[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 168 (Wednesday, November 19, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H11557-H11561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECOGNIZING THE 5TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SIGNING OF THE INTERNATIONAL
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT OF 1998
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 423) recognizing the 5th anniversary
of the signing of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 and
urging a renewed commitment to eliminating violations of the
internationally recognized right to freedom of religion and protecting
fundamental human rights, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 423
Whereas the people of the United States enjoy and respect
the freedom of religion and believe that the fundamental
rights of all individuals shall be recognized;
Whereas fundamental human rights, including the right to
freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, are protected
in numerous international agreements and declarations;
Whereas religious freedom is a fundamental human right and
all people are entitled to believe, practice, and worship
according to their conscience;
Whereas the right to freedom of religion is expressed in
the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief,
adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly
Resolution 36/55 of November 22, 1981; the Helsinki Accords;
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
done at New York on December 16, 1966, and entered into force
March 23, 1976; the United Nations Charter; and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by the
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217(A)(III) of
December 10, 1984;
Whereas the freedom for all individuals to adopt, believe,
worship, observe, teach, and practice a religion individually
or collectively has been explicitly articulated in Article 18
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article
18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights;
Whereas religious persecution is not confined to a country,
a region, or a regime; but whereas all governments should
provide and protect religious liberty;
Whereas much of the world's population is continually
denied or restricted in the right to believe or practice
their faith;
Whereas religious persecution often includes confinement,
separation, humiliation, rape, enslavement, forced
conversion, imprisonment, torture, and death;
Whereas October 27, 2003, marks the 5th anniversary of the
signing of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
(22 U.S.C. 6401 et seq.), creating the Office of
International Religious Freedom in the Department of State
and the United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom and resulting in a greater awareness of religious
persecution both in the United States and abroad; and
Whereas the United States recognizes the need for
additional domestic and international attention and action to
promote religious liberty: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the 5th anniversary of the signing of the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401
et seq.); and
(2) urges a renewed commitment to eliminating violations of
the internationally recognized right to freedom of religion
and protecting fundamental human rights.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each
will control 20 minutes.
[[Page H11558]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the author of this
legislation 5 years ago, a very hard-working chairman of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related
Agencies but, from my point of view, even more importantly, a leader in
the area of human rights, and has been for the last 23 years as a
Member of Congress.
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith) for his leadership and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize, as I said the other day,
every time these issues come up, it is the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos). I mean, everyone else ought to be
participating in this too; but I want them to know, and Chairman Hyde
too, how much I appreciate it.
But think about it, every time a bill comes up dealing with
persecution and oppression, it is always those three gentlemen. Why can
we not get 432 other people to come on over and join these three
patriots?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank the United States
Commission on International Religious Freedom. This fall we celebrate
the 5th year of the commission and thank them for their tireless
efforts to bring awareness to religious freedom violations across the
globe. Those around the world suffering persecution for the religious
beliefs have truly benefited from the commitment of the commission.
The commission produces an annual report. Each report helps to bring
visibility to oppressive governments that violate the basic freedoms of
their citizens. The protection of human rights and the plight of those
suffering for their faith must not, should not ever fall on deaf ears.
Someone must fight for them.
Nameless victims in China, including Tibet, which is not part of
China, although the Chinese may think it is, China, Tibet, Vietnam,
Sudan, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, and many other places where
faith is under attack are waiting for a message of hope, waiting to
hear that we in the United States care.
When the United States speaks out, the Congress, the government, we
can make a difference. We cannot stand idly by and watch innocent
people suffer. We must not let terrible atrocities go unchallenged. We
have a moral obligation to speak out.
The United States Commission on International Freedom is shining a
bright light in some of the darkest corners of the world. I commend
them, encourage their continued work on behalf of the oppressed and
persecuted people around the globe.
Mr. Speaker, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
states:
``Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief,
and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance.''
I rise today to recognize and thank the United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom. This fall we celebrate the fifth year
of the commission and thank them for their tireless effort to bring
awareness to religious freedom violations across the globe.
The commission was created by Congress in 1998 to shine a light on
and generate a heightened awareness of the ongoing atrocities
associated with persecution of individuals around the world for their
religious beliefs.
