Page 1       TOP OF DOC
45–691 CC






SEPTEMBER 10, 1997

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
JAY KIM, California
TOM CAMPBELL, California
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
PAT DANNER, Missouri
WALTER CAPPS, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JIM DAVIS, Florida
RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff
MICHAEL H. VAN DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff
PAUL BERKOWITZ, Professional Staff Member

 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Atilio Okot John, Victim of religious persecution
    Ms. Tsultrim Dolma, Victim of religious persecution
    Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, Director, Institute on Religion and Public Life
    Dr. Richard D. Land, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention
    Dr. Donald Argue, President, National Association of Evangelicals
    Rev. Drew Christianson, Director, Office of International Justice and Peace, U.S. Catholic Conference
    Mr. Donald Hodel, President, Christian Coalition
    Mr. Lodi Gyari, President, International Campaign for Tibet
    Mr. Jerry Goodman, Executive Director, National Committee for Labor Israel
    Mr. Stephen Rickard, Director, Washington Office, Amnesty International
    Ms. Lauren Homer, President, Law and Liberty Trust
Prepared statements:
Mr. Atilio Okot John
Ms. Tsultrim Dolma
Dr. Richard D. Land
Rev. Richard John Neuhaus
Dr. Donald Argue
Rev. Drew Christianson
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Mr. William J. Bennett
Mr. Donald Hodel
Mr. Lodi Gyari
Mr. Jerry Goodman
Mr. Stephen Rickard
Ms. Lauren Homer
The Honorable Donald Payne, a Representative in Congress from New Jersey
Ms. Kinberly Ann Elliott, Institute for International Economics, submitted by Hon. Donald Manzullo
Additional material submitted for the record:
Letter plus enclosures submitted by Hon. Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of State

House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:27 a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Mr. GILMAN. The meeting will come to order.
    Today, we begin our second day of hearings on religious persecution around the world. Please forgive us for being delayed. We had a number of procedural votes on the floor that have delayed a number of our Members.
    In a few minutes, we will be hearing our first panel: Ms. Tsultrim Dolma, a Tibetan nun, who's calling for the release of monks and nuns and protesting the treatment of them; Mr. Atilio Okot John, a Sudanese citizen who was persecuted for holding a Bible study program in Sudan.
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We will then hear from our second distinguished panel, Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Reverend Richard John Neuhaus is the director of the Institute on Religion and Public Life; Dr. Donald Argue, president of the National Association of Evangelicals; and Dr. Drew Christianson, director of the Office of International Justice and Peace, U.S. Catholic Conference.
    And on our third distinguished panel, we will have the Honorable William J. Bennett, co-director of Empower America; Donald Hodel, president of the Christian Coalition; Lodi Gyari, president of the International Campaign for Tibet; Jerry Goodman, executive director of the National Committee for Labor Israel; Stephen Rickard, director of the Washington Office of Amnesty International; and Lauren Homer, president of Law and Liberty Trust.
    The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1997 focuses long overdue attention on the issue of worldwide religious persecution and promises to begin the process of remedying the problem. Here in the Congress, we will be working hard to keep the wheels of government turning.
    You are hearing the bell sound. That is a procedural vote that is going on. It will not affect our hearing.
    Perhaps not often enough do we have a chance to do genuine good for the oppressed of the world. Today, we have the opportunity to do some good and our witnesses today deserve our sincere thanks.
    Consider what the world is coming to: In China, for example, the Communist Government recently sentenced a 76-year-old Protestant leader to 15 years in prison. His crime was distributing Bibles. Also in Shanghai, a 65-year-old evangelical elder was sentenced to 11 years in prison for belonging to an evangelical group not sanctioned by the government. Chinese authorities kidnapped the 6-year-old Panchen Lama, one of the holiest figures of the Tibetan Buddhist faith, along with his family. Buddhists Monks who support the Panchen Lama have been charged, tortured, and have been imprisoned.
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The list of abuses goes on. It is official Chinese Government policy to restrict worship, religious education, distribution of Bibles and other religious literature, and religious gatherings. Indeed, in 1994, President Jiang Zemin asserted that religion constitutes one of the greatest threats to Communist Party rule. China is not alone in its systematic religious persecution. The world over people of faith are finding that simply practicing their faith is cause for imprisonment, torture, and death.
    In Sudan, soldiers have government sanction to systematically rape, imprison, enslave, and murder tens of thousands of Christians solely because they are of the Christian faith. In Iran Ba'hai's have been executed for apostasy. At the very least, they must fear imprisonment, loss of jobs, and systematic persecution.
    And in Pakistan in February of this year, 13 churches and 1500 houses were burned, as well as a hospital and school, and 70 women were reportedly kidnapped. While this was not a government-sanctioned abuse, the government ignored the persecution. And in Vietnam, a U.S. citizen of Vietnamese origin was arrested. The crime? Handing out Bibles—and Northern Crosses. In Algeria earlier this year, seven Trappist Monks had their throats slit on Islamic streets.
    The list, therefore, is unending. In each case, innocent people are persecuted and, much worse, for the simple fact of their faith. This is not exclusively a Muslim problem, nor a Buddhist problem, nor a Christian problem, nor a Jewish problem. No faith is immune, no one group is exclusively to blame. Decent people the world over are horrified by religious persecution, and the United States should not and cannot stand by idly and watch it grow.
    The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act will not solve the problem, but it is the first step in the right direction. Yesterday, we heard from Assistant Secretary John Shattuck, and while he had some criticism of the bill, we are hoping to work with the Administration and try to improve upon it so that the final product can satisfy everybody concerned.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I am proud to support the bill and I will see that the Committee on International Relations will make any necessary changes that help enhance the bill and reports the bill properly for consideration on the House floor.
    Do any of our Members seek recognition? Mr. Leach.
    Mr. LEACH. No, sir.
    Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Capps.
    Mr. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to leave here in a couple minutes to vote on the floor, but I want to say at the outset, very briefly, that I am always pleased to work with the Chairman. And I know this is a critical topic, a very crucial topic.
    Before coming here to the Congress, I was a teacher of religious studies at the University of California, so I have not only a congressional interest in this topic, I have personal and professional interest. My goal is to make whatever we do here become good and effective legislation. I would like to go beyond punishment for religious persecution and really get on the question of how can the Congress help all of us who are captivated by this issue? How can we advance the cause of religious freedom around the world? Because I think that is our ultimate objective.
    In my own opinion, religion is responsible, when you take it on balance. For a lot of people, though, it is also responsible for a lot of violence, and I would like to see the pluses outweigh the minuses. And I think the opportunity for discussion that this bill creates can lead in that direction. And I will look forward with great anticipation to the testimony of the expert witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Capps.
    I will now ask our witnesses to take their places. Our first panel, Mr. John Okot, a victim of religious persecution, and Ms. Tsultrim Dolma, another victim of religious persecution.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Mr. GILMAN. I must explain to you that these are procedural votes. Members are called to the floor to vote. I see that Mr. Campbell has come in. I would ask Mr. Campbell to take over the Chair as we start the testimony of our first panel. I have to go and vote, but will return as soon as possible.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. At the direction of the Chair, I will assume the Chair until he comes back. I think it is important to assure the witnesses that what you have to say will be put into the record and will be indicated to the Members of the Committee who are not here this moment. Our first panel, Atilio Okot John and Tsultrim Dolma. Would you state your name and affiliation for the record, and begin? Mr. John.
STATEMENT OF ATILIO OKOT JOHN, VICTIM OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION     Mr. JOHN. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to address the religious persecution, especially of Christians in my country, Sudan.
    My name is Atilio Okot John and I live in Nashville, Tennessee, where I go to school and work.
    Before I left my country, I was a student at Juba University, and on the campus of Juba University, I was the Secretary General of Juba University Bible and Study Association. And at the same time, I was an active member of Juba University Southern Student Association.
    What the Juba University Bible Study Association used to do on the campus was to study the Bible together, especially on Fridays. But, unfortunately, that was prohibited on the campus in Khartoum. They could not allow us to freely offer Bible studies. They could not let us have a priest on the campus. They could not let us worship on the campus. And one time, in fact, we had a problem when we had a video show, a Jesus film, and somebody disconnected the electricity. So there was some kind of a fight between students, of course, the Muslims on one side and the Christians on one side. I did not know exactly how this happened and I was called to explain why this scuffle took place. And, of course, I did not know how it started, so I told the authority that I did not know how the whole thing started. What I know is that we were showing a video and somebody disrupted the electricity.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So I was detained for about 6 hours to explain. Of course, I gave them the best explanation I could, which they did not accept. And after that, the campus security piqued a lot of interest in me. And by then, of course, I was advised by the Deputy Dean of Students to leave the country because of my security.
    Before I left my country, Mr. Chairman, I witnessed the destruction of shanty towns that were mainly occupied by Christians. There is a shanty town at Faraq Shac which was destroyed. The Army came in tanks and they demolished the buildings. Then they took inhabitants about 50 miles away into the desert, where there was little food and water.
    In the desert over there, only the Islamic Relief Agency was allowed to take food to these people, and the Islamic Relief Agency, which is Da'wa Al-Islamiya, used this food to convert the discouraged Christians to Islam.
    This is still going on, Mr. Chairman. There is still a lot of effort on the side of the government to forcefully convert Christians into Islam by use of food. Another problem that is going on in the Sudan right now, which I believe is still going on, is the kidnapping of children from the streets of Khartoum and taking them into indoctrination centers where they are indoctrinated in Islam.
    There are two centers in Khartoum which are doing this. There is one in Umdum, where these kids are kept in chains until they accept the Islamic religion. There is one at Garat el Hanan near Jebel Fao. These kids are also being forced to stay there until they accept the Islamic religion.
    This thing has been going on, Mr. Chairman.
    Second, the other thing that I wanted to talk about is the genocide in the Nuba mountains. The government is pursuing a scorch-out policy of exterminating the people of the Nuba mountains. There are a lot of times when whole residential areas have been bulldozed, churches have been burned, and there are times when even pastors of the churches are thrown into the burning churches. This has been recorded by organizations like the Voice of the Mountains.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And, also, those who survive the massacre, especially in the Nuba mountains, sometimes are forced against their will to live in what the government calls, ''peace villages.'' Those, indeed, are not peace villages. They are more like concentration camps where families are separated.
    In northern Bahr El Ghazal, a lot of slavery is taking place. Chattel slavery, which is almost long dead, has been revived in the Sudan. The Islamic Army, or the so-called militia—they call them, ''Peoples Defense Forces''—they raid villages, take away the women and children. Of course, the men are killed. The women and children are sold into slavery.
    But the worst part of it is that a crop of middlemen has come up in this slave trade. They buy slaves from their masters and try to sell them back to their families, and many times, their families cannot afford to buy them back, you see.
    So these issues of slavery, genocide and persecution of Christians in the Sudan have been going on for a long time. Yes, sir?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. I appreciate your testimony. We are at the end of the allotted time. What I will ask you to do is take 1 minute longer to summarize. We will then hear from Ms. Dolma. But then you'll have much opportunity to amplify as the individual Members of the Committee ask questions.
    Mr. JOHN. OK.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. So, you have a minute to summarize.
    Mr. JOHN. OK. To summarize, I will say that all these atrocities against the Christians in the Sudan are still going on, and I pray and ask the American Government to try to look into this issue, to pressure the Sudanese Government to stop slavery. It is the duty of everybody to uphold the dignity of man, ensure that no man is sold as a slave at this time, to ensure that people are allowed the freedom to worship as they wish.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. John appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. John. Our next witness is Ms. Tsultrim Dolma.

    Ms. DOLMA. I would first like to thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tsultrim Dolma. I am from Tibet. I am 28 years old. I am particularly glad that I am getting this opportunity today to address this gathering on my personal experience.
    As a child, my lifelong desire was to become a nun and to undertake religious studies in Tibet. I undertook the month-long journey from my home to Lhasa where I joined the nunnery there.     And then one morning I was raped by all Chinese soldiers and this left me with no opportunity to continue my religious training because, as a nun, I have to be—by having been raped, my chance—I have taken great trouble to become a nun, even forsaking my family so that I could—but after having undergone that bad experience, I can no longer do that.
    I protest. I would like to appeal to the people in the United States because I heard that America cares about religious freedom and so I would like to urge you to come and help the people of Tibet. Religious freedom is really important.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you. I am going to ask you not to proceed for a moment. If Ms. Dolma has a prepared statement, we will accept that without objection for the record. And her colleague, who was just introduced, if you wish to speak of anything additional, fine. But otherwise, if it's merely to read Ms. Dolma's statement, there's no need for that because it's in the record.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Would you kindly explain that to Ms. Dolma?
    Ms. DOLMA. I would like to make a special request. I know it sounds long, but I have been waiting for this opportunity for a very long time. So I would like my fellow Tibetans to hear my testimony.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. I have not the authority to extend, but I don't believe anyone on the Committee will object if we grant it. So, I will make a unanimous consent. We will grant you an additional 5 minutes to speak to us, but then I must absolutely say that is it in order to allow time for everybody. So without objections from my colleagues, the witness is afforded an additional 5 minutes which she may use as she wishes.
    To my colleagues who have just arrived. We heard testimony from Mr. John on the situation in Sudan. And Ms. Dolma is speaking in Tibet.
    Ms. Dolma, you may proceed.
    Ms. DOLMA. I was born in Pelbar Dzong in eastern Tibet, near Chamdo. Prior to the Chinese invasion in 1949, Chamdo was the easternmost administrative center of the Dalai Lama's Government.
    As a child, my only ambition in life was to become a nun and to undertake religious education. However, there was no way I could pursue my studies in my village because the only nunnery had been completely destroyed by Chinese forces. Therefore, I took my nun's vow in my home village at the age of 17, and soon after left Lhasa, the capital and spiritual center of Tibet, which is around a month's journey from my home. Once there, I was able to join the Chupsang Nunnery on the outskirts of the city.
    Within a month of the journey to Chupsang, I could feel the tension due to large differences between Tibetans and Chinese living in Lhasa.
    On October 1st, 1987, Chinese National Day, I experienced first hand the consequences of that tension. On that day, monks from Sera and Nechung Monasteries peacefully demonstrated in Lhasa for the release of Tibetans who had been arrested when they protested in September.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chinese police were videotaping the demonstration, then unexpectedly opened fire on the crowd. The Tibetans responded by throwing stones at the camera, but a number of the monks were arrested and dragged to the police station.
    I joined a large group of Tibetans who converged on the station, calling for release of the arrested nuns. We heard gunshots from the rooftop and realized that police were firing down into the crowd. Many Tibetans were killed. Several more were badly injured. Outraged at the massacre, some Tibetans set fire to the building. I watched as Venerable Jampa Tenzin led a crowd in the building to try to free the monks. When he emerged about 10 minutes later, his arms were badly burned and had a long piece of skin peeling off. Soon afterwards Jampa Tenzin was arrested and detained at Sangyip Prison.
    The Great Monlam Prayer Festival we offered in March 1988 was the next occasion for major protest. Chinese authority had invited gentlemen from many different countries to film the ceremony as an example of religious freedom in Tibet. The monks of Sera, Drepung, Ganden and Nechung decided to boycott the ceremony, but were forced to attend at gun point. Under guard, the monks made the traditional circumambulation around the Jokhang, Lhasa's central cathedral. After completing the ceremony, those monks joined together and demanded the release of the highly revered incarnate lama, Yulo Dawa Tsering, who had been arrested some months before and of whom nothing had been heard. Security officials immediately fired at the demonstrators, killing one Tibetan. A riot ensued. The army proceeded to fire into the crowd. Soldiers chased a large number of monks into the Jokhang and clubbed 30 of them to death. Eighteen lay Tibetans were also killed in the cathedral. Twelve other monks were shot. Two monks were strangled to death, and an additional eight lay Tibetans were killed throughout the city.
    The news of the deaths spread throughout the city. After we saw the terror and turmoil in the streets, some of us nuns from my Ani Gompa decided to demonstrate in order to support the monks who had been arrested. On April 16th, about 6 weeks after the massacre, during Monlam, four of us demonstrated in Lhasa for their release. We were joined by two nuns from Gari Gompa that were demonstrating. Eight Chinese soldiers came and grabbed us. Two soldiers took me roughly by my arms and twisted my hands behind my back. Two of the nuns, Tenzin Wangmo and Gyaltsen Lochoe, were put in a Chinese jeep and driven away. The rest of us were thrown into a truck and taken to the main section of Gutsa Prison, about three miles east of Lhasa.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    When we arrived, we were separated and taken into various rooms. I was pushed into a room where one male and female guard were waiting. They removed the belt which held my nun's robe, and it fell down as they searched my pocket.
    While I was searched, the guards slapped me hard repeatedly and yanked roughly on my ears and nose. After the search, I was led outside to another building by two different male and female guards waiting to begin the interrogation.
    ''What did you say in Barkhor?
    ''Why did you say that?''
    The cell contained a variety of torture implements, lokgyug, cattle prods, metal rods. I was kicked and fiercely beaten as I was interrogated until midday. Then I was pulled to my feet and taken to the prison courtyard where I saw three nuns from my nunnery. We were made to stand in four directions. I was near the door, so that every Chinese who passed by would kick me in passing. Our hands were uncuffed. We were told to stand with our hands against the wall as six policemen took, each one in turn, pulled us down, beat us with electric prods and a small, broken chair, and kicked us.
    Gyaltsen Lochoe was kicked in the face. I was kicked in the chest so hard that I could hardly breathe. We were told to raise our hands in the air, but it was not possible to stay in that position, and I kept falling down. As soon as I fell, someone would come and pick me up. We were constantly questioned during the interrogation. We were not allowed to fasten our belts, so our robes kept slipping off. We were constantly trying to lift them up, adjust them. We were repeatedly kicked and beaten. We were told, ''The Americans are helping you. Where are they now? They will never help you! Because you have opposed communism, you are going to die.''
    After some hours, a large dog with pointed ears and black and white spots was brought in, linked to a heavy chain. The police tried to force us to run, but we simply did not have the strength. The dog looked at us with interest, but did not approach.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Finally, as sunset approached, we were handcuffed and taken into the building. Here and there were small groups of Chinese soldiers on both sides of the corridor. As we passed, we were punched, kicked, slapped, pulled hard by the ears.
    I was put in a cell measuring 5 feet by 5 feet which was empty except for a small basin and a small bucket. That night, I quickly passed out on the cold, cement floor. The following morning, I was taken to a room where three police were seated behind a table. On the surface, was an assortment of rifles, electric prods and irons. One of them asked me, ''Why did you demonstrate?''
    ''Why are you asking yourself for torture and beatings?''
    My knees began to shake. I told him, ''Many monks, nun, lay people had been arrested, but we know Tibet belongs to Tibetans. You say it's freedom of religion, but there's no genuine freedom.'' My answer angered them and three got up from behind the table, kicked me, picking up various implements. One picked up an electric prod and hit me with it. I fell down. They shouted at me to stand, but I could not, so one pulled my robe and the other man inserted the instrument into my vagina. The shock and the pain was terrible. They repeated this action several times and also struck other parts of my body. Later, the others made me stand and hit me with the sticks and kicked me. Several times, I fell on the floor. They would then force the prod inside of me and pulled me up to repeat the beatings.
    I was put under this sort of torture for more than 4 months. Initially, I was afraid, but as time went by, I thought about the monks, the nuns, and the men and the women who were in prison, many of whom had families to worry about. I began to realize I had nothing to lose. My parents could lead their lives by themselves.
    Sitting in my cell, I would remind myself that I was there because I had spoken on behalf of the people of Tibet, and I felt that I had accomplished a goal and was able to say what I thought was right.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    In Gutsa Prison in the summer of 1988, there were altogether about 33 nuns and lay women. All the women were kept in a ward for political prisoners. During that time, one of the nuns, Sonam Chodon, was sexually molested. I was released late summer of 1988. Fifteen days after my release, some of the nuns were approached by a British journalist who was secretly making a documentary in Tibet. We all felt to appear in the interview without hiding our face was the best way to bring attention to the Tibetan issue. The ultimate truth would be soon be known, so there was no need to hide. We had truth as our defense.
    By then, we had been formally expelled from Chupsang by the Chinese authorities and sent back to our villages. We were not allowed to wear nun's robes and were forbidden to take part in religious activities. We were not allowed to talk freely with other villagers. I was forced to attend nightly educational meetings during which the topic of conversation often came around to me as, ''a member of the small splitist Dalai clique, which is trying to separate the motherland.'' I was so depressed and confused.
    I never told my parents what had happened in prison. When word came of the British documentary in which I took part, everyone began to discuss it. Most Tibetans thought I was quite brave, but some collaborators insulted me. It soon seemed as if arrest was imminent. I began to fear for my parent's safety, so I decided to flee again to Chupsang Nunnery for readmission as I felt it was the safest place.
    Arriving in Chupsang, I was denied admission. I also found a Chinese police station had been set up in the nunnery and I realized the police there would arrest me if I stayed. Greatly discouraged, I was set out to make my way back to Lhasa.
    Just below our nunnery is a Chinese police compound the Tibetans call Sera Shol Gyakhang. I saw three Chinese soldiers on bicycles. They followed me a short distance before I was stopped. One of them took off his coat, shirt, and then tied the shirt around my face, shoved the sleeves in my mouth to stop me from crying and yelling. I was raped by the three on the outer boundary of the compound. After doing that, they just ran away.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I was in a state of shock and remained in Lhasa for 2 months under the care of local Tibetans. The release of the British documentary which contains my interview caused an uproar with the Chinese authority. I now have to live under constant fear of being arrested. Even if I could stay, there is no way I could continue my lifelong dream of being a nun because, obviously, I could no longer be a nun.
