Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment adds $1.1 billion to function 550, which is the health function, for fiscal year 1998, with an offsetting $1.1 billion reduction in nondefense discretionary functions, which would hold Federal agency administrative costs to 96 percent of the estimated 1998 level. The offset constitutes a reduction in nondefense spending of four- tenths of 1 percent. This four-tenths of 1 percent could be accommodated by reducing administrative costs only 4 percent, so that the net effect would be to have Federal administrative costs reduced by 4 percent to 96 percent of the estimated 1998 level. This amendment is being offered, Mr. President, because the Senate yesterday adopted, by a vote of 98 to nothing, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to increase spending for the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion. And while that sounds good, to those who are unaware of the inner workings of the Senate, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution does not have any real effect but just says what we would like to have occur. This amendment will be directed toward having hard dollars placed in the budget resolution for the National Institutes of Health. I am offering this amendment on behalf of Senator Harkin, Senator Mack, Senator D'Amato, Senator Jeffords, Senator Inouye, Senator Collins, Senator Hutchison, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Reid. Mr. President, there is a general acceptance that the National Institutes of Health has been one of the real treasures of the U.S. Government, making enormous advances in the most dreaded diseases which we face today. There have been enormous advances in cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, enormous advances in Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis, more recently in schizophrenia; a new generation of AIDS drugs are reducing the presence of the AIDS virus and HIV-infected persons to nearly undetectable levels, and the phenomenal work being done by the National Institutes of Health has led to a consistent rise in funding for that agency. Since becoming chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, we have raised the funding for NIH by some $643 million in fiscal year 1996. We have raised the funding for the National Institutes of Health by $820 million in fiscal year 1997, but this year we are faced with a reduction in the health account. So that if this budget goes forward, and this budget signifies what funding will be available for NIH, there will be a cut in all health accounts and accordingly, on a pro rata basis, a cut on the National Institutes of Health. The total allocation and funding for the health account, account 550, was frozen from last year at $25 billion, and in this budget it is in at $24.9 billion, or, as I say, a cut of some $100 million. This is $400 million short of what the President's original budget mark was for 1998, and over $3 billion short for the 5-year budget period. The budget would cut the health account by some $2.2 billion through the year 2002. But, most importantly, from the point of view of what we are doing here today, we have the President coming forward with a budget increase of some $400 million, and this account is now cut by $100 million. If this is left to stand, Mr. President, we will have the anomalous, or hard-to-understand situation where the Senate has said we ought to increase the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion, and then when it comes to my committee where I chair and have the responsibility for establishing the mark, suddenly we will find not only no money for an increase, but the account is cut by $100 million. So, on a pro rata basis, there would have to be a decrease. We find this at a time when other accounts have increases in spending. Defense spending rises by $3.2 billion in fiscal year 1998; international affairs rises by $900 million in fiscal year 1998; energy rises by $400 million in fiscal year 1998; natural resources and environment rises by $1.3 billion for this year; commerce and housing goes up $300 million; education and training goes up $4.3 billion; administration of justice up by $1.4 billion, the general Government rises by some $800 million. But no one has come to the floor on any of these lines and has said there ought to be a $2 billion increase. The only line in the items which I have just spoken about would be defense. But for the National Institutes of Health, yesterday we had a spirited presentation with many speakers saying NIH ought to go up by $2 billion. The reality is it is all Confederate money unless there is some allocation which is more than a sense-of-the-Senate or