Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I object.

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to. Let me give a little rundown of what this bill does. And, again, I thank my colleague, Senator Lieberman, for cosponsoring it and for his work. I will tell all my colleagues there has been a significant amount of work that has gone into this bill. Questions have been raised. We tried to alleviate some of those concerns. I also wish to thank Senator Biden, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hagel, Senator Gramm, and others who have raised questions and who have worked with us to try to solve some of those. This bill creates a position with Ambassador rank called Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. This Ambassador will serve as a full-time, high-level, single-issue diplomat working with the State Department, trying to find out what religious persecution is happening in various places around the world and to represent the administration. We also set up a Commission on International Religious Liberty. This is a 10-member, bipartisan commission with appointments from Congress and the President. It will provide an outside independent voice investigating religious persecution incidents, raising the profile of religious persecution while making substantive policy recommendations to the Congress and the White House. On this commission of 10-members, the Ambassador at Large will be a nonvoting member. The President or the executive branch will be entitled to three commissioners and in Congress the President's party in each House will be entitled to an additional position on both sides for a total of five, and the opposing party, in this case it would be the Republicans--Democrats control the White House--the Republicans would be entitled to two appointments from both the House and the Senate, for four. This commission, being an independent commission, will have the authority to investigate, to conduct hearings to find out what is happening with religious freedom around the world, and be able to make a report to the administration on their recommendations on how to alleviate religious persecution. I might mention our goal is not to punish any country that is violating or persecuting anybody because of their religious beliefs. The goal is not to punish anybody. Our goal is to change behavior. Our goal is to eliminate religious persecution. Our goal is to expand religious freedom worldwide, and we have gone to great lengths to do that. Our bill says the commission will make its recommendations to the President and to Congress by May 1. There is also an additional report that is made by the State Department on the advice of the Ambassador at Large, and the State Department gives a country-by-country review of religious freedom. They report that yes, there has been progress in some countries or no, there has not been progress, but rather significant persecution in basically all countries with whom we have relations. I might mention we have human rights reports right now, human rights reports that cover these countries. But for the most part, in many cases, we have been silent on religious freedom in those countries. So now we will be talking about an annual report on religious freedom and persecution. And then we talk about responses, what can we do if we find that some countries are violating individuals' or people's religious freedom. Under the proposal, we have some positive things to promote religious freedom. The International Religious Freedom Act has several measures to promote religious liberty abroad. We have USAID funding for legal protection of religious freedoms in restrictive countries. International broadcasting can be used to promote religious freedom. Fulbright exchanges, for example, of religious leaders and scholars and legal experts can be used. Religious freedom awards and performance pay for meritorious Foreign Service officers; equal access to embassies for U.S. citizens at the embassy's discretion for nationals for religious activities on terms not less favorable for other nongovernmental activities; training for Foreign Service officers and refugee and asylum personnel to ensure the promotion of religious liberty, and accurate reporting of religious persecution and relief for victims of persecution. We also have steps to directly target those agents and those countries that are responsible for religious persecution, and we have several of those. Some people have said, well, those are various sanctions. And these people, talking about sanctions, they usually think, well, we are going to have a wheat embargo. That is what happened during the Carter administration when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. I don't see that happening. There are several items, so-called sanctions. We have 1 through 15, and I might mention the first one is a private demarche. The second one is an official demarche. Those can be letters to the embassy: We have reports of people being persecuted; we hope you don't do that anymore. It might be a call to the Ambassador. It might be a call to the Secretary of State or to the diplomatic personnel that there are reports of religious persecution; we want that to be changed. Or it could be more serious. We could cancel a scientific visit. We could have cancellation of a cultural exchange. We could deny one or more State visits. We can cancel State visits. We can do several things. And then we go into the possible range of economic sanctions. Some people say, well, wait a minute, should you do this? Let's talk about it. These economic sanctions are only for the most egregious or the more, what we define under our bill as particularly severe violations of religious freedom. And particularly severe violations of religious freedom deals again with torture, imprisonment, deals with death, again the most egregious forms of religious persecution. And in those areas we have some economics--the withdrawal, limitation or suspension of development assistance. We have direction of the director of OPEC or TDA or EXIM not to approve guarantees, or we have the withdrawal, limitation or suspension of security assistance. I might mention it says ``limitation.'' It wouldn't have to be 100 percent. It could be 5 percent or it could be a little bit more. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES. I would like to make a presentation of what is in the bill. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to again thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his support of this bill and for his leadership on the bill that passed the House of Representatives. I will mention and compare a little bit between the House bill and the Senate bill. The House bill passed with an overwhelming vote. It came down very hard with punitive actions against countries that had gross violations of religious freedom, or had a lot of punitive action towards those countries that participated in really the most atrocious type of religious persecution--death, torture, imprisonment. Again, I compliment Representative Wolf and Senator Specter for bringing that issue to the attention of the American people, maybe to the world's attention, because a lot of people didn't know that people were going to jail, that they were imprisoned for long periods of time, they might be tortured, they might be actually killed for their religious beliefs. This bill goes a little bit further than that. It might be a little milder on the sanctions side because it gives the President a lot of options, and I would agree and I happen to think that is the right action, but we also provide that we should recognize violations of religious freedom including violations such as assembling for peaceful religious activities, for speaking out on one's religion, for changing one's religious beliefs, for possessing or distributing religious materials or raising one's children in the religion of your choice. In other words, we believe religious freedom should be a basic right for all Americans, for all people worldwide, and the United Nation's declaration includes such freedom. Countries that join the United Nations say, yes, we believe in religious freedom, but yet we find these things happening all the time. As Members of the Senate and Members of the House, many of us have been engaged in trying to protect religious freedom when we find that maybe our constituents are denied access, denied the opportunity to worship, maybe put in prison because they share their faith or they wish to worship in a particular country and they find that it is not even available. So our bill goes a little bit further than the House bill in the fact that we include a lot of other violations of religious freedom. I might mention a few other things, Mr. President, maybe outline some of the things that our bill does in comparison--not necessarily a comparison with what the House did but an explanation of what our bill does.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their participation and cooperation in making this act a reality, and particularly my colleague, Senator Lieberman, for cosponsoring this. We have 29 cosponsors of this bill. Certainly, one of the principal cosponsors and leaders on combating religious persecution and promoting religious freedom throughout the world has been Senator Specter, the original cosponsor of the Specter- Wolf bill which passed the House overwhelmingly. I commend Congressman Wolf for his leadership and for the enormous vote they had in the House. I commend Senator Specter for combating religious persecution and promoting religious freedom throughout the world. I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we are ready to begin consideration on the International Religious Freedom Act.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I so modify the request.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate turn to H.R. 2431, that the cloture motion be vitiated, and that Senator Lott or his designee be recognized to offer a substitute amendment; that there be 2\1/2\ hours of debate on the substitute amendment to be equally divided between the majority and minority leaders or their designees; and that following the expiration or yielding back of time, the substitute amendment be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that an amendment to the title then be offered and agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the bill be advanced to third reading, and the Senate vote on final passage of H.R. 2431, as amended, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that the conference report be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the conference report be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for his work and support of this very important legislation. I also thank Senator Kyl for his dedicated work on this issue. I was pleased to join him as an original cosponsor of this bill, because I believe that this is a fundamental issue of freedom for all senior citizens. Every senior citizen should have the fundamental right to pay out of their own pocket for the health care they want from the physician they choose. President Clinton has repeatedly stated, most recently in his State of the Union address, that ``all Americans should have the right to choose the doctor they want for the care they need.'' But apparently, the administration does not believe this should apply to Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, during the debate on the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997, the administration repeatedly stated their opposition to giving his unfettered freedom to senior citizens. Finally, the administration agreed to drop their objections to this provision if the BBA would grant seniors only limited freedom with certain restrictions. In the spirit of compromise, the BBA included a limited provision to allow physicians to enter into private contracts for Medicare-covered services. Unfortunately, the provision in the BBA did not go far enough. Under BBA 97, in order to enter into these contracts, a physician or other provider would have to opt out of Medicare for two years and sign an affidavit, approved by HCFA, to ensure that no Medicare patients were treated. But the two-year exclusion presents the doctor with a difficult choice: either treat the patient on a private