To provide for the establishment of the Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 382 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my friend, 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

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

House Resolution 382 waives the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported by the Rules Committee. This would allow for the same-day consideration of any resolution reported through the legislative day of August 2, 2011. This rule will ensure that Congress has the necessary tools to pass a bill that ensures we cut spending without defaulting on our national debt.

Madam Speaker, today you will hear my friends the Democrats argue about a closed process, but you will not hear them discuss the unprecedented spending spree that my friends the Democrats on the other side of the aisle went through for the last two Congresses. We will discuss how Republicans continue to come up with thoughtful solutions-- and I add, balanced, thoughtful solutions--to our Nation's economic troubles, what we think will, and what has up to now, only failed in the Senate. We will talk about the magnitude of this vote and the importance of reaching an agreement before Tuesday. Madam Speaker, it is time to stop pontificating and start acting like Members of Congress. The Nation calls for a solution, and Republicans are the only ones to offer solutions in legislation, in debate on the floor, and with actual votes.

My friends on the other side of the aisle will go on and on today about how Republicans are closing the process and shutting out Members of Congress, when we're really here providing for the flexibility for the Speaker of the House to simply work with the Senate to ensure a solution to the looming debt crisis deadline is met so that we will not default on our obligations. If my Democrat colleagues were serious about finding solutions to this problem, they would vote in favor of this rule today.

The facts of the case are clear: The chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California, David Dreier, has issued more open rules in the last month than Congress has seen over the last two Congresses-- or for a total of 4 years combined. Additionally, in the 111th Congress, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and the chairman of the Rules Committee at the time, Louise Slaughter, 26 same-day rules were reported out of the Rules Committee. And in the previous Congress, the 110th Congress, under the same leadership, 17 same-day rules were reported out by the Rules Committee. In comparison, the process regarding these rules in this Congress is a far cry from the previous Democrat leadership's unorthodox and unprecedented closed processes.

I rise today in support of this rule. This rule is essential to allow the House of Representatives the flexibility it needs to ensure the safety and soundness of our country's economic future. Over the past 4 years we've seen record debt and deficits, which have brought us to the crossroad that we face with the looming August 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling. Americans continue to speak out loudly and clear. And just as they did last November, they are saying it is time to stop the out-of-control spending, wasteful Washington spending, and excessive government. Republicans have cut spending at every opportunity in this Congress, and we are hoping to do that again today.

Discretionary and mandatory spending at Federal levels are on unsustainable paths. In the last 2 years of Democrat control, Congress has approved and the President has signed into law an 84 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending, and the President's budget proposes to freeze discretionary spending at these inflated levels. America can no longer support or afford this kind of leadership.

The President's proposed FY 2012 budget also doubles, then triples the Federal deficit over the next 10 years. And while increasing taxes on the Nation's job creators by $1.6 trillion sounds like a good deal to the President, in fact, free enterprise system employers and American workers know otherwise. Additionally, the President's budget makes no substantial effort to address the unsustainable rate of entitlement spending, one of the major aims of the President's own fiscal commission, which he has ignored. Obviously, the President has no intention of cutting spending or reining in Big Government programs. Big Government, more taxes, more regulations are directly in the President's strike zone. And that is the process he intends to challenge Congress to come right along with him on and keep marching toward the cliff.

Madam Speaker, we're at the end of the road. Once again today, Republicans are saying, We are going to have to make tough choices. That's why we came to Congress. And the majority party will continue to do that today. Over the past 7 months, Republican leadership has been steadfast in their support for cutting spending and getting control of our record deficit and debt. The House passed H.R. 1, a continuing resolution that brought back spending levels to 2008 levels, cutting $100 billion in 1 year. In April, this House passed a budget that would cut $6.2 trillion in government spending over the next decade compared to the President's budget. Just last week, this body passed Cut, Cap, and Balance, which would limit discretionary spending, cap spending to a lower percentage of GDP, and lead to a Balanced Budget Act, so Congress could no longer write checks that they can't cash without passing the debt on by asking foreign governments and others to make up the difference for us.

Republicans are willing to pay the balance if the President is willing to cut up the credit card. And that is why we are here also today. Republicans have again and again in the House offered commonsense solutions to rein in spending and cut down our debt. My friends on the other side of the aisle continue to reject every single proposal. So, one might ask, What is their solution? What have they have offered this Nation to spur economic growth and to put Americans back to work, we would ask. So, let me tell you. By raising taxes. By raising taxes on individuals, on small businesses, and corporations alike. This is no wonder why we see stagnant job growth, GDP that lags behind, and high employment rates--and that means we cannot meet the needs of this country.

Even when the increase in taxes hurts our economic recovery, slows job growth and places more uncertainty in the marketplace, our friends the Democrats continue to argue for more spending and more taxation.

President Obama has asked Congress for an increase in the debt ceiling, and my Republican colleagues and I refuse to grant that request without a commitment to long-term spending cuts. We reject President Obama's insistence for a blank check to pay the credit card bills that he has run up over the past 2\1/2\ years. President Obama's unwillingness to address the true drivers of our debt assured me and my party that we cannot achieve a true solution to the debt crisis we are facing today unless we're able to make tough decisions.

The Budget Control Act we discussed yesterday and what we will discuss today is a step in the right direction. It accomplishes what Republicans and the American people have been asking for since the beginning of this process. It will reduce spending more than we increase the debt limit, it imposes no new taxes on anyone, and it guarantees to Americans that the House and the Senate will vote in the next 6 months on the only permanent solution to our debt crisis.

Yes, Madam Speaker, the Republicans are here on the floor again working on behalf not only of employers and employees but the middle class of this country, those of us who are concerned about where we are headed. There is nothing in this resolution that should cause anyone to worry about losing Social Security or Medicare. That is not even intended in this process. What is is to solve the spending and the debt crisis that we have in this country.

I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Rosalyn, congratulations. I am going to miss you. It is a good day for you; it's a bad day for us. It is with regular occurrence that I look over at you. You have a bright, smiling face. You have the enthusiasm not only of a bright, young professional staffer on the Rules Committee, but I think you will be a true asset to Senator Stabenow, as you take the experiences from a body that does a lot of work to a body that needs to do more work, and I wish you the very best.

If I could, I would also like to tell the gentleman that Jenny Gorski, who is behind me, a professional staff member of the Rules Committee, will also be leaving, I have found out, after this process. She will be going to Congressman Doc Hastings' office to be his adult supervision. So we're taking two Rules Committee professional staff members who will aid and help other Members in their betterment.

I again thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to a brand new member of the Rules Committee, one of our 87 new Republican freshmen, the gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia, Congressman Woodall.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the gentlewoman comes down and talks about this game that's going on about jobs.

I am going to read from an article that I will insert into the Record regarding information on tax hikes and what that does to American jobs:

``This past January, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into law a 67 percent increase in the State personal income tax rate and a 45 percent increase in the State corporate tax rate. Between its passage then and June, Illinois lost 56,223 jobs.

``To combat the job loss caused by the higher taxes on businesses, the Illinois Department of Commerce `has already shelled out some $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep more than two dozen companies from fleeing the State.' ''

Well, this is exactly what President Obama is suggesting for America, the same thing that they do in his home State in Illinois, raise taxes substantially on all of those rich people and corporations. Madam Speaker, a 56,000 job loss. They're now having to spend an incredible amount of money to convince people, really to pay them off, just to stay.

