Page 1       TOP OF DOC
50–472 CC






MARCH 25, 1998

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
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
HILLEL WEINBERG, Counsel and Senior Professional Staff Member
PAUL BERKOWITZ, Professional Staff Member

 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Honorable Stuart Eizenstat, Under Secretary of State for Economics, Business and Agricultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State
    H.R. 2431
    Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Gilman
    Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Brady
    Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey
    Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez
    Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Manzullo
    Amendment to the Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bereuter
    Amendment to the revised Gilman amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Campbell

House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations
Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 2220, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman, (chairman of the Committee), presiding.
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. The Committee on International Relations meets today in open session, pursuant to notice, to consider H.R. 2431, The Freedom From Religious Persecution Act. The bill clerk will report the title of the bill.
    Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 2431, a bill to establish an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring, to provide for the imposition of sanctions against countries engaged in a pattern of religious persecution, and for other purposes.
    The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.
    Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited——
    The CHAIRMAN. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will report the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Gilman.
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:——
    Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Is someone asking for recognition?
    Mr. HYDE. I would object at this point. We do not have a quorum here. We only have three Members——
    The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am sure that Members will be gathering. They have adequate notice. We have a busy day ahead, and we are just getting into the beginning of the bill.
    Mr. HYDE. Well, I would object that it be offered as the original bill.
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry. I did not hear the gentleman's objection.
    Mr. HYDE. I would object that it be offered as the original bill at least until we have a quorum here.
    The CHAIRMAN. Do we need a quorum for this?
    No quorum is needed to proceed at this time. Until we actually get into—I am consulting with our counsel.
    The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
    Mr. HYDE. I would withdraw the objection. My understanding is that the Chairman wanted to open it up for opening statements, and we would not have anything procedural until we had a quorum here, is that correct?
    The CHAIRMAN. That is correct, and I thank the gentleman for withdrawing his objection.
    Mr. HYDE. Thank you.
    The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Gilman.
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
    Section 1. Short title. This act——
    The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the reading of the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be dispensed with. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes in support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    I want to commend Congressman Frank Wolf for initiating and crafting this important and historic piece of legislation. His tireless efforts on behalf of persecuted religious believers is a blessing for followers of all faiths. The results of the passage of H.R. 2431, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, will be felt around the world, and while reaffirming our nation's commitment to the vital protection——
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The Committee is not in order. Please take all conversations to the anteroom.
    While reaffirming our nation's commitment to the vital protection of religious rights, it also sends a long overdue signal to repressive governments that continued religious persecution will not go unanswered.
    Persecuted Christians in North Korea, in Cuba, in Laos, in Vietnam, in China, Indonesia, Sudan and other nations will be encouraged in their struggle to freely practice their religion when they learn that the world is aware of their plight. They will receive some comfort in knowing that at least the United States will not give economic assistance to their governments.
    I am going to ask the staff members, if they have some conversations, please take them into the anteroom and do not interrupt the proceedings.
    Moslems and Tibetan Buddhists in East Turkistan and Tibet, who were abandoned by the West in Geneva this year, will at least know that the United States will not sell Beijing the very instruments to be used in their torture.
    I am aware that H.R. 2431 is a controversial initiative, but no one can accuse us of trying to rush this measure through the Committee without proper consideration. We have had 2 days of hearings on the bill last September, where we took testimony from Administration and outside witnesses. The bill was then marked up and reported by the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights on September 18th.
    After some of our Members expressed concerns about various provisions of the bill, Chairman Smith and I directed our staffs to work with interested Members and outside groups to try to improve the measure. After many hours of meetings, we produced the revised bill that is now before the Members of the Committee. The revised bill has picked up a large number of endorsements. In addition to groups like the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council, which supported the bill when it was first introduced, we now have the suppport of such diverse groups as the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, and the International Campaign for Tibet.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I would hope that even the harshest critics of H.R. 2431 would agree that we worked in good faith to accommodate their concerns, and to try to improve the bill.
    The most significant changes that we have agreed upon are summarized in the paper that has been distributed to our Members. There is an overwhelming need at this moment to ensure that our government does more than just issue reports and engage in dialogs about religious persecution. The passage of H.R. 2431 will make certain that a concrete shift occurs away from the ''business as usual'' approach. For all those reasons, I urge our colleagues to support this amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    Is there a Member seeking recognition? Mr. Gejdenson.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is clear that everybody in this country deplores the kinds of actions that we are trying to deal with here. I am hopeful that today and before we get to the floor we can make some minor modifications that will address those issues.
    It is my understanding that the present bill still lists some countries that I think have no business being on the list. Morocco is apparently still on the list of named countries. Frankly, of the countries in North Africa and the Middle East, Morocco is a country that I think has made significant attempts to deal with religious issues and give all of its citizens an opportunity to express their beliefs. On page 6, line 20, it says Egypt, India and Morocco; and there may be arguments for some of these. I think Morocco is a country that, you know, with an opposition government, has made tremendous progress; and I will be offering an amendment to frankly strike the names of countries.
    Now, frankly I agree with some of the countries that you have listed here. I think China is a problem. I think part of the reason we are here today is there is a tremendous bipartisan frustration about how to deal with China and its suppression of Chinese citizens—whether their beliefs be democratic or religious—and I would urge my colleagues to continue to work on this. But I believe that we need to make sure that we do not create more turmoil than positive action.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So, I would hope that Members will be interested in supporting an amendment that will strike the individual names, particularly because we are establishing an office that is to target those countries that are involved in religious persecution. If we state a list prior to that action—some of these may be self-evident to us; some of these we have debates on. I would ask to strike these.
    I would at this time want to commend Mr. Eizenstat for being here today to be helpful to the Committee, and would yield to him, if it meets with the Chairman's approval sometime, if he would like to make a comment, since he is here.
    The CHAIRMAN. We will recognize Mr. Eizenstat at the appropriate time.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Then if that is the case, I would just close with one additional act. I had hoped that we can work it out today with folks on the other side. I believe that we need to add to this legislation import restrictions. The reality is that if a country is oppressing its own citizens for religious or other reasons and we prevent the sale of Boeing aircraft to that country through this legislation, they will simply buy Airbus, and it will have no impact on their policy. We have seen this time and time again.
    In the Bush Administration, I think President Bush banned a satellite deal with the Chinese. The German Chancellor was there the next weekend cutting a satellite deal with the Chinese. I think we ought to do something that just does not make us feel good rhetorically. We ought to do something that has a real impact on their policy.
    And if you look at, for instance, China, which I think is a major culprit affecting people's freedoms of all kind, that what we need to do with a country like China is prevent them from selling things here as a result of their gross violations of human rights and religious rights. And that will have an impact on their policy.
    In the trade between China and the United States, they sell us in the range of $60 billion worth of stuff, and we sell them hardly anything. We have a trade deficit of around $50 billion. The way to get the Chinese is to go after import restrictions; and I plan to offer, before the day is concluded, a provision that would give the President a choice between export restrictions, which I think frankly are like shooting yourself in the foot because you do not like what your neighbor is doing, and import restrictions, where I think we will have a real impact on their policies.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    This is the best market in the world. Deny access to this market, and you get people's attention. I thank the Chairman for the time.
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson. The distinguished chairman of our International Operations and Human Rights Committee, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Last year, the Committee on International Operations and Human Rights marked up and reported to the full International Relations Committee H.R. 2431, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act.
    The Subcommittee had already held a number of hearings on the subject of religious persecution. One hearing was on the persecution of Christians; and another on the continued danger of worldwide anti-Semitism. We had heard of the torture of the Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns, and the atrocities against Muslims in Bosnia and East Turkistan, and of the Bahai in Iran.
    The time has now come not just to talk about the problem of religious persecution, but to do something about it. Congressman Frank Wolf, a hero of the human rights movement, has shown us the way. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of Congressman Wolf's Freedom From Religious Persecution Act.
    During the course of the legislative process, Congressman Wolf worked closely with a broad coalition including evangelical Christians, Jewish organizations, the U.S. Catholic Conference, and the International Campaign for Tibet in order to improve the bill. Many of these improvements were incorporated into the Chairman's substitute that I offered and was adopted by the Committee last September.
    The substitute offered by Chairman Gilman today is quite similar to the bill as amended in the Subcommittee, but it also includes several further modifications, most of them designed to meet concerns expressed by opponents of the bill.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    As amended in Subcommittee, H.R. 2431 makes very clear that the protections afforded by this bill apply to everyone—Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus—religious believers of any faith, who are severely persecuted because of their religious belief, practice or affiliation. Pursuant to this inclusive approach, we also adopted a specific finding suggested by Congressman Rohrabacher with respect to the Vighur, an overwhelmingly Muslim ethnic group in the formerly independent Republic of East Turkistan, who are now persecuted with severity by the Communist Government of China.
    We made crystal clear that in affording heightened protection for members of religious communities whose situation is particularly compelling, the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act will not sacrifice any of the protections afforded victims of other forms of persecution, whether based on religion or on other grounds——
    Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentlemen withhold——
    Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to.
    Chairman GILMAN. Will Members take their conversations to the anteroom. The gentleman has the floor. Let us give the gentleman the proper respect. Mr. Smith, you may continue.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    We fine-tuned the carefully calibrated sanctions the bill would impose against persecuting governments to ensure that we cut off assistance that helped these governments, but not assistance that helps the truly needy in these countries, or that serves vital U.S. interests.
    Let me speak very briefly to two objections raised by the Administration in their talking points against the bill. First, they say that by protecting victims of religious persecution in a bill that does not address other human rights violations, we are establishing a so-called hierarchy of human rights. But this argument ignores some very basic facts about the legislative process. Not every bill can address every subject. By addressing one urgent problem in this bill, we are not denying the existence of other urgent problems that should be addressed by other legislation or by other means.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Under the Administration's argument, it would have been wrong to enact the Jackson-Vanik Amendment which protected freedom of immigration especially for Soviet Jews and others who had been denied that right, but which did not directly address any other human rights issue like freedom of speech or assembly or of religion.
    Not even the anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa in the 1980's would pass the test proposed by the State Department's talking points—this hierarchy test—because those sanctions were designed to help victims of racial discrimination and racial persecution; but they did not address freedom of religion or other important human rights issues. Frankly, if we stuck to the Administration's talking points, no other human rights legislation would ever pass because no bill, no matter how good, can do everything.
    Next, the Administration suggests that it is wrong for Congress to enact what they call automatic sanctions, even against the most brutal and egregious governments. But you have to wonder whether whoever wrote the talking points really read the bill. The sanctions are not automatic. They will not go into effect if the President waives them. And he can waive them either for national security reasons, or because he believes that a waiver will serve the objectives of promoting religious freedom. This is a very, very generous waiver. The only way we could go further would be to give the President the freedom to do absolutely nothing in the face of a severe, widespread, and ongoing religious persecution.
    In evaluating legislation with persecution of any kind, we must always remember that tyrants understand strength. They also understand weakness. Of all the millions of people who are victimized by tyrants around the world today, many are in trouble because they share our values. This bill is designed to help our brothers and sisters around the world, people whose situation is particularly compelling, and with whom most Americans feel particularly strong bonds of affinity and obligation. We owe them to be strong.
    This legislation is strong and will advance the cause of religious freedom around the globe, and I urge its passage by the Full Committee.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Clement.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I wish to support our colleagues on this particular piece of legislation, but I do have some concerns about this legislation.
    I am a believer. I believe in God. I believe we should do everything we possibly can when it concerns religious persecution in the world. And I sure want to congratulate Mr. Wolf and Mr. Smith, because I know how sincere they are. I know what excellent Congressmen they are. But they sure rushed up this particular piece of legislation, and I think we had better make sure that we know what we are passing, and what effect it will have on the United States of America.
    After careful scrutiny of H.R. 2431—the measure before us today—after much input from the communities we seek to help, and much research on what might be the most effective means, I have come to some very serious concerns about the means presented in this bill. The laws we pass will have a real effect on the lives of women that are suffering for their faith; and I believe we have to think courageously and critically about what we can do to help. Good intentions are not enough when lives are at stake. My concerns about H.R. 2431 are on two fronts. One: rigid, one-size-fits-all foreign policy. H.R. 2431 deals with a global problem. By granting to one staffer the incredible authority to impose automatic aid and trade sanctions on any country that staffer chooses to list as a persecutor, this bill uses one weapon in one size to deal with countries as diverse as Saudi Arabia and Russia, and Laos and Germany.
    To look at a real-life example of how this bill would work, let us take Saudi Arabia. Credible human rights reports indicate that just a few months ago, two Christians were beheaded for leading a Bible study in prison. Under this bill, if Saudi Arabia were listed as a Category 1 persecutor, the United States would withdraw virtually all defense assistance to Saudi Arabia, one of our key allies. H.R. 2431——
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SMITH. Would my friend yield on that point? Would my friend yield on that point?
    Mr. CLEMENT. Not until I complete my statement, Mr. Smith. Thank you.
    H.R. 2431 would also require a total cutoff of trade with all responsible entities in Saudi Arabia. This could be arguably the whole country. So, here the President is presented with two options under this bill; and they are not pleasurable options.
    And, Mr. Chairman, this is an unrealistic definition of religious persecution around the world. The H.R. 2431 creates a wholesale, new definition for religious persecution, which includes only the most violent forms of persecution, and thus fails to address the reality that persecution takes many forms in many places.
    Mr. Chairman, we need a bill that is comprehensive enough to address all forms of religious persecution. The reality is that millions of people around the world live under restrictions of their right to religious freedom; but that millions suffer the martyrdom defined by Wolf-Specter. So, most of these countries, some of which have severe problems, would not be covered by Wolf-Specter because of its strange, new definition.
    And there will be some other legislation—hopefully Mr. Brady will offer, that—and a lot of research has gone into this—which would accomplish those goals and objectives when it comes to religious persecution in the world. And I do agree that we have to face up to it. We cannot look the other way. And too many times in our world, we have looked the other way and suffered severe consequences. But let us have a piece of legislation that helps and not hurts. Thank you.
    Mr. SMITH. Will my friend yield?
    Mr. CLEMENT. Yes.
    Mr. SMITH. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. You mentioned Saudi Arabia as one of those that would end up losing military aid. I just want to remind all the Members of the Full Committee that there is a very generous waiver in this legislation; and one of the two aspects of that waiver is national security interests. So, if there is a vital national security interest that accrues to Saudi Arabia—which I think in the opinion of the Administration it probably would—even though they do today engage in violations of human rights against religious believers in Saudi Arabia, that waiver could be exercised.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And second, the language—the definition is persecution. It is not mere discrimination. This is a very high bar that has been established in order for these sanctions to be imposed upon countries. But it is done so woefully, because there are countries that are torturing. And it is right in the definition of the bill that we are talking about things like rape, torture, and other heinous acts by a government against its own citizenry. So this is a modest, minimalist type of bill. This is the least we can do; and some of the other—and I just saw 25 minutes ago—35 minutes ago or so—on a draft amendment that I think Mr. Brady may be offering—gives the President the ability to slap on the wrist when these kinds of egregious things happen.
    The President today can take actions against those who are engaging in heinous torture. And what does he do with the People's Republic of China? Everybody in this Committee, if they were voting and present on the floor last week, rebuked the Administration, because when it came to their position on the U.N. forum taking place in Geneva, decided not to proceed with the human rights resolution against the People's Republic of China.
    Reel back, put it in reverse, and go back a couple of years ago when this Administration de-linked most favored nation status vis-a-vis the People's Republic of China and human rights. What did they say? ''We will now prosecute aggressively around the world, and especially at the U.N. Convention on Human Rights this whole large numbers of issues relevant to human rights in China.'' And they have now turned their back 180 degrees.
    This legislation is very much needed. And again, I say to my good friend—and I thank him for yielding—everybody voted to censure the Administration—rebuke it—for turning its back. Wei Jingsheng stood right in that witness chair just a few days ago, and said that the human rights cause will be dealt a severe blow if the human rights resolution is not undertaken in Geneva; and this Administration is not doing it. And every one of you agreed with that.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    That is where we will go with this so-called substitute.
    Mr. SALMON. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to yield, but I don't have the time.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Salmon.
    Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Several things have happened with me in the last couple of days. I have some folks here from my children's high school who are shadowing me; and this morning I actually went through with a delegation from my own state to tour the Holocaust Museum. And I thought it was very appropriate. They questioned me: ''Was this orchestrated to coincide with the hearing today?'' And the answer was no, it was simply coincidental. But I don't know; maybe there are powers far greater than the Congress that have made them coincide. But a couple of things have happened over the last few days.
