Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, most respectfully I thank you for recognizing me and permitting me to act expeditiously in a matter that I wish to bring to the attention of the House. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privilege of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows, and I shall try to be as expeditious as possible. Impeaching Kenneth W. Starr, an independent counsel of the United States appointed pursuant to 28 United States Code section 593(b), of high crimes and misdemeanors. Resolved that Kenneth W. Starr, an independent counsel of the United States of America, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate: Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all the people of the United States of America, against Kenneth W. Starr, an independent counsel of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. Article I. In his conduct of the office of independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr has violated his oath and his statutory and constitutional duties as an officer of the United States and has acted in ways that were calculated to and that did usurp the sole power of impeachment that the Constitution of the United States vests exclusively in the House of Representatives and that were calculated to and did obstruct and impede the House of Representatives in the proper exercise of its sole power of impeachment. The acts by which Independent Counsel Starr violated his duties and attempted to and did usurp the sole power of impeachment and impede its proper exercise include. On September 9, 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr transmitted two copies of a ``Referral to the United States House of Representatives pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, section 595(c).'' As part of that Referral, Mr. Starr submitted a 445-page report (the ``Starr Report'') that included an extended narration and analysis of evidence presented to a grand jury and of other material and that specified the grounds upon which Mr. Starr had concluded that a duly elected President of the United States should be impeached by the House of Representatives. By submitting the Starr report, Mr. Starr usurped the sole power of impeachment and impeded the House in the proper exercise of that power in various ways, including the following. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. (a) In preparing the Starr Report, Mr. Starr misused the powers granted and violated the duties assigned independent counsel under the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code. Section 595(c) does not authorize or require independent counsel to submit a report narrating and analyzing the evidence and identifying the specific grounds on which independent counsel believes the House of Representatives should impeach the President of the United States. By submitting the Starr Report in the form he did, Mr. Starr misused his powers and preempted the proper exercise of the sole power of impeachment that the Constitution assigned to the House of Representatives. Mr. Starr thereby committed a high crime and misdemeanor against the Constitution and the people of the United States of America. (b) In his preparation and submission of the Starr Report, Mr. Starr further misused his powers and violated his duties as independent counsel and arrogated onto himself and effectively preempted and undermined the proper exercise of power of impeachment that the Constitution allocated exclusively to the House of Representatives. Mr. Starr knew or should have known, and he acted to assure, that the House of Representatives would promptly release to the public any report that he transmitted to the House of Representatives under the authority of Section 595(c). With that knowledge, Mr. Starr prepared and transmitted a needlessly pornographic report calculated to inflame public opinion and to preclude the House of Representatives from following the procedures and observing the precedents it had established for the conduct of a bipartisan inquiry to determine whether a President of the United States had committed a high crime or misdemeanor in office meriting impeachment. Mr. Starr thereby committed a high crime and misdemeanor against the Constitution and the people of the United States. (2) Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr further usurped and arrogated onto himself the powers that belong solely to the House of Representatives by using and threatening to use the subpoena powers of a federal grand jury to compel an incumbent President of the United States to testify before a federal grand jury as part of an investigation whose primary purpose had become and was the development of exercise that the President had committed high crimes and misdemeanors justifying his impeachment and removal from office. With respect to the President of the United States, the only means by which the whole of that office may be called to account for his conduct in office is through the exercise by the House of Representatives of the investigative powers that the constitutional assignment of the sole power of impeachment conferred upon it. Mr. Starr improperly used and manipulated the powers of the grand jury and his office to effectively impeach the President of the United States of America and to force the House of Representatives to ratify his decision. Mr. Starr thereby committed a high crime and misdemeanor against the Constitution and the people of the United States. In all of this, Kenneth W. Starr has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as an independent counsel of the United States and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Kenneth W. Starr by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office. Article II: In his conduct of the office of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr