[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16996-16999]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bridenstine). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Fortenberry) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the 
majority leader.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, in the midst of all of our difficult 
debates that are occurring in this body and throughout Washington, 
whether it is about the right type of health care reform or how to stop 
the ever-expanding Federal debt which threatens both our economic as 
well as national security, and as important as these debates are, it 
should not be lost on us, though, that there is a grave struggle for 
the protection of a fundamental proposition of human dignity and a 
basis for civilization itself. This is the protection of the rights of 
conscience and religious freedom.
  Even in the midst of all of our other debates, many Americans are 
concerned about the heart-wrenching stories of individuals who have 
been detained, condemned, incarcerated, often tortured, sometimes for 
years, throughout the world, even under the sentence of death for some, 
simply for the peaceful exercise of their religious rights.
  Mr. Speaker, given the scale of human suffering endured and 
extensively documented in this past century

[[Page 16997]]

alone, it is often difficult to grasp that humanity, in the 21st 
century, with all of its technological advances at our disposal, has 
not yet learned some very basic lessons.
  These lessons of the 20th century, after two horrific world wars and 
other unspeakable human tragedies, including the Holocaust and the 
slaughter of tens of millions of persons under the repressive and cruel 
Communist regimes, should not be lost. They are indispensable in 
pressing forward toward a more hopeful future, one based upon the 
unchanging principles that underlie a free and noble society.
  One of these basic lessons is that religious freedom is a foundation 
for social stability, security, civility, as well as economic 
prosperity, because it is built upon a foundation of respect for human 
dignity. Mr. Speaker, this is why we should, this body and the 
administration, we should all redouble our efforts to ensure that that 
first principle of religious liberty is integrated as a critical 
element of American foreign policy generally, and is prioritized in the 
day-to-day work of the diplomacy of this country.
  With our position of Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious 
Freedom now being vacant, we should act quickly to quell any potential 
sense of ambiguity about where the United States stands on this 
important issue.
  Let me first make an important distinction, Mr. Speaker: Religious 
freedom is not the same as freedom to worship, which is a much more 
restrictive concept and should not be confused. We are not merely 
concerned about allowing people to worship, think freely in their own 
minds or in their own home or in their own church, but about 
championing the free exercise of religion, grounded in human dignity, 
in its fullness, robustly, in the public square, as is guaranteed by 
our own Constitution in the First Amendment.
  Religious freedom, the cornerstone of our civil society, is something 
that we can actually still take for granted, though, in the United 
States; although, this freedom has been eroding here in recent years. 
It is a painful irony that our own Department of Health and Human 
Services is mired in litigation over challenges to fundamental laws and 
basic standards of religious freedom in health care policy. Even here, 
this right is fragile.
  So think of the many people throughout the world, in countries where 
the precepts of religious liberty are routinely and often egregiously 
violated by the state, persons who must witness or endure cruel abuses 
for exercising this right of conscience.
  Mr. Speaker, the prominent case of Pastor Saeed Abedini in Iran is a 
good example. He is an American citizen who is currently under house 
arrest in Iran for his Christian faith, and it is one of the more 
urgent cases worldwide. He and his family need our thoughts and prayers 
now. And we have been given the recent news that he has been moved to a 
notorious prison, reportedly confined in a small cell with hardened and 
ruthless criminals, with no access to sanitation or desperately needed 
medication.
  In the United States, thankfully, we are starting to see a 
groundswell of concern over such barbaric treatment of Pastor Saeed. 
And, ironically, this again is so close to the anniversary of the 
storming of the United States Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
  We are not alone in our appeal to something higher. Together with 
many good people of faith throughout the world, or people who have no 