contract and drop all other Medicare patients for two years; or refuse to treat the patient in favor of current Medicare patients. This is a difficult decision that neither a physician or beneficiary should be required to make. Now, one can argue that the reforms in the BBA were a step forward for Medicare private contracting. If is true that HCFA had interpreted Medicare law, prior to the passage of BBA 97, as effectively prohibiting private contracts. In fact, HCFA had gone as far as threatening physicians and other providers with fines and exclusion from Medicare and even criminal prosecution. So if HCFA's interpretation was correct, perhaps the provisions included in BBA 97 were a step forward. On the other hand, many respected Medicare experts have suggested that HCFA did, in fact, misinterpret the Medicare statute. In other words, Medicare law did not prohibit private contracts, but rather it was silent on the issue. As I read the Medicare law, prior to BBA, I see nothing that prohibits Medicare beneficiaries and providers from entering into these private arrangements. So if this interpretation is correct, the provisions included in BBA could be viewed as a step backward. In either case, the right thing to do is to allow seniors unfettered, unrestricted access to the doctor of their choice. The Kyl legislation does just that. It would extend this right to Medicare beneficiaries with no limitation, allowing Medicare beneficiaries to be treated for Medicare-covered services by the physicians of their choice on a ``case-by-case'' and a ``patient-by-patient'' basis. No doctor who chooses to enter into a private contracting arrangement with a senior would be faced with fines or expulsion from the Medicare program. Opponents of private contracting make two primary arguments against this legislation: unethical doctors will take advantage of seniors to increase their income; and it will result in excessive fraud and abuse in the Medicare program. The argument that perplexes me the most is the concern that unethical doctors would take advantage of vulnerable seniors and use private contracts to increase their annual income. If I were a Medicare beneficiary I would be offended by the notion that I am unable to make my own financial and medical decision. Senior citizens are some of the most frugal and well informed health care shoppers in the country. Additionally, if I were a physician, I would be offended by the assumption that most doctors are unethical in their professional activities. Any physician that were to engage in unethical or coercive practices faces tremendous risks, including the loss of their medical license for ethical violations. I assume that those who believe physicians will use the Kyl legislation to line their pockets would also be concerned with new federal coverage mandates on private health insurance. Every federal coverage mandate we place on health insurance providers increases the cost of health insurance and increases the revenues of physicians. But I haven't heard many members who are concerned that federal mandates which require insurance companies to pay for a variety of treatments may increase the profits of physicians. Do we assume that physicians and other practitioners will be ethical when an insurance company is paying the bill and unethical when a vulnerable senior is paying the bill? The fact is that the opponents of this legislation simply want more control over the health care of senior citizens. The bill also contains strong consumer protection standards to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries are not exploited. Private contracts must be in writing, signed by the beneficiary, and identify the services covered by the contract. It prohibits private contracts in emergency situations, unless the contract was entered into before the onset of the emergency medical condition. Private contracts may only be entered into on a prospective basis and may not apply to services rendered prior to the signing of the contract. Such contracts must also notify the beneficiary that Medicare is not responsible for the payment of any services covered under the contract and that the beneficiary has the right to have such services provided by other physicians or practitioners to whom Medicare payment would be made. Other opponents of this legislation argue that private contracting will result in double billing and outright fraud. Perhaps the opponents haven't looked closely at the extensive anti-fraud measures included in this legislation. The legislation prohibits double payments by requiring physicians and practitioners entering into private contracts to submit to the Secretary such information as may be necessary to avoid any payment under Part A or Part B for services covered under the contract. Fraudulent billing would be detected and punished through existing fraud and abuse laws and standard auditing procedures used by Medicare and private plans. If Medicare did pay for a service, the patient would receive a statement and could easily notify Medicare of the payment error. Mr. President, this legislation adequately addresses the concerns that have been raised by the opponents. The integrity of Medicare system is not at issue here. The defining issue is really quite simple. This is a fundamental issue of individual freedom. Do you support giving senior citizens the freedom to pay out of their own pocket for the health care they want from the physician they choose? Or do you support limiting that freedom and restricting the health care choices available to senior citizens? I hope my colleagues will join Senator Kyl in supporting this legislation and supporting individual freedom for every senior citizen.