American Family Association, Network of Georgia, Nolen P. Cox, President, October 02, 1997

To whom it may concern,
This letter is written in response to the Hudson Institute’s Michael Horowitz’s response to claims made in my letter opposing the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act of 1997. I will defend the six points of Mr. Horowitz’s rebuttal.
In Point 1 Mr. Horowitz states “The legislation does not ‘monitor religion’ in any shape or form. It monitors acts of persecution against believers.” [Inferring Christians]
Correction Point 1: The Bill monitors religious persecution and religious beliefs as described in the bill.
Under Sec. 9. Modification of Immigration Policy (d) Training on Religious Persecution- The Attorney General shall establish and operate a program to provide to immigration officers performing functions… training on religious persecution, including training on — (2) the variation in beliefs of religious groups. [emphasis added] How can the Attorney General train staff unless they monitor and study various religious beliefs worldwide?
Under Sec. 10. State Department Human Rights Reports. (b) Training- …the Secretary of State shall (A) having reporting responsibilities regarding the freedom of religion, which shall include training on the fundamental components of the right to freedom of religion, the variation in beliefs of religious groups, and the governmental and nongovernmental methods used in the violation of the right to freedom of religion; [emphasis added]
This is investigating, monitoring and understanding the religious beliefs of various denominations and sects by the Attorney General’s and the Secretary of State’s office of the United States, and then training other U.S. agencies in the “variation” of the religious beliefs of the different groups. One must monitor them to stay abreast of variations of beliefs that occur.
The variations in religious groups are further defined in Sec. 3. Definitions. (4) Religious Persecution – (a) In general – The term ‘religious persecution’ means widespread and ongoing persecution of persons because of their membership in or affiliation with a religion or religious denomination, whether officially recognized or otherwise…[emphasis added]
What are unofficial denominations and what does “otherwise” mean? These are open doors.
Section 10 (a) (4) identify whether the violations are focused on an entire religion or on certain denominations or sects. [emphasis added]
Denominations are commonly referred to as “sects” in the Bill. “Sect” in Webster’s New World Dictionary is defined as: 1. a religious denomination, esp. a small group that has broken away from an established church 2. any group of peoples having a common leadership, set of opinions, philosophical doctrine, political principles, etc.; specif., a faction of a larger group. The definition of sect gives the “Office” and the President an open door to engage in political and philosophical disputes in the name of religion.
In response to Point 2, Mr. Horowitz states “The Persecution Monitoring Office will not increase the size and scope of the federal government. In fact, it will reduce it by withdrawing taxpayer-supported foreign aid from countries involved in ‘widespread and ongoing [acts of] abduction, enslavement, killing, imprisonment, forced mass resettlement, rape, or crucifixion or other forms of torture.’ Does anyone believe that U.S. taxpayers should be subsidizing governments involved in persecuting 200 million Christian believers around the world?”
Correction: Size deals with the number of federal employees and the scope deals with the added function of the government. Under Sec. 4. Application and Scope (A) Scope- The provisions of this act shall apply to all persecuted religious groups and communities, and all countries and regions thereof, referred to in the resolutions and bill…and to any community within any country or region thereof that the Director finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, is the target of religious persecution. [emphasis added]
Any community within any country is all-inclusive and could include the United States and any region thereof.
Sec. 5, Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring. (A) Establishment- there is established in the Executive Office of the President the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ‘Office’). (b) Appointment- the head of the Office shall be a Director who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director shall receive compensation at the rate of pay in effect for level IV of the Executive Schedule… (c) Removal- the Director shall serve at the pleasure of the President.
(f) Administrative Matters- (1) Personnel- the Director may appoint such personnel as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Office. (2) Services of Other Agencies- the Director may use the personnel, services, and facilities of any other department or agency, on a reimbursable basis, in carrying out the functions of the Office. [emphasis added]
When you add a new bureaucracy or Office under the President with the ability to add personnel “as may be necessary” to carry out the functions of the Office — you are increasing the size of government. When you add monitoring of religions and religious persecution to the responsibilities of the executive office you are without a doubt increasing the scope of government. When the Director is authorized to use the personnel, services, or facilities of any other governmental department or agency to carry out the functions of the Office you have a Director with total access and influence in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, Commerce Department, State Department, etc. This not only increases the scope of the Executive Branch, but also passes on similar power to use all parts of the government at the Director’s discretion.
Mr. Horowitz states “Does anyone believe that U.S. taxpayers should be subsidizing governments involved in persecuting 200 million Christian believers around the world?”