    When I got home last Thursday night from our duties here in Washington, DC, I got home to the news that two missionaries from my church had been kidnapped in Russia and were being held ransom. That on the heels several months later of the Russian Duma having voted to officially sanction just one church in Russia, and to basically ostracize all other churches, conjured up images, I think, in many people's minds of possible religious persecution going on in Russia at the current time. It so happened that it ended up these were just common thugs that had kidnapped these young men and held them for ransom. It later had a happy ending, and they were released.
    But I have spent a lot of time over the last several days thinking about the subject of religious persecution. My own religion, in this country, faced tremendous persecution. When the Mormons first began professing their religion over 150 years ago, an extermination order was signed by the Governor of Missouri, forcing the Mormons to leave or face possible death. And many of them were executed; many of them were killed for their faith. That happened in this country.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    If there is anybody that ought to have a reason to support a bill to enforce equity and fairness when it comes to religious tolerance across the globe, I ought to be there, and I ought to support that. However, I believe that this bill has many flaws; even though I believe that we have a responsibility to ensure across the globe that people ought to be able to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. I believe that with all of my heart and soul; and I would defend to the death anybody's right to worship according to the dictates of their conscience.
    But so many times in Congress we see a problem, and we always see the solution as coming up with a bill or piece of legislation, as if we believe we can truly legislate a change in the human heart. And so our solution is always create another bureaucracy; create another office. A lot of well-intentioned ideas have come out of this body—laws regarding worker safety; and then OSHA was formed—laws regarding the environment; and then the EPA was formed. But how many times have those bureaucracies exceeded the legislative mandate that they have been given? And how many times when you give a bureaucracy vast powers have they then gone far beyond the legislative intent and interpreted according to the person that is running that agency at the time's beliefs or knowledge at that particular given time?
    I think this opens Pandora's box. I think the likelihood of misuse and abuse is great. And I don't—the law of unintended consequences of creating this kind of a bureaucracy to monitor religious persecution——
    Think about all of the religious disputes across the globe today. Ireland is an example. The situation in Bosnia. We could go on and on and on, and talk about many instances, I believe, of religious persecution where people have been tortured; where people have been murdered; where they have been deprived of certain things because of their religious beliefs.
    Now we are going to delegate this to an individual to determine who is right and who is wrong in these disputes. I, for one, believe that it is drop-kicking a responsibility that we have right now in this Congress to monitor on a case-by-case basis.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    You mentioned a one-size-fits-all approach. I am glad you did, because I feel the same. I feel very, very nervous about setting up some kind of a recipe. How do we know that it has been all-inclusive? How do we know that we are that knowledgeable here today; that we have been able to foresee every conceivable kind of persecution so that now we know that we have established the infallible bill to beat all bills; and that we now have solved religious persecution across the globe?
    I personally believe it is very well-intentioned; but again, I believe the law of unintended consequences. And what I have seen bureaucracies become in this nation, and vastly exceed the authorities that they have been given, it makes me very, very nervous to change the way that we look at international affairs and put that kind of vast power in the hands of one individual.
    I know we have given waiver authority; but we all know that once action is taken, sometimes those repercussions are unfixable. We are talking about a very, very serious situation in a world that is very, very volatile; and frankly, I for one believe that we have the mechanisms to deal with these atrocities today; and I do not feel comfortable going to a one-size-fits-all approach. We should take it on a case-by-case basis. We should be engaged, and we should maintain the diligence that we believe is necessary in enforcing religious tolerance across the globe, but not by trying to address it with one bill. Thank you.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Salmon.
    Since we have a quorum, we will proceed with full debate on the substitute. Mr. Berman.
    Mr. BERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make two comments, and then ask if it is all right—we have Under Secretary Eizenstat here, who is——
    Chairman GILMAN. As I indicated before, I have no objection if the Member wants to call on the Administration——
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BERMAN. I would like to hear from the Administration's position. I would like to make just a couple of comments——
    Chairman GILMAN. Are you asking for him now?
    Mr. BERMAN. No, I would like to just make a couple of comments.
    Chairman GILMAN. If he wants to come on up and then——
    Mr. BERMAN. My only comments—I agree with a lot of what my friend from Tennessee said, although two criticisms of this bill I do not agree with.
    First, the notion of selecting out religious persecution and addressing it separately. We make judgments all the time. Sometimes we focus on weapons of mass destruction proliferation. Sometimes we focus on promotion of democracy. In and of itself, trying to deal with the problems of religious persecution separately, and creating a model for findings and reports and sanctions not only does not bother me, but I think in this particular case may very well be worthy of our efforts.
    Second, I fear this notion, and I have just heard that the substitute may massively broaden the categories of conduct that are impacted. This is not a one-size-fits-all document, since it talks about—I am reading here the definition of persecution. And this is not about mere violations of religious rights or discrimination based on religion. It has to be widespread and ongoing persecution because of their religious beliefs or practices or membership in a religious organization or group.
    And only when such persecution includes abortion, enslavement, killing, imprisonment, forced mass relocation, rape, crucifixion or other forms of torture, or the imposition systematically of such fines and penalties which have the purpose and effect of destroying the economic existence, such as: members of this religious group cannot own land in a society where owning land is the only way you survive; or cannot enter into contracts; or cannot be employed or things like that. I mean, it is a pretty tight definition.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    What I disagree with about the bill somewhat—and that is why I want to hear from Under Secretary Eizenstat—is to what extent things are triggered here by a relatively low-level person within the Administration. I would like to know what the precedent is for saying that somebody who may be under an Assistant Secretary gets to do something which automatically imposes certain things. That is the part of the bill that at this point concerns me the most.
    What also concerns me is the reference in the preamble to a bunch of countries which may or may not meet the test that we are going after here—this very tightly drawn definition of religious persecution. And I would ask Congressman Wolf, Chris Smith—whoever—to consider deleting the preamble language, which includes lots of different countries. I have no idea if they meet the test. If they are not about the subject of this bill, which is religious persecution, they should not be in this bill. And my guess is that if you are going to have a process, let the process determine the countries, rather than making these decisions by us as a legislative finding.
    Mr. Eizenstat.
    Chairman GILMAN. Secretary Eizenstat.
    Mr. EIZENSTAT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Berman; and I appreciate very much the opportunity to make a statement.
    As one who has represented his country both abroad and here, it frankly makes me very proud that this country cares enough about religious discrimination and persecution to seriously debate the issue, and consider the best ways in which this country can stand for its best values and affect the conduct of other countries.
    In terms of my own family, I think we know religious discrimination in Europe in this century in very, very direct ways; and so I personally also am very sympathetic with this effort.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The Secretary of State has elevated in her own discussions with foreign leaders this issue. She is going to be appointing a senior official, who will report to the Assistant Secretary, to pull together policies that will elevate religious freedom in our foreign policy; and our own Human Rights Report for the first time explicitly referenced countries that have religious discrimination problems.
    The concern with the legislation, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, is that this is the wrong way to go about this; and I would like to be very direct, because we all want the same goal.
    First of all, this would wreak havoc with our foreign policy, and be counter-productive in protecting the very groups we are seeking to protect. Permit me to give you four or five reasons.
    No. 1: There would be absolutely unprecedented authority——
    Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman would yield. Without objection, the gentleman is yielded an additional 5 minutes in order to complete his statement.
    Mr. EIZENSTAT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman—would be given absolutely unprecedented power to an office director—not only an office director, but an office director, who himself, or herself is not directly accountable to an Assistant Secretary of State, an Under Secretary of State, a Deputy Secretary of State, the Secretary of State, or the President of the United States. This is a job many of us would like to have.
    This director would have the sole power to change the foreign policy affecting dozens of countries by making a determination which, yes—as Mr. Smith indicates—might ultimately under a high standard be waived; but only after enormous damage is done in listing countries. This is absolutely unprecedented to give this kind of sole power, and power without balancing any other concerns in terms of our foreign policy.
    No. 2, this power is invested in a person who has to make a determination with respect to three categories of countries. The first are those enumerated in the bill; and there are some dozen enumerated in the bill, including some of our closest allies and friends. Indeed, one would look at this as an anti-Islamic act because of the enumeration of countries like Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Indonesia, and Morocco, and India.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    No. 3, he would have to make a determination about those listed in the State Department's Human Rights Report, of which there are some 78 countries. And those 78, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, are not ones that necessarily engage in religious persecution, but only have problems with respect to religious discrimination.
    No. 4 category would be those on top of that—that NGO's bring evidence to bear—that have problems. When you add this up, this one person—an almost unaccountable person—without balancing any of our other foreign policy interests, could make a determination that would set back our relationships, subject only to a Presidential waiver, in country, after country, after country. It is the worst example of a one-size-fits-all policy. It indeed would deter us from the kinds of policies we are now engaging, where we can use a range of instruments to promote religious freedom. By taking away bilateral assistance, multilateral assistance; by imposing a whole array of sanctions from which the President could not choose—every one of these goes into effect automatically—we lose the leverage to affect the very conduct that we want to affect—that everyone in this room wants to affect—and to change this kind of conduct which discriminates against any minority.
    The hierarchy problem we understand. Obviously, Congress can only legislate on one issue at a time. That is absolutely true. The problem is the implications of the hierarchy. That is to say, that groups that are discriminated against on the basis of religion are given preference for asylum and for refugee status at the expense of those individuals trying to get into the country who are discriminated against because of human rights conduct and trying to express themselves. For example, dissidents in Cuba.
    It would also weaken those governments in transition, those so-called Category 2 countries.
    Chairman GILMAN. Secretary Eizenstat's time is up.
    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given another 3 minutes
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, an additional 3 minutes.
    Mr. EIZENSTAT. It would also weaken governments in transition; that is, those that have taken over from the governments that are really persecuting people; because these would still be Category 2 countries, who are subject to sanction. It is not only those countries who actually actively discriminate. It is those who fail to take corrective action. We find many governments in transition which are simply too weak—even though they may try to do so—to protect their minorities. This bill would weaken those countries by subjecting them to sanction.
    The last two points.
    Mr. SMITH. Would the Ambassador yield on that point before moving on?
    Chairman GILMAN. The time is Mr. Berman's.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Berman, would you yield for a question?
    Mr. BERMAN. I will give him an additional 5 minutes.
    Mr. EIZENSTAT. The last two points is that, even with the waiver authority that Congressman Smith mentioned——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Is it the view of the Committee that we limit the time of members of the Administration, or just Members of this Committee?
    Chairman GILMAN. Yes, we have limited the time, and without objection, the time has been extended for an additional 3 minutes.
    Mr. EIZENSTAT. I appreciate that; and I will abide by that.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
    Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman state his point of order?
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. LANTOS. To maintain the continuity of Secretary Eizenstat's presentation, I would like to yield the 5 minutes I have to him.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman has not been recognized at this point.
    Mr. LANTOS. I am making the point to preserve the continuity of his presentation. This is elementary courtesy to a senior Administration official.
    Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be permitted to proceed for an additional 5 minutes on Mr. Lantos' time.
    Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.
    Mr. EIZENSTAT. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. With that, you may proceed.
    Mr. EIZENSTAT. I would like to deal directly with the waiver issue; because to assert that with all the flaws that have been mentioned that the waiver authority somehow can resurrect the problems that the bill otherwise creates, is incorrect for three reasons.
    The first reason is that it is the determination itself which can do damage—not just the sanction. To find an Egypt, a Saudi Arabia, dozens of other countries, subject to sanctions would itself be an enormous setback, not only to our relations in general, but to our ability to effect change to help minorities.
    Second, the waiver authority might not be in time to protect those religious communities who will bear the brunt of criticisms from their governments for bringing about the possibility of sanctions. And we may find before we can act, that the very communities we wish to protect will be the ones that the roughest governments will try to impose.
    Third, the waiver authority itself is a very high bar. It talks about both national security—and while it does say ''and the other purposes of the Act''—because the purposes of the Act itself is limited to religious persecution and does not permit the taking into account of other foreign policy considerations, then that waiver is quite strict. And with respect to Sudan, there is no other waiver authority.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So, again we are investing in one person—unelected, unaccountable, unresponsive to even the President of the United States—the authority to make a foreign policy decision which could wreak havoc with our closest countries; which would disadvantage the very groups that we want to protect, and would take away the flexibility we need to try to deal with the problems we all share.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo. Who are you asking?
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Berman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman has the time.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Berman, would you yield?
    Mr. BERMAN. For questions?
    Mr. MANZULLO. Yes.
    Mr. BERMAN. Yes. Mr. Smith. Then Mr. Ackerman.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, I say to my friend from California.
    Mr. Ambassador, a couple of points. Mr. Campbell had amended the bill and put in language under Category 2—which I think is very important to highlight to Members of the Full Committee—that when we are talking about governments that do not take action, he put in language that says basically, ''but which the government being able to undertake serious and sustained efforts to eliminate such persecution fails to do so.'' So, they have to have the capability to do it; and they are, by their own will, refusing to do so. And that is the determination that will be made.
    Second, as you pointed out—and as is very clear in the bill—it is not just a national security waiver; but also it is the general thrust of this bill. And that is to stop heinous acts of persecution. We are not talking about religious discrimination. We are talking about the most offensive, murderous, barbaric type of things that one man or one regime can do to another person. If it is construed after looking at the full deal that the bill's objectives are advanced, that too, is a waiver. So, there are some real tools here.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And again, why is this bill even before this Committee? And why is the whole issue of religious persecution a front burner issue now for so many of us? I have been in Congress for 18 years through Republican and Democratic Administrations. Religious persecution has been a non-issue. It is a talking point issue that is often dismissed. When it comes to intellectual property rights, everybody gets all lathered up, and will take effective action against——
    Mr. BERMAN. Chris. Chris. It was a question.
    Mr. SMITH. That is a question.
    But when it comes to religious persecution, it is a non-issue. And that is why we are doing this. Amnesty International—with all due respect, Mr. Ambassador—has said repeatedly before my Subcommittee on the open record, that human rights are an island within your distinguished Administration—an island; no connection to policy.
    We are trying to say because of that, religious freedom should be at least a——
    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yielded not for debate or argument, but for questions.
    Mr. SMITH. Are you aware of that language that is in the bill? The Campbell language that was inserted; yes or no?
    Mr. EIZENSTAT. I am aware of it. And I am aware that it does not correct the problem, because you are giving this one individual, an office director, the authority to decide which country fits into Category 2—which does have the capability. And you talk about an island. This person would be literally an island unto himself completely and totally, making some of the most major foreign policy issues one can imagine.
    I am glad—I genuinely am glad that Mr. Wolf and yourself have brought the religious freedom issue up and we are having this debate. I absolutely think it is critical; and it is getting central attention by the Administration.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I would also like to say in response to your other statement: it is not just the most egregious religious persecutions. One of the categories of countries that this sole individual would have the authority to punish are all countries in which alleged violations of religious freedom—religious freedom, not persecution—in our latest annual Human Rights Report, of which there were 78 countries mentioned. You will have every country on tenterhooks for months and months; and if this determination is made, it would be again a tremendous setback to our relationships around the globe and would hurt our capacity to deal with religious persecution——
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the gentleman be given an additional 5 minutes so that we can all have a chance to ask him questions.
    Chairman GILMAN. We have other Members who are seeking recognition. The gentleman has now had fifteen minutes, and I would like to——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, but on the gentleman's time. We have a senior member of the Administration.
    Mr. ROHRBACHER. I object. I object. Mr. Ackerman has already had his time. The rest of us have something to say, too.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Brady.
    Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The gentleman will state his point of order.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do make a point of order against the amendment——
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will withhold. The clerk will report the amendment.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. An amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Brady.
    On page 1 strike line 2 and all that follows, and insert the following:
    Section 1. Short Title. Table of Contents.
    a. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the International Religious Freedom Act of l998.
    b. Table of Contents. The Table of Contents for this Act is as follows:
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to the amendment——
    Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman reserve his point of order?
    Mr. SMITH. Yes, I do reserve the point of order.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized on the amendment.
    Mr. Brady.
    Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that we take up this issue today. Many of us have been waiting the past 6 months, as Representative Smith has said, to do more than talk about religious persecution, but about effective ways to end it and prevent it.
    I am not much of an historian, but it is appropriate that we take up this issue today. It was this day in 1634 the settlers first began the colonization of Maryland. The settlers were a religious minority group themselves—English Catholics headed by the Calvert family. And within the first half century of this country, those who practiced within the Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism were represented among our settlers. America has been giving lessons to the world in freedom of religion ever since.
