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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 347 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days in which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act. It provides one hour of general debate, equally divided between both sides. It provides for five amendments, four of which are Democrat amendments and one is a Republican amendment. So this rule is fair to a fault and it is totally generous, and it will provide a balanced and open debate as long as we, as Members, structure our remarks to the merits of this particular bill and don't go off on tangents.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand before the House and support this rule. It's a good rule.

I also support the underlying bill, H.R. 761, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), as sponsor of this particular piece of legislation, as well as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for his leadership in this particular effort.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is blessed with an abundance of resources, which has made us a leading world economy and industrial power, and we have only scratched the surface, literally, of what we can potentially develop.

We have energy potential such as coal, oil shale, and natural gas deposits, as well as various critical minerals that we, as a Nation, need and should be developing.

But unfortunately, much of this development of our domestic mineral resources has actually been stymied by a combination of special interest politics, as well as bureaucratic red tape, particularly under this administration. It is a pain we have all seen coming.

Twenty-five years ago, 20 percent of all money that was spent for development and production of critical minerals was spent here in the United States. Today that's down to only 8 percent, as other nations have replaced our efforts, unfortunately.

This has meant an increase in our trade imbalance, dollars going overseas, escalating prices here at home for both energy and commodities. It means job losses here in the United States. And ironically, these jobs that we are losing are some of the highest- paying middle class jobs that are available. Bureaucratic delays are causing this, and they are causing us to see a change, both for manufacturing and defense.

Twenty-five years ago, there were 30 minerals that we actually had to import to this Nation that were considered critical minerals. Today that number has gone from 30 to 61.

Twenty-five years ago, there were 16 minerals that we imported a great majority of. Today that number that has gone to 24.

It affects manufacturing, such as electronics and metal alloys, ceramics, glass, magnets, catalysts, everything. It affects our defense as well, as our Defense Logistics Agency tries to

stockpile these minerals so the demands are there when we actually need them.

Unfortunately, as we've illustrated, more and more of these are being purchased from overseas. They are critical to our weapons development system, including such things as night vision equipment, advanced lasers, avionics, fighter jet components, missile guidance systems, and it goes on and on.

Look, the Constitution tells us that our first responsibility is to provide for a common defense. This bill steps us into the right direction so we actually can provide for a common defense and do it intelligently and avoid unnecessary and frivolous delays.

There are some that will criticize us for the kinds of minerals that we are placing in this restriction area. There was a study in 2009 that was done called the Great California ShakeOut, which was a mock of what could happen if the big earthquake actually hit that area, and it found out that, in an effort to try and rebuild the infrastructure that would be necessary, there's a whole list of things we normally don't consider as critical that would, in that situation, be critical, including sand and gravel, that we simply would have a frightful deficiency of if we were trying to rebuild under those types of critical situations.

This bill anticipates that, and makes sure that we will not be found lacking, either in defense, or in manufacturing, or in critical civilian needs in case of disaster.

This bill doesn't predetermine anything. It simply says, make a decision, yes or no, on whether this project should go forward; simply make a decision, and do it in a timely fashion.

We still, today, average between 7 and 10 years in which those decisions are made. This bill says that that is unrealistic, and it simply says, you've got 30 months--2\1/2\ years--to make a decision, yes or no. If you have to have an extension, it provides for that on common agreement, which is only rational to do. But for heaven's sakes, finally make a decision.

It is based on not only what we are talking about here, but it's based on what we are doing in our transportation area. It's based on a Presidential concept; when the President established an Executive Order No. 13604, which talked about the importance of trying to streamline reform and reference our process.

This is the basis of what we are attempting to do in this particular bill as well. This implies that whenever there are agencies, multiple agencies involved in a project, that there must be a lead agency which must take the responsibility of actually getting the job done, so that any kind of environmental statement should be being done currently, not sequentially, that we can make sure that any kind of lawsuit does not stop the process of making a decision.

Once again, this is one of those things that simply is logical. Just make a decision. You have plenty of time to do it. Make a decision. There is no reason we cannot make a decision on whether to go forward on a project in 2\1/2\ years, none, none whatsoever.

The fact that we are dragging our feet is simply done from bureaucratic excess that is illogical and irrational. We have done this in other areas. This is the time to do this in this area as well.

If, indeed, we could do this process, it would be very clear that this Nation would prosper. We could have good-paying jobs, and we could make the desert blossom.