This is the game that the Democratic Party plays. This is exactly what the gentlewoman was talking about about the serious elements of jobs and the consequences of killing jobs in this country.

Madam Speaker, I will tell you the Republican Party will not fall victim to raising taxes like the Democratic Party and like President Obama want us to do.

We will not raise the debt limit without making tough choices. And, Madam Speaker, we're going to add jobs and do the things that are right that the American people expect us to do. And that's why we're here today.

The Real-World Impact of Tax Hikes on American Jobs

(By Rep. Pete Sessions & Rep. John Shimkus)

[From the Daily Caller, July 28, 2011]

Over the last few weeks, President Barack Obama has

adamantly supported raising taxes on corporations and small

businesses that employ millions of American workers as a

precondition for cutting our bloated federal spending.

To see the real-world effect of this proposal on jobs and

the economy, President Obama's home state provides a useful

and cautionary example.

This past January, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into

law a 67 percent increase in the state personal income tax

rate and a 45 percent increase in the state corporate tax

rate. Between its passage and June, Illinois lost 56,223

jobs, according to statistics released last week.

To combat the job loss caused by the higher taxes on

businesses, the Illinois Department of Commerce ``has already

shelled out some $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep

more than two dozen companies from fleeing the state.''

So not only is Illinois bleeding productive jobs, but it's

now allowing the government to pick winners and losers.

Extracting an ever-increasing toll from job creators is

simply the wrong answer for American jobs. Just ask the

56,000 Illinoisans who have lost their jobs since January.

Spreading this failure nationwide is simply not an option.

We are in a debt crisis not because we tax too little, but

because Democrat-led Washington spends beyond its means.

House Republicans have been focused on encouraging and

providing certainty (not new burdens) to our nation's job

creators--and trying to get our debt and deficit-spending

under control.

The rest of America simply cannot afford more of the failed

policies of the president's home state, and House Republicans

will fight against tax hikes so that we may ensure a brighter

future for generations to come.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to another one of our 87 new freshmen, Mr. Womack, the former mayor of Rogers, Arkansas, one of the most beautiful cities in America.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire about the time remaining on both sides, please.

Madam Speaker, day after day the American people receive more bad news, economic bad news, about the shape our country is in. That is what Republicans respond to.

Today, news came out that the first quarter GDP that was provided by the Federal Government, first quarter, was actually wrong, dead wrong. They said the GDP growth was 1.9 percent. Today we find out it was .4.

Madam Speaker, the disastrous results of the Obama-Pelosi years are evident. Republicans want jobs. We need a middle class, and we are willing to fight for it. That's why we are here today with commonsense legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the reason why we're here today is because we're spending too much money.

Another reason why we're here today is because the Democratic Party and the Members--many of them who have spoken today--took $500 billion out of Medicare, and that's why that system is in real trouble. Republicans will save Medicare, not bankrupt it like our friends the Democrats have done.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the conjecture the gentleman has made and extrapolated this out of what this bill would do. In fact, that's not what the bill does at all.

The bill says that we will approach in a reasonable way and with respect to the American taxpayer--and to the marketplaces--a plan, a plan that will put America on sound financial footing, which would be the envy of the world, which is part of what the Republican Party would choose to do.

Madam Speaker, once again, this rule provides the necessary flexibility the Republican leadership needs to ensure that we do not default on our obligations in the next 4 days. Republicans will continue to provide sound, balanced, and real leadership and pass solutions while the President continues on the pathway--along with the Democratic Party, as we've heard here today--of tax increases and job- killing ideas.

With over 14 million Americans unemployed, a $1.4 trillion projected deficit this year, and over $14 trillion in debt, our current financial policies are simply not working. I don't know why we would continue doing what we've been doing when it doesn't work, but perhaps that's what our friends, the Democrats, want to do. We, as Republicans, disagree.

So I'm asking the Democratic colleagues, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to join their Republican colleagues and me for real fiscal change. Cutting spending and reducing government programs, each of these help us encourage economic growth, not just as we heard in Rogers, Arkansas, but all over this country. It does work, putting Americans back to work.

Madam Speaker, I will insert into the Record an article titled, ``Texas Bucks National Unemployment Trends,'' because they do things that balance out the marketplace.

I applaud our Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio, John Boehner, for his hard work and commitment to the American people, and those people here in the House of Representatives who will do their duty and provide for real and conservative solutions, market-based answers to get our economy back on track.

Madam Speaker, this Republican House will not raise taxes. We will not raise spending. We will not yield to the old ways of taxing and spending and not listening and then thinking we know better than others.

We're for the free enterprise system.

We're for families back home. We're for job growth and real meaningful opportunities for the future of our children. That is what we stand for.

So we are here today. Yes, we'll stay in town until we get our job done. We're the people who believe in the free enterprise system. We're the people who believe in the people back home. And we're the people who are going to say ``no'' to Washington, D.C., taxing, spending, big wasteful government. We are the people, the Republican Party. The elephants are in town, and we have a great memory. We know what works. So, Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Texas Bucks National Unemployment Trend

(By Tony Gutierrez)

Finding work may not be quite that simple, but it sure

seems that way. While the nation's job growth has limped

along since the economic recovery began two years ago, the

Lone Star State is enlarging payrolls in Texas-size fashion.

From June 2009 to June 2011 the state added 262,000 jobs,

or half the USA's 524,000 payroll gains, according to the

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and the Bureau of Labor

Statistics. Even by a more conservative estimate that omits

states with net job losses, Texas' advances make up 30% of

the 1 million additions in the 34 states with net growth.

The stunning showing could play a role in the presidential

race. Texas Gov. Rick Perry is signaling he may run for the

Republican nomination. If he does, he's likely to ground his

campaign in his state's outsized job growth.

Texas' big gains are partly a reflection of its population

growth. But the recent job gains are outpacing the rate of

population growth in Texas, the nation's second-largest

state, with 25 million residents--about 8% of the U.S.

population.

INTERACTIVE: Sortable chart: State-by-state look at employment changes

The state's payrolls have risen 2.9% since the end of the

recession, third behind North Dakota and Alaska and far

outpacing the USA's 0.4% growth, according to the BLS. Also,

Texas' 8.2% unemployment rate is well below the nation's

9.2%.

``For one large state to grow (jobs) so much faster than

the rest of the nation is very unusual,'' says Moody's

economist Ed Friedman.

Economists point to an array of factors, including high

energy prices that set off an oil-drilling frenzy, rising

exports and a conservative banking industry that helped the

state sidestep the housing crash.

Yet while energy has been a spark--employment in natural

gas, oil and other mining sectors rose by 45,000, or 23%,

since the recession ended--growth has been broad-based.

During the past two years, professional and business services

added 74,000 jobs; education and health care gained 91,000;

and leisure and hospitality grew by 29,000, according to BLS.

State officials cite a pro-business climate that Perry

helped foster that's drawing scores of businesses from high-

cost states--a trend that took on urgency for firms that got

lean in the economic downturn.

The 10-year Texas governor is ``really focused on creating

an environment where people can risk their capital and get a

return on investment, and that, in turn, creates jobs for

Texans,'' says Lucy Nashed, spokeswoman for the state's

economic development office.