    I have an amendment that addresses this issue, I think, in a more effective way. Let me tell you first, I support Frank Wolf in what he is doing, and Representative Chris Smith, and feel strongly about their bill. I also feel strongly, not that we simply create sanctions, but that we create effective sanctions. This amendment is based upon a Senate bill being introduced today by Senators Nickles, Mack, Craig, Hutchinson and others.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    This amendment creates, where appropriate, stronger sanctions than these in the current Wolf bill. But more importantly, it does not wait until religious persecution escalates to torture, rape, and abduction. It requires this country to care about religious freedom for the whole spectrum so that in instances, such as in Germany, had the United States stood up and spoken out and responded earlier, we would not perhaps have gotten to the point of such a heinous time in our life. This amendment increases the Congressional role—because this is an appropriate role for us to play—by creating a seven-member commission on religious freedom that is intimately involved in identifying persecution, recommending the correct policy, and measuring those results which we all care about.
    This amendment improves the accuracy of sanctions. One of the concerns in the letter I sent to Representative Wolf back in September, 6 months ago, expressed my desire to prevent friendly fire—to make sure that in our hope to target countries that are doing the wrong behavior—that we not punish our allies, or more importantly, we gun down the whole room in hopes of hitting them. There are American jobs held by American workers here who have done nothing wrong in their behavior, and who deserve not to be punished or to lose their jobs as a result of these actions.
    The accuracy stems in this amendment from increasing a broader range of tools for us to use. As you know, Mr. Chairman, today the economy in the world is changing. The sanctions that we used 20 years ago we now know do not work today; and in fact, with the pace of change, I am not so sure sanctions that work today will work 2 years from today. The point is that we have to have a broad arsenal of weapons to prevent, respond, react and deter religious persecution at every point at every year, not just today or tomorrow. We need a bill that has the types of tools and flexibilities that will give us real substantive strength 30 years from now, because we have set up a framework that is responsive.
    The amendment also elevates the position of religious persecution by creating an Ambassador at Large on International Religious Persecution, which gives us a full-time, high-level presence around the world to propose our actions and to work for multilateral efforts in this case.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Finally, I would say that this amendment is one that addresses issues that concern us deeply. I think we all agree that today the right to religious freedom is under renewed and, in some cases, increased assault in many countries around the world. The forms of persecution include state-sponsored slander campaigns to ruin the lives of religious believers; confiscation of property; surveillance by security police; severe prohibitions against construction and repair of places of worship. Churches and believers are denied the right to assemble; religions and churches are relegated to illegal status through the licensing laws that are nothing but arbitrary. There are prohibitions against the pursuit of education or public office, and against publishing, or distributing, or even possessing religious materials. Even more.
    This bill requires America to care about those forms of persecution so that hopefully we can prevent the more abhorrent forms of persecution—torture, beatings, rape, abduction, enslavement, mass resettlement—that every one of us cares about. And whether it is Tibetans persecuted in China, Christians persecuted in Sudan, Coptic Christians persecuted in Egypt, or members of the Jewish faith persecuted in every corner of the world—we have an obligation to react and to do it effectively.
    At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would be open for either questions, or yield the balance——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of parliamentary inquiry.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
    At this time, I withdraw the pending amendment. We have a new amendment at the desk, which the clerk will report.
    The rights of Mr. Brady and Mr. Smith will be protected.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ACKERMAN. How can the Chairman withdraw the gentleman's amendment?
    Chairman GILMAN. I am withdrawing my own amendment.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. You are withdrawing your own amendment. Thank you for that clarification.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2431 offered by Mr. Gilman.
    Strike all after the enacting clause, and insert the following:
    Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Reserving the right to object——
    Chairman GILMAN [continuing]. The amendment be dispensed with. Reserving the right to object. State your objection.
    Mr. GEDJENSON. Mr. Gedjenson is asking.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. And Mr. Ackerman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Please state your objection.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding this amendment is to remove the conflict with the Ways and Means Committee. Is that correct?
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is correct.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. If we are going to be strict about jurisdictional—non-germane and jurisdictional issues—then we also need to deal with the Judiciary Committee visa issues in the bill.
    Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman will yield. We did not make any changes with regard to any Judiciary——
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. GEJEDENSON. There are apparently. I would ask you to check with your legal——
    Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman will withhold, I will check with counsel. Thank you.
    I have been informed by counsel that we have addressed the Judiciary Committee problem, the Ways and Means Committee problem, and the Banking Committee problem, by this amendment.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
    Chairman GILMAN. There is another point of order. Mr. Ackerman.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have reserved the right to object. I believe that you are asking unanimous consent so that you might clean up your original amendment; so that there are no jurisdictional questions in your amendment; so that it may be properly placed before this Committee. I will not object as long as you allow the same cleansing of Mr. Brady, the gentleman from Texas' amendment; so that you will not rule it out of order; and we will give you both the same courtesies.
    Chairman GILMAN. My amendment has been withdrawn; and Mr. Brady has been protected by the withdrawals. And he can——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Does that mean that the point of order that Mr. Smith raised is negated?
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith——
    Mr. SMITH. I have only reserved a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and I will make——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith has reserved a point of order——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. As have I. If Mr. Smith withdraws his reservation against Mr. Brady, I shall withdraw my reservation against your amendment, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SMITH. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think from a parliamentary point of view, you have now just submitted to the Committee an amendment that does not have a jurisdictional problem. So I am not sure what Mr. Ackerman is getting to on some kind of quid pro quo. The original had a jurisdictional problem—this one does not.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to make a point of order against the amendment; and I do this with reluctance, because Mr. Brady is a very, very good friend. I make the point of order that the amendment violates Clause 7 of Rule 16 of the Rules of the House in that it treats a subject matter different from that——
    Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman will yield.
    The Brady amendment is not before the Committee at this time; and if the gentleman will withhold his reservation at this time. But Mr. Ackerman has the time.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just asked as a matter of courtesy that the same courtesy that you are asking for be given to Mr. Brady as a matter of comity. There are two sides, regardless of how the vote is; and I think that we should allow each side's voice to be heard. You asked unanimous consent to do what you are attempting to do; and I have reserved the point of order. I am not going to object as long as Mr. Smith does not object to Mr. Brady. I do not think that anybody should object to you, either.
    Chairman GILMAN. Well, Mr. Ackerman, we are at the stage of reading the new amendment.
    Mr. MANZULLO. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman state his parliamentary inquiry?
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding that the revised amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Chair that gets around the jurisdictional problems also does not include the last 6 months of input and work that various Members have had with regard to the original bill? Has all of that been left out? Is this not the original bill that was put in about 6 months ago?
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. I am going to ask counsel to explain the situation where we stand with the revised amendment.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Continuing to reserve my right to object, perhaps the Chairman can explain the changes.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman, if you withhold. An inquiry was made, and we are trying to respond to the inquiry.
    Counsel will proceed.
    Mr. RADEMAKER. Mr. Manzullo, I am Steve Rademaker, Chief Counsel to the Committee.
    If I understand your question, you are asking what are the changes that have been made between the original Gilman amendment in the nature of a substitute and the one that was just distributed; and what were the reasons for making those changes?
    Mr. MANZULLO. That is correct. For example, the original bill had the director having the ability to add lists to the crime control list. There was a lot of discussion about that, because it would create a whole new arena out there. And the substitute—we have got 3 substitutes before us.
    Mr. RADEMAKER. Mr. Manzullo, perhaps I should answer the question I just put.
    The revised Gilman amendment in the nature of a substitute makes only 3 changes from the original amendment in the nature of a substitute. None of those changes in the revised version deals with the export prohibition issues you just referred to. In other words, with 3 exceptions, everything that was worked out over the last 6 months at a staff level remains in the revised——
    Mr. MANZULLO. What are those 3 exceptions?
    Mr. RADEMAKER. If you look on page 23——
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Is there further inquiry, Mr. Manzullo?
    Mr. MANZULLO. He is answering the question.
    Mr. RADEMAKER. If you look on page 23, you will see two of the changes. The first appears on lines 1 and 2; and then on lines 6 through 13. What we have done here is delete a waiver that the Committee had wanted to insert in the visa denial provision of the bill. I think a lot of Members liked this provision. However, upon the advice of the House parliamentarians, we have taken this out, because this is a change that is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. And when we were alerted this morning by the minority staff and the House parliamentarians that there was a potential point of order in this respect——
    Mr. MANZULLO. What are the other 2 changes?
    Mr. RADEMAKER. The second change is at the bottom of page 23. This was one of the changes that was inserted into the Gilman substitute at your request, having to do with grandfathering of Export-Import Bank contracts that are in effect at the time that sanctions are imposed on a country. The Export-Import Bank is within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee; so we had to delete the reference to the Export-Import Bank.
    To the extent that this provision grandfathers OPIC contracts, which was also a change that you requested, we have not had to modify that, because OPIC is within the jurisdiction of this Committee.
    Chairman GILMAN. Is there any further inquiry. Mr. Gejdenson?
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get tangled up in the parliamentary procedure here, but it does strike me as fundamentally unfair that we are presented now with a totally revised bill, 51 pages in length. I do not know what the impact of these changes that have just been described will be. This is a very complicated piece of legislation.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We came to the Committee meeting this morning with an idea that a certain bill was going to be considered. You withdraw that bill. You substitute another bill for it, 51 pages in length, and we are confronted with not having adequate time to look at this.
    Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman will yield. There are only minor changes. I will ask counsel once again to review the minor changes that have been made.
    Mr. HAMILTON. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, minor changes depends very much on your perspective.
    As I understand the descriptions given, they have very wide-ranging implications. And I understand also the bill has been changed so as not to offend any of the other committees of jurisdiction here; and I do not know what the implications of that may be for this bill.
    Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman would yield, I would like counsel to set forth the minor changes that have been made, and what the implications are. Mr. Rademaker.
    Mr. RADEMAKER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would merely point out that the changes that have been made between the two versions, as the Chairman said, are very modest. I would also point out that they are not invisible. We did not print out a new version of this bill. The changes are pencilled-in on the text, and they appear on only 2 pages of the 51-page substitute.
    They appear on page 23, and then also on page 52. It is only on those 2 pages that you will find any changes from the original Gilman amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton has the time.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HAMILTON. I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that we could have an honest attempt to put together a bill that achieves the goal that I think we are fairly united on. Now, I do not think it is just pride of authorship, but there are some differences on how to approach this. I hope we would not simply spend the day trying to tie each other up in procedural knots so that we cannot have a full debate. How to address this issue and achieve our goals.
    I think that what we want to pass here today is not something that just neatly slips through our jurisdiction. We want to pass something that actually achieves the goal of having an impact on the policies that often authoritarian and tyrannical countries use to affect their citizens trying to execute their religious beliefs. And I would hope that Mr. Smith would find a way to work with our friend, who has just offered the other amendment that he is holding—reserving a right to object to—and that we should find a way to come together on something I think we all want to achieve. The danger is that we will either end up with a bill that does not achieve its goal, or something that is counterproductive. I yield.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Hamilton is recognized.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    If I understand counsel, the areas you identified—page 23, and I think you said page 52—those are the only changes from the Chairman's original amendment that we had when we came in this morning. And those changes take care of all the jurisdictional problems that existed. Is that correct?
    Mr. RADEMAKER. These changes were made by us upon the recommendation of the House parliamentarian in order to cure any argument that in the Gilman substitute our Committee is treading on the jurisdiction of other committees.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Now, there remain provisions in the bill as introduced that are clearly within the jurisdiction of other committees; and those provisions will be considered by those committees on sequential referral once our Committee has completed its consideration of the bill. The advice of the House parliamentarians on that point is that we are to leave those provisions alone.
    The problem that we ran into with the Gilman substitute was that, in three instances, as part of the 6-month consultative process with all the Members, it turns out that at the end of the day we made changes that arguably were within the jurisdiction of other committees. We made those changes in an effort to accommodate Members' concerns—concerns of Mr. Manzullo; concerns expressed by your own staff.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. RADEMAKER. But we have now taken that out.
    I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. MANZULLO. I look on page 11 of the—I guess the third substitute. It says ''Financing under the Export-Import Bank of 1945.'' There is still a sanction. I do not see how this substitute is waiving jurisdiction when that sanction—it still has immigration provisions in it——
    Chairman GILMAN. Counsel will proceed with his response.
    Mr. RADEMAKER. Perhaps I was unclear in my response to Mr. Hamilton. We are stuck with the bill that was introduced insofar as it deals with matters in the jurisdiction of other committees. And the instruction to us from the House parliamentarians is to leave those provisions alone.
    The Export-Import provision that you just referred to was in the bill that was introduced; and we would be without jurisdiction to take that out at today's markup. It was in the 3 instances where we did try to modify provisions that were beyond our jurisdiction in the original Gilman substitute that we ran into problems; and we are withdrawing those 3 changes to provisions beyond our jurisdiction.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. MANZULLO. Question. On page 11 of the bill, it states that a sanction under this bill is the denial of Export-Import financing. How can this Committee, which does not have jurisdiction over that particular Act—in which jurisdiction is exclusively with the Banking Committee, with the exception of oversight—how can this Committee exercise jurisdiction over saying who gets that or who does not get that?
    Mr. RADEMAKER. The correct answer to that is that we cannot exercise jurisdiction over that. And that is why we have left the provision in the bill, as introduced, alone. You will find that identical language in the bill as introduced.
    Mr. MANZULLO. I understand that. But this Committee is exercising jurisdiction; and that language is in the bill over which this Committee is trying to exercise jurisdiction. Do they have jurisdiction or not?
    Mr. RADEMAKER. We have jurisdiction only over the parts of the bill within our jurisdiction. Other committees have jurisdiction over, for example, the Export-Import Bank provision.
    Mr. MANZULLO. So this Committee tries to use as a sanction cutting off financing under Export-Import Bank; but this Committee has no jurisdiction to do that? Is that what you are saying?
    Mr. RADEMAKER. All I can tell you, Mr. Manzullo, is if an amendment were offered to take that Export-Import language out—there would be a well-founded point of order against that amendment, because in the view of the House——
    Mr. MANZULLO. Well, that is like ''Who's on first?''——
    Mr. RADEMAKER. I can only refer you to the House parliamentarians. In their view, it is the prerogative of the Banking Committee to take that provision out, because that is within their jurisdiction. It is not our prerogative.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I am not trying to delay consideration of this bill, I just want to be very clear here about the changes I see marked on the revised amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the Chairman. Those changes appear on page 23—and I think there are three of them. And then there is a change on page 52, where some additional language has been added.
    Those changes are prompted by jurisdictional concerns. Is that correct? And they correct those jurisdictional problems, Mr. Rademaker? And there are no other changes in the amendment. Is that correct?
    Chairman GILMAN. Counsel will respond.
    Mr. RADEMAKER. That is correct.
    Mr. HAMILTON. OK. I thank you.
    Chairman GILMAN. Now let me clarify the parliamentary situation so that we can move forward.
    The parliamentary situation is that the Chair withdrew his amendment. No objection lay against that action which would occur as a matter of right. The Chair then offered a new amendment, and has asked unanimous consent to dispense with its reading. We will then receive the——
    Who is seeking recognition? Mr. Ackerman.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object on that if you do——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman reserves the right to object.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
    Chairman GILMAN. Parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those of us that had amendments drawn to the Chairman's original substitute. Will they now be heeled for the current substitute without unanimous consent?
    Chairman GILMAN. That is correct.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Does the gentleman object?
    Mr. SMITH. No.
    Chairman GILMAN. We will now proceed——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
    Chairman GILMAN. Yes, you reserved your right to object.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, and I will withdraw the right to object if Mr. Smith indicates that he will withdraw his right to object to a full and democratic hearing and up and down vote, eventually, on Mr. Brady's minor changes with his amendments.
    Chairman GILMAN. Does Mr. Smith wish to be heard?
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, is the Brady amendment pending?
    Chairman GILMAN. The Brady amendment is not pending yet.
    We will now receive the Brady amendment.
    Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking recognition?
    Mr. BRADY. Mr. Brady.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Brady.
    Mr. BEREUTER. I have an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point of order.
    Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman withhold?
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Do you still reserve the right to object, Mr. Ackerman? Pending——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, I still reserve the right to object pending Mr. Smith's cooperation——
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the Brady amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. An amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Brady.
    Chairman GILMAN. That is the—I am sorry—the Gilman amendment. The clerk will read the Gilman amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2431 offered by Mr. Gilman.
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
    Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the Freedom From Religious Freedom Act of 1998.
    Section 2. Findings and Purpose——
    Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Reserving the right to object.
    Chairman GILMAN [continuing]. That the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, a point of order, and the right to object. I have already reserved the point of order on this amendment.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is reserving his right to object.
    Mr. BERMAN. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman, state your point of inquiry.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BERMAN. Is there a reservation on the Gilman substitute a reservation of a point of order on the Gilman substitute at this present time?
