[Highlights for those who don't want to read the whole thing: The main supporter of the Scientology Bill said that he didn't want people to get the idea that he thought Scientology was a religion, therefore the change of wording to include "belief" with "religion." The opponent (Cooksey) said that Scientology preyed on wealthy widows and failed actors. This is also the bill that made German OSA-"Freiheit" magazine famous for publicly lying when it said HRES 588 was unanimously passed by the committee. As you can tell from the minutes, most of the committee was not even present. Sorry you can no longer read that edition of "Freiheit" as it was taken off the web due to the fact that a German court decided that some of the libel which it contained was also illegal. See Minton case.] International Relations Committee recording also available from http://www.house.gov/international_relations/archive.html look under October 3, 2000 - Full Committee Mark-up, Part V time 17:15 to 51:20 of smi file in link http://boss/2/navisitestreaming.net/real/2/freeland/hir/56ir1003dm.smi This official transcript saved from url:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?IPaddress=wais.access.gpo.gov&dbname=106_house_hearings&docid=f:69978.wais <DOC>

[106th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:69978.wais]
H. RES. 596, H. CON. RES. 404, H. RES. 577, H. CON. RES. 397, S. 2682, S. 1453, H. CON. RES. 414, H. CON. RES. 382, H. RES.

588, H. CON. RES. 361, H. CON. RES. 410 ======================================================================= MARKUPS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 28 AND OCTOBER 3, 2000 __________ Serial No. 106-196 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/ international<INF>--</INF>relations ______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 69-978 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa ELTON GALLEGLY, California DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina SHERROD BROWN, Ohio DANA ROHRABACHER, California CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida EDWARD R. ROYCE, California PAT DANNER, Missouri PETER T. KING, New York EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South ROBERT WEXLER, Florida Carolina STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MATT SALMON, Arizona JIM DAVIS, Florida AMO HOUGHTON, New York EARL POMEROY, North Dakota TOM CAMPBELL, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts JOHN M. McHUGH, New York GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York KEVIN BRADY, Texas BARBARA LEE, California RICHARD BURR, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania GEORGE RADANOVICH, California [VACANCY] JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff Kathleen Bertelsen Moazed, Democratic Chief of Staff Hillel Weinberg, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel Marilyn C. Owen, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S ---------- Page [...] October 3, 2000 [...] Markup of H. Res. 588, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to violations in Western Europe of provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and other international agreements relating to the freedom of individuals to profess and practice religion or belief................................ 113 [...] The Honorable Benjamin Gilman, concerning H. Res. 588............ 134 The Honorable Tom Lantos, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, concerning H. Con. Res. 410............... 134 [...] H. RES. 588 -- CONCERNING VIOLATIONS OF PROVISIONS OF THE HELSINKI FINAL ACT Chairman Gilman:

We will now take up resolution H. Res. 588, expressing the sense of the House with respect to violations in Western Europe of provisions of the Helsinki Final Act.

The Chair lays the resolution before the Committee. The Clerk will report the title of the resolution.

Ms. Bloomer: ``H. Res. 588, a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to violations in Western Europe of provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and other international agreements relating to the freedom of individuals to profess and practice religion or belief.'' Chairman Gilman: Without objection, the first reading of the resolution will be dispensed with.

[The resolution appears in the appendix.] Chairman Gilman: Without objection, the Clerk will read the preamble and the text of the resolution in that order for amendment.

Ms. Bloomer: ``Whereas under article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom----'' Chairman Gilman: Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any point. I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Salmon, the sponsor of the resolution, who has an amendment.

Mr. Salmon: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.

Chairman Gilman: The Clerk will read the amendment. The Clerk will distribute the amendment.

Ms. Bloomer: ``Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.

Salmon. Amend the preamble to read as follows.'' Chairman Gilman: Without objection, the resolution is considered as having been read and is open for amendment at any point.

[The amendment appears in the appendix.] Chairman Gilman: I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Salmon, to speak on his amendment for 5 minutes.