Nashed notes Texas has no state or corporate income tax and

keeps regulations at a minimum to allow businesses to grow

quickly. She says Perry also has worked to develop a skilled

workforce by requiring additional public school classes and

pushing through tort reform to limit frivolous lawsuits. The

state, meantime, has doled out more than $600 million in

grants and investments since 2003 to recruit out-of-state

companies and help Texas firms expand.

Does Perry really deserve credit?

Yet some question Perry's role in the so-called Texas

Miracle.

James Galbraith, a professor of government at the

University of Texas-Austin, largely attributes the state's

job growth to the energy and export booms. Texas, he notes,

has never had an income tax. From 1990 to 2000, before Perry

took office, Texas payrolls swelled 36%, compared with 21%

for the nation.

``Rick Perry did not come and find a high-tax, high-service

state and dismantle it,'' Galbraith says. ``For something to

contribute, there (has to be) a change. There's been a change

in oil prices.''

Others say the state's low tax burdens exact a high cost:

fewer state services. Perry, for example, refused to raise

taxes to close a $27 billion budget gap last spring. Instead,

the Legislature slashed more than $4 billion in funding for

public schools the next two years, a move that's likely to

lead to tens of thousands of teacher layoffs.

``We're not preparing our children to compete in tomorrow's

economy,'' says Scott McCown, head of Texas' Center for

Public Policy Priorities.

Texas ranks 44th in the USA in per-student expenditures and

43rd in high school graduation rates, McCown says. Seventeen

percent of Texans lived below the poverty level in 2009,

compared with 14% for the nation. The state leads in the

percentage of the population with no health insurance and was

ninth in income inequality in the mid-2000s, the latest data

available, according to McCown and the Economic Policy

Institute.

McCown says Texas should not serve as a job-growth paradigm

for the rest of the nation.

``If you're saying you want to look like Texas, you're

saying you want to be poor and have less health care,'' he

says.

The state's relatively low wages, particularly for low-

skilled jobs, stems in part from its status as a right-to-

work state with little unionization. That dampens consumer

spending and limits economic growth, McCown says. In June,

average hourly earnings for private-sector employees in Texas

were about 5% lower than the U.S. average.

But Mark Dotzour, chief economist at Texas A&M's Real

Estate Center, says the state's lower pay helps it compete in

a global economy. ``Either you choose to have low-wage jobs

or you choose to have no jobs at all,'' he says.

The state's reasonable cost of living, he adds, makes it

possible for many residents to live comfortably on lower

salaries. The Dallas area ranks 10th in housing affordability

among 82 metro areas with more than 1 million residents,

while Houston is 15th, according to the Demographia

International Housing Affordability Survey. That's partly

because Texas has an abundance of cheap land--another draw

for firms looking to relocate.

Other reasons for the state's robust job growth:

The energy boom. Oil prices have nearly tripled since early

2009. High prices spark more exploration and production.

Meanwhile, technological breakthroughs have let companies

extract natural gas embedded in shale deposits. Barnett Shale

in Fort Worth is one of the USA's largest gas fields, and

drilling began at the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas in

2008. The number of oil and gas rigs in the state has jumped

to 850 from 330 in July 2009, says Ana Orozco, economist for

IHS Global Insight. Each rig employs a few dozen workers and

leads to hiring by engineering firms, pipeline builders and

other services.

Exports. Overseas shipments by Texas' strong computer,

electronics, petrochemical and other industries rose 21% last

year, compared with 15% for the nation, according to the

Dallas Federal Reserve Bank. The state also benefits from its

proximity to Latin American countries that are big importers

of U.S. goods, Friedman says. The surge creates jobs for

Texas manufacturers and ports.

No housing crash. Texas never had a housing boom but also

avoided the bust that decimated consumer credit and home

construction in much of the rest of the nation. While prices

of single-family homes more than doubled from January 2000 to

their mid-2000s peak in cities such as Los Angeles, Miami and

Las Vegas, they rose less than 27% in the Dallas/Fort Worth

market, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price index.

Meanwhile, Texas banks burned by the savings-and-loan

crisis in the 1980s were less eager than those in other

states to approve risky mortgages. And Texas law limits

mortgage debt, including home-equity loans, to 80% of a

home's value.

``People didn't use their houses like ATMs,'' says Dallas

Fed Vice President Mine Yucel.

Texas still was hit by the recession. Annual permits for

single-family homes declined 59% from their 2005 peak to

2010, but that's less than the nation's 73% plunge, according

to Texas A&M. Similarly, employment fell 4% in the downturn;

the USA's overall drop was 6.3%. Texas has recovered 380,000

jobs since its December 2009 low and is now just 54,000 shy

of its 10.6 million peak.

Population growth. Texas' population grew by 4.3 million,

or 21%, during the past decade, more than twice the national

pace. About half the total was because of births, but Texas

also gained 849,000 residents via state-to-state migration,

second only to Florida.

Texas thus benefits from a virtuous cycle: More people are

moving there for work, generating consumer demand that

creates still more jobs. That's expanded the workforce,

keeping the unemployment rate at 8.2%--ranked just 26th in

the nation--despite the strong payroll advances.

One recent arrival is Ife Oyedokun, 26, who this month

moved to the Austin area from Philadelphia, where he worked

as a high school counselor, to be closer to his family.

Within two weeks he had a job as a rehabilitation specialist

for a growing outpatient facility for the mentally ill.

``I was very surprised,'' he says. ``With just how the

economy is now, I figured three, four, five months'' to find

a job.

`Hunting' for possible relocations

Companies also are feeling the pull.

Corporate giants including Fluor, Toyota and Medtronic

recently moved headquarters or operations to Texas, and eBay,

AT&T, Samsung and Cirrus Logic have expanded there. Samsung

added about 700 jobs in Austin since last year, enlarging a

plant that makes chips for smartphones.

Area business leaders, meanwhile, have aggressively courted

out-of-state companies.

The Dallas Regional Chamber this month sent a letter to 50

Illinois corporations, urging them to consider a move to

Texas. The mailing includes a side-by-side comparison of the

two states that notes Illinois recently raised corporate and

personal income taxes and highlights Texas' lower housing,

labor and other expenses.

``States with heavy-duty business taxes, personal taxes or

regulatory mind-sets define themselves as our targets,'' says

Chamber CEO Jim Oberwetter. ``That's just where we go

hunting.''

Texas has particularly tried to lure high-tech California

companies to lower-cost technology corridors in Austin,

Dallas and San Antonio. Medtronic, the Minneapolis-based

medical device giant, has moved customer support for its

diabetes unit from the Los Angeles area to San Antonio in the

past 22 months, creating 750 jobs in Texas.

Jeff Ruiz, head of Medtronic's Texas operations, says the

company was drawn by labor costs that are ``significantly

lower'' than those in Los Angeles and a large, high-quality

workforce. Ruiz also points to more affordable real estate

and the lack of a state corporate tax, though he says the

latter was a minor factor. The company, which also received

$14 million in incentives from the state--a figure Ruiz says

was comparable with other offers--chose San Antonio from

among more than 900 U.S. cities it evaluated.

For some, the benefits are more basic.

Marketing firm Red Ventures this year opened a San Antonio

office that's expected to grow to 250 employees from 60 by

year's end, says spokeswoman Kylie Craig. Besides the

region's ample talent pool, other draws were the city's non-

stop flights to Red Ventures' other offices in Miami and

Charlotte and its 7.3% unemployment rate.