    I have been taught the trunk of my religious vow is to have a pure life. When that was destroyed, I cannot be with other nuns who are very, very pure. That subject made me think of the Dalai Lama in India. At that time, I did not know there were so many Tibetans living there as well, but I thought if only I could reach him, if only I could once see his face, he would provide me with a solution.
    Another nun and I found out that some Tibetan nomads were taking medicines in a truck to Mount Kailash in Western Tibet, traveling to Nepal. We got a ride. From there, we joined a group of 15 Tibetans traveling to the Nepalese border. In December of 1990, I reached Ransala, in northern India.
    When I first met His Holiness, I could not stop crying. He asked me, ''Where do you want to go? Do you want to go to school?'' He patted my face gently. I could not say anything. I could only cry as I felt the reality of his presence. It was not a dream. In Tibet, so many long to see him. At the same time, I felt an overwhelming sadness.
    I have been asked by esteemed persons such as yourself, ''What makes Tibetan nuns, many very young, so brave in their support of the Tibetan cause?'' I say that it is from seeing the suffering of all people. What I did was just a small thing. As a nun, I sacrificed my family and the worldly life. So, for a real practitioner, it does not matter if you die for the cause of truth.
    His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, teaches us to be patient, tolerant and compassionate. Tibetans believe in the law of Karma, cause and effect. In order to do something to try to stop the cycle of bad effect, we try to raise our voices on behalf of the just cause of Tibet.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Dolma appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony.
    I'm going to ask if the interpreter and the other—will identify themselves for the record. Would the interpreter identify himself for the record.
    INTERPRETER. My name is Dorje Dolma. I live in Washington, DC.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you very much.
    Mr. John, if you have any testimony you want to add to the record, don't hesitate to forward it to us. We have some questions that our Members would like to ask, and let me start off thanking you both for being here and giving your testimony to us today, which is so important.
    To Ms. Dolma: Do you think that the Communist reunification campaign in the monasteries will succeed in turning the nuns and the monks away from His Holiness, the Dalai Lama?
    What happens to the Tibetans who were caught by the Chinese with a picture of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama?
    Ms. DOLMA. Those caught with a picture of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, must face going to prison for a long time.
    Mr. GILMAN. And to your knowledge, have they destroyed any of the temples in Tibet?
    Ms. DOLMA. Yes. They have destroyed many temples and monasteries in Tibet. But there are a few that have not been destroyed by the Chinese.
    Mr. GILMAN. And to Mr. John: How has the Government of the Sudan repressed Christianity?
    Mr. JOHN. Well, as I already said, kidnapping Christian children off the street and confining them to indoctrination centers is some of the ways the government has tried to repress Christianity. Destroying residential areas that belong to Christians and transporting Christians far away into the desert with little food and water, and only having Islamic agencies go there to give them this food. And, of course, the Islamic agency uses this food to try to convert them to Islam, these are some of the methods the government is using.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Of course, the destruction of churches, too. As of last month, two Catholic churches have been destroyed in Khartoum.
    Mr. GILMAN. Mr. John, if the Government of Sudan intends to—being imposed in Southern Sudan, is that a violation?
    Mr. JOHN. Well, also, up to now, Shiria and Hagan in the north has not—I mean its full application is not there because the government is there, I think. I do not know whether the government—the international world. But the thing is, it is impossible to have two laws governing one country, you know. So with the Shiria, of course, up to now, I am not very sure what the effect is in southern Sudan. I cannot say for sure what it is right now, the effect, in southern Sudan.
    Mr. GILMAN. Is it in effect in northern Sudan?
    Mr. JOHN. Well, yes. northern Sudan, it is in effect now. It is in effect.
    Mr. GILMAN. All right. I would be pleased to call on our colleague, Mr. Leach.
    Mr. LEACH. This is very profound testimony here of both of our witnesses. Ms. Dolma, when you were in prison did anyone bring charges against you? Were you ever presented anyone to represent you against the government? Any lawyer or any mediaries or any——?
    Ms. DOLMA. Nothing, no one.
    Mr. LEACH. Is there any law that the government has against the military commanders or police or challenges pitted against you? Is there any appeal processes to bring you justice?
    Ms. DOLMA. I don't know what's in the laws, but I was not given any opportunity to change my situation.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much.
    Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Capps.
    Mr. CAPPS. I want to thank you for your testimony. And I found it so compelling and heartbreaking that I don't know quite how to ask the question, particularly given the fact that His Holiness, the Dalai Lama is a personal friend of mine. I wrote an essay for his 60th birthday and I know something about the tradition that you both represent and exemplify.
    Since your testimony was so thoroughly personal, I wonder if I could ask a personal question. And that is, when the going was the toughest, when you were in the middle of the worst part of that torture, that agony, what kept you going?
    Ms. DOLMA. When I first became a nun, I had given up everything in this life. So, I began to realize that I can make some sort of contribution to help the people of Tibet.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Capps.
    Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    May I take a moment to explain to the witnesses that when the Chairman is out of the room, we sometimes have another temporary Chairman. And it happens, while I was sitting in the chair, I failed to offer Mr. John, as I should have done, the chance of putting your entire statement into the record. So, Mr. Chairman——
    Mr. GILMAN. It was unintentional.
    Mr. CAMPBELL [continuing]. Mr. John, thank you for making your statement part of the record. Ms. Dolma's statement is part of the record. I understand that it was read.
    And also, I was trying to keep on time which caused me to cut Mr. John off for 5 minutes. I think it would be fair for me to give you 5 minutes, which is what I am allowing, to amplify your statement in any way. So, you may have the rest of my time, Mr. John.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Mr. John, would you care to make any additions?
    Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I ask whether it is possible for me to read through my statement? That would make it easier.
    Mr. GILMAN. You have 5 minutes, Mr. John.
    Mr. JOHN. OK. While a student at the University of Juba in southern Sudan, the university was closed down and all the students and professors were taken to Khartoum in the north. This was in 1989. And I had to move in order to continue my education.
    On the campus, Christian activities were restricted and we were not allowed to worship. On the campus in Khartoum, I had a visible role as the Secretary General of the Juba University Bible Study Association and as a member of Juba University Southern Student Association.
    In December 1989, I wrote a memo, along with seven other members of the Southern Student Association, protesting the massacre of 1800 Christians who were killed in Jebellein when they refused to work on Christmas day. The people were displaced people from the south and were killed by the Moslem militia sponsored by the government.
    Even the government acknowledged this massacre, but gave a much smaller figure, compared to the exact number of people killed. Word of the massacre reached us through the survivors.
    Again, that time we wrote a memo to the Chairman of the Council for the South, who was then called Pio Yukwan. He has since died some time ago. Of course, we received no response from him.
    Following two unfortunate skirmishes involving Moslems and Christians in late 1991, I was advised by a concerned University official from the south to leave the country for my own security. It would be fair to say that the Administration was opposed to our Christian activities on the campus, which I've already, in fact, stated to you.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The persecution of Christians in Sudan, all of this is recorded by a lot of charitable organizations and a lot of humanitarian organizations, like Amnesty International and the Voice of America, you know.
    I really want to talk more about the issue of slavery. The issue of slavery is really prevalent today in Sudan. It exists, especially in the northern part of Sudan where we have had children who were sold into slavery. Sometime last year, the Baltimore Sun sent two reporters to go to southern Sudan to investigate the issue of slavery, and they bought two slaves for $1,000.
    You know, this practice is still going on today. Now the question is, how long will the American people wait and see when people are being sold in open markets in western Sudan?
    It is my appeal to this House and to everybody who is here that enough pressure be exerted into the Sudanese Government. It is imaginable that even up to this moment, we have people who are being sold as slaves, and girls are being sold into concubinage and they stay as sex mistresses to some of the commanders of the militias. That is sponsored by the government.
    I just do not know how to put this. The question is, how long will these inhuman activities be perpetrated by the government in Khartoum? It is my appeal that we all work toward eliminating such activities.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. John.
    Mr. Clement.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am delighted to welcome Mr. John and Ms. Dolma. Mr. John happens to live in a great city, Nashville, Tennessee, that I happen to represent. And I want you to know we are pleased to have you in Nashville.
    And I might say to you, you have got a great church in Nashville standing behind you, too, and beside you, St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church. And that's an outstanding church in our area and I know they believe you. They trust you and they want to do everything they can to help, and I do, as well.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I recently had the opportunity to chair a briefing where a spokesman from Christian Solidarity International testified about the terrible tragedies taking place in the Sudan. I thank you for being willing to share it with us today.
    What I wanted to ask you and I know you commented about the slavery, I want to say well, it is nothing but a civil war between the north and the south in Sudan, and I don't think there is any doubt that what you say is true about slavery and about the persecution of Christians.
    But I also want to ask you, is it just Christians being persecuted, and what other peoples are being treated the way that Christians are being treated today?
    Mr. JOHN. Well, like I said, in Sudan we have people who follow African traditional religions. They also become targeted by the Moslems, by the Islamic Fundamentalist Government of Khartoum.
    Mr. CLEMENT. And, again, what do you want the United States to do? I know you said apply whatever pressure is necessary on the Sudan Government to bring about real reform.
    Mr. JOHN. Yes. I would say that tough sanctions be imposed against the Government of Sudan until the government eases its persecution of Christians and the issue of slavery is completely stopped in the country.
    I further would comment, sanctions and other measures be taken against the Government of Sudan.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Ms. Dolma, it's an honor and a pleasure to have you here as well, and your testimony is very touching and very real. And I also had an opportunity recently to visit with the Dalai Lama, and it was a great experience for me. I had never had an opportunity to meet him before, and he is very impressive.
    I know you have been through a lot, and I wanted to know from your experiences and what is happening in Tibet, and it appears like there are a lot of Chinese moving into Tibet, and a lot of Tibetans have now left Tibet for other countries, even the United States. Do you expect that to continue and do you think it is continuing to get worse, rather than better?
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. DOLMA. The situation is getting worse. In fact, many Chinese people will stay at home during the daytime and come out only in the night. But even if the outside world puts such pressure, then they might stop the flow of Chinese into Tibet.
    Mr. CLEMENT. And Ms. Dolma, was the reason you were treated and abused as you were, is it strictly because of your religion, or was it for other reasons?
    Ms. DOLMA. See, my whole case is because of my demonstrating and because I was a nun.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Clement.
    Mr. Ballenger.
    Mr. BALLENGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the witnesses here. I know how easy it is in this country to have religious freedom. Having this hearing might be the most effective weapons we've got. Tibet wants the rest of the world to know the situation and how bad it is there.
    I just wondered, Mr. John, is the civil war that is going on in Khartoum, Sudan, is it a terribly one-sided civil war? I just do not know too much about it.
    Mr. JOHN. Well, the war in Sudan erupted in 1983 when the then-government declared Shiria—Islamic laws to be the laws governing the country. So I think that is the time the war started. Well, no, I mean we have people from the north who are also picking up arms against the government. We have people in eastern Sudan, the Beja Congress, who have also picked up arms against the government. We have parties like Sudan National Party, which is also having its military wing, the DUP—Party. All these people are involved now in the war, to try to fight against the Government of Sudan.
    Mr. BALLENGER. In your considered opinion, things are under the authority of that government?
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. JOHN. Well, that I cannot say. I really do not have the facts for me to say whether they have the authority, but I feel that the outside world would have a better idea because this government came in 1989. The best thing to do is for the outside world to exert pressure on the government, too, from outside.
    Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the State Department, do we send any aid of any sort to that government?
    Mr. GILMAN. Is there a State Department representative present?
    [No response.]
    Mr. GILMAN. Not seeing any, we can direct an inquiry to the State Department for you, Mr. Ballenger.
    Mr. BALLENGER. I appreciate that very much.
    I'd like to ask Ms. Dolma, has the British documentary been released? Is it available to be seen by anyone?
    Ms. DOLMA. It is released.
    Mr. GILMAN. I mean, is it available in this country?
    Ms. DOLMA. I am sure it is in this country. You might be able to see it.
    Mr. BALLENGER. I would really appreciate that. I think, unfortunately, the most effective weapon we have to influence the rest of the world in this operation are those cameras sitting right over there who express the words that both Mr. John and Ms. Dolma have put forward here. I do not think there is any financial assistance which we can use to maybe twist an arm and ask them to be more tolerant, have more religious freedom. But I would hope that we can get the documentary. I'm just curious, is Ms. Dolma looking for asylum? And Mr. John probably already has asylum.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. DOLMA. I am already a permanent resident in this country.
    Mr. BALLENGER. I'm glad to hear somebody on our side has done the right thing.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ballenger.
    Mr. Royce.
    Mr. ROYCE. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really would like to thank Mr. John and Ms. Dolma for their incredible bravery and their tragic and heartbreaking account that they shared with us today.
    I would like to particularly ask Ms. Dolma a question, if I could. And that question would be how she views the U.S. policy to China on religious persecution, the types of harassment and tragedy that she suffered. Are we addressing these efforts at all in the United States? We have known for some time the Chinese Government's policy, basically, to destroy that culture since the original invasion by the People's Army, the Chinese army. And the question I have for you is, what is the single most important thing our government can do?
    And, Mr. John, we know the situation as it stands is terrible. We have heard testimony in the past of individuals who have knowledge of slavery that exists in the Sudan. I had a constituent whose brother was tortured there.
    There are reports by some of the progress of peace talks between the government and the south. In particular, I had a discussion a few months ago with President Carter on this. And what I would ask of you, Mr. John, are you at all hopeful that peace irrespectful of religious freedom can be reached?
    Ms. DOLMA. My experience in Tibet has shown that in order for the Tibetan people to be free, we need the help of the outside world. American leaders need to raise the issue with Chinese leaders.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Before coming to the United States, I heard about the work that the United States is doing for Tibet. So I want the United States to be more strong and to help more at this time. I will even go further to say that I have seen what may happen to people in Tibet and what is going on in Tibet. That is all I have to say.
    Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Royce.
    Mr. ROYCE. If I could ask Mr. John a question.
    Mr. JOHN. Let me be sure that I got your question correct. Did you ask whether peace, irrespectful of religion, of religious freedom, can be achieved in the Sudan? Is that the question?
    Mr. Royce. Yes.
    Mr. JOHN. Well, for me, I do not think there is any hope because the SPLA and the government had two peace talks in Nigeria, and the SPLA's position is that this other democratic Sudan with respect to religion, that is a Sudan free of religious persecution. A Sudan which is neither a secular Sudan, let me say to be brief, but the government said, ''No. You cannot have a secular Sudan. You cannot divorce Islam from politics.''
    So I think it is very, very hard for the present government to come with a peace which respects religious freedom.
    Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. John.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Royce.
    Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be as brief as possible.
    These witnesses have shown us the terrors of religious persecution. I know that the witnesses yesterday wondered whether we needed a bill. I would hope that the White House and the Administration would agree that we do need a bill. To say that everything is fine, we do not have to do anything right now, we do not need the bills, is, I think, clearly up against the testimony you heard from these witnesses and obviously will appear later today.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I particularly want to point out the one good estimate of the bill, as I understand it. It provides us what might be a loophole that would allow U.S. oil companies to do business in the Sudan. And it is my understanding that the loophole is the position of U.S. oil companies.
    The other thing I will mention, I think, is outside the scope of these hearings is that the Sudanese Governments may have crossed the line at the point where perhaps our covert agencies could be providing the wherewithal to provide the people of southern Sudan the defense and weapons because there comes a point where sanctions are not enough. And we would ask through this bill we have total sanctions against Sudan, and that would probably not be enough to turn that government, and we may have to provide people who do not possess the wherewithal and defense dollars, but that again is outside the scope of this bill. So, with that, I will give back the balance of my time.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman, for your statements and suggestions.
    Mr. Brady.
    Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I do not have additional questions. I think the testimony by itself is a powerful call to action. And I simply want to commend both of our guests for their courage and for continuing to fight.
    Thank you.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Brady.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank our very distinguished witnesses for their very moving testimony, and just say to Mr. Sherman I think Congress now in 17 years of hearing stories just like this throughout the world, whether it be Romania, the former Soviet Union, certainly in places like Tibet, China, certainly in a number of African countries that has led us to introducing this very important legislation.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    As a matter of fact, let me say, for the record, that I was extremely disdained and very disappointed when yesterday the Administration, speaking through Assistant Secretary of State, John Shattuck, while paying lip service to the objectives of the bill, in area after area so that the bill is objectionable to the Administration.
    You know, some of the arguments that were made, for example, that we risk harming bilateral relations with key elements. If a country is abusing its own people and putting them in prison and torturing those people because of their religion, and putting at risk their foreign aid, this is the least we should be doing to advance the cause for those who are suffering in some dank prison cell somewhere in Africa.
    Let me also say some of the other arguments that were used yesterday. For example, that this bill, again I am very proud to be a sponsor of it, establishes a de facto hierarchy of human rights violations that will severely damage U.S. efforts until we are sure that all human rights are protected.
    How many times, Mr. Chairman, have you and I and many of us rattled around on behalf of promoting protections in certain areas while saying, for instance, when we realized there was one way to help save Soviet Jews. What we did was carve out a special piece of legislation and it came before our Congress and I fully supported it throughout and tried to get the Jews out of the Soviet Union. It was very special. It focused on emigration. Does that diminish by one iota what we are doing in other areas of human rights protection? Absolutely not.
    If you are pushing the ball forward in the area of human rights protection, you do not correspondingly push the ball backwards with regard to other areas. Again, I'm very disappointed in the Administration coming down on this bill the way they did.
    Let me ask our very distinguished witnesses, you know Father John Neuhaus in his statement makes a very fine statement when he talks about this hesitancy to focus on religious freedom. There is always this oh, we do not want to touch this issue. We pay lip service to it. We will talk to constituent groups about it, and say we are doing this, that and the other thing. We may even bring some light to it in the reporting. As Mr. John said, we will spotlight the issue. That's all fine and good, but it is time to fish or cut bait and this legislation is a step in the right direction. Yes, it is a work in progress, and if we can find some way of fine tuning it, but yesterday's statement by Mr. Shattuck was very, very disappointing.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And, again, we are talking about countries that trade their people like chattel. Mr. John, as you probably know, we had an extensive hearing on slavery in the Sudan, as well as in Mauritania, and we heard riveting testimony about this ongoing use of chattel slavery and how Khartoum not only endorsed it but was part of that terrible institution.
    We heard from witnesses when we had the first hearing ever in my Subcommittee on the uses of torture. We heard it from Catholics, we heard it from non-religious people, we heard it from Buddhists, including a monk who brought the implements that are used in the torture against people who happen to stand up against it—just happened to be Buddhist monks in Tibet.
    He couldn't get through security downstairs because he brought in a cattle prod that is used against prisoners. Mr. Wolf, who was here, and I hope he joins this panel, recently returned from Tibet. He went as a visitor and he saw first hand and heard first hand about a brutal dictatorship in the PRC—and these are our friends, our allies that we are going to have more trade with.
    I think the religious freedom has been thrown in the back of the bus. It is time to bring it forward. This legislation may not be perfect, but we could work on some bipartisan language, but yesterday's testimony was a clear repudiation. We want the Administration to support the legislation and work out some of the details and objectives. Instead of one by one, going through the legislation and saying, ''We do not want this. We do not want that. We do not want any sanctions.''
    Well, what do you like?
    It is about time we said, ''Religious intolerance will not be countenanced. It will not be allowed to go on. And this bill by Mr. Wolf is a small step, it is a minimum policy. Mr. Chairman, our last hearing dealing with slave labor and with child labor, we had two hearings. Everybody was rallying around because of child labor. I introduced a bill. Joe Kennedy and many Members of this Committee joined me in that bill. We could not get the bill out of this Committee because the Administration did not want it to go forward. We are going to try to do that again this year. Religious freedom has to start taking its rightful place—and this legislation does that. I commend Mr. Wolf for his leadership on it. And I thank our witnesses for getting at the heart of the truth.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We have all heard it before. It is horrifying. It is time to stop saying, ''Oh, we are going to do something with that next year.'' We must do it now and this legislation does it. I hope that my colleagues who yesterday spoke out against it and raised a myriad of objections will work with us on this legislation.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for your very strong statement.
    I want to thank our panelists for taking the time to travel, to come here to give us your testimony. I am very comfortable that we will consider it and debate it with regard to the consideration of this legislation.
    I will now ask our panel No. 2 to come forward. We will be hearing from our distinguished panel, Dr. Richard Land who represents the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Richard John Neuhaus, Dr. Donald Argue, and Reverend Drew Christiansen.
    I understand Dr. Neuhaus has a time factor, I will ask Dr. Neuhaus if he would proceed. Gentlemen, you may put your full statement in the record and summarize, for which we would be extremely grateful, or read the entire statement. But our time is limited and we have two other panels following you and we would welcome whatever you could do to expedite your testimony. We want to first thank you for taking the time to be with us on this extremely important legislation.
    Now, for my colleagues and for the record, with regard to our schedule for further consideration of the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act, I have been asked by our Ranking Member, Mr. Hamilton, as well as several other Members—to postpone the mark up of the legislation which is set for tomorrow in order to allow more time to review certain details of the legislation and to try to work out some of those problems.