Correction: The inference is Christian persecution. HR2431 deals with religious persecution and allows the President to impose sanctions for any religion. The President could impose sanctions against Christians in Bosnia and Northern Ireland or Jews in Israel.
Point 3, Mr. Horowitz states “Thus, rather than concentrating more power in the Executive Branch, the legislation only serves to reduce it by denying the Executive branch the power it now has — the right to use taxpayer funds to subsidize persecutors.”
Correction Point 3: This is erroneous, Congress appropriates all revenues including foreign aid and payments to the United Nations. The President can only use the funds the Congress appropriates. Mr. Horowitz states “The legislation is a congressional withdrawal of an existing Executive Branch power to give foreign aid to persecuting countries, and is a clear assertion of a stronger congressional foreign policy role.”
Correction Point 3: The Bill withdraws no existing Executive Branch power to give foreign aid to persecuting countries. The “Office” decides when, where and if religious persecution occurs. With the Director of the “Office” serving at the “pleasure” of the President, there will be persecution “when and if” the President agrees. There is no mandatory or qualifying events that trigger action by the President or the Director. Religious persecution has gone on in Russia and China for over 70 years — do you think this bill is going to stop that kind of persecution? The President and his officers led the push for most favored nation trading status with China and supports aid and trade to Russia (which just passed legislation against evangelical Christians). Not only is the power of the Office and the President arbitrary, the Bill gives the President latitude to waive the imposition sanctions should the Director act automatically.
Sec. 8. Waiver of Sanctions (a) Waiver Authority – …the President may waive the imposition of any sanction against a country under section 7 for periods of not more than 12 months each, if the President, for each waiver — (1) determines that national security interests justify such a waiver; and (2) provides to the Committees on Foreign Relations, Finance, the Judiciary, and Appropriations of the Senate and to the Committees on International Relations, the Judiciary, and Appropriations of the House of Representatives a written notification of the President’s intention to waive any such sanction.
The justification shall contain an explanation of the reasons why the President considers the waiver to be necessary, the type and amount of goods, services, or assistance to be provided pursuant to the waiver, and the period of time during which such a waiver will be effective.
Under this Bill the President is not required to seek approval of Congress of a waiver of sanctions to stop religious persecution, he must only notify them of his reasons and how long the waiver will be effective. This is arbitrary power — not balance of power. This is exactly why only Congress can declare war according to the U.S. Constitution. Sanctions are economic war that can lead to a shooting war. This power does not currently reside in the Executive Branch, nor should it. Current discussions in Congress about sanctions against Russia for passing the law supporting the state church is a good example of how Congress should deal with such problems now and in the future.
Point 4, Mr. Horowitz states “To describe what the legislation seeks to do to persecuting countries as a ‘sanction’ is a long stretch of that term.” [emphasis added]
Correction Point 4: I am using the same term the Bill uses: SEC. 7. Sanctions (2) Prohibitions on U.S. Persons- (A) With respect to any country or region thereof in which the Director finds the occurrence of category 1 religious persecution, no United States person may– (i) export any item to the responsible entities listed under section 6(b)(3) or in any supplemental list of the Director; and (ii) export to that country any persecution facilitating products, goods, and services listed under section 6(b)(2) or in any supplemental list of the Director.
There are four sections of a thirteen-section bill that deals with Sanctions (Sec. 7. Sanctions, Sec. 8 Waiver of Sanctions, Sec. 11 Termination of Sanctions, SEC. 12 Sanctions Against Sudan). About 40% of the Bill deals with sanctions by name. I don’t see how anyone who has read the bill and has any intellectual honesty could disparage the use of the term “sanctions.” Read the bill yourself, it is clear and self-evident.
(3) Penalties – Any person who violates the provisions of paragraph (2) shall be subject to the penalties set forth in subsections (a) and (b) (1) of section 16 of the Trading With the Enemy Act…
How is the average U.S. citizen or corporation going to know what is on the list of persecuting products, goods and services listed by the Director. If you are a U.S. corporation and you sell fence wire to a nation and it is being used to build human stockades or if you send Aunt Hilda flashlight batteries and flashlight batteries are being used in cattle prods for religious persecution — are you guilty? Better yet if you make cattle prods and sell them to a cattle company in a persecuting nation, are you guilty of the Trading With the Enemy Act?
Sanctions of aid and trade are economic war and there is no problem in initiating either or both if it is done by Congress. Executive office trade wars or sanctions should not be an option surrendered by Congress and given to the President.