In cities with high jobless rates, ``We're having to sift

through (many) unqualified applicants.''

Then there's Texas' laid-back lifestyle and lower costs,

assets that prompted Vermillion, a start-up developer of

blood tests with 29 employees, to move from Fremont, Calif.,

to Austin about a year ago. ``We found it very difficult to

recruit people into California because of the cost of living,

traffic, congestion,'' says CEO Gail Page.

The corporate relocations and expansions are having a

ripple effect on restaurants, hospitals and other service

businesses. Winstead, a Dallas law firm with about 270

lawyers statewide, has added 50 since last year to handle the

extra workload from firms, such as Comerica Bank, that have

moved to Texas the past few years, says Mike Baggett,

Winstead's chairman emeritus.

And after cutting staff in 2009 and 2010, DeMontrond

Automotive in Houston has hired about 20 employees the past

few months in response to a 20% jump in revenue, says owner

George DeMontrond. Houston lost 120,000 jobs in the recession

but has gained about 50,000 the last seven months.

``I think people who have held off and not purchased large-

ticket items because of uncertainty are a little bit more

ready to do it,'' DeMontrond says.

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

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I have a point of personal privilege. I thank the gentleman from Texas for the time.

We on the Rules Committee and as Members of Congress rely on the hard work of our staff people, particularly on Rules Committee, working into the wee hours of the night, last night being an example, until 11:30. After 3 years of tremendous service, my Rules associate, Rosalyn Kumar, has accepted another position in the Senate, and I just want to express my appreciation for her hard work.

She hails from the city of Dallas, Texas, and her hometown Representative is my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions.

I'd like to yield for a moment to my colleague from Texas.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to be perfectly clear about what we're talking about here today. From the moment Speaker Boehner walked away from the negotiating table last Friday to the opening bell of the stock markets this morning, shareholders in U.S. stocks, American retirees, investors, our middle class have lost $405 billion based on Third Way's analysis of data from the Standard and Poor's 500 Index, and Americans stand to lose more if we fail to resolve this crisis.

Third Way has put together a comparison between the interest rate paid on sovereign debt between AAA and AA nations. This is why credit is important. People understand that. Depending on your credit rating, you pay a different rate on your home mortgage. You might have different financing opportunities on your credit card. If America misses a debt payment, the rating agencies have let us know that it likely will result in a downgrade from AAA status to AA status.

I would also point out that this current bill before us would likely lead to that as well because it only contains a short-term, a 6-month renewal of our debt ceiling. Having watched the dysfunction of Congress over the last few weeks, the global investment community, those who loan us money, will say the last thing we need to do is put ourselves through this again in 6 months to ensure stability.

Countries that have AAA ratings have an average 10-year bond rate of 2.98 percent. Countries that have AA have an average bond rating of 3.75 percent. So, three-quarters of a percent difference. What does that mean? It means three-quarters of a percent on your variable rate home mortgage; it means three-quarters of a percent on your automobile; and, yes, it means more government expenditures, bigger government expenditures, just to cover the debt that we already have. In fact, that difference, that 0.75 percent difference over the next 10 years, will cost taxpayers, in additional interest payments, over $1 trillion.

So here we are with a bill that cuts spending, cuts $915 billion of spending, but, because it will likely lead to a downgrade, will cost over a trillion. The bill before us today will increase the deficit by over $100 billion. At a time of record deficits when we all know we need to enforce fiscal discipline, the last thing we need is an irresponsible bill to increase the deficit by $100 billion, which is what we have before us today.

Now, if we had this bill before us 2 weeks ago or 3 weeks ago, I would still oppose it--increasing the deficit is the last thing we need to do now--but it would have been an interesting discussion. It would have been maneuvering and politics and all this stuff that this body does too much of in posturing, in my opinion. But here we are 3\1/2\ days from the debt ceiling expiring, and the gentleman from Texas and the chairman of our Rules Committee and many others have said, We want to. We know we need to do this. We know we need to do this.

If we know we need to do this, why are we doing this 3\1/2\ days before the expiration of the debt ceiling? Why are we potentially passing a bill that will increase the Federal deficit? that will almost certainly lead to a downgrade? that the Senate has said they will kill? that the President has said he will veto?

I understand that the plan was to pass this bill last night. I understand that the majority party was short of a few votes. That would have been yet another window of opportunity for this Speaker, who has had many, to negotiate a real solution, to be the statesman, to work with the President and the Senate to come up with a bipartisan package to increase the debt ceiling, cut spending, decrease the deficit.

The President has talked about decreasing the deficit by $4 trillion. Instead, we have a force of bill that's likely to increase the deficit by $100 billion--the last thing we need from Congress at this juncture in time. Three-and-a-half days is how long we have to get this right.

I ask you, Madam Speaker, is this the step we need to take towards that

outcome, passing yet another ideological bill that will cost taxpayers $100 billion and cost middle class families another percentage point on all the debt that they have?

Madam Speaker, there is a route out of this, and the route out of this does not involve the majority party trying to pull back the four or five or six people that they need over there. The path out of this is the Speaker engaging us, engaging all Members of this Chamber, engaging the President of the United States, who has to sign this at the end of the day, engaging the Senate majority leader and the Senate minority leader, to go back to that table that Speaker Boehner walked out on last Friday, to negotiate a real solution to the deficit crisis and the spending crisis that has gripped this country, that could very well lead to a downgrade and increased deficit spending unless we get our arms around it.

Look, I think many on my side of the aisle are open to a compromise. President Obama, himself, has called for a compromise, and I know my office and the offices of many other Members of Congress have received hundreds of calls from constituents who echo that desire to reach a solution on this. I fear that the step before us today is yet another example of the dysfunction of this institution under this leadership, but it's not too late.

I call upon the Speaker to move away from this direction and get back to the negotiating table to establish a real solution: to reduce the deficit, retain our Nation's good credit and faith in our system and show that this institution--the institution of the House of Representatives and the institution of Congress--can work and do what's right for our country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The majority leader in the Senate has never at any time expressed support for this bill and actually opposes this bill.

I would ask the gentleman to clarify that.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Again, my colleague from Georgia mentioned that there are no Democrats behind this initiative. Again, Democrats were not consulted or talked to to ask for their support or input into this initiative. And you won't find much support for a proposal that would increase the deficit by $100 billion over 10 years.

The Democrats and our Democratic plan are seeking to decrease the deficit by trillions of dollars over that same period rather than increase it by $100 billion as the Republican plan does.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I have an article entitled, ``Debt Ceiling Impasse Rattles Short-Term Credit Markets,'' again from The New York Times, discussing how this uncertainty that is not being caused by external factors but is being caused by us, by politicians, by people here in this body, is rattling those who lend our country money. And that's why this plan before us today will increase the deficit by over $100 billion over 10 years. In addition to those spending cuts, it will cost taxpayers more in interest payments if it jeopardizes our credit rating.

[From the New York Times, July 28, 2011]

Debt Ceiling Impasse Rattles Short-Term Credit Markets

(By Nelson D. Schwartz and Azam Ahmed)

The reverberations of Washington's impasse over a debt deal

are already being felt in the short-term credit markets, a

key artery of the economy that daily supplies trillions of

dollars of credit.