    I am not eager to postpone the markup, both because I believe this legislation is extremely important and because we have been asked by the House leadership to report out in time for it to reach the House floor before the end of the session. So many other countries are concerned with religious persecution and the outcome of these hearings. Accordingly, we will reschedule the markup of this measure for next week—tomorrow in room H-139 to mark up three other measures. The revised markup notice will be sent to the Members' offices during the day. Thank you. And the panelists may proceed. Rev. Neuhaus.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Rev. NEUHAUS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. I am Father Richard John Neuhaus of the Archdiocese of New York, and I am president of the Institute on Religion and Public Life in New York City.
    First, let me say that I am a very inadequate substitute for my bishop, Cardinal John O'Connor. For very compelling reasons, he could not be here today, but he wants the strong Catholic support for this bill to be clearly on record.
    The authors and sponsors of this bill are to be warmly commended for their initiative. This legislation should be seen as part of a decades-long effort to entrench human rights firmly as a permanent and determinative factor in our country's foreign policy. Until very recently, responsible parties in the government, notably in the Department of State, as well as those in the major human rights organizations, have been hesitant, to say the least, in addressing religious persecution. This hesitancy is, by no means, going to be overcome by this bill, but it can contribute mightily to that end.
    Now, there are no doubt many reasons for hesitancy and even evasion on the question of religious persecution, and some reasons may have to do with a certain uneasiness, or even hostility, toward religion. Others have to do with spurious notions about the separation of church and State, and yet others with a mistaken belief that concern for Christians is an American or western concern that we are somehow imposing on the rest of the world.
    And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, that when people are silenced and jailed and tortured and killed for their beliefs, it is a question of elementary human rights. There can be no wall of separation between religious and other causes of persecution.
    And as for this being an American or a western concern, the great majority of Christians today are people of color living in what is called, ''the Third World,'' and that will be even more the case in the next century. And, of course, this legislation is about the persecution of all believers, not only of Christians.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    In Catholic teaching, as defined by the Second Vatican Council and repeatedly emphasized by the Popes, and most particularly, by His Holiness, John Paul II, religious freedom is the source and shield of all freedoms. The dignity of the human person is anchored in his relationship to the ultimate truth that most of us call, ''God.''
    It is the mandate of just government to respect and protect the dignity of the human person and of persons in community in the exercise of their religious freedom.
    So it is that in its domestic policy and in its dealings with other States, our government is pledged to encouraging and advancing this elementary justice. This is not an American imposition on the rest of the world. Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations and subscribed to by its Member States. Next year, 1998, we will observe the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration. The legislation before you fittingly prepares the way for that observance. This bill will give practical effect to the principles for which we, as a nation, are pledged.
    People can argue over the particulars, of course, for as it is said, politics is the art of the impossible. That is your profession. But politics is also the art of finding out what is possible, and the bill before you requires American policy and policymakers to explore what is politically possible in obedience to what is morally mandatory.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
    [The prepared statement of Rev. Neuhaus appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Father Neuhaus.
    Dr. Land.
    Dr. LAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    It is a privilege to be here, and in light of the testimony from our first panel, I am even more grateful to be a citizen of the United States which stands against all the tyranny that we heard this morning that has victimized these unfortunate people.
    I am the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
    The widespread persecution of Christians in various parts of the world has not, until recently, been a high-profile item on America's agenda. There are some reasons for this oversight. First, an increasingly secularized west and its leadership beliefs tend to be indifferent and often uncomprehending of a spiritual world view which endures persecution and death for the sake of belief.
    Second, the silence of the various Christian communities in the west which could influence the situation has also contributed to the silence and neglect.
    Third, too often in the west, periods of the selective prism of Christian history, people reflectively think of Christians as ''persecutors,'' rather than the persecuted.
    I am delighted and grateful to say that this tragic neglect has ended with startling and gratifying rapidity.
    The Conference on Global Persecution of Christians, sponsored by the program on religious freedom, held January the 23rd, 1996 here in Washington was a long-needed wake up call for many in the American faith community. Many of us had our eyes opened in a new and a life-changing way to both the savagery and the extent of the persecution of fellow Christian believers in various parts of the world, most significantly in Islamic countries such as the Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the Communist regimes such as Cuba, China and Vietnam.
    There was virtual unanimity of support from the conference participants for the Statement of Conscience of the National Association of Evangelicals concerning a worldwide religious persecution.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The NAE, of which Dr. Argue will be speaking as the president, represents tens of millions of evangelical Christians in America and they have produced the Statement of Conscience which outlines the facts of such persecution, states the principles of opposition against such persecution, and issues a call for actions which would directly address such persecution.
    The 15.6-million-member Southern Baptist Convention reflecting a growing concern with this issue, had already passed overwhelmingly a resolution on religious liberty and world evangelization at its convention in Atlanta in June 1995. The resolution expresses support for all people suffering denial of religious liberty, but especially those of the Household of Faith and, even more particularly, for those who share Baptist convictions and commitments.
    The convention instructed and mandated the Ethics in Religious Liberty Commission to make Southern Baptists aware and to express our concern to government, diplomatic, and religious leaders at home and abroad. This testimony is at least partly an attempt to respond to that challenge and that mandate.
    In addition, Pope John Paul II has spoken out yet again recently against the persecution of Christians in his address to the Vatican Diplomatic Corps in January 1996. He decried such persecution and stated that it was an intolerable and unjustifiable violation, not only of all the norms of current international law, but of the most fundamental human freedom, that of practicing one's faith openly, which for human beings, is their reason for living.
    The interdenominational concern for and grass roots support of this issue has been growing exponentially in recent months. The persecution of Christian issues has reached critical mass. As a member of the Executive Committee for the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church, I have experienced and witnessed the birth and rapid growth of a broad-based movement.
    The International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church is a broadly supported effort for a season of understanding, prayer, and action which starts on September 28th, 1997, and culminates with a Day of Prayer on November the 16th, 1997, which will be observed by tens of thousands of churches and millions of Christians in the United States and around the world.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The campaign's mission statement is awakening followers of Christ and concerned others to the plight of persecuted Christians, calling them to compassionate prayer and action. This rapidly growing and maturing movement will increasingly insist that the Government of the United States take serious and important steps, such as those outlined in the Wolf-Specter Bill, to demand that the offending foreign governments stop perpetrating or acquiescing to these atrocities.
    Let me be clear that we are not insisting that the U.S. Government seek to hold the entire world to the pristine standard of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, religious liberty, rights and guarantees, as desirable and as beneficial to humankind as we believe that would be. We are insisting that basic human rights be recognized. These persecutions of Christians are clear and unacceptable violations of the U.N. 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly Articles 2 and 18.
    The International Family of Nations has agreed that all human beings have the inherent right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
    The persecutions are real and they are widespread. A focused campaign against these persecutions, supported by a committed domestic constituency, such as sensitized and informed American Christians, can and, we believe, will have tremendous and far-reaching results.
    The inspiring paradigm of the plight of the Jewish community in the Soviet Union and the impact the American Jewish community was able to have in alliance with others is an example of the life-changing difference that such a campaign can have.
    The American campaign on behalf of Soviet Jews helped to seal the fate of Soviet repression in its far-flung empire. We believe a campaign to use American governmental influence to stop the persecution of Christians will have similarly dramatic results.
    Evangelicals and Catholics are being persecuted in many of these countries by those who seek to hold back the 21st century by using the repressive methods which have made the 20th century the bloodiest in terms of human beings slaughtered. Christians are threats to the anti-democratic forces which oppose modernity. And if the western secular elite does not understand this, make no mistake, the Chinese, Vietnamese, and Cuban commissars and the Islamic Ayatollahs do.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Further, the U.S. Government makes the price for persecuting Christians, usually the most vulnerable in these societies, unacceptable. If they do that, it strengthens moderate Islamic elements in those societies and their attempts to resist the thuggery and persecution perpetrated by Islamic radicals in their midst.
    Clearly, the U.S. Government has been woefully negligent in dealing with the issue. The issue has not occupied a significant place in American foreign policy. Until recently, it was not even on the State Department's radar screen. That must change. The Wolf-Specter legislation would accomplish that change.
    We believe the Wolf-Specter Bill's creation of the Office for Religious Persecution and its monitoring responsibility and authority would give the U.S. Government a mechanism to focus the American people's growing outrage on this issue. The nonexclusive, but focused emphasis, on anti-Christian persecution, the Wolf-Specter Bill, directs the Office of Religious Persecution to make findings and impose sanctions against all countries that persecute religious minorities, and will provide for a far more balanced understanding of the real human rights picture in the world.
    At present, far more Americans are aware of other human rights abuses around the world than they are or were until recently of the more than 200 million Christians who face torture, imprisonment, murder, and enslavement, and the 400 million Christians who experience active intense discrimination because of their faith.
    The experience from the Campaign for Soviet Jews illustrates the fact that a nonexclusive focus on one group results in benefits and liberation for other persecuted groups. A rising tide of toleration lifts all persecuted people.
    We are told the 21st century will be the pacific century. What kind of century will it be?
    America has great power and influence. Such power contains responsibilities, as well as privilege. We must do all we can to influence the Asian powers of the future and other countries in the Second and Third World to recognize the basic human rights of their citizens, including Christians.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Experience tells us that governments, like children, often do not do what you expect, but what you are prepared to inspect. We expect our government to insist that nations who want to be in good relation with us cease and desist from persecuting Christians. We will be inspecting whether they do so. A foreign policy that denies our basic values and seeks only to meet the requirements of commerce and business is, and always will remain, unacceptable.
    Some foreign governments do not think America cares what happens to non-Americans and that we are a money-bag democracy, for sale to the highest bidder and enslaved by the bottom line. They are wrong. America is still a nation that believes that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    Americans still believe these values when men like my father and most of my uncles fought in the Second World War for President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, including the freedom of worship illustrated so beautifully by Norman Rockwell with the caption, ''Each according to the dictates of his own conscience.'' They thought and Americans believed that they were fighting for those freedoms, not just for Americans, but for everyone in the world.
    Most Americans still cherish the timeless truths of our Declaration of Independence. As the Chief Justice in the Nuremberg Tribunal depicted in the film, Judgment at Nuremberg, stated that, ''Here is what we stand for: Justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.'' We still do. This is our priceless heritage as Americans, on the whole, and it is on the whole that such things should be judged. America has always stood for these things, and the American people want our government to make that clear to all the governments of the world: that is still what we stand for, and we will insist upon it.
    Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Land appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Dr. Land.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. Argue.
    Dr. ARGUE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly on one of the foremost issues facing the world, religious persecution and what might be done to help curb this growing crisis.
    At the outset, let me say that this testimony reflects over 50 years of experience by the National Association of Evangelicals, not only on religious freedom issues, but particularly our concern for refugees who have experienced persecution.
    World Relief, our international assistance arm, is working in 20 countries, and here in the United States is working with local churches to resettle approximately 10,000 refugees per year.
    We cannot be silent in the face of escalating religious persecution. That is why more than 80 religious leaders from diverse religious traditions signed an August 29th letter, organized by our Office for Governmental Affairs, asking congressional leaders for action against that persecution. This letter, which I would like included in the record, respectfully requests legislation directed against regimes formally condemned by the 104th Congress for anti-faith persecutions and containing mechanisms to deal with all regimes engaged in such conduct.
    Hearings on such omnibus anti-religious persecution legislation to begin no later than September, 1997. Floor action on legislation to take place by early November, since the Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church will be conducted in tens of thousands of American churches on November 16, 1997. And I hold in my hand a video which will be distributed to perhaps 50,000 or more churches in the United States for the Day of Prayer, depicting and documenting issues of religious persecution like you heard from the young lady this morning.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. ARGUE. In sum, the letter demonstrates the broad support for action on persecution and for the Wolf-Specter legislation as the framework for the debate within Congress.
    We are very pleased that earlier this morning, a group of some 35 religious leaders met with congressional leaders to express their deep concern about the issue. This hearing today is a sign that the House of Representatives take seriously our concerns. And at the meeting this morning, we were pleased to hear Majority Leader Lott indicate there would be positive action this year.
    We are thankful, Mr. Chairman, that you have spoken positively in support of the legislation, and we are trusting that you will join Senator Lott and Speaker Gingrich and make sure that there is positive action this year.
    This bill is not a Christian bill. This bill speaks to all issues of religious persecution and violations of conscience. As we heard from the Tibetan Buddhist this morning, Iranian Ba'hais and others could be cited. It will not hurt the very ones that we were trying to help. That has never been documented. In fact, the record does not indicate that notion is true. The illustration of Soviet Jewry is a very clear example of the broad population being helped and, in fact, Soviet Jews being free. And the issue of South Africa and all that went on there to break Apartheid helped the very issue of the entire country.
    We have made it clear since the issuance in January 1996 in our Statement of Conscience on worldwide persecution, which I would also like to have included in the record, that we believe our own government has been assigned a silent and indifferent witness to intolerable religious persecution.
    The Wolf-Specter Bill is the legislative embodiment of the call to action section of the Statement of Conscience, a document that continues to define the nature and objectives of the anti-religious persecution movement. The statement has been endorsed by the National Association of Evangelicals, 49 denominations, as well as church leaders and human rights groups throughout the country.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    There are four policy action areas in the call to action that parallel the Wolf-Specter Bill: first, the establishment of an institutional structure within the White House that gives powerful visibility to religious persecution issues, that ensures that all Federal agencies take action against such persecution; second, full reorganization of State Department's priorities in dealing with human rights issues so that the victims of religious persecution receive the Department's full attention; third, reform of the Immigration and Naturalization Service practices to make them consistent with law and the history of a country founded as a haven for victims of religious persecution; and fourth, termination of nonhumanitarian aid to countries that foster or appease antifaith persecution.
    The Statement of Conscience amplifies on each of these policy areas by providing over 20 different specific recommendations that should be given consideration. Some of these ideas are included in the Wolf-Specter Bill. Others are being considered by the State Department Advisory Committee on Religious Liberty Abroad, of which I am a member and serve as the co-chair on the Subcommittee on Religious Persecution.
    Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to be here to testify. I will do my best to answer any questions that you and the Members of the Committee may have.
    The National Association of Evangelicals is an umbrella group of Christians in 49 denominations representing over 43,000 churches, 297 parachurch ministries through our commissions, affiliates such as the National Religious Broadcasters, the Evangelical Fellowship of Mission Agencies, which is the largest Christian agency representation group in the world, a world relief agency, we serve a constituency in excess of 27 million constituents.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Argue appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Dr. Argue for your very thoughtful statements.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Rev. Christiansen.
    Rev. CHRISTIANSEN. Mr. Chairman, allow me to thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon on behalf of the Catholic Christians of the United States. I have a prepared statement that I would ask be included in the record.
    Mr. GILMAN. Without objection.
    Rev. CHRISTIANSEN. And I would also ask that the record be held open for a day to receive the technical addendum for my——
    Mr. GILMAN. That is without objection, as well.
    Rev. CHRISTIANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    If I may also thank you for the efforts of this Committee, and especially those of Congressman Wolf and the other sponsors, to raise the conscience of the American public and heighten the responsiveness of the U.S. Government to the persecution of Christians and members of other religious communities in various parts of the world.
    For too long, our government has neglected or ignored issues of religious persecutions. While there is new attention to religious liberty, this is not a new issue for the U.S. Catholic bishops. In China and Vietnam, Sudan and Bosnia, we have worked against religious persecution and discrimination which Pope John Paul II has said are intolerable and unjustifiable violations of the most fundamental human freedom.
    We welcome, for several reasons, the introduction of the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act. First, we highly commend the bill's intent to make the elimination of religious persecution top priority for the U.S. foreign policy, thus the protection of all fundamental human rights should be. The bill rightly ties U.S. aid and trade policies to a country's respect for religious freedom. The Catholic bishops have long supported all fundamental human rights.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Second, the bill's distinction between category 1 and category 2 forms of persecution is helpful. Religious persecution by nongovernmental groups, while serious, should not be treated in the same way as persecution by governments.
    Third, the efforts to improve reporting or religious liberty by the State Department, and the strengthening of training of Foreign Service and Immigration officers, given our experience in this area, are necessary. Ignorance or indifference to violations of religious liberty on the part of those who serve our nation is unacceptable.
    Finally, the bill provides for the restoration of certain vital procedural safeguards previously available to applicants for asylum, but withdrawn last year by congressional legislation. In my written testimony, you recommend a few specific ways the bill for asylum provisions could be strengthened. We also urge that in other context, that Congress consider important procedural safeguards be restored for those suffering religious persecution would also be restored for those seeking asylum on other grounds.
    For these reasons, we believe this bill represents a positive and welcome effort. We believe, however, that it could be strengthened in several ways.
    First, consideration should be given to expanding the types of religious persecution covered by the bill.
    Second, the bill's coverage should be expanded to cover all persecuted religions in all countries. The world's persecutors must be clear that the United States will not tolerate persecution of Muslims, Hindus or Jews any more than it does persecuted Christians.
    Third, the experience we have had with sanctions in recent years leads us to be cautious and deliberate in invoking them as a remedy in public affairs. Sanctions should be targeted as much as possible at those responsible for religious persecution. For that reason, we have offered the humanitarian exemptions that are included in the bill.
    We would hope that the bill would also make clear that sanctions do not include other bilateral or multilateral aid programs that have a significant humanitarian impact. The way of thinking of those economic, cultural and political development programs, especially those implemented by non-governmental organizations that directly empower the poor, as well as those that contribute to the development of civil society and the Rule of Law. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you understand how important preservation of the Rule of Law and the promotion of the Rule of Law is to the promotion of religious liberty.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Finally, we would recommend two ways to advance the purpose of the bill which reduce the possibility that sanctions would be imposed in situations where they might be counterproductive, where other tools might be more effective. We suggest a full public review and comment on particular findings to be incorporated into the process. Such review could improve the assessment of the impact of sanctions on the affected religious groups and govern elements of the population to reinforce the findings of religious persecution and could contribute to the process of judging the efficacy of opposing sanctions or the need for other more effective remedies.
    Second, we do not believe it would be helpful to go forward with sanctions in cases where sanctions might clearly exacerbate the situation of the persecuted or seriously harm the wider population which bears no responsibility for persecution.
    Therefore, we would recommend an additional ground for waiver be added to the bill so that these limited sanctions may be waived and clearly necessary to meet the purposes of the bill.
    In conclusion, we welcome the higher profile and priority now being given to religious liberty. We will continue to work with the Congress to strengthen and refine particular provisions of this bill to ensure that it will be an effective tool for combatting a too often ignored problem and improving the situation of the millions who are suffering simply because of their religious beliefs.
    We will continue to work with the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad to identify more effective ways our government could use the many tools at its disposal to challenge intolerance of religion around the world. In the end, U.S. religious institutions will be judged by how effectively we stand in solidarity with believers who risk their freedom and their lives for their faith. The U.S. foreign policy will be measured by how effectively it defends religious liberty and human rights.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [The prepared statement of Rev. Christiansen appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Rev. Christiansen.
    I want to thank our panelists for taking their time and for their very erudite statements. We will now have an exchange of dialog with our colleagues, and let me start off by asking the entire panel do you believe that repression of religion, as we have heard it, has increased around the world or stayed about where it has been over the past decade or two?
    Dr. LAND. I think it has increased, Mr. Chairman. I do not think there is any question about that. And I think one of the reasons is that we are seeing a worldwide revival of faith, particularly expansion of the Christian faith into areas where it has not previously been very widespread. And that is one of the reasons for the persecution.
    In fact, I had one critic say to me recently, ''Well, you know, the problem is these people bring this on themselves. They bring it on themselves by believing in the Christian faith.'' That is their right to follow God according to the dictates of their conscience. And I think that as the Christian faith has grown in areas where it previously was not as thick on the ground, this has increased the persecution. And also, you have, I believe, the silence of the United States. Comparative silence of the United States and the machinery of the State Department has led to this being exacerbated because nothing has been done when there has been persecution. And so governments and groups within those countries feel free to continue that persecution.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Dr. Land.
    Dr. Argue.
    Dr. ARGUE. Thank you. Three points that I would draw to your attention: The excellent book by Dr. Paul Marshall, ''Their Blood Cries Out,'' documents an answer to the question you have raised. I would also point to the book by Nina Shea, ''In the Lion's Den.'' It does the same. And third, as Co-Chair of the State Department's Subcommittee on Religious Persecution, I took to the last meeting the 1st of July a 4-inch-high stack of 8 1/2-by-11 typed sheets of current documented issues of religious persecution.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Our organization, which I mentioned a while ago has representatives working around the world, 23,000 plus religious workers, has never experienced the reports of religious persecution as we are at this time. So, yes, it has increased dramatically.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Dr. Argue.
    Rev. Christiansen.
    Rev. CHRISTIANSEN. I would concur with the other panelists. I think religious persecution is on the rise and I think one of the factors that contributes to that is radicalism in various parts of the world where people who do not adhere to even one faction of the same faith find themselves being persecuted by the radicals. So I think that radicalism is also an important element here.
    Mr. GILMAN. How would our panelists answer the criticism that legislation is not needed now because the State Department Advisory Committee on Religious Issues, as they have indicated, is handling the matter adequately?
    Dr. Land.
    Dr. LAND. Well, I am tempted to quote Blanche DuBois, since she had always trusted herself to the kindness of strangers.
