Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to correct a minor drafting error which was omitted in the legislative provision that was passed last year as part of the Omnibus appropriation bill. Because the waiver of the requirement for authorization was omitted from last year's supplemental, certain unauthorized parts of the agreed-upon package of assistance for Latin America to continue to help with the suppression of drugs cannot move forward. In response, we have prepared an amendment to the underlying authorization bill. The change to the authorization will allow this to go forward as agreed upon in the statement of managers of the supplemental appropriations legislation. The Department of State supports this legislation and is anxious to get these programs going. It is important, we believe, to the jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations that the statutory requirement that all spending on foreign assistance be authorized, or that such a requirement for authorization be waived by statute. All of this money has been appropriated and it will be spent. Our purpose here is to have it spent on the list that the Congress and the administration, and in particular General McCaffery, our drug czar, finally agreed upon. That is the list in the statement of managers accompanying the supplemental appropriations. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1379) to amend the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, to make a technical correction relating to an emergency supplemental appropriation for international narcotics control and law enforcement assistance, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, many of us have heard or seen the phenomenal success of microenterprise programs around the world. These programs reach the poorest of the poor with small loans that help them to work their way out of poverty. The record of these programs is impressive, with the poorest clients repaying their loans at rates between 95 and 98 percent. Unlike other assistance programs, we do not give funds away. We lend them to people once considered the worst credit risks on earth. Microenterprise programs proved that with access to credit, the poor can repay their loans and work their way out of poverty. The bill before the House is a result of almost 4 years of consensus building between the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the ranking Democratic member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson). The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and many of us have worked for a number of years on microenterprise development programs from their first beginnings at the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh to today when microfinancing institutions are some of the largest lenders in many developing countries. The bill also builds on the work in the last Congress, the Houghton- Hall bill. The authors of that legislation will recognize that much of the language in this bill came directly from their bill. This legislation started as a renewal of our bipartisan cooperative effort with the administration, including AID and the First Lady's office, to strengthen microfinance programs. We will recall the President's visit to Uganda where he visited a microfinance project and declared that this was one of the most successful ways to help the poor in developing countries to work their way out of poverty. Mr. Chairman, this bill accomplishes several key goals. First, it contains the essential language that half of all microenterprise resources go directly to support programs that provide $300 loans or lower to the poorest of the poor. This requirement traces back to the highly successful microcredit summit convened by Results to dedicate the international community to reaching half of the world's poor with credit programs by the year 2005. The bill adds a new section to the Foreign Assistance Act governing grants to microfinance institutions, authorizing $152 million in appropriations for fiscal year 2000 and $167 million for fiscal year 2001. I will note that these are consensus figures of the Microenterprise Coalition, advocacy and practitioners alike, and they are not strongly opposed by the administration. The bill authorizes the micro and small credit program of AID that has helped many microentrepreneurs grow from small- to medium-sized businesses. The bill has also two major new sections that lay the foundation for the future growth of the microfinance sector. First, at the suggestion of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the bill establishes a microfinance loan facility to help rescue institutions which the U.S. taxpayer has supported with liquidity and support to prevent collapse. We have all witnessed the destruction caused by Hurricane Mitch in Central America. The destruction nearly caused the collapse of several key microfinance institutions that the U.S. helped to build from the ground up. The ad hoc rescue package assembled by Brian Atwood at AID rescued these institutions so they can now head to recovery. We have also had other near collapses, and the facility will help address these emergencies in a more systematic way. Secondly, the bill calls for a number of reports by the President to lay out the future growth of these institutions, including a Federal charter. Using these reports, we hope to lay out a road map for the growth of the microfinance section over the next 10 years. This legislation has 26 original cosponsors and has been endorsed by the Microenterprise Coalition, including RESULTS and FINCA. It is my understanding that the administration has moved mightily and now has only some concerns with the legislation, and does not oppose its adoption today. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and I have one amendment that will make some technical changes to the bill, to its loan facility, that were worked out with AID. Other than that, I am not aware of any other amendments that will be offered today. I urge the support of this legislation. It is a good bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the vice chairman of the Committee and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes. Section 4(b)5 would prohibit funding of any program that attempted to impose such a condition.