Do you think that President Mubarak is going to do it because we have pressured him? I just think that it is a terrible error in judgment, and I hope the committee will support my amendment when it is offered. Mr. SOLARZ. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. HYDE. Certainly. Mr. SOLARZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I don't know whether the gentleman from Washington will "copt" out of this and offer his substitute to withdraw all of the whereas clauses but, if he should decide to leave whereas clauses specifying particular countries within the resolution, I think there is something to be said for withdrawing the whereas clauses on the grounds that otherwise we open up a can of worms here and get involved in a long debate as to which country should be in and which shouldn't. However, if we are going to leave particular countries in, I would then plan to offer an amendment to add Syria to the list, where you do have a community of 5,000 Jews who desperately want to leave the country but who, unlike all other Syrians, are denied the right to emigrate specifically because they are Jewish and because President Hassad wants to hold them as a kind of bargaining chip in any ultimate negotiations in which he gets involved with Israel. Mr. HYDE. Recapturing my time, does the gentleman from New York agree with me that if you are going to name a few, you ought to name them all, unless it is a regional resolution and we are just talking about the Middle East? Mr. SOLARZ. I have no problem with that. I would agree with the gentleman that if we are going to name particular countries, the more inclusive the list, the better. I would say, in reference to the gentleman's comments about North Korea, that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is mentioned on page 3 of the resolution in one of the whereas clauses, so that is one case that is included. Mr. HYDE. Does the gentleman think that President Mubarak's cooperation with the United States in the Camp David peace process, where I think he has been held out to dry a few times recently, is enhanced by this? Does the gentleman think that Syria and Egypt belong in the same category on religious persecution? Mr. SOLARZ. I think the gentleman made a good point in suggesting that it might be best to eliminate all of the references to particular countries, and I think that would perhaps facilitate Mr. HYDE. I don't mind Iran being in there and the Soviet Union, or Albania. I object to Egypt being ranked with those countries. Mr. SOLARZ. My feeling is that the gentleman from Washington has a good point. If we are going to name friends as well as foes, otherwise it has the appearance of hypocrisy. But in the interest of the harmonious adoption of the resolution, which I think deserves to be adopted, it might be best to eliminate references to all the particular countries. Mr. HYDE. Then it becomes a meaningless resolution. We are just condemning religious persecution wherever it happens. Mr. FASCELL. What is wrong with that? Chairman ZABLOCKI. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired. The Chair would like to note that we have two other pieces of legislation to consider. Obviously, this is not an all-inclusive resolution. I would suggest, therefore, that the subcommittee chairman withdraw House Resolution 433, and prepare a simple so-called generic resolution on the issue which we will consider at some future date. Mr. BONKER. Mr. Chairman. Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from Washington. Mr. BONKER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to delete all the whereas clauses beginning on page 2, beginning with "Whereas in Iran, the Baha'i community," and through page 3 to line 1. I would also request that the report language, if there is a report prepared to accompany this legislation, would note the countries which were the subject of hearings by the subcommittee on the problem of religious persecution. Chairman ZABLOCKI. The Chair would like to note that if the gentleman, by amendment, strikes the whereas clauses on the pages he has indicated, it would be the Chair's preference that the gentleman introduce a new House concurrent resolution, a clean bill, because we would have the very same discussion we are having here in committee if it were an amendment which would strike just certain clauses. Is it the intention of the gentleman from Washington to introduce a clean bill? Mr. BONKER. Mr. Chairman, if we just delete the whereas clauses to which I referred, it is a clean bill. Chairman ZABLOCKI. No; the amendment will show the language in the bill as now printed, with an amendment striking the whereas clauses in question. You would still have all the countries mentioned, and the discussion on the floor would therefore be along the same lines as the current committee debate. Mr. BONKER. I understand what the chairman is saying. Chairman ZABLOCKI. We would not have to call another meeting because we have already discussed this. The committee could be discharged by unanimous consent. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman. Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from Florida. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we act on this bill as if it were a clean bill, and allow the chairman to sponsor a clean bill and get a number, and the action of the committee on the bill before us be tantamount to action on the clean bill with a new number. Chairman ZABLOCKI. Is there objection? Mr. DERWINSKI. I think that is a very practical suggestion. The question occurs on the House Concurrent Resolution 433, which will be reassigned a new number as a clean bill, striking the whereas clauses as indicated by the gentleman from Washington. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." [Chorus of "ayes."] Chairman ZABLOCKI. Opposed, "no." [No response.] Chairman ZABLOCKI. The "ayes" have it, and a clean bill is approved. 1 [Whereupon, the committee proceeded in consideration of other business.] 