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

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

I just want to make a couple of comments before we go on with the discussion of this particular rule, which, once again, is a fair rule and is a good rule.

This bill is one of those bills that has no significant cost to the budget. At no time does this stop any of the NEPA requirements. All it says is, do your job and do it on time. Nothing big about that, simply what those regulations are.

And it is obviously one of those things that takes place that we desperately need, both for the manufacturing sector, as well as for defense.

Look, I'm old. I still use legal pads. I trust those. They never crash on me. But if you have an iPhone or an iPad or any of that other kind of new stuff that my kids like to have, you're going to

have these critical minerals. And if we are not proposing and developing them here in the United States, we are paying more to develop them out of country, and we're putting ourselves, manufacturing-wise, in a significant deficit situation. And obviously, with the defense, what is happening is even more critical.

This is simply taking the executive order and saying, yeah, it's good for infrastructure; it's also good for our critical mineral development system, and saying, do the job. Do it well, do it quickly, get it done in a reasonable period of time, and don't drag this stuff out by sequencing the issues and the actions one after the other. You have a period of time. Do your job.

It's an amazing concept of asking the bureaucracy of this Nation to actually do their job, but it's important.

Yes, it was passed in the last session by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. It's a bipartisan bill. The fact that the Senate did not take it up is another indictment to Senate leadership, admittedly, an oxymoron, but it's another indictment for the Senate leadership for ignoring the significant issues that we have to face in this Nation. It's another indictment that they should actually do their job.

Just because the Senate leadership decides to sit on these type of issues does not mean we have to sit on them as well. This is something we have to have, and it needs to go over to the Senate. If it has to go over every week to the Senate until the Senate finally decides to actually do something, then that is our responsibility, and we should do it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Obviously, I am prepared to close. It depends on how long your closing goes.

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

I appreciate the opportunity we have of presenting this particular rule to the body. I've always appreciated the opportunity of sharing this time with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who is a good friend and a very colorful orator. And I always like to hear his orations here on the floor.

You'll forgive me if I want to try and refocus on the matter that it is hand, for, indeed, I recognize the statements that have been made by the last two speakers that deal with the significance of jobs. What we simply have to have is a policy in this country that promotes private sector jobs, not just government sector jobs.

By promoting private sector jobs, we actually expand the economy and build upon that concept. That is one of the reasons why this particular bill is here. But all of a sudden you go from 30 minerals that we had to import from other areas to 61 minerals that we now have to import from abroad. That means there are a bunch of minerals that we used to be producing in good, high-paying jobs that no longer are there.

So this is one of the areas that we can move our country in the proper direction and not just simply say, Okay, let's create some kind of make-work program that actually adds particular jobs. It needs to be the right kind of jobs to move our country forward.

One person once told me the people sitting here is the entire universe with which we talk. We will not make ourselves rich by paying each other to take vacations. At some time, someone has to add real wealth into the equation. That's what this bill is trying to do. We have critical mineral wealth in this country. It needs to be added to the equation so that we can create those good-paying mining jobs that will spin off into good-paying manufacturing jobs in the private sector. That's everything we are attempting to do.

I would like to take one issue and try to put it to rest as to the idea that these companies who would be receiving benefit from this are somehow getting off and not paying taxes or royalties. They are not paying Federal taxes, but sometimes we forget that we're not the only equation out there. Every one of these pays significant royalties and severance taxes to State and local governments.

The Federal tax that is proposed by some of the amendments to this bill would be on top of that. It would be a form of double taxation. Its goal would be to raise money, which is a nice goal, but simply because you found a potential effort for the Federal Government to try and raise more money doesn't mean you need to rush into that, especially when it has a negative aspect somewhere else. It would have a negative aspect on State and local governments. It would also have a negative aspect on those companies that some people don't want to have any empathy for the situation they're in.

If you actually put an additional Federal royalty on top of the State and local royalty which they are paying and the severance tax that you are paying, in a traditional company you could pass that tax burden on to the consumer. In a world market, you cannot. That just doesn't happen. It has to come out from the company itself.

The companies who are involved in here have clearly said that they are not opposed if we could put some kind of net proceeds up. But these kinds of proposals that we will be hearing in the debate today are not net proceeds tax; they are an unparalleled, unprecedented gross tax. Nothing has ever gone to that level in which the amendments would try to put on this program.

So once again, what we're trying to ask you to do is look at this in the overall view of what we are trying to do to develop real and good private sector jobs.

