Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for some months now, pressure has been building for the enactment of legislation that would address the long- neglected but widespread problem of religious persecution in a number of countries, notably persecution of Christians. This legislation, which has been approved by both Houses of Congress and has been sent to the White House, addresses that problem in a manner that will allow the flexibility to protect U.S. interests. Because there was no Committee Report for this legislation, it is important that appropriate guidance be given as to the intent behind the legislation, for the benefit both of the Executive Branch and, in particular, the Commission established by the Act. As an original cosponsor of the legislation, I wish to supplement the Statement of Managers submitted by Mr. Nickles to draw particular attention to two provisions in the Act that address what is the fundamental duty of any government: to protect the rights of its own citizens. The primary purpose of this bill is to address the rampant persecution in many foreign countries by the governments of those countries against their own people. But however repugnant we find persecution of citizens of foreign countries--and properly so--it is even worse when we find that the U.S. government has too often turned a blind eye to violations of Americans' religious freedom by persecuting regimes. For example, the State Department has collaborated with the denial of religious freedom by shutting down Christian services on the premises of the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) and punished a whistle-blowing State Department official who protested. Similarly, the State Department has refused to take any meaningful action to secure the release of an unknown number of minor U.S. citizens who have been kept from leaving Saudi Arabia and who have been forcibly converted to Islam. This is an especially acute problem in the case of girls, who will not be able to leave Saudi Arabia even after reaching the age of majority--in effect, theirs is a life sentence. This bill addresses both of these issues, and the intent of Congress is clear. First, the bill requires the State Department to report on both practices as they affect the rights of American citizens (section 102(b)(1)(B) (i) and (ii)). This report should be detailed and specific both as to the nature of the violations and the remedial actions that have been applied. Second, because forced religious conversion is among the violations that mandate presidential action under this bill, documentation of the victimization of minor U.S. citizens in this manner by any foreign government should be of particular note in the President's decision to take action. Third, section 107 mandates access for U.S. citizens to diplomatic missions and consular posts for the purpose of religious services on the same basis as the many other nongovernmental activities unrelated to the diplomatic mission that frequently are permitted access. Fourth, the Commission should take particular note of Congress' intent in the provisions relating to violations of Americans' rights in making its recommendations and should be strict in reviewing U.S. government policies in this area. And fifth, notice of these violations of U.S. citizens' rights should prompt a thorough review of the Department of State's too-often dismissive attitude toward these concerns in comparison to its desire to cultivate good relations with foreign governments. access to u.s. missions abroad It is important to note that these concerns were not invented in the abstract but are drawn from real problems of real people. On the question of the State Department's negative attitude toward the desire of American citizens to be afforded the opportunity for worship in countries where this is forbidden, the following is relevant (from The American Spectator, ``Saving Faith: Why won't the State Dept. stand up for Christians?'' By Tom Bethell, April 1997): The Saudi dictatorship forbids all non-Muslim religious activity, but services were for years held on embassy and consular grounds in Riyadh and Jeddah. In the 1970's, hundreds of Catholics attended Mass within the U.S. mission each week; Protestant services were equally well attended, and Mormons had their own service. (No American diplomats thought to be Jewish are stationed in Saudi Arabia.) Within the British mission, such religious services continue today. But the U.S. mission has now phased them out. In contrast, the U.S. consulate in Jeddah sets aside special facilities for Islamic worship, five times a day, whether by Americans, Saudis, or embassy employees from other countries. I met with Tim Hunter at a restaurant near his home in Arlington, Virginia. Before joining the Foreign Service, he told me, he had worked for the U.S. Army in counterintelligence and as a political appointee to various federal agencies. When he arrived in Saudi Arabia in 1993 he was told by the Consul General that his ``informal duties'' would include monitoring the ``Tuesday lecture,'' a euphemism for the Catholic Mass held on consulate grounds. By then, the number of attendees had dwindled to fifteen. The reason was not hard to find. Hunter's job was to tell any inquiring U.S. citizens that the embassy knew nothing about any such service or ``Tuesday meeting.'' Only if callers were extremely persistent was he to meet with them and gauge their trustworthiness. Since this was entirely irregular and contrary to U.S. law, Hunter decided to blow the whistle. He even told the