Over the last week, big banks and companies have withdrawn

$37.5 billion from money market funds that invest in Treasury

debt and other ultra-safe securities, the biggest weekly drop

this year. Meanwhile, in the vast market for repurchase

agreements, in which many financial firms make short-term

loans to one another, borrowers are beginning to demand

higher yields.

These moves underscore how companies and big financial

institutions are beginning to rethink their traditional view

that notes issued by the United States Treasury are

indistinguishable from cash, even though many experts say

they think it is unlikely that the government would miss

payments on its obligations.

The $37.5 billion drop, reported Thursday in a weekly

survey by the Investment Company Institute, echoed what other

analysts were seeing.

In the first three days of this week, investors pulled $17

billion from funds that invested only in government

securities, a reversal of the daily inflows of $280 million

for much of July, said Peter Crane, the president of Crane

Data, which tracks money market mutual funds.

``It's big, no doubt about it,'' he said. ``Seventeen

billion isn't a run, but it's definitely indicative that

investors are shifting their assets. If this were to continue

for another week or two, it would be very disturbing.''

Though lawmakers have been clashing all week on proposals

to cut the deficit and raise the debt limit ahead of an Aug.

2 deadline set by the Treasury Department, bond markets have

largely shrugged off the risk of a default or a downgrade of

the Washington's AAA credit rating.

Interest rates on longer-term Treasuries have held steady,

but the yield on notes coming due next week, after the

deadline, has moved sharply higher in recent days. The yield

on Treasury bills coming due Aug. 4 jumped five basis points

to 15 basis points, a significant move for a security that

carried a yield close to zero earlier this month, said Jim

Caron, head of interest rate strategy at Morgan Stanley.

``It's a tell-tale sign of something that could reverberate

if it spreads to other markets, and all the uncertainty with

the debt ceiling is the functional equivalent of a

tightening,'' Mr. Caron said. ``I don't think there is a

default risk at all but the market is saying it's not going

to take any chances.''

While money market fund managers say they are not seeing a

sizable wave of redemptions yet, they are setting aside more

cash, leaving it at custodial bank accounts in case investors

demand their money back. At Fidelity, the Boston-based firm

that has $442 billion in money market assets, managers are

avoiding Treasury bills that come due on Aug. 4 and Aug. 11,

however unlikely a technical default may be.

``We are positioning our portfolio to respond to a

downgrade or a default and we are positioning the fund to

respond to redemptions,'' said Robert Brown, president of

money markets at Fidelity. Mr. Brown would not say how much

cash was being kept at hand, but said ``it's a higher balance

than one would expect to see.''

In the commercial paper market, where companies raise funds

for their short-term borrowing needs, buyers are also seeking

shorter-term paper.

In the last week, investors have shown signs of wanting

quick access to their money, with financial borrowers raising

on Wednesday only $1 million in notes that come due in 81

days or more, according to the Federal Reserve. That is down

from $479 million on July 22.

At the same time, the amount of commercial paper issued

with a duration of just one to four days rose to $920

million, from $771 million.

``Investors are scrambling to bolster their liquidity

profile,'' said Chris Conetta, head of global commercial

paper trading at Barclays Capital. ``They understand that a

default or downgrade could be a big, systemic event.''

In the repurchase market, known as the repo market,

borrowers take loans and in exchange hand over a little more

than the equivalent loan amount in securities. Because of

their risk-free status, Treasuries are highly favored as

collateral, estimated to account for about $4 trillion in the

repo markets.

The fear is that if the United States credit rating drops,

the value of those treasuries

could respond in kind. Borrowers would then have to post more

collateral to obtain their loans, effectively raising the

cost of borrowing. That could ripple into the broader market,

raising interest rates on all types of loans, analysts warn.

``The repo market is a pressure point because it can have

an impact on overall credit availability, which bleeds

through to mortgage rates,'' said Robert Toomey, managing

director at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets

Association. ``Treasuries become a little less attractive if

they are more expensive to finance.''

The overnight repo rate, which started the week at about

three basis points, was about 17 basis points Thursday

evening, according to Credit Suisse. That means that to

finance $100 million overnight in the repo market it would

now cost about $472 per day, up from about $83 on Monday.

``It's a bigger deal than a lot of people recognize,'' said

Howard Simons, a strategist at Bianco Research, a bond market

specialist. ``If you downgrade the securities you have to put

more up for collateral and that affects pretty much everybody

out there who has held these in reserve. I don't care if

you're a bank, insurance company, exchange or

clearinghouse.''

To be sure, most observers say the ripples in the repo

market will not be anything like those felt in the fall of

2008, when creditors lost faith in the ability of banks to

pay back their short-term loans. That caused a problem for

companies like General Electric, which struggled to finance

its daily operations as a result. Back then, the sharp drop-

off in repo lending helped bring the financial system to its

knees.

``I think people are looking at the U.S. as the cleanest

shirt in the dirty laundry pile,'' said Jason New, a senior

managing director at GSO Capital Partners.

``To me, the downgrade is not dropping a boulder in a still

lake. This is dropping a pebble, but nevertheless there are

still ripples.''

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

The gentleman from Georgia mentioned that the President hasn't introduced a bill. I would just like to point out that the President of the United States cannot introduce a bill in the House or Senate. The President can sign a bill. In fact, in this particular case, he said he would veto this bill because it increases the deficit, it risks increasing it by over $100 billion.

I would like to submit for the Record a study that shows the difference in interest rates between AAA and AA ratings, which demonstrably shows, in fact, that if this bill is passed here today with only a 6-month extension, it would likely cost taxpayers over $100 billion.

AAA or AA? In Which Club Do We Want To Belong?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

10-Year

AAA Ratings bond yield

(%) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Australia.................................................. 4.92 Austria.................................................... 3.39 Canada..................................................... 2.93 Denmark.................................................... 2.99 Finland.................................................... 3.13 France..................................................... 3.25 Germany.................................................... 2.76 Hong Kong.................................................. 2.26 Luxembourg................................................. 3.29 Netherlands................................................ 3.14 Norway..................................................... 3.24 Singapore.................................................. 2.10 Sweden..................................................... 2.75 Switzerland................................................ 1.45 United Kingdom............................................. 3.04

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First, in response to the claim of the gentleman from Texas in regards to saving Medicare, well, if ending Medicare is one way of saving it, I guess that would be consistent. In fact, the Republican package that was passed in this House phased out Medicare. Nobody under 55 would receive Medicare.

By definition, Medicare is a medical insurance program for seniors. It would be replaced with a voucher that would pay for part of private insurance that seniors need to get, but it would no longer be Medicare. It would no longer exist. So, certainly, getting rid of Medicare, if you consider that a way of saving it, the Republican budget will do that. But if you want to save Medicare, it requires cutting costs and investing in the system and making it work for more American families.

Again, what we have before us today, Madam Speaker, is not a solution; it's further political machinations of the

House. Rather than talking to the President, rather than talking to the Senate, unfortunately, the Speaker of this body has chosen to talk to five or six people, move the bill further away from the middle, further away from what the President will sign, further away from what the Senate will pass with only 3\1/2\ days left.

Three-and-a-half days left before what? Three-and-a-half days left before this country jeopardizes our credit rating and our good standing as a Nation that pays interest on our debt. And just as American families, when your credit score gets messed up, you pay more, taxpayers will pay more if this bill passes.

