Near East and South Central Asia Religious Freedom Act of 2011

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Border Health Security Act of 2011.

This legislation is designed to make several important changes to current law to address pressing public health challenges along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In 1993, along with Senators Hutchison and McCain, I introduced the original United States-Mexico Border Health Commission Act. With the support of Members from both chambers, and from both parties, we passed this landmark legislation, which was signed into law in 1994 by President Clinton. I was gratified when the bi-national agreement to establish the Commission was signed in 2000. And, I have monitored with interest the important work of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission in the years since.

As the Commission enters its second decade, the problems it seeks to deal with are no less pressing than those we originally set out to tackle with the Border Health Commission Act.

Health disparities and chronic diseases for the over 14 million people who live in the border region, comprised of two sovereign nations, 25 Native American tribes, and four states in the United States and six states in Mexico, remain at unacceptable levels, far outpacing rates in most of the United States. Far too many border residents remain uninsured. Texas and New Mexico, for instance, rank first and fifth, respectively, in the percentage of residents who are uninsured. Many who live in the region still do not have access to adequate primary, preventive, and specialty care. If the border region were considered a state, it would rank at or near the bottom on many key health indicators, such as rates of tuberculosis, hepatitis, diabetes, and access to health professionals. Compounding all these problems are high rates of poverty; three of the ten poorest counties in the United States are located in the border area.

In addition, communicable diseases that can easily travel across borders, such as tuberculosis and H1N1, strain our border's public health systems. Amplifying our public health surveillance efforts at our border can help mitigate the impact of such diseases, as well as other bio-security threats, in the rest of the nation.

I believe, just as I did when I introduced the original legislation, that the public health problems the border region faces are truly bi- national in nature. As such, they demand a truly bi-national public health architecture. Over the last 11 years, the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission has provided this structure as it worked to address these issues. It has had a number of successes, including notable conferences and reports on infectious disease surveillance, childhood obesity, and tuberculosis, developed jointly by both its U.S. and Mexican members. Its programs were particularly helpful as we coordinated our response to the H1N1 pandemic in 2009.

Still, the public health challenges in the border remain great. As the Commission enters into its second decade, this bipartisan legislation will strengthen the capacity of the Commission and authorize appropriate federal resources for its important work.

The legislation does this in several ways. First, through a new grant program, it authorizes additional funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities with which to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health workers or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health, health education, and research.

Second, it authorizes new, funding for the successful Early Warning Infectious Disease Surveillance, EWIDS, program in the U.S.-Mexico border region. EWIDS is designed to bolster preparedness for bioterrorism and infectious disease. The legislation also establishes a health alert network to identify and communicate information quickly to health providers about emerging health care threats. It requires the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate this system.

Third, it strengthens the capacity of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission by undertaking several key organizational reforms.

Finally, the legislation encourages more coordination, recommendations, and study of these complex border health challenges. The bill affirms the need for integrated efforts across national, federal, state and local agencies to properly address border health issues. It specifies that recommendations and advice on how to improve border health will be communicated to Congress. Further, the legislation authorizes two key studies conducted by the Institute of Medicine: the first on bi-national health infrastructure and a second on health insurance coverage for border residents. A total of $31 million is authorized to carry out the act.

Without the changes and resources this legislation envisions, border residents will continue to lag behind the United States in many key indicators of good public health. Without this bill, both of our countries will be less prepared when the next bi-national health security threat hits.

I would like to thank Senator Hutchison, who was an original cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of this legislation today. She has also been the lead Senator in getting funding for the U.S.-

Mexico Border Health Commission since its inception.

I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today, cosponsored by my colleagues Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Blunt of Missouri, and Senator Akaka of Hawaii, that will provide duty- free treatment to U.S. imports of finished Philippine apparel in return for purchasing and using fabrics and yarns made in the United States. This bill will promptly create an incentivized export market for our shrinking textile industry, and create new jobs.

The Philippine apparel industry estimates that U.S. fabric sales spurred by the SAVE Act could reach potentially hundreds of millions of dollars and translate into upwards of 2,000 additional jobs in the United States fabric mill sector. With almost 99 percent of the U.S. apparel market now served by imports, U.S. textile manufacturers are reliant on export markets for their survival.

The SAVE Act is patterned after the Dominican Republic, Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, which permits tariff-free import of apparel assembled in those countries in return for using cotton and manmade fiber fabrics still made in the United States. The SAVE Act will provide our textile companies with a new opportunity to export fabrics into the dynamic Asian market.

The Philippine apparel manufacturing industry is well established and known for its quality needlework and high-end fashion. It has been supplying top American brands and U.S. retailers for decades. With the growth of China in apparel production and the end of the quota system, Philippine apparel exports to the United States have dropped by 50 percent in the last five years. The Philippine apparel sector is in critical decline, with employment dropping by 75 percent since 2003.

The Philippines has been, arguably, our closest and most steadfast friend in Southeast Asia. They were our protectorate and strategic partner from the Spanish-American War through World War II. 10,000 American and Filipino servicemen died together in the infamous Bataan Death March after our forces were overwhelmed by the Japanese Army in 1942. More than 100,000 Filipinos then volunteered to fight alongside the United States and under U.S. command.