FBI what was going on. Within days of telling visiting officials from the Inspector General's office he was ordered to return to the U.S. A State Department review panel observed that Hunter had not ``absorbed the Foreign Service culture''--an understatement. In April 1995, Hunter recalled, ``two uniformed officers of the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service, displaying brightly polished 9mm caliber pistols, appeared at the office of my supervisor [James Byrnes] and advised him that I was being removed from further employment.'' Today Hunter calls the U.S. mission in Saudi Arabia a ``rogue part of the U.S. diplomatic establishment.'' Thomas Friedman provided an oblique corroboration in the New York Times, noting in December 1995 that the U.S. has ``withdrawn diplomats from Riyadh whom the Saudis felt became too knowledgeable and frank about problems in the kingdom.'' Section 107 of this bill will remedy this problem. The State Department may not adopt a cavalier attitude toward the requests of U.S. citizens for access for the purpose of religious worship or suggest that such requests are uniquely unrelated to the conduct of the diplomatic mission in comparison to other permitted activities, for example, the dispensing and social consumption of alcoholic beverages and the serving of pork products, that are also contrary to Saudi law. Many other social and American community activities without any discernable diplomatic purpose will no doubt continue, and in most cases should continue, but religious service access requests under section 107 may receive no less consideration. The fact that several other foreign consulates afford access to worship for their citizens disproves any suggestion that diplomatic interests preclude similar provisions for Americans by the State Department. The annual report required under the bill must make this clear, and the Commission should give strict scrutiny to enforcement of this provision according to its clear intention. Finally, the victimization of Mr. Hunter for blowing the whistle on this matter is unconscionable, and the Commission should recommend and monitor speedy redress of his status by the State Department. forced conversion of minor u.s. citizens If the neglect of the worship needs of Americans abroad is deplorable, inaction in the cases of the victimization of minors who have been taken to a foreign land, subjected to forced religious conversion, and prevented from returning to the United States where they would enjoy religious freedom is intolerable. One particular case illustrates the severity of this problem, that of Alia and Aisha Al Gheshiyan. In Chicago, Illinois, on January 25th, 1986, Alia, aged seven, and Aisha, aged three and a half, visited the apartment of their father, Khalid Bin Hamad Al Gheshiyan, a citizen and Saudi Arabia. The girl's mother, Patricia Roush had been awarded custody of the children by a U.S. court but had agreed to permit their father to have the children for an overnight visit. He promised to return them to their mother the next day. However, instead of returning the girls to their mother, Al Gheshiyan abducted the two girls and took them to Saudi Arabia. On January 28th 1986, an Illinois court issued a warrant for Al Gheshiyan's arrest on charges of child abduction. Having been removed from the United States and placed under the law of Saudi Arabia, where no non-Islamic region may be practiced, the girls (who had been baptized as Christians) were obliged to give up their previous Christian identity. According to their mother, who has secured documentation of her daughters' mandatory conversion to Islam: My daughters Alia and Aisha Gheshiyan were raised in a Christian home by a Christian mother and were not familiar with Islam or their father's family, culture or religion. (Which he stated he was disobeying when he was in the United States for twelve years). My daughters are now young women who are nineteen and sixteen years of age with no possible choices of religious freedom. If they do not practice Islam, they could be killed--quite possibly by their own father. This is not uncommon in Saudi Arabia. If a child, especially a daughter, does not submit to her father's commands, he has the right to put her to death. It is important to remember that in cases like that of Alia and Aisha, their plight amounts to a life sentence, because under Saudi law, even after attaining majority (as Alia already has) they may not travel abroad without their father's permission (in the case of unmarried girls and woman) or their husband's permission (in the case of married women). As if the total denial of rights to these Americans were not bad enough, even more deplorable has been the response of the Department of State, which has simply dismissed the matter as a ``child custody'' case and has advised Ms. Roush to hire a lawyer for proceedings in a Shari's religious court--a court in which she, as a non-Muslim and a woman, has virtually no standing. There is no evidence that the State Department has ever dealt with this (and other such forced conversions) as not just a private dispute or a routine consular access case but as a state-to-state matter involving not only the solemn obligation of the government of the United States to secure the rights of its citizens but of the indefensible hostility of the Saudi government toward religious freedom. If the United States could make the fate of prominent Soviet Jewish ``refuse-niks'' Natan Scharansky and Ida Nudel a matter of national policy in American relations with the Soviet Union--as we should have--the fate of Alia and Aisha must be seen as a litmus test of the willingness of the State Department to give proper weight to the requirements of this statue in its relations with the Riyadh government. The Commission should recommend specific action as the highest level to ensure that the United States no longer gives the impression that such treatment of its citizens is acceptable or is only a routine ``private'' or ``family'' matter.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until 10 a.m. on Friday, October 16. I further ask that the time for the two leaders be reserved.