    Chairman GILMAN. To my understanding, the gentleman has made and is reserving the right to object on the Brady amendment. I think he is reserving a point of order on the Gilman substitute. That is correct.
    Will the gentleman set forth his reservation again?
    Mr. BERMAN. We have not made it.
    Chairman GILMAN.. The gentleman reserves the right to object to the Chairman's unanimous consent request to waive the reading?
    Mr. BERMAN. To waive the reading. Exactly, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. But I will not insist on putting us through—although I am sure all 51 pages of your minor amendment are brilliant and we would love to hear it—I will not put us through that as long as Mr. Smith is going to hopefully cooperate, and allow the democratic procedure to take place, so that we can have the same courtesy extended to Mr. Brady.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, could I be heard?
    Chairman GILMAN. Are you yielding to Mr. Smith, Mr. Ackerman?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. No, Mr. Chairman. You can do that on your time.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment.
    Mr. BERMAN. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. There is an objection to waiving the reading of the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
    Mr. BERMAN. But I just have a point of parliamentary inquiry, initially.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. State it.
    Mr. BERMAN. Has anyone reserved a point of order on the Gilman substitute?
    Chairman GILMAN. No.
    Mr. BERMAN. I would like to reserve a point of order on the Gilman substitute.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's reservation will be respected.
    Mr. BERMAN. Thank you.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment, pursuant to the objection by Mr. Ackerman.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2341 offered by Mr. Gilman.
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
    Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1998.
    Section 2. Findings and Purpose.
    (a) Findings. The Congress makes the following findings——
    Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be admitted as read.
    Chairman GILMAN. Is there objection?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
    Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will continue to read——
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
    Chairman GILMAN. Point of inquiry Mr. Campbell has set forth.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I might take a moment. I wish to inquire of the legal counsel. Insofar as Mr. Gilman is attempting to substitute, he needs unanimous consent to substitute, the reservation ought to be on his unanimous consent to substitute, just as there is a reservation on Mr. Brady's point for not being germane. That seems to me to be the way to proceed; and I ask the counsel if that is correct.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Has a reservation been made against the Chairman's request to substitute his provision which is now being read? That is my inquiry.
    Chairman GILMAN. Counsel will respond. Mr. Rademaker.
    Mr. RADEMAKER. Mr. Campbell, my understanding of the parliamentary situation is that the Chairman—or indeed any sponsor of an amendment—has a right to withdraw his amendment; and the Chairman exercised that right; he withdrew his amendment, and there is no objection that can be properly interposed to the withdrawal of his amendment.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you. Then if I might just further—to understand—So the original amendment with which we started this morning is no longer on the table? In that case—at least as I understand it—the gentleman from California's objection regarding the germaneness of the Chairman's amendment stands; and that will be at some point brought up. Is that accurate?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, and Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against it as well.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman, counsel will respond to Mr. Campbell's inquiry.
    Mr. RADEMAKER. I think you are right in what you just said.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. I appreciate it. And 1 second longer, and I will yield back.
    Mr. Chairman, fairness requires, I think, that if the underlying amendment be allowed to be corrected, that Mr. Brady be allowed to be corrected.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Brady will be able to offer his amendment at the appropriate time, pursuant to Mr. Ackerman's request.
    The clerk will continue to read the amendment.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I too reserve a point of order against your amendment at the appropriate time—in addition to my objection to the unanimous consent——
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman's reservation is——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I made that based on your request to withdraw your amendment while Mr. Brady's amendment to it was pending, for which you need unanimous consent.
    I believe that you cannot withdraw your amendment if we are discussing an amendment to your amendment; and that is when I made my objection. And I will insist upon that. I will be glad to withdraw it——
    Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman will yield——
    Mr. ACKERMAN [continuing]. and allow your amendment to be considered under the rules of the Committee if Mr. Smith allows the same courtesy to Mr. Brady that was afforded you in cleaning up these jurisdictional questions.
    Mr. Smith. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I would be delighted to yield to my friend and colleague.
    Mr. SMITH. Absolutely. Nothing precludes Mr. Brady from rewriting his amendment in a way that will make it both germane as well as inclusive of only those issues that this Committee can deal with. We are talking about things that are outside the scope—like the banking.
    Let me just say one thing; and I think this is important to note. I take Mr. Hamilton's comments—and he was concerned about whether or not Mr. Gilman's new substitute was a rewrite and about what have we seen or not seen. This process has been going on for about a year. We had 6 months where we have invited massive input from every Member as to how we can best write, rewrite, recalibrate this language.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And we have heard from all of the religious bodies who have weighed in with very serious additions and deletions—all of which have been taken into effect. And I think Mr. Gejdenson made a good point earlier, very constructive remarks. This is a work in progress. We—at 9:35 a.m., I was given this amendment that Mr. Brady introduced—which is a radical rewrite of what Mr. Wolf and all of us have been working on.
    Now, there is time before Full Committee and the floor. Amendments can be offered, obviously; and there is conference committee. But we just got this. So if there is any complaint, really—and I say this to my good friend Mr. Brady—any complaint about process, is that those of us who have had two Full Committee hearings on this—we had a markup in our Subcommittee. Everything was transparent. We invited maximum input and tried to incorporate much of it into the text of the bill.
    And then there are still going to be amendments on the floor, I am sure. Then I get a copy of this as Subcommittee chairman—and I think Mr. Gilman got it probably simultaneously—at 9:35 a.m. This is a radical rewrite than what is pending—with problems of jurisdiction——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I would commend the gentleman for his comments, and I will yield to Mr. Gejdenson.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. I would commend Mr. Smith for his comments; and I think that what we all need to do here is take a deep breath and try to take a step forward, letting Mr. Gilman correct his bill as he sees fit, while working with Mr. Smith.
    We will let Mr. Brady make the amendments to come into jurisdiction. And while this continuing process—obviously, Committee markups are for marking up the bill, which includes amendments—I think we would all do better to give as much warning on changes that we have. That has been a problem in this Congress, and probably previous Congresses.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The problem with the Rules Committee is all too often this Rules Committee has cut off reasonable amendments and reasonable debates. I think people feel like they have to offer their amendments here.
    But I commend Mr. Smith, and I hope that we would stop wrangling over the process here; let Mr. Gilman address his bill the way he wants; let Mr. Brady adjust his bill without tying ourselves in parliamentary knots; have a couple of votes here, and take the next step forward.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
    The clerk will continue to read the amendment pursuant to the objection by Mr. Ackerman.
    Ms. BLOOMER. (a) Findings.
    (a) Governments have a primary responsibility to promote, encourage and protect respect for the fundamental and internationally recognized right to freedom of religion——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read, reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Ackerman objects.
    Mr. ACKERMAN [continuing]. and if we treat all Members of the Committee and afford them the same rights. All of us would like to proceed to the merits, as long as Mr. Brady has the same rights as everybody else, including——
    Mr. GEJDENSON. I have a unanimous consent request.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman will state his unanimous consent request.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. I would ask unanimous consent that both Mr. Gilman and Mr. Brady are given an opportunity to amend their proposals to bring them into compliance with the jurisdiction of the Committee; that we would proceed to have a vote on—offered by Mr. Brady on his amendment or any amendments thereto that are germane; and that the Committee then proceed to any amendments to the core bill, if that fails; and then to final passage, without parliamentary maneuvers to prevent either Mr. Gilman or Mr. Brady from putting forth what they think is the best solution.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SMITH. Reserving the right to object.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman sets forth his reservation.
    Mr. SMITH. No, I wanted to speak——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith is recognized.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Brady is fully capable right now as we talk of re-drafting his amendment in a way that is completely germane and within the scope of the jurisdiction of this Committee. I don't think that it takes a unanimous consent request to do that. He just needs to lop out those things that the parliamentarians consider are outside our jurisdiction.
    But again, in terms of process—and I hope all Members take this as constructively as I can possibly say it—we have invited every Member to give us what they feel ought to be in this. And in a way, this truly is an adversarial amendment, because it does gut the bill and he certainly is entitled to do that. But we did try, in terms of process—because I know Mr. Hamilton is concerned about process, and I am as well. We have invited maximum input so we could accommodate Members' concerns and try to alleviate those concerns when it was possible.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Since the gentleman agrees that Mr. Brady could achieve his goal without a lot of trouble, does the gentleman object, or not object? If you do not object, I think we can go forward and get the votes through and we will find out where we are. I think that would take care of Mr. Ackerman's concerns whether there is another way to achieve it. I think there is no harm in agreeing to the unanimous consent.
    Mr. SMITH. Further yielding, if the gentleman would.
    It is not until we see the text that a determination could be made whether or not it is within the scope, and whether or not there is a germaneness problem.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Obviously. That would go for Mr. Gilman as well. Obviously, I would amend my unanimous consent to specifically say that there is no request here to go outside of scope—that what we are asking Mr. Brady and Mr. Gilman to do is present two proposals within scope—each amendable and not restricting anybody's rights, but just so that we can get past this reading.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SMITH. I think your question is better put to Mr. Brady now in terms of whether or not he——
    Mr. GEJDENSON. If you are not objecting, I do not think Mr. Brady is objecting——
    Chairman GILMAN. I want to commend Mr. Gejdenson for his proposal and his attempt to work this out. I am going to suggest that the Committee—and I have discussed this with our Ranking Minority Member——
    The Committee will adjourn for an hour for lunch, and give us an opportunity to try to work out the problems.
    Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, before you adjourn, which I certainly——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. I would like to make a unanimous consent request myself.
    Chairman GILMAN. Unanimous consent request by Mr. Bereuter. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I have been concerned for a long period of time that the refugee and asylum provisions——
    Chairman GILMAN. Just a minute. Would the whole Committee come to order. The gentleman has a unanimous consent request before the Committee.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman and Members, I have been concerned for a long time that the refugee and asylum provisions of this bill, which are outside the normal jurisdiction of this Committee, are badly flawed and need to be corrected by the Judiciary Committee. I want to support a bill that comes from this Committee. But as long as those provisions are in the legislation, I do not think you want to be seen as supporting the bill. So, therefore, my unanimous consent would be that from the Chairman's revised substitute, and from any amendment by Mr. Brady that might relate to that revised substitute, that all sections that are outside this Committee's jurisdiction be stricken from the bill.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Reserving the right to object——
    Chairman GILMAN. Is there any objection?
    Mr. Ackerman reserves the right to object.
    The Committee is recessed until 1 o'clock.
    [Luncheon recess at 11:38 a.m.]
    The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. Members will please take their seats.
    The clerk will read the Gilman amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. 2(a). Since its inception——
    Chairman GILMAN. The committee will come to order. The clerk will read the Gilman amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Since its inception, the U.S. Government has——
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.
    The gentleman from Texas is recognized to offer an amendment.
    Mr. Brady.
    Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention at this moment to withdraw my amendment. In working through the noon recess, it became clear that jurisdictional issues prevent us from three of, I think, the most strongest sanctions—tariff increases; the prohibition against lending by private companies; and the prohibition against U.S. procurement against these countries.
    I also feel strongly that the authors of this legislation worked with me on issues that I intend to present as an amendment on the floor. I strongly believe that we ought not wait for another Holocaust to occur before we take action. One of my strongest motivations and principles in this amendment was to ensure that America does care about the symptoms of religious persecution; that we step in before we get to the seriousness and the most heinous crimes, and to prevent hopefully in the future, another Holocaust-type situation on this globe.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Second, I think that it is important for Congress to have an override of any Presidential waiver. I recognize that the President has the ability to make those determinations. But, in the final say, I want to, and hope to, insert a provision that provides this ability to override a waiver on a sanction.
    There are some other issues as well in this amendment that I believe makes it a framework for the future, as opposed for one for today. Nonetheless, I feel comfortable that we can lay out those amendments, fight for them; and I hope to have the support of Members of this Committee.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. BRADY. Yes, sir.
    Chairman GILMAN. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brady, for working out this proposal; and I want to assure him that our Committee will work with him; and our staff will work with him to try to strengthen his proposal for floor consideration.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do have an amendment. But first—I was working on this—I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman further yield for Mr. Smith?
    Mr. SMITH. Let me just—since I was planning on objecting, and that probably resulted in the situation that we are in today—And again, I want to apologize to my good friend, Mr. Brady, whom I have the upmost respect for, but the provisions that he was concerned about are not our jurisdiction.
    They are the Ways and Means jurisdiction. Certainly, when it gets time for floor consideration, I am a great believer that Members should have their opportunity to offer their amendments; and we will certainly work with him, and will be at the Rules Committee trying to advance his cause so he gets full consideration before the full——
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Gejdenson. I just want to take a moment to commend Mr. Brady for his efforts on behalf of this issue. I think that he has done outstanding work, making sure that we achieve our goals here.
    I want to also commend Mr. Wolf and Mr. Smith, and the Chairman, Mr. Gilman, in particular, for their efforts in coming together on this agreement. I think that there has been some serious effort at working together on all sides; and I think we end up with a better product as a result.
    And Mr. Chairman, I just want to again commend you for leading this effort.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
    Is there anyone else seeking recognition?
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith has an amendment at the desk. The clerk will read the amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Smith.
    Page 4, beginning on line 3, strike——
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment——
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered to be read in full. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation, and in consultation with both Mr. Gejdenson and Mr. Berman during the recess; and pursuant to Mr. Gejdenson's earlier request that we strike the listing of countries in the beginning—which I think are accurate and add to the bill—but they certainly do not detract by not being there—and then the very substantive change made by Mr. Berman and Mr. Gejdenson's request as well.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    This language would shift the power to make determinations of Category 1 and 2 persecution from the director to the Secretary of State. The director would still do the research; make all of the findings, except the ultimate country-by-country determination; and issue the report. This addresses the concern that was articulated earlier; that a determination by a subordinate would trigger sanctions unless the President really wanted them. Now we shift that to the Secretary of State via this language. And I hope this has the support of the Members.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Are there any other Members seeking recognition?
    Mr. Berman.
    Mr. BERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to support the Smith Amendment.
    Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. BERMAN. This amendment deals with two of the major issues dealt with by the Under Secretary. One was a concern that inadvertently, the listing of countries—well actually—does three things. The listing of countries creates a sort of an anti-Islamic tone to the amendment. I know that was not intended; and in fact, there are provisions there which would show that is not true; and the fundamental prohibitions on persecution apply to whomever it applies to.
    But this language—this removes references to specific countries. It avoids making implications that certain countries might be considered as involved in severe persecution when perhaps that case has not yet been made, and is therefore, I think, an improvement.
    And second, I think that it deals with the issue of an essentially unaccountable head of an office, who is not required to report to anybody, being able to impose sanctions by substituting the Secretary of State as the official who makes the determination and the imposition of sanctions. So you avoid the problem of the Secretary and the President then having to waive sanctions that they never intended to impose.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey and the Chairman of the Committee, and the author of the base bill for supporting and helping us to, I think, give a little more flexibility here and allow the fundamental thrust of what they want to do to go forward.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Berman. Any other Members seeking recognition? If not, the question is on the Smith amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    As many as are in favor, signify by saying aye; as many as opposed say no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have the amendment——
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. I'd like to make a unanimous consent request, and this is pursuant to a request made by the Administration. That on page 12, line 15, Secretary of State and the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy in Human Rights and Labor. And the purpose of this would be to put the Director—physically house him, if you will, or her—at the Human Rights Bureau. That's all this would do.
    Chairman GILMAN. Is there any objection to the unanimous consent request? Mr. Berman.
    Mr. BERMAN. Just a question. I didn't hear the nature of the request. Is it to strike the words ''Office of the Secretary of State'' and substitute ''The Department of State''?
    Mr. SMITH. I'll withdraw my unanimous consent and go with the gentleman.
    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous——
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman, if you'll withhold, Mr. Smith withdraws his unanimous consent request. Mr. Berman.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman I ask unanimous consent that we consider the amendment as offered, read and adopted. That on page 12, line 15, strike the words ''Office of the Secretary,'' and substitute ''Department.'' The effect of which, if adopted, would be that the provision would read, ''There shall be established in the Department of State, the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring.''
    Chairman GILMAN. Are there any objections to the unanimous consent request? If not, unanimous consent request is agreed to and adopted.
    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman.
    Mr. BERMAN. I just want to strike the last word.
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. BERMAN. I don't know where Mr. Brady went, but, while I have some concerns about his substitute that he is now not offering, I think his proposal raised a lot of useful issues and helped to produce a situation where we've—some of the concerns that the Administration had—I know they still have others—and some the concerns that we had about the base bill have been corrected and I don't think that might have happened as easily or readily without the dynamic of his substitute being hanging out there. And so, I just want—if he were here, I would want to thank him for what he had done. Oh, there he is.
    Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Berman. Mr. Brady, did you want to comment?
    Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I stepped out of the room, and while I appreciate the comments that were made, I didn't hear all of them.
    Chairman GILMAN. We could get him to do them again for you. Thank you, Mr. Brady, Mr. Menendez.
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk——
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Menendez has an amendment. The clerk will read the amendment; the clerks will distribute the amendment. Mr. Bereuter has the unanimous consent request while he's acting for me in the Capitol with our Mercosur representatives. His rights will be protected. The Menendez amendment is being distributed. Mr. Menendez is recognized. The clerk will read the Menendez amendment.
    Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Menendez. Insert the following after Section 12 and redesignate——
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on this amendment.
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to address a very unique problem in this bill and in the sanctions imposed on Sudan by the Administration's executive order last November. And it deals with an item called gum arabic. As many of you may know, it is an agricultural product found almost exclusively in Sudan, and for which there's no reliable substitute. The Sudan accounts for 70 percent of the world's consumption, and 90 percent of the world's reliable supply of gum arabic.
    My amendment seeks to provide a limited and temporary exemption for the importation of gum arabic until such time as as sufficient quantities are available from other gum-producing countries, namely, Chad and Nigeria. While Chad is seeking to increase its production, at present, even together, these countries do not produce a sufficient supply of gum for the U.S. market.
    Moreover, in the case of Chad, the French have a corner on the market. Recently, U.S. companies, after months of waiting for the Chadean harvest of gum to become available, were shut out, totally, by French companies with colonial era ties. No gum from that harvest was available for sale to U.S. companies.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Now let me tell you a little bit about gum arabic so you'll understand why it's so important. Gum arabic comes from the sap of the acostia tree, and it is primarily used as an emulsifier in a wide variety of products. For example, in pharmaceutical products—gum arabic is used to bind medicines into uniform tablets or syrups. In the newspaper industry gum arabic is a necessary component in the printing process. And in the confectionary industry it is used as a sugar replacement in diabetic candies. In short, it has many uses. But most of which are unknown to you and I and to the average consumer, but which greatly impact our daily lives.
    What is clear is, is that a ban on the importation of gum arabic will not impact Sudan—in fact, all evidence is to the contrary. The import ban will result in the creation of a black market for Sudanese gum; the movement of Sudanese gum across porous desert borders; and the counterfeiting of custom documents to alter the origin of gum shipments. And these actions have already begun to happen.
    Countries with no previously known gum trees, or with only very small production capacity, have quite suddenly begun to announce the availability of gum arabic for sale. The net effect of this black market is likely to be a net increase in the cost of gum arabic, and as a result, an increase in Sudanese revenues—exactly the opposite effect sought by sanctions.
    As for U.S. processors and industries which utilize the processed gum, the processors will go out of business, and U.S. industry will pay higher prices for the same Sudanese gum. That's right—for Sudanese gum.
    The great irony of this import ban is that its only effect will be to ship all processing of gum over seas, where it can then be labeled as French or British, and enter the United States unfettered.
    I share my colleague from New Jersey, Chris Smith's, and the author of the bill, Frank Wolf's, abhorrence for the Sudanese regime, the religious persecution it perpetrates, and I otherwise support sanctions on Sudan.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    My amendment simply seeks to provide a temporary solution to a problem which will greatly affect U.S. processors, industries, consumers and employment, while having no net impact on Sudan. It is a common-sense amendment. The countries in the world that produce this product, when they produce it to a sufficient degree that we can have a full import ban on Sudan, it would take place. But when you have the uniqueness of a product that is, for all intents and purposes, 70 percent of the world's production and 90 percent of its reliable supply, this is a very unique situation, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez. Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, before commenting on my friend's proposed amendment, I would like to ask Ms. Larkin if she has any comment either on the amendment or on any previous amendments that we have dealt with.
    The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Lantos, if we could just restrict it to this amendment, we will have an opportunity to get into any of the others later on.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to control the use of my 5 minutes.
    The CHAIRMAN. I am not trying to interfere with your use; I'm trying to move ahead with the procedures here. We have been delayed.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I've been recognized for 5 minutes, and I will yield it to Ms. Larkin.
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Ms. Larkin.
    Ms. LARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Lantos. On this particular amendment, our position on the Sudanese sanctions provision of this bill is that it is unnecessary. The Administration has already applied very stringent sanctions to Sudan by executive order, and so we view the underlying provisions that Mr. Menendez is amending as unnecessary.
    My understanding, just very briefly because we have not seen Mr. Menendez's amendment, is that gum arabic is exempted under that executive order for 120 days to allow U.S. purchasers of that product to find other sources, but I think we have concerns about carving out particular things.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I would also point out, this amendment also underscores some of the concerns we had with the underlying bill about the automaticity of sanctions and the arguments that sometimes they do more harm to U.S. businesses and suppliers than to others. On the underlying legislation, the Administration still cannot support it. We are grateful to Mr. Gejdenson and Mr. Berman and Mr. Brady for their efforts to address many of our concerns and think that they are moving in that direction. We are not there yet, but we look forward to working with all of you as the process goes forward. Thank you.
    Mr. MENENDEZ. May the gentlemen yield? May the gentlemen yield? Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. LANTOS. Well, I would like to briefly comment, if I may. I've yielded all of my time on previous rounds. As one who has some experience with religious persecution, I would have hoped that a subject of this nature would have received unanimous support, and the contentious and acrimonious and legalistic debate that has characterized this day clearly indicates that the legislation was profoundly flawed. I am very pleased that we are making significant attempts to improve the legislation, because if there is any legislation that should pass this Committee unanimously, it is legislation relating to the sanctity of religious freedom.
    I think it's important for all of us on both sides of the aisle to understand that compromise is the essence of moving important pieces of legislation forward which embody principles as sacred as religious freedom; and I, too, want to commend all of my colleagues who have attempted to make the legislation palatable to both sides and more palatable to the Administration.
    I believe that the legislation, which is identical to Mr. Brady's proposal, will pass the Senate overwhelmingly. We will go to conference, and we will come out with a final version that hopefully will be adopted by both houses overwhelmingly and will get perhaps somewhat approval of the Administration.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    But I think the lesson was useful. Nonnegotiable demands do not belong in a legislative context. We have to give and take. We have to recognize that others have equally legitimate points of view, and I believe that we have chopped some wood today. I will be happy to yield the balance of my time to my friend from New Jersey.
    The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I intend to yield some time to Mr. Wolf, and if you would like to address.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wolf.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. But as he is preparing himself, let me just say in passing, I'm a little sick and tired of compromising with this Administration on human rights issues. Let me just say, this Administration is an abomination to human rights. This Administration came to power criticizing the former Administration for not standing up for human rights in China and elsewhere, yet who is giving us the biggest problem? Who is the biggest enemy of the furtherance of human rights on this planet? It is not those crooks and gangsters overseas. We do not expect them to be for human rights. It's people who hold positions in the U.S. Government.
    Let's make it clear, our government should be standing for liberty and justice and decency or we stand for nothing, and we always end up having to compromise around our own leaders, and it angers me, and I'm very happy to support Mr. Wolf's efforts and Chris and the rest of them. Thank you.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher yields his time to Mr. Wolf, the original sponsor of this measure. Mr. Wolf.
    Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Gilman. I'll be very, very brief, and I think that the changes you have made are fine. I did not ever think that everything I put down was perfect. I will say I feel very, very deeply about this, having visited a number of these places. The bill is strongly supported by a coalition of groups such as the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Salvation Army, the Southern Baptist Convention, The Religious Action Center for Reformed Judaism, the International Campaign for Tibet, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregation of America, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, Empower America, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Evangelicals for Social Action, and many others.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    This has been a very interesting day. I have always attempted to treat everybody, since I have been here for 17 years, very, very fairly. The amendment that was offered was brought to my attention at 10:20 last night in a telephone call as I was going to bed. I did not even see it. When we were trying to move this bill during the break in the closing days of the session, I was trying to get the leadership to bring it up, and I called every Member who had any problem with it. I called Mr. Bereuter's office, I called Mr. Campbell, I called Mr. Manzullo to tell them what I was doing, and I want you all to know it long before, because I have never wanted to pull anything on anyone.
    This bill will help a lot of people. I have been to some of these places. Let me just comment on this one issue, and I know how Mr. Menendez is very, very serious about it, and hopefully what the Administration told me is they will never grant the gum amendment, but in Sudan there is slavery, real slavery. We have State Department cables that have been declassified. They come into the villages, kill the men, rape the women. And I was with Gary Ackerman in Sudan; 1.1 million people have been killed. The Sudanese Government was involved in the assassination attempt on Mubarak, and had they been successful, can you imagine what the Middle East would be like today if Mubarak had been assassinated and this Administration were to ever give anything that would be of any help?
    You could have an international convention on terrorism in downtown Khartoum and nobody would have to come in from outside of the country. Anything that would help this government, I think, would be wrong. And so I would just tell you that these are tough issues, and I think what Mr. Lantos said about chopping wood and making differences, but I just think that we should be very, very careful because the signal that this would send would not be very, very good.
    I'm going to end because I think you are making progress, and you are going to do what your conscience tells you. I would ask you, let's move the bill. Let's pass the bill so we can really help the people that are counting on us. And Sharansky said, when I spoke to Sharansky, and Chris and I went in to Perm 35 and interviewed Sharansky's cell mate, they told us that the action by the U.S. Congress on behalf of those who were being persecuted instilled the confidence—and I can still remember when Sharansky got out of Perm 35 and walked across the Guanikan Bridge, he walked zig-zagged, this way, that way, and this way because he was so strong, and he remembered what had taken place in the Congress.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So what you're doing will help a lot of people that are being persecuted, and equally important, it will keep many people who would be persecuted by the tyrants from not being persecuted by the passage of this, and I think I'll just end.
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.
    Mr. LANTOS. A point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. LANTOS. Would it be appropriate to applaud Mr. Wolf for——
    The CHAIRMAN. By all means.
    Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brown is recognized.
    Mr. BROWN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I yield to my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brown yields to Mr. Menendez. Mr. Menendez is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Ohio for yielding. I just want to respond to one or two things. The fact of the matter is the uniqueness of this product causes me to seek this amendment. I listened to the State Department, and I have to be honest with you, I think either they have lack of information or they are being myopic. The fact of the matter is 120 days doesn't solve our problem.
    The whole crop production of Chad is 13.2 million pounds per year, and Nigeria, the only other country other than Sudan, is 4.4 million. That adds up to 17.6 million, their total crop production. Now, what is the U.S. consumption in the last year of gum arabic? Twenty-two million pounds. So if we could buy all of Chad and if we could buy all of Nigeria, we still would not meet our needs. And in addition to that, the fact of the matter is, we just, as I told you earlier, we got shut out totally from the 13 million pounds in Chad, so the bottom line is we clearly have a very unique set of circumstances, and it's that unique set of circumstances that we seek to have a temporary solution to.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Now, 120 days, as the Administration suggests, does not give alternative markets an opportunity when there are no alternative markets. This tree only grows in three countries at this point: Sudan, Chad, Nigeria. Chad and Nigeria don't produce enough, and we don't have access to Chad; so, therefore, where are we supposed to get this? Is there a different product that we can use? Answer, no. That's why you have a list of industries that are backing this limited opportunity to create and make sure that American companies don't get hurt, the grocery manufacturers of America, the pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of America, the nonprescription drug manufacturers of America, and a host of others.
    The other question is, it takes 7 years for an Acostia tree to grow, so the 120 days that the State Department talked about doesn't help us. We need 7 years to plant this tree and grow it and to have it produce.
    And, last, I think, as I share with Mr. Wolf his comments on Sudan, what we are going to do if we don't adopt this provision is give Sudan, the Government of Sudan, more money, not less. We're going to give it more because their black market will grow. They already have exportations going to other countries. We are going to pay more, and we're going to pay more what? For Sudanese gum. So we're going to help the Sudanese Government. We're going to give them more revenues, and at the end of the day they are going to use those revenues to continue to violate the people's rights. That doesn't make sense. That doesn't make sense.
    So, in essence, what I'm asking you to do with this amendment is to, because of the uniqueness, for a time period until that time in which there is a sufficient supply of this unique product from some other source, if Chad and Nigeria now produce within 6 months or a year what we need, fine. Full sanction on Sudan on this limited product. If it does not, then we have a limited exception. And, last, let us not give them more money. In fact, let us actually have some attrition on their money. If you don't adopt this particular action, you, in essence, are going to have more monies flow to them.
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    That is not what the sponsor wants. I do understand why the sponsor feels so strongly. I share his strong concern, but this makes more sense to accomplish that goal.
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez. Is anyone else seeking recognition?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I do, Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ackerman.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Could we have Rep. Wolf? I would like to ask him a question.
    The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Wolf, Mr. Ackerman would like to inquire.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I just want to say that I happily joined in that rather unique ovation that you had, and it was very, very well deserved. I recall, as you do, when we joined together and flew under cover of darkness into Sudan into a war zone and drove through land mines for 6 hours to try to make a difference in the persecution of Christians in Southern Sudan that was going on and still goes on today. And there is no one in the House who has done more for the cause of religious freedom and human rights than have you.
    That having been said, with respect to this particular amendment on gum arabic, which is a very narrowly defined area for a short period of time, something that makes a difference in the lives of people who are diabetic and in so many other areas, do we think, despite what the Administration's view is, that this would really make a difference if we allowed this narrow exemption to go through?
    Mr. WOLF. I would tell the gentleman I don't know, and I'm not questioning Mr. Menendez. I personally could not vote for this, but I don't think that I have the right to tell anybody else up there how they ought to vote, and so I think there are good and decent people on both sides of the issue, and I'm just not prepared to tell anybody what is right or wrong. I can tell myself that if I were to have the opportunity to vote, which I can never, ever, ever support it, but for somebody else, I am just not going to make that comment.
 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to our colleague, Mr. Menendez, and his very thoughtful arguments, and I think the real telling thing here is one of the things we want to do is really put the squeeze on Sudan. And having listened to Mr. Menendez's very logical argument, if we basically close the door on who we get this through official sources, it's going to put even much more money into the coffers of the Government of Sudan by creating that black market, because you can be sure that this product will show up.
    We can't, with everything and all the power we have, stop drugs because there is a demand for it. And I think that although I agree strongly with the intentions of Mr. Wolf and everybody else in what we want to do with the sanctions, that this does not hurt that cause whatsoever, and I would strongly urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to allow for this very, very small, time-limited exemption. I yield back the balance of my time.
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher, you have already been recognized previously. If you will limit your time.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. I would yield my time to Mr. Rohrabacher.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Manzullo yields his time to Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. I oppose this Menendez Amendment, and it's just the first of many amendments that we will see offering exceptions. We are given the argument that, oh, there is going to be a black market that will be established if we finally take a stand against this terrorist ring and brutal dictatorship in Sudan. By the way, if the black market does pop into existence, that will not mean Sudan is making more money; that will mean the middle men are making money. Sudan will be lucky to make as much as they make now.
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    There will always be a reason why not to stand up to these brutal regimes. There will always be somebody who is put in an uncomfortable situation, either in the United States or elsewhere. However, don't believe that this is a nondynamic situation. If we place restrictions on Sudan's major product because of their tyranny and because of the evil things that are going on in Sudan and we eliminate their market because of that for their number-one product, it is likely to bring about a change in the Government of Sudan because the people there will have a reason then to say enough is enough; we're going to put these gangsters that run our country aside.
    Without that type of stand, I can tell you, they will never make that decision. They will continue to kill those Christians, continue to have the slavery that they have got because no one has done anything of any significance to stand up to them, and I believe that let's put into the dynamic mix of who rules these countries the fact that they are not going to have business as usual with the United States if they are committing these kinds of atrocities, and that is why I would oppose the Menendez Amendment. Thank you. I yield back.
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. The vote has been called for. Are there any additional Members? If there are no additional Members seeking recognition, the Chair will put the question on the Menendez Amendment. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The CHAIRMAN. Those opposed, say no.
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The CHAIRMAN. The ayes have it.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote on that.
    The CHAIRMAN. Is there sufficient second for a recorded vote?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Second.
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote is asked for, and there is a sufficient number having seconded, the clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
    Mr. GILMAN. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes. Mr. Goodling?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter?
    Mr. BEREUTER. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes no. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. SMITH. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Burton?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger?
    Mr. BALLENGER. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Manzullo?
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. MANZULLO. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes yes. Mr. Royce?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. CHABOT. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes. Mr. Sanford?
    The CHAIRMAN. Will the clerk indicate how my vote was cast?
    Ms. BLOOMER. The chairman voted yes.
    The CHAIRMAN. I'd like to change the vote to no.
