United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2011

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Scott) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this yet another closed rule and in even stronger opposition to the underlying bill.

The difference between the two parties could not be any clearer. While Democrats continue to push for legislation that will create American jobs, Republicans continue to attack American workers.

After more than 250 days, the majority, House Republicans, have no jobs agenda, nothing. Instead, they have brought forth job-destroying legislation that could cost up to nearly 2 million jobs, and they have voted to end Medicare, cut Social Security and slash Medicaid.

Today, sadly, is no different. Instead of bringing the American Jobs Act to the floor, the Republican leadership gives us H.R. 2587, the ``GOP Job Outsourcers' Bill of Rights.''

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that my Republican colleagues detest the National Labor Relations Board. They have made that crystal clear in the past few months with their amendments to cut the NLRB's funding and undermine its authority.

But today they have sunk to a new low. The bill before us guts the very fundamental rights of American workers to fight for better wages and working conditions, and it makes it easier for companies to outsource American jobs overseas.

Not a single hearing was held on this bill, not one. No objective assessments were done by the GAO or the Congressional Research Service, not even any evaluation on the impact on wages or job security of the millions of American workers who will be touched by this legislation.

If this is the Republicans' idea of a job-creation plan, they are even further off base than I thought.

I would like to think that my Republican colleagues haven't thought through the wide-ranging repercussions of this bill. So let me take a moment to educate them.

Companies in the United States are free to move their operations as they see fit, as long as it's not in retaliation for workers exercising their right to organize, to demand better benefits and safer working conditions, or to ensure a full day's pay for an honest day's work.

And the plain fact is, if a company is allowed to retaliate against its workers simply for exercising their lawful rights, every worker in every other State, including South Carolina, will lose some of their fundamental rights. A year from now, if Boeing decides to move production from South Carolina to China, to retaliate against workers who try to organize a union, the NLRB would have no power to order those jobs to be kept or transferred back to the United States. For many American workers today, the NLRB's authority to restore or reinstate work that has been unlawfully transferred, outsourced, or subcontracted away from workers exercising their lawful rights is the only remedy they have to keep their jobs.

By eliminating the power of the NLRB to order work be restored or reinstated, a CEO may simply eliminate the work and thereby the worker. That CEO may even explain to the workforce that he eliminated the work because it was pro-union. Even worse, H.R. 2587 would apply retroactively to any complaint that has not been resolved by the time of enactment, including the Boeing case.

This is a terrible, terrible, terrible precedent. Congress has no business sticking its nose into an ongoing legal proceeding. We have no business changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game.

Republicans have sent a clear message: if you aren't a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, you shouldn't have any rights in the workplace. For the millions of hardworking middle class workers who are struggling to support their families and pay their bills, H.R. 2587 is a slap in the face.

Democrats will not stand idly by as this Republican Congress tries to dismantle the rights of American workers. American workers have fought hard and earned these rights. They have sweated and bled and sometimes died to secure them. I am proud to stand with those workers and their families.

I find it sad that this Republican leadership, a leadership that routinely fights to protect tax loopholes for corporations that shift jobs overseas, is now bringing this horrible anti-worker bill to the floor.

I urge my colleagues to reject this far-reaching legislation and get back to work to bring real and meaningful job creation bills to the floor. Stop this assault against American workers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to clarify a few points. I would remind my friend from South Carolina that he and every single Republican in this House voted for the Republican line budget, which basically destroys Medicare as we know it, voucherizing the entire system.

I also will remind him that it is his party's leading Presidential candidate right now who is advocating eliminating Social Security. And now we have a bill on the floor that my Republican friends are supporting that will make it easier and more likely that U.S. corporations will ship U.S. jobs overseas.

Stop the assault on American workers.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to make it crystal clear that this Republican bill does not protect or create jobs. What it does is it forces American workers to fight over existing jobs by giving up their legal rights and underbidding each other. This is about a race to the bottom.

The problem I have with my Republican friends is their economic policies are all about lowering the standard of living for working families in this country. We should be trying to increase the living standards for American workers.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Rather than bringing up a bill that makes it easier and more likely for U.S. corporations to send U.S. jobs overseas, they ought to be bringing to the floor the President's jobs bill that he talked about here in the United States Congress about putting people back to work. He came up with a series of bipartisan initiatives that will help stimulate and jump-start this economy. Rather than doing that, which will put people back to work, we're debating an anti-worker bill that's going to make it more likely that U.S. corporations will ship U.S. jobs overseas.

It is wrong, and I would urge my Republican friends to stop your assault on American workers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), who believes that it is wrong for the Republicans to pass legislation to make it easier for U.S. corporations to ship U.S. jobs overseas.

Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake. The Republican bill creates open season for CEOs to punish workers for exercising their basic rights.

