[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.

                          ____________________