Mr. Salmon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this measure. First I might say that I appreciate the Democrats working with me to craft this substitute motion. I believe that this piece of legislation is fair, it is responsible, it covers a broad range of problems in terms of religious freedom and the persecution of certain religious minority groups, and I know that is one of the things that has stirred up some controversy in the past. At the outset, I would like to thank Karen Lord of the Helsinki Commission, and Hillel Weinberg of the Full Committee for their hard work in helping to draft this resolution for markup today. Unfortunately, government discrimination against minority groups and individuals in Western Europe based on religion or belief continues to persist. Such discrimination has been documented in several State Department human rights reports and U.N. reports. This discrimination takes place at the national and local levels of government and has included the denial of business licenses, the exclusion from government employment and political parties, and the prevention of performances or exhibitions by minority religions. Religious and minority discrimination appears to be permeating in European countries like France, Belgium, Austria and Germany. For example, in Belgium, the most recent international Helsinki federation report mentions that religious minorities in Belgium have been subjected to various forms of harassment and other human rights violations, such as slander, anonymous threats, loss of jobs, bomb threats, and denial of room rental for religious ceremonies. In France, the French National Assembly passed a bill that would restrict the free expression, growth and development of 173 ``blacklisted'' religious groups including, but not limited to, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Opus Dei, Muslims, Unificationists, and certain denominations of Orthodox Judaism. Furthermore, this bill would imprison religious proselytizers for up to 2 years for mental manipulation of the public. Another example took place in Austria. The 1999 U.S. Department of State Annual Report on International Religious Freedom stated that the conservative Austrian people's party formally accepted a decision that the party membership is incompatible with membership in a sect. This policy led to the resignation of a local party official. Lastly, Germany continues to engage in discriminatory trade practices by using a sect filter to ensure that a firm is not affiliated with a certain religion or belief before granting a contract to them. We heard testimony in this Committee a couple of months ago regarding a certain vendor that provides services to Microsoft, and we remember the problems that we are having there. It is time that this blatant discrimination came to a stop. I, along with my colleagues, Mr. Payne and Mr. Gilman, have introduced resolution 588, which expresses the sense of the House relating to the freedom to profess and practice religion or belief in Western Europe. The resolution also documents several of the examples I have just discussed.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Resolution 588, and I would like to also call to your attention letters sent to Chairman Gilman by several religious leaders supporting my resolution and urging its adoption. If I could, without objection, I would like to enter them into the record.

Chairman Gilman: Without objection.

Mr. Salmon: These letters encourage the passage of this resolution, because these religious leaders recognize, as we have, that this is a serious problem. As you can see, there are all kinds of organizations from those that represent the Catholic religion to the Jewish religion to the family research council. So there are many, many groups that have recognized the problem. I have another letter from a group called the Religious Action Center of Reformed Judaism which also supports the passage of this resolution.

[These letters appear in the appendix.] Mr. Salmon: I would like to close by quoting a very, very profound and moving quote that is inscribed on the second floor at the end of the permanent exhibit in the Holocaust Museum.

``First, they came for the socialists. I was not a socialist. I did not speak out. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was not a trade unionist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.'' That is pastor Martin Nemor.

I know that some have said, why in the world would we want to say something about problems with our friends. We should only be beating up on our so-called enemies. But let me quote to you in the letter that was sent to Chairman Gilman by these religious leaders, a quote that I think is very, very appropriate.

``If we do not halt this antireligion movement in Eastern Europe, particularly in liberal democratic states like France, what right do we have to criticize nonwestern countries whose policies do not measure up to our own standards of religious freedom? Should the American community of faith not be concerned that the government of France, like that of Communist China, will not discuss issues of religious liberty with the United States Government. If we can't talk to our friends, who can we talk to?'' Mr. Chairman, I encourage the adoption of this measure. It is something that has been debated over the last 3 years. I know because I have been involved in all of those debates. I know when I have gone to OSCE meetings to the various participating countries it is an issue that we have constantly brought up, yet the problems still persist. If we truly are about religious freedom in this country and we serve as a beacon for the rest of the world, if we are that light on the Hill that President Reagan once talked about, then let's be the light on the Hill. Let us stand up for religious liberty throughout the entire world. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Gilman:

The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. Bereuter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say to the gentleman from Arizona, I was relieved to find when I first began to examine your bill that this was not a traditional scientology resolution with all of its defects and inaccuracies. I want to ask you to make sure I am addressing the right one. Are we talking now about H. Res. 588? Is that the one we have before us?