My friends on the other side fight tooth and nail to protect all these corporate tax loopholes that actually encourage companies to move their jobs overseas. We can't touch them. They fight with passion on the floor to protect them.

But when it comes to protecting American workers, they're AWOL. I don't know what it is that they have against American workers, but this bill undermines the rights of American workers to be able to stand up and ask for a decent wage for an honest day's work. It undermines their ability to ask for benefits like a good retirement benefit. This is about taking away rights and powers of workers.

Granted, these workers don't give big PAC checks. They're not the leaders of the Fortune 500 companies. But these people are the backbone of our economy. We should be standing up for American workers in this Congress. We should be fighting to protect American jobs to keep them in the United States.

This bill makes it easier, in fact, more likely that corporations and companies will retaliate against workers who stand up for their rights by sending their jobs overseas to places like China. Why in the world are we doing this?

We should be trying to find a way to empower workers in this country. It shouldn't be about a race to the bottom. And it shouldn't be about States competing for existing jobs.

This is a bad bill. This is a bad precedent. And quite frankly, again, it is typical of what the Republican agenda is all about when it comes to the economy. It's about a race to the bottom. It's about lowering the standard of living for American workers while protecting the big CEOs, the heads of the Fortune 500 companies. Their rights are always protected. But when it comes to the little guy, my Republican friends are on the opposite side.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that it's September. When are you going to bring a jobs bill to the floor? When are you going to bring legislation that's going to help put people back to work during this difficult economy?

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, we should be talking here on the floor and debating and considering an infrastructure bill to put people back to work. We should be taking up the entirety of the President's jobs proposal that he delivered in a speech a week ago. We should be taking up things that will actually help this economy and put people back to work. Instead, we are dealing with a bill that will make it easier and more likely for U.S. corporations to ship U.S. jobs overseas. And this is a bill that creates a new race to the bottom for American workers' rights, wages, benefits, and working conditions, and it is bad for this economy.

Why do my Republican friends continue to insist that the only way to deal with our economic problems is to lower the standard of living and the quality of life for American workers? Why are all the tough choices being made on the backs of American workers?

We can do much better in this country. We need to be focusing on jobs, not on this stuff.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about creating a healthy business climate. I don't know how we're creating a healthy business climate by passing a bill that makes it easier and more likely that U.S. corporations will ship U.S. jobs overseas.

After more than 200 days in the majority, House Republicans have passed no bills, none, no bills to create jobs, moving instead on job destroying legislation that could cost up to nearly 2 million jobs, with more to come.

This week, to make matters worse, we're taking up this legislation that will encourage the shipping of jobs overseas and a bill that will weaken the middle class. Instead of creating jobs and strengthening the middle class and protecting workers' rights, the Republicans are making it easier for corporations to send American jobs overseas. And it allows employers to punish their employees for simply exercising their rights to organize, to demand better benefits and safer working conditions, and to ensure a full day's pay for an honest day's work. I mean, that's what this bill does.

You know, in 2000, the National Labor Relations Board was able to force a company to bring jobs back to the United States from Mexico, as the company was charged with shipping jobs to Mexico in retaliation against workers seeking to organize a union. Under this Republican bill, American workers would lose this protection.

Again, their plan for the economy is all about lowering the standard of living, lessening the quality of life for American workers, while protecting those who are most fortunate in this country, those who head up the big companies.

We should be debating on this floor today the President's job bill. If my Republican friends don't want to vote for it, they don't have to; but that's the legislation that should be brought before the Members of this Congress today, not this bill, a bill that punishes American workers. Enough. You've been punishing American workers since you took the majority. Enough is enough.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Then I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me state for the record that this bill is not a retaliation against right-to-work States. I'm not a big fan of right- to-work States in terms of how they treat workers and those who want to organize unions; but this bill is really about protecting workers from corporations that retaliate against them simply for demanding their rights and organizing for their rights.

The Republican bill changes the rules mid-trial to benefit a particular Fortune 500 company, Boeing; but this bill has wide-ranging repercussions for American workers. This bill does not protect or create jobs. It just doesn't. It forces American workers to fight over existing jobs by giving up their rights and underbidding each other. It's a race to the bottom.

The Republican bill makes it easier to ship U.S. jobs overseas. There's no question about that. And the Republican bill creates an open season for CEOs to punish workers for exercising their rights. Again, this is a further assault on the rights and protections that workers have fought so hard for for so many decades, and this bill undermines the duty to bargain in good faith. This is an anti-union bill--there is no question--among other things.

The bill also encourages law-breaking and intimidation by employers. It removes a key disincentive against employers who unlawfully threaten employees with job loss during organizing drives.

The Republican bill creates a new race to the bottom for American workers' rights, wages, benefits, and working conditions. We're going in the wrong direction with this bill.

