not just the most egregious acts of 
persecution and I commend the drafters of this legislation for its 
broad coverage.
  As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 
I am very concerned over rising religious intolerance and even 
oppression in the OSCE region. As Eastern European countries begin to 
loosen their grip on their economies, they must also learn to 
relinquish government control over legitimate private action by their 
citizenry that is protected by international commitments. I have 
written repeatedly strong letters to heads of state or government in 
support of religious liberty and to hold them to their international 
human rights commitments.
  The Commission has had two hearings and several public briefings on 
this issue in the OSCE region. We have heard testimony that, contrary 
to our expectations when the Communist governments of the former Warsaw 
Pact states fell, a variety of official measures have been taken 
restricting, or in some cases denying, freedom of thought, conscience, 
religion or belief. One of the core values of the United States is 
freedom of religion. The various documents of the Helsinki Process and 
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights have adopted this fundamental 
freedom and established it as an international norm all nations are 
expected to meet. I strongly believe that adoption of this legislation 
will help the United States advocate religious liberty around the 
world, and address some of the specific problems our hearings and 
briefings have documented.
  This year in Uzbekistan, for instance, a new law was passed which, 
among other restrictions, requires 100 Uzbek citizens to sign a 
religious community's application for registration, criminalizes any 
unregistered religious activity, and penalizes religious free speech. 
In 1997, similarly restrictive laws were passed in Russia and Macedonia 
and a number of OSCE participating states are reportedly considering 
legislation imposing significant restrictions on religious liberty, 
particularly for minority religious groups.
  In Western Europe, the trends toward increased religious intolerance 
has been more insidious. In the last few years, governments in Western 
Europe, particularly France, Germany, Belgium, and Austria, have 
targeted numerous groups that they label ``dangerous'' and have 
published official government propaganda against them, placed them 
under surveillance by security agencies, and revoked tax exempt status 
based on the determination that groups are not a positive influence on 
society. Furthermore, these Western European actions embolden the more 
intolerant sectors of Eastern European society to further restrict 
religious liberty for minority or ill-favored groups.
  By requiring the President to take action against all countries 
engaged in violations of religious liberty, the Act insures that less 
egregious cases of religious liberty violations will not be ignored. By 
enumerating the specific policy responses required ranging from a 
private demarche to sanctions, the Act reflects the need for 
flexibility in diplomacy. Finally, by instituting a separate 
commission, the Act facilitates accurate and independent reporting on 
religious liberty violations around the world.
  Mr. President, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this important 
legislation and I urge my colleagues to support the International 
Religious Freedom Act.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
proceed for 2 minutes on this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I support the International Religious 
Freedom Act presented by the Assistant Majority Leader, the Senator 
from Oklahoma and the Senator from Connecticut.
  We have discussed this legislation at some length over the last 
couple of weeks, and my colleagues have been very gracious in trying to 
accommodate some of my concerns with the bill.
  Although it is not a perfect bill, it is a compromise that I support.
  The persecution of individuals for their faith, like persecution for 
political beliefs or ethnicity, is abhorrent to all Americans. 
Unfortunately, too many nations around the world fail to protect the 
basic human rights of their citizens. The reasons for this are often 
complex and varied--but they are never justified.
  What justification can there be, for example, for the jailing by the 
Chinese government of thousands of dissidents--not to mention a few 
Catholic leaders who choose to remain loyal to the Vatican, rather than 
bow to the dictates of the so-called ``official'' church in Beijing?
  What justification can there be for a law in Russia which appears to 
discriminate between ``established'' religious organizations and those 
whose roots in Russia are not long-standing?
  As a nation founded on the premise that ``all men are created equal. 
. .endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights'', 
Americans have long been committed to promoting and protecting human 
rights. Existing law, in place since the 1970s, prohibits U.S. 
assistance to nations which engage in a ``consistent pattern of gross 
violations'' of human rights--including the right to religious freedom. 
Since the 1970s, we have also had an Assistant Secretary of State 
specifically devoted to the task of advancing human rights.
  In recent years, the Clinton Administration has taken important steps 
to promote religious freedom. In 1996, Secretary of State Christopher 
established an Advisory Committee on Religious Persecution Abroad, a 
20-member panel which is broadly representative of many religious 
faiths, and has provided practical guidance to the Secretary and the 
State Department about this important subject.
  More recently, Secretary of State Albright has appointed a Senior 
Adviser to take the lead on religious freedom in the State Department.
  This legislation is designed to further elevate religious freedom on 
our foreign policy agenda. It does so by creating a new Office on 
International Religious Freedom at the Department of State, to be 
headed by an Ambassador-at-Large.
  Under this legislation, the State Department will produce a new 
annual report on religious freedom, which will assess the state of 
religious freedom around the world. This report, which will expand on 
the information available in the annual human rights report already 
produced by the State Department, should prove an invaluable resource 
to Americans concerned about religious freedom.
  Additionally, a new Commission will be established, for a period of 
four years, which will serve in an advisory capacity, producing a 
report of its own on an annual basis which will include recommendations 
for U.S. policy.
  The bill also contains new provisions of law requiring that the 
President impose sanctions against the most severe violators of the 
right to religious freedom.