faith throughout the world, many are calling for his immediate release 
and safe return to his family. But, unfortunately, this is not an 
isolated case.
  Beyond our intuitive understanding of right and wrong, we must also 
say that religious freedom is not simply a matter of exercise of a 
principle of justice. We know that it is inextricably linked to 
security and stability.
  According to the United States Commission on International Religious 
Freedom, those nations that work to respect human dignity tend to 
perform more strongly on a broad scale of metrics than command and 
control societies, where freedoms are restricted and economic 
prosperity can seem unattainable, especially for those individuals who 
are marginalized and subjected to wrongful religious discrimination. 
The metrics in countries where religious freedom abounds are so much 
stronger in multiple areas of well-being versus in controlled societies 
where religious freedom is oppressed. Religious liberty is a principle 
tied to both security and stability in civil society itself.
  Areas of the Middle East, for example, where religious minorities 
have traditionally served as a leavening influence for all peoples, 
they are now under severe distress. Can civil society really have a 
chance under such conditions as minority faith groups flee from 
persecution in their ancient homelands?
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the United States has been one of the world's 
greatest champions of religious freedom, and we cannot afford to 
backslide or be seen as ambivalent in this regard, especially at this 
fragile time of our history, when social upheavals and economic 
dislocations demand principled leadership from this Congress and the 
President.
  Pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act passed by 
Congress in 1998 and signed into law by President Clinton, the State 
Department is required to provide a detailed annual report on the 
status of religious freedom throughout the world. The current report, 
which covers last year, provides a robust overview of recent trends and 
concerns. It also leaves us with the enormous challenge of confronting 
serious and escalating levels of abuse, particularly in environments 
where impunity reigns and powerful forces align to intimidate and 
brutalize vulnerable faith communities. Not only have affronts to 
religious freedom over the past year been widespread, but sadly, Mr. 
Speaker, they are escalating.
  Before I review some of the key concerns highlighted during this past 
year, let me take a moment to recall a courageous official in the 
country of Pakistan who made a profound impression upon me a number of 
years ago when I went to Islamabad, along with the House Democracy 
Partnership, which is an effort of this United States Congress to 
partner with emerging democracies to help in any way, share technical 
expertise as to how to properly run a legislature or a parliament.
  While in Pakistan, I had some time with the Interior Minister, whose 
name was Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti. Mr. Bhatti was a man of great humility, 
great decency, great courage. I worried for a time, Mr. Speaker, 
because where we met was out in the open in a public setting, and him 
being seen as proximate to a United States official, I just wondered if 
this might be problematic for him, given the stress between our two 
countries.
  Our conversation turned to some basic requests. He wanted to create 
student exchange opportunities for individuals representing Pakistan's 
minority faith communities. He proposed establishing a three-judge 
panel for blasphemy trials, which, as is commonly reported, are 
sometimes used for persecuting minorities or the settling of personal 
grievances. These were neither grandiose nor unreasonable propositions.
  Mr. Speaker, as we continued our conversation, again, although brief, 
this man of deep faith--he was a Catholic--impressed me significantly. 
He not only showed great humility, he showed a great desire, in his 
public commitment and witness, to protecting the rights of all 
religious minorities, even beyond his own faith tradition.
  About a year later, I was getting ready to give a speech to a group 
of Nebraskans who had gathered for the Nebraska Breakfast, which we 
hold many times throughout the year here. Any Nebraskan who is in town 
is welcome to meet with the entire delegation. It is an important 70-
year tradition that we have enjoyed in our State.
  So, as I was gathering my thoughts, a message came to me that Mr. 
Shahbaz Bhatti had been murdered, had been executed, had been martyred 
in Pakistan simply for exercising the legitimate authority of standing 
up for the minority faith communities in that country.