As a results of their investigations, hearings, and reports, the
commission has provided Congress and the administration with timely and
accurate information on religious freedom abuses and sound policy
recommendations to the president, the secretary of state, and Congress.
Those around the world suffering persecution for their religious
beliefs have truly benefitted from the commitment of the commission.
The commission produces an annual report. Each report helps to bring
visibility to oppressive governments that violate the basic freedoms of
their citizens.
As an example, look at what is occurring in some of these countries:
China--According to the Cardinal Kung Foundation, there are at least
22 Roman Catholic bishops in Chinese prisons, labor camps or under
house arrest. Numerous Protestant House Church leaders and worshipers
in China have been imprisoned or detained. Large numbers of Muslims in
China are in prison because of their faith. Young Muslim Uighur boys
and girls are not even allowed to enter a mosque until they are 18
years old. Hundreds more bishops, priests, and lay people are already
in prison. Torture and death are common.
Tibet--Buddhist monks and nuns are in prison and hundreds of
monasteries and nunneries have been destroyed. Yet loyalty to the Dalai
Lama remains strong. Despite this brutal crackdown by the government of
China, the Tibetan people remain strong and cling to their heritage and
unique identity.
Sudan--Millions have died in the 20-year civil war and the majority
have been Christians who starved to death.
Egypt--The Coptic Christians continue to experience harassment and
persecution.
Pakistan--The government has failed to protect the rights of
religious minorities. Christians are persecuted and blasphemy laws are
strong.
Iran--Bahais are persecuted and imprisoned because of their faith.
India--Violence is ongoing against Christians, churches are burned or
destroyed, nuns raped.
Indonesia--Christian churches and Muslim mosques are attacked and
burned.
Saudi Arabia--State Department annual report on human rights
documents that freedom of religion does not exist and that non-Muslim
groups are not allowed to worship in public, and risk being detained,
imprisoned, tortured, or deported. Conversion form Islam to another
religion is punishable by death.
Vietnam--Buddhist, Protestants, Catholics and minority groups suffer
intense persecution at the hands of brutal communist rulers.
It goes on and on.
The protection of human rights and the plight of those suffering for
their faith must not fall on deaf ears. Someone must fight for them.
Nameless victims in China, Vietnam, Sudan, Indonesia, India, Pakistan,
Vietnam and the many other places where faith is under attack are
waiting for a message of hope, waiting to hear that we care.
When the United States speaks out, the United States makes a
difference. We cannot stand idly by and watch innocent people suffer.
We must not let terrible atrocities go unchallenged. We have a moral
obligation to speak out.
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom is
shining a bright light in some of the darkest corners of the world.
They have made a difference over the last 5 years and continue to have
an impact on the lives of the suffering people of the world. I commend
them and encourage their continued work on behalf of the oppressed and
persecuted people around the globe.
As the President recently stated in his speech for the National
Endowment for Democracy ``The bedrock of successful societies is the
right to religious liberty.''
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Let me
begin by commending my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), for sponsoring this important resolution. As co-
chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, Congressman Wolf has
been tireless in his support for human rights and religious liberty
around the globe. Without his passionate commitment and determination,
we would not have passed this landmark piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not also commend the
distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on International
Relations, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my good friend,
who is another tireless advocate for human rights and who was pivotal
in the passage of the Religious Freedom Act.
In the 5 years since President Clinton signed the Religious Freedom
Act and established the Office of International Religious Freedom and
the United States Commission on Religious Freedom, huge strides have
been made in making religious freedom a core objective of U.S. foreign
policy.
In addition to the full-time diplomatic work of these two offices,
the annual report on international religious freedom published by the
State Department every year, these documents and the diplomatic efforts
give hope to millions of people who are denied the ability to proclaim
freely and to practice freely their faith.
The Religious Freedom Act also requires the Department of State to
[[Page H11559]]
name and to sanction the most egregious violators of religious freedom.