    I am not willing to trust this issue to the kindness of the State Department, particularly given past performance by the State Department. I think the State Department's Advisory Committee can be helpful, but I believe that there has to be a legislative mechanism to put teeth into this.
    We have jawboned this and we have talked about this enough. It is time for the Government of the United States to hold these governments to a basic standard of human decency if they want to have normal relations with the United States.
    And I think that the Congress is much more responsive to the will of the American people, more directly and more quickly, than the State Department is. I remember former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once saying that we would be far better off if the United States of America and the former Soviet Union quit behaving like causes and started behaving like nations. Nations have interests.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Well, the United States has never been and, hopefully, never will be just a nation. It is also a cause, and we do not have just interests. We have a cause, and one of them is a basic commitment to basic human rights, and it must be a part of our foreign policy. And past experience over the last half century tells us that will only happen when there is a congressional legislative mechanism that makes certain that it happens.
    Mr. GILMAN. Dr. Argue.
    Dr. ARGUE. Thank you.
    Secretary Shattuck called me at my home Monday night and graciously shared the testimony that he presented yesterday and then faxed me an exact word-by-word copy. I affirm his leadership and that of Secretary Albright and President Clinton. As a member of that committee, however, I speak very clearly in favor of the legislation that you are considering.
    My concern is that the State Department Committee is an advisory committee. The testimony yesterday by Secretary Shattuck, although it contained much that I would affirm, is business as usual. And this issue cannot be business as usual. We have to have action and we need to move forward with the legislation as quickly as possible.
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Dr. Argue.
    Rev. Christiansen.
    Rev. CHRISTIANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think the legislation is needed because this is an area that has been neglected. I think its opportunity to appear on the legislative agenda has been reduced, I think, in past years because of the rise of trade as a primary concern in policy, both in the Administration and here on the Hill.
    I would say as to the State Department, that we have worked with the State Department on these issues in many settings. I think the Administration, as the Congress, did an admirable job in getting President Yeltsin to veto the Russian Religious Association Bill. We are still to see the outcome on that.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And on some occasions, we, ourselves, have been brought into religious persecution situations by the State Department because of its knowledge of what was going on in various areas. I would say, however, that the State Department, at present, is both understaffed and underfunded. The Religious Liberty Abroad Committee is an example of this. We have provided a fair amount of assistance to that Committee in its operations, even paying for a number of the lunches in the Subcommittee meetings.
    So I would not want to say the State Department cannot do more. I think it needs to be helped to do more, but I think legislation is needed and corrective action is needed because there has been so little attention focused on this in any part of the government.
    Mr. GILMAN. I want to thank our panelists for your responses.
    Our Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Gentlemen, I appreciate greatly your testimony. I think you contributed to our understanding.
    I would like to ask you kind of a broad question, really without reference to the bill that is pending before us. You represent a very large part of Christendom. You have a huge number of workers all over the world. From your point of view, what countries cause you the greatest anguish today in the persecution of Christians? Which countries would you really like to see the United States crack down on? How would you like us to crack down on them?
    Dr. LAND. I will take a preliminary run at that, give my colleagues a little time to think about what is a very provocative question.
    As you asked the question, my first response would be I would have to be most anguished by the country that has the greatest number of people who are suffering active persecution for their faith, and of course, that would be the People's Republic of China where there is widespread persecution that is well documented in Paul Marshall's book and in other places.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And, of course, the Sudan where perhaps, at least as far as I know, the most egregious examples of persecution exist where people are literally being sold into slavery for their faith and are being crucified. I mean as the ultimate mockery of the Christian faith, are literally being nailed to crosses and crucified. Those two countries would be the two that would come to mind immediately.
    Mr. HAMILTON. The denominations that you represent do feel that the Chinese Government and Sudanese Government are persecuting them, as this bill defines persecution?
    Dr. LAND. Yes, sir, I do. And let me be very clear that the Southern Baptist's Convention, in its wisdom, and I think it is wise to do so, has separated the issue of evangelization worldwide, which is dealt with by the International Mission Board of our Southern Baptist Convention, and the question of basic human rights and religious liberty around the world, which is dealt with by me, so that we can, in good conscience, adopt sort of a good cop-bad cop attitude when it comes to applications for our missionaries and mission workers to be in certain countries. The International Mission Board can say, ''Well, you know, Dr. Land deals with that. We have no control over him,'' which they do not. And, of course, I do not have any control over the International Mission Board, either.
    But speaking for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and speaking for the resolution that we passed in 1995, the nations that we mentioned, specifically were Bulgaria, Russia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Cuba, Romania, India and China, have documented and systemic patterns of persecuting Christians. I personally would point out Red China and Sudan as the most egregious examples.
    Mr. HAMILTON. And what would you like to see the United States do?
    Dr. LAND. I would like to see the United States of America have a policy in place that has a velvet hammer. There is velvet, but there is a hammer underneath it that says, ''If you want to do business with the United States, and you want to have normal relations with the United States, and you want to accrue the benefits that come from that, then you have to behave as part of the civilized community of nations. That means you have to abide by the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights.''
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HAMILTON. Dr. Land, if they do not, and they are not now in your judgment——
    Dr. LAND. Well, they have no reason to now.
    Mr. HAMILTON. All right. I just want to see how you want us to conduct policy. You—as I understand it, you then would cut off all relationships with China?
    Dr. LAND. No, sir. I would hope that the Wolf-Specter Bill would be implemented and we would cut off any aid to them.
    Mr. HAMILTON. How about trade?
    Dr. LAND. Well, I certainly think that the question of most favored nation status should be revisited. See, I am tired of contempt of the gangsters who run Red China——
    Dr. LAND. We are a money bag democracy.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I understand.
    Dr. LAND [continuing]. We do not care about these issues.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I understand your rhetoric. What I am trying to——
    Dr. LAND. It is my indignation, sir, not my rhetoric.     Mr. HAMILTON. Well, I thought your rhetoric kind of reflected your indignation.
    Dr. LAND. Well, it is more than rhetoric, and that is what we want from our government is more than rhetoric. We want indignation and we want indignation with teeth.
    Mr. HAMILTON. And that is what I am driving at.
    Dr. LAND. Teeth.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Now, we are not really giving aid to China, so I am trying to figure out what you want us to do with respect to China.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. LAND. Well, sir, that is what we elect you to do, to find the most effective ways to——
    Mr. HAMILTON. I understand that.
    Dr. LAND [continuing]. comply with the basic accord of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I understand that is our responsibility. I appreciate that. I am just trying to get some advice from you, but I do not have much at this point.
    Dr. LAND. Well, I think the Wolf-Specter Bill, as has been recommended to you, is a beginning point, and I think that it certainly is an improvement over the present way of doing nothing.
    Mr. HAMILTON. All right. Dr. Argue, let me ask you the same question, sir. From your standpoint, what countries really cause you and your denominations the greatest concern?     Dr. ARGUE. I would have the same list as Dr. Land.
    Mr. HAMILTON. All right. And that's China at the top of the list?
    Dr. ARGUE. Very definitely. I would add I ran into that as well, where persecution is going on even as we sit in this hearing.
    Mr. HAMILTON. And so far as actions by the U.S. Government, what would you like to see the Government do?
    Dr. ARGUE. Well, I would prefer testimony, that the four specific policy action areas that are part of the Wolf-Specter Bill will take us in the right direction. And those four are establishment of an institutional structure within the White House that gives powerful visibility to religious persecution issues and ensures that all Federal agencies take action against such persecution.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Second, full reorganization of the State Department priorities in dealing with human rights issues so that victims of religious persecution receive the Department's full attention.
    We have stacks of reports where religious persecution—in fact, I just dealt with one out of China. Got them out. It was so severe, and yet it was just put on the back shelf by the council, until finally such pressure was put on. We were able to get the people out of the country, and they simply would have not been heard from again and probably would have been executed. Third, reform of the Immigration and Naturalization Services practices to make them consistent with law and the history of a country founded as a haven for victims of religious persecution. And fourth, termination——
    Mr. HAMILTON. May I stop you there. You would elevate with regard to refugees the question of persecution for the basis of religion——
    Dr. ARGUE. Right.
    Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. Above persecution, for example, on the basis of race?
    Dr. ARGUE. We would just ask that much of what is on the books now would be enforced. It is simply——
    Mr. HAMILTON. You are not asking for any change with regard to the——
    Dr. ARGUE. Oh, we are asking for what the legislation has in the Wolf-Specter Bill, which draws more specific attention to it.
    Mr. HAMILTON. How is that consistent with your statement that all you are asking is enforcement of the present law?
    Dr. ARGUE. Well, the Wolf-Specter Bill will bring greater enforcement and direction to it.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HAMILTON. Now Dr. Argue, the Wolf-Specter Bill changes our policy with regard to refugees. It is not the same as enforcing the present law.
    Dr. ARGUE. What is on the books now is not being enforced. We are asking for more to be brought in because——
    Mr. HAMILTON. But you are asking for a different——
    Dr. ARGUE. That is correct.
    Mr. HAMILTON [continuing]. Policy with regard to refugees?
    Dr. ARGUE. That is correct.
    Mr. HAMILTON. You are saying in the Wolf-Specter Bill that persecution against a person by reason of religion puts them in a higher category for purposes of coming into this country than persecution on the basis of race, for example.
    Now that might be the policy we ought to consider, but it clearly is the way I, at least, read the bill.
    Dr. LAND. That is not the way I read it, Congressman. The way I read it is that it takes people who are victims of religious persecution and it takes them from the back of the line, and it puts them on a basis with people who are facing persecution. It gives them equal status.
    Right now, the actual practice is that they are at the back of the line. They are ignored.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Well——
    Dr. LAND. And we have numerous—we have a stack——
    Mr. HAMILTON. I will be glad to look at the bill, Dr. Land. My impression is this bill changes U.S. refugee laws so that it gives a preference to religious groups ahead of other refugee groups, no matter what their history of persecution.
    Dr. LAND. That is not our intent.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. LAND. We want equal treatment and we are not giving equal treatment now, and we have not been given equal treatment.
    Mr. HAMILTON. And so you are not asking for elevation of religious persecution above persecution on other grounds?
    Dr. LAND. No, sir, I am not.
    Mr. HAMILTON. OK. Father Christiansen, I have not given you a chance to respond, and I know my time has expired. You have heard the questions that I put to the others. Now, your testimony, of course, is sharply different because you made a number of suggestions as to how the law could be changed, and I noted those for us because I think that is our responsibility to look at possible amendments to any proposal. But from the standpoint of the Catholic Church, what countries cause you the most problems?
    Rev. CHRISTIANSON. Well, in addition to Sudan and the Peoples Republic of China, I would list Saudi Arabia and Indonesia.     Mr. HAMILTON. And what would you like to see us do?
    Rev. CHRISTIANSON. Well, different remedies I think are applicable, depending on the relationship. We have been advocates of linkage of trade. We supported at least conditioning—and I found on human rights performance in China. The Congress has made its bill known on that.
    But I think in terms of the sanctions that are recommended in the bill on military aid, it would favor that to be used. I think there was a provision that was taken out of there, as I understand now, on recommendations for admission to the World Trade Organization. It seems to me that, with respect to China, there is still a relative consideration. And though everyone wants this, I would be happy to provide consultation to the staff of the Committee some of the remedies with respect to—they take into account our provisions about people-centered development we would also see as possible tools.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I would say that on the refugee and asylum issue, I think I made clear the Commission's position that they would like to see restrictions on all the categories—with respect to this bill, we agree with our co-panelists that intent is to bring people at the end of the line to the head of the line, but I think you are correct about the way that is done. Not that I think it puts them in a special category, but it does give them protections that were not there under the old law.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Well, let me just conclude by saying that I do not quarrel at all with your basic viewpoint. We have a very, very big problem here in how to deal with religious persecution in other countries, and the value of your testimony is that you elevate that for us and emphasize the use of people with very special authority on these matters on behalf of the people you represent. We have to be responsible for that. My concern is the sanctions and how you apply them and what they do.
    Let me just give you a hypothetical for a moment.
    Each of you have mentioned the country of Saudi Arabia. I do not know the situation in Saudi Arabia regarding religious persecution, but I suspect it is pretty bad. One of the sanctions that could conceivably be imposed against Saudi Arabia is some kind of economic sanction. If you do, it has enormous consequences for us. We get a very large percentage of our oil from Saudi Arabia and this relationship is tremendously important to daily life, the economic life to this country.
    Dr. LAND. Can I respond to that?
    I would like to say, first of all, that the Wolf-Specter Bill gives the President the ability to override any recommendation, but then he has to explain it to the American people. And I think he ought to have to explain it to the American people. And we need to understand something we sometimes do not understand in the United States. The relationship with Saudi Arabia is important to us. It is absolutely critical to the Saudi Arabians, as they found out when they had Saddam Hussein on their hands. And I am tired of this relationship being a one-way relationship.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HAMILTON. Let us take my hypothetical for a moment. Would you recommend the President apply the sanctions?
    Dr. LAND. That would be for the President to make his recommendation.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I understand that.
    Dr. LAND [continuing]. And justify it to the American people.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Would you recommend he apply it?
    Dr. LAND. I would want to know what he had done to talk to the Saudi Arabians and to make clear that we are not going to allow the Saudi Arabians any longer to tell us what American citizens can do in terms of religious expression in the Saudi Embassy—in Saudi Arabia.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Dr. Land, just take my hypothetical. I think maybe you and I can agree that the Saudis persecute Christians.
    Dr. LAND. Yes, sir.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Let us say they do it in an egregious sort of a way.
    Dr. LAND. And others. Not just Christians.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Well, very good. And we will agree to that, too.
    Dr. LAND. They behead them, in some cases.
    Mr. HAMILTON. It might very well be true. That is the kind of a system they have.
    OK, let us say that is all true. And then we come along with sanctions and somebody says, ''We have got to apply sanctions, trade sanctions against Saudi Arabia.'' Would you recommend the President waive?
    Dr. LAND. I would recommend that the President have very serious discussions with the Saudis and I would start with military aid. They can get jets from somewhere else if they need them. That does not mean that we have to have the blood on our hands of selling them to them.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    There are a lot of things we can do, and I think the President ought to justify to the American people any waivers from the recommendation.
    Mr. HAMILTON. So, we apply your sanction of cutting off the military assistance in relationship to Saudi Arabia. That means we—thousands and thousands of American troops——
    Dr. LAND. No, sir, that is not what I said. What I said was we cutoff military aid. We do not sell them planes. Which they want because we have the best planes.
    Mr. HAMILTON. If you begin to apply these sanctions as you are now advocating to Saudi Arabia——
    Dr. LAND. Yes, sir.
    Mr. HAMILTON.—I am simply saying to you it has enormous consequences.
    Dr. LAND. It does, sir, and it has enormous consequences of doing nothing, and I like our way of trying to do something——
    Dr. LAND [continuing]. Over our way of presently doing nothing.     Mr. HAMILTON. I do not have any quarrel with your view that you want to do something. The whole purpose of my questioning has been to try to get specifics out of you as to what you would do in these circumstances. That is the question policymakers have to deal with.
    Dr. LAND. Yes, sir. And the Wolf-Specter Bill——
    Mr. HAMILTON. Dr. Land, it is not sufficient for you or for me to just sit here and casually say, ''We are going to enact this very tough bill against religious persecution to the world and show how tough we are against religious persecution, which we all deplore.'' And say, ''OK. Mr. President, you figure out when to apply it.''
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. LAND. Well, that is not what the Wolf-Specter Bill does.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Oh, it certainly——
    Dr. LAND. It calls for findings by the office——
    Mr. HAMILTON. Your position was that the President have the waiver.
    Mr. HAMILTON. You are correct——
    Dr. LAND. Well, it is in the bill. That's right.
    Mr. HAMILTON. You are correct about that.
    Dr. LAND. And Harry Truman said, ''The buck stops there.''
    Mr. HAMILTON. You are not going to——
    Dr. LAND [continuing]. That is what we elect him for.
    Mr. HAMILTON. You are not going to help me?
    You see, that is exactly what the Congress does. We take up a bill on religious persecution. We make all these fancy speeches about how we deplore religious persecution and we put all these fancy sanctions in the bill. And we then get all the credit, as politicians, for being tough against religious persecution. Then we slip a little provision in there and the provision is, ''Mr. President, you could waive this.'' And the whole burden falls on the President of the United States.
    You are right, the buck stops there. That is what he is paid to do. But do you not see what we are doing? I am not talking about you.
    Dr. LAND. Yes.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I am talking about me.
    Dr. LAND. Well, with all due respect, sir, what we do now is give speeches deploring religious persecution and do nothing about it. This is an attempt to do something about it.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HAMILTON. That's right.
    Dr. LAND. And if the President wants to ignore the issue, he has to explain why.
    Mr. HAMILTON. It is an attempt, and you are quite right about that, and that is why it is an important attempt. And I appreciate that.
    Mr. SMITH. Let me just make a couple of points. I am going to ask Mr. Rademaker, the General Counsel, to respond to some of the questions raised on the asylum and the refugee issue. Before doing that, just with all due respect to my very good friend from Indiana, nobody is concerned here about fancy speeches or about fancy provisions. What we are concerned about are the kinds of people that we heard from in that first panel, multiplied by hundreds, by millions probably, as indicated by Dr. Land, 200 million or so people.
    And I will never forget when we fought the battle on Romania. When Nicholae Ceausescu was the dictator and was oppressing religious believers with impunity, Father Gorgi Kelchio and all the others were suffering cruel types of torture that went on for years. This Congress, because it did not want to upset the apple cart, because somehow we had a different foreign policy vis-a-vis Moscow which we all know now in retrospect, and now we all know belatedly that he was a brutal, harsh dictator, who murdered, maimed and tortured, particularly Christians, particularly evangelicals.
    I led five human rights trips to Romania, and every time I talked to the State Department, they would talk about how we want to work with them, we do not want to make fancy speeches, we do not want to do this, we do not want to do that, we will accommodate them. And the impunity, the cruelty went on unabated.
    What we are trying to do, Mr. Hamilton, with all due respect, with this legislation is not make fancy speeches, but to send out some very clear markers.
    Now, I wish it was up to me. Maybe some day I will be in the office and could make decisions, based on the facts as presented, after the date of enactment and sign the signature into law. And then you make a decision and then you live or die based on that determination.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    What I find so disturbing about that whole line of argument, if I tried to shift the burden to Dr. Land to make the decision now, we are hoping this has a laudatory effect. That is the effect of so many egregious abuses. We do not know if that is going to happen. But one of our proudest chapters in American foreign policy was our position as it relates to Soviet Jews. I took my first trip to the former Soviet Union with Jerry Goodman of the National Conference on Soviet Jewry. As a matter of fact, we were just talking. They tried to run him down, the KGB. He actually was on the hood of a car as they went down the street, trying to knock him off.
    This was a super power with nuclear missiles aimed at all of our cities and military installations that could quickly explode, and we took a principled position that the plight of suffering Jewry in the Soviet Union was so important that we would stand up and say, ''No MFN unless there are some changes, unless you allow a freer immigration policy to stop this terrible discrimination against Jews.''
    All this we are asking, and I am sorry that he did leave, Mr. Hamilton and others who have some problem with this legislation. It is a simple marker of religious freedom and there is a waiver in here for national security considerations.
    It is a work in progress, I say to my friends who yesterday expressed doubts about the bill. We can work on some of the provisions, but religious freedom has gotten short shrift for so long in this country and it is time to focus on it.
    And now I go to the State Department and every time I raised MFN in Romania, nobody over there now says they were a friend of Nicholae Ceausescu. Nobody. Everyone universally condemns him. But when we were writing resolutions and bills, Dorothy Taft, who is now my Chief of Staff at the Helsinki Commission, she will tell you, they would come in and they would give us a watered down version that would not offend Nicholae Ceausescu.
    It is about time we stood for something and this legislation seeks to do that.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Regrettably, we have a vote, but if it is at all possible, I would hope you would stay because I know some of the other Members do have—and I can't pass the baton because nobody else is here to take it. We will take a very, very brief suspension for a couple of minutes.
    Mr. GILMAN. Come to order, please.
    We will continue with the panelists and Mr. Smith was about to question the panelists.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you. And again I want to apologize to our witnesses and the panelists and all assembled for these—Mr. Gilman and I have no control over that—for these interruptions.
    Let me just ask a couple of questions. Yesterday, as I indicated, as I know you all know, since the Secretary, John Shattuck, spoke out against the bill; gave a number of very specific reasons as to why he was against it. One was that it would more likely harm rather than aid victims of religious persecution. He said it runs the risk of harming vital bilateral relations with key allies, and some of our earlier discussion I think focused on there is a waiver, and we risked the biggest potential blow up of all when we fought for Soviet Jews, even though it was against the other super power, and yet we did it anyway because every one of those lives were worth it.
    This idea of marginalizing religious freedom, which I found to be—and I said this yesterday—ludicrous on its face. When you upgrade, how do you marginalize? You are making stronger a concern.
    And then finally, if you could speak to this so-called hierarchy of human rights violations that would somehow damage all the other human rights, which is something that is suggested here in his testimony.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. Land or any of our other distinguished witnesses? Father Christiansen, if you would respond, or Dr. Argue.
    Rev. CHRISTIANSON. Yes. I would say that I think it is wrong-headed to think that this bill would create two classes of rights. For practical reasons, various human rights organizations put emphasis on some rights rather than others because they were more in the reach and more people are more seriously threatened.