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would say to the gentleman that this is correct. This colloquy, for the purposes of the record and for my colleagues, has been worked out with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and with his full concurrence. The answer to the question is, that is correct.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that was crafted in conjunction with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the administration to fund the microfinance loan facility. The amendment provides that up to $5 million may be used to leverage up to $30 million to rescue a U.S.-supported microenterprise institution whose financial situation has been undermined by natural catastrophes or other events out of the control of that institution. We have seen key microfinance institutions undermined in Bangladesh and Central America where it is hard to run a bank after all your clients have been killed or made homeless by a flood or by a hurricane. With the ad hoc rescue packages we have assembled in the past, we have been able to not only prevent the collapse of U.S.-backed microfinance institutions, but to turn them into lending agents of the recovery process, especially in Honduras. This amendment would help create a microfinance loan facility to ensure that we no longer have to put together ad hoc packages to rescue such institutions. I think it is a good amendment, and I hope it has the full support of the Chamber.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes, that is correct. Funds provided by this bill may be used only to support microenterprise programs. A requirement that a microcredit applicant fulfill some unrelated precondition would constitute support for something other than microenterprise programs. Thus, such requirements are expressly prohibited by section 4(b)5.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1143, the bill just passed.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Serbia lost a courageous citizen--one committed to an open society, to a free press, to reporting the truth. Slavko Curuvija was gunned down in front of his Belgrade apartment on Sunday by two men, dressed in black with black face masks. Branka Prpa, who was with him at the time, said that the murderers were certainly professionals. I extend my deepest condolences to her and to all of Slavko's family and friends. Slavko Curuvija was editor of the independent Serbian newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, as well as the news magazine called The European. Though he had ties with Serbia's establishment, this last year he sought his own independent course, and became a leading critic of the Milosevic regime. Mr. Speaker, last December Slavko Curuvija testified before the Helsinki Commission which I chair. In his testimony, he said: I come from a country where there is no rule of law . . . By making an example out of me, the regime sends a message to all who would oppose it, intimidating and bullying all the independent media in the process . . . The crackdown on my publications and other media organizations has jeopardized the right to free speech in Serbia. The crackdown on the universities jeopardizes another basic human right, freedom of thought. Belgrade University has been deprived of autonomy, its professors have been sacked for failing to sign loyalty oaths, its students jailed for protecting . . . After all his other wars, Slobodan Milosevic appears to be preparing to wage war against his own people in Serbia and Montenegro. More recently, on March 8, Slavko Curuvija, was sentenced along with two of his journalists to five months in prison by a Belgrade court for ``spreading false reports with an intention to endanger public order,'' dictator-speak for telling the truth. The three remained free on appeal. When Milosevic used NATO's action against his forces as an excuse to eliminate any remaining independent media, Curuvija chose to shut down operations rather than succumb to state censorship. A week ago, according to today's Washington Post, a pro-regime newspaper accused Curuvija of supporting NATO bombing and said that ``people like him'' will neither be ``forgiven nor forgotten.'' People like Slavko Curuvija, who act upon their rights and freedoms and promote the protection of those rights, have fought for what is best for their country. Their patriotism is expressed in their opposition to a regime which does not want any independent voice, nor criticism. They see that Serbia only has a future if it becomes a democracy. I ask the people of Serbia, and Serbs in this country and around the world, to think hard about what has just happened. If this Milosevic regime is willing to do this to an independent thinker in Belgrade, a Serb, why is it not possible that this same regime can be responsible for the genocides in Bosnia and now in Kosovo? Is it worth rallying around Milosevic, who is President of Yugoslavia only through ruthlessly undemocratic means and who brought this upon Serbia? Can't you see that Milosevic, not Curuvija, wants Serbia to be bombed, because he believes this will enhance his power and somehow justify getting rid of those who advocate freedom? I ask the people of Serbia to take a close look around you. Who has isolated you from a Europe more free and united than ever before? Who has caused your living conditions to be so much less than they had been, or could be? The answer should be clear--Slobodan Milosevic. You must no longer allow his propaganda to succeed in convincing you otherwise. Mr. Speaker, while we may have differences regarding what the U.S. role should be in stopping the genocide in Kosovo, we should be able to agree on one central point: Slobodan Milosevic is the problem, and he must account for his crimes. In my view, the cold-blooded murder of an independent journalist, Slavko Curuvija, is the latest crime to add to the list.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 37.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very eloquent statement and for reminding us that there is no welcome mat for purveyors of hate in this country. We will take him up on that. I think it is a very valid suggestion, I say to my friend.