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, Senator Bryan and I have been working for nearly a year to address concerns within the motor carrier industry with respect to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I would like to thank Senator Byran for his leadership on this important legislation. We have been working to ensure all involved parties are in agreement with the changes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act in this bill. The Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996, which passed as part of the Omnibus Conciliation Appropriations Act of 1997, contained reforms to the Fair Credit Reporting Act which are in conflict with the reality of how the motor carrier industry hires safe, responsible drivers. We have reached an agreement with consumer groups, including U.S. PIRG, the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee, the Federal Trade Commission, and the credit industry which will not reduce consumer protections but will ensure a fair process for the regulated community. I would like to thank everyone for their help throughout this process on this important legislation. This legislation will more appropriately address the manner in which the trucking industry hires safe, responsible drivers. If an individual applies for employment by mail, telephone, or electronic means, the employer can notify the potential employee orally, in writing, or electronically, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes. The applicant must then consent to the procurement of that report. This legislation will also allow an employer within the trucking industry, if the potential employee has applied for employment by mail, telephone, or electronically, to take adverse action based on the report and then notify the consumer within three business days that adverse action has been taken. In addition, this bill also includes a provision that will allow criminal convictions to be reported past 7 years. This information is critical to employers in the areas of child care, education, and household services. And finally we have included technical amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act that, again, the Federal Trade Commission and the regulated community are in agreement with. It is essential that this commonsense legislation pass the Senate this year and I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. I want to again thank everyone for their support on this issue and I thank my colleagues Senator Sarbanes, Senator Bryan, Senator Mack, and others on the Banking Committee for their leadership on the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, earlier today, I, Senator Lieberman, Senator Specter, Senator Coats, Senator Akaka, as well as Congressman Wolf, and other leaders of various religious organizations, had a press conference discussing the International Religious Freedom Act. We came out and spoke in favor of Congress passing the International Religious Freedom Act this year. I tell my colleagues, I very much hope and expect we will do that. I think it is one of the highest priorities we have left before we adjourn this session. The issue of religious persecution and freedom is an issue that I have been working on, as many others have, for a long time. I very much value the opportunity and the right and the privilege that I have as an American citizen to worship as I please, where I please, how I please. In fact, I believe it is one of the most precious rights that any of us have as a citizen of this country. Unfortunately, too many people in too many countries do not have that right. It is unfortunate that in many places all around the world, religious persecution is a common practice. It happens in more countries than we can imagine. There are far too many state laws and policies that restrict religious freedom. For many years, I have worked with my colleagues, Senator Helms, Senator Lugar and Senator Nunn, to help win freedom for those around the world who suffer because of religious beliefs. While we have been successful on many occasions, sadly, in some cases, we haven't been. Most of this work has been done, I might mention, quietly and behind the scenes. In 1996, I was honored to sponsor a Senate resolution on religious persecution, which passed by unanimous consent. In that resolution, the Senate made a strong recommendation ``that the President expand and invigorate the United States' international advocacy on behalf of persecuted Christians, and initiate a thorough examination of all the United States' policies that affect persecuted Christians.'' Unlike the resolution that we helped get through the Senate 2 years ago, the legislation we are talking about today makes no distinction as to the faith of those who are being persecuted. This bill, I believe, will benefit all persons of all faiths who are persecuted for practicing their religion. Congressman Frank Wolf and Senator Arlen Specter have done a great job during the past year and a half in bringing this issue to the attention of the American public. I want to thank my friend, Congressman Wolf, for his leadership in the House, and of course all those persons in the House who passed a similar bill with a record vote, 375-41. Now, we in the Senate have a historic opportunity to finish the job that was started by the House, by passing the International Religious Freedom Act. I also want to thank my colleague, Senator Specter, for his leadership as original sponsor of the resolution. His work on our legislation, I think, has added considerably to the effectiveness of the bill. I also want to thank Senators Grams and Hagel who worked with us to modify the bill to ensure that what we are doing is responsible and it is done in a careful way. I think with their efforts we have crafted a bill that can be supported by all Senators, as evidenced by the fact that a broad spectrum of grassroots organizations have endorsed this bill. We have 29 Senate cosponsors, and I expect we will have more shortly. We have 21 groups that are supporting our bill who are advocating religious freedom. Those organizations include: the Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals, the International Fellowship of Jews and Christians, the Christian Coalition, the Episcopal Church, the Anti-Defamation League, Advocates International, the National Jewish Coalition, Traditional Values Coalition, American Jewish Committee, Justice Fellowship, the Catholic Conference, B'Nai B'rith International, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Catholic Conference of Major Superiors of Men's Institutes, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, National