    This is an area where there has been lack of effective protection, and it seems to me that it is necessary that remedy be found as it was found for Soviet Jewry, as we found for other classes of persecutees with special legislation. And I don't think this really changes our way of dealing with this question very much.
    Dr. LAND. Well, I have not read the testimony, and so I will defer to a member of the Advisory Committee who has read the testimony.
    I would just say that it seems from experience that the State Department breeds a certain mindset. It leads the balance of congressional and the executive branch concern.
    The State Department is concerned about diplomatic relations, it is concerned about bilateral relations, and there is no question that, at least over the last quarter century, that religious persecution has been on the back of the bus. And certainly the Wolf-Specter legislation, or some version thereof, it seems to me, is necessary to correct that historical situation and to hold the State Department's feet to the fire.
    I mean after all, if it were not for the pressure of this movement, which is a rapidly growing grass roots movement of Christians and other people of faith in the United States, if it were not for the pressure of this movement, we would not have the Advisory Committee. And, you know, the State Department was not even willing to do that until a good deal of pressure was applied and there was a good deal of pressure to have a special advisor for religious persecution in the White House. And as an alternative to that, you had the Special Advisory Committee.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So, you know, I am sure that Mr. Shattuck's heart is in the right place. I just think he's simply wrong on this issue when it comes to the conclusions that he's drawn. I believe that this legislation is absolutely necessary.
    Dr. ARGUE. I would respond, Congressman, with a couple of thoughts. One, before I accepted the assignment on the Committee for the State Department, I was very concerned that we would injure or hurt the very people we were trying to help. But the extensive research that I did, and others, indicated that simply is not the case; that those we are trying to help—and the best illustration, I think, is the one you cited, Soviet Jews, then you cited Romania and also South Africa; that the very people we were trying to help, not only they were helped and freed, but the entire nation felt the impact. So the data, puric data just does not bear out that those who we are trying to reach out, there may be a reverse that takes place.
    The other thing about the Wolf-Specter—I do not know where this idea comes about split in priority on INS issues and so on, but what it does is empower the President, gives the President something to work with, plus a person there specifically to monitor and to assist.
    What Dr. Land said, I would echo, as well. This is a people's movement. The National Association of Evangelicals have been going 55 years and we represent a lot of the people across the nation. I do not know of anything that has pulled across the country such a broad group together, not just our folk, but representatives from Ba'hais, from Buddhists, from Jewish sector, from even moderate Muslim sector, who are saying, ''Something must be done.''
    Mr. GILMAN. Father Christiansen.
    Rev. CHRISTIANSON. Yes. I would just add one point with respect to the question of asylum adjudication. It seems to me that it is very important that reporting and training on issues of religious persecution be improved. I think that the people in the asylum corps need to be able to read reports, but the reports need to be accurate so the State Department people, in turn, need to be trained on how to do the religious reporting.
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And to reiterate what I said before, I think they need to be provided with the resources that will allow them to do that increased reporting and do it in a first-class way.
    Mr. SMITH. At the risk of sounding impolite, and I think this, in part, goes to part of the problem, we are all aware of the House Church Movement, how it has been the most rapidly growing underground church in the world in the Peoples Republic of China. I have met with many of the people while I was in Beijing, as well as many of those on the outside, in Hong Kong and elsewhere, and heard very, very telling stories of how they had been discriminated against. Their homes had been broken into. They have been very severely mistreated. And with the new decrees, 144 and 145, their lives have become even more imperiled.
    When then-Designate Sasser, Senator Sasser, before he was accepted by the U.S. Senate, was asked about the House Church Movement—and here is our designated hitter, our ambassador—he never even heard of it. And that is part of the problem.
    When I was in Beijing, leading the congressional delegation, along with Connie Morella, during the Women's Conference, we got into a long argument with the DCM in China about religious freedom. When I met with the roundtable of businessmen, CEOs and others, who were telling me why MFN was so good, and there was an argument, but I happened to disagree with it in terms of human rights, they told me that religious freedom flourished in China. And one of them said, ''My secretary goes to church every week.'' And I said, ''That is one of the officially recognized churches.'' There is a whole underground movement. Have you ever had any of the religious or human rights dissidents before you to hear the other side of the story? And at that point, Wei Jingsheng was out of prison, and of course, he is back in now, and that would have given him insight.
    And, you know, see no evil, hear no evil type of doing business. And I think as one of you said earlier, it is the status quo right now. And unless we back it up with some kind of sanction, I would respectfully suggest, the dictatorship will say, ''It does not matter.''
 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And I can tell you, having talked to a lot of the dissidents, including Wei when he was out of prison, they feel this Administration is a paper tiger. And I say that with all due respect, because I wish it were different. This, at least, will empower the President with an additional arrow in his quiver to make a difference on a profoundly important issue.
    Dr. Argue.
    Dr. ARGUE. Thank you. Just to validate what you are saying, in your visit to China a few weeks, ABC Nightly News, Peter Jennings, would not take a position either way, but had reporters in China and had taped that they had smuggled out of the House Church Movement and then interviewed Bob and Heidi Foo, who we helped to get out before the takeover or they probably would have never been heard from again.
    Now, if it is that easy to get to from a reporter's standpoint, and you ran into it in your visit, it is there in major proportions.
    Mr. GILMAN. Gentlemen, his time has expired.
    Thank you, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Capps.
    Mr. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate all of the time that you put in here today. We have been going back and forth, making these notes, and I have a number of questions.
    First off, simply on the basis of the roster that we have here, we have a distinguished representative of the Southern Baptist Convention, Mr. Neuhaus from the Institute of Religion and Public Life. We have got the National Association of Evangelicals. We have a representative from the U.S. Catholic Conference. My question is, how widespread among Americans is the fear over religious persecution? Or another way to put that, where does the National Council of Churches stand on this? Why are there no Unitarians here? Where are the Episcopalians? Where are the Franciscans? Do they all share the sentiment that you are expressing here? Are we talking primarily about persecution of house churches in China?
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We have to separate Tibet. That is a very, very separate issue, which is as much political today as it is religious. But if we are talking about China, how do the other—and you three would know the answer to this—how do the other religious institutions and organizations in the country feel about that matter?
    And after you answer that, I want to have a followup.
    Dr. ARGUE. Thank you, Congressman. I think I can answer that from working on the State Department Subcommittee. I am hesitant to speak on behalf of other individuals. They should be able to speak for themselves. However, I have worked for so many hours with them, I know their thinking and their work.
    I do not know who arranged for us to be here today, but I suspect with the limits on time, we were called to testify because we represent a broad spectrum of folk. Dr. Joan Brown-Campbell who is the executive director of the National Council of Churches, is on the State Department Committee. I have spent hours with Dr. Campbell. Her deep concern regarding religious persecution has been clearly identified.
    Dr. Wilma Ellis, who co-chairs the subcommittee of the larger committee with me, specifically dealing with persecution, represents the Ba'hais, an articulate spokesperson who raises the same issues.
    Dr. Lilly Merriotti, a wonderful Muslim obstetrician from Los Angeles, has raised the same issue. She will often sit beside me at the table in the conference—in the sessions. You can go around the table and we are all of the same commitment that something must be done and it needs to be done rapidly.
    Dr. LAND. Congressman, if I could just add to that.
    The last time we had testimony before this Committee on this issue, we had an eloquent spokesperson from the Islamic community, and you did accurately describe these groups that are here and none of us would claim to speak for all the people in our various organizations, but I think we can say that we speak for the majority.
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    There are 63 million Roman Catholics. There are 27 million members of the National Association of Evangelicals, not counting the parachurch ministries, and there are 15.7 million Southern Baptists. So that is 105.7 million Americans.
    Mr. CAPPS. Thank you, but I want to be more precise than that. You have said that the World Evangelical Fellowship supports the bill.
    Rev. CHRISTIANSON. Correct.
    Mr. CAPPS. Do you know—does the National Council of Churches support this bill? Not do you find people who are supportive among the National Council of Churches, but has the National Council of Churches come out in support of this bill?
    Dr. ARGUE. I was a speaker at the last General Assembly of the National Council of Churches in November of last year. This legislation had not been put together by that time. They will not be meeting again until——
    Mr. CAPPS. But do we know if they support this bill?
    Dr. ARGUE I do not. It was not considered at that point.
    Mr. CAPPS. Do we know if the Unitarian Society supports this bill?
    Dr. ARGUE. I could not answer that.
    Mr. CAPPS. Does the Episcopal Church support this bill?
    Rev. CHRISTIANSON. The Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church are two churches I know that passed resolutions on this issue of Christian persecution this past summer.
    Dr. ARGUE. Yes. That is right.
    Rev. CHRISTIANSON. And I refer you to those resolutions as to their positions, I think.
    I know that at least officers of the Episcopal Church have expressed interest in our position in terms of the kinds of concerns we had about sanctions and their need, as ours, to be able to consult with local churches before endorsing remedies of that sort.
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CAPPS. Now, can we say that the Catholic Church supports the bill?
    Rev. CHRISTIANSON. We can say that the Catholic Bishops of the United States support the bill. We can also say that the Catholic Bishops of the United States are asking their parishes to join in the International Day of Prayer for Persecuted Christians and the Season of Prayer this fall, which will educate the church and raise its consciousness on this issue.
    Mr. CAPPS. I only have 5 minutes here and I have to go quickly.
    As Mr. Hamilton pointed out so eloquently, we are dealing here with legislation. We are not dealing here with sentiment. You know, we can all be opposed to religious persecution and we can match the furor over religious persecution, but we are dealing with something very specific.
    We know how we would probably approach Tibet. We have had eloquent testimony on that. There may be some difference of opinion about what we would do with the situation in China which would affect MFN. We had some testimony from Mr. John about the Sudan.
    But here is one right before our eyes: What would any of the three of you do about Bosnia? How would you discriminate religious persecution in Bosnia today when at least three major religious traditions are involved in the turmoil, the activity, the revolution, everything that is going on there? If there was a White House monitor of religious persecution, how would that person function when looking at a country like Bosnia?
    Dr. LAND. Could I respond to that, Mr. Congressman? I have been speaking out against the atrocities in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia since they began, and I have been extremely disappointed in the performance of the U.S. Government. I did not think it was possible to have a worse policy on Bosnia than the Bush Administration, which was to say, ''We are not going to do anything.'' But the Clinton Administration's policy has been worse because they said they were going to do something and they did not. And if we had had legislation like this in place and we had had a monitoring mechanism, we might have saved tens of thousands of people's lives, Moslem lives and Orthodox lives.
 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We did nothing, and the sad fact is that given the present situation in the world, unless the United States of America is willing to take the lead and insist that something be done in concert with its allies, nothing is going to be done. Even in Europe, we have seen the worst atrocities since the end of the Second World War in Bosnia. And I think that the situation in Bosnia is an excellent example for the need for this kind of legislation.
    Surely, surely the approach that is the status quo did not work and has been manifestly proven not to work. Let us try something different.
    Mr. CAPPS. I appreciate your answer. But I am not thinking specifically about overall U.S. policy in Bosnia. I am thinking specifically of religious persecution and how would that be discerned in a land where at least three religious traditions are very actively involved politically.
    Dr. LAND. Well, first of all, it is true, in a sense, that there is a large degree of intermixture of ethnic and racial hostility with religious belief and adherence in that particularly tragic place. But I think that if a monitoring system like the one that is outlined by Wolf-Specter had been in place and there had been a finding to the President about what was—and most of the atrocities were being committed by the people who had the guns, and that was the Bosnian Serbs. And if there had been the ability and the finding to recommend sanctions against the Bosnian Serbs and against the Serb Republic for supporting them, it might have stopped this tragic descent into atrocity before it became the great tragedy it became.
    Mr. CAPPS. Since my time is so limited, I am going to jump in. Who in that situation is guilty of religious persecution? Are the Muslims, the Orthodox, the Christians? If you are serious about this bill and you have got somebody monitoring religious persecution, you have got an ideal situation there.
    Dr. LAND. Well, Congressman, there have been atrocities on all three sides: The Croats have committed atrocities, the Bosnian Serbs have committed atrocities, the Muslims have committed atrocities. The people who had the preponderance of the power have done the most.
 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    If we had had the ability to have findings and recommendations and we had had the backbone to do something, we might have stopped this tragic descent into atrocity begetting atrocity before it became the overwhelming tragedy it became.
    Mr. CAPPS. Rev. Christianson.
    Rev. CHRISTIANSON. Mr. Capps, yes, I would like to underline this last point of Dr. Land. We had reports for a good year prior to the outbreak of war about religious persecution in Bosnia, and if action had been taken, there had been an early warning system, as it were, to respond to the religious persecution, perhaps that war would have been prevented.
    In fact, there have been sanctions that have been applied to both Croatia and Serbia in the past, and I think that religious persecution is religious persecution. I mean they think they need to be applied wherever there are problems.
    We still hear from the State Department about Franciscans in Bosnia who refuse to help let Serbs get reintegrated in the society. There needs to be an engagement with the local populations in such a way that there can be protection for religion within the communities themselves.
    And we are losing that opportunity in Bosnia, I think. I think as time goes on, the neglect of reconciliation is a real problem.
    We were just in Eastern Slavonia in June at the request of the United Nations and there, the Bishops have prepared priests to go back into Eastern Slavonia with training in conflict resolution, and those priests have not been allowed to go back into Eastern Slavonia. They could be a help in that situation.
    So it seems to me that if there is religious persecution, whatever party, you would need to find what tools were appropriate. And that is where we have argued for more flexibility with respect to the tools.
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CAPPS. I am, you know, quite willing to say here that I picked Bosnia because I do believe that religious persecution is defined contextually, and we have had it from the beginning of humankind. It is nothing that anybody wants to argue for. If we could eliminate it, it would be great, but religions are in competition with each other. And I think what has happened in our era is that the authoritarian elements in all of the religious traditions are in conflict with each other, and that is the basic reason that religious persecution is on the rise.
    And what I am looking for are ways to counteract the whole thing, which I do not think is going to happen simply by monitoring it from a specific point of view from some office in the White House. I think we have to look to our own religious traditions for those elements within all of them that would combat intolerance, bigotry, persecution. And we are not doing a very good job of that at the present time. So, I do not think it is altogether a government function here. I think it is something that the traditions themselves ought to be called upon to exercise their attitudes toward other traditions.
    Mr. GILMAN. Gentlemen, the time has expired.
    Mr. Clement.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Panel, good to have you here.
    Dr. Land, one of my constituents——
    Dr. LAND. Almost.
    Mr. CLEMENT.—The Southern Baptist Convention in Franklin, right out of my district.
    Dr. LAND. Well, actually, I work in your district.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Right.
    Dr. LAND. And I live just outside.
 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CLEMENT. I understand, and good to have you, Dr. Argue, and also Reverend Christiansen, my middle name. It is a good name.
    And, Dr. Land, I think all of us want to highlight the problems we are having in the world when it comes to religious persecution and religious freedom. And I do not think there is any doubt in any of our minds that that does exist. I do think you are being somewhat harsh on the United States when it comes to Bosnia. I did not see the Europeans stepping up to the line, and I know there is a real concern about the United States of America being the so-called ''big brother,'' or practicing imperialism.
    But surely we should fight for fairness. Surely we should fight for religious freedom, and surely we should highlight and prioritize and focus on so many atrocious problems that we heard about this morning during this hearing. And whether we do it through the Secretary of State or Assistant Secretary of State, or whether we, under this bill, form a director of the Office of Monitoring Religious Persecution—and that concerns some of the people around here about, ''What are we doing about the concentration of power in the hands of one individual that would apply those sanctions.''
    And the bill ties foreign policy to a one-size-fits-all democracy and a concern among the persecuted communities, because the fact is, when we look at what is happening, we have to listen to the people who are being persecuted, and I think all of you all would agree to that. What do they want? What do they need?
    I mean all of you commented about the United States and the freedoms that we have in the United States, but we also want to be concerned about how other people feel.
    Now, I know Dr. Argue commented about this book, ''Their Blood Cries Out,'' by Paul Marshall. And this is quite a book, and I would like to read part of what is in here and I would like for all three of you to comment about it. And on page 214 of ''Their Blood Cries Out,'' ''The dangers of doing the wrong thing can be greater than the dangers of doing nothing. This is no reason for passivity or paralysis, but it is a reason for clear thinking.'' Then it also says over here ''It is no help to Christians overseas to think of them as western clones. It does them no favors in their own country and can make their situation worse, since they may be falsely branded as agents of imperialism.''
 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Dr. Land.
    Dr. LAND. Well, I certainly do not want to think of them as western clones, and do not. As I specifically said in my testimony, we are not—and we certainly are not asking that the whole world adhere to the example set in the United States with our First Amendment freedom guarantees of religious expression, as much as I personally think they would all benefit from such, because we certainly have different religions competing in the United States, and we have managed to do so without slaughtering each other and using the tools of the State against each other.
    But I think that most of the tyrants in the world that are allowing this to happen, and most of the people who are being victimized, understand that their only hope, humanly speaking, is the United States because we are the only ones who have, speaking in earthly terms now, other than prayer and intercession, the ability to do something about it.
    I do not think I was being unduly harsh on the United States in relation to Bosnia. I did not say that we should act unilaterally, but nothing would have been done about the invasion of Kuwait unless the United States had taken the leadership. I think if the United States had taken the leadership, the Europeans would have helped and we could have done something to prevent the tragedy of Bosnia.
    I think that we, in the United States, do have a responsibility, and I hold the United States, and I think most Americans hold the United States and our government to a higher standard than we do other governments. I think we have asked, as a nation, historically, to be judged by a higher standard, and I accept that higher standard. And I believe that we have an obligation to not just ignore and do business as usual with governments that perpetrate these kinds of atrocities on their own citizens. And this bill and the approach that we are arguing for is not one that would focus exclusively on Christians, but it would focus on anti-Christian persecution because that is what is the most widespread at the moment in the world. It is the one that has been most ignored. And I said in my testimony, that kind of non-exclusive focus has all kinds of collateral benefits, as it did with the case of Soviet Jewry, and it led to a rising tide of toleration lifting all persecuted people.
 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And we are not calling for American-style, western-style religious freedom in the rest of the world. That is not the standard. It is not a ''one size fits all.'' It is a basic standard of toleration for liberty of conscience in the area of religion that every country in the world has already agreed to adhere to when they signed the U.N.'s Declaration of Universal Human Rights.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Dr. Argue.
    Dr. ARGUE. Two comments: One that has not been touched on this morning and this afternoon is a very, very loud testimony, and that is that a great deal of this effort is being led by American Jews who have, in their own history, family members that were lost in the Holocaust. And they testify that they see similar ingredients.
    And when America was silent in World War II while millions of Jews were marching to the gas ovens, their grandsons and granddaughters, and in some cases sons and daughters, are today standing up and saying, ''We are not Christians, but we see violations of conscience, and it must be dealt with.''
    The second thing is, I am sorry that Congressman Capps is not here to receive my response because the idea of the church being the church, I affirm that. If I understood him correctly, I do not think he meant what he said, and I wish he were here, because how can a minority group in a particular country, like the Ba'hais in some of the areas where they are, who are simply being the church but they are so overwhelmed by the religious persecution that is there that they are not allowed to practice the very basic freedom of conscience?
    So when we say, ''Let the church just be the church,'' that is all we are asking for, without the oppressive heel coming down upon them.
    Mr. GILMAN. Gentlemen, your time has expired.
    Mr. CLEMENT. I need Rev. Christiansen to respond.
    Mr. GILMAN. Sure. By all means.
 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Rev. CHRISTIANSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. GILMAN. Fine. It is OK.
    Rev. CHRISTIANSON. Mr. Clement, we share your concerns. We have a rule of practice that we do not publicly take a position on organizational matters in legislation, so we have no position on whether there should be an office in the White House, whether it should be done in the State Department or elsewhere in the government. We think it should be done. The task needs to be done, but where it is done, we do not, as a matter of practice, take a position on how the government arranges itself.
    Second, we are concerned about the risks of trying to apply the same rule to different situations, and that is one of the reasons that we propose in our testimony that there be public review of the prospect of findings leading to sanctions, and they would include a review of the impact of sanctions and the appropriateness of sanctions as a remedy in this situation.
    We also, as our practice, always we would consult with the local church. If we take a position on foreign policy issue that affects another country or a church in that country, we consult with the local church, with the Bishop's Conference, with the Justice and Peace Commission there. And that is another reason that we would like there to be a public hearing element of this process, so that those who are affected, when possible, may be able to get their input in one way or another.
    And so, at least we hope that that particular recommendation about hearings will be taken seriously as one way of dealing with the reservations that you expressed.
    I would add, finally, in response again to Mr. Capps, that in the case of Bosnia, I think you can distinguish religious persecution from the propaganda that is generated by the governments. I think there is a lot of evidence that religion was utilized there by the governments and religious elements opposed that propaganda and opposed actions resulting from that propaganda. And in many of these situations, you need to take a careful look at where authorities have used propaganda, used religious to their purposes in advancing their political causes.
 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you.
    Mr. GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Thank you, Mr. Clement.
    I want to thank our panelists for your patience, your time, and your excellent testimony. There might be some questions that some of the Members might have that I hope if we submit them to you that you would be kind enough to respond.
    We will now proceed with our third panel. In our third panel we have William Bennett who, I understand, has a representative here today. Donald Hodel, the president of the Christian Coalition. Previously, Mr. Hodel served as Secretary of Energy in the Reagan Administration and as Secretary of the Interior from 1985 to 1989.