This bill is one more assault on American workers, on the American middle class. Time after time after time the Republican leadership has stood up for Big Business and against the American middle class. Higher gas prices--Republicans protect Big Oil tax breaks and do nothing to help the average consumer. Health care coverage for

our kids through the age of 25--Republicans side with the health care companies that put profits over patients.

With this bill, Republicans are promoting job creation overseas by allowing companies to move overseas in retaliation of workers who are exercising their own legal rights. Not only that, this bill goes back in time and applies this bill retroactively. This is just like changing the value of a touchdown in the middle of the Super Bowl simply because you don't like the score of the game. This bill would be a joke if it weren't so serious.

I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is not about protecting right-to-work States. Really, this is not even about unions. This is about the rights of workers in this country. This is about protecting American jobs. This is about urging companies to invest in the United States and not making it easier for them to create jobs overseas.

We're in a difficult economy right now, Mr. Speaker. We should be debating on this floor the President's job bill. Every day we should be doing something about jobs. And, instead, here we are in September. My Republican colleagues have done nothing. They've done nothing except continue an assault on middle class families.

Today, it's workers. They're going after Medicare in the Ryan budget. Their leading Republican Presidential candidate is talking about eliminating Social Security. All the protections, all the rights that middle class families have fought for and have won that are essential to a decent quality of life they're trying to take away. Enough.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule and ``no'' on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I'm just curious. When are we going to debate a bill on this floor that helps create jobs? Why don't you bring the President's plan to the floor and let's have it out?

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ros-Lehtinen; ranking member, Mr. Berman; the Human Rights Committee chairman, Mr. Smith, who's been a champion on all of these issues from the very first day he got in here; and their staffs. The staffs have made all the difference in the world.

I want to particularly thank the chairman's staff, Yleem Poblete and Doug Anderson, for their help, and also the leadership on both sides and my side, and the leadership staff who have really tried to work this and get this thing through. I'm going to say some things that hopefully are not too controversial, but I do want to thank them for getting this thing out and getting it moving because, if it didn't move today, it may very well come to an end.

I rise in support of this critical legislation to reauthorize and reform the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The sad truth, though, Madam Speaker, this bill has been held hostage by the other body--and keep the word ``hostage'' out there as we think in terms of what this bill would do and what's taking place around the world. And if we do not pass this bill in this form today, the likelihood of this Commission shutting down is very, very high.

I wish I could name--I know the House rule--and I would name the members over there if anyone asks me, but it's being held hostage. Some in the other body are now saying that even these are not the changes that they would like to see to the Commission. And, quite frankly, I believe that some over there and this very administration would not mind seeing this Commission shut its doors.

This was a bipartisan issue for years. Scoop Jackson, the leader, Jackson-Vanik, President Reagan. To my side, Reagan said the words in the Constitution were a covenant to the entire world, not just to the people in Philadelphia in 1787 but to the entire world. And yet religious freedom, often referred to as the first freedom, is central to our American values and should be featured prominently in foreign policy.

But, sadly, the constituency for human rights and religious freedom issues is growing smaller and smaller in Washington and in this Congress. These issues have become second-class citizens in this Congress and in this town. There are no big law firms downtown. They're representing the Saudis. They're representing the Chinese. They're representing filth and garbage in certain cases, but no one represents human rights and religious freedom.

So there are all the Members who have agonized and pushed and pulled and want to kill this. I'm concerned because as we stand here today and debate, and you've got to know this, Iraqi Christians are being killed. People who speak the same language as Jesus, the Aramaic language, and more biblical activity took place in Iraq than almost any other country other than Israel, they're being killed; and Iraqi women are being forced to do terrible things in order to keep their families.

And there are some who don't want this bill to pass. They never talk about the Iraqi Christians. Yet many of them supported the Iraqi war and yet they say nothing.

The Baha'is in Iran and Egypt are being marginalized, and I never hear a word said.

Chinese Bishops. I can remember Congressman Smith took Holy Communion from Bishop Su. Bishop Su was arrested and has never been seen since, maybe once being forced into a public security police car and taken away.

Protestant pastors are being arrested today as we speak in China, and yet this doesn't really seem to bother this place. It's almost like, Well, you know, what are we going do? You know, man does not live by bread alone. These are important issues. Go back to Scoop Jackson. Go back to Ronald Reagan. Go back to the Constitution. Go back to the Declaration of Independence.

Shabaz Bhatti, the Christian minister in the government, was gunned down because of his faith, because he was a Christian. The Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan are being persecuted. They're going through a very, very difficult time. There are the Coptic Christians. I was in Egypt in July, and the Coptic Christians--8.5 million--are going through a very difficult time.