Correction to Point 5: Mr. Horowitz states “The legislation will give no ‘support or credence’ to the United Nations whatsoever.” He concedes this point in the next sentence. “The preamble to the legislation cites a number of grounds for condemning today’s anti-faith persecutions, including a U.N. Declaration re the right to religious liberty.”
Mr. Horowitz’s erroneous “whatsoever” statement is refuted in:
SEC. 12. Sanctions Against Sudan. (C)(6) United Nations Security Council Imposition of same Measures Against Sudan- It is the sense of the Congress that the President should instruct the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations to propose that the United Nations Security Council, pursuant to Article 41 of the United Nations Charter, impose measures against Sudan of the same type as are imposed by this section. [emphasis added]
Point 6, Mr. Horowitz states “There is nothing in the bill — nothing — that gives the Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring any jurisdiction or authority within the United States. It has none and is intended by no one to have any.”
Correction: This is erroneous. SEC. 4. Application and Scope describes the scope of the bill. The first area listed is the countries listed in the Bill. The second area is: “and to any community within any country or region thereof that the Director finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, is the target of religious persecution.”
“Any community within any country or region thereof” refers to any country not on the previous list of countries. Any community within any country is an all-inclusive description of scope. This would logically include the United States since it falls under the “any country” scope.
If there is a claim that this “region thereof” refers to the nations referred to in the first part of the sentence, then the Bill is seriously flawed because only a few nations and regions are mentioned out of the hundreds where religious persecution can occur.
Since either interpretation leaves the Bill seriously under-scoped or over-scoped, and includes the United States, it is obvious the Bill is far more seriously flawed than most promoters realize.
When writing laws, it is imperative that the law is clearly and narrowly defined. This “Application and Scope” section is neither. Law is always interpreted in the courts and not by advocates. Ask a judge if the jurisdiction and scope of this sentence could include any nation and if any nation would include the United States.
Correction: Section. 7. Sanctions (2) Prohibitions on U.S. Persons describes how persons and corporations are affected including penalties of Trading With the Enemy Act.
SECTION. 9. Modification of Immigration Policy explains how American citizens, families and friends may be excluded from immigration because of their religious belief.
SECTION. 12. Sanctions Against Sudan (B) Definitions (ii) United States Person- The term ‘United States person’ means — any United States citizen or national; any permanent resident alien; any juridical person organized under the laws of the United States; and any person in the United States. (C) Penalties- any person who violates this paragraph shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 11 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 for violations under that Act.
SEC. 13 (c) Regulations- Each Federal department or agency responsible for carrying out any of the sanctions under section 7 shall issue all necessary regulations to carry out such sanctions within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
These necessary regulations are bureaucratic regulations within the U.S. government dealing with U.S. citizens and corporations.
Again, with the numerous direct acts affecting U.S. citizens and corporations it is clear that H.R. 2431 clearly does affect U.S. citizens. SEC. 4 clearly states that any community within any country is under the scope of the Bill.
To test the motives of the architects and promoters of this legislation, ask for the following changes:
1) Pass only the part of the Bill dealing with persecution in Sudan (the bait) and eliminate the “Office” under the President to monitor religions and persecutions. Let Congress do this. Congress is much more responsive to citizens and their concerns than is a bureaucratic office under the President.
2) Ask that the United States and all its territories be excluded from monitoring in all forms by the “Office.”
3) Allow Congress to impose sanctions if the President does not act. With Congress kept in the loop and maintaining its balance of power, it will be obvious to understand the intensity and purpose of those behind the scenes promoting this Bill.
There is not a single point of rebuttal by Mr. Horowitz to my claims and concerns of the Bill that are not clearly and specifically refuted by language and content within the Bill. I appreciate the confrontation and rebuttal he and the Hudson Institute have offered. I am certainly open to comment on understanding the language of the Bill, however, I will not and cannot debate or argue broad, sweeping, erroneous, over-stated opinions not based on specific Bill content. To say the least, I was disappointed with the shallowness and lack of attention to the facts of the Bill presented by the Hudson Institute Director Michael Horowitz. I expected a little more thought from a think tank.
I encourage you to read the Bill. If you read no further than Section 4(a) Scope, you should see the bill is seriously flawed.
Yours very truly, Nolen P. Cox
AFA Network of GA: P.O. Box 3123, Valdosta, Georgia 31604, Phone: 912-244-8493; Fax 912-242-0042, email: afaga@datasys.net