More recently, the United States and the Philippines have partnered in successful efforts to combat terrorists in and around their islands. Campaigns by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, trained in counterterrorism by U.S. troops, resulted in the deaths of the Abu Sayyaf leader and his deputy in 2006, as well as two other leaders in 2010.

Our close partnership deserves to be mutually rewarding on an economic level. The SAVE Act would represent the first trade initiative with the Philippines in nearly four decades. Unlike other countries in the region, the United States and the Philippines share a balanced trade relationship. The SAVE Act would continue to build on this positive trade relationship and strengthen our economic ties with the Philippines by helping each other reestablish competitive textile industries.

The SAVE Act would also allow duty-free treatment for a limited range of apparel not using U.S. fabrics so Philippine manufacturers can offer a complementary product line to U.S. brands and retailers. This category of apparel, which includes certain lines of coats, dresses, skirts, blouses, and infants' wear, will not contain any components that could have been made in the United States. These lines of apparel also will not compete against imports from third countries using U.S. components.

With the Republic of the Philippines as a partner, we can expect proper customs enforcement. We believe the enforcement provisions of the SAVE Act are more rigorous than any comparable bill. At our request, Customs and Border Patrol, CBP, conducted an informal technical review of the SAVE bill. With their recommendations included, CBP concluded that the SAVE Act can be administered and enforced. The Philippine Department of Trade and Industry then reviewed and agreed to all the enforcement provisions.

This bill will provide our manufacturers with new export markets and provide mutual benefits to a longstanding and erstwhile friend in Southeast Asia. The Philippines, in my view, should never be relegated to secondary consideration even as our focus shifts from one priority to another.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act with the support of Senators Risch, Tester, and Bennet. I thank my colleagues for joining me in this bipartisan effort.

This bill would provide funding flexibility to the states to help construct and maintain needed public shooting ranges, designated areas where people can sharpen their marksmanship skills and safely enjoy recreational shooting.

For a variety of reasons, the number of places where people can safely engage in recreational shooting and target practicing has steadily dwindled. This includes areas on our public lands. In an effort to establish, maintain and promote safe and established areas for such activities, this legislation would allow States to allocate a greater proportion of their Federal wildlife funds for these purposes.

Currently, states are allocated funds for a variety of wildlife purposes under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. This act established an excise tax on sporting equipment and ammunition that is used to fund many state activities, including wildlife restoration and hunter education and safety programs. Pittman-Robertson funds can also be used for the development and maintenance of shooting ranges. However, the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act contains certain restrictions on the use of Pittman-Robertson funds that limit their effectiveness for establishing and maintaining shooting ranges.

The Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to adjust certain funding limitations so that States have greater flexibility over the use of funds available for the creation and maintenance of shooting ranges.

To be clear, the bill would not allocate any new funding to the construction of shooting ranges, it would not raise any fees or taxes, nor would it require states to apply their allocated Pittman-Robertson funds to shooting ranges. Instead, by reducing the amount of other funds states would have to raise and allowing states to ``bank'' Pittman-Robertson funds for 5 years for shooting ranges, the bill gives States greater flexibility to use their existing Pittman-Robertson funds as they think best. Also as a result of this bill, States will be able to extend their existing license fee revenue and other State- generated funds on other important programs, such as wildlife habitat conservation.

Hunting and recreational shooting are an integral part of the Colorado way of life, activities that also are appropriate where not prohibited on our public lands. This bill is designed to improve the quality of the recreational shooting experience by promoting safe, designated places to shoot. In addition to the improvements this bill contains, it is my hope that the public land management agencies will continue to work with the States, sportsmen and women, the recreational shooting interests, local communities, and others so that these opportunities are safe and available.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today Senator Blunt and I have introduced the Near East and South Central Asia Religious Freedom Act of 2011. The purpose of this legislation is to establish within the State Department a special envoy to promote freedom of worship for religious minorities in this important region of the world.

It is a tragic fact that in many of the nations of the Near East and South Central Asia, this universal human right, the freedom to worship in keeping with one's conscience, is in doubt. I would point my colleagues to the State Department's most recent Report on International Religious Freedom, published late last year. The report concludes, among other things, that: in Iran, ``government respect for religious freedom in the country continued to deteriorate''; in Iraq, ``violence conducted by terrorists, extremists, and criminal gangs restricted the free exercise of religion and posed a significant threat to the country's vulnerable religious minorities''; in Afghanistan, respect for the rights of religious minorities deteriorated; in Pakistan organized violence against religious minorities had increased; and in Tajikistan the government passed new laws restricting religious practice.

The legislation we introduce today seeks to combat such abuses by placing a high-level official within the State Department to focus the Nation's diplomatic efforts on promoting freedom

of worship. The special envoy would be tasked with promoting religious freedom within the Near East and South Central Asia; monitoring and combating intolerance and incitements to violence against religious minorities within the region; and working with the region's governments to address laws and practices that infringe on religious freedom.

It is in the interest of the United States to promote freedom of worship and the rights of religious minorities around the world, and especially in nations where those freedoms are under threat. Such violence is a threat to regional stability in a part of the world where U.S. interests are great. Moreover, our support for these universal human values affirms the principles upon which our own Nation was founded.

I thank my colleague from Missouri for joining with me in introducing this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to protect the lives and freedoms of religious minorities, and to promote the universal values upon which our Nation is built.