    Ms. BLOOMER. OK. Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. SALMON. Mr. Salmon votes no. Mr. Houghton?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. No.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Campbell votes no. Mr. Fox?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham?
    Mr. GRAHAM. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes no. Mr. Blunt?
 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BLUNT. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes no. Mr. Brady?
    Mr. BRADY. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no. Mr. Hamilton?
    Mr. HAMILTON. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes yes. Mr. Gejdenson?
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes. Mr. Lantos?
    Mr. LANTOS. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes no. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. BERMAN. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes. Mr. Ackerman?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes. Mr. Faleomavaega?
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes. Mr. Martinez?
    Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez votes yes. Mr. Payne?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez?
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes. Mr. Brown?
    Mr. BROWN. Yes.
 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes. Ms. McKinney?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner?
    Ms. DANNER. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes yes. Mr. Hilliard?
    Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes. Mr. Sherman?
    Mr. SHERMAN. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. WEXLER. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes yes. Mr. Rothman?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement?
    Mr. CLEMENT. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes yes. Mr. Luther?
    Mr. LUTHER. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes yes. Mr. Davis?
    Mr. DAVIS. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.
    The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will call the absentees.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford?
    Mr. SANFORD. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes no. Mr. Houghton?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham?
    Mr. GRAHAM. No.
 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes no. Mr. Payne?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews?
    Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews votes yes. Ms. McKinney?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman?
    [No response.]
    Mr. MCHUGH. Mr. Chairman?
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McHugh?
    Mr. MCHUGH. Am I recorded?
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh is not recorded as having voted.
    Mr. MCHUGH. I vote aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes yes.
    The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other absentees? The clerk will report the roll call.
    Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote there were 20 ayes and 11 noes.
    The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is agreed to. Are there any further amendments? Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. I have an amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Manzullo has an amendment at the desk. The amendment is being distributed. The clerk will report the amendment.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.
 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith reserves the right to point of order. Your right will be protected. The clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Manzullo, page 9, line 20, strike ''including'' and all that follows through line 23 and insert the following: ''Other than''——
    The CHAIRMAN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes on this amendment.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this is a very difficult bill. When I was a child, I remember seeing a movie based upon a book by A.J. Cronan called ''The Keys of the Kingdom''. And Gregory Peck played a Catholic priest in it who suffered immense persecution in China, along with his friends who were Protestant missionaries there also. I have been to China, but not as frequently as Mr. Wolf.
    I do not think there is a person in this Congress whose Christian testimony and witness has been more forceful and respected than that of Congressman Frank Wolf. It's a very difficult bill because sometimes you end up hurting the very people that you want to help. When I was in China, I talked to some of the officials about Tiananmen Square. They reminded me about Kent State. I talked to them about people imprisoned and having no rights, and they reminded me that in 1965 we gave people in this country the right to vote, the right to have housing, the right to seek jobs without discrimination, and that human rights is an evolving thing that happens, especially in a democracy.
    During the course of the past several months, we have worked with Mr. Wolf in limiting the items not to be exported to that which is on the crime-control list, and that to me is a significant victory because it means that there is a specified group from which to choose as to what should be excluded, and the letter that we received from BXA states that the most frequently denied items were stun guns, handcuffs, shock shields, and the destinations most frequently denied were, in rank order, China, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Pakistan.
 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So some of the sanctions that Mr. Wolf is already seeking have already taken place during the course of the Administration.
    The bill that I have will allow export/import financing. Mr. Chairman, the Committee room is not in order.
    The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen is correct. Will the gentlemen withhold? Will anyone having conversations please take them to the anteroom? The gentleman has the floor.
    Mr. MANZULLO. I plan to support the final version of this bill. Regardless of whether or not this amendment is adopted, and probably Mr. Smith will move to knock it out, and that goes to show the problems with the bill because I think this bill should come to the floor. And I've wrestled with this in the same way that my good brother, Matt Salmon, has wrestled with it; and Matt will come to an opposite conclusion on it. But as one of the most ardent free traders in the House of Representatives, it has been our intention in the past several months in working with Mr. Wolf to come up with a bill that can do something.
    And in speaking with some of the people in the Administration and with some of the companies involved, that perhaps the conversation of human rights should come up in some of the business negotiations, perhaps. Would it hurt? I don't know. Would it help? It may, in the long range of things. But what I would like to see is that we still have the flexibility to have financing through the Export-Import Bank, TDA, and OPIC; and the reason for that is that Eximbank is responsible for nearly $8 billion in loans in the past 3 years to the countries that would be sanctioned.
    This is significant. That is 160,000 jobs in the United States, and it is critical that we do whatever is necessary to help out the human rights violations in this world, and yet at the same time we can still engage. And I think that to come down on Eximbank financing would be wrong. I know Mr. Smith's point of order is going to say, well, my amendment is out of order. If it's out of order, then why is Eximbank mentioned in the bill in the first place?
 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    It simply does not make sense. I would ask Mr. Smith if he wants to go ahead and make an attack, a gentlemanly attack, I know he will, upon my amendment, I will ask him to do so at this time.
    The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield for Mr. Smith?
    Mr. MANZULLO. Yes.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, just let me say that I was discussing with Mr. Bereuter another section of the bill, so regrettably I didn't get to hear Mr. Manzullo's remarks. But I will, and with all due respect to the gentleman, and I do need to respect him, this part of the bill is the Banking Committee's jurisdiction, and that's the reason why I will be objecting.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Well, that's the whole problem. If it's the Banking's jurisdiction, then why is it in this bill?
    Mr. SMITH. This bill has been sequentially referred. We have primary jurisdiction, no doubt about it, but it would be improper for us to work on parts that are not ours. When we get to the floor, all bets are off, and people can offer amendments obviously in a cross-jurisdictional way. But it seems to me that if we're going to stay within the rules of the House, we ought to just deal with that in Banking, and whatever they produce we may like or not like, and when we get to the floor we take another shot at it.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, has the Banking Committee waived jurisdiction on this bill?
    The CHAIRMAN. Has the Banking Committee waived?
    Mr. MANZULLO. The Banking Committee has not waived?
    The CHAIRMAN. We have not received any indication that the Banking Committee has waived.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Then I withdraw the amendment.
 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CHAIRMAN. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Then I withdraw the amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Manzullo withdraws the amendment. And I want to thank Mr. Manzullo for his work with Mr. Wolf and with Committee staff in trying to work out some reasonable accommodations. Mr. Manzullo's amendment is withdrawn. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I had a unanimous consent request pending before which you protected, but I understand Mr. Smith's concern about that, and so I will not pursue that, but I do have an amendment at the desk.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bereuter withdraws his unanimous consent request. Mr. Bereuter has an amendment at the desk. The clerk will distribute the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment in the nature of a——
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on that amendment as well.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith reserves a point of order.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Offered by Mr. Bereuter, in Section 7 strike ''Subsection D'' and redesignate provisions accordingly.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment be considered as read.
    The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, further reading of the amendment is dispensed with. Mr. Bereuter is recognized for 5 minutes on this amendment.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's been a long time since I had this distributed at the early part of the day, but I want to call my colleagues' attention to two items that were distributed to you this morning. They have my name on the top right-hand corner. One is the talking points that I, in fact, am going to make about this, but I want you to have them in front of you so you can follow it. And then I want to call your attention to a memorandum, dated March 20, 1998, from Lamar Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, to Chairman Gilman.
 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I also now want to call my colleagues' attention to page 26, line 17, in the revised substitute by Chairman Gilman. Page 26, line 17; I want to show you one of the major problems in this legislation, and it's outside an area we would ordinarily address, although we have just acted on an amendment that is nongermane to our jurisdiction. And it is a good reason which I argue why we ought to take up my amendment, since we have just established a precedent of dealing in another committee's business by the action on the Menendez Amendment.
    What this does is provide that an alien, as you can see, who can credibly claim membership in a persecuted community basically has a credible fear of persecution within the meaning of the preceding sentence. It gives him an opportunity to pursue asylum status.
    Now, let me essentially tell you what this does. The amendment, by the way, that I have before you is drafted by the Judiciary Committee. It is identical to the compromise amendment prepared by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, and the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. It is my understanding that these two distinguished gentlemen have put forward a very reasonable alternative that would essentially leave intact the refugee provisions of this legislation while removing the asylum law changes.
    I regret to see that the amendment in the nature of a substitute does not take into consideration the proposed changes of these two gentlemen from the Judiciary Committee, and I believe that the failure to make these important changes delivers a crippling blow to a bill that I would like to support. If, in fact, you reject or do not consider my amendment, I'm going to abstain on the final vote on this bill because I don't want the perception that I have voted to knock a hole in the recently agreed 1996 asylum law reform.
    By not accepting this proposed immigration compromise from the House Judiciary Committee, supporters of the underlying legislation ensure that in its current form it will not be signed into law. And I think we are interested in passing legislation. I stated during the Committee's hearing on the Freedom of Religious Persecution Act of 1997 that I want to support this legislation.
 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    If this legislation would be signed into law, we cannot estimate how many illegal aliens will arrive on our shores and falsely claim to be members of a persecuted community. They don't have to show under this law that they are persecuted, just that they are members of a persecuted community. So what happens in a country where Buddhists are persecuted? Every single Buddhist in the country can come and ask for asylum status.
    I think we can predict that nearly everyone of those false claims will be entitled to substantial procedural and substantive protections because of the elimination of what is called the credible-fear standard, which is currently enshrined in our asylum law. It is a reality that desperate, poor people throughout the world's developing countries would falsely claim membership in a persecuted religious community simply because they want to gain asylum to the United States and be entitled to all of the benefits that that status conveys.
    However, if you find that hard to believe, I urge you to go to Guanzho, China, where our State Department runs one of the busiest, immigrant visa-choke points in the world. Sit down and talk to those on the front line of the immigration war and see how many outrageous stories our consular offices receive every day. After that experience, I am willing to bet that you will believe that an unpersecuted Buddhist in China might claim to be a persecuted Catholic to get asylum in the United States.
    Or remember just a few short years ago when undocumented illegal aliens flooded JFK Airport every day or every international airport in this country. They came with some of the most outrageous claims for political asylum. That abuse of America's generosity and openness to those actually fleeing persecution came to an end, at least largely to an end, with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which we enacted.
    But I am warning my colleagues that this legislation before us today would reopen those flood gates we worked so hard to close. It absolutely, unintentionally, I am sure, blasts a hole in the reforms we made in 1996. That undoubtedly is not the intent, but the sponsors of this legislation have repeatedly been warned about the impact of this legislation on our asylum laws. Perhaps they have not had as graphic examples as they needed.
 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    For example, I talked to the gentleman from Virginia, for whom I have great respect, and I like most of his product here—I am only concerned about the asylum provisions. I sent him a letter most recently, for example, in February pointing it out. I pointed out the problems to the chairman last October. I raised it in hearing, but still we have it before us.
    Since I can't get rid of those sections of this bill which are outside our jurisdiction, much as I would like because the gentleman will object to my unanimous consent request, I want to raise these issues, and the only way I can raise it is to put this amendment before you.
    Last September, I provided Members of this Committee with the Congressional Research Service memorandum that I requested on this legislation. That memorandum highlighted some very damaging criticisms of the proposed changes to immigration law, especially our asylum laws. For example, it said, and I quote: ''First, the bill would free an alien who credibly can claim member in a protected religious community from further consideration under the new, expedited removal procedures that apply to aliens who arrive without proper documents, that is, those aliens who credibly claim to belong to a protected community when they arrive without the proper immigration documents would not, unlike other aliens who claim to be facing persecution, be required to show a 'credible fear' of individualized persecution in order to avoid expedited removal and have their asylum claims further considered.''
    It is not my opinion; that is from the CRS memorandum, dated September 8, 1997.
    Yesterday, the General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service testified before the House Judiciary Committee and seconded those earlier criticisms of the Congressional Research Service. The INS testified that this legislation would—I quote again—''undermine the success we have had in our affirmative asylum process and create blanket eligibility presumptions for certain asylum claimants and create confusion regarding the definition of religious persecution.''
 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Therefore, he said, I again quote: ''The Justice Department is opposed to the enactment of this legislation.''
    Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I urge the Committee to adopt my amendment and remedy a fatal flaw in this legislation so all of us who want to pass legislation can do that in good conscience.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith has a point of order.
    Mr. SMITH. Just reserving a point of order for one brief second, Mr. Chairman. And, again, I gave the respect to my good friend from Nebraska, and I hate being in this position of objecting, but this is outside the scope of this Committee. There is a committee of jurisdiction, the Judicial Committee, but I think it should be pointed out for the Members that Section 9(a) provides that if an applicant makes a credible claim to membership in a persecuted community.
    My friend from Nebraska just talked about a protected community. You've got to remember, when he makes that claim or she makes that claim, we are talking about a persecuted community, and the persecution has to be widespread and ongoing, a determination has to have been made by the Secretary of State, and what are we talking about a high bar here with the kind of abuse that this person within the persecuted community has to have endured or fears that he or she will endure: abduction, enslavement, killing, imprisonment, forced mass relocation, rape, crucifixion or other forms of torture, or the systematic imposition of fines or penalties. It is a very high bar of repression that we're talking about.
    I will never forget a couple of years ago, Mr. Chairman, when we offered the amendment, and the Administration was very reluctant to agree to this, and they agreed, I think, only because perhaps it was in the immigration bill, about the women fleeing coerced population control in China. We heard that there would be millions of women flooding our shores who were of child-bearing age who are claiming to be victims of coerced population control. None of that has happened, because they don't get out usually. Many of these people have no way of getting out, even those who are persecuted.
 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So if we can provide a safety valve, we should. And what does this language do? It guarantees a hearing. It does not guarantee asylum; it guarantees a hearing. That's all it does. If they are incredible, and the INS has the judgment on that, they could be sent back. So if they don't make the case to that person, the officer who is taking in and doing the input—the intake, I should say—they go back as well.
    So this is not a half-baked notion by any stretch of the imagination. This is to help people who are truly, truly persecuted. If at some time in their life they find themselves to be protected and find their way into a safe haven, well, thank God that they found their way to our shores and were able to use the modality offered by this language; but I do have to object, and I say that with regret to my good friend.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the objection before the Chairman rules.
    The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is given 5 minutes to be heard on the objection.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We must keep the focus on the individual. We cannot deal with the class. We have the potential for literally tens of millions of asylum claimants if we do it on the fact that this community is persecuted. And what happens to the asylum people that come here asking for those hearings? We know that in the past, over 90 percent of those people, they are admitted to the United States—they can work here; they can live here—90 percent of those people never show up for the asylum hearings. That's the record.
    But I would say very specifically on the point of order before the Chairman rules, these issues are so intertwined, it's very difficult for us to properly address those parts of the bill that are clearly in our jurisdiction unless we take some action in this area. We have had some leniency in the past in this respect. We have just acted on an amendment that was in the Ways and Means Committee jurisdiction without any intertwinement there at all. We just reached in and dealt with the Ways and Means jurisdiction.
 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I urge my colleagues so all of us, and I urge the Chairman in particular, so all of us can support a good legislation, that we be permitted to strike this provision and replace it with what the Judiciary Committee would, if, in fact, they are able to take it up. And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. SMITH. A point of order.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith has made a point of order, and I am prepared to rule on a point of order. Is someone seeking recognition? Mr. Berman.
    Mr. BERMAN. Well, I'm torn. I wish——
    The CHAIRMAN. Is that on the point of order?
    Mr. BERMAN. Why not? Sure. Yes. I hope we could get to the heart of Mr. Bereuter's amendment because I think the bill may not be quite as bad as he thinks it is in terms of that language because even if you create a presumption for a class, which, by the way, we have done before, the Lauberg Amendment, and in other areas we have made certain assumptions. It does not guarantee you a ticket into this country because there are numerical limitations on the class, and at the same time I am concerned about the way the bill is written. But, in other words, none of this has to do with—I would like to get into a discussion of the substance of the amendment. I don't know how much to do that.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield?
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Berman, a point of order has been made, and there has been a discussion on the point of order, and I'm prepared to——
    Mr. BEREUTER. Would the gentleman yield on his point?
    Mr. BERMAN. I yield to Mr. Bereuter, yes.
    Mr. BEREUTER. I would just say one thing. Isn't the gentleman referring to limitations on refugees, and there has not been one on asylees as far as I know?
    Mr. BERMAN. That is true. That is true. Let's put it this way. An asylee is somebody who is in this country and is now asserting persecution, fleeing well-founded fear of persecution as a defense to being deported. That is going to occur a lot less than the notion of hundreds of thousands or millions of people in a class in particular parts of the world. They are not going to be in this country.