As Mr. Smith just said, anti-Semitism is running rampant. Anti- Semitism is running rampant in this world, and yet there are some who are trying to kill this Commission, for some reason, over in the other body. We're having such a hard time.

The Buddhists in Tibet, they can't even have a picture of the Dalai Lama. Hu Jintao, who is the current President of China, was the one who cracked down on Tibet and raided all those monasteries, and yet, with this bill, some are just saying, Well, you know, I don't know, and I don't know, and I don't know.

Though this bill is not what we originally planned, the Commission has said they can live with these provisions so that the Commission may remain a reliable voice for the world's persecuted

people. As Mr. Smith said, there probably is not a time that you do need this Commission more than now. Since the passage of this legislation, religious freedom has been elevated at times in U.S. foreign policy, but it still does not enjoy the preeminence it deserves.

Sadly, a strong U.S. voice on these critical issues has arguably never been more needed. The Commission faces extinction at the end of the month. Members of Congress know, if you knock this bill down, if you want to kill this Commission and if they vote ``no,'' it will go out of business by the end of this month if the Congress fails to pass it.

Just yesterday, as Mr. Smith said, the State Department released its annual International Religious Freedom Report. In the report, several challenges to religious freedom were pinpointed. People around the world continue to face violent extremist attacks, apostasy and blasphemy laws, repression, and anti-Semitism. According to a Pew Research Study released in 2009, one-third of all nations, containing 70 percent of the world's population, severely restrict religious freedom.

I want to thank again Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Berman and my good friend Mr. Smith and their staffs.

I don't know what we would say to the Christian community around the world and to the Baha'is and to those concerned about anti-Semitism and the Buddhist community in Tibet and the Uyghurs in China if this thing fails to pass. They would say, What's taking place in Washington? Why is this no longer an issue that this Congress and this administration care about? So I would hope we should pass it. I think we should have a roll call vote. Every Member should stand up and explain what they're going to do.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member Berman, Human Rights Subcommittee Chairman Smith, and their staffs for working tirelessly in a bipartisan manner to continue to fight for those who are persecuted for their religious beliefs. I would like to particularly thank the chairman's staffers, Yleem Poblete and Doug Anderson, for their help. Thank you also to our leadership for bringing this bill to the floor.

I rise in support of this critical legislation to reauthorize and reform the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). The sad truth is that this bill has been held hostage in the other body, and if we do not pass this bill in the form it is in today, the commission will shut down.

Some in the other body are now saying that even these are not the changes they would like to see to the commission, and quite frankly, I believe that some over there and this very administration would not mind if the commission were to shut its doors.

Religious freedom, often referred to as the first freedom, is central to our American values and should be featured prominently in U.S. foreign policy. Sadly, the constituency for human rights and religious freedom issues is growing smaller and smaller in Washington and in Congress. These issues have become second class citizens in this Congress.

I am deeply concerned because, as we stand here and debate this bill, Iraqi Christians are being killed, Baha'is are being marginalized in Iran, Chinese bishops and Protestants pastors sit in jail, Christian and Ahmadis continue to be repressed in Pakistan, Coptic Christians are having a difficult time in Egypt, and anti-Semitism is growing around the world.

Though this bill is not what we originally planned, the commission has said they can live with these provisions so that the commission may remain a reliable voice for the world's persecuted people.

Recognizing that this critical issue and other human rights related issues are often relegated to the sidelines within the State Department, I authored legislation more than 10 years ago, in 1998, to establish the International Religious Freedom Office at the State Department, headed by an ambassador at-large, and to create the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF)--an independent, bipartisan Federal Government commission, charged with monitoring the status of freedom of religion or belief abroad and providing policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress.

Since the passage of this legislation religious freedom has been elevated within U.S. foreign policy. But it still does not enjoy the preeminence it deserves. And sadly, a strong U.S. voice on this critical issue has arguably never been more needed. USCIRF faces extinction at the end of this month if Congress fails to pass the bill before us today and it is not signed into law.

Just yesterday, the State Department released its annual International Religious Freedom Report. In the report, several challenges to religious freedom were pinpointed. People around the world continue to face violent extremist attacks, apostasy and blasphemy laws, repression, and anti-Semitism. According to a Pew Research Study released in December 2009, one-third of all nations, containing 70 percent of the world's population, severely restrict religious freedom.

This legislation will reauthorize the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom until September 30, 2013. USCIRF, unlike the State Department, is unencumbered by the impulse to maintain good bilateral relations above all else . . . an impulse which sadly can result in critical issues of religious freedom being sidelined in the pursuit of broader foreign policy goals.

USCIRF regularly holds briefings and hearings on and off the Hill and is frequently called upon to provide expert witness testimony to Congress.