The underlying element still goes back to the fact that, look, what we need is to go through the permitting process but to do it in a way that is legitimate. It should not have to wait 7 to 10 years to actually permit something. That is just unrealistic.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I am an old schoolteacher. As a schoolteacher, we had 9 months to do something. If you couldn't get it done in 9 months, you didn't get it done. There was no idea of just postponing it to a future date. If a principal came to me and said we're going to have to have our testing done on Tuesday for the standardized test, I couldn't say no, I can't do that; let's wait for 2 weeks and maybe--maybe--I will be ready to help you with the testing data. In any education system, when the time is up, the time is up. You have to do the work, and you back-schedule to make sure that you actually do the work. That happens in

almost every element of society except for here in government.

When I was in the State legislature, we had a constitutional end of that State legislative date. We had 45 days to make a decision. Often those decisions are not easy and you make the better of the bad choices that you have, but we had to make a decision.

I contrast that with what is happening here in the United States Government in which the Forest Service was asked to do a study on a potential bridge that we could transfer from Federal ownership over to State ownership. They said yes, in about 4 years we would be able to do that study. Four years to do a simple study? We give ourselves these unreasonable and inexcusable time references, and we do it all the time.

I had a bill that we passed a couple of years ago and which mandated that a certain agency of government had to give a piece of property over to the local entity of government. Congress passed it. They mandated it. Now here, 2\1/2\ years later, the agency still has not transferred that land. They are going through their surveys. They are taking their time. Even the local government had to pay for all these time-consuming surveys. What Congress mandated, 2 years later, still has not happened. That is unrealistic. In the private sector, no one would tolerate that. In our State government, no one would actually tolerate that. In the education community, no one would tolerate that. Yet we look at that as the norm, 7 to 10 years, as an average, to actually permit these things?

That is why what this bill is trying to do is say, look, go through the process, use the NEPA process, but do it in a fair and rational way and make a decision. You don't drag things out just for the fun of dragging things out. If the decision is yes, fine; if the decision is no, fine; but for heaven's sake, make a decision.

Some elements of government, whom I will not make caricatures about even if it's true, some elements seem to like to drag out decisions. This is an area that should not be. So this simply says, if you're going to deal with this area, you've got 30 months to make a decision. You can do that in 2\1/2\ years. There is no reason why it cannot be.

We are doing this in other areas of the government. The President, in his executive order, said this has to be the way we move forward. This bill moves us forward.

This bill does a good thing. It was right that it passed in the last session by a huge bipartisan vote because it's the right thing to do. It's the right message. It's the right program. It moves us forward. It's the right thing to do this year. And we will continue to push this until at some point we have succeeded in making sure that we are moving forward with hard deadlines so that decisions are made and we're not just piddling and piddling and waiting and delaying time after time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill. It was a good bill last time we passed it. It's still a good bill. We need to pass this bill again. It's also a very good rule. It's a fair rule. It's a rule for which we can be proud.

I would urge my colleagues to make sure that we vote for this rule so we can move forward on a bill that should have been passed by both bodies a long time ago. But we need to, once again, start this process and continue going forward because it is the right thing to do. It will provide us with resources; it will provide us with jobs; it will provide us, more importantly, with decisions. Finally, we can actually have an agency that makes a decision in a timely manner.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 347 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

851) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage

domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing. The

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points

of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and

Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order

against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion

of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee

shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the

Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to

no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day

the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the

Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 851 as specified in section 2 of this

resolution.

the vote on the previous question: what it really means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow

the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a

vote about what the House should be debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous

question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an

immediate vote on adopting the resolution. . . [and] has no

substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''

But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the

Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in

the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,

page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous

question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally

not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member

controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of

offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by

voting down the previous question on the rule. . . When the

motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the

time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering

the previous question. That Member, because he then controls

the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for

the purpose of amendment.''

In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of

Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special

Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on

such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on

Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further

debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:

``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a

resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control

shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous

question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who

controls the time for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Republican

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Utah, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I deem necessary.

Mr. Speaker, the House faces a number of pressing issues that everybody in America knows that we should be addressing. Instead, we are here today on H. Res. 347, a structured rule, and the underlying bill, H.R. 761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013.

I get it that my friends from areas that have these minerals in public spaces would like for us to proceed apace to extract them. I understand their feelings. I come from yet another of the critical areas of our country that we have to protect much of the space of, and that would be the Everglades.