Madam Speaker, it has been estimated that the approximately 1 percent interest rate increase that a downgrade from AAA to AA would provide will cost taxpayers over $1 trillion over 10 years. And this bill will increase the deficit by $100 billion.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I submit a copy of my Egypt trip report.

Purpose

On June 26-28 I visited Egypt to meet with U.S. and host

government officials and key civil society actors,

specifically to address human rights and religious freedom

concerns, especially during this critical time of transition.

Meetings

I met with U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey and received a

modified country team brief from embassy staff. I spoke with

U.S./Western print correspondents and saw Tahrir Square--site

of recent pro-democracy protests.

I met with nearly a dozen Christian, Muslim, Baha'i, and

youth activists, including a leading evangelical minister,

Coptic youth leader and prominent Baha'i blogger.

I also discussed the country's transition with political

activists, including 2005 presidential candidate and former

political prisoner Ayman Nour, who is again seeking the

presidency.

I discussed interfaith dialogue with Sheikh Al-Azhar Ahmed

Al-Tayyeb, the leading scholar in Sunni Islam, and met with

Muslim Brotherhood official Essam El-Errian to caution the

group to respect religious freedom.

I worshiped in a Coptic Orthodox Church and visited St.

Mary's Church in Imbaba (a Cairo suburb) which had been

destroyed by radical Islamists on May 7. I also met with a

woman who runs an orphanage and social services organization

for the Christian ``zabaleen'' (trash collectors) in Cairo.

I met with Deputy Foreign Minister Wafaa Bassim and other

representatives of the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

and raised concerns about human rights and the prospects of a

transition to a true democracy.

In my meetings with Egyptian government officials, I

mentioned that this year I had introduced bipartisan

legislation, H.R. 440, (which now has 75 cosponsors) that

would create a Special Envoy position at the State Department

to focus specifically on the challenges faced by religious

minorities in key countries in the Middle East, including

Egypt. The legislation was introduced in January, prior to

the political unrest in Egypt, but has arguably never been

more needed. Ancient religious minority communities, among

them Coptic Christians, are important moderating influences

and are critical to the future of a democratic and

pluralistic Egypt.

I met with representatives of non-governmental

organizations (NGOs) including the National Democratic

Institute (NDI) and International Republican Institute (IRI).

Human Rights and Religious Freedom

Coptic Orthodox and other Christians told me that they

feared sectarian violence in the current political vacuum,

and were concerned about continued discrimination in

government hiring and building churches. They said that they

welcomed the Government of Egypt's announced intention to

draft a Unified Places of Worship Law, but cautioned that the

few details that had emerged thus far indicate that the draft

needs much work before it genuinely puts mosques and churches

on equal footing.

In my meetings with Baha'i leaders we discussed the

community's continued difficulties in securing government

documents like birth and marriage certificates. I intend to

pursue this matter further with the Egyptian Government,

pressing them to rescind the 1960 decree that closed Baha'i

assemblies and seized their assets.

In my meetings with Christian and secular Muslim democracy

activists, I was informed that Islamist elements in Egypt

seek an Iran-like theocratic state. Some interlocutors

worried that the Egyptian Army favors Muslim Brothers and

Salafists. Many agreed that if Islamists were to win in the

upcoming elections they would allow ``one man, one vote, one

time,'' thereby making their electoral victory irreversible.

While meeting with senior representatives of the Muslim

Brotherhood (MB) I sought to press them on their intentions.

I raised concerned about the application of shariah law,

especially as it relates to the rights of minorities, and

made it clear that my concerns were shared by many in

Washington. Freedom-loving people the world over should be

very concerned if the MB comes to power in Egypt. We must not

close our eyes to their stated plans.

Democratic Transition

Some Egyptian activists and most religious freedom

advocates were pessimistic about the transition to date and

prospects for a free, tolerant, and democratic government

after elections.

Several of these activists stressed that the best way to

counter Islamists in the short run is to first draft a

constitution and delay elections until democratic parties

have formed and become operational. One activist went so far

as to say that he was 80 percent sure Egypt would become an

Islamist state akin to Iran unless the current transition

process and timeline is altered.

Activists also said that secular, pro-democracy parties

need to take additional steps to get organized and build

support across the sectarian divide. One human rights

activist underscored the long-term importance of secular

education and more interaction between Christian and Muslim

youth.

Recommendations

In light of the meetings I had and the insights I gained, I

came away with a number of broad-based policy

recommendations:

The U.S. Government should encourage the Egyptian

Government to temporarily delay parliamentary elections,

currently scheduled for September. Under the Mubarak regime

free speech and freedom of assembly were curtailed, sectarian

divisions were stoked and the press was restricted--some of

these issues remain under the current transitional government

and are not conducive to a healthy electoral process. In

fact, at present, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and remnants of

the former ruling party are best positioned for victory, in

part because they are better organized and funded. We must

recognize that elections are but a component of a true

democracy and guard against the impulse to move too swiftly

in a direction that would likely guarantee an MB victory.

When the elections are held, independent international

election monitors must be present and must be granted

unfettered access to polling stations, etc. In my meetings

with the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs I stressed that

the credibility of any future election, whenever it takes

place, would hinge on the involvement and presence of

international observers. The importance of independent

monitors and observers was underscored during my meetings

with NDI and IRI. Their insight and election expertise is

invaluable.

The United States must seriously consider conditioning U.S.

foreign assistance, specifically military assistance, to

Egypt. Since the Camp David Peace Accords, Egypt has received

over $60 billion in U.S. foreign assistance--the second

largest overall recipient of such funding. Given the Mubarak

regime's human rights and religious freedom abuses, I have

long believed this assistance should be conditioned on

improvements in these areas. I understand that Egypt is a

proud country with a rich history. However, at this time of

historic transition in Egypt and tight budgetary times at

home, U.S. taxpayer dollars ought not be given to a

government that will persecute its own people. Aid to Egypt

should be conditioned upon the government respecting and

upholding universally recognized human rights norms. This is

especially important as Egypt moves toward crafting a new

constitution. It is imperative that this constitution is

fully secular and include, among other things, religious

freedom protections. Ultimately, foreign assistance,

especially of this magnitude, is a key leverage point and

should be used accordingly, particularly with the Supreme

Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces (SCAF).

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the U.S. embassy personnel, outgoing

Ambassador Margaret Scobey, Peter Shea, my control officer,

and Liz Colton for their assistance in making this trip

possible and for their dedicated service to their country.

I would also like to acknowledge the good work of the press

in Egypt, some of whom I had the opportunity to meet. At a

time of such monumental and rapid change they clearly had a

read on the national pulse and their reporting of events in

real time is critical.

I would also like to thank the many civil society

representatives I met, but for security reasons have opted

not to mention by name, who gave a candid and courageous

assessment of the challenges facing their country.

Conclusion

The Egyptian people have endured much over the years. The

State Department's annual human rights report released in

April found the following:

The government limited citizens' right to change their

government and extended a state of emergency that has been in

place almost continuously since 1967. Security forces used

unwarranted lethal force and tortured and abused prisoners

and detainees, in most cases with impunity. Prison and

detention center conditions were poor. Security forces

arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals, in some cases

for political purposes,

and kept them in prolonged pretrial detention. The executive

branch exercised control over and pressured the judiciary.