    If our Secretary would please put down the place identification cards.
    Lodi Gyari is the president of the International Campaign for Tibet, as well as a Cabinet Advisor and Special Envoy for His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, at the United Nations.
    Jerry Goodman is the executive director of the National Committee for Labor Israel. Previously, he was the founding executive director of the National Conference on Soviet Jewry.
    Stephen Rickard is the Washington Office director of Amnesty International, USA. And from 1994 to 1996, Mr. Rickard served as the Senior Advisor for South Asian Affairs in the Department of State.
    And Lauren Homer is president of Law and Liberty Trust, a nonprofit organization, active in working for the Rule of Law in the former Soviet Republics.
    Mr. GILMAN.     And if the gentleman from Mr. Bennett's office would identify himself.
    Is he here?
 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ATCHISON. Dr. Bennett was here earlier, but he had to leave. Dr. Bennett would like to request his written testimony be admitted to the record.
    Mr. GILMAN. Without objection.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Bennett appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you. Thank you for being here.
    Mr. Hodel.
    Mr. HODEL. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to summarize quickly. In my prepared remarks, I commend the Committee for holding this hearing and I state clearly that the Christian Coalition strongly supports the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act introduced by Congressman Wolf and cosponsored by many others. But I submit to you that a hearing is not enough, that action is what is needed, action now is what is needed.
    As we sit here in this comfortable hearing room, talking clinically and raising academic hypothetical questions and objections to this legislation, somewhere in the world today a child sits huddled in fear of that fateful knock on the door which will seal the fate of his father, probably death and slavery, at best, for his mother and him, simply because of their religious beliefs.
    Thanks to Nina Shea and Paul Marshall and Michael Horowitz and A.M. Rosenthal and some others, we know more today and America's leaders know more today about what is going on than was publicly known or recognized at least in the 1930's about Hitler's atrocities and his acts of genocide. We look back today and we condemn those leaders of that day for their callous complacency, their inexcusable neglect of their duty to their fellow human beings.
    What must future generations say of us, knowing what we know today, if we do nothing now? And I submit to you, having heard some of the discussion, that the Department of State is not capable of handling this problem. From my experience, I can assure you my observation is the Department of State is captive of the nations with which it deals. It is extremely concerned about not interfering with its relationship with those States. It does not want authority anywhere in the U.S. Government that would impose sanctions on those countries because it would make it harder for them, in their official bureaucratic way, to deal with them, and they will accept and tolerate and ignore incredible atrocities rather than disrupt the convenience of what they are doing.
 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I urge this Committee and the Congress to proceed promptly to pass this legislation.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hodel appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Secretary Hodel.
    Mr. Gyari, it is a pleasure to have you with us. We had the opportunity to visit with His Holiness during our recent visit, and we thank you for helping us with the arrangements.
    Mr. Gyari.

    Mr. GYARI. It is my great honor, Mr. Chairman.
    I have already submitted my recent testimony for the Committee's record.
    Mr. GILMAN. That will be made part of the record. You may summarize your statement, if you would like. And to all the witnesses, we hope you would summarize your statements, submit the full statement for the record.
    Mr. GYARI. Thank you very much, sir.
    I would like also to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to thank you for your visit to Dharamsala with your delegation. I know that it was not an easy visit, and also the weather—the monsoon in India is not the best time, but His Holiness and the Tibetan people had greatly appreciated your visit. It sent a very powerful message that there are people, such as yourself, who do care about Tibet. I take this opportunity to express gratitude, as a Tibetan and also as president of the International Campaign for Tibet, for the honor of working with you and other Members of Congress for many years on behalf of the people of Tibet.
    Mr. GILMAN. And please convey our thanks for the warm hospitality on the occasion of our visit.
 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. GYARI. I will certainly do so.
    Before I summarize my testimony, I also wanted to for the record say that we are very grateful for the visit of Congressman Wolf to Tibet. I think it was very courageous, and, again, it is not easy to visit Tibet. As a matter of fact, it clearly speaks to that difficulty when a Member of the U.S. Congress chooses not to visit Tibet officially in his capacity as a Member of the Congress, but instead travels as a private citizen. I think his visit and his findings clearly verify what I have been telling the leaders of this nation. Therefore, I am also very happy to be here today to lend my support to the bill that he has introduced, together with many other cosponsors, including yourself, Mr. Chairman.
    You have heard me make presentations here many times, and I know that you and many others are very familiar with the situation in Tibet. Obviously, the problem that the Tibetan people suffer or face is not just the denial of fundamental human rights, such as religious freedom. However, freedom of religion is an important issue for Tibet and I think I can crystallize what freedom of religion means for the Tibetan people.
    We are a nation of very deeply religious people. It is so much rooted in the Buddhist culture. And so, I think it is befitting that I am invited to testify.
    I have not had the opportunity to study very thoroughly the bill but, as I said earlier, I am here to express my support for the principles of this bill. It is our hope, obviously, that there could be bipartisan support, and I do hope that the Administration will also eventually support this effort because I do believe that is very important that there be a joint and united effort.
    Particularly, I know from the experience of having dealt with China that the Chinese Government takes advantage of different positions taken from time to time by the Administration and the Congress. So I do hope, and I wanted to urge the Administration, also, to work with you and other Members of Congress so that this powerful message could be sent.
 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I want to take this opportunity to say that we are very grateful to you, sir, and other Members for making it possible for the Secretary of State to appoint a Special Coordinator for Tibet. Now that, I think, is the kind of step that really sends the right message because it happened as a joint effort by two branches of the American Government.
    The fact that the State Department has appointed an advisory group on religious freedom, I think, is a move in the right direction. We have had inter-reactions with that group. As a matter of fact, when His Holiness the Dalai Lama visited Washington, DC some months back, he had the opportunity to meet with the Secretary of State, but had also had an opportunity to have an exchange of views with the Advisory Group on Religious Freedom.
    I do know that the provisions in this bill provide for more concrete steps, and as I said earlier, we are supportive of that. It is very important that there be a strong and precise policy. I do agree with Congressman Smith that, unfortunately, people in Beijing do think of U.S. Administration as a paper tiger. I say this with no disrespect. We have tremendous respect for the President of the United States, but at the same time, I must be very candid that as far as China policy is concerned, which I am more familiar with, I think The President has so far been rather unsatisfactory in many respects.
    So I do hope when Chinese President Jiang Zemin comes here on a State visit in October that he will get a much more clear message because we all know that the United States is not a paper tiger. It would be unfortunate if China gets the wrong message.
    I had the opportunity with one of my colleagues here on this panel, to be at a very powerful meeting this morning, a meeting which was convened by the Speaker and by the Majority Leader, and I was very encouraged by what the Speaker and the Majority Leader had to say about the issue of religious persecution.
    But soon after that I was told by some of my friends that there is a move by Members of Congress that President Jiang Zemin be given a joint session of Congress. And I felt very much disturbed because, on the one hand, we have all of us here to testify. And clearly, today the Peoples Republic of China is the world's No. 1 oppressive nation when it comes to denial of human rights, including religious freedom.
 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So I do hope that such rumors heard in the corridors of Congress are baseless, because if you would allow me to say, I think it would be a matter of shame for any Member of the U.S. Congress. Earlier we talked about where the buck stops. It does not only stop in the White House. It quite often stops right in front of each Member of the Congress.
    Even such an idea sends the totally wrong message.
    So I just thought that I would take this opportunity not only to share this view with you, but also with my other colleagues because we certainly do not want to send yet another wrong message.
    I will not take any more of your time, except to reiterate our support. I need not talk about the ongoing atrocities that have been committed against my people. One of your earlier panels included a nun, herself a victim of torture by the Chinese authorities. She was able to give her testimony.
    I think there can be no more powerful testimony than someone who was able to share her own experience with this Committee.
    Thank you very much for this opportunity.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gyari appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gyari, and I have heard no overwhelming support for the concern you raised about the joint session.
    Mr. Goodman, on behalf of Labor in Israel.
    Mr. GOODMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with you and other Committee Members who are present, as well as this distinguished panel.
    For the record, please note that I do not speak for the National Committee for Labor Israel, where I serve as the chief executive officer. Although many of its Board members are sympathetic to the issues before us, that organization has not taken a position on the matter before this body.
 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Nor do I speak for the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, although I remain a Board member. Today, I present my views based on my role as the founding executive director of the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, a coalition of over 350 national and local groups.
    My comments are drawn from the statement which, Mr. Chairman, I wish to submit for the record, subject to some modifications.
    There are Members of this Committee with whom I have had the pleasure of working on human rights issues, notably the rescue of the Jewish minority in the former Soviet Union. I am especially grateful for the sustained support rendered to that historic and successful human rights effort by the Chairman, Representative Ben Gilman, and by so many Members of Congress.
    I note for the record my memories of visiting the former Soviet Union with Representative Christopher Smith in the days when the KGB still monitored our every move. It was a time when Jews were still trapped in the Soviet Empire, barely able to leave and unable to live as Jews.
    Mr. Chairman, it is no exaggeration to state that whatever success the Soviet Jewry Advocacy Campaign was able to achieve was due in no small measure to this body. In truth, however, the backbone of the effort was the hundreds of thousands of citizens who marched, demonstrated and signed petitions. One of the hallmarks of the campaign was our recognition of the need to be inclusive, even as we addressed the needs of a particular group. As a result, a broad-based coalition evolved, which included such specialized groups as an Interreligious Task Force, the Committee of Concerned Scientists, a Student Struggle, and of course a Congressional Spouses Group, although to be historically, if not politically, correct it began as a congressional wives group.
    The Coalition included African Americans, Native Americans, Christians of all denominations, nonbelievers, labor leaders, and rank-and-file union members, writers, academicians, women's groups, and a broad range of hard-core human rights activists.
 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The active leadership of the campaign, and those who were prepared to keep the flame of freedom burning for decades, was naturally the Jewish community. But we would have failed if the mass media and so many other groups and individuals, including Christian churches in the home towns of America, had not been supportive and involved.
    Religious persecution is not unknown to the Jewish people. Over the centuries, we have lost millions of our people to rape, burning, garroting, shootings, hangings and gas chambers. During the Second World War and the Nazi-orchestrated Holocaust, perhaps over 1 million Jewish children were slaughtered in Europe because they were of the Jewish faith and as members of the Jewish people.
    I do not know whether the Jewish community in this country could have done much to save the 6 million Jews of Europe who were murdered during the Holocaust, but our concern for Soviet Jews reflected, in part, the commitment we made that if we had the capability, never again would we permit Jews to be threatened merely because they were Jews.
    But concern for Jews alone is contrary to our religious and cultural heritage. That is why Jews participated in the great civil rights struggle of our time, out of proportion to our population in this society. It is why we are involved with social and communal causes in institutions which go beyond the Jewish community.
    As my colleague from the American Jewish Committee, Rabbi James Rudin, has written, ''Only a Christian can effectively lead the battle against Christian persecution.''
    What does this imply?
    The sage, Hillel, posed the issue, ''If I am not for myself, who will be?'' In other words, I must have self-respect before I can respect others. I must be the best that I can before I can make demands of others. I must protect my own, for that is my responsibility. Yet, Hillel also recognized that we are enjoined to look beyond ourselves and our needs when he asked, ''If I am only for myself, what am I?''
 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And when the implications of Hillel's questions are understood, when the issues have been carefully studied, the sage asks, ''If not now, when? For to ask is to understand.''
    Mr. Chairman, that is why I am pleased to have been invited to present my views and to draw upon experiences in the Soviet Jewry Advocacy Movement. I am proud that our campaign has left a legacy for others to emulate. I trust that my views might offer some insights into developing an effort in this country on behalf of persecuted religious groups in other parts of the world as the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1997 is being considered.
    The denial of basic rights to its Jewish citizens was well documented and constituted a threat to the continuity of what was then the third largest Jewish community in the world, in the Soviet Union. The precise and careful documentation of the violations was a profound part of our campaign for it gave legitimacy to the demands which were to be made of the Soviet Union, as well as upon the international community.
    But we paid a price for this diligence. Some extremists in the same cause accused us of moving too slowly, or worse, of being too bureaucratic or indifferent. But given a need to be above reproach and not to embarrass our allies and activists, or to allow the authorities in Moscow and the apologists in this country to undermine the campaign with claims that we were building a case with false, outdated or misleading information, I venture to guess that we would do it again in the same way.
    I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is a lesson worth learning in documenting and advocating the cases of religious persecution which might fall under the provisions of H.R. 1685.
    I have been asked, ''Why do we need legislation, and if we do, why legislation with sanctions? And if we introduce sanctions, will it not hurt the people for whom we have a concern?'' It has been argued by some that persecution, whether official or unofficial, but condoned or tacitly accepted by officials, can be overcome by moral suasion.
 Page 86       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The Nazis and Hitler's Germany gave the destruction of European Jewry a high priority, and it is unlikely that they would have been dissuaded by moralistic exhortations. The Soviet Union, in Stalin's time, and for decades afterwards, had an immoral system in place which persecuted Jews, ethnic Germans, Tartars, and others.
    As Professor Henry Feingold points out in his book, ''Bearing Witness: How America and its Jews Respond to the Holocaust,'' and I quote, ''There is an unwillingness on the part of governments who seek to persecute,'' in this case, Jews, ''to allow themselves to be persuaded by moral pressure. Regimes who murder in the name of progress, whether the victims are the kulaks or the Jews, are peculiarly immune from moral suasion. If they were moral, in our sense of the word, they would not conceive of such policies in the first place.''
    In the face of repression, the victims, as well as their champions, need to review the alternatives which exist to alleviate conditions. The dilemma we face in such instances is to determine what intercessions might be most effective. While there is never a certainty and risks are at play, our experience has demonstrated that we were most effective when we could narrow or focus our goals, our objectives. When that strategy was in place, it was then incumbent upon us to identify those tactics which would help reach those goals.
    In the case of the Soviet Jewry campaign, we define the goal as getting people out of an untenable situation. Although some would have liked to bring down the Soviet Empire, that was not the stated mission. The most serious efforts were targeted at developing the tactics which would bring the stated goal to reality.
    I am aware that the bill before us proposes the application of sanctions against countries engaged in the pattern of religious persecution. In my view, sanctions can be helpful, especially when all else fails. But these need to be focused and relate to specific violations.
    In the case of Soviet Jews, it had become abundantly clear that Moscow's decision to allow carefully regulated emigration was only in response to growing public opinion in the west and the need to achieve detente with the United States. Moscow wanted access to American trade, investments and technology, and was anxious to receive MFN. Among other things, it was an arrangement supported by the Nixon Administration in its desire to improve relations, and especially to scale back the cold war.
 Page 87       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Angered by Moscow's disregard of quiet interventions by the Administration and then by a punitive tax put on potential immigrants, the Congress focused its attention on linking trade benefits to the Soviet Union with the right to leave. What came to be known as the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the pending Trade Reform Act was a major tactical decision which colored the advocacy effort for the next 15 years.
    The legislation, which became law in January 1975 had a straightforward objective. It was designed to prod the Soviet Union to release Jews and others—and by the way, the law never referred to Jews per se. That was implicit. It applied to all peoples in the Soviet Union but its origin was in the effort to release Jews denied the freedom to live as Jews and who wanted to leave.
    The effort to pass that legislation may be instructive as this Committee considers the sanction provisions of H.R. 1685. First of all, the Members of Congress had passed the legislation over the objections of the White House and key members of the foreign policy establishment. As Yogi Berra said, ''Deja vu all over again.'' Instead, it had responded to the entreaties of Soviet Jews with whom we consulted, and that was always critical because it was their lives who were at risk, especially if a repressive regime would have increased punishment. In addition, and I do not mind confessing at this time, we initiated an aggressive grass roots action aimed at Members of Congress.
    Second, the advocacy effort understood the need to keep the central goal in sight and not be diverted or overwhelmed by side issues, even if there was sympathy for those issues. This included engaging the Soviet Union in its battle to suppress local democratic dissidents seeking to change the regime.
    Finally, we recognized that many of those involved had different motives, but the success of the effort was enhanced by the need to remain targeted on the right to leave, including its role in ending the persecution of the Jewish minority and to keep this in front of the Congress and the public.
 Page 88       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The issue at that time, as in matters before this Committee, was one in which all of the active participants could then identify. This meant that in the Congress, as well as beyond the confines of Washington, the effort had to be constructed as not merely bipartisan, but nonpartisan. In addition, the Jackson-Vanik Amendment was placed in the context of other diplomatic efforts. It is safe to say that the sanctions expressed in the amendment were understood as being effective only if other foreign policy considerations were operational, such as the desire to create detente or to expand trade.
    The outcome demonstrated that a well organized effort, led by the Jewish community with its many allies in every corner of society, able to agree upon and rally around a specific issue, could sustain the struggle. We took a simple human rights issue and entered it into the mainstream of domestic and international politics in a dramatic way. This was possible, of course, because our nation had already become the major super power and the standard bearer for western concerns. It also helped raise the concerns for and attention on such groups as persecuted Pentacostalists, as well as dissidents in the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Chairman, while I believe sanctions might work, there is never a guarantee. When used wisely and sparingly, however, I am convinced that they are likely to be most effective if placed in the context of other strategies, and above all, in the context of other tactics.
    Without a doubt, the Jackson-Vanik Amendment became crucial to the Advocacy Campaign. In addition, however, and this is also instructive, shortly after the amendment became domestic law, the Helsinki Final Act, signed by 35 European and North American countries, became a major instrument for a coordinated and sustained international advocacy effort.
    Using the multilateral meetings and contacts provided by the Helsinki Final Act, as well as bilateral efforts, the provisions of Jackson-Vanik then became integrated into a larger policy process.
 Page 89       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Let me pause to reflect on the matter of bilateral contact and relations. To a great extent, these reflect the traditional role of quiet diplomacy. This quiet diplomacy is necessary and useful, and it is the proper role of the Administration and the State Department. These diplomatic efforts often work best, however, against the background of public efforts, including legislative initiatives from this body.
    A public campaign provides a fertile ground for private initiatives to occur, whether political or commercial.
    Mr. Chairman, this body has taken an important step in advocating increased attention on the persecution of people of faith. At a time when millions throughout the world hope to express and to share their personal faith systems within a community of like-minded individuals, this attention from a nation founded by persons seeking to escape religious, political or economic deprivation is profound.
    There should be no doubt that we need to place the matter on this nation's agenda, and through a variety of means, including private and public diplomacy, seek to redress for those unable to protect themselves. It is of great import that this body has established a mandate that is inclusive and would apply to all faiths. Where Christians of all denominations, or Muslims, Hindus, Ba'hai, Jews, and yes, Zoroastrians, are persecuted for their beliefs and practices, this nation must demonstrate that it cares for their security.
    Furthermore, we have learned from the success of the Soviet Jewry campaign that such an effort will need the support of the broadest coalition possible. I would urge many of the representatives of private groups who are present here today, especially representatives of denominational religious bodies, to reach out and involve people on all sides who care about the issues before this Committee.
    Mr. Chairman, I now address all Members of this Committee, whether present or absent. Long after this hearing is closed and when new legislation is adopted, we will need to keep the issues on this nation's agenda, as well as on the agenda of world bodies. For this to happen, this society must remain engaged. The fate of millions must not become today's hot button item, only to have it slip off our agenda because of neglect, boredom, or because the task seems overwhelming.
 Page 90       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The Congress, the White House and, yes, the public and the many religious and nonreligious bodies which help constitute the civil society, all need to be involved and to continue to interact with one another. The task is immense, Mr. Chairman, the responsibility is awesome, but the needs are great. I commend you and your colleagues for responding to those demands. Treated judiciously, we can accomplish much. The success of the Soviet Jewry advocacy effort should teach us that lesson.
    I thank you for allowing me to express my views.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Goodman appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Goodman.
    Now we are pleased to recognize Mr. Rickard of the Washington Office of Amnesty International.
    Mr. Rickard.
    Mr. RICKARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Amnesty International is very pleased to have the opportunity to testify before this Committee which contains so many people who have done so much for human rights, and to be a part of this distinguished panel.
    My name is Stephen Rickard. I am the Washington Office director for Amnesty. Because Amnesty does not take a position on economic sanctions, which are at the heart of the bill, and this Committee's jurisdiction, I will try to be brief and I will try to focus on a few general issues and parts of the bill that perhaps have received less attention.
    First, let me simply begin with a one-word comment on the argument that more can and should be done about the extremely serious problem of religious persecution. Amen.
    Unfortunately, persons of virtually every faith face persecution in one form or another, in one place or another. Becoming a victim of torture or abuse because of your religious beliefs is a depressingly ecumenical event.
 Page 91       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I would also like to address an issue which I think has somewhat clouded the discussion of this issue. There are some who have felt, to some degree, that it is wrong to seek legislation to help only one kind of victim; that unless you are helping everyone, there is something wrong with helping someone. Let me say, unequivocally, I disagree with that view. The human rights movement was built upon people being moved to action, at least initially, by their sense of identification with a victim and focusing on a particular country or a particular group.
    Twenty-one years ago, I was a sophomore at a little Methodist college in Michigan. I was a preacher's kid, but I was not doing much about human rights, even caring much about persecution of Christians, much less doing anything about it. But fortunately, one day, I read a report about Christians who were being tortured in Brazil. I was not doing anything about that, but fortunately, Amnesty International and a few other organizations were.