This asks for the United States annually to confront governments like
China, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia for their policies of religious
persecution and discrimination. The Religious Freedom Act has given our
government an important set of tools to use to document and confront
the alarming reemergence of virulent anti-Semitism in Europe and
elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the resolution we are considering
today stresses the need to renew the commitment of the Congress to the
promotion of religious liberty. Religious freedom continues to be under
siege in many parts of the world, and we must rededicate ourselves to
the effort to confront the violators.
Mr. Speaker, freedom of religion and conscience are the cornerstones
of liberty and of democracy. That is why religion is the first freedom
enumerated in our Bill of Rights. If we succeed in promoting religious
liberty in the United States' foreign policy, we will not only bring an
end to unfathomable human suffering, but we will also advance the
development of democracy and we will promote other fundamental human
rights.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 423.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1430
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to join the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) and my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in
support of this resolution which clearly is important to recognize the
fifth anniversary of the signing of the International Religious Freedom
Act of 1998 because that was an historic landmark piece of legislation.
And we today renew our commitment, rededicate ourselves to promoting
the tolerance that was embodied in that legislation, that anyone's
faith or lack of faith needs to be respected. Certainly, at a time when
there is a growing intolerance, particularly in the Middle East and in
places like the People's Republic of China, where we have actually seen
a worsening of religious oppression, we need to speak out boldly and
clearly and unambiguously for religious freedom. This legislation, the
law and, the heartfelt sentiments behind it are going to be carried
forward robustly to bring freedom to those persecuted for their faith.
Let me also point out that there are a number of countries that are
off many people's radar screens. China, yes, we know it is bad and
getting worse there, particularly as it relates to the Uygurs--the
Muslims--the Buddhists, and the Falon Gong--who are being tortured and
mistreated in growing numbers, even followed by Chinese agents into
this country and harassed, which, is amazing to me--as well as the
underground Catholic Church and the underground Evangelical and
Christian Church. If you are not part of the officially recognized
Chinese Government-controlled Church, watch out. You will be severely
dealt with, particularly if you step over a very ambiguous line they
have made in the sand.
Let me say that this legislation was landmark. There are countries
like Turkmenistan, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam that
have seen a deterioration, as well as Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kirkastan,
Bellarus and even Russia.
I would point out to my colleagues that some of the more matured
democracies, like France, have seen a growing intolerance when it comes
to religious expression. As a matter of fact, I spent 2 hours meeting
with the prime author of their religious cults legislation and was
appalled at the far-reaching nature of that legislation, to designate a
body of religious belief or denomination a cult. Once branded, it comes
under the severe repression of the government; and my hope is that that
legislation will be junked in the near future, although I will not hold
my breath. But in good countries like France, where you would expect
there to be a tolerance, we see the tide going in the other direction.
As a matter of fact, the Chinese and other governments have actually
looked at the French model and are looking to emulate it and to put a
cover, a facade, on their own repression harkening back to that
legislation.
I just want to point out to my colleagues as well, that getting here
5 years ago was not all that easy. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) will remember that we went through several iterations of the
language that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) originally
introduced, always with his full concurrence and his meticulous
attention to detail. The previous administration, at first, was against
it. Secretary Albright and John Shattuck, the Assistant Secretary, said
if we pass this, we will somehow set up a hierarchy of human rights. If
ever there was a bogus argument, that was it.
When all of us joined in on passing and implementing the Jackson-
Vanik amendment, we did not set up a hierarchy of human rights when it
came to immigration. When many of us were against, as we all were,
apartheid in South Africa and believed that sanctions were a means to
that end, which I believed very strongly, that did not say we were
putting racism above any other human rights. It was in addition to, not
in lieu of. And, thankfully, and with the help of my friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), we were able to craft
legislation that, ultimately, the Clinton Administration signed into
law; and now, 5 years later, is being very, very vigorously implemented
by the Bush Administration.
Let me also remind my colleagues this act created an ambassador at
large, which is now being ably filled by Tom Hanford. He has a great
staff. Tom Farr, who recently retired, did the yeoman's work in that
position. There was not a country on the face of the Earth, there was
not a religious intolerance or practice that he was not aware of, as
well as the staff. They did a very good job in chronicling accurately
what indeed is going on around the world. And from the basis of that
chronicling, we are able to take more effective action.