our very best wishes but a specific amount which has a specific offset. That is, in itself, somewhat of an oversimplification, but that is very close to the reality. The whole budget resolution, in a sense, is an expression by the Senate, by the Congress of what we ought to have done, contrasted with the specific appropriations bills which are then legislated and then ultimately signed by the President. I conferred with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee after talking this over with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, and Senator Domenici said, well, you better see how Senator Stevens is going to respond to it. And Senator Stevens says we need to have the hard dollars through the budget process. So that if the National Institutes of Health is to avoid having a cut, this amendment is going to have to be adopted. It goes without saying that as one Senator who chairs a certain subcommittee, I am bound by the will of the Senate. If the Senate says in this vote that the National Institutes of Health is not to have an increase but, in fact, is supposed to have a decrease, to the various interest groups who want breast cancer to be funded, who want prostate cancer to be funded, who want Alzheimer's to be funded, who want heart disease to be funded, who want AIDS to be funded, then I can say I went to the floor and I laid the case on the line--and I am not totally without experience as an advocate--and the Senate said, no, we are not going to increase the funding for the National Institutes of Health. I have a specific offset, and that is administrative costs that go down 4 cents on the dollar. I think that administratively you can cut 4 percent. It is four-tenths of 1 percent across all discretionary nondefense budgets, but it comes out of, could come out of 4 cents on the dollar on administrative costs. If the Senate says that on Wednesday night we said put it up $2 billion, that is what we would like to see, but when the Senate faces the hard choice and has to put its money where its mouth is, a sense- of-the-Senate amendment is where the Senate's mouth is. This budget resolution is where the money is. If the Senate says we are not going to put our money where our mouth is, that is on the record. And when people say NIH did not get an increase, it is because the Senate turned it down. So this is an opportunity for the Senate, bluntly speaking, to put its mouth where its money is. Mr. President, we have only 1 in 4 approved grants funded, and we have people dying as we speak from cancer, dying as we speak from heart disease, dying as we speak from many, many ailments. The National Institutes of Health has been our very best capital investment in the health of the American people. That, in effect, lays it on the line in just a very few moments. So at this point I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have no objection to my distinguished colleague proceeding.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I inquire of my distinguished colleague from Iowa, how much time he would like? The distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education, former chairman of the subcommittee?

Mr. SPECTER. We have 20 minutes left. Parliamentary inquiry, how much time does remain on my side?

Mr. SPECTER. That is correct. That was my understanding.

Mr. SPECTER. I have 20 minutes. Mr. President, the statement was made that I had spoken 10 minutes. Senator Domenici asked a few moments ago how much time remained on my account: 50 minutes, 5-0. I spoke for 10 minutes. I have agreed to speak for 30. So 10 from 30 would leave 20. Senator Domenici has agreed to accept 15 minutes. So the total time remaining would be 20 minutes on my side and 15 minutes on Senator Domenici's side.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Harkin.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. When I suggest the absence of a quorum, how is that time charged?

Mr. SPECTER. And when no one speaks and the Senate is in session, there is no quorum call, how is that time charged?

Mr. SPECTER. I do not suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SPECTER. Four times 13 is $52 billion, and we have $8 billion left over according to the $60 billion figure. But we only have worker safety and child care and education.

Mr. SPECTER. In 1 year. That is what he said.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will be interested to see when the distinguished Senator from Texas offers his amendment during the appropriations process what his offsets will be. On my time, I am interested to hear them now, if the Senator from Texas would care to give us a preview.

Mr. SPECTER. He did not say, ``double.'' He said, ``quadruple.''

Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator will yield for 1 minute?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I appreciate the answer from my distinguished colleague from Texas. But I ask him if he would cut the Social Security administrative costs which total some $6 billion or cut the Medicare administration costs or if he would cut the job training programs or student aid or Pell grants? I understand that, in posing this question to the Senator from Texas, it is not possible for him to give a very meaningful answer without having the list before him, but I suggest at the same time that when he says we could quadruple the accounts because we have $60 billion; we had $74 billion last year and the funding was very, very short. And contrary to what the distinguished Senator from New Mexico says, that we are just talking about expressing a wish and a hope, that the accounts are going to be set by the appropriators, that really is not so. When the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the full committee, sits down for the 602(b) allocations, what the Budget Committee has done will be very, very important. When the Senator from New Mexico says that we can make allocations, yet at the same time has stated that there are protected accounts on education that cannot be utilized for the health account, it is just a little bit inconceivable to this Senator how the Budget Committee comes up with the 550 account which is less than a freeze on last year's account. The reality is that there will not be the funds for us to make an allocation for the National Institutes of Health. If this amendment passes, there will be a statement from the U.S. Senate to the Appropriations Committee that there ought to be an increase by $1.1 billion, which will net out to about $1 billion for NIH, and that when you go through, as the Senator from New Mexico did, and specify what the costs will be other places, that it is doable to have a cut of 4 percent in administrative costs. The administrative costs are $25 billion today. Nobody can tell me that you cannot cut 4 cents out of a dollar on administrative costs. What we did last night in talking about a $2 billion increase for NIH is ``talking about it.'' What we are doing now is putting our money where our mouths were last night. If the Senate votes this down, then there is a ready answer that this Senator will have because I have the responsibility as chairman, Senator Harkin has the responsibility as ranking member, of saying what we are doing. On this date of the record, it looks like there is going to be a $2 billion increase. How does the American public, how do the people understand what the sense of the Senate is? You say it is the sense of the Senate. Is there a sense? Yes, there is a Senate. Does the Senate have any sense? Well, not really if you pass a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which does not mean anything; $2 billion. Does the Senate have any sense? Well, not if you pass a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which is vacuous and meaningless. This is the money. Where is the money? It is in this amendment. If you do not pass this amendment, fine. I have a way to tell the people who want breast cancer to be financed, there is not the money. The Senate voted no. I have a way to say to the people who wanted money for mental health, there is no money to increase mental health. The fact is that there has to be a pro rata cut. You have less in the 550 health account. There is no way to have an increase for inflation. Now, if that is sense, then the Senate does not have any sense. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Iowa.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition simply to send forward to the desk three amendments in accordance with the pending rule. I thank my colleague from Florida. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution because the results of the National Institute of Health have been dramatic, really stunning. We have seen dramatic breakthroughs in heart disease, in breast cancer, in prostate cancer, in ovarian cancer, Alzheimer's disease, cystic fibrosis, new generations of AIDS drugs are reducing the presence of the AIDS virus in HIV-infected persons to nearly undetectable levels. With respect to the variety of cancers, the death rates have begun a very, very steady decline. Most recently we have made enormous progress as well in schizophrenia. The accounts on the National Institutes of Health have risen consistently over the past decade and a half. Regardless of whether the chairman of the subcommittee was Senator Weicker, Senator Chiles, Senator Harkin, or myself, a position which I now hold, we have found the money for very, very substantial increases in the funding for NIH. Last year we had an increase of some 6.9 percent for a total of $820 million. The year before, $643 million. I commend my colleague, Senator Mack, for his leadership in first offering a resolution early on to double NIH funding over the next 5 years, and the resolution tonight, to add $2 billion to NIH funding. I suggest that we need to go a step beyond the sense-of-the-Senate Resolution, and if I might attract the attention of the distinguished manager of this bill, Senator Domenici, in supporting this sense-of- the-Senate resolution, I wish to point out that the figures, while well intended, to express the views of the Senate, are not binding in terms of what will occur. The reality is, of course, that nothing is binding. The whole budget resolution is, in a sense, the sense of the Senate. Now there are some parts which are protected, as Senator Domenici has explained, under an agreement between the congressional leadership and the President. Those, however, require the confirming by the entire body, and that may not happen and they are subject to a veto if that does not happen, but in the