Mr. Salmon:

Yes.

Mr. Bereuter: I have a number of specific questions, if I could just go over them line by line with you, and these are reports from various people, mostly international representatives from some of the European countries involved here. On page 3, the whereas clause that begins about 10 lines down, with respect to the French National Assembly, we were told by State just as a matter of accuracy that the National Assembly has not yet passed the bill and they would say it is under consideration. I wonder if you know if, in fact, that is accurate?

Mr. Salmon: My understanding--yes, it did pass the House, and it is under consideration in the Senate, so it has not passed both bodies.

Mr. Bereuter:

But it has passed the assembly?

Mr. Salmon:

Right.

Mr. Bereuter:

That is your understanding?

Mr. Salmon:

Correct.

Mr. Bereuter: Well, then, perhaps State is wrong or that is now out of date. Also on that same page, with respect to the French National Assembly, the State Department indicates that the Seventh Day Adventists should not be on that list. I don't have any knowledge one way or another.

Mr. Salmon:

Could you repeat the question?

Mr. Bereuter: That on the list on the last whereas clause on number 3, our State Department says that Seventh Day Adventists should not be listed there.

Mr. Salmon: They are not on the list. They are not on the list of the 173. If you read the statement as it is written, it does not say they are part of that list. It says that--let me see, ``whereas in 1996, French National Assembly report listed 173 organizations as suspect, including,'' and it goes through and lists those groups. And then it says, ``and official entities harass, intimidate, deny employment.'' That is not continuing with the list.

Mr. Bereuter:

I see your point. So you believe that the second reference is accurate?

Mr. Salmon:

That is correct.

Mr. Bereuter: Okay. On page 5, the whereas clause that begins ``whereas Scientologists''--this is a matter of interpretation and I would just like your clarification. At least the German Government suggests that the German Government is not orchestrating boycotts in Germany. Now, your legislation does not say that, although they are concerned about the implications, so I would just like your clarification. There may well be orchestrated boycotts. But you are saying the German Government is, in no way, involved in orchestrating such boycotts? Is that consistent---- Mr. Salmon: Yes, it does not refer to a boycott perpetrated by the German Government. It simply says boycotts. And to my knowledge, that is the same information that we have gotten as well, that there is no governmental entity that is actually overtly instigating any kind of boycotts.

Mr. Bereuter: On the top of page 4, Mr. Salmon, this could be clarified, just a minor point. The Austrian law, somehow we believe it was enacted in 1998, but that is just a minor point. That can be collected, I gather. You may be right. I thank the gentleman for his responses to these questions.

One of the concerns that I have had--and I know various governments in Europe have had--is related to their subsidy of church bodies and the treatment by the State or various levels of their government with respect to subsidies paid to the churches. They are particularly concerned in some cases, for example, in Germany, since they do subsidize the recognized churches, that subsidies do not flow to churches that they do not recognize as religions, but contend that they do not, thereby, justify, or in any way condone discrimination against it. Is there anything in your legislation that you think is addressing the tax issue appropriately or inappropriately?

Mr. Salmon: This legislation is silent on any recommendations as far as tax policy of other countries. It is not our intent to step in and tell these countries who they are to give the subsidy to or who they are not.

There is no language on that.

Mr. Bereuter: Mr. Salmon, thank you very much for your responses. I yield back.

Chairman Gilman:

Thank you, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. Payne.

Mr. Payne: Thank you very much. Let me commend Mr. Salmon for the outstanding job that he did, of course, as a cosponsor. We worked diligently on this legislation. I am glad that it is broadened enough so that those who had specific problems with the fact that we talk about religious persecution and have included Scientologists, that now seems to be put down further in the resolution, and therefore, finds less objection. I thought that the resolution, as it stood for the last 4 or 5 years, should have been passed, but I was in the minority, and of course it was not. So I am pleased that with this broadening and widening and including of 189 groups, we could finally get some resolution passed. We should certainly, though, seriously be against intolerance everywhere, and we are finding that there is more and more of it growing in the world. It seems like as the world moves to sort of a one-body, one-Europe, you know, almost one North America with NAFTA and all that, we are finding that intolerance is on the increase and it doesn't make sense--not religious intolerance, racial intolerance, intolerance for sexual preference. So I hope that this resolution passes. I think that it certainly expresses the sense of the House with respect to the violations in Western Europe. We certainly have been critical of ourselves and we still need legislation here in the United States to protect minorities and others also. So we are not doing something that we are looking over there and not over here. So once again, I would like to commend Mr. Salmon and I strongly support the resolution, I support the broadening of it, I support the inclusiveness of it, and I would hope that we would be able to have this resolution passed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Gilman:

Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Dr. Cooksey.