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my good friend for his kind comments. This is another one of those vitally important human rights issues where we--Democrat, Republican, conservative, moderate and liberal--are speaking with one voice. Our friends in the Duma and other freedom- loving people need to know that, that we speak out boldly and forcefully against anti-Semitism. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) remembers in the last Congress I chaired a hearing in our subcommittee on the alarming rising tide of anti-Semitism in Russia. Even then we saw the disturbing signs that anti-Semitism was bad and getting worse. It has become even worse than that in the last few months. We need to speak out very, very forcefully. I want to thank him for his great comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 37 condemns anti-Semitic statements made by members of the Russian Duma and commends actions taken by fair-minded members of the Duma to censure the purveyors of anti-Semitism within their ranks. H. Con. Res. 37 further commends President Yeltsin and other members of the Russian Government for their rejection of such statements. Finally, this resolution reiterates the firm belief of the Congress that peace and justice cannot be achieved as long as governments and legislatures promote policies or let stand destructive remarks based on anti-Semitism, racism, and xenophobia. Mr. Speaker, with the fall of the ruble last August and the associated economic problems in Russia, there has been a disturbing rise in anti-Semitic statements by high Russian political figures. Unfortunately, anti-Semitism has always had a certain following in Russia; and it would be disingenuous of us to suggest that there is no anti-Semitism in the United States or other parts of the world. But I believe we cannot remain silent when members of the national legislature of Russia, a participating state of the OSCE and the Council of Europe, should state at a Duma hearing, as did the chairman of the Duma Security Committee, Mr. Ilyukhin, that Russian President Yeltsin's ``Jewish entourage'' is responsible for alleged genocide against the Russian people. It is an affront to human decency that Duma member and retired General Albert Makashov, speaking twice in November 1998 at public rallies, should refer to ``the Yids'' and other ``reformers and democrats'' as responsible for Russia's problems and threaten to make a list and ``send them to the other world.'' Mr. Speaker, this man, and I have seen a tape recording of him, as a matter of fact I played it at a Helsinki Commission hearing that I chaired last January, has said, ``We will remain anti-Semites and we must triumph.'' These are dangerous, hate-filled sentiments. Mr. Speaker, it should be noted and clearly stated that President Yeltsin and his government have condemned anti-Semitism and other expressions of ethnic and religious hatred. There have been attempts in the Duma to censure anti-Semitic statements and those who utter them. However, the Duma is controlled, as we all know, by the Communist Party, where anti-Semitic statements are either supported, or at least tolerated, and these attempts to censure have failed. So we must go on the record and censure. In fact, Communist Party Chairman Zyuganov has tried to rationalize anti-Semitic statements by fellow party members. He explains that the party has nothing against Jews, just Zionism. He has also stated that there will be no more anti-Semitic statements by General Makashov. But this is the same Mr. Zyuganov who has asserted that, and I quote, ``too many people with strange-sounding family names mingle in the internal affairs of Russia.'' And this is the party that claims to inherit that internationalist mantle of the old Communist Party. Mr. Speaker, on January 15 of this year, I chaired a Helsinki Commission hearing regarding human rights in Russia, at which time we heard testimony by Lyuda Alexeeva, a former Soviet dissident and chairperson of the Moscow Helsinki Group. She testified that the Russian people themselves are not anti-Semitic but that the Communist Party is tolerating this crude attitude among its ranks. She called upon parliamentarians throughout the world to protest in no uncertain terms the position of the Communist Party and its anti-Semitic leaders. Let us make that a priority for us today, to censure, to speak out so that the democratic forces in Russia, the decent people who are trying to create a civil society in Russia, are not silenced by these demagogues of hate. I urge strong support for this resolution. We must go on record. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 37) concerning anti- Semitic statements made by members of the Duma of the Russian Federation, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bipartisan resolution which condemns the brutal murder of Northern Ireland defense attorney Rosemary Nelson and calls on the British Government to launch an independent inquiry into Rosemary's killing. The resolution also calls for an independent judicial inquiry into the possibility of official collusion in the 1989 murder of defense attorney Patrick Finucane and an independent investigation into the general allegations of harassment of defense attorneys by Northern Ireland's police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). I am pleased that Mr. Gilman, Mr. King, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Menendez are original sponsors of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, Rosemary Nelson was a champion of due process rights and a conscientious and courageous attorney in Northern Ireland. She was the wife of Paul Nelson and the mother of three young children: Christopher (13), Gavin (11), and Sarah (8). Her murder was a cowardly act by those who are the enemies of peace and justice in Northern Ireland. Her death is a loss felt not just by her family and friends, but by all of us who advocate fundamental human rights. I first met Rosemary Nelson in August, 1997, when she shared with me her genuine concern for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. She