Conference of Soviet Jewry, the United Methodist Church-Women's Division, and the American Coptic Association. The Episcopal Church stated the following about the International Religious Freedom Act in a letter to each office on Capitol Hill: The Nickles-Lieberman bill is a moderate, flexible response to human rights abuses that strikes the right balance between imposing inflexible sanctions in overlooking serious human rights abuses. The Catholic conference stated the following in a letter to my office: The bill is a reasonable and thoughtful effort to ensure that religious liberty has its rightful place in U.S. policy while preserving the authority of the Executive to pursue legitimate foreign policy goals. It deserves broad, bipartisan support and should be considered before Congress adjourns. B'nai B'rith International, The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America signed a letter to me stating: Passage of this bill would underscore our nation's commitment to human rights worldwide and lend hope to millions of religious believers who suffer because of their faith. Failure to act now on this legislation would send a dangerous signal to persecutors that they can act with impunity. Unfortunately, it is a tragic reality that literally millions of religious believers around the world live with the terrifying prospect of persecution--of being tortured, arrested, imprisoned, or even killed simply for their faith. Millions more around the world are denied, by government policy, the ability to practice their religion. I believe that this bill can be an effective tool in helping to resolve the problem of religious persecution throughout the world. The International Religious Freedom Act will establish a process to ensure that on an ongoing basis, the United States closely monitors religious persecution worldwide. International Religious Freedom Act uses a broad definition of religious persecution. This definition ranges in scope from the most egregious form of religious persecution--imprisonment, torture or death--to the most common--the inability of one to speak freely about one's religion, or to change religion. That's right. There are prohibitions in certain countries on changing your religion, on talking about your religion, or practicing your religion. This is an important aspect of the bill. If the definition of religious persecution were limited to only torture, imprisonment or death, the International Religious Freedom Act would only cover about a few countries, and would not include about 80 to 85 percent of the religious persecution that takes place in the world--the ability to practice one's religion. We adopted this standard to ensure that we address the problem before it escalates to torture and murder. Under the provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act, the President is required to take action against those countries that engage in religious persecution. However, the President is given a menu of options, fifteen items, from which he can choose the most appropriate response. In addition, the President is given the discretion to calibrate that action in response to each country's particular situation. In essence, this allows the President to weigh a variety of factors such as strategic importance, the historical relationship between the United States and that country and the severity of the religious persecution in that country when determining an action. I believe this flexibility also makes the International Religious Freedom Act more effective. We provide the President with a menu of options that makes it make likely that he will take action. We need to keep our eye on the goal. The goal of our bill is not to punish countries, but to change behavior, and if it is more likely that the President will take an action, then it is more likely that behavior will change. And that, Mr. President, in my opinion should be the goal of any legislation dealing with religious persecution--changing behavior in other countries that persecute people because of their faith. The International Religious Freedom Act, also seeks to promote religious freedom. The bill insists that U.S. foreign assistance should place a priority on developing legal protections and respect for religious freedom, by promoting exchanges and visits of religious leaders in the U.S. and abroad, and by making one of the priorities of our international broadcast programs the promotion of and respect for religious freedom. This bill is not a classic case of Uncle Sam imposing his views on the world. Although the right to religious freedom undergirds the very existence and origin of this country, the bill only asks other countries to live up to the commitments they have made in international documents and agreements. For example, article 1, paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations states one of the purposes of the United Nations is to: Achieve international cooperation in . . . promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinctions as to race, sex, language or religion. There are 185 members of the United Nations. Some of the members of the United Nations are the biggest violators of the right to religious freedom. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. According to a CRS memo, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was originally adopted in 1948 at the UN by 48 of the countries that belonged to the UN at that time (eight countries abstained). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered as a part of the United Nations and any country who has joined since 1948 subscribes to its principles. No ratification is required. Some have suggested that it is inappropriate to elevate religion to a ``higher'' or ``privileged'' status in U.S. policy on human rights. But the reality is the opposite. We are trying to correct the neglect that has too long existed, where religious persecution has been given a lower priority than persecution based on political opinion, labor activities, sexual orientation, what have you. This bill is remedial for years of neglect. Religion must no longer be an afterthought of American human rights policy. As the Catholic Conference stated in its letter to me: The bill is a reasonable and thoughtful effort to ensure that religious liberty has its rightful place in U.S. policy while preserving the authority of the Executive to pursue legitimate foreign policy goals. It deserves broad, bipartisan support and should be considered before Congress adjourns. In June of this year, an Episcopalian Bishop from Pakistan, the Right Reverend Munawar Rumlash, or Bishop Manno as he is called in the United States, gave gripping testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the plight of Christians in Pakistan. Bishop Manno cited the following examples of religious persecution in Pakistan before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that have occurred this year alone. In January, Protestant Pastor Noor Alam was stabbed to death in front of his family. Two months before his death, Pastor Alam's church was demolished by a Muslim mob. When he was stabbed to death he was in the process of rebuilding his church for which he had received several death threats. On April 27, 1998, Ayub Masih was condemned to death on charges he blasphemed the prophet Mohammed by favorably mentioning Salman Rushdie, the author of ``Satanic Verses.'' According to Freedom House, Mr. Rushdie's book has not been translated into the local Urdu language and is unavailable in Pakistan. It is improbable that Ayub Masih ever saw or read the book. The blasphemy laws in Pakistan do not just impact Christians. According to the latest State Department Human Rights Report, the Ahmadis, a minority sect of Islam that does not accept Mohammed as the last prophet of Islam, also suffer from the religious policies in Pakistan. Another country in the Middle East imprisoned some 30 Christians for distributing religious material just three months ago. There were credible reports that these people were beaten while in jail. In Nepal, Hinduism is the state religion and it is illegal to convert. Several years ago a gentleman from Oklahoma was arrested for distributing religious material. I worked with our government to get him released from prison. Just recently The American Coptic Association placed an ad in the Washington Times highlighting the trials that they are going through. I think there are something like 12 million Coptics in Egypt today. Last summer our Government prepared a report on countries that engage in violations of religious freedom. Some 77 countries were listed in that report. I will include that report at the conclusion of my statement. This is a problem, and we in the Senate have the power to try to do something to make improvements. That is what this bill is for. I believe the International Religious Freedom Act has the potential to significantly improve religious freedom throughout the world. Mr. President, what was a mere resolution in 1996, I hope will become a reality in 1998. While in 1996 we acted with words, I hope we can act now with deeds by passing the International Religious Freedom Act. I thank my colleague, Senator Lieberman, for his leadership, and Senator Coats, who has worked on this very, very hard, and the 29 cosponsors that we have on this bill. I urge my colleagues to look at this bill, and to work with us to see if we can't pass this bill and make a very positive statement as the United States being a real leader to promote religious freedom throughout the world. I thank my colleagues for their patience. I ask unanimous consent that a list of the countries that were included in the report on human rights and persecution listed in 1997 be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to conclude the dialog on Kosovo, the administration gave most Members of the Senate a briefing yesterday, but they have a lot of work to do. They have a lot of work to do if they are going to convince the Congress, if they are going to convince the American people. They have a lot of leveling with the American people as far as the expense, as far as the obligation, as far as what the next step is after the first phase. They haven't answered those questions. That is not exactly what I call ``consulting with Congress.'' Maybe we had a little dialog with the administration, but we have a lot of work to do yet.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I wish to congratulate and compliment my colleague from Virginia for a very thoughtful speech, and also for his homework in this area, and the fact that he spent some time traveling to this troubled region of the world. I had the pleasure of traveling with Senator Warner and Senator Dole, I believe in 1991. We met with Mr. Milosevic and we traveled into Kosovo. I became convinced that Mr. Milosevic was a tyrant. I still believe he is. He needs to be stopped. We need to have affirmative action to stop him. We have had strong words from this administration. We have had very little action. I am not convinced they have a plan that will fully complement their desires, so I am concerned about that. But I am also working with other colleagues in this body to try to see that the United States and NATO stand up to Milosevic and try to develop a plan that is workable. I appreciate the fact that my colleague from Virginia is willing to speak out and lend his experience and education in this area. Maybe together we can come up with something that will work and stop the atrocities, but also avoid some of the pitfalls that could easily have happened in Bosnia, where some of us were concerned about the cost and the expense. Some of us felt misled by this administration when they said we would only be in Bosnia for a short period of time. We stated that wasn't the case. We knew that wasn't the case. We knew we wouldn't be limited to 1 year. Frankly, they misled Congress and they misled the American people as far as the commitment in Bosnia. I want to avoid that repetition of that as it pertains to Kosovo. I appreciate my colleagues' comments.

Mr. NICKLES. No. Go ahead and finish.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri, (Mr. Bond) is necessarily absent. Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun), are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) is necessarily absent.