Mr. Cooksey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some concerns about a trend that I have seen on this Committee. It seems that every week, we spend an inordinate amount of time on another resolution going over something that maybe makes everyone on the Committee feel good about themselves and the greater worth about what they are doing; but at the same time, we are ignoring present day problems--the history of the 20th century. In the 20th century, apparently there was genocide by the Ottoman Turkish Empire, and we have spent 10 hours discussing that. The history of the Nazis and the Holocaust is well-known. Stalin killed 11 million Ukrainians, or some large number. We have our Trail of Tears in the United States that we seem to ignore, and Congress existed when this occurred and Congress participated in it. And this Congress, in this Administration, sat by on our hands when hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Rwanda, Burundi, the Congo, and more recently in Sierra Leone. So today, we are telling four European countries, Austria, Belgium, France, and Germany how to run their government, how to treat their religions. At the same time, if they were to tell us how to run our government, how to run our Congress, how to manage our relations with religion, I am sure we would resent it, and properly so. I am convinced that God will indeed judge us by our deeds as individuals, and I don't think God is going to judge us on our mixing politics and religions. That was one of the foundations of this country. So I am opposed to this piece of legislation. I don't really think it serves any purpose. I would point out in relation to Scientology, which has been a nagging problem for this Congress every year and it is always defeated, this Administration, once they came into office in 1993, was the first time Scientology had ever been recognized. That was in 1993. So how can we criticize Germany for not recognizing Scientology when our Administration made probably a political decision on a group that I know has a history of preying on elderly, perceived wealthy little widows, and apparently preys on some people in the entertainment industry that are not smart enough to do anything else but be entertainers. So I really am opposed to this and do not think it serves any useful purpose. I think that if we are going to do something useful or meaningful, we need to address some of the problems of infectious disease around the world, some of the problems of current day human rights abuses. Because I don't really think anyone is suffering in Austria or Belgium or France or Germany to the extent that it has been brought up today. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman Gilman:

Thank you, Dr. Cooksey. Are any other Members seeking recognition?

Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Campbell: Very briefly, to my good friend from Louisiana in particular, I read the resolution and I think it is a correct statement of the Rules of the House that we do not enact the whereas clauses. That is to say the whereas clauses, they are not numbered, they don't become part of law, and I tell you why I say that, because the resolution starting at page 6 with the lines that are numbered do not, in my judgment, carry any of the dangers that the gentleman from Louisiana observed, which are entirely contained in the whereas clauses. Now, that is not to say that a friend looking at our actions overseas will treat that difference with the same respect that a student of statutory construction would here in the United States. But I don't find anything objectionable in the enacting clauses, the therefore clauses, and I would yield to my good friend from Louisiana, if there is any aspect there that you would like to identify, and then would I yield whatever time I have back to the author of the resolution as well. But just for a second, if there is anything that you see on page 6 or 7 that you would like to draw attention to, I would be pleased to yield, and if not, I don't want to put you on the spot. I yield to you.

Mr. Cooksey:

I would ask the author if he would be willing to withdraw the whereas for the Scientology group.