[[Page S12099]]

  I must confess to some skepticism that new sanctions legislation is 
necessary, for two reasons. First, as I stated, current law already 
prohibits U.S. assistance to countries which engage in serious human 
rights violations.
  Second, in recent months I have reconsidered my own view on sanctions 
policy--and have come to the conclusion that, even though Congress is 
well within its constitutional power to apply sanctions, it is not 
always wise, as a matter of sound foreign policy, for Congress to do 
so.
  But I am willing to go along with this sanctions law because it 
includes many aspects that I believe must be present in any sanctions 
law that Congress enacts. Indeed, the sanctions provision in this bill 
offers considerable flexibility to the President.
  First, the bill provides the President with a ``menu'' of options--
seven different types of sanctions from which the President must choose 
just one sanction. If the President doesn't like the choices on the 
menu, he is free to take ``commensurate action''--that is, action 
commensurate to the items on the menu of options.
  Second, the bill provides a broad waiver authority.
  The President may waive the application of the sanction if the 
foreign government has ceased the violations; if using the waiver would 
``further the purposes'' of the Act; or if important national interests 
of the United States justified the exercise of the waiver.
  Third, the bill provides that any sanctions sunset two years after 
they are imposed unless they are specifically reauthorized.
  The President may also terminate the sanctions if the foreign 
government has ``ceased or taken substantial and verifiable steps to 
cease'' the violations that gave rise to the sanctions.
  Fourth, there is an exemption from the sanctions for the provision of 
food, medicine, medical equipment or supplies, as well as other 
humanitarian assistance.
  In sum, although I am not eager to enact a new sanctions law, I 
believe we are setting an important precedent with this bill in terms 
of what should be contained in any sanctions law.
  We must make every effort to ensure that the steps we take under this 
law will help those who are suffering from persecution--and not 
increase the dangers they face. During the hearings in the Foreign 
Relations Committee on this legislation, several witnesses representing 
religious communities that operate overseas expressed this concern.
  I know the sponsors of this bill share this concern--and so I hope 
that both Congress and the Executive Branch will be attentive to it in 
the coming years.
  This bill takes several steps which I hope will lead to the 
advancement of religious freedom--one of the fundamental human rights--
around the world.
  We must be certain that in implementing this law, it is not to the 
detriment of other fundamental human rights that are recognized 
internationally.
  As the columnist Stephen Rosenfeld has written, religious freedom 
deserves a seat at the human rights table, but it should not overturn 
the table.
  Mr. President, I see my friend from Pennsylvania on the floor, 
Senator Specter. I compliment him--he is the one who got me into this, 
quite frankly--and my colleagues from Oklahoma and from Connecticut. I 
can claim no credit for starting this initiative. I can only claim that 
I have attempted to play a role here to make sure that the desire we 
all have to extend religious freedom around the world becomes a 
reality. I have tried to make sure that our sanctions meet a realistic 
test of promoting an actual change in the behavior of other nations. It 
was toward that end that I worked on a small part of this bill. I 
attempted to rationalize the sanctions legislation on this issue with 
what we are attempting to do on all the other sanctions legislation we 
have around here.
  The thing we have all learned is, unilateral sanctions on any subject 
seldom ever work. Sometimes, and promoting religious freedom is one of 
those times, we may have to act even if it is not efficacious, just to 
state our principled commitment to religious freedom. I recommend my 
colleagues take a look at this legislation though because I think we 
have produced a sound sanctions bill.
  For that, I have to thank the authors, Senator Specter and Senator 
Nickles and Senator Lieberman, for accommodating some of the changes I 
suggested in the functional way in which these sanctions would be 
employed.
  I thank them for their consideration. They were very gracious to me 
and very patient with me. And I am very satisfied with the way the bill 
has turned out--not only the principle but the efficacy of the 
legislation.
  I thank my colleague for the extra time, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware for 
his statement but also for his leadership. I have already complimented 
Senator Lieberman for his leadership and his partnership in making this 
happen. But also I mentioned last night Senator Specter worked 
tirelessly on this; Senator Coats did as well. Senator Feinstein came 
in and negotiated with us and I think made some important changes.
  I also just quickly would like to thank a couple of staff people. 
Cecile Shea of Senator Lieberman's staff worked tirelessly on this 
legislation; John Hanford of Senator Lugar's staff and Steve Moffitt of 
my staff have put in maybe more hours on this piece of legislation than 
most any I have seen. Others who helped were Laura Bryant and Willie 
Imboden.
  Also, I thank Senator Helms for his support and leadership, as well 
as Congressman Wolf for leading the effort in the House of 
Representatives. They have assured us that they will pass this 
legislation as soon as they receive it.
  So I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor. And I yield the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on final passage.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass? The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) and the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 310 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Glenn
     Hollings
       
  The bill (H.R. 2431), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The title was amended so as to read:


[[Page S12100]]


       An act to express United States foreign policy with respect 
     to, and to strengthen United States advocacy on behalf of, 
     individuals persecuted in foreign countries on account of 
     religion; to authorize United States actions in response to 
     violations of religious freedom in foreign countries; to 
     establish an Ambassador at Large for International Religious 
     Freedom within the Department of State, a Commission on 
     International Religious Freedom, and a Special Adviser on 
     International Religious Freedom within the National Security 
     Council; and for other purposes.

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.

                          ____________________