explained how, as an attorney, she has been physically and verbally assaulted by RUC members and how the RUC sent messages of intimidation to her through her clients. Many of her clients were harassed as well. Notwithstanding these threats, Rosemary Nelson still carried an exhaustive docket which included several high profile political cases. She became an international advocate for the rule of law and the right of the accused to a comprehensive defense and an impartial hearing. She also worked hard to obtain an independent inquiry into the 1989 murder of defense attorney of Patrick Finucane. For this, Rosemary Nelson was often the subject of harassment and intimidation. For her service to the clients, on March 15, 1999, Rosemary Nelson paid the ultimate price with her life--the victim of a car bomb. Last September, 1988, Rosemary testified before the subcommittee I chair, International Operations and Human Rights. She told us she feared the RUC. She reported that she had been ``physically assaulted by a number of RUC officers'' and that the RUC harassment included, ``at the most serious, making threats against my personal safety including death threats.'' She said she had no confidence in receiving help from her government because, she said, in the end her complaints about the RUC were investigated by the RUC. She also told us that no lawyer in Northern Ireland can forget what happened to Pat Finucane, nor can they dismiss it from their minds. She said one way to advance the protection of defense attorneys would be the establishment of an independent investigation into the allegations of collusion in his murder. Despite her testimony and her fears, the British government now wants to entrust the investigation of Rosemary Nelson's murder to the very agency she feared and mistrusted most, the RUC. Instead, I believe that in order for this investigation to be beyond reproach, and to have the confidence and cooperation of the Catholic community that Rosemary Nelson adeptly represented, it must be organized, managed, directed and run by someone other than the RUC. It just begs the question as to whether or not we can expect a fair and impartial investigation when the murder victim herself had publicly expressed deep concern about the impartiality of RUC personnel. Mr. Speaker, the major international human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Laywers Committee for Human Rights, British/ Irish Human Rights Watch Committee for the Administration of Justice, and Human Rights Watch have all called for an independent inquiry. Param Cumaraswamy, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, who completed an extensive human rights investigative mission to the United Kingdom last year, has also called for an independent inquiry of Rosemary Nelson's murder. At our September 29, 1998 hearing, Mr. Cumaraswamy stated that he found harassment and intimidation of defense lawyers in Northern Ireland to be consistent and systematic. He recommended a judicial inquiry into the threats and intimidation Rosemary Nelson and other defense attorneys had received. It's hard not to wonder if the British government had taken the Special Rapporteur's recommendations more seriously, Rosemary Nelson might have been better protected and still with us today. I express my hearfelt condolences to the Nelson family and I urge my colleagues to support the following resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in the coming days the participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) will conduct in Vienna, Austria, a Supplementary Meeting on Freedom of Religion with the intent to discuss some of the key human rights concerns raised at the 1998 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting. The United States has a sincere interest in the deserved attention the OSCE is bringing to violations of religious liberty. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission(which has the mandate to monitor compliance with the Helsinki Accords), I continue to be concerned with the growing evidence that religious intolerance is on the rise and violations of this precious freedom are cropping up among the stalwart participating States of the OSCE. This trend is especially noteworthy in Western Europe, in countries such as France and Belgium, where the parliaments, respectively, reports listing a variety of religious groups and institutions as ``dangerous sects.'' The French, Belgian, and Austrian Governments have also established governmental centers to advise citizens which religious groups meet government criteria as a bona fide religion. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment and share with my colleagues these alarming initiatives so that we may consider what these actions portend for all peoples of faith. The clearest and most comprehensive commitments on religious liberty found in any international instrument are enunciated in the OSCE documents. Non-interference in the affairs of religious communities is central to the OSCE understanding of religious liberty. The tendency of a number of European governments to establish themselves as the determiner of the rightness or wrongness of a particular belief is in direct contravention to this principle. In addition, OSCE States have committed to eliminating and preventing discrimination based on religious grounds in all field of civil, political, economic, social and cultural life. Other commitments include the freedom to profess and practice one's religion alone or in community, the freedom to meet with and exchange information with co-religionists regardless of frontiers, the freedom to freely present to others and discuss one's religious views, and the freedom to change one's religion. Over the past three years, the parliaments of France, Belgium, and Germany each established commissions to study ``dangerous sects and cults` that have contributed to the discrimination and harassment of targeted groups. For example, an investigative report undertaken by the French Parliament in 1996 contained a list of ``dangerous'' groups in order to warn the public against them. Suspect activities, according to the report, include ``recruitment'' through