I don't understand why Congress is trying to provide even more breaks to the United States mining operations when we do have these urgent domestic issues that we are confronted with and, somehow or another, that we were unable to undertake.

We haven't done all of our appropriations. We are having difficulty getting a continuing resolution. We will soon be faced with lifting the debt ceiling. And somehow or another, we are dealing with something that, I might add, we have voted on before, that came out of the House of Representatives, that did not pass the Senate, and H.R. 761 is not going to pass the Senate either.

So H.R. 761 guts important environmental protections offered through the National Environmental Policy Act, referred to as NEPA. It fails to require adequate financial assurance, and I will have an amendment on the floor that will address that subject, and offers other benefits to mining companies.

Mining operations in the United States benefit already from multiple Federal tax breaks, exemptions to regulation under existing environmental laws, and no royalty payments to the United States for mining operations, even on U.S. land.

Mining companies limit their liability for environmental restoration and cleanup by operating with U.S. subsidiaries to foreign parent companies. This relationship shields the parent company from liability and has allowed parent companies to draw profits from United States mining operations.

So what happens when companies do not pay for environmental damage caused by their operations?

The people of the United States pay. They pay through a contaminated environment. They pay through sickness, including cancer. They pay through taxes, because taxpayer dollars are ultimately needed to clean up these sites.

It would seem that we should have learned from our mistakes with the 1872 General Mining Law. Mining companies should be held accountable so that their operations will not impose additional burdens on the American people.

H.R. 761 not only takes away valued natural resources for hiking, fishing, canoeing and other recreational activities, it shifts the burdens of mining cleanup and restoration to the American taxpayer.

Furthermore, H.R. 761 classifies domestic mining operations for strategic and critical minerals on Federal lands as infrastructure projects. Using a broad definition that encompasses virtually every type of mine, this legislation allows mines to take advantage of a Presidential order from 2012 which requires Federal agencies to streamline the permitting process for infrastructure projects.

However, building a mine is not the same as building roads and highways that are much needed in this country, or replacing rotted sewerage that is much needed in this country, which is, in fact, the country's infrastructure.

Bills like this are why, in my opinion, the American people are so frustrated with us here in the United States Congress. We have a number of issues that we could--no, not that we could, that we should be working on--and, yet, we are rehashing a bill that went nowhere last Congress, ain't gonna go nowhere this Congress and, most importantly, is bad for the Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Oregon, (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

If we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment to this rule that will allow the House to hold a vote on the Bring Jobs Home Act. This bill will help to boost the economy by encouraging businesses to bring more jobs to America and discourage companies from shipping jobs overseas.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend if he's prepared to close. I have no further speakers at this time.

I can make it go as long as you want it to go.

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

Picking up where Mr. Pascrell left off, which I wasn't intending to do until my good friend from Utah mentioned the timeframe. Tomorrow, we are going to vote on whether or not to cut $40 billion from the supplemental nutrition program for people this country. One of the measures included in that is going to be that people can only qualify for 3 months during a specified period of time if they are able-bodied people.

Well, if you vote for the previous question that Mr. Pascrell offered, there may be some jobs for those people. Otherwise, what we're getting ready to do is put more people in a position of needing the food stamps. And we continue to talk about jobs, but we haven't done anything on the infrastructure.

I predict even if this measure before us today were to become law, which it is not, but if it did by chance become law, we would be lucky if in the course of time we had the kind of jobs and the number of jobs that are desperately needed in this country.

What is wrong with this institution? Don't we understand that we have college kids that are graduating and they can't find a job? We hire kids up here at lower than the minimum wage because they can't find jobs in the private sector. This is crazy.

We can't continue doing nothing when in fact the people are suffering in this great country of ours. We have not only the natural resources that my friends would have us extract from even public lands without paying royalties, but we have the resources as a people to do the things creatively to assist us in bringing jobs here rather than sending them all over the world and causing a diminution of jobs here at home.

Again, for the life of me I don't understand why we are considering this bill today. We're considering virtually every mine on public land, including uranium and coal mines, to operate without adherence to Federal environmental laws, which protect public safety. Our priorities are truly in the wrong place.

As I asked before, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation, and I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call my colleagues' attention to a recent op-ed written by Steven Nasatir, president of the Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago. ``Anti-Christian Terror is Everyone's Concern,'' (The Washington Post, October 24, 2013) is a call to end religious persecution, and I join Mr. Nasatir in his demand for that action.