1 The new bill, H. Con. Res. 434, passed the House of Representatives on Dec. 17, 1982. See app. 27 for text of resolution. RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION AS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS National and International Remedies TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1982 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 11:40 a.m., in room 2255, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Don Bonker (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. BONKER. The Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations will come to order. I would like to apologize for the delay. Whenever the full Foreign Affairs Committee is in session, subcommittees cannot meet. It is a committee rule, so we had no other choice than to delay this morning's hearing until after the full committee had concluded its work. The subcommittee today is taking up the last in a series of hearings on the subject of religious persecution. We have attempted over the course of the last two sessions of Congress to take a different approach to human rights. We have tried to identify the various contributing factors to human rights violations so that as a government, we can focus more acutely on what constitutes human rights violations. In the last session of the Congress, with the help of Mr. Shestack, we identified disappearances as a human rights violation. That resulted in the passage of a congressional resolution which directed our delegation to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to set up a working group, which has been very effective in dealing with that problem. We also included disappearances as part of the basic description as to what constitutes a human rights violation in both sections 502B and 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act. Let me note that we attempted at the outset of these hearings to narrow the scope of this subject. We recognized that we could get into questions of religious freedom, religious intolerance, and into all kinds of areas. In focusing on religious discrimination and persecution, we wanted to find those instances where people were victims of repression solely because of their religious beliefs. As a result, we have had a chance to focus on places like Iran where the Baha'i faith is experiencing ongoing repression over a period of 138 years. We have looked at the Copts in Egypt. We have looked at the church in Latin America, Presbyterians in certain Asian countries, Christians and Jews in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. We really feel we have been fairly comprehensive in these hearings in trying to identify those instances or areas where religious persecution is an acute problem. Finally, the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning passed our resolution which was adopted by the subcommittee a few weeks ago in anticipation of trying to get final action before this lame duck session expires-if it ever does-the resolution on religious persecution. The resolution notes international treaties and other documents concerning religious freedom. It also cited those instances to which I just referred where the subcommittee has identified problems of religious persecution. The operative sections of the resolution would direct the President to do all he can at international forums, specifically the United Nations to bring more attention to religious persecution. It mandates our delegation at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to set up a working group on this problem. Unfortunately, some on the committee objected to a "whereas❞ clause which identified the problems of the Coptic Christians in Egypt. They argued that the clause would bring ill will to our relationship with President Mubarak of Egypt, so there was an effort to remove that provision. I countered with another amendment which suggested that we remove all "whereas" clauses which made reference to any country. That amendment passed and it is my hope that the full House will take up this resolution during the week.1 This session today is very important in that we want to explore ways in which we can be effective on the problem of religious persecution. The panelists are all very experienced in this area. If we come up with any new ideas, we still have the opportunity of maybe amending the resolution on the floor or going into the Senate for concurrent action so we can expand the resolution. In any case, we are looking forward to your testimony on this our final hearing on the problems of religious persecution. [Mr. Bonker's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DON BONKER, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS This is the ninth and final hearing in the series on the subject of religious persecution as a violation of human rights. Over the past year, the Subcommittee has heard dozens of expert witnesses on the problem of religious persecution around the world. They gave detailed testimony as to the desperate situation of the Baha'is in Iran, the Church in Latin America, Jews and Christians in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Presbyterians and other Christians in Asia, the Copts in Egypt, and the Falasha Jews in Ethiopia. From all the available evidence presented to the subcommittee there can be no doubt that the free exercise of religion is limited in most parts of the world. Discrimination, imprisonment, torture and death are often the price that are paid for one's religious belief. At its last hearing, the Subcommittee considered and passed a comprehensive resolution condemning all forms of religious persecution and discrimination as a violation of human rights. The resolution, which was adopted by the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning, cites numerous references to the fundamental right of reli 1 House Concurrent Resolution 434 passed the House on December 17, 1982. See app. 27 for text of resolution. |