[[Page 16998]]



                              {time}  1745

  I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, my face must have been ashen as I was 
preparing to speak to the community where I come from. I told them 
about Shahbaz Bhatti. I changed what I was going to say and added a few 
lines as best I could about, again, his courage, his decency, and how 
in our few moments together, he had deeply impacted me.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past year, the U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom has identified several countries that ``have engaged 
in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.'' 
This is their report, Mr. Speaker. If you look closely, you can see a 
photo, a picture, a placard held by people who were probably in 
attendance at Shahbaz Bhatti's funeral. It has his picture on it.
  These violations, documented by the Commission, include ``systematic, 
ongoing, and egregious'' examples of torture, prolonged arbitrary 
detention, or ``other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, 
or the security of persons.'' These tier one countries, as they are 
called, which the Commission has urged the Secretary of State to 
designate as countries of particular concern, include Burma, Eritrea, 
Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Uzbekistan, and China. Try 
going a week without buying something that wasn't made in China. 
Moreover, the Commission also identified other countries who are ``on 
the threshold'' of such status. These included Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, 
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a large minority community where I live in 
Lincoln, Nebraska, made up of persons who come from the country of 
Iraq, who fled that country due to persecution. They have made their 
home where I have made my home, and they contribute greatly to the 
well-being of our society.
  There is one minority faith group there in Lincoln, an ancient 
religious tradition called the Yazidis. One of the elders of that 
community came to see me one day because the Yazidis have traditionally 
lived very quietly in Iraq. They have not created the conditions on 
which they should in any way be targeted by anyone else, but the 
community had come under great distress and was also under persecution 
and attack. One of the elders of the Yazidi community said this to me: 
``Congressman, we protected the Christians. Now we ask the Christians 
to protect us.''
  To emphasize the deep and abiding concerns over religious violence, 
the Commission has also launched the Religious Violence Project, which 
has recently focused its efforts on both Nigeria as well as Pakistan, 
where targeted religious violence has torn at social foundations and 
created an atmosphere of widespread fear and intimidation. Over the 
past year in Nigeria, for example, where the Islamic militant movement 
called Boko Haram is considered the ``primary perpetrator of 
religiously related violence and gross religious freedom violations,'' 
there have been 50 churches attacked, killing some 366 people. Thirty-
one attacks have been documented on Christians, killing 166 people. 
Among the other violence, 23 attacks on Islamic clerics or senior 
figures critical of that group have killed some 60 people.
  Over 18 months going back from July of 2013, the Religious Violence 
Project tracked some 203 incidents of sectarian violence that resulted 
in more than 700 deaths and attacks by militants and terrorist 
organizations in Pakistan, primarily against their Shia community. 
Attacks on other minority populations in Pakistan included the 
Christians, Ahmadis, Hindus, Sikhs, and other groups that were 
subjected to targeted bombings, shootings, and rapes.
  Mr. Speaker, the trend toward the type of violence that has been 
documented by the Commission in recent years is profoundly disturbing 
and should be addressed in a thoroughgoing manner by member countries 
at the United Nations and at all appropriate venues of international 
engagement, in a credible and reliable manner. Interestingly, Mr. 
Speaker, the Los Angeles Times just reported that yesterday, several of 
the 14 new States elected by secret ballot to the United Nations Human 
Rights Council are widely considered by human rights advocates as 
violators of personal freedoms. The new countries elected to the Human 
Rights Council are Russia, China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and 
Vietnam. Again, they are considered by human rights advocates to be 
violators of personal freedoms.
  In view of this development, it concerns me that our own 
administration has downgraded the status of the State Department's 
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. This is an 
important position, Mr. Speaker. It is a reflection of who we are as a 
Nation. Also, the position of the special envoy to monitor and combat 
anti-Semitism remains unfulfilled in our government as well. I would 
like to see us elevate the principle of religious freedom as a core 
measure of civil society and diplomatic intent, institutionalizing this 
as a priority with the Department of State and building upon the very 
commendable work of our last Ambassador, who is now gone, Ambassador 
Suzan Johnson Cook.
  The time to do this is now. Otherwise, we risk sending a very 
dangerous signal that, again, really doesn't fit who we are as a 
Nation. We must care about this fundamental principle of the rights of 
conscience and religious liberty. We cannot afford to convey a message 
that religious freedom really doesn't matter all that much to us while 
so many lives throughout the world hang in the balance, while so many 
people still look to us for the ideals which bring about civil society 
in its fullness, where we respect one another's differences, work them 
out through comity, work them out through legislative debate and not at 
the point of a sword or at the end of a gun.
  Mr. Speaker, the world is screaming for meaning. Religious liberty is 
a cornerstone of human dignity and a foundation for civil society 
itself. We don't think about it very often, but it is true here. We 
don't think about the fact that we could enter our church or synagogue 
or mosque each Sunday, Friday, Wednesday freely, for the most part, 
without threat of fear of intimidation, without the government 
listening to us, without persons seeking to do us harm.
  People can preach and teach as they see fit within the civil society 
to try to reflect their deeply held faith traditions out of respect to 
not only those who follow them but those whom they wish to convince or 
tell their story to. This is a great tradition in America. We have our 
differences, but we respect those. We actually honor that right, the 
right of conscience to speak freely and the right of religious liberty 
in the public square.
  For instance, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be interesting to point 
out that it is the image of Moses who looks down upon me right now as I 
am speaking, who looks upon this body as we deliberate, one of the 
great lawgivers of all time who actually also happened to be a great 
religious leader of all time.
  Our country is replete with the strong condition for the exercise of 
religious liberty both at home, within our churches, and in the public 
square. This is one of the reasons that people are so attracted to 
America, because it is a principle consistent with human dignity. It 
appeals to the hearts of all persons to be able to exercise freely who 
they are and what they would like to believe with respect to others.
  This is a great tradition that we have institutionalized in law and 
have tried to project through our diplomacy. That is why it is so 
important that we actually fill this open Ambassador's position and we 
do so now, and we elevate the ideals of religious liberty and the 
rights of conscience as a core part of our diplomatic outreach in order 
to give people hope, a hope that they are yearning for, a hope that 
they need, and a hope to give balance and equality in the 21st century 
to a world that is very unsure as to where it is going next.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 16999]]



                          ____________________