Mr. CRAIG. I further ask consent that there then be a period for the transaction of morning business until 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, on Friday there will be a period of morning business until 11 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate may consider any legislative items that can be cleared by unanimous consent. The Senate is expected to begin debate in relation to the omnibus appropriations bill at some point during Friday's session, while awaiting receipt of the actual papers from the House. It is still the hope that it can be disposed of by unanimous consent. However, if a rollcall vote is required, it will not occur prior to 5 p.m. on Friday evening. If the President will remember, our majority leader had agreed that he would offer our colleagues a 24-hour notice. Certainly, without additional information coming from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make that determination, the 5 o'clock time specified here could well advance into the evening to assure the commitment of our majority leader that our colleagues have that 24 hours. So Members will be given appropriate notification as to the exact time of that vote in relation to when we can offer that announcement today, or late into the evening today.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4566, which was received from the House.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will now speak as in morning business.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 459) to amend the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to extend certain authorizations, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 459) entitled ``An Act to amend the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to extend certain authorizations, and for other purposes'', do pass the following amendments: Page 2, beginning on line 8, strike ``1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.'' and insert: ``1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.'' Page 2, beginning on line 12, strike ``1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000,'' and insert: ``1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002,''. Page 2, line 18, strike ``1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.'' and insert: ``1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.'' Page 4, strike lines 5 through 10, and insert: ``(3) in subsection (f)(1), by striking `1992, 1993, and 1994, and inserting 2000 and 2001,'.''.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendment of the House.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 391) to provide for the disposition of certain funds appropriated to pay judgment in favor of the Mississippi Sioux Indians, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 391) entitled ``An Act to provide for the disposition of certain funds appropriated to pay judgment in favor of the Mississippi Sioux Indians, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 124, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Senator Lautenberg has an amendment at the desk to the resolution, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, that the concurrent resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table without intervening action.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 507, S. 1222.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Senator Baucus has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin have a substitute amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1733, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today the Senate will begin a period of morning business until 1:00 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate may consider any legislative items that can be cleared by unanimous consent. Also, it is expected that the House will send over a 1- or 2-day continuing resolution which the Senate would take up and pass by unanimous consent. The negotiations with respect to the omnibus appropriations bill are still going on, and it is still the hope of the majority leader that the bipartisan bill can be agreed to by unanimous consent. Once again, in the event a rollcall vote is requested on the funding bill, all Members will be immediately notified. The majority leader thanks all of our colleagues for their attention.