 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The language, as I read it, does not mandate they be deemed asylees. First of all, it only applies if you pass the threshold of making a credible case. I still have some problems with the base language, but what I don't understand is whether this language is limited to people who are in the persecuted community and who came from that country, or are they people who came to another country where they had sanctuary and now tried to get into the United States, because that's a different question, and I'm not sure the presumption that this bill gives should extend to that group. And the way it's written, it's ambiguous to me just who the legislation applies to.
    So I think there is something short of your amendment but different than the existing bill that I think might be the ideal resolution here.
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. A point of order has been raised by—is someone seeking recognition on the point of order?
    Mr. MANZULLO. Point of order.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Has Judiciary waived jurisdiction?
    The CHAIRMAN. No.
    Mr. MANZULLO. They have not?
    The CHAIRMAN. They will have sequential jurisdiction. Mr. Berman, who serves on that committee, will have an opportunity to——
    Mr. MANZULLO. Can we assume here today as we vote that the Judiciary Committee will, in fact, take this up?
    The CHAIRMAN. We assume that the Judiciary Committee will take it up.
 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BERMAN. I assure you, if the language stays as it is, the Judiciary Committee will take it up.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you.
    The CHAIRMAN. The point of order raised by Mr. Smith; I am prepared to rule. I have been advised by the House parliamentarians that Section 9 of the bill, which relates to asylum and refugee matters, is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. It is not technically before our committee today for our consideration. For that reason, I am told that it would be improper for us to amend Section 9 in our markup today. Rather, we should permit the Judiciary Committee to consider Section 9 when that provision reaches them on sequential referral after our Committee reports the rest of the bill.
    I recognize that it is not uncommon for committees to adopt amendments to provisions of bills outside their jurisdiction when they have the approval of the committee of jurisdiction to do so. In this case, Chairman Hyde and Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith wrote to me on March 20th to convey a proposed revision to Section 9 that would be acceptable to them. So we conceivably could make that change that has been proposed to us without offending the Judiciary Committee, but I have looked into the matter enough to ascertain that a number of our Members do not agree with the Judiciary Committee's proposal.
    Since a point of order has been made against that proposal, I must report that I am advised by the parliamentarians that I should sustain it. The fact that the Judiciary Committee has agreed to the language does not render the point of order invalid; it merely takes away one reason that Members might have for making a point of order. And since a point of order has now been made, I sustain it. Section 9 will be considered in the Judiciary Committee and marked up there in due course, and it has been referred to the Committee.
    Chairman Hyde's March 20th letter to me anticipated precisely this possibility when he stated that if we do not make the proposed change in our Committee, and I quote Mr. Hyde, ''we anticipate proceeding through regular order, which would necessitate our marking up the bill, thereby making all of the bill's immigration provisions open to an amendment.''
 Page 86       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The Chair is prepared, therefore, to make a final ruling under Rule 10. This provision is not properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee, and it is not in order.
    Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
    The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The gentleman is recognized on the parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. MARTINEZ. Can the sponsor of the amendment challenge the ruling of the Chair?
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. I move to strike the last word.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bereuter moves to strike the last word.
    Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, my question was not answered.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Martinez, what was your question?
    Mr. MARTINEZ. My question was, can the sponsor of the amendment challenge the ruling of the Chair?
    The CHAIRMAN. Can the maker of the amendment challenge the ruling of the Chair? Counsel, would you respond, please?
    Mr. WEINBERG. The ruling of the Chair can be appealed.
    The CHAIRMAN. Counsel says the ruling of the Chair can be appealed.
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. BEREUTER. I move to strike the last word.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bereuter moves to strike the last word. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
 Page 87       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I believe that you made the correct determination, the correct ruling. I would urge my colleagues not to challenge the Chair. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues in listening to the discussion that went on with the amendment that I have offered, which has been ruled to be inappropriate at this stage.
    I think it is crucial that this issue be raised here. I believe that the language now is desperately bad, but it can be easily remedied and accomplish the primary purpose of the sponsor. I hope with some of this discussion that took place here today, that the Judiciary Committee, consulting fully with Mr. Wolf and others, myself, I hope, will make that change in the Judiciary Committee.
    I believe, for example, one point just raised by the gentleman from California, my distinguished colleague, Mr. Berman, bears examination. For example, Mr. Berman, you know that the people fleeing persecution can come to another country, a third country where they are free from persecution and still, as would-be asylees under our law, they can come to us.
    This happens all the time with respect to people in Africa who come to one, two, and three other countries after they leave the country where they do have a credible fear of persecution, but their destination, of course, is preferred to be the United States. So they have escaped persecution, but under our asylum laws they end up coming through our airports in any case.
    That's just one little thing to think about, and I think it's a major issue that we need to see the Judiciary Committee correct. I understand the ruling of the Chair. I support his conclusion. I urge my colleagues not to challenge it.
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.
    Mr. SHERMAN. Point of parliamentary inquiry.
    The CHAIRMAN. What is the inquiry?
 Page 88       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the material that you just read to us, when we finally vote on this bill as amended, we are not really voting on Section 9. We are to look at the bill as if that section is held in abeyance.
    The CHAIRMAN. That's correct.
    Mr. SHERMAN. That section is not correctly before the Committee.
    The CHAIRMAN. That is correct, Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. SHERMAN. And so a vote for the bill is not a vote for Section 9.
    The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely correct.
    Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you.
    The CHAIRMAN. Any other amendments?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Campbell has an amendment at the desk. The clerks will distribute the amendment, and the clerk will read the amendment.
    Ms. RUSH. Which one?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Amendment 1, the one without a number on the right column.
    Ms. RUSH. Amendment by Mr. Campbell. On page 37, line 5, strike ''Section 12'' and all that follows through page 53——
    The CHAIRMAN. I ask that further reading of the amendment be dispensed.
    Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to be recognized.
 Page 89       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burton.
    Mr. BURTON. I make a point of order against the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the amendment violates Rule 10 of the rules of the House, that it amends a matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations. I submit that the amendment deals with matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and thus is out of order.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burton raises a point of order with regard to the amendment.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the amendment? I think that's normal regular order, and then I would like to be heard on the point of order.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burton, would you hold?
    Mr. BURTON. I have no objection.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burton reserves the right to object. Mr. Campbell is recognized for an explanation of the amendment, and Mr. Campbell is recognized for 5 minutes on the amendment.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Thanks, and at the appropriate time I would like to debate my good friend and colleague on the motion he makes, and I am not waiving that right. My amendment is very simple. It was caused by the amendment that the Chairman made this morning. If the amendment had not been made by the Chairman this morning, I would not have had any problem to bring to your attention now.
    The CHAIRMAN. The Committee is not in order. Anyone having conversations, please take them to the other room. The gentleman may proceed.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Chairman, and I thank my good friend from California for his courtesy in noting my need to proceed with order.
    So what happened is this. The Chairman made an amendment in order to satisfy the parliamentarian's rules, but it's devastating on our policy in Sudan because the national security waiver is gone. Let me repeat that. The national security waiver is gone, except for two relatively trivial parts of the bill regarding trade programs in Sudan like a trade mission and regarding exports to Sudan. Everything else of a national security waiver is gone.
 Page 90       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    For example, suppose the national security of the United States requires us to import something from Sudan. No waiver. We can't. Suppose the national security of the United States requires us to procure something for our government from Sudan. Can't. That's (b)(2) and (b)(8). Suppose the national security of the United States requires an investment in southern Sudan, where the rebels are in control near the town of Yei where I visited several months ago. Can't, because the waiver for (b)(4) has been struck.
    Suppose air flights are considered in the national security of the United States into Sudan to bring food or even to bring guns to the rebels; (b)(5) prohibits them. Air flights are prohibited, no waiver. The bill originally had the exception in it for national security to provide for all of those things. That was OK. But because of the parliamentary problem, the Chairman made an amendment. That amendment became part of this bill and gives up all national security waiver authority.
    That is my most important point. I want to yield the balance of my time to my friend from Connecticut.
    Mr. GEJDENSON. I think the gentleman from California makes a good point. I would hope that we could dispense with this relatively quickly. I think it is a very solid point. We have taken out most of the other countries, and I think that it doesn't in any way diminish the impact of the legislation.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman's amendment. I think it is imminently rational, logical, reasonable, and we should vote on it.
    The CHAIRMAN. Anyone else seeking recognition on the——
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ackerman.
 Page 91       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I have a question of Mr. Campbell.
    The CHAIRMAN. Would you yield to Mr. Campbell?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Does this mean that if Congressman Wolf and I again wanted to fly with Americares and fly through Kenya without permission into southern Sudan to bring medical supplies and surgical swords to help with the amputation of young boys and girls whose parts of their bodies were blown up from stepping on land mines so that they didn't have to be operated on with bayonets, we could not do that under the provision of the bill as it stands.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman will yield.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I continue to yield.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. There appears to be no possibility of waiver. To whatever extent the bill applies to transactions with Sudan, it would be covered by that mission of mercy.
    Mr. ACKERMAN. I appreciate the gentleman's response, and thank you for what you're trying to do.
    The CHAIRMAN. Anyone else? Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. SHERMAN. I have a question for Mr. Campbell. As I understand your amendment, it is simply to delete the several pages dealing with Sudan and imposing additional sanctions. Would you object to including those special sanctions against Sudan so long as there was a national security waiver?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. No. I have come to the conclusion that I could accept that if the President had the national security waiver. I came to that conclusion last night.
    Mr. SHERMAN. Is there a reason why your amendment doesn't simply restore the national security waiver found in Mr. Wolf's bill, but instead deletes his pages——
 Page 92       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. CAMPBELL. I have a much better chance of being sustained on the point of order if I simply strike the whole provision for exactly the reason that the Chairman offered his amendment originally. He believes, or he was advised, that he couldn't deal with those parts of the bill that were within another committee's jurisdiction. I am moving to strike the entire provision, and my argument, for parliamentary procedure purposes, is that a motion to strike is in order even if an amendment isn't; second, that in the Committee's deliberations of this day we have already allowed Mr. Menendez to amend this very provision, Section 12 regarding Sudan, and, third, that the problem only arose because of the Chairman's own amendment, with which we commenced.
    Mr. SHERMAN. But it's my understanding, and as a freshman, I know even less about parliamentary procedure than I know about many other things that happen here, that we can include Mr. Wolf's text in the bill as to those provisions that are not within our jurisdiction. So why would you simply not restore to the bill Mr. Wolf's original text?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman will yield, the author has greater flexibility and greater freedom than any amender. So I can put in a bill that touches 20 other committees' jurisdictions, and we will hear it, but I can only amend that part which applies to our committee. But I am arguing that a strike is of a different nature than an amend.
    Mr. SHERMAN. But, again, I would think that one of the things that our Committee can do is simply not amend a section of this bill that is outside of our jurisdiction. Mr. Wolf authored this bill. He has many pages in it about Sudan. Is there any reason we cannot simply include those exact words from Mr. Wolf dealing with Sudan? I understand that we can't delete his national security waiver. He put the national security waiver in there, and apparently it's not within our competence to delete it.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. The gentleman, if you would yield, you are quite right, but the bill on which we are about to vote has no national security waiver worth anything, and if the national security of the United States requires that we procure something, import something, invest to some degree, or have air flights to some extent, it is impermissible because of the Chair's action earlier.
 Page 93       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CHAIRMAN. Any other Members seeking recognition? If not, the Chair has examined the Campbell Amendment, which amends the amendment in the nature of a substitute by deleting Section 12 of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    Mr. Campbell's amendment would have the effect of deleting provisions from the bill that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of other committees. Therefore, on the advice of the House parliamentarian and for the reason I sustained the objection to Mr. Bereuter's amendment, I sustain the point of order, and the Chair rules that the point of order is well taken.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments? Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. I wonder if it might be possible to propound a unanimous consent request to take the national security waiver that Mr. Wolf had originally, and even though it's not part of our jurisdiction to make that request, whether you see right now to put it in as it was written by Mr. Wolf.
    The CHAIRMAN. Are you making that?
    Mr. SMITH. I am making that, yes.
    The CHAIRMAN. Are you making that unanimous?
    Mr. SMITH. Yes, I am.
    The CHAIRMAN. Unanimous consent request is made by Mr. Smith to include the security waiver that was in the Wolf bill. Is that correct?
    Mr. SMITH. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Any objections to the unanimous consent request?
    Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Are we skipping jurisdiction, putting things back in? I mean, I'm not thrilled about—I have a good argument on Export-Import Bank, and I'm sure Mr. Bereuter does on asylum, and I'm going to object. Let it go through the Committee process.
 Page 94       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Manzullo objects to the unanimous consent request. Anyone else seeking recognition?
    Mr. HAMILTON. I presume the amendments are now completed, are they, Mr. Chairman?
    The CHAIRMAN. That's correct, Mr. Hamilton.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Let me just make a few comments about the bill, and I would like to alert the Administration that I am going to ask them to state their position on it before we have a vote on the final passage.
    I do want to say several things about this bill. Under Secretary Eizenstat said earlier this morning that he really did appreciate the supporters of the bill bringing forward the whole question of religious persecution. I think he was quite right about that, and I want to say more than that. I think that over the process of consideration of this bill, which has now extended several months, the supporters of the bill have made major changes in the bill. I have no doubt at all about their sincerity, and I think the changes they have made have improved the bill and made it more acceptable.
    I, however, am not going to vote for the bill because I'm uneasy about some provisions of it. I don't have any illusions here about the support for the bill. I know it's very solid, but I would like to put on the record some of my concerns. Before I do that, may I ask the Administration to come forward and state their position on the bill now?
    The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Larkin, would you identify yourself for the stenographer?
    Ms. LARKIN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. I am Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs. First of all, I would like to underscore the comments made by Under Secretary——
    The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Larkin, if you would withhold a moment? The Committee is not in order. I am asking any of the Members who have any conversations to please go to the anteroom and please give attention to Ms. Larkin, who now has the floor. Please proceed.
 Page 95       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. LARKIN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I wanted to underscore the remarks made by Under Secretary Eizenstat this morning about the Secretary's and this Administration's concern for religious persecution and the fact that we do all want to get to the same place. It is a question of how we get there in a way that is most useful and achieves the objectives that we all share.
    We appreciate a number of the improvements that have been made in the bill today by the sponsors and by other Members of the Committee, specifically, eliminating the list at the beginning of the bill of countries, and the improvements made on the new position that is being created within the Department. The changes made to that section are a significant improvement. They do not satisfy all of our concerns, but it is much better than it was when we began.
    The core of our concerns are twofold. One is the automaticity of the sanctions. It has been referred to today in this markup as the ''one-size-fits-all problem.'' That still remains very, very serious.
    The second category of concerns we have are those that were alluded to by Mr. Bereuter in connection with his amendment, in that this legislation would establish a hierarchy among persons seeking entry into this country. The problem is not that this bill deals only with one issue, which is religious persecution; it is more the immigration, asylum, and visa provisions, which would allow victims of religious persecution preference over victims of other types of persecution, and we hope that those concerns will be addressed by the Judiciary Committee before the bill comes to the floor.
    The last category of concerns that we have relate to the Sudan provisions that Mr. Campbell referred to earlier. First, it is the Administration's position that the Sudan section of this bill is unnecessary because the President has already dealt with this issue, actually in a more stringent way on some points, by executive order. And the lack of a waiver on the Sudan section also is a very serious problem that we hope would be addressed.
 Page 96       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So, I guess in summary, although there have been a number of major improvements, we hope it will continue to improve during this process. This is still not a bill that the Administration can support. In fact, we would continue to oppose it in its current form.
    Mr. HAMILTON. May I ask the Secretary, do those concerns mean if the bill reached the President in its present form, that he would veto it?
    Ms. LARKIN. Mr. Hamilton, I can't answer that now. I would need to confer with the Secretary on the changes that have been made today and are made during the rest of the process.
    Mr. HAMILTON. I thank the Secretary for her comments. Mr. Chairman, if I may make a few comments, some of which, I guess, repeat what she said. I am concerned about this automaticity of these sanctions. As I understand the bill, once the Secretary makes a determination about religious persecution in a given country, all of the sanctions would be triggered, without consideration of any other U.S. interest.
    In other words, we might have interests in the country dealing with security or drugs or democracy or military bases. None of those could receive consideration. The sanctions would just have to automatically go into effect. Now what that means is that the Secretary of State, in making these determinations, is going to be under enormous pressure not to find religious persecution, because if she finds it, then these sanctions will kick in, and you will have the United States in a very difficult position.