    That was a personal epiphany for me and it began me down a long personal road that eventually led to my directing Amnesty's Washington office. But the first step on that road was my sense of outrage that others that I identified with were being persecuted.
    Some may think it naive, but I believe that people who have been educated and motivated by their sense of horror at religious persecution will be forever changed, as I was, and will enthusiastically join with others to fight inhumanity of all types in the world. And for their role in bringing this message to millions in this country, I would like to say thank you to the many people who have devoted so much time and energy to educating the public about the issue of religious persecution.
    I would also like to emphasize an important and positive part of this debate. As far as I know, everyone sponsoring, undecided, or even opposing this bill agrees on the importance of dealing with this problem, which I should think would make it possible to come up with a bill that has very broad support. I hope that we will not lose sight of that critical fact in some of the what will necessarily be contentious discussions of the tactical questions of how to achieve that goal.
 Page 92       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And let me emphasize two parts of the legislation which Amnesty believes merits special praise. First and foremost, Amnesty International is very heartened to see Members of Congress take a close and critical look at the real world impact of the new expedited removal process and other aspects of the recently adopted Immigration Reform Law. The sponsors of this bill are absolutely right to focus on the fact that the new provisions of this Immigration Reform Law create a high probability that the United States will turn over to repressive governments people fleeing persecution. Every American concerned about persons fleeing religious persecution or any other kind of persecution should be appalled by this betrayal of American traditions of offering a haven to victims, and should applaud the wisdom of the sponsors of this bill and the wisdom of Senators Leahy and DeWine, who led the successful fight in the Senate against this entire system last Congress. It was a terrible defeat for those fleeing religious persecution and other forms of persecution that that effort died in conference, and we applaud the efforts of the sponsor of this bill to at least begin to redress that defeat for decency.
    As I have said, Amnesty does not believe that until the entire problem can be fixed for all persons, nothing should be done. We do not believe, as one sage observer put it, that there must be equally bad treatment for everyone.
    We do urge, however, in the most vigorous terms, the sponsors of this bill are right on this issue, act on the courage of your convictions, go further and fix this problem for everyone. We also strongly support the training provisions of the bill for both Immigration officials and for State Department employees.
    Next, I am very pleased that the bill takes a close look at the export from the United States of equipment that can facilitate persecution, and let me focus on just one type of equipment, electric shock weapons. The United States is a major producer of electric shock equipment and our current system of licensing such equipment does not adequately ensure that U.S.-manufactured equipment will not be used to torture people.
 Page 93       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Today, there is no license required at all to export this equipment to about 20 countries, including Turkey, a country where religion is a deeply contentious issue and where torture is very widespread. Moreover, there might be $50-million worth of U.S.-origin electric shock equipment sitting in warehouses in Europe this very moment that the U.S. Government does not know anything about because there is no requirement that a license be obtained to export this equipment to NATO countries.
    While in theory the reexport of that equipment to countries which conduct religious persecution is controlled, there is no way to effectuate that policy, and we applaud the supporters of this bill for focusing on the issue of the export of facilitating torture-facilitating products, and, again, our major suggestion is go further.
    Let me now touch briefly on a few areas where we have questions and concerns. First, the definition of ''religious persecution'' in this bill involves extreme forms of repression. We think that the definition might usefully be broadened.
    Second, as a matter of tactics, we are not convinced that creating an office in the White House will further our shared goals. Human rights groups well understand the frustrations which led to this proposal and share them on this and many other human rights issues. The Human Rights Bureau does a lot of good work, but it is often overmatched bureaucratically and it is stretched too thin.
    The fundamental issue is whether the President himself fully incorporates human rights considerations into policymaking. We have been and continue to be very critical of this Administration for its failure to do so, but we are not persuaded that creating a new office and subdividing the human rights portfolio will solve that problem.
    Finally, as I have stated, Amnesty does not believe that there is anything wrong with working to help a particular group of victims. A very different issue is raised, however, if working to improve the circumstances of one group actually hurts another. In this regard, there is some uncertainty, and therefore some concern about how Section 9E of the bill regarding admission priority would be interpreted and applied, and those, in turn, have led to fears that the practical effect of the provision will be that persons fleeing religious persecution will be helped at the expense of others who will be left out of the United States.
 Page 94       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    It is clear from Section F of the bill that that is not the intent of the authors of the bill, but there are concerns that the caveat in 9F will not resolve the practical consequences on the ground. I believe that the sponsors of the bill are committed to examining this issue closely and to ensure that it does not have that consequence. In fact, I understand in the last several days two new sections have been added to the bill. We have not had an opportunity to examine those.
    One additional and very important way to address this issue, which Amnesty would strongly support, would be to simply significantly increase the ability of the United States to accept all types of refugees across the board.
    I want to close by addressing a general issue which has also been a part of this debate: Are we doing enough? Have we been doing enough? And again, my answer is unequivocal: No. But I would like to read a passage from a little brochure prepared by a new Christian ministry, the International Justice Mission, a Christian ministry for human rights, which has Representative Wolf and Representative Tony Hall on its Board of Directors.
    The quote comes from the head of a mission agency in the Philippines, and there are many more like it in the brochure. ''In Manila, orphans often fend for themselves in the streets. Our ministry there provides them food, first aid, shelter, education, and the good news of Christ. Not long ago, the workers noticed a strange pattern. Young girls, generally 10 to 13 years old, were disappearing. As the workers checked further, they discovered the girls were being abducted into brothels. They turned to police for help. Later, they found out that the police themselves were operating the brothels.''
    I would also like to read a quote from a report published by Human Rights Watch entitled, ''The Small Hands of Slavery, Bonded Children in India—Bonded Child Labor in India.'' ''My sister is 10 years old. Every morning at 7, she goes to the bonded labor man, and every night at 9, she comes home. He treats her badly. He hits her if he thinks she is working slowly or if she is sick. For 600 rupees, and that's about $17, I could bring her home. We do not have 600 rupees.''
 Page 95       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And I would ask, as I just answered the question on, ''Are we doing enough on religious persecution,'' and said, ''Unequivocally, no,'' can any of us honestly say that we are ''doing enough'' to help the little girls in Manila who are being forced into sexual slavery, or the little girls in India who are being beaten and held as virtual slaves for 14 hours a day? I cannot say that, and I could hold up any number of reports from other human rights organizations or from Amnesty concerning other kinds of prisoners of conscience, and I would say we are not doing enough. And while I would love everybody who has been touched by the plight of religious persecution to join Amnesty, they do not have to do that. There are many other groups.
    So I want to end where I began by saying, ''It is not necessary to help everyone in order for it to be justified that you are helping someone.'' I would simply appeal to all those millions of people who have been touched by the cause of religious persecution to stay a part of this fight and to continue to be involved in the struggle for human rights, as they have been so effectively on this issue.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rickard appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rickard.
    And I want to thank our panelists, before we proceed with Ms. Homer's testimony. I am being called to another meeting which had been previously scheduled, and I am going to ask Mr. Smith if he would be kind enough to conduct the balance of this hearing.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. [presiding] Ms. Homer, you can proceed.
    Ms. HOMER. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I greatly appreciate being asked to testify today on the critical topic of religious persecution around the world.
 Page 96       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I am a lawyer and the president of Law and Liberty Trust, a nonprofit organization of Christian lawyers that has been working to promote religious freedom and the Rule of Law, based on Biblical principles since 1990.
    I have worked on these issues in a number of nations, primarily Russia and others from the former Soviet Republics. However, I visited China, Vietnam, and several of the other countries at issue here. I am myself an evangelical Christian and an Episcopalian, although I do not purport to speak for the Episcopal Church. And like many of the proponents of this legislation, I have prayed for and wept with those tortured and imprisoned for their faiths.
    I want also to express my deep admiration for Congressman Frank Wolf, for Congressman Smith and other sponsors of this legislation, and I am proud to consider many of them colleagues and friends.
    I am speaking today for myself and I am trying to do so in a nonpartisan manner, but to bring to the fore some issues that I do not think have been adequately addressed in the hearing so far, and particularly to speak for many of the victims of persecution that this legislation is attempting to help.
    As a first matter, I certainly agree with the need for legislation and for congressional and executive branch action on the problem of persecution of Christians and other religious minorities around the world. It is on the rise. As I travel from country to country, I see greater and greater intolerance, a lack of concern for religious freedom issues, and a tendency to believe that nations can embrace economic progress and free markets without providing fundamental human rights and religious freedom.
    I am, however, very concerned about this specific piece of legislation and its focus on sanctions and emphasis on rogue States. In my experience, unilateral and uniform sanctions applied to all countries who violate a particular set of rules are seldom effective and may be counterproductive. I think use of the monetary penalties that are envisioned in this legislation could be much more effective if the financial rewards, or lack thereof, are used as incentives to achieve particular rights for particular minorities in particular countries.
 Page 97       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I would prefer to see something that gives the President the right to ask that the directors of groups, such as the World Bank or the IMF, condition loans to countries on their enactment of legislation that gives rights to all their citizens or other similar things. I think that simply slamming the door and backing away from nations that are already violating the human rights and religious freedoms of their citizens is rarely going to produce a positive result.
    I am concerned about a number of aspects of the structure of the legislation. As many of us who work around the world know, Christianity is often viewed as a western imperialistic religion. There is a lot of resistance to western mission organizations and to religiously motivated charities coming into many of the countries in issue.
    I think that when we immediately say that we are going to categorize these countries and start to impose unilateral sanctions, we are very likely to increase the backlash within these countries.
    I was recently in one of the countries that is mentioned in this legislation—well, about a year ago—and had a talk with some of the regulators who had turned down huge sums of money that were being offered by a charity from another country simply because they had violated some of the protocol of dealing with the government. These nations do not really feel that they need our money. Many of them have been isolated from us economically, in any event.
    I much would prefer to see the Committee moving in the direction of bilateral and international forums in trying to develop an international consensus on the seriousness of this matter. I am concerned about the creation of a position in the White House, which I do not think will make any sense unless the current Administration accepts and endorses it, and about having a purely executive unit which does not seem to have the ability to have hearings, to take testimony according to the legislation, except from a small group of NGO's in a way that is going to create an atmosphere of due process, and of listening to all sides of this story. I have found, to my regret, that in many situations where I have listened to nationals of other countries who have come to me with seemingly unassailable sets of problems and persecution issues that they were not always telling the whole truth and that there often are other sides to the story.
 Page 98       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So I think we have to be very careful as a nation that values the Rule of Law as to how we model its implementation if we are going to engage in sanctions or in branding countries as violators in some of these areas. I am also a little concerned that there is a flavor in this legislation of a violation of separation of powers issues. There seems to be a threat of wanting to tell the White House exactly how to behave and exactly what to do, and putting into the White House someone who is supposedly going to be working with the President but who the President can overrule only by invoking national security. And it seems to me that there is an inherent contradiction in that. I think that the foreign affairs power has been granted to the President and that the Congress needs to be respectful of that.
    I personally would prefer to see the Congress give more resources and more encouragement to the State Department's Department of Democracy, Labor and Human Rights. I have been involved with the new Committee on Religious Persecution abroad and have been very impressed with their commitment to trying to do and accomplish the things that the Committee is designed to do. They are working under some really rather ridiculous financial limitations.
    A friend of mine who runs another NGO was asked to buy the sandwiches for lunch for one of the subcommittees because they do not even have that. They need money to have staff and the ability to engage in some of these monitoring functions. And I think that the State Department is certainly set up to be able to do that. I certainly agree that, in the past, there has been less than a strong focus on this area, but that has changed very dramatically in recent months, particularly because Secretary of State Albright has been taking some pretty courageous positions publicly and in communications around the world with the staff of the State Department. Those things should be encouraged.
    And having worked on the establishment of the Department of Education, a much maligned department, many years ago, I remember well how long it took to get that started, how long it took for it to figure out what it was supposed to be doing and what its constituency is.
 Page 99       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And given the urgency of these problems, I think we should try to work with what we have, work with the OFCE, work on creating other multilateral bodies that might be more effective in dealing directly with the governments of these nations, putting us into a position where it does not look as if America is trying to rule the world in this area.
    And finally, I think that we can say that in many instances a strong U.S. response has been very beneficial. And I know many people who were languishing in Soviet prisons and who were able to be released as a result of substantial U.S. pressure. On the other hand, the way that that was brought about, as Mr. Goodman so eloquently explained, was because we brought a variety of communications into the fray and we recognized the complexity of this situation.
    We are talking about trying to change the internal workings of separate sovereign States, and I think that we have got to find ways to educate the world community to bring these things to the forum. In my own thinking—and I have been working very hard on the situation in Russia and we are now in a situation where virtually every tool available to the U.S. Government has been used to try to persuade President Yeltsin and the Duma not to enact legislation that would take away the rights that were just won really 5 years ago, and we have effectively failed, and they are now proposing to pass legislation which is very much in the form that it originally took. And I think that that is a good lesson. We had the Gordon Smith amendment in the Senate that threatened to take away all U.S. aid to Russia, and if anything, it produced a negative backlash over there.
    Brian O'Connell, a colleague and friend of mine who is with World Evangelical Fellowship, has sent a fax to this Committee stating that he's talked to leaders of religious groups in many different countries that would be affected by this, and they are quite concerned about the use of unilateral sanctions.
    For my own part, I think that this is going to be a struggle which is going to be very long term. I think it is wonderful that there is a citizen's movement underway. I think that this legislation, or some legislation, is critical and I urge the Committee to enact legislation. I would like us to do so with due regard for the very great complexities of this situation, the nuances of each nation involved, so that we can be effective and productive.
 Page 100       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And I think, in the long run, we probably need to think about new international bodies, greater support perhaps for the U.N. Rapporteur, or for new adjudicative mechanisms that will allow nationals who are experiencing religious persecution in their own country to take advantage of the regulations and the international treaties that at least ostensibly protect them from that.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Homer appears in the appendix.]
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Homer, and thank you all for your very fine testimony.
    Just to lead off with a few questions, maybe starting off with you, Ms. Homer, first, when you raised the issue of perhaps we should be raising human rights and religious persecution, in particular, at different fora, it is precisely because of the inadequacy of that approach that many of us feel that this legislation is so much needed.
    I served as President Bush's Delegate to the United Nations in 1989, and wrote and delivered the U.S. statement on religious intolerance in Geneva. I was in New York frequently as part of that assignment and was very much dismayed at the inadequacy of that Rapporteur system, of raising an issue and getting a flat denial by government X, Y or Z, especially from China, because we were raising religious intolerance in China in 1989 and before, but particularly, I was using that posting to do that. And we got the door slammed right in our face.
    And I chaired the Helsinki Commission. I was Chairman last Congress and I am Co-Chair this year, because we rotate the Chairmanship, with Alfonse D'Amato. And we raised human rights issues, and particularly, religious freedom over and over again. We get cold stares, blank stares.
    You know, it just seems to me that jawboning—and I think Jerry, Mr. Goodman, made a very good statement about, you know, when you are talking to the Nazis or you are talking to other dictatorships, moral suasion only goes so far unless there is something really in it for them, and it seems to me that having some additional clout, and this does give the ability to exercise clout, sanctions, empowers that idea of private and public. You know, we actually do help there to be fertile ground, it seems to me.
 Page 101       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I'm making more of a statement than a question, but we have tried that approach. I have been on the Helsinki Commission since my second term. I am now in my ninth. The multilateral conversations have always been useful, but very often very ineffective unless there was something else behind it.
    So, you know, with all due respect, I think we ought to continue to try it, but this certainly gives us an additional——
    Ms. HOMER. Well, I certainly agree with the use of sanctions, and I certainly agree with the use of punitive measures. I am just saying that I think that unilateral sanctions that are uniformly imposed in every situation may not be as effective as targeted sanctions.
    Mr. SMITH. Well, let me also say that we have tried, and last State Department bill, I tried to establish a coordinator for human rights. It was opposed by the Administration.
    We had found, and it is my belief, that the line authority is such that the President and the Secretary of State did not get the kind of input from the Assistant Secretary. It is, I will not say trivialized but it is marginalized more than it would be if there was a coordinator. So we have tried to get human rights more center stage. It was opposed by the Administration.
    I asked over and over again of them, ''What do you need, more resources? We will fight for those providing there are more human rights of people deployed around the world.''
    You know, I think most Americans would be shocked to know how few people are actually monitoring human rights around the world as part of our State Department effort. It is frighteningly small. And so they are relatively ineffective because of their small number.
    Let me just ask all of you a question. Yesterday, as you all know, the Assistant Secretary testified and one of his comments went as follows: ''The Bill,'' talking about the Wolf Bill, ''would legislate a hierarchy of human rights into our law. Certain deplorable acts would result in automatic sanctions when connected to religion, but not in other cases. As a consequence, our ability to promote the full range of basic rights and fundamental freedoms would be''—and I say this with emphasis. It is not his, but my emphasis—''would be compromised.''
 Page 102       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Now, Mr. Rickard, you made the statement earlier, about, if you can help someone, why do you not do it? You know, it does not necessarily mean you have to back off. And I tried to stress that previously that when we advanced the ball in one court, we are not necessarily, and I do not think we are at all, diminishing our efforts in the other part of the court.
    If you could respond.
    Mr. RICKARD. Well, I think there are two separate issues. One is here are people who are suffering persecution, serious persecution on a very widespread basis. If we have an opportunity to do something for them, should we take it? And to that, as I said, we answer emphatically, yes.
    Another type of problem, though, would arise if one said, ''We are going to help these people, but in some way, shape or form, that is going to hurt these people over here,'' or, you know, ''These people are going to get in, but the result of that is these people are going to be out.'' And what seems clear to me is that this—the authors and the sponsors of this legislation are comfortable with that—as Amnesty is, are comfortable with that first part, but they are uncomfortable with that last kind of situation. They do not want to pit victims against each other. They want to provide resources and tools to help a particular group and others. And I have to say that the credentials of many of the people, of Congressman Wolf and others who are supporting this legislation on human rights issues, are outstanding.
    So as I said, I think everyone is uncomfortable with a notion that, in some way, shape or form—and as I said, with one particular aspect of the bill, there is uncertainty about how it would be applied; that is the admission policy portion. Clear from the bill that the authors do not want to have that consequence, but there is concern about that.
    I hear concerns being expressed about some ways in which the sanctions might affect people in some cases. That is not an area that Amnesty takes a position on for or against, but those concerns are out there.
 Page 103       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I just think that everybody in this debate shares their approach to those issues. They do not want to pit victims against each other.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Goodman.
    Mr. GOODMAN. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I would endorse Mr. Rickard's comment about not pitting one group against another. And in my original text, I suggest that no one group should be forced to compete against another for immigration permits or for the limited slots presently available, as if they were gladiators in Forum. Rather, if there is a problem, we need to revisit and to modify Immigration policy so as to allow for an increase in entry for newly identified victims of religious persecution.
    I know it sounds simplistic, but I would suggest that that is a way to handle it so that all requests rise to the surface and others have an opportunity, especially those who are now seeking asylum because of religious persecution.
    Mr. HODEL. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Hodel.
    Mr. HODEL. In looking at that statement, if I understand what the Assistant Secretary of State had to say, it is that today we have certain authorities that are, in his view, apparently inadequate. We know that under these authorities, religious persecution has not been given much attention. Now, it may be that that is simply maladministration.
    What this law would do, as I understand it, according to him, is raise religion to a higher level. The Department of State would still have all of the authorities it currently has, which by their assertion, are adequate. But because they have not enforced them appropriately, in our opinion, with regard to religious persecution, the Congress is suggesting and we are supporting legislation that says, ''No. When it comes to religious persecution, you have got to do something about it.'' His argument does not hold water if you analyze it in those terms.
 Page 104       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that.
    Let me just for the record point out on the refugee budget, we tried in our Subcommittee, and it was approved by the House, to increase the amount of money available for refugees to $704 million. Yet, in its budget submissions, the Administration cut the budget from $671 million last year to $650 million. When there was an attempt to put a ceiling on refugees, I offered the amendment to get rid of that ceiling because I felt it would be very, very onerous and would hurt many people escaping tyranny. And yet, these ceilings have dropped from 110,000 to 78,000.
    So the Administration makes the idea of pitting victim against victim, when it has the capability, clearly, to up, not down but up the number of refugee admissions permitted per year.
    And from my point of view, and I have, for whatever it is worth, tried to admonish the Administration, ration it up. There are 25 million people around the world of interest to the high commission of refugees. It is about time we did our fair share, and we are not doing our fair share. Notwithstanding what is fair or anyone else may say who do not like these people coming here, we need to be fair to these people and provide additional resources.
    Let me also note, for the record, when talking about human rights and resources allocation, the Protocol Office, the Press Office, and the Legislative Affairs Office for the Department of State exceed each of them in the number of people dedicated to human rights. So if that does not somehow signal a lack of prioritization when it comes to human rights, I do not know what else does. Resources allocation tells more than words.
    I would like to yield to Mr. Clement.
    Mr. GYARI. Chairman——
    Mr. SMITH. Oh, I am sorry.
    Mr. GYARI. Yes. Just a few remarks. I was not present yesterday when Assistant Secretary testified. I have a lot of respect for the Assistant Secretary and his team. I think they have done wonderful work. But I am certainly still not totally satisfied with the work of the Administration, as such. So therefore, I do not want to make specific comment.