evangelistic outreach and distribution of tracts, activities clearly within the internationally recognized right to free expression. Similarly, the Belgian Parliament's 1997 report had a widely circulated informal appendix that listed 189 groups and included various allegations against many Protestant and Catholic groups, Quakers, Hasidic Jews, Buddhists, and the YWCA. In Belgium, the unofficial appendix appears to have gained significance in the eyes of some public officials who reportedly have denied access to publicly rented buildings for Seventh Day Adventists and Baha'i because they were listed in the appendix. Equally alarming, the French, Belgian, and Austrian Governments, as well as a number of state governments in Germany, have set up hotlines for the public and, through government-sponsored ``information centers'', distribute information on groups deemed by the government to be ``dangerous.'' Characterizations of religious beliefs by these government information centers and publication of unproven and potentially libelous materials have already caused problems for a number of minority religious groups. Such government action presumes that religious beliefs and spiritual convictions can be objectively analyzed by government bureaucrats in their consumer protection role. These information centers contradict the OSCE commitments to ``foster a climate of mutual tolerance and respect,'' and excessively entangle the government in the public discussion on the viability of particular religious beliefs. A few months ago, in October 1998, the French Prime Minister's office created the ``Interministerial Mission to Battle Against Sects'', which by its very name, suggests confrontation with religious minorities rather than tolerance. The Interministerial Mission's mandate includes the responsibility to ``predict and fight against actions of sects that violate human dignity or threaten public order.'' This is the latest example of how the French Government has taken steps which have negative effects on religious liberty. In 1996, the French Parliament placed the Institut Theologique de Nimes, a mainstream Baptist seminary closely connected to the Luther Rice Seminary in Atlanta, Georgia, on its list of so-called ``sects.'' Since then, libelous articles about the Institut have been published in newspapers. The articles were based on hearsay of dubious origin. In addition, the church connected with the Institut recently reported that a loan application was rejected for the reason that the church is on the Parliament's ``sect'' list. Members of the Institut have also apparently suffered discrimination from people in the region; according to report, at least one church member has lost her job due to her attendance. Since the 1997 Belgian Parliament's report with the unofficial appendix listing 189 groups, the Belgian Government has moved ahead with plans to establish an ``Advice and Information Center on Dangerous Sects.'' It is my understanding that this center should be fully operational by the latter part of this year. According to Belgian officials at the Ministry of Justice, the new center will distribute official government views on the groups identified by the Parliament and may expand its inquiries to other groups not previously listed. A coalition of Belgian religious groups registered their concern at a press conference held in May 1998 in Brussels and continues to oppose the Belgian Government policies toward religious groups. In Austria, a law restricting religious freedom became effective in January 1998. The law requires that a religious group prove a 20-year existence in Austria, have a creed distinct from previously registered groups, and have a membership of at least 0.02% of the population or 16,000 members before they are granted full rights under law. The Austrian Government's opinion that the government must ``approve'' religious belief before it is available for the public reveals a shocking retreat from democratic principles which encourage the free exchange of ideas and quality before the law for all religions or beliefs. The tendency to increase control over religion or belief groups extends to Europe as a whole. Pan-European institutions such as the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament have in the last year debated the role of government in controlling ``sects.'' The tone of these discussions has been ominous and proposals include instituting even more government controls over minority religions. The people of the United States are deeply committed to religious liberty. The 105th Congress overwhelmingly passed the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. This act establishes an Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom and a nine-member Commission on International Religious Freedom who will monitor the status of religious freedom in foreign countries. Additionally, the Act encourages the President of the United States to become more thoroughly involved by regularly reporting to Congress on the state of religious liberty and by requiring the President to take specific actions against countries which violate this freedom. Let me emphasize that the Act mandates U.S. Government action against not only countries engaged in persecution of religious believers, but also mandates U.S. Government action against countries that are actively intolerant of religious groups or those that allow societal intolerance to exist. The intolerant actions of Western European governments squarely are in the purview of the Act. The Commission, the Ambassador at Large, and the President are mandated to focus on issues of religious intolerance, and I encourage them to focus on the actions taken by Western European governments in light of international law an international commitments on religious liberty. Clearly the actions taken by the Governments of France, Belgium, Germany, and Austria call into question the commitment those countries made to ``foster a climate of mutual tolerance and respect.'' I urge the Administration to continue raising these issues with the Governments of Western Europe to insure through law and governmental practice that religious freedoms for minorities are protected.