    No other U.S. national interest triggers widespread sanctions. In other words, we are elevating religious persecution to a position far above any other U.S. national interest, and I think there are real risks in that. These sanctions are automatic, and they include all U.S. exports, for example, to responsible entities. More than half of the countries in the world may be subject to these sanctions based on how the Secretary would choose to apply them.
    There are numerous governments in the world today, particularly in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, which do not officially sponsor religious persecution, but they are not strong enough governments to take steps to stop it, and the sanctions would apply to those countries. So I am deeply concerned about the automatic nature of the sanctions.
 Page 97       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Second, I know that Members are attracted to this bill in part because of the waiver provisions. Let me state again an argument I have made here before that waiver provisions in a bill like this are a cop-out on the part of the U.S. Congress. If we want to sanction a country for religious persecution, the way we should do it is to pass a bill identifying the country and identifying the sanctions and send it to the President of the United States.
    What we do with this bill is to say we're all against religious persecution, and we tell our constituents how strongly we oppose religious persecution, and then we say, Mr. President, we're going to give you a waiver; you figure it out. And if the President makes the right decision, we will praise him; if he makes the wrong decision, we will criticize him, but he will get all the heat.
    We can posture, and we will posture, but we toss the problem to the President of the United States, and I think that means we are not fulfilling our responsibilities as a Member of Congress.
    Now let me say beyond that that I think waivers are not cost-free. I know they sound that way. We think that, well, the President will either exercise or not exercise the waiver. But let me draw your attention to what is happening with respect to the ILSA bill, which all of us, including myself, supported. That is the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act.
    The damage that those sanctions and the waiver can do to our broader foreign-policy interests are very apparent. It is being illustrated dramatically today as the Clinton Administration has struggled with this decision on whether to impose sanctions on firms from France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Malaysia. I think all of us can understand, as I understand it, that the Administration has not yet made the determination that certain activities are sanctionable; but I think we can all understand how eager the Administration is to avoid pulling the trigger in that bill because to do so hurts very broad, U.S. national interests.
 Page 98       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    It would make it, for example, much more difficult to get sanctions against Iraq. It would jeopardize our ongoing efforts with Russia to take effective steps to end missile technology proliferation. The point of this is that foreign policy gets very complicated when you have these automatic features, and even a waiver can cause huge problems in American foreign policy. The President is in a very tough spot on the ILSA situation. He can't postpone a sanctions decision indefinitely, but the foreign-policy stakes are very, very high.
    The next-to-last point I would make is the hierarchy point. I want Members to understand—I think they do—that we are in this bill establishing hierarchies of human rights violations. We say that a religious persecution is the top priority of U.S. human rights and immigration policy. We are saying that religious persecution is more important to us than other forms of persecution—more important than female infanticide, for example; more important than racial discrimination; more important than ethnic cleansing.
    We are saying that religious persecution occupies a special place in human rights, and I have very grave doubts about that.
    Now, finally, let me try to put this bill in a broader context for you. Seventy-five countries today, representing one-half of the world's population, are either now subject to or threatened by unilateral U.S. sanctions. There are two dozen sanction proposals pending before the Congress right now. The reasons for applying those sanctions are enormously attractive to politicians because countries or entities are doing things that we don't like.
    There are dozens of state and local governments that have adopted or are considering adopting their own foreign-policy sanctions. The President of the United States is asked to make certifications and waivers in all kinds of U.S. laws today. He is asked to grade countries. Do they or do they not fit particular categories? And those gradations that the President has to make require explaining them and making distinctions on why he has used waivers in some cases and not in other cases. I think the President's time and our time as a country would be better spent if we focused on the broader issues.
 Page 99       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    So I just wanted to set on the record some of my concerns about this. Let me say again that this bill addresses a very real problem. There isn't any doubt about that. I have been quite impressed by the manner in which the sponsors of the bill have been willing to make adjustments, and because of that I almost decided not to oppose the bill; but as I thought more about these concerns, I feel I have to vote against it.
    I understand the political situation here and that the bill will certainly be approved, and I hope that those of us who oppose the bill can continue to work with the sponsors of the bill until we get a product that addresses religious persecution but at the same time meets the broader, foreign-policy concerns of the United States.
    Mr. Chairman, I hereby give notice of my intention to reserve opportunity for Members to file supplemental, minority, or additional views to the report on H.R. 2431 in accordance with Clause 2 of House Rule 11.
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton, I might remind you that both you and I have been asking the Administration to come forward and meet with us with regard to their sanctions policy for quite a while, and we still haven't had any response.
    Mr. HAMILTON. You are right about that, Mr. Chairman. I have talked with them about it, and I have the assurance of the national security adviser that shortly after his return from Africa they will address it, and I am delighted to know that, and you and I will continue to press them on it.
    The CHAIRMAN. Let me note further that in a recent meeting with Vice President Gore with regard to the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, it was Vice President Gore who said that sanctions are a very valuable tool to the Administration in dealing with countries like Russia to put some strength in our negotiating position.
    Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, if I may just add, I was in that meeting as well, and what he said, I think, was very different. What he said was that the threat of the sanction is very important.
 Page 100       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CHAIRMAN. That's what I'm saying. The threat of the sanctions—that's exactly what I'm saying—the threat of the sanctions are a very important tool in the negotiating process. Are there any other Members seeking recognition?
    Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. GALLEGLY. I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will just take 30 seconds. First of all, I want to thank Congressman Bereuter for his attention to the issue having to do with immigration. I share his concerns; however, I am not going to vote against this bill today. I will vote to move the process ahead. I do so somewhat reluctantly, with the clear understanding that I am going to work aggressively with Lamar Smith to remedy some of the concerns that Mr. Bereuter brought forth today. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly. Is there any Member on this side? Mr. Manzullo.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Strike the last word.
    The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. MANZULLO. On the revised memo—substitute on page 23 that we are voting on—there were certain strike-outs made which we had worked over the past 6 months to put into the bill, and I'm not pleased with that.
    I'm not pleased with the fact that there is no sanctity of contract for anybody that has an Export-Import loan. I mean, this is very, very serious. You get an Export-Import loan, you're in the process of manufacturing, you've got people committed, the country is going to buy something, all of a sudden the sanction kicks in, and the contract is terminated.
    I mean, this is unheard of, and I would ask, and I would like to know now that the Banking Committee is going to hear this bill, that there is going to be no pressure exerted on any other committees of jurisdiction to have them waive that because I think at this point several Members are voting for this bill on the express assumption that other committees of jurisdiction will be addressing areas as to which we have grave concerns.
 Page 101       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    And I would like to know in the strongest language possible, possibly from Mr. Wolf, if he is going to make sure that the other committees do, in fact, hear these concerns so that we can vote affirmatively on the bill.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wolf.
    Mr. WOLF. I think every committee ought to hear the concerns, and I think every concern ought to be heard, and I believe that they will, and I will make sure that everyone has an opportunity to make whatever input that they want to. I have no desire to run roughshod over anybody, so you have my word on that.
    Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. I appreciate that.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to take a couple of moments to comment on the observations made by my two friends just moments ago. I find myself in agreement with many of Mr. Hamilton's observations, but I merely would like us to realize that we hardly ever pass perfect pieces of legislation, and if we set the bar as high as we would like to, we would never pass any piece of legislation.
    With respect to the contract-sanctity issue, I find that there are other sanctities which are higher than contract sanctity: the right to religious freedom, the right to life, the right to the whole spectrum of human rights that some of us are more concerned with than contract sanctity. And I think the notion that contract sanctity is not one of the highest values of American society would probably get an overwhelming vote, both in this House and in the country.
    Finally, I would like to say a word about symbolism. If this Committee were to reject a bill that on a bipartisan basis very well-intentioned Members have been working on for a long time, dealing with the question of religious persecution, we would be sending the wrong message, and I strongly plead with my colleagues to vote for this admittedly imperfect bill, which will be further refined by other committees. It will have a different version coming out of the Senate. It will go to conference. This is Step 1 in a long and arduous process, and to terminate legislation at this stage dealing with religious persecution, I think, would be a singularly unfortunate decision.
 Page 102       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and Members on both sides of the aisle for the maximum input, and this is a work in progress, and I'm sure that there will be additional suggestions as we go along, right to the floor and into conference. And I want to thank especially Mr. Wolf for his leadership on this. He has been absolutely tenacious in pushing this, both with the leaderships and this Committee and all interested parties, outside religious bodies, who now, when they know the content, believe that this is going to advance them more significantly in the area of religious freedom.
    This legislation makes egregious religious persecution actionable. It is a very high bar, but if, as Mr. Hamilton mentioned a moment ago, so many countries come under its action items or can be sanctioned as a result of it, what a sorry tale that tells us about the status of religious freedom in this world, that so many people are being tortured, so many people are being beaten and harassed in a way that is not just mere discrimination, but it actually rises to the level of being persecution.
    Hopefully, this legislation will be a catalyst for reform in these countries. We all know that when we spend our military dollar on a strong defense, deterrence is what we're looking for. If we have to fight, we want to fight to win, but we hope to deter egregious behavior. Here, we are hoping to deter this ongoing and pervasive exploitation of religious believers. So this is very, very modest but an important and significant step. There is a generous waiver. Mr. Hamilton, I wish there was no waiver, but this Administration, as would a Republican Administration, if they are ever going to accept it, would not accept it unless there was a waiver.
    I wish that we were sending bills over that were country-specific, but what we get back from this and other Administrations ''is let us make that final determination.'' So there is a generous waiver here, and I think Members should feel that in good faith this Administration will look at the record and make a determination based on what the record really is. There is a rising tide of torture all over the world.
 Page 103       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    We have held several hearings, as Mr. Lantos, the Ranking Member of our Subcommittee knows so well, and have heard from witnesses, people who have had the absolute indignity—it doesn't begin to describe it—of having been cattle-prodded and all of the other terrible things that go on as a result of being a Buddhist in Tibet or a Christian or a Catholic or a Jew or some other person of faith in a country that is totally intolerant.
    So this legislation advances the ball. I hope it has the full support of Members, reservations notwithstanding on certain items. When we get to the floor, obviously they will be dealt with, but hopefully we can move forward today on behalf of religious freedom.
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Clement—and I want to advise our Members that we are about to vote on final passage. Please stay put. We will try to get to it quickly.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wolf has made some substantial changes in this legislation. Some reservations, I still have about this bill, but I think it is too important not to move forward; and, therefore, I will vote for this legislation, and I hope he will work with all of us for even more reform. But religious persecution is something that is real. It happens in so many countries of the world, and we definitely need to keep the pressure on and bring about respect for one another's religious beliefs, no matter what those religious beliefs might be.
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Clement. Mr. Salmon.
    Mr. SALMON. Thank you. I will be as short and sweet as I can, Mr. Chairman. I know that everybody has had a long day. But I listened to the comments of my good friend, Congressman Lantos. We had a lot of the concerns several months ago, and one of the things I've come to realize since I've been here is there are a lot of people who purport to stand for things, and then there are the real heroes; and, Mr. Lantos, I do consider you one of the real heroes.
 Page 104       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    I think that consistently you have been oblivious to party lines when it comes to human rights violations, and I applaud you on that. I wish that I were in a position today to be able to vote for this piece of legislation. I am not because I have many of the concerns that Mr. Hamilton has raised.
    We talked about some of the same concerns on waiver with the War Powers Act. I remember that debate not so long ago, and Mr. Hyde chimed in and reminded, I think, the group of those concerns that he raised several years ago. I believe that we are abdicating much of our responsibility by passing such a broad bill; then creating a big waiver, and I completely agree with you: It puts all the heat on the White House.
    While I've been critical of this Administration in many areas, I believe that on the issue of Sudan this Administration has risen to the occasion. I believe that a large reason for that is because Mr. Wolf and Sen. Spector have raised those awareness issues in this bill. For that, I compliment them, and I compliment the Administration for raising its awareness. There is a mechanism currently for addressing any kind of human rights violation, including religious persecution. We have the mechanism to do that. We can act on a case-by-case basis in the Congress. I believe that this is a well-intentioned proposal that could have bad consequences. Thank you.
    The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Salmon. Mr. Faleomavaega.
    Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I'm torn by the eloquence of the gentleman from Indiana, the Democratic Ranking Member, and the concerns that he has expressed. I am also very much surprised by what my good friend from California has stated about this legislation.
    It's ironic that one of the chief cornerstones of how this country was founded was based on making sure that religious persecution would never be tolerated. It is so important that this principle be instilled in our Constitution. With all its imperfections, and based on what my good friend from California has indicated, I think we need to move forward, and I thank the Chairman.
 Page 105       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The CHAIRMAN. The question is now on the amendment, on agreeing to the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. As many in favor of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, indicate by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The CHAIRMAN. As many as are opposed, say no.
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The CHAIRMAN. The amendment——
    Mr. LANTOS. Roll call, Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. On the substitute or on the final?
    Mr. LANTOS. The final.
    The CHAIRMAN. We are not on the final yet. Would the gentleman withhold his request? The amendment is now agreed to. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey to offer a motion.
    Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report the bill to the House with an amendment and with the recommendation that the bill as amended be passed.
    The CHAIRMAN. The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from New Jersey. As many as in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    The CHAIRMAN. As many as are opposed, say no.
    [A chorus of noes.]
    The CHAIRMAN. The motion is agreed to. Mr. Lantos.
    Mr. LANTOS. I call for a roll-call vote, Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. A roll call has been requested. Is there a sufficient second on the roll call? Signify in the usual manner. A roll call is ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
 Page 106       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?
    Mr. GILMAN. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes yes. Mr. Goodling?
    Mr. GOODLING. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes yes. Mr. Leach?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde?
    Mr. HYDE. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde votes yes. Mr. Bereuter?
    Mr. BEREUTER. Abstain.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter abstains. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. SMITH. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Burton?
    Mr. BURTON. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton votes yes. Mr. Gallegly?
    Mr. GALLEGLY. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly votes yes. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
    Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes yes. Mr. Ballenger?
    Mr. BALLENGER. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes yes. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Manzullo?
    Mr. MANZULLO. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes yes. Mr. Royce?
 Page 107       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim?
    Mr. KIM. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Kim votes yes. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. CHABOT. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes yes. Mr. Sanford?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. SALMON. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon votes no. Mr. Houghton?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes no. Mr. Fox?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham?
    Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Graham votes yes. Mr. Blunt?
    Mr. BLUNT. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Blunt votes yes. Mr. Brady?
    [No response.]
 Page 108       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton?
    Mr. HAMILTON. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hamilton votes no. Mr. Gejdenson?
    Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes. Mr. Lantos?
    Mr. LANTOS. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes yes. Mr. Berman?
    Mr. BERMAN. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes. Mr. Ackerman?
    Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes. Mr. Faleomavaega?
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes. Mr. Martinez?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez?
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes. Mr. Brown?
    Mr. BROWN. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes. Ms. McKinney?
    Ms. MCKINNEY. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney votes yes. Mr. Hastings?
 Page 109       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. HASTINGS. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes no. Ms. Danner?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard?
    Mr. HILLIARD. No.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes no. Mr. Sherman?
    Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes. Mr. Wexler?
    Mr. WEXLER. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes yes. Mr. Rothman?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement?
    Mr. CLEMENT. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Clement votes yes. Mr. Luther?
    Mr. LUTHER. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Luther votes yes. Mr. Davis?
    Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.
    The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will call the absentees.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?
    [No response.]
 Page 110       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford?
    Mr. SANFORD. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford votes yes. Mr. Houghton?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox?
    Mr. FOX. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Fox votes yes. Mr. McHugh?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady?
    Mr. BRADY. Aye.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes yes. Mr. Martinez?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews?
    Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Andrews votes yes. Ms. Danner?
    [No response.]
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman?
    [No response.]
    The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report the roll.
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown is reported as a yes.
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Menendez.
 Page 111       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Could you please ask the clerk how I'm recorded?
    The CHAIRMAN. Pardon? I didn't hear you, Mr. Menendez.
    Mr. MENENDEZ. Could you ask the clerk how I'm recorded?
    The CHAIRMAN. Would the clerk report on how Mr. Menendez has voted?
    Ms. BLOOMER. Yes.
    The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report the roll.
    Ms. BLOOMER. The vote is 31 yeses to 5 noes.
    The CHAIRMAN. The motion is agreed to. The measure is adopted. Without objection, the chief of staff is authorized to make technical, grammatical, and conforming amendments to the bill. The chairman is authorized to take all actions necessary to bring the measure before the House. The chairman is authorized to make motions under Rule 20 of the House rules relative to going to conference on this bill or a counterpart bill from the Senate. The Committee will make a prompt report of the bill.
    Are there any Members seeking to file views? If not, Mr. Hamilton will protect those Members. The Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.]


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