We also created a Commission on International Religious Freedom,
which is also staffed, as well as manned, by commissioners who are
experts in the fields, and I think they are doing a tremendous job in
giving us an independent look, in addition to the State Department
office, as to what is going on in country after country as it relates
to religious freedom.
I would just say to my colleagues that for the countries of
particular concern, the designation that was created in the legislation
has also been very, very useful. But I would hope, and I recently
wrote, along with other Members, a letter to Secretary Colin Powell
asking that some of the countries that are not on this list right now
be put on it because of either their deterioration with regard to
religious freedom or because they have been ongoing, egregious
violators on it. And some of those countries we would like to see on
the list include Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. We believe
they should be designated as CPCs. Hopefully, as the analysis is done
on their practices, the State Department will come to that
determination.
Again, I want to thank my colleagues. When we finally got this
legislation down to the White House 5 years ago after numerous
hearings, rewrites and rewrites and rewrites, it was a good bipartisan
product; and, again, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) was
there every step of the way, working with us on that legislation. I
actually chaired the subcommittee that worked on it. We held the
hearings together and made sure that this legislation was shepherded
through the House and into the Senate. But the yeoman's work was done
by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I again want to single
him out and say how grateful we all are for this landmark and historic
piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards), my good friend and distinguished colleague, who
has been a fighter for religious freedom throughout his distinguished
congressional tenure.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 423,
which recognize the fifth anniversary of the
[[Page H11560]]
signing of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.
Religious freedom, without a doubt, should be a fundamental right of
every citizen of the world. And I want to commend the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos)
for their tireless leadership in defending that right for all. This
resolution urges ``a renewed commitment to eliminating the violations
to the internationally recognized right to freedom of religion.''
I strongly agree that we should make that renewed commitment. Earlier
this morning, a number of House Members, along with the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) in the last few moments rightly criticized
religious bigotry and discrimination in Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan,
China and other nations around the world. I applaud my colleagues for
saying that the world should not tolerate torture, imprisonment or
murder of people because of their personal religious faith.
I also I am deeply grateful to live in the United States, where we do
not imprison citizens because their religious faith is different from
others. I belief perhaps America's greatest single contribution to the
world, from our experiment in democracy, is our model of religious
freedom and tolerance.
The foundation of that religious freedom here is the principle of the
separation of church and state embedded in the first 16 words of our
Bill of Rights. ``Congress shall pass no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
In his letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802, Thomas
Jefferson expressed his belief that the principle of church-state
separation is one of the most sacred of our founding principles.
Unfortunately, many Americans today have come to perceive that
separation of church and state implies disrespect for religion. Nothing
could be further from the truth as Jefferson said so eloquently over a
century ago.
Separation of church and state does not mean keeping people of faith
out of government. It does means keeping government out of our faith.
By passing language saying ``Congress shall pass no law respecting an
establishment of religion'' known as the establishment clause of the
Bill of Rights, our Founding Fathers were putting religion on a
pedestal so high that no hand of politicians or government could reach
it and control it.
Our Founding Fathers were right, separation of church and state in
America has led to more religious freedom, vitality and tolerance than
any nation in the world, perhaps throughout the history of the world.
Most nations have gotten it wrong because they have tried to use the
power of government to fund religion or to emphasize one religion or
faith over another.
With government funding has come government regulation of religion,
and, ultimately, the result has been intolerance against those whose
faiths are not in the majority of that country.
While I am profoundly grateful for our religious freedom in America,
I am also deeply disturbed by recent Bush administration regulations
and proposed laws that would limit religious freedom right here at
home, the religious freedom of American citizens. It would be ironic
and tragic for Members of Congress to be pushing today for more
religious freedom abroad while allowing religious freedom to be limited
here in America. Let me be specific.
This resolution says, ``Whereas the right to freedom of religion is
expressed in the declaration on the elimination of all forms of
intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief.''
Instead of eliminating all forms of intolerance and discrimination
based on religious belief, the Bush administration actually supports
using Federal tax dollars to subsidize religious discrimination. This
is known as the so-called Charitable Choice proposals. Under Bush
administration proposals, an American citizen can be fired from a
Federally-funded job solely because of his or her personal religious
faith.