very broad sense we express in this budget resolution what we would like to see done. Now, at a later point in the budget resolution I will call upon my distinguished colleague from New Mexico to support an amendment which I will offer which will add $1.1 billion to the 550 function, which surprisingly has been reduced in the resolution now before the Senate. Under a freeze, that figure is set at $25 billion and in the budget resolution it is at $24.9 billion. So, notwithstanding the very impressive presentation made by my colleague from Florida, he is talking about Confederate money. If we are to have real money in order to present this to the Appropriations Committee, in a discussion I have had with the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, we are going to have to have real dollars put in an offset. As much as I would like to see $2 billion as suggested by Senator Mack I do not know quite how to get there with an offset, but I think this is admirable. I suggest to my colleagues that if we take four-tenths of 1 percent from discretionary nondefense, a total of some $258 billion, we will have $1.1 billion. That sum of money would enable us to have an increase in the NIH budget, something in the neighborhood of $950 million, which would be hard cash and something which is really very, very, badly needed. When we talk about the number of grants provided through NIH, we currently have some 27,000 research project grants, 878 center grants, nearly 15,000 training grants. But even at that, only one in four approved grants are funded. Now, beyond NIH, we will face in this subcommittee LIHEAP, Low-Income Energy Assistance. I know my distinguished colleague from New Mexico has been a leader on mental illness, and he will be coming to the markup and will be making a very valid, very impassioned plea, as he has done each year. If I could continue to have the attention of my colleague from New Mexico, each time he as come to me as chairman--and we have had rotations as to who is the chairman of which subcommittee--and each time Senator Domenici has come to me, I have said, ``Yes. Pete. Yes, sir.'' He is right. But if I am to be able to say that as chairman of the committee, we are going to have to have some hard dollars. For Senator Domenici's recommendation, I had a discussion with Senator Stevens, and he said, ``I will follow Pete's lead, but we are going to have to have more than a sense-of-the-Senate resolution.'' I know my distinguished colleague from New York is standing beside me. I want to yield the remainder of my time because I think there is going to be a very persuasive argument offered by my colleague, Senator D'Amato.

Mr. SPECTER. I ask my distinguished colleague, Senator Mack, who controls the time, for an allocation of 10 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to once again address the subject of religious persecution. I have stood here before describing the horrible tragedies occurring in many parts of the world. Sadly, very little has been done to combat the problem. That is why I am introducing the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997. Religious persecution is a subject of great personal interest. Both of my parents, my father from the Ukraine, my mother from a small town on the Polish-Russian border, came to this country to avoid religious persecution. Freedom from religious persecution is a concept fundamental to the ideals of this country and to peoples everywhere. Christians and other religious minorities have been and continue to be the victims of discrimination, rape, torture, enslavement, imprisonment, and even murder, because of their religious beliefs. This persecution continues today, often without diplomatic or other consequences for the offending regime. Christians are not the only ones being persecuted. Muslims and followers of other religions are also singled out for their beliefs. In January 1996, the White House promised that a new senior advisor position would be created in the Office of the President dedicated specifically to the issue of religious persecution overseas. No such position was ever created. Instead, President Clinton established a committee in the State Department that will report to the Secretary of State and will advise the Secretary on violations of religious freedoms abroad. The committee has since met, months have gone by, but still no action has been taken. Mr. President, I and many of my colleagues agree that the time for action is now. We do not need more reviews and studies or more advice on the subject. The instances of religious persecution are well documented. We need action. At the end of the 104th Congress, I introduced Senate Resolution 283, which discussed the need for quick, decisive action and called upon the President to appoint a White House advisor on religious persecution. After that, I worked with Senators Nickles, Nunn, and Coats on a broader Senate Concurrent Resolution, 71, which included my provisions on a White House Senior Advisor on religious persecution. Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, which I cosponsored, passed the Senate by voice vote but there was insufficient time remaining in the 104th Congress to secure passage in the House. So today, the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities continues to grow, often without diplomatic or other consequences for the offending regime. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, China, and Ethiopia, Christians are systematically denied their religious liberties. Muslims have also been singled out for persecution in countries such as Burma, where Muslims are forced to relocate to undesirable areas and where Muslims are often denied educational opportunities. Several examples illustrate the gravity of the problem. The Sudanese Government continues to essentially wage a war against its Christian population. Reports detail the forced enslavement and conversion of the Christian populations from the southern regions of Sudan. The Government bombs and burns Christians villages, has taken more than 30,000 Christian children as slaves in the last 6 years, and tortures Christian worshipers and their priests. In Pakistan in February of this year, thousands of Christians were attacked, many houses and six churches were set on fire. Nearly 1,000 families were living in tents after being driven from their homes by rioters. Where was the Government to stop this terror? Where were the police? Persecution of Christians is by no means limited to the Islamic world. China continues to be one of the worst offenders. At least 75 million Christians live in China but cannot practice their religion. Roman Catholics and Protestant Chinese are imprisoned and tortured for holding worship, preaching, or distributing bibles without permission. This past August 1996, I traveled to China and met with Chinese Vice- Premier Qian Qichen to express my strong concerns about religious persecution in his country. On September 12, 1996, however, Chinese Premier Li Ping released a statement warning the Chinese people that the free exercise of their religious faith could result in harsh retribution. In August 1996 I also visited Saudi Arabia and met with Crown Prince Abdullah to discuss the restrictions that country has on religious practices. I was deeply troubled by the fact that United States troops stationed in Saudi Arabia are not permitted to exercise their religious beliefs or even fly the American flag. According to the Pueblo Program on Religious Freedom of Freedom House, the Saudi Government has even insisted that the United States Government restrict Christian worship by American citizens on United States Embassy grounds in Saudi Arabia. American officials have apparently acquiesced to some of these demands by, for example, restricting Christian services at the Embassy in Riyadh and prohibiting Christmas services for United States troops defending Saudi interests during the gulf war. Other examples of such persecution of Christians and other religious minorities abound. Earlier this year, I discussed the broad issue of religious persecution on the ``Capitol Enlightenment'' radio show in Virginia with host Bill Fenton and Jim Jacobson, president of Christian Solidarity International, and on ``The Diner'' cable television show in Pittsburgh, hosted by Tom Hinkling. The public response to these programs and my legislative efforts to combat religious persecution has been overwhelming. People from across the country have contacted me to urge me to continue the fight until Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others can practice their faith in any country without fear of reprisal. The time has come for the United States to stand up for the right of all people to enjoy the fundamental freedom of religious faith. That is why I am introducing legislation with Congressman Wolf that will establish the position of Senior Advisor to the President dedicated to combating religious persecution overseas. This legislation will also define degrees of religious persecution and will impose sanctions on offending entities. Degrees of religious persecution are defined by two categories of activity. The first is when religious persecution is ongoing and widespread and is carried out by the government or with the government's support. The second is when there is religious persecution that is not carried out with government support, but where the government fails to take serious efforts to eliminate the persecution. The legislation will ban exports to the specific foreign government entity that carries out the persecution. These sanctions would take effect immediately upon the identification of the relevant entities and products. Additional sanctions would take effect after 90 days or 1 year depending on the level of persecution. In addition, the legislation includes immediate sanctions against Sudan, a country where religious persecution is particularly egregious. This legislation requests more than just another report by the State Department. It is serious and it is tough. This legislation commits the United States to real action. There is no more time for talk. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be inserted into the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to once again address the subject of religious persecution. I have stood here before describing the horrible tragedies occurring in many parts of the world. Sadly, very little has been done to combat the problem. That is why I am introducing the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997. Religious persecution is a subject of great personal interest. Both of my parents, my father from the Ukraine, my mother from a small town on the Polish-Russian border, came to this country to avoid religious persecution. Freedom from religious persecution is a concept fundamental to the ideals of this country and to peoples everywhere. Christians and other religious minorities have been and continue to be the victims of discrimination, rape, torture, enslavement, imprisonment, and even murder, because of their religious beliefs. This persecution continues today, often without diplomatic or other consequences for the offending regime. Christians are not the only ones being persecuted. Muslims and followers of other religions are also singled out for their beliefs. In January 1996, the White House promised that a new senior advisor position would be created in the Office of the President dedicated specifically to the issue of religious persecution overseas. No such position was ever created. Instead, President Clinton established a committee in the State Department that will report to the Secretary of State and will advise the Secretary on violations of religious freedoms abroad. The committee has since met, months have gone by, but still no action has been taken. Mr. President, I and many of my colleagues agree that the time for action is now. We do not need more reviews and studies or more advice on the subject. The instances of religious persecution are well documented. We need action. At the end of the 104th Congress, I introduced Senate Resolution 283, which discussed the need for quick, decisive action and called upon the President to appoint a White House advisor on religious persecution. After that, I worked with Senators Nickles, Nunn, and Coats on a broader Senate Concurrent Resolution, 71, which included my provisions on a White House Senior Advisor on religious persecution. Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, which I cosponsored, passed the Senate by voice vote but there was insufficient time remaining in the 104th Congress to secure passage in the House. So today, the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities continues to grow, often without diplomatic or other consequences for the offending regime. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, China, and Ethiopia, Christians are systematically denied their religious liberties. Muslims have also been singled out for persecution in countries such as Burma, where Muslims are forced to relocate to undesirable areas and where Muslims are often denied educational opportunities. Several examples illustrate the gravity of the problem. The Sudanese Government continues to essentially wage a war against its Christian population. Reports detail the forced enslavement and conversion of the Christian populations from the southern regions of Sudan. The Government bombs and burns Christians villages, has taken more than 30,000 Christian children as slaves in the last 6 years, and tortures Christian worshipers and their priests. In Pakistan in February of this year, thousands of Christians were attacked, many houses and six churches were set on fire. Nearly 1,000 families were living in tents after being driven from their homes by rioters. Where was the Government to stop this terror? Where were the police? Persecution of Christians is by no means limited to the Islamic world. China continues to be one of the worst offenders. At least 75 million Christians live in China but cannot practice their religion. Roman Catholics and Protestant Chinese are imprisoned and tortured for holding worship, preaching, or distributing bibles without permission. This past August 1996, I traveled to China and met with Chinese Vice- Premier Qian Qichen to express my strong concerns about religious persecution in his country. On September 12, 1996, however, Chinese Premier Li Ping released a statement warning the Chinese people that the free exercise of their religious faith could result in harsh retribution. In August 1996 I also visited Saudi Arabia and met with Crown Prince Abdullah to discuss the restrictions that country has on religious practices. I was deeply troubled by the fact that United States troops stationed in Saudi Arabia are not permitted to exercise their religious beliefs or even fly the American flag. According to the Pueblo Program on Religious Freedom of Freedom House, the Saudi Government has even insisted that the United States Government restrict Christian worship by American citizens on United States Embassy grounds in Saudi Arabia. American officials have apparently acquiesced to some of these demands by, for example, restricting Christian services at the Embassy in Riyadh and prohibiting Christmas services for United States troops defending Saudi interests during the gulf war. Other examples of such persecution of Christians and other religious minorities abound. Earlier this year, I discussed the broad issue of religious persecution on the ``Capitol Enlightenment'' radio show in Virginia with host Bill Fenton and Jim Jacobson, president of Christian Solidarity International, and on ``The Diner'' cable television show in Pittsburgh, hosted by Tom Hinkling. The public response to these programs and my legislative efforts to combat religious persecution has been overwhelming. People from across the country have contacted me to urge me to continue the fight until Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others can practice their faith in any country without fear of reprisal. The time has come for the United States to stand up for the right of all people to enjoy the fundamental freedom of religious faith. That is why I am introducing legislation with Congressman Wolf that will establish the position of Senior Advisor to the President dedicated to combating religious persecution overseas. This legislation will also define degrees of religious persecution and will impose sanctions on offending entities. Degrees of religious persecution are defined by two categories of activity. The first is when religious persecution is ongoing and widespread and is carried out by the government or with the government's support. The second is when there is religious persecution that is not carried out with government support, but where the government fails to take serious efforts to eliminate the persecution. The legislation will ban exports to the specific foreign government entity that carries out the persecution. These sanctions would take effect immediately upon the identification of the relevant entities and products. Additional sanctions would take effect after 90 days or 1 year depending on the level of persecution. In addition, the legislation includes immediate sanctions against Sudan, a country where religious persecution is particularly egregious. This legislation requests more than just another report by the State Department. It is serious and it is tough. This legislation commits the United States to real action. There is no more time for talk. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be inserted into the Record.