Just in the last year the commission has taken a leadership role on a series of key issues. It was quick to recognize the strategic importance and courageous voice of the late Shabaz Bhatti, Pakistan's federal minister of Minorities Affairs, an outspoken critic of his nation's draconian blasphemy laws.

During a critical time for the people of Sudan, the USCIRF issued special recommendations on the implementation of the historic Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

It made a series of policy recommendations aimed at preserving and protecting Iraq's besieged religious minorities.

It has actively worked with dozens of Hill offices on combating the ``defamation of religions'' resolution before the United Nations.

In short, ensuring that the commission is reauthorized is of paramount importance. In a Constitution Day speech, President Ronald Reagan famously described the United States constitution as ``a covenant we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind.''

Passage of this legislation will go a long way in helping us keep that covenant. I urge my colleagues' support. We must let the world know that the U.S. Congress continues to believe in the importance of protecting the first freedom for every person in this world.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2867) to reauthorize the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairwoman of our committee, and Howard Berman for their fine work in helping to bring this very important legislation to the floor today.

I want to thank especially Congressman Frank Wolf, the author of this legislation, who is also the author of the original International Religious Freedom Act that was passed back in 1998, against considerable odds, opposition from the Clinton administration, for example, opposition from a number of people on both sides of the aisle. But at the end of the day, that legislation, historic, was signed into law and was signed by President Clinton. So he came around and actually put his signature on that historic legislation.

So I again want to thank Mr. Wolf for his famous leadership. He has been a leader on human rights and on religious freedom in particular for more than 30 years. And that culminated, at least on the religious freedom side, with the enactment of the International Religious Freedom Act.

Madam Speaker, religious freedom, the right to worship and practice one's faith according to the dictates of one's own conscience, is a foundational human right. Not only is it an essential element in our Constitution; it is intrinsic to the human dignity of every man and woman on this Earth and was enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights.

But it is a right denied or curtailed for millions, really billions, according to some estimates, even a majority of the people living in the world. For Copts in Egypt, for Christians, Buddhists, and Uighurs in China, Montagnards, Evangelical Christians in Central Vietnam, Jews in Baha'i in Iran, many Buddhist monks in Burma and, of course, this rising pernicious tide of anti-Semitism, not just in the Middle East but in many parts of Europe, and even in the United States, the ability to live their faith without threat of persecution is a distant and unrealized promise.

I was pleased to work with Mr. Wolf years ago, as I mentioned, on this legislation. And I actually chaired the hearings on the legislation. And again, there was considerable opposition that was turned around, and at the end of the day this legislation did become law.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was an important part of this effort. It was created as an independent body of experts to review the facts and make policy recommendations from a vantage point outside of our diplomatic corps, where bilateral and other concerns had sometimes resulted in the soft-pedaling of severe ongoing violations of religious freedom around the world.

Even today, when the quality of State Department reporting on religious issues, while it's improved, the commission continues to serve as a critical role and a sounding board and a catalyst. One indicator is the fact that the commission's list of recommended, what is called ``countries of particular concern'' for severe violations of religious freedom, remains larger than the number actually designated by the State Department. They ought to be the same, but they are not.

Just yesterday, Secretary Clinton rightfully designated the People's Republic of China, Burma, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Uzbekistan as countries of particular concern. But the State Department's list does not add any new countries from last year, and one of the most glaring omissions of all is Vietnam, whose policies have more than earned that badge of shame.

Secretary Clinton did not designate Egypt either, or Iraq, Nigeria, Turkmenistan and Pakistan, as recommended by the commission. So, unfortunately, their recommendations went unheeded. But it does provide an important backdrop and framework to review and to look at what it is that the State Department is doing.

We need, Madam Speaker, this commission more than ever. Already in the Congress, we have had three comprehensive hearings on religious freedom: one in the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in January regarding the religious freedom of minorities in the Middle East; one in the committee that I chair, the Africa Global Health global Human Rights Committee, regarding the prioritization of religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy; and one just last month in the Helsinki Commission on the particular plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt. That hearing brought to light an egregious policy that is acted out in Egypt each and every day, where young Coptic Christians girls, some as young as 14 and 15, are kidnapped. They are forced into Islam, and then they are, at age 18 or thereafter, given in marriage forcibly to an Islamic man.

That is an outrage against women's rights, human rights, and religious freedom as well.

The Commission has been an invaluable resource to Congress as we monitor the protection and promotion of religious freedom around the world and the response of the administration on this very important issue. They have also a resource to governments seeking to remedy religious freedom abuses within their own borders. For instance, in Indonesia, the Commission worked with members of the Indonesian House of Representatives and civil society groups and introduced measures to strengthen provisions in the criminal code regarding attacks on religious gatherings and amend the law governing the building of religious venues.