Now, let me repeat that. Under Bush administration proposals, an
American citizen can be fired from a Federally-funded, tax-supported
job for no other reason than that person's religious faith. The
administration, for example, would allow a group that associated with
Bob Jones University to accept $1 million in job training funds and $1
million tax dollars, your dollars and mine. And then with some of that
money put out a sign that says, no Jews or Catholics need apply here to
this Federally-funded job.
That is offensive, and it is outrageous, and it should not be allowed
in America. To allow and to actually subsidize such religious
discrimination when using American tax dollars is wrong, and it is
unconstitutional.
We all know why, for example, a Baptist Church can hire a Baptist
minister with their own money to carry out the church's own spiritual
mission. However, long-standing Federal policy has been when
organizations receive Federal tax dollars to run social service
programs, not religious programs, they cannot discriminate in job
hiring based simply on a person's religious faith. Yet, President
Bush's administration wants to change that policy for billions of tax
dollars and for potentially hundreds of thousands jobs. For example,
the administration wants to contract out, privatize up to 850,000
present Federal jobs. And in that proposal, they say a group accepting
millions of dollars, totaling billions if you add them all up, for
hundreds of thousands of jobs, that those groups receiving our tax
dollars, and say I am not hiring you because you do not pass my
personal religious test.
I believe the administration position flies in the face of this
resolution today, the Bill of Rights and Americans' personal religious
freedom. No American citizen should have to pass any other person's
religious test to qualify for a tax-funded job.
Mr. Speaker, it is right for House Members to stand up for religious
freedom in other nations as we are today, but I would suggest we should
more carefully examine how Bush administration policies will lead to
religious discrimination right here at home. If Americans are denied
the right to a Federally-funded job, the opportunity and effect to feed
their families simply because someone else did not like their personal
religious faith, then those Americans are clearly being denied the free
exercise of their religious freedom.
Perhaps most Americans to date have not been concerned about these
so-called charitable choice provisions, first because they probably
were not aware that these proposals have been made by the
administration; and, second, most Americans think that the 1st
amendment protects our religious freedom so no one can threaten it. But
in the years ahead, if the Bush administration charitable choice
proposals continue to be implemented as they are being done right now,
dozens, then hundreds, and ultimately thousands of Americans will be
denied a tax-funded job single my because of their personal faith.
{time} 1445
I project that Americans will be outraged to find out that this
United States Congress, the same Members who are voting to push
religious freedom in other nations, the right thing to do, are voting
to deny religious freedom and to subsidize with tax dollars job
discrimination against Americans based on their religious faith.
While we are right to condemn religious discrimination in other
nations, we should stop subsidizing religious discrimination here in
America. Religious freedom is a cherished right for all American
citizens. Congress has a responsibility on a bipartisan basis to stop
the Bush administration proposals, which would put that right at risk
for thousands and thousands of American citizens. If we are going to
preach religious freedom to other nations, perhaps we should also
practice it here at home.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my good friend and distinguished
colleague.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of serving in this body as a
Representative from Virginia, the home State of James Madison and
Thomas Jefferson who authored the statute on religious freedom which
served as a model for the religious freedom provisions in our Bill of
Rights. So I am pleased to rise in support of H. Res. 423, recognizing
[[Page H11561]]
the fifth anniversary of the signing of the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998 and urging renewed commitment to eliminating
violations of the internationally recognized right to freedom of
religion and protecting fundamental human rights.
I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wolf)
for his sponsorship of this resolution.
I agree with the provisions, the whereases in this resolution:
whereas religious freedom is an absolute right and all people are
entitled to do with their own souls as they choose; whereas the right
of freedom of religion is expressed in the declaration on the
elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on
religion or belief adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations and
many other organizations; whereas freedom of all individuals to adopt,
believe, worship, observe, teach and practice a religion individually
or collectively has been explicitly articulated; whereas religious
persecution is not confined to a country, a region, or a regime; but
whereas all governments should provide and protect religious liberty. I
agree with all of those principles, but I feel compelled to point out
that this House has not always followed the principles articulated in
the resolution.