All of us who believe in the need for tolerance should be concerned about the attacks on Christian minorities around the world. Passage of H.R. 301, bipartisan legislation to create a Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia, is one important step we can take.

I want to thank Steve Nasatir for his leadership in the fight for religious and human rights and for this article, which reminds us that we each have a responsibility to speak out when we see persecution and work to end it.

Anti-Christian Terror Is Everyone's Concern

An Egyptian woman mourns during the funeral of several Copt

Christians who were killed in Warraq's Virgin Mary church in

Cairo, Egypt, Monday, Oct. 21, 2013. Egypt's Christians were

stunned Monday by a drive-by shooting in which masked gunmen

sprayed a wedding party outside a Cairo church with automatic

weapons fire, killing several, including two young girls, in

an attack that raised fears of a nascent insurgency by

extremists after the military's ouster of the president and a

crackdown on Islamists.

The persecution of any religious minority anywhere by

anyone is an evil injustice. It requires all persons of

conscience to speak out and, when possible, take action.

The upcoming 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht makes this

an auspicious time to raise awareness about the contemporary

violence targeting religious minorities and their places of

worship. Of particular concern are attacks against Christian

minorities that have occurred with alarming frequency from

Syria to Egypt, from Iraq to Pakistan, and from Kenya to

Sudan.

November 9 marks 75 years since the pogrom against Jews

committed by mobs throughout the Nazi Reich. Often called

Kristallnacht, or the ``Night of Broken Glass,'' when rioters

killed or injured hundreds of Jews; burned over 1,000

synagogues; destroyed 7,000 Jewish-owned shops and

businesses; vandalized cemeteries and schools, and; sent

30,000 Jews to German concentration camps. It marked a

turning point in the escalating campaign of persecution

culminating in the Holocaust.

These events, seared into Jewish collective memory, make us

doubly aware--and duty bound--to raise our voices when the

deadly brew of religious bigotry and wanton violence are

mixed.

Today in Syria, a once thriving Christian population--a

community nearly as ancient as that country's once great

Jewish community--has been depopulated by 25 percent,

according an estimate the Patriarch Melkite Greek Catholic

Patriarch Gregorios III Laham shared with the BBC.

In September, The Associated Press reported that Syrian

Christians in Maaloula--a community dating to the birth of

Christianity and that still speaks Aramaic--were driven out

or forcibly converted to Islam by rebels aligned with al-

Qaeda.

``It is chaos, it is violence, it is blood, it is death.

Life has been paralyzed. We have lost everything,'' said

Archbishop Theophile Georges Kassab of Homs.

In Egypt, some supporters of ousted President Mohammed

Morsi last summer unleashed their rage against that nation's

Christians, a historic community constituting 20 percent of

the country's population. Mobs burned dozens of Christian

schools, convents, monasteries, institutions, and churches of

any, and all Christian denominations. And just days ago,

gunmen on a motorcycle opened fire outside a Coptic Christian

church during a wedding, murdering four, including an 8-year-

old girl.

``It never happened before in history that such a big

number of churches were attacked on one day,'' Bishop Thomas,

a Coptic Orthodox bishop in Assiut told Al Jazeera. ``We

normally used to have attacks once a month or so.''

As Kristallnacht teaches, the burning of houses of worship

can be a red alert that worse is yet to come. September saw

the horrific Taliban bombing of Anglican worshippers in

Pakistan, which took 85 lives, and, according to accounts

shared by witnesses, the targeting for murder of Kenyan

Christians--deliberately separated from others in a chilling

reminder of Nazi ``selections''--by al Shabaab terrorists in

a Nairobi shopping mall.

Attacks like these have contributed to a decline in the

Christian population in the Middle East and North Africa from

9.5 percent to 3.8 percent of the total population from 1910

to 2010, according to a Pew Forum report on Global

Christianity.

Tellingly, Israel is the only Middle East country where the

Christian population has grown in the last half century, from

34,000 to 158,000, in large measure, according to many

observers, because of the religious freedoms enjoyed there.

As a Jew, I'm proud of the status of religious minorities

in the Jewish state. As an American, I'm especially proud to

live in a society where people of different faiths (and no

faith) share the values of tolerance and coexistence. Despite

isolated though sometimes deadly instances of religiously-

inspired terror during the past few decades, ours is a nation

where no Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or

person of any other faith must live in fear because of who

they are.

It is time to sound the alarm about the religious

persecutions of Christians and others. Let us raise our

voices, and call on our elected representatives to take

action. People of all faiths should support passage of H.R.