violated the oath he took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and his duties as an officer of the United States and acted in ways that were calculated to and did unconstitutionally undermine the office of the President of the United States and obstruct, impede and impair the ability of an incumbent President of the United States to fully and effectively discharge the duties and responsibilities of his office on behalf and for the benefit of the United States of America by whom he had been duly elected. The acts by which Mr. Starr violated his oath and his duties and undermined the office of the President and obstructed, impeded and impaired the ability of the incumbent President to fully and effectively discharge the duties of that office include: (1) Mr. Starr unlawfully and improperly disclosed and authorized disclosures of grand jury material for the purpose of embarrassing and humiliating the President of the United States and distracting him from and impairing his ability to execute the duties of the office to which the people of the United States had elected him. Mr. Starr has thereby committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution and the people of the United States. (2) Mr. Starr engaged in a willful and persistent course of conduct that was calculated to and did wrongfully demean, embarrass and defame an incumbent President of the United States and thereby undermine and impaired the President's ability to properly execute the duties of the office to which the people of the United States had elected him including not only Mr. Starr's wrongful disclosures of grand jury material, but also other improper conduct such as his actions and conduct calculated to suggest without foundation that the incumbent President had participated in preparing a so-called, quote, talking points, unquote, outline to improperly influence the testimony of one or more persons scheduled to be deposed in a civil action. By his willful and persistent conduct and misrepresenting as well as improperly disclosing evidence that he had gathered, Mr. Starr committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States and the people of the United States of America. (3) Mr. Starr intentionally, willfully and improperly embarrassed the people and the President of the United States by including in the Starr Report an unnecessary and improper and extended detailed salacious and pornographic narrative account of the consensual sexual encounters that a grand jury witness testified she had with an incumbent President of the United States. By including that unnecessary and improper pornographic narrative, Mr. Starr intended to and did undermine and imperil the ability of the President to conduct the foreign relations of the United States of America and otherwise to execute the duties of the office to which the people of the United States had elected him, and he knowingly and improperly embarrassed the United States as a Nation. By including that narrative knowing and intending that it would be published and disseminated, Mr. Starr committed a high crime and misdemeanor against the Constitution and the people of the United States of America. Article III: In his conduct of the office of independent counsel, Kenneth Starr violated the oath he took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the duties he had assumed as a officer of the United States and acted in ways that were calculated to and that did unconstitutionally arrogate onto himself powers that the Constitution of the United States assigned to the federal courts that were calculated to and did undermine the institution of the grand jury established by the Constitution of the United States of America and that were calculated to and did undermine and bring into disrepute the office of independent counsel and offices of all those charged with investigating and prosecuting crimes against the United States. The acts by which Mr. Starr violated his oath and duties and by which he undermined the federal courts and the grand jury and undermined and demeaned the office and role of all federal prosecutors include: (1) Mr. Starr disclosed and authorized and approved the disclosure and misuse of grand jury materials in violation of Rule 6(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and with contempt for the federal courts and for the rights of those who appear before grand juries of the United States and of those who are subjects of grand jury investigations. (2) Throughout his investigations Mr. Starr abused the powers of his office and condoned the abuse of those powers to improperly intimidate and manipulate citizens of the United States who were interviewed or called to testify before a grand jury or who were actual or potential targets of his investigation and to deprive them of rights guaranteed to all citizens of the United States. Mr. Starr and subordinates for whose conduct he is responsible further abused and misused the powers of the office of independent counsel and the powers of the grand jury to improperly evade and needlessly intrude upon the privacy of individuals and to demean the rights guaranteed to all by the first and fifth amendments to the Constitution of the United States. (3) Throughout his investigations, Mr. Starr has abused and misused and has authorized and approved the abuse and misuse of the powers of his office in ways that have demeaned the prosecutorial office and that have undermined and will undermine the ability of other prosecutorial offices of the United States to discharge their duty to take care that the laws of the United States be faithfully executed. (4) In his conduct of the office of independent counsel, Mr. Starr has needlessly and unjustifiably expended and wasted funds of the United States. Over the past 4 years Mr. Starr has expended more than $40 million in a relentless