For example, just a few months ago, this House in the Head Start
reauthorization bill, by a very close vote rejected the long-standing
principle that teachers could not be fired or denied employment solely
because of their religious belief. Instead, we adopted a provision
which allows the 8 percent of the Head Start programs which are faith-
based to discriminate based on religion, with Federal money, not the
church money, but with the Federal money. Ironically, that vote to
allow the discrimination came one day after congressional leaders
participated in a ceremony praising the 40th anniversary of the March
on Washington. Ironic because one of the few articulated purposes and
successes of the March on Washington was a prohibition against
employment discrimination with Federal money.
Head Start, since inception, has prohibited employment discrimination
based on religion, and hopefully the Senate will reject the House
action and reaffirm the prohibitions against discrimination with the
Federal money.
So, Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the International Religious Freedom
Act and condemn religious intolerance, we ought to renew our own
commitment to that principle here in the United States and condemn
efforts to allow employment discrimination with Federal money based
solely on religious beliefs.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), my good friend and
colleague.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, it has now been 5 years since the
International Religious Freedom Act was signed into law, and our view
of the world has changed very dramatically since then due to a number
of factors, primarily September 11 and the war against terrorism. The
fundamental right of religious freedom is one of the very most critical
foundations of this Republic.
Mr. Speaker, we must never forget that our Nation was founded by
those who fled their country to preserve the inalienable right to
religious liberty; and throughout the history of our Nation, people
have left their homes in the cover of night to escape to the United
States due to the religious persecution in their own countries.
Unfortunately, in many places in the world today, the right to choose
and practice one's faith is still not protected.
Mr. Speaker, it is so vitally imperative that we as a Nation continue
to work to eliminate violations of religious freedom and human rights.
One of the most compelling and pressing issues at this moment, and one
where we have a great deal of leverage, is our responsibility to help
establish true freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. True freedom in those
nations is absolutely impossible a,part from provisions in their new
constitutions that absolutely guarantee full religious freedom for
every one of their people.
Our principal efforts in those countries, if we do nothing else, must
center on preserving the right of religious freedom for every
individual. It is critical, Mr. Speaker, even to the war on terrorism
because constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom creates a vital
framework for discussion and debate. It has the power to turn the war
of weapons into a war of words. May we not forget that critical truth.
Mr. Speaker, Patrick Henry stated it this way. He said, ``I have but
one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of
experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.''
He understood the urgency and nature of the battle when he declared,
``There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free, if we
mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we
have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to
abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we
must fight!''
Mr. Speaker, indeed, we have fought but we now must ask ourselves
what it was we were truly fighting for. I believe we fought, as
President Bush said, for the ``advance of freedom'' because ``we
believe that freedom, the freedom we prize, is not for us alone; it is
the right and capacity of all mankind.'' Guided by the lamp of our own
experience of our own Nation, in those words, the President makes the
most compelling argument that I can imagine for the United States to
renew its commitment to eliminating violations of the right to
religious freedom and to protecting fundamental human rights for every
human being across the world.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation but want to
make it clear that I am not doing so because I oppose religious
freedom, as one might falsely conclude from the way this bill is
crafted. My concerns with this bill are the same concerns I raise
whenever Congress attempts to act in areas in which it has no
constitutional authority: under the guise of promoting a laudable
cause--religious freedom--this legislation seeks to impose our views of
this topic on other sovereign nations. In short, it is yet another
example of the U.S. meddling in the affairs of other countries.
Mr. Speaker, as Americans we have a special attachment to the idea of
religious freedom. That is the reason many of our ancestors came to
this land and fought for independence. But I don't think the way to
advance religious freedom around the world is to demand that every
country adopt our approach. I believe that so demanding will only
engender ill-will toward the United States and, ironically, increased
resistance to this idea. People generally to not like being told by
foreign countries what to do or how they can worship. I believe the
best way we can promote the idea of religious liberty abroad is to
serve as a working, living example of the benefits of liberty. The
United States has been admired historically in other countries because
our system of government demonstrates the economic and other benefits
of liberty. That is why other nations seek to emulate the United
States, not because we demand that their religious laws conform to our
notions of what is acceptable.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of our time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for
speakers, and I yield back the balance of our time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 423, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________