The Commission also continues to help network human rights and legal advocates in Indonesia and elsewhere around the world working to defend individuals accused of blasphemy and religious minorities facing intimidation and violence from extremist groups. The Commission's work in Indonesia will have practical impact on the exercise of human rights and the preservation of peace in that country.

Other governments have looked to the Commission as a model for their own religious freedom commissions.

The bill before us today includes a number of bipartisan reforms to the Commission authorities and operations to make their work even more effective.

Again, I want to thank Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, the chairwoman, and thank Howard Berman for their leadership in ensuring the bill came to the floor today and for their support for the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is a distinct privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, the author of the original International Religious Freedom Act, an historic piece of legislation and today's reauthorization, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just want to again thank Congressman Frank Wolf, Chairman Wolf, for his eloquence and for his passion for those men and women and children of faith who suffer terrible, terrible injustices around the world, including persecution.

There were two books that got me involved, in all candor, in religious freedom issues--there were two incidents in my first year in Congress in 1981--``Tortured for Christ,'' by Richard Wurmbrand, who was a great evangelical pastor who spent years being tortured by the Securitate in Romania because of his faith. He made an appeal, and he said, Do not sit idly by while men and women of any faith are being tortured and persecuted because of that faith, because it's not just the individual who suffers; the entire family suffers; and very often they're incarcerated and tortured as well.

The other was the trip to the Soviet Union with the National Conference on Soviet Jewry in 1982, January. It was 10 days in Moscow and Leningrad, meeting Soviet Jewish refusniks who were persecuted, who were put into psychiatric prisons simply because of their faith.

A couple of years later, Mr. Wolf and I went to Perm Camp 35 in the Ural Mountains. It took years to negotiate our way in. This was in 1987. We met with persecuted Jewish refusniks and Christians and political prisoners who were there simply because of their faith. It was where Natan Sharansky had spent a number of his years incarcerated by the cruel dictatorship of the Soviet Union.

In China today, the believer Christians, Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Buddhists are tortured beyond anyone's imagination. It's real. It's happening today. In Vietnam, there has been a backlash against people of faith ever since they got trading benefits and the bilateral trade agreement and MFN were extended to them, or PNTR. They have done a backlash to men and women of faith that is unprecedented, and ought to be on the CPC list of the International Religious Freedom Commission. I hope people will go to the Web site. Check out this wonderful Commission, which if it is not renewed by the end of this month, goes out of business.

I would call out our Members on the other side of this Capitol, the other

body, to pass this legislation immediately. We ought to be strengthening and significantly expanding it, not doing less than status quo, which is what we're doing today because of some budget concerns that people have. This is the quintessential watchdog agency in this town. It doesn't get the big press, as Mr. Wolf said. It doesn't have the big bucks--no K Street lobbyists--but it is a wonderful and a very important and effective Commission that keeps track of religious persecution globally, that keeps us in line in the House and the Senate and also the State Department. I read their reports. I read them from cover to cover. Please, I would ask the Members of this body to support this legislation and call on our friends in the Senate to do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2867, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2011.

Many of our Nation's Founders fled religious persecution, and they placed great importance on religious freedom. George Washington summed up the prevailing view when he said, ``In this land of equal liberty, it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws.''

In 1791, the first amendment of the Constitution was ratified, enshrining freedom of religion as the ``First Freedom'' of all Americans. The first amendment became an inspiration to people all over the world who struggle to throw off the yoke of religious persecution.

Throughout our history, the United States has sought to protect and promote the fundamental human right of religious freedom at home and around the world. Just last week, on December 10, we celebrated Human Rights Day, the 63rd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After World War II, under Eleanor Roosevelt's leadership, the United States spearheaded the ratification of the Universal Declaration, which recognized freedom of religion as a fundamental right of all people.

As the founding chairman of the first-ever Senate subcommittee focused on human rights, I am deeply committed to protecting religious freedom, and I strongly support the mission of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. However, as I will outline below, I am concerned that USCIRF has gone astray in recent years. Therefore, I offered an amendment to H.R. 2867, the USCIRF Reauthorization Act, including good-government reforms like term limits for Commissioners, a prohibition on employee discrimination, and a requirement that Commissioners follow Federal travel regulations. My amendment also included changes to H.R. 2867 that will make USCIRF stronger, extending its reauthorization from 2 to 3 years and increasing the number of Commissioners from five to nine. The Durbin amendment will allow the USCIRF to more effectively pursue its mission.

On Monday, the Senate adopted my amendment and passed the USCIRF reauthorization bill on a unanimous vote. The bill is now awaiting consideration in the House of Representatives. USCIRF's current authorization is scheduled to expire tomorrow, December 16, so I urge my colleagues in the House to quickly take up and pass H.R. 2867.