301, legislation that would direct our President to appoint a

State Department Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom

of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central

Asia.

The bill will facilitate U.S. government responses to human

rights violations, combat acts of religious intolerance and

incitement targeting religious minorities, and help address

the needs of religious minorities.

Further, we must demand that international institutions

designed to protect human rights, especially the United

Nations, must actually do so without prejudice.

For people of conscience, for people of all faiths, now is

not the time to be silent.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bipartisan legislation creates a Special Envoy to Promote Religious Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia. Housed at the State Department, the Special Envoy would be responsible for monitoring and combating acts of religious intolerance, engaging with foreign governments to address laws that discriminate against religious minorities, and working to ensure that the unique needs of religious minority communities are being addressed.

This bill is important because religious minority communities all around the world--particularly in the Near East and South Central Asia--are facing increased attacks and persecution. For example, Egypt's recent governments have failed to prevent, investigate, or prosecute crimes against members of religious minority groups, especially Coptic Christians. Churches have been burned to the ground and numerous Christians murdered.

Iraq used to have a significant number of religious minorities. These groups have been subject to escalating violence, persecution, and discrimination for their religious beliefs, and today they comprise only about 3 percent of Iraq's population. By some estimates, half of Iraq's Christian population has fled since 2003.

In Iran, the arrest and harassment of members of religious minorities, including Sunni Muslims and Christians, continues to rise. In one notable case last year, an Iranian-American Christian pastor was imprisoned for threatening Iranian national security. And what was his crime? Helping to set up small churches in people's homes. Iran's minority Baha'i community is particularly harassed, punished, imprisoned, and even killed simply because of their religion.

This past August, a Baha'i community leader in Bandar Abbas, Iran-- Mr. Ataollah Rezvani--was found murdered in his car on the outskirts of the city, shot in the back of the head. He had been the subject of threats and pressure from agents of the Ministry of Intelligence, and until shortly before his death he had been receiving menacing phone calls from unidentified persons. There is little doubt that his murder was religiously motivated. Until now, the Iranian Government has not begun a formal investigation into his murder or the murder of many other Baha'is that have been killed in recent years. It is past time for the Iranian Government to move immediately to seek justice for the cruel deaths of its Baha'i citizens. I wish these were isolated cases, but countless other examples exist, from Afghanistan to India to Saudi Arabia.

We indeed are fortunate to live in a country that was founded by religious refugees on principles of tolerance. But it is important that we do everything we can to ensure that religious minorities elsewhere in the world enjoy the freedoms and protections they deserve--the freedoms and protections enjoyed by all Americans. Appointing this Special Envoy would be an important step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 2 minutes.

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

In closing, let me thank the authors of this bill, Mr. Wolf and Ms. Eshoo, for your dedication, your focus, and your hard work.

It would seem that in the year of our Lord 2013 we would learn religious tolerance by now all over the world, we would have learned that it is the right thing to do to be patient with individuals who might believe different than we do, to allow them their way of life so that they can prosper and grow and pray in their own beliefs. Unfortunately, that's not true. For all of us, we should be concerned wherever religious tolerance is not adhered to.

I recall the words--and why it concerns us--Dr. King said once that ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' If we allow minorities who believe differently than we do anywhere to think that it is okay, and we are not going to use whatever diplomatic or other forms of relationships that we have to try to have religious freedoms, they're mistaken. We must not allow our voices to be silent, we must speak aloud in clear language, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Royce for

swiftly moving the bill and for his comments today. I also thank the Republican leadership for recognizing that this simple but critical legislation is worthy of making it a priority by this Congress, even as there are other issues that face us at this time.

In January 2011, following a spate of attacks against Christians in Iraq and ongoing persecution in Egypt, I convened a Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing focusing on the plight of religious minorities in Egypt and Iraq. Among the witnesses was Representative Anna Eshoo, who ultimately became the lead Democrat on this bill for two consecutive Congresses.

During the hearing we heard sobering testimony about the challenges facing these communities. A resounding theme emerged: Chaldo-Assyrian Christians and Coptic Christians were being marginalized and targeted for violence. These realities were all the more troubling given the historic roots of the faith communities in these two countries-- amazingly, many Iraqi Christians today still speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus.

Not only were these communities being threatened in the lands they had inhabited for centuries, their plight was largely unknown and seemingly unimportant within the broader foreign policy apparatus. Notably, at the time of the