The government partially restricted freedom of expression.

The government's respect for freedoms of assembly,

association, and religion was poor, and nongovernmental

organizations (NGOs) continued to face restrictions.

In the face of decades of human rights and religious

freedom abuses under the Mubarak regime, successive U.S.

administrations, including the Obama administration, failed

to advocate for those whose voices were being silenced. Many

pro-democracy activists and religious minorities that I spoke

with while in Egypt felt abandoned by the West.

At this historic time of transition, we must not make that

mistake again. While there is a palpable sense of

anticipation and even hope about what the future might hold

for the Egyptian people, the outcome is far from guaranteed.

There are reliable reports of human rights abuses and

political repression following Mubarak's resignation. For

example, a recently released Congressional Research Service

report indicated that:

The SCAF has warned news organizations that it is illegal

to criticize the military in the press. A military court

sentenced a blogger (Maikel Nabil) to three years in prison

for insulting the military. Others have criticized the SCAF

over press reports that female detainees in military custody

were subject to ``virginity tests'' by doctors.

Given the nature and extent of U.S. assistance to Egypt

over the years, the U.S. military has developed good

relations with the Egyptian military and we should leverage

those ties as Egypt looks to transition from military to

civilian rule. It will be critical for Secretary of Defense

Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among others, to

engage with the SCAF.

Ultimately, I believe that the majority of Egyptians of all

faiths want democracy. The question is will it be taken away

from them after a single election?

Their yearning for true freedom and democracy must not be

underestimated. We have a responsibility to stand with them

and help them realize their aspirations.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 440) to provide for the establishment of the Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia, as amended.

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

I rise to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 440, a bill to establish a Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia.

The bill is authored by my very good friend and colleague, Congressman Frank Wolf, who was also the author of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1988 and other religious freedom legislation. He has taken the lead in Congress time and time again to advance the cause of those who are persecuted because of their faith. I wish to thank him for his years of service on this issue--his legislation and his tireless advocacy on behalf of religious freedom.

Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes the special envoy position for religious minorities in 31 Middle Eastern and South Central Asian countries, almost all of which have had bad or very bad records of persecuting or disadvantaging religious minorities. The special envoy will represent the United States in contacts with foreign governments, intergovernmental organizations, U.N. agencies, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and in contacts with international organizations and multilateral conferences. He or she will also meet with victims and try to take their story to offending governments to try to end the abuse.

We know from experience, Mr. Speaker, that special envoys, including and especially for Sudan and Northern Ireland, have achieved unparalleled successes over the years in mitigating explosive situations and literally saving lives all while pursuing positive and durable solutions to what appear to be intractable and unresolvable problems.

But not all special envoys have been equally effective. Almost everything depends on whom the President appoints to the position. So I would appeal to the President: When this bill becomes law, appoint someone with the passion, energy, and experience to get this job done and to stand up as never before for these persecuted minorities.

Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues will speak about different religious minorities in the Middle East, but I am particularly concerned about the Coptic minority in Egypt. They have been called the bellwether of the rights for religious minorities in the Middle East. As the largest and one of the oldest minorities, they are suffering, and their escalating agony portends suffering throughout the region.

And make no mistake, they are suffering. On Friday of last week, I chaired a hearing specifically to hear of the needs and experiences of the Copts during this time during transition. What I heard and what my colleagues heard on the Helsinki Commission worried us deeply. Coptic women and girls, some as young as 14, are being systematically lured from their families or kidnapped off the street corners and forced to change their religion and forced to marry outside of their community. These young girls frequently suffer physical and psychological abuse, including rape, beatings, forced isolation, and lack of personal freedom both before and after their so-called ``marriage/conversion.'' The drugging of victims appears to be commonplace.

One story that emerged at the hearing detailed the situation of a married woman who was forced to leave her Coptic community and marry a Muslim. Her family was present at the official inquiry--which are no longer conducted, I might point out--and said that she showed signs of being drugged. She was out of it. Over and over she repeated, ``I had to do it for the children. I had to do it for the children.''

Dr. Michele Clark, an internationally recognized anti-trafficking expert--she was one of those who led the Protection Project at Johns Hopkins and was director of the OSCE trafficking efforts for years--she authored a report called ``The Disappearance, Forced Conversions, and Forced Marriages of Coptic Christian Women in Egypt.'' She testified that this happens to thousands of Coptic women and girls each and every year. She said this on Friday. Others also concurred in that analysis.

Dr. Clark further testified that the mounting evidence shows that the term ``alleged''--which has been used in the U.S. State Department Reports on Human Rights Practices, as well as in the TIP report--needs to be replaced. It's no longer even close to being accurate. It's not an allegation; it's a fact that she herself, as a human rights investigator, has helped to establish by doing extensive investigation and inquiries on the ground in Egypt.

She pointed out that the criminality of alleged forced marriages and conversions is generally dismissed by authorities here and everywhere else, especially in Egypt. The coverup must end. Young women are presumed to be willing participants, they are not. The abduction and the disappearance of Coptic women and girls follow, as she puts it, consistent patterns and constitutes human trafficking--modern day slavery.

Dr. Clark testified that men and women and peers are used to build trust and dispel resistance in young women targeted for conversion in marriage. Most cases documented in the report begin with a trusting relationship that ultimately leads to the disappearance or abduction, marriage to a Muslim man, and conversion to Islam. These supposed new friends exploit the vulnerability and naivete of a young Coptic woman.

Once trust has been established, girls are lured to an isolated place, drugged and kidnapped. Often they are raped. Following the rape, the Coptic women experience shame and fear of how their families will respond. They become more willing to stay with the Muslim friends. They feel that they have been so abused. And then they often marry their rapist because they feel they have nowhere else to go. This outrageous abuse must be exposed and stopped--and these young women rescued.

Let me just point out to my colleagues, what is going on in Egypt and the abuses being experienced by Christians and people of the Baha'i faith in Iran and elsewhere, we need to do much more than we have done to combat this, to speak out, to do effective chronicling, but also, once you get the information, to ensure that it is actionable and that you take it to those governments. Sadly, we have not done that. A special envoy would be uniquely equipped and empowered to take the cause of the beleaguered, suffering religious minorities in the Middle East and to fight, and to fight every day of the week for those people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce- Justice-Science for the Appropriations Committee, the author of H.R. 440, the gentleman from Virginia, Frank Wolf.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 440.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue of religious freedom for minorities in the Middle East and South Central Asia must be of the highest priority. For far too long, religious minorities and the persecution and marginalization they endure has been overlooked, even trivialized. Their rights and even their very lives must now be assiduously protected in this time of political upheaval, especially in the Middle East.

Mr. Wolf had the foresight to draft this bill before the so-called Arab Spring. It was needed in January. It's even more needed now, especially in light of the spate of church bombings and escalated persecution against believers, especially with kidnappings of thousands each and every year of Coptic Christian teenage girls, who are then forced to convert to Islam and forced to ``marry'' a Muslim man.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. The Middle East is at a critical juncture. We are witnessing the systematic extinction of centuries-old religious communities. South and Central Asia are also systematically failing their religious minorities.

The late Shahbaz Bhatti, Federal Minister for Minorities in Pakistan, gave his life to fight the injustices and atrocities suffered by the religious minorities in Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan has since abolished the Ministry for Minorities, perhaps under the false impression that it does not matter in relations with the United States.