pursuit of investigations and prosecutions that he knew or should have known did not merit and could not justify such extraordinary expenditures. By the conduct described in Article III of these Articles of Impeachment, Kenneth Starr committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution and the people of the United States. In all of this, Kenneth Starr has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as an independent counsel of the United States and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Kenneth W. Starr by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office. Final article, Mr. Speaker, Article IV: By his conduct as an officer of the United States of America, including the conduct described in Articles I through III of these articles of impeachment, Kenneth W. Starr has violated the oath he took to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. He has acted and persisted in acting in ways that were calculated to and did embarrass the United States and the people of the United States before the international community and that were calculated to and did undermine the ability of the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch to effectively exercise the powers and discharge the duties assigned to each by the Constitution of the United States of America. He has unconstitutionally and improperly exercised powers that were not his to exercise and has acted in ways that were calculated to and did improperly demean a President of the United States and diminished the capacity of the President to effectively discharge the duties that the people of the United States elected him to perform. He has unconstitutionally and improperly exercised his powers and has acted in ways that were calculated to and did demean the House of Representatives and that have effectively deprived the House of Representatives of it is right to exercise its sole power of impeachment in a deliberate and bipartisan manner that was consistent with the procedures and precedents it had established in prior proceedings and inquiries to determine whether the President of the United States or any officer should be impeached. He has unlawfully and improperly exercised his powers in ways that demeaned the institution of the federal grand jury, that demonstrated contempt of the courts of the United States and the rules that govern their proceedings, and that demeaned the office of independent counsel and offices of all those charged with responsibility for seeing that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. By his conduct as an independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr has committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution and the people of the United States. In all of this, Kenneth W. Starr has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as an independent counsel of the United States and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Kenneth W. Starr, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office. Mr. Speaker, most respectfully, I gratefully thank my fellow colleagues for their patience in the House of Representatives. That concludes my noticing of the privileged resolution that I most respectfully put before the body.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if I may, this is a lengthy document, and unless the rules require all of it to be read into the Record, this Member has no great need to read it all, if that is permitted, and, if I would be permitted under leave, I would place it on the Record.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to oppose in the strongest possible terms this amendment which would effectively kill off the United States sugar program. As many of my colleagues know, I represent the second largest sugar producing district in the country. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mark Foley) my colleague, represents the largest. Candidly, Mr. Chairman, I find it fascinating that we have Members in this body who know absolutely nothing about the U.S. sugar program. Not only do they not know about the program, they do not know the people that I know that will lose their jobs. It has already started to happen, not only in Florida but in California and in Hawaii where Mr. Abercrombie comes from, and in Nebraska, Texas, Ohio, and Louisiana. Do my colleagues know that the United States sugar industry creates more than 420,000 jobs in 42 States? Do my colleagues know that the United States sugar industry has a positive annual direct and indirect economic impact on the United States economy of more than $26.2 billion? Defeat Miller-Shumer. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to oppose in the strongest possible terms this amendment which would effectively kill off the U.S. sugar program. As many of my colleagues know, I represent the second largest sugar producing district in the country. Candidly, Mr. Chairman, I find it fascinating that we have Members of this body who truly know nothing about the U.S. sugar program. Let me tell my colleagues something. If the Miller-Schumer amendment passes, literally thousands of American workers will be put out of work. It has already started to happen. Not only in Florida but in California, Hawaii, Nebraska, Texas, Ohio, and Louisiana. Do my colleagues know that the U.S. sugar industry creates more than 420,000 jobs in 42 states? Do my colleagues know that the U.S. sugar industry has a positive annual direct and indirect economic impact on the U.S. economy of more than $26.2 billion. It's just that simple, my friends. The proposed amendment puts hardworking people in the unemployment line. There is no getting around that fact. Since Congress ``reformed'' the sugar program in 1996, many sugarcane and sugarbeet farmers and many workers in cane and beet processing mills have lost their livelihood. We have lost 14 beet or cane processing mills since 1993. Two beet mills have closed just since Freedom to Farm went into effect. All these mill closures are permanent. As a result, no farmers in those regions can grow beets or cane. Mr. Chairman, I wish I had more time to get into more of the details. But I don't. But let me be perfectly clear. This amendment is bad not just for sugar growers, but for anyone in one of the 42 states whose job directly or indirectly depends on the sugar industry. Consider that when voting on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided and foolish amendment. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to oppose in the strongest possible terms this amendment which would effectively kill off the U.S. sugar program. As many of my colleagues know, I represent the second largest sugar producing district in the country. And today we have heard many arguments both in support of, and in opposition to this valuable USDA program. But one of the arguments espoused by supporters of the Miller- Schumer amendment is so egregious that I cannot possibly sit back and listen while they toss around such falsehoods and misrepresentations of the hardworking people of my district. You have heard that the current sugar program and sugar farmers are not good stewards of the environment and that the sugar companies are irresponsible when it comes to environmental protection--specifically regarding Florida's crown jewel, our Florida Everglades. Well, Mr. Chairman, these claims are patently untrue. As a supporter of the current sugar program and one of the most stalwart champions of environmental protection in this body, I think I am uniquely qualified to respond to some of the critics of this program. American sugar farmers produce their sugar in a country with the highest environmental standards in the world. American sugar farmers comply with our government standards, at huge costs to their bottom line, and compete with farmers in countries whose governments impose little or no environmental compliance costs. If there were no production or harvest of sugar in the U.S. we would have to import all of our domestic needs. And from where, Mr. chairman? Let me tell you. Foreign sugar is grown overwhelmingly in developing countries. Most foreign sugar is grown in countries which do not yet have the luxury of imposing environmental compliance costs on their farms and factories. Most foreign sugar is grown in countries that would have to clear rain forests or other fragile lands to increase their production to replace the sugar grown responsibly by American farmers. Mr. Chairman, some will say that the sugar farmers are not cleaning up the Everglades. This too is false! The Everglades Forever Act of 1994 was developed cooperatively by the federal government, the State of Florida, environmental groups, and Florida farmers. Florida sugar farmers already have committed up to $322 million to this restoration project. The bottom line is that if you support the amendment proposed today to cripple U.S. sugar policy, you will do double damage to this nation's and the world's environment: (1) The Florida sugar industry will not be around to provide the $322 million for Everglades restoration and preservation. And who knows what kind of development or industry would replace them? And, (2) American sugar production will be replaced with sugar from many of the nations that provide little or no protection for the environment. I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided and foolish amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness and regret that I must rise today to inform the House that the Rev. Robert J. Stevens recently passed away. Mr. Speaker, Rev. Stevens was a good friend. And, though he has passed, I want to take this opportunity to stand before you today in order to recognize his remarkable career. As some of you may know, Rev. Stevens spent most of his career serving as one of South Florida's finest morticians. With sensitivity and compassion, Rev. Stevens worked to comfort mourners during what is always a very difficult time in a person's life. Rev. Stevens graduated from Palm Beach County's Roosevelt Senior High School in 1958. Furthermore, he completed advanced studies at McAllister College of Embalming in New York and North Carolina A & T University. He returned to South Florida to enter into the Stevens Bros. Funeral Home family business in 1973, where he worked until his death several weeks ago. Rev. Stevens always believed that his greatest achievement was being called into the Ministry to preach the word of God. He was the founder and pastor of New Christ Missionary Baptist Church in West Palm Beach. In addition to Rev. Stevens' work in his church and funeral home business, he was an active leader of the Florida State Morticians Association, the National Funeral Directors and Morticians Association, and the Masons. His extraordinary work on behalf of these organizations will continue to preserve his memory, well into the future. The passing of Rev. Stevens is a difficult one for me personally. However, Mr. Speaker, I know that he will be missed even more by the people of South Florida. He was there for them as a pastor and as a friend. He will surely be missed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of sadness and bereavement that I rise today in order to mark the passing of Judge David W. Dyer. Judge Dyer began his federal judicial career when he was appointed by President Kennedy to the bench of Florida's Southern District Court in 1961. The following year he was named its Chief Judge. In 1966 he was appointed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, where he served until his retirement in December of 1997. Community leaders across South Florida are at a loss today because they have lost their leader, mentor, and role