I would like to take a moment to outline the provisions of the amendment that I offered to H.R. 2867.

Although the plain language of USCIRF's authorizing statute limits Commissioners to two, 2-year terms, for a total of 4 years of service, this term limit has never been observed. In fact, several Commissioners have served more than 10 years. The members of many governmental boards and commissions are term limited, and USCIRF would be well served by the new ideas and fresh perspective that new Commissioners would bring.

The House-passed version of H.R. 2867 includes a provision that limits Commissioners to serving two consecutive terms. However, the bill creates two new exceptions to the term limit provision in USCIRF's existing authorization. First, the bill would allow a Commissioner to serve an unlimited number of nonconsecutive terms. Second, the bill would allow each current Commissioner to complete his or her current term and then serve one additional term, regardless of how long the Commissioner has served. As a result, Commissioners who have already served more than 10 years would be permitted to serve an additional full term and unlimited nonconsecutive terms.

These loopholes are a step backwards from existing law and undercut the purpose of a term limit, which is to make sure that new voices from a range of viewpoints and faiths are rotated into the Commission periodically to collaborate in strengthening and shaping the Commission's mandate. In keeping with this spirit, my amendment includes in H.R. 2867 a firm term limit of two, 2-year terms--4 years total--with no grandfathering of current Commissioners.

USCIRF has taken the position that its employees do not enjoy the same antidiscrimination protections as all

other Federal employees. It is simply unacceptable for a Federal agency charged with promoting human rights to argue that it has the legal right to discriminate against its employees. The Durbin amendment includes in H.R. 2867 a provision which allows pending civil rights claims against USCIRF to proceed under the Congressional Accountability Act.

The House-passed version of H.R. 2867 provided antidiscrimination protections to USCIRF employees for future incidents of discrimination through the Congressional Accountability Act. However, I was concerned that this provision did not apply to former employees or past discrimination. As a result, there would have been no legal remedy for any incidents of discrimination that may have taken place prior to enactment of H.R. 2867.

Specifically, last year a former USCIRF employee filed a discrimination claim based on her allegation that her permanent employment offer was rescinded after the Commissioners learned of her prior job with a Muslim civil rights organization. Though she subsequently received a temporary contract with USCIRF, she claims she was terminated when she filed her discrimination claim. The Commission argued that it is not subject to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case is now on appeal.

There must be some avenue for resolving--on the merits--past allegations that USCIRF discriminated against its employees. Accordingly, my amendment to H.R. 2867 provides that pending civil rights claims against USCIRF may proceed under the Congressional Accountability Act.

The House-passed version of H.R. 2867 reduced the number of Commissioners from nine to five, which would make it more difficult for USCIRF to carry out its mission. Moreover, the bill accomplished this reduction in a disproportionate fashion by reducing the number of Commissioners appointed by the President from three to one. The Durbin amendment strikes the provision from H.R. 2867 which reduces the number of Commissioners from nine to five.

Religious freedom advocates allege that some USCIRF Commissioners have traveled first class and stayed in five-star hotels, in violation of Federal travel regulations. This is deeply troubling, particularly during a time when all Federal agencies are being asked to do more with less. The Durbin amendment simply clarifies that USCIRF Commissioners are subject to Federal travel regulations, like other Federal employees.

H.R. 2867 reauthorizes USCIRF until September 30, 2013. With the good-government reforms in the Durbin amendment, it would be more appropriate to reauthorize USCIRF until September 30, 2014, so that USCIRF Commissioners and staff have more certainty about the future of the Commission.

I strongly support the mission of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, but I have been deeply troubled by allegations of misconduct, misuse of funds, and discrimination at the Commission. For example, according to the Washington Post:

Some past commissioners, staff and former staff of the U.S.

Commission on International Religious Freedom say the agency

charged with advising the president and Congress is rife,

behind-the-scenes, with ideology and tribalism, with

commissioners focusing on pet projects that are often based

on their own religious background. In particular, they say an

anti-Muslim bias runs through the commission's work. . . .

Rumors about infighting and ineffectiveness have swirled for

years around the commission.

My amendment will make good-government reforms to USCIRF that should help to address the concerns that have been raised about USCIRF. Moreover, my amendment will make USCIRF stronger by increasing the number of Commissioners in the reauthorization bill from five to nine and by extending the reauthorization from 2 to 3 years. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights Subcommittee and a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, I will closely monitor the work of the USCIRF in the coming months and years to ensure that it is functioning in a transparent fashion and effectively performing its mission of promoting and protecting international religious freedom.

I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to quickly take up and pass H.R. 2867 so that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom can be reauthorized.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 372 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Because the one Republican amendment submitted to the Rules Committee was not germane and because the Democrats chose not to offer any amendments at all, House Resolution 372 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to prohibit the NLRB from ordering any employer to relocate, shut down or transfer employment beginning the date of passage. Since the NLRB filed suit against Boeing, I have been reminded of an old saying: ``A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.''