A Special Envoy for religious minorities sends the right message at the right time, and empowers a diplomat with access to the President and to, hopefully, all the leaders throughout

the region and to all those who are disenfranchised. The rights of religious minorities matter, and we will not look askance during this perilous time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share a speech I recently gave on the deteriorating situation in the Middle East particularly for religious minorities. Increasing violence, targeted attacks and heightened discrimination against Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq and Egypt, combined with longstanding abuses in Afghanistan and Pakistan, are among the many reasons why I introduced H.R. 440, bipartisan legislation that would require the State Department to appoint a special envoy to advocate for religious minorities.

More than a year has passed since the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed this legislation yet, today, both this bill and its Senate companion, S. 1245 are both languishing in the Senate. This is deeply disappointing. Even more disappointing is the fact that the State Department has urged Senator Jim Webb to oppose this bipartisan legislation and put a hold on it in the Senate.

Time is running out--both in terms of the legislative calendar for this year and in terms of the survival of these communities. Will a special envoy guarantee these communities' protection in the lands they have inhabited for centuries? No one can predict for sure. But I am certain that to do nothing is not an option--lest on the State Department's and Congress' watch we witness a Middle East empty of faith communities, foremost among them the beleaguered Christian community.

Here is the text of my recent speech:

Just one year ago my good friend, the late Chuck Colson was

given [the Edwin Meese Award for Religious Liberty] award for

his tireless efforts to promote religious liberty and human

dignity. His prophetic voice is sorely missed during these

trying times for our country. For these are indeed trying

times--times that demand men and women of faith to steel

themselves for the challenges ahead. Are we prepared to do

so?

I take inspiration from the German Lutheran pastor Dietrich

Bonhoeffer who, faced with the tyranny and horror of Nazism

gave his very life. And the British parliamentarian William

Wilberforce, who labored for decades, against seemingly

insurmountable odds, to abolish the slave trade in England--

ultimately inspiring abolitionist efforts in America. These

are just some of the giants on whose shoulders we stand.

Ecclesiastes 4:1 says, ``I saw the tears of the oppressed,

and they have no comforter; power was on the side of the

oppressor.'' Oppression has marked the church since its

birth. Consider the chilling words of Roman historian Tacitus

regarding the early church:

``Besides being put to death they were made to serve as

objects of amusement; they were clad in the hides of beasts

and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set

on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight

failed--. . . .''

Are such trials reserved for the history books? Hardly.

Every day, around the world, men and women of faith are

imprisoned, beaten, detained, tortured and even killed. And

yet such stories receive scant attention in the mainstream

media--and perhaps more strikingly, are rarely spoken of from

our pulpits. The book of Hebrews enjoins us to ``Remember

those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and

those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were

suffering.'' Do we suffer with our brethren? Have we in the

West ceased to be salt and light? Has our comfort led to

complacency? Consider that on our watch a historic exodus of

Christians from the Middle East is underway--an exodus fueled

by persecution.

A phrase not often heard outside the majority Muslim world

is ``First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.'' The

``Saturday people'' are of course the Jews. Their once

vibrant communities in countries throughout the region are

now decimated. In 1948 there were roughly 150,000 Jews in

Iraq--today less than 10 remain. In Egypt, there were once as

many as 80,000 Jews and now less than 100 remain.

It appears a similar fate could befall the ancient

Christian community in these same lands. Iraq's Christian

population has fallen from as many as 1.4 million in 2003 to

between 500,000 and 700,000. Churches have been targeted,

believers kidnapped for ransom, families threatened with

violence if they stay. This reality is all the more sobering

considering Iraq's significance in Christendom. With the

exception of Israel, the Bible contains more references to

the cities, regions and nations of ancient Iraq than any

other country. The patriarch Abraham came from a city in Iraq

called Ur. Isaac's bride, Rebekah, came from northwest Iraq.

Jacob spent 20 years in Iraq and his sons (the 12 tribes of

Israel) were born in northwest Iraq. A remarkable spiritual

revival as told in the book of Jonah occurred in Nineveh. The

events of the book of Esther took place in Iraq as did the

account of Daniel in the Lion's Den. Furthermore, many of

Iraq's Christians still speak Aramaics the language of Jesus.

In Egypt with the ascent of the Muslim Brotherhood, Coptic

Christians,

numbering roughly 8-10 million, are leaving in droves. And

the Middle East is far from being the exception. Persecution

is on the rise. The International Day of Prayer for the

Persecuted Church was earlier this month. Given the picture I

just painted, one would think the church in the West would be

galvanized. But how many churches marked this occasion with

even a passing mention? If the faith community isn't engaged

are we surprised when our government leaders turn a blind eye

to matters of religious freedom?

Consider the following: Bipartisan legislation to create a

Special Envoy position at the State Department charged with

advocating on behalf of religious minorities in the Middle

East and South Central Asia overwhelmingly passed the House a

year and a half ago. But it has remained stalled in the

Senate as a result of State Department opposition and the

refusal of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John

Kerry, rumored to be in the running for Secretary of State or

Defense, to even hold a hearing on the legislation.

Day in, day out I have the privilege of meeting individuals

who boldly follow Jesus despite unbelievably hostile

circumstances. Shabbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's Federal Minister

for Minority Affairs, and the only Christian Member of the

cabinet and an outspoken critic of his country's blasphemy

laws, was one such man. On March 2, 2011 he was murdered, his

car riddled with bullets, leaving his mother's house for

work. In a video filmed shortly before his assassination,

Bhatti appears to sense that the path he has chosen will come

with a price.

When asked about the threats against his life, he said,

without malice or fear, ``I believe in Jesus Christ who has

given his own life for us. I know what is the meaning of

[the] cross. And I am following the cross. And I am ready to

die for a cause.'' And so he did.

The book of Proverbs tells us to ``Speak up for those who

cannot speak for themselves. . . .'' Bhatti can no longer

speak. The Chinese bishop under house arrest cannot speak.

The North Korean enslaved in the gulag cannot speak. The

Iraqi nun fearing for her life cannot speak.

Will we be their voice? Martin Luther King famously said,

``In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies,

but the silence of our friends.'' Are we not their friends?

America's Founding Fathers grounded our own experiment in

self-governance in the notion that liberty comes from God and

that all human life is sacred. As part of this equation,

religious freedom was the ``first freedom.'' The ideas set

forth in Philadelphia on that hot summer day were

simultaneously ancient and revolutionary--they are grounded

in historic Judeo-Christian teachings.

Nearly 25 years ago these very ideas were a source of

inspiration to the democracy marchers in Tiananmen Square.

Ronald Reagan famously spoke of our founding documents as a

covenant we made with the world--a promise that transcended

time and place. I fear that covenant is in jeopardy.

America's influence is waning. Our once ``shining city''

appears dim. And we have lost our voice on behalf of the

oppressed. And yet, dissidents still seek refuge in our

embassies, the persecuted seek safe haven on our shores. To

them the promise of American exceptionalism is no mere

philosophical debate; it is the difference between life and

death. They cling to the promise even as our own leaders have

abandoned it. And so, seeking to preserve that covenant that

Reagan envisioned, it falls to men and women of faith to

carry the torch--to pray, to advocate, to act.