model. For many, Judge Dyer is nothing short of a hero. During a time of great national struggle, he consistently advocated and maintained that the Constitution guaranteed equality for all Americans--no matter what their race. To put it simply, he was Florida's most respected jurist. I would like to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to share with my colleagues two of Judge Dyer's most important achievements. The first was his landmark decision to desegregate the restaurants which serve travelers on Florida's Turnpike. The second was his decision, while sitting on a three judge panel, to reapportion Florida's voting districts on the basis of ``one man, one vote.'' In both instances, he demonstrated his ability to do not only the right thing, but also the just thing. In April of last year, I had the high honor of introducing H.R. 1479 to this body. Senator Bob Graham introduced companion legislation in the Senate. That legislation, which went on to become Public Law, renamed Miami's Federal Building and Courthouse in honor of Judge Dyer. Of course, Mr. Speaker I also rise today to mark the passing of a very dear and close friend. I do not think that it is very often in our lives that any of us are able to say that we had the privilege of knowing a `great man'. But, in this case I think that I am uniquely blessed. During the time that we spent together, he demonstrated what it meant to defy racial stereotypes. His loss is not only a personal one, but one to the entire U.S. Judiciary. How long will it be until someone else with his compassion and understanding will grace our presence again? Mr. Speaker and my fellow colleagues, I ask you to join me in hoping that that day will be very, very soon.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Indiana for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the resolution. I put a question to my colleagues: What were 122 Members of the House of Representatives doing visiting Beijing in 1997? I visited there four times with 39 of them, including the Speaker of the House, the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), chair of the Subcommittee on Asia, 39 members. On the visits each time, each one of us went to Tiananmen Square. No one in this House failed to condemn the atrocities in Tiananmen Square, nor are in support of what happens there. The President has spoken clearly and often in condemnation of human rights violations in China. When we traveled there, Speaker Gingrich, I was there on March 30 when he said if we can be respectful, but firm, we can get a long way talking with the Chinese. I have been in those rooms with the Prime Minister and the Vice Premier, with other distinguished Chinese persons. In each instance our priorities were human rights, democracy, the rule of law; and in each instance we raised those questions time and time again. Fundamentally, the question of the arrival ceremony becomes a question about whether or not President Clinton goes to China. When a foreign leader goes to China, the leader has a welcoming ceremony, and that is where the ceremony is, period. We have discussed it with the Chinese at great length. Not surprisingly, the Chinese leaders consider China their country, not ours, and feel that a guest should have the ceremony where they always have had it. I am not aware of other countries that do arrival ceremonies where and when we tell them. Finally, I will put this question to my colleagues: When President Richard Nixon went to China, the Red Guard, Mao Tse-tung, and countless other official individuals reigned supreme. The question that I put: Was China as bad on human rights then when President Nixon visited? The answer is, of course, it was. But it was right to be engaged then, and it is right to be engaged now.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today in order to publicly recognize a civic leader of South Florida, Mrs. Mary Liddell. As some of you may know, Mrs. Liddell has worked tirelessly for the students of the Dade County Public School System. Mary began her career as an elementary school teacher at Miami's Dubar Elementary School in 1964. Since then, she has served six schools in four decades. In each community, she has blessed her students with an uncommon commitment to an education that goes far beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic. In addition to her long years of service to the Dade County Public Schools, Mrs. Liddell is a leading community activist. As a representative of the March of Dimes, the YWCA, numerous voter registration drives, and the Democratic Black Caucus of Dade County, she has demonstrated to her students first hand what it means to be an interested and concerned citizen. After more than 35 years serving the Dade Country Public Schools, Mary Liddell will be retiring on June 19, 1998. The following evening, Miami's education and community service communities will be joining together to celebrate her noteworthy career. Mr. Speaker, I ask for any colleagues to join me today as we honor a truly great American. Mary has touched the lives of literally thousands of our children and for that we thank her.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to approach this subject very carefully. First, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding time to me. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) are two people that I have the greatest respect for, as I do virtually all of the Members of this institution. Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment, most respectfully, is attempting to solve a problem that does not exist. We have all, at some point, been critical of the United Nations. Many have criticized the United Nations for its failure to respond promptly to conflict overseas. Our colleagues on the Committee on National Security often criticize the U.N. for not having professional military capabilities. However, this proposed U.N. Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters is a response to these criticisms. It would be a very small unit in New York, staffed by a handful of U.N. employees and personnel, on loan from member states which could deploy quickly to the field to establish communications links, make a survey of the ground situation, and other commonsense steps. This unit is not a stalking horse for a United Nations standing army. I remember reading something in the Washington Times to that effect, and I think that that article in and of itself was ill-advised, to suggest that the military, or those of us here in Congress who pay attention to the defense and foreign policy matters, would not have the ability to understand that a standing army had been created at the United Nations without our knowledge. If we want the United Nations to be more professional in its peacekeeping operations, and we do, I cannot understand why we would want to prohibit United States military personnel from participating in such a unit. We would all agree, I would hope, that the United States military is the finest in the world. Why would we not want, on a voluntary basis, to contribute, say, a communications specialist to this very small unit at the United Nations? Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment. In my view, and in the view of several of us that serve on the Committee on International Relations, it is unnecessary and it is harmful to our interests. It is patently obvious that the administration opposes it, but I call on all my colleagues in this body to oppose this amendment, as well.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman think for one minute that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) or any of the fine Members of the Committee on National Security or anyone else on the Committee on International Relations would stand idly by and allow that to develop? This is not a step in that direction, I say to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). I honestly think we can stop it. The gentleman is asking for something that is just not a problem.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition at this time to the amendment, but I wish to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for attempting to improve this bill. I know that Mr. Brady has worked diligently, and I compliment him on his efforts. The gentleman's amendment contains a number of useful provisions. I do not think these provisions have been as carefully examined as we would like, and, in my view, they do not work well within the context of H.R. 2431. So while at this time I withdraw any of those reservations and will not oppose the efforts of the gentleman, I did at least want to register the reservation, in the hopes that we will continue in the effort to improve this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the bill in committee for a number of reasons, none of which have been addressed by the legislative process up to this point. One of my key concerns is that this bill takes a negative approach to trying to solve a very, very complex issue. That is why I offer this amendment, which would institute positive incentives to promote religious freedom. The amendment would authorize the director to weigh in on policy decisions that promote and develop legal protections and cultural respect for religious freedom in several United States programs. This does not mean increasing program costs. It does, however, mean that the current programs attempt to do something to alleviate religious persecution. The Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad has recommended that the Secretary promote a greater awareness of religious freedom in United States development programs in the broadcast of Radio Asia and the other radio services throughout the world, and in our culture and educational exchanges. The amendment follows through on these very productive suggestions. The amendment would also reinforce United States Embassies' promotion of religious freedom by rewarding diplomats who have made valuable contributions to international human rights efforts, including the right to religious freedom. I hope and expect this amendment to get unanimous support from my colleagues. Mr. Chairman, while I seek to improve the bill, I must continue to point to two of the very serious concerns with the heart of the bill. First, this bill, in my view, will not help those who suffer from religious persecution, and risks harm to the very communities it seeks to protect. Religious minorities in countries likely to be targeted under this bill fear that they will be blamed and they will suffer for the imposition of U.S. sanctions on their countries. This was the concern raised by Dr. Youssef Boutros-Ghali, a Coptic Christian and Egypt's Minister of Economy, and by Reverend Joseph Pattiasina, the General Secretary of the Communion of Churches in Indonesia, who said the bill will jeopardize the relationship between the Christians and Islam. Second, the mandatory automatic sanctions, although that has been modified in many respects, restricts the President's ability to manage the full range of United States national interests, including securing peace and security, economic prosperity, and even protection of other human rights. A determination of religious persecution against any country would automatically trigger a fixed set of assistance and trade sanctions. No other U.S. interest could be considered in a decision of whether or not to impose such sanctions. This bill forces the United States to use a single, inflexible preemptory unilateral weapon, sanctions, to address issues of immense complexity and scope. Many countries would be exposed to sanctions under this bill, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan and India. As pointed out by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), we have several national security interests in these countries, heightened only more by the events in the world today, the Middle East peace process, secure oil supplies, nonproliferation, and peace and stability in Asia. These countries buy American products. Sanctions mandated by this bill can and will surely harm some of these interests. While H.R. 24312 is well-intentioned, it is harmful to American national interests and counterproductive to our shared goal of ending religious persecution. My amendment strengthens this bill, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to thank my good friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 1 minute.