[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.
____________________