Mr. Campbell:

I yield to Mr. Salmon.
Mr. Salmon:

I respectfully would decline to the gentleman. This is about religious inclusion for all of these various groups, and I don't want to diminish the bill in any way. I might also thank the gentleman for yielding. Every one of these countries, these 4 countries that are noted in this resolution cite international covenants in which they willingly signed and agreed to these international covenants. We are simply trying to put their feet to the fire and make sure that they adhere to them. I must respectfully disagree, if the gentleman from Louisiana does not agree that religious freedom is a human right. You stated that we should spend our time dealing with human rights issues. This country was founded on religious freedom. That is what we are about. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is about religious freedom. That is why we came here. That is why the pilgrims originally came to this country, to escape religious discrimination. People of my faith have endured religious discrimination even in this country. Maybe the gentleman has never had to encounter that, but I have sat through hearing after hearing after hearing, and I have heard of multiple problems right now in Europe. It is a serious problem, and if we don't stand in this Congress for defending religious liberty, we have no right to speak on other things. In China, where we have had the PNTR vote, every year it comes up, we talk about the religious freedom issues in China. I do not think the gentleman from Louisiana believes that those are not very serious issues. They are very serious. To me, this is very, very important. I am sorry that you don't agree that it is an important issue to try to defend religious liberty worldwide, but I believe that that is a very fundamental part of what we are about here.

Mr. Campbell: I will reclaim my time. My attempt to pour oil on troubled waters has failed. The whole idea of my intervention was to say, hey, nothing to disagree about on the enacting clauses, and instead, I am afraid I have made things worse; so I am going to withdraw, unless my friend from Louisiana wants to use the rest of my time.

Mr. Cooksey: Why don't we drop the whereas on all of the different religions, all of them, without singling out any one. I am for religious freedom, but my point is, we are dwelling on this issue in these four European countries, and we are sitting on our hands while people are dying in Sierra Leone. I was there 2 months saying I saw it. You saw the abuses that have gone on there, that have gone on all over west Africa because we have one group that does not have the courage to do the right thing in west Africa and a group in our party that does not care, it seems. And this is true with the Kurds, in Iran, Turkey, Iraq. There are a lot of groups--I mean, what greater human right is there than the right to life?

Mr. Salmon:

If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. Campbell:

I reluctantly yield.

Mr. Salmon: I do not disagree whatsoever. I think we are singing from the same sheet of music. I would be happy to work with the gentleman on any legislation that he would like to put forward on Sierra Leone or talk to the Administration, but I don't understand why it is not possible to do two goods. I am not responsible for the fact that we haven't taken up any legislation or any issues regarding Sierra Leone or defending life. I certainly agree with that. I don't oppose the gentleman. I simply am asking you to work with me on this one and I would be happy to work with you on the other. Thank you.

Chairman Gilman: The gentleman's time has expired. I support the pending resolution. It is unfortunate that countries like those named in the preamble, which are so important as allies, and where liberty is, in general, so highly regarded, seem to have a blind spot when it comes to religious liberty. This is a carefully drafted resolution dealing with a problem that is widely recognized in the community of observers of religious liberty in this country. It is supported by representatives of diverse religious groups from southern Baptists to Sikhs. I have received letters in support of it signed by personalities ranging from the Interim Dean of the Catholic University Law School to Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute. Accordingly, I believe this measure deserves the support of all Members of the Committee and I urge its adoption. I ask unanimous consent to insert my full statement into the record.

[The prepared statement appears in the appendix.] Chairman Gilman: Are there any other Members seeking recognition or seeking to offer amendments? If there are no further amendments, the previous question is ordered on the---- Mr. Cooksey:

Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Gilman:

Mr. Cooksey.

Mr. Cooksey: I would like to request a recorded vote and I notice there is not a quorum here right now.

Chairman Gilman: Are you making a point of order with regard to a quorum?

Mr. Cooksey:

Yes.

Mr. Ackerman:

Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Gilman:

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. Ackerman: Could I make a unanimous consent that we suspend further discussion on this bill until we complete the rest of the calendar and take this one up at the end?

Chairman Gilman: A motion has been made to--a unanimous consent has been made. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request? Dr. Cooksey.

Mr. Cooksey:

Mr. Chairman, I would object.

Chairman Gilman:

Dr. Cooksey objects.

Mr. Cooksey:

I object to the unanimous consent request.

Chairman Gilman:

There is an objection to the unanimous consent request.

The Chair will now---- Mr. Ackerman:

Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Gilman:

Yes, Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. Ackerman:

I make a motion to table the request of Mr. Cooksey.

Chairman Gilman:

A motion has been made to table the request.

Mr. Bereuter:

Could we have a clarification of parliamentary situation?