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, last night there was an interesting discussion on CNN. It went something like this: The White House is now spending the surplus--the surplus that the President, a few months ago, said had to be guaranteed for only Social Security. I am told that the White House immediately responded by saying: Oh, no, no, no, the White House isn't spending the surplus. Surpluses don't exist until after you have had all of the emergency spending you need. In other words, the White House has now come to the Hill to ask for upwards of $20 billion worth of surplus spending that is now emergency spending, that isn't called surplus and, therefore, doesn't count against application to the trust funds of Social Security. Now, while the President's legions are up here in negotiations over in Speaker Newt Gingrich's office, the President is still out on the stump accusing Republicans of wanting to spend the surplus. The President has effectively, by Democrat action here on the floor, denied the taxpayers a reasonable tax cut this year. And while there are some necessary moneys to be spent in surplus spending for emergencies--such as disaster-related emergencies, the emergency of the commodity price crises in agriculture--nobody has denied that that wasn't surplus money and that in fact we are spending a little bit of that surplus, a very small amount of that surplus, to address some very real national needs. But no Republican has even tried to suggest that the surplus isn't the surplus until we have spent all of it, or a portion of it, and that what is left over becomes the surplus. Mr. President, this is a doublespeak of yours that we are somehow, as a Nation, getting used to: Is ``is''? No; the surplus is the surplus. That is the money that remains unappropriated at the end of a fiscal year. That is the money that, collectively, the budget process of Congress, the appropriating process of Congress, says is not needed; it is not necessary to spend that money. So now we are attempting something uniquely different. Now we are attempting to once again redefine, at least in the eyes of the President and this administration, what a surplus is. I think we will let the American people decide what that is. You see, we know what ``is'' is. And ``is,'' in this case, is the money that the budget process suggests is not appropriated beyond its normal channels, and that we have determined can be upward of $60 billion worth of surplus this year, that the President in his budget message to Congress emphatically said had to be spent on Social Security, and that this Congress, in a very real and bipartisan way, said, yes, it is a good idea and should be done, because most of us agree that we are in a unique time--if not a historically opportune time--in our country, and that is to use our surplus, to use the surplus that was produced by a balanced budget that we worked so hard to accomplish--can be used to make major changes, not only in our tax law and tax policy, but now the unique opportunity to reform Social Security, not only to save it, secure it, and maintain it for those who become the immediate recipients of it, but so that our children and our grandchildren will be investing in a Social Security system that is worth investing in, so that they are not denied real return on their investment--25 cents on the dollar, as will be the case for our grandchildren today if we don't reform Social Security. We want them to get $1.50 or $2 back on their investment, as they should be allowed to do. So what is ``is,'' Mr. President, and what is surplus doesn't allow your definition. It isn't what is left over when you get through spending on all of the additional social programs that you want to spend it on. Just a few moments ago, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle held a very interesting press conference. They called it a ``do-nothing Congress.'' They denied that we had spent the money necessary to fund all of the social programs. Mr. President, in 1994 the American people spoke most profoundly when they changed Congress and said they wanted a new agenda, they wanted a balanced budget, they wanted us to reform Social Security, and they wanted the influence and the impact of the Federal Government on our lives and on our pocketbooks lessened. That is exactly what this Congress has been doing. Yet, of course, now that we have accomplished those goals, now that our economy and our lessened Government spent less of the money and our economy generates more money and we have a unique opportunity of surplus, the President now sees that opportunity--sees it or seizes it, I am not sure at this moment. Let me suggest, Mr. President, that what is is. Surplus is surplus. It isn't what is left over after you get through spending. That is exactly what the President and the White House tried to engage in last night, a whole new definition. We have watched this President try to redefine a lot of things over the last good number of months--from the word ``is,'' now to the word ``surplus.'' Mr. President, surplus is surplus. It is when the Congress works the budget process, and that is concluded in a bipartisan fashion, that we determine what surplus is. So I think it is terribly important that we finalize our work here. Those negotiations are now underway. Yes, some surplus money will be spent in emergency. What is left over at the end will be surplus. But you don't start the game by redefining the fact. That is how we deal with it. That is how we must deal with it. And it is very important that we stay with that. I am proud of the record of the Republican Congress--a balanced budget, welfare reform--major changes--and new dollars into education, education controlled at the local and State level and not new, grand programs here at the national level. Those are the issues about which we are talking. Those are the issues with which we must deal. I hope we can conclude those quickly, adjourn this Congress, and be able to announce to the American taxpayer that they can rest assured that our effort is to control Government spending, the size of Government, and the impact it has on their pocketbook. With those comments, I yield the floor.