 Page 105       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    What I wanted to say is that, as I said earlier, I have not had the opportunity to study the bill in detail because I was away. But in principle, I am in support of sanctions because any bill that does not have teeth, it just becomes sense of the Congress. And we know that kind of resolution does not really send the kind of message that we want to send.
    At the same time, I do hope that in the days to come there will be more discussions. And by giving the appointment of the Special Coordinator for Tibet as an example, my hope is still to see that the Administration and the Congress work together because I think there is clearly agreement, you know, among everyone of the importance of such issues.
    I also wanted to say, for the record, that sending a powerful message on the issue of religious freedom does not mean that we do not care about other issues. I said, very clearly, that the example of Tibet is not only a matter of denial of religious freedom. It is one of the many symptoms of the Chinese occupation. But we are in support of this bill because I think each of the issues needs to be addressed. I am lending my support not because religious freedom is the only freedom that is being denied to Tibetan people. The other aspects need to be looked into. They are equally important.
    We have today many prisoners of conscience in Tibet. A lot of people who are not monks and nuns, but lay people have been imprisoned simply because they have raised the slogan of, ''Freedom Tibet,'' or ''Freedom for Tibet.'' So those need also to be looked into. We are supportive because I think each violation of abuse needs to be dealt with.
    Thank you.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is a pleasure having all of you here, and I have sat through all of the hearings, and so I feel blessed for that.
    It has been very helpful to me, too, and I am a strong believer and want to do everything we possibly can to stamp out religious persecution and I surely want religious freedom for all faiths.
 Page 106       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And I just do not want it to come across as that this is the Christians fighting the rest of the world, nor do I want to start another holy war, by any means. But yes, the United States is a super power, the only super power, and maybe we do have a special role there to show that we are a leader, that we care about people and their problems, and we want to try to make a difference no matter where anyone lives, because people from other lands do look at us in a very special way.
    Mr. Goodman, I want to ask you the first question. I understand this bill is based on the admirable movement you helped lead with Soviet Jews. It appears to me, however, that there are several key differences between this bill and the approach in Jackson-Vanik. For one, you were targeting one country, the Soviet Union, with a very special goal, emigration. In this case, the problem of religious and even of Christian persecution is global with no simple goal, such as emigration.
    It has also been said by another leader of your movement that different approaches were used with different countries, including backroom diplomacy. In your view, are these differences with your movement valid, and does this bill allow for such a tailored country-by-country approach?
    Mr. GOODMAN. Like all legislation passed, Mr. Clement, a lot will have to do with how it is applied. Theoretically, as I have read the bill, although there have been some changes over the weekend, especially on the question of asylum, which I have not yet seen, I would assume that, yes, it could be applied in a selective way.
    There is, as you mentioned earlier, always the danger of unclear thinking. I think that was the phrase you used. And so I would suggest that if a separate office is created, or even if it were to remain in the State Department somehow, but there is a good rationale for creating a separate office, that we would have to have a sophisticated approach on a country-by-country basis. And that means, for example, and I might differ with some of my colleagues, I do not think the issue in Bosnia, for example, was a religious issue, per se. It reflects fundamentalism. It reflects ethnic war, civil war similar to the case in Rwanda. And would we go into Bosnia and Rwanda and use this particular legislation? If I were the director of that office, I would say no, because it is not clear cut in those instances.
 Page 107       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I would say that where it is clear and the focus on those particular countries, perhaps one at a time—and indeed, it is merely a tactic. If we focused on the Soviet Union, we knew it would have a ripple effect on the issue of immigration from Romania, as, in fact, it did. And several other countries then in the Communist orbit, where it also had a positive impact. It is true, the Soviet Union was the big gorilla, but the smaller chimpanzees around responded.
    And I think that if we were to take, as a tactic, again focusing the issue on one country at one time, because we cannot necessarily deal with all countries simultaneously, and certainly not with all countries equally, the message would get across that we are serious. And I think that message would be learned by other countries where religious persecution does take place and where the sanctions could be operative.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you.
    Mr. Hodel, I know you represent the Christian Coalition, and it seems like you were saying a while ago that you have lost all confidence in the State Department or Undersecretary Shattuck or any of them there that cannot do the job anymore. And I wanted to ask all of you, do all of you feel that way or do you feel like you just have to have that mid-level person in the White House leading those battles in the future?
    Mr. HODEL. Mr. Clement, let me emphasize that what I said about the State Department's inability was not based on anything that has happened since June 16th when I joined the Christian Coalition. It has to do with 8 years of experience with the State Department during the 1980's. And I do not think anything has changed in that regard, and certainly their activities in this area would confirm that.
    In a sense, it would be fair to say this office, the monitor, the person whose responsibility it would be to document and catalog what is going on in behalf of the U.S. Government could be almost anyplace other than the State Department.
 Page 108       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    My problem with the State Department is they have client states that they are representing to the United States. We used to have the joke that we wish there was a U.S. desk at the State Department so that there was somebody there who was representing the U.S. interest.
    That situation, I think, has profound effect upon the Administration. If the only source of information within the Administration that is official is within the State Department, then the White House can lean on that and say, ''Well, gee, our official advice is, it is better not to upset people.''
    As I listen to the discussions which say we may cause problems for people, these people already have enormous problems. These problems are not going away. To talk about having nice international meetings which maybe over time will foster an atmosphere in which, eventually, somebody may, in the leadership of these countries, begin to pay attention about religious persecution, I submit to you is to ignore the lessons of history. And until we say we will take action, we are concerned, we will not see change.
    I was fascinated to hear Mr. Hamilton's comments earlier suggesting that if this legislation passes, nothing will change. His entire hypothetical question was based on the assumption that Saudi Arabia would do nothing different if this legislation were on the books. I submit to you, Saudi Arabia, with proper encouragement from the U.S. State Department and others, would begin to operate somewhat differently.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Ms. Homer.
    Ms. HOMER. Well, I really think that it is going a little too far to say that the State Department will not do anything. There is a fundamental problem with all international affairs that when you are in another country and you are looking back at our country, you do have a somewhat different point of view.
    I have met with lots of State Department officers working in this area and, you know, in my opinion, a lot of them did not have adequate information and were not taking a very proactive stance. But I do not think that was their job, or they didn't view that as their job at the time.
 Page 109       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And I do think that dialog is important and I am not sure that once countries reach the status of rogue nations that sanctions are going to make that much difference. I do not know if we have anything left to take away from Sudan, for example. I do not know if we have anything to take away from Iran.
    Certainly, we have got lots that we could take away from Saudi Arabia, but there might be some interim step besides directing the people at the IMF and the World Bank to stop issuing loans as a way to pressure them to give more religious freedom to the subjects of Saudi Arabia who are not Suni Moslems.
    Mr. CLEMENT. As you know, many Christian leaders in other countries are very concerned about this legislation. I know I had one lady come to see me recently, and she said her ministry in the country that she is working in would—she did not know whether she would be able to continue if this legislation passed. That is one person.
    I know some other surveys have been made by Christian leaders concerned about the backlash that they might receive. Are you hearing any comments about that, Ms. Homer, or any of the rest of the panel?
    Ms. HOMER. Well, I have received some information, again from Brian O'Connell who works with World Evangelical Fellowship, to that effect. And, I mean, we have seen in Russia that—in the recent weeks when we have been trying to get involved in this fight on this new law on religious freedom, that a lot of——
    Mr. CLEMENT. I know we worked together.
    Ms. HOMER. Yes. A lot of Russian Christians said perhaps the remedy you are proposing is worse than the problem.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Yes.
    Ms. HOMER. That is, you get your government all excited, it is just going to get our government more excited.
 Page 110       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And one of the provisions that has changed in the law has been now that foreign religious organizations who have representations in Russia no longer have the right to engage in any religious activities. And that, you know, may be related to the strong U.S. response.
    So there will be backlashes, and simply taking money away from a country is not necessarily going to protect the rights of the citizens within it. I mean, that is my concern. I completely agree with the need to do something. I think that some use of sanctions can be very, very effective. It is just that branding the country and making them automatic may not always have the desired result.
    Mr. CLEMENT. OK. Anyone else?
    Mr. GOODMAN. Yes. Several comments. First of all, I do not know that it is especially productive to bash the State Department for things that the State Department cannot necessarily do.
    The State Department has a legitimate role in this and related issues. The fact, however, that the appropriate instrument has been cut back, as the Chairman said, and that the budget is very small, I suggest a little bit mea culpa is in order. If it happened, why were we all silent? Why did we let it happen? It need not have happened. If you have an effective advocacy effort—I do not care who the President is, you press the Administration, you press the Congress. You make sure that the budget is increased, that there is a staff.
    But it was benign neglect at its best, or at its worst, that we permitted that department to have its name changed, a fact which would vitiate the focus on human rights.
    It is something which the whole human rights community and the religious groups let happen.
    Nor do I know that it is fair to blame the person who is responsible for operating that department if his staff has been cut back and if his budget has been curbed. That means the tools that might be available have been diminished.
 Page 111       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Having said that, I think that the role of the State Department, to a great extent, is and should be quiet diplomacy. That is part of its function, especially in bilateral contacts. And that is fine. But as I suggested earlier, very often, bilateral contacts are affected by public diplomacy.
    I recall when we brought over 250,000 people to Washington on December 6th, 1987 on the issue of Soviet Jewry. The next day, President Reagan, in his first summit meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev in Washington, reportedly turned to Mr. Gorbachev and said, ''See, that is my problem. There are 250,000 people out there, Jews and non-Jews, demanding freedom for Soviet Jews. I have to deal with that. You have got to help me,'' meaning that the public activity was helpful for the quiet intervention at the level of the White House or the State Department. So they should go hand in hand. They should not be mutually exclusive.
    Having said that, I think that focusing on religious persecution is important. And it may be that the best way is, in fact, creating a new position. If that is deemed appropriate, I would certainly endorse it. I think anything that works, you utilize. And if this is effective and if that is what is needed, fine.
    The problem is, however, that so much is transitory. What will the next Administration be like? Would you have a better or worse person in office?
    Thus, whenever the responsibility rests, we still need the private sector, the voluntary groups, the church groups. We still have an obligation to keep our own officials' feet to the fire, otherwise nothing will happen whether it be in Russia, Sudan or elsewhere.
    A word on Russia, today I would suggest that President Yeltsin's vetoing the legislation on the registration of religious groups was, in part, because of interventions and pressure from this country, both private and public.
    While this can be overruled by the Duma, as was suggested by Ms. Homer, and the legislation will come back if we do our homework, we know that it is the Orthodox Church in Russia which is behind this legislation. They have a vested interest, since they have a particular status in the Russian Federation which they seek to maintain. This is a political status as much as a religious one. The church is afraid of competition from Mormons and Pentacostalists, or even Hare Krishna, if you will.
 Page 112       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    But why are we not working with counterpart churches in the Protestant community around the world to put pressure on the Patriarchy to say, ''That is not acceptable. If you want to be a member of the World Council of Churches, this is not acceptable.''     Yes, there is a legitimate role for Congress and the White House, but if we are derelict in undertaking our own responsibilities, then the fault rests as much among ourselves as it does elsewhere.
    And I would suggest one of the reasons that the Soviet Jewry campaign bore fruit was because we did not allow that to happen; because we pressed all the buttons. Since we never knew which one would work, and you do not in this kind of effort. You therefore press all of them. And if we are neglectful, then we pay the price.
    Mr. RICKARD. If I could just add briefly, for anybody who wants to, I will stay late and talk about examples of where the Human Rights Bureau got outvoted, outgunned, bureaucratically is stretched too thin.
    I mean we work on the whole range of human rights issues and I could swap stories with people until the cows come home. So it is not that we are saying that we think things are ducky the way they are. I think the problem that we have, and the way I put it in my testimony is, we are not persuaded that creating a White House office goes to the root of why that is so, and/or that creating a White House office even if it could solve it, would not create a whole host of new issues that we would then have to deal with.
    When President Clinton is willing to meet in the Oval Office on the eve of International Human Rights Day with General Chur, the man who personally organized the attack on the students in Tiananmen Square, where you put the box in the organizational chart is not going to make a difference. And it does not help anything to say, you know, the fault is John Shattuck's. The responsibility flows from the top decisionmakers. And to create an office in the White House that may or may not be well staffed, that may or may not be well plugged into the policy machinery, that may not have the resources, I mean that is part of the problem with the Human Rights Bureau now. Those same issues will arise with a White House office.
 Page 113       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So as I said, anybody who wants to, you know, we can hang around and talk about how often the Human Rights Bureau, its advice is disregarded or its insights are overruled, or how often, even if the State Department takes that position, it is overruled because of trade considerations or fighting counternarcotics.
    We are just not persuaded that it goes to the heart of the problem or that it does not run the risk of creating some other problems if you do so.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you.
    Mr. GYARI. I just wanted to echo what Mr. Goodman said, is that I think we have to press all the buttons. Which is going to work, we really do not know. And even in terms of creating this new office, there I agree with Steve Rickard. But I think, as far as the individuals are concerned, I have a tremendous respect for the present team under John Shattuck. I think they are doing wonderful work.
    The report that the State Department Human Rights Bureau has brought out on the issues, again, politically, because I know about China and Tibet, I think is something that we must give recognition.
    I also have similar misgivings about that being in the White House. I mean, is that—again, you know, my experience is limited to China and Tibet, and, in fact, I think on a number of issues, in fact, the White House has been declined. As my friend talked about—are for PRC more than the State Department.
    So it is very delicate. But what is important, I think, is that we have to do everything. As I said, in principle, we are supportive. Everything possible should be done. One thing may not work, but it does not mean that you should not do it. So, therefore, whether it is the creation of a new office—if possible, it should be an office that really has much more independence. I mean as long as it is someone responsible to the President. And the NTC, whoever that person is going to be overruled by, whatever interest, you know, the President has.
 Page 114       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    But with those misgivings, still we are supportive in principle. And I just said that my hope still is that there are a number of issues that, you know, I have not been able to reflect very carefully. My hope is still that there be not only bipartisan, but there is, you know, very close coordination between the Administration and the Congress working on this very important issue.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clement.
    Before yielding to Mr. Brady, just part of the rationale for the automatic sanctions, frankly is, and why the White House office may be an upgrade in reality and not just in our hopes, is that for the reasons that Mr. Goodman mentioned, the quiet diplomacy, the fact that if it has to happen, the President can waive it. But now there is a higher threshold to waive it, national security, and he really has to give an account. And many of us—and I agree when General Chur Hatien was given a 19-gun salute, a red carpet treatment, said that nobody was killed in Tiananmen Square, we quickly convened the hearing of my Subcommittee. We heard from Amnesty and many of the other interested parties. And the Administration went on as if he were someone that should be accorded great respect and dignity, and he is the butcher of Beijing. He was the operational command officer that said, ''Kill, maim, bayonet, run people over''.
    And until we start dealing in reality and not this useful fiction that the State Department, and regrettably, the President is willing to engage in, that is why I think this is so important. But that is going to have to be debated, obviously, and we will continue that fight.
    And let me also say to Mr. Goodman, we were not silent. And, I mean, we convened hearings immediately, and Amnesty testified and told us that the Country Report on Human Rights Practices was an island and that bureau was an island. It was not connected to policy. It made for a very good dog and pony show to come before Congress and say this, and we always were grateful for the information. But where is it connected to policy?
 Page 115       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And we saw that in the PRC debate, the outgunning of the human rights advocates within the Administration by the Commerce people and the State Department people. It was not even a battle. It was a slaughter.
    So I would like to yield to Mr. Brady at this point.
    Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have raised two concerns about the bill to the bill's author, but both come from a basis of my support for the legislation because I am looking for a way to increase the toughness and effectiveness of our response to these other countries.
    And my question is, and I will direct it to Mr. Hodel, because you have experience in this area as well, in the very narrow section of the bill that deals with banning all exports to category 1 countries, the ones who are absolutely the most heinous in their prosecution and persecution within their countries, where our response is severe because their behavior is severe, how can we, in this bill, provide both the flexibility and a narrowness to targeting the export ban to make sure that we are causing the least casualty to innocent Americans, but at the same time provide a rifle shot to the entity you want to create the greatest pressure?
    And, second, as part of that, I am concerned that when things become so severe that it is time to ban all exports and cause what we know will be some damage to American companies and their workers. Should we tie our hands by not including imports in that sanction? It seems to me that, in China's instance, you do not punish them by not selling to them; you punish by not buying from them, which is five times greater than what they buy from us.
    And Saudi Arabia, while our export-import numbers are very close to each other, they are all related to America's desire to buy lots and lots of oil which provides much of that country's revenues.
    And my question to you would be, should we also include imports?     And, second, is there a way to do that where we are not punishing the innocents here but severely punishing the ones we are going after?
 Page 116       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HODEL. As to your first question, how do you make this work, I am impressed by what Mr. Goodman has said, that you do not rely simply on this piece of legislation and the office monitoring it imposing sanctions. In fact, what we know would happen is, especially if this office is outside the State Department, that the State Department would have the conversation—the kind of conversation that President Reagan had with Premier Gorbachev; that is, we have got a problem here. You have a problem. Unless you make some changes in what you are doing, you are headed toward this sanction, and our hands are tied.
    Frankly, I think that kind of discussion can be salutary. I think that companies in the United States that are selling into a country—mind you, they are selling commodities that that country is buying from the United States because they want those commodities, whatever they may be, often technology, and they cannot get that comfortably elsewhere or adequately elsewhere.
    I think those companies would do the same thing, whether they are selling airplanes or computers. They would be——
    Unidentified Speaker. Coke? Or Coca-Cola.
    Mr. HODEL. Or Coca-Cola. I think they would be communicating the same message: You have a problem. It is rising to a level where sanctions may be imposed and we will be unable to supply you what you want.
    So I think that that would result in the kind of broad-based persuasiveness that could not exist in the absence of some kind of sanction capability.
    You then asked the next question: If we are going to go all the way to sanctions, should we not make it in both directions? First of all, I think if you did that, the chances of passage of the legislation, although I am no legislative expert, would be far lower. I think your chances of passing that would diminish substantially.
    Second, I really think the caveat of access to the American supply, particularly of technological items, including such things as Coca-Cola, is a significant sanction, but it does not go all the way of the isolation that has been talked about.
 Page 117       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    As I say, the twofold practical aspect and the fact that I think it is a significant sanction would be adequate in this case.
    Mr. BRADY. Thank you. Any other comments?
    Mr. GOODMAN. Again, based on experience, Mr. Brady, there are different kinds of sanctions, I think, that could be considered, and they do not all have the same degree of impact necessarily.
    For example, with most countries we have cultural, scientific, technological, economic and trade relations. Providing sanctions in the field of cultural exchange, for example, such as banning a dance group, may not harm our economy. It does send an early level signal that we are unhappy about certain things. You can then have what I would call a selective, or a calibrated response.
    If things improve, you can always back away. If it worsens, because sometimes that would happen, as was suggested even by Ms. Homer, and there is some retaliation, you then have scientific and technological exchanges, where sanctions could be applied.
    The legislation focuses on economic sanctions, but I would suggest that perhaps, Mr. Chairman, consideration also be given to include a broader level of sanctions.
    One last caveat. From my viewpoint sanctions are almost your last weapon, short of war or breaking off diplomatic relations with the offending nation. Therefore, they have to be used judiciously. Other initiatives might become operational before you begin to apply sanctions. You apply sanctions only when you judge that everything else has failed and there are no other options to effect change or to show your displeasure.
    And then, again, in the use of sanctions, there are different kinds of sanctions that might be applied. We should be selective and use these tools wisely.
    Mr. BRADY. Perhaps I did not make my point early on. I believe the sanctions in some cases are the only option, and in these circumstances I have absolutely no hesitation at all in applying them. In fact, what I want to do is make sure that they, along with all the other actions we are taking, are tough enough, and targeted enough that they bring about what we want, which is change—the goal is not sanctions.
 Page 118       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SMITH. Exactly.
    Mr. BRADY. The goal is change.
    Mr. SMITH. Right.
    Mr. BRADY. To do that with the least friendly fire casualties to our folks who have done nothing wrong. I am not interested in jeopardizing their job because of what China does. But what I am committed to is a sacrifice that has a real chance of bringing about that change we just so desperately need.
    And so that was my question of how, if there is a way to, again, it is almost paradoxical. You need flexibility to fit it to the right situation, but you want it limited enough that it is not a shotgun approach.
    But I appreciate all the answers. Thank you.
    Mr. SMITH. We have tried in the bill to narrow it so that it really is a targeted sanction. It is not, as you know, a broad-based sanction.
    Mr. BRADY. Which I appreciate.
    Mr. SMITH. The export of persecution facilitated items, export of anything intended for use by the actual entities doing the persecution, and very important would be the Eximbank loans, because that would really have an impact.
    Mr. BRADY. Yes. In fact, all of those, if you work through all those things, because I have no concerns about any of them. I am really purely focused on that total ban on category 1 countries. But again, I am going to work with you and the author. I am on this bill. I am trying to help improve it. Thanks.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Brady. I appreciate it.
    Any further comments by the witnesses?
    [No response.]
    Mr. SMITH. I do want to thank you for your very fine testimony. The recommendations with regards to definitions and all of that will be taken under very careful consideration, and any other input you want to provide because, again, this is a work in progress. It will be changed several times in Committee, Full Committee, and in conference so that we get the best possible product. My sincere hope, is that the Administration at the end of the day, notwithstanding yesterday's testimony, will be on board.
 Page 119       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]


    Insert "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."