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). (Mr. DOOLEY Of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I realize that some Members are supporting this bill out of frustration with what they perceive as the apparent lack of progress on foreign religious persecution issues. I would like to share with the body comments made in an editorial opinion by Samuel Berger, the President's National Security Advisor. Mr. Berger says what I believe is something critical that we need to pay attention to. He says that, ``Moreover, the more the United States is perceived as making unilateral, peremptory judgments on the performance of other countries, the less we will be able to work with those countries, including on issues of religious freedom.'' Mr. Chairman, I have had the good fortune, along with many Members in this body, to travel to a significant number of countries in the world. In each delegation that I participated in, be it in China or in Africa or elsewhere, we have raised the subject of religious persecution. I traveled to China with the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the template of our remarks to all of the Chinese interlocutors had to do with religious persecution in China. I traveled to China with the Speaker of the House. In each instance when we met, ranging all the way from the prime minister to the president to various persons that we were interlocutors with, each time, the subject of religious persecution was among our highest priorities, including those that we share with the concerns for the rule of law. I traveled to China with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), one of the most respected Members of this body. In each instance, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and myself and others traveling with us raised subjects of religious persecution. So long as we are not making those peremptory judgments, so long as we are not acting unilaterally, we have been able to make some progress. With reference to this administration, it needs to be clear that there is more that can be done, but a lot has been done. Last year, the President imposed sanctions on Sudan because of the persistent and severe persecution of Christians and others by the Government of Sudan. Religious persecution refugees, more than any other category of refugees, we are granting them asylum here in the United States. The President sent 20,000 United States troops, and most of us in this body backed that effort, to Bosnia to keep the peace to help end religion-based conflict. Secretary of State Albright and other U.S. officials have raised religious persecution in numerous meetings with foreign officials, quiet and sometimes not so quiet. Diplomacy has reaped dividends. Religious prisoners have been released in China. Christian Orthodox classes have been permitted in Turkey. I have seen evidence of substantial change in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, places where, we formerly knew them as of the Soviet Union. The Secretary of State has also instructed all United States embassies to upgrade their reporting and advocacy on this issue. Later, I will introduce an amendment that will discuss what we might do to enhance the activities of our embassies with reference to advocacy on the issue of religious persecution. In Austria and in Greece, United States embassies have succeeded in easing restrictions on religious practices. I, for one, have witnessed and talked with embassy officials in each of those countries and seen the evidence of their work. The State Departments human rights reports now devote more attention to religious freedom. Procedures for reviewing asylum cases have been modified to increase sensitivity to religious persecution. In January, the Secretary of State established a new assistant secretary-level coordinator position for issues relating to religious persecution. In essence, that is what this legislation is trying to do at, yet, another level. I urge the administration to fill that position soon, and it would then allow that we are doing parallel activity with what the administration has done. At the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the United States has led the successful effort to create a special repertoire on religious intolerance. I can go on and on and on; I shall not at this time, Mr. Chairman. We need a bill that will not promote a backlash against persecuted religious communities. We need a bill that will enable the President and the Secretary of State to balance our interests in reducing religious persecution against the full range of important and even vital national interests. We need a bill that gives the President of the United States the ability to craft an appropriate response to each distinct instance of religious persecution. This is not that bill. Some of us, in an amendment that I offer, will be trying to make it a little bit better. But this bill falls short in key respects. Specifically, the President's senior advisors intend to recommend that he veto it. I urge Members to vote against it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.