Chairman Gilman:

I am going to ask our counsel to set forth the parliamentary situation.

Mr. Weinberg: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that a point of order of no quorum was made by Dr. Cooksey, and I believe that there is no higher motion available such as a motion to table at this point. The Chairman would be obliged, I would advise the Chairman that he ought to count for a quorum and then we would establish whether or not we had a quorum present, following the normal procedure.

Chairman Gilman:

The Chair will count for a quorum.

The Clerk will call the roll.

Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Gilman.

Chairman Gilman:

Aye , present.

Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Gilman votes aye.

Mr. Goodling.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Leach.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Hyde.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. Bereuter:

Present.

Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Bereuter votes present.

Mr. Smith.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Burton.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Gallegly.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Ballenger.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Rohrabacher.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Manzullo.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Royce.

Mr. Royce:

Present.

Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Royce votes present.

Mr. King.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Chabot.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Sanford.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Salmon.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Houghton.

[No response.] Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Campbell:

Present.

Ms. Bloomer:

Mr. Campbell votes present.

Mr. McHugh.

[No response.] Mr. Cooksey:

Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Gilman:

Dr. Cooksey.

Mr. Cooksey:

I would like to interrupt the quorum call for a second and yield to Mr.---- Chairman Gilman:

It is not in order, but are you withdrawing your request?

Mr. Cooksey: I want to yield to Mr. Campbell, and then I want to make one more statement after his statement.

Chairman Gilman: Well, it is not in order unless you want to withdraw the request for a quorum and then we can recognize you.

Mr. Cooksey:

Okay. I will withdraw my request for a quorum.

Chairman Gilman: The gentleman has withdrawn his request for a quorum. I now recognize Dr. Cooksey.

Mr. Cooksey:

I ask unanimous consent to speak.

Chairman Gilman:

Without objection.

Mr. Cooksey: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back and make the same point I made earlier. This Committee is spending too much time on resolutions like this, and I am not sure that we really help anyone out. I am sitting here right now with a news release about 5 Catholic priests that have died in Kenya, and I worked in Kenya off and on for 6 years. Why haven't we condemned the government of Kenya, why haven't we taken decisive action there? Taking someone's right to life, someone's life is a far greater human rights violation than what we have seen in these four European countries. I am convinced that we are not doing enough along these lines, and I think that we need to reconsider what we are doing---- Mr. Ackerman:

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Cooksey: I would hope that next year when this Congress reconvenes and this Committee reconvenes, we will spend more time on worrying about people that have either lost their lives or are currently under the threat of losing their lives. I yield.

Mr. Ackerman: I would just like to remind the gentleman that the Committee's intent to take up the resolution on Kenya doing exactly what you just said if we are allowed to continue without having a disruption of disbanding because of the possible suggestion of the lack of a quorum.

Chairman Gilman:

We will continue---- Mr. Cooksey:

Well, I have withdrawn my quorum call.

Mr. Bereuter:

Would the gentleman from Louisiana yield?

Mr. Cooksey:

Yes, I yield.

Mr. Bereuter: I want to clarify my own position. I intend to vote for this resolution, and in fact will be voting to move it forward because of the work that Mr. Salmon has done. My concern is that this Member does not want to do anything to suggest that Scientology is a religion. But I look at the language here and it does say religion or belief. Certainly, people who are engaged in Scientology have a belief, and that gives me an opportunity to express my view without being opposed to the resolution.

But I want it particularly clear that I do not consider this vote to be a concession on my part that Scientology is a religion. I thank the gentleman for yielding for that clarification for the record and to make myself feel comfortable about it.

Chairman Gilman: Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. Are there any other Members seeking recognition? If not, if there are no further amendments and no further requests, I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska for a motion.

Mr. Bereuter: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman be requested to seek consideration of the pending resolution as amended on the suspension calendar.

Chairman Gilman: The question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. All those in favor signify in the usual manner; opposed. The ayes have it. And the resolution is agreed to.

--- Joe Cisar: http://cisar.org/rfs0100.htm Appreciate the finer things in life: http://www.leipzig-award.org Save a Scientologist - http://mp3.cafepress.com/barbz On-line book: http://members.tripod.com/German_Scn_News/has00.htm

Go Back