What you see now is exactly that, Big Government killing jobs under the guise of protecting workers. Let me be clear. Despite what opponents will say, this is not a union issue. This is a classic example of government overreach which will, in the end, destroy American jobs and encourage companies to look elsewhere in the world.

With unemployment at 9.1 percent and an economy which is best described as fragile, we do not have the luxury of being able to afford this action. Plain and simple, my legislation will remove the NLRB's ability to kill jobs.

The government, especially an unelected board, does not need to be involved in the business decisions of the private sector. In fact, it cannot be. We already live in a country where our corporate tax structure is the second highest in the world, and we cannot add another strike against us.

Today, the NLRB's overreach threatens 1,100 jobs in my hometown of north Charleston. Let me say that again: 1,100 jobs already created and filled. Who is to say tomorrow it does not preclude another company from looking to expand, not just in South Carolina, a State where our unemployment rate is at 10.9 percent, but anywhere in the country. This instability is the last thing our job creators need right now.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This commonsense solution will help spur job creation and, more importantly, it will remove impediments to job creation.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

There are a couple of comments I would like to make on my good friend's comments.

For one thing, not a single union employee, not a single employee in Washington State--Puget Sound, Washington State--has lost their job because of the new line of work being done in North Charleston, South Carolina.

Another comment that my good friend made had to do with Medicare and what the Republicans are doing to Medicare. Let us not forget the fact that without any question the legislation that has the greatest impact on Medicare and its funding for the future happens to be the national health care plan passed by the Democrats where they stripped $500 billion, $500 billion, out of Medicare to pay for the debacle known as national health care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Joe Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Phil Roe.

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly love to hear a single case, a single specific comment, a single specific fact to undergird your comments, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, John Duncan.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I would just say to my good friend, Mr. McGovern, that there's no doubt about it that the President's jobs plan does one thing. And it's consistent with what the NLRB would do as well. It doesn't simply ship American jobs overseas. It ships American companies overseas so they do not have to play in the quagmire pit called the regulations that this President and the Federal Government have imposed on businesses.

To quote from the conservative Chicago Tribune: The NLRB's worst decision, however, is its unprovoked ``hit'' job on Boeing. There's no question that whether you're a conservative, a liberal; whether you are a passionate believer in the future of this Nation and this world, here's one thing we all have in common: the decision for the NLRB to attack America's greatest and largest exporter is wrong and indefensible.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

My good friends on the left continue to talk about shipping jobs out of America. I want to make sure that everyone still recognizes the fact that the great State of South Carolina is still a part of the United States of America. In fact, when you think about it, you must scratch your head when in fact the Washington State employees now

have more people there working than they had when we opened the plant in North Charleston. In fact, if you're talking about creating American jobs in American States--U.S. States--South Carolina--you would simply look at the fact that 1,100 employees have been hired in North Charleston. You would think about the fact that the compounding impact of those jobs in North Charleston could create up to 12,000 new American jobs in our States.

So the fallacy of the left is nothing more than rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Jeff Duncan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentlewoman from Tennessee, Mrs. Diane Black.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Mike Pompeo.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Steve Palazzo.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Robert Hurt.

Mr. Speaker, I advise my colleague from Massachusetts that I have no remaining speakers.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Massachusetts continues to talk about the President's jobs plan that is nothing more than a brand spanking new stimulus plan spending $467 billion by increasing taxes on everyone, including the middle class. I cannot find it in my heart to say to Mr. McGovern that the President's plan has any opportunity of passing in this House, because the bottom line is simply this: we ought to spend our time focused on the things that we have in common. It is time for the games to stop.

We should look at the President's plan and pick out those parts of the plan that we agree with. We should start by talking about having an opportunity to work on corporate tax reduction, flattening the tax rate for corporations. We have the second highest tax rate in all of the world, and this environment creates an unlevel playing field for America's job creators.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Our President wants an up-or-down vote on this one package.

We believe that the fastest and most effective way to show the American people that partisan politics is over and that we're now focused on the American people, we will take those parts, those aspects of the President's bill that we agree with, like regulatory reform like we're doing today, and simply say to the American people that we're listening. We will take, without any question, an opportunity to debate the necessity of reducing the corporate tax structure to make America's corporations more competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope we can move past the politics and the games which so often sidetrack things in Washington and pass this important legislation here today.

This is not a question of pro-union--I agree with you--or anti-union. It is a question of right versus wrong.

The NLRB has plenty of tools at its disposal to protect workers and hold employers accountable for unlawful labor practices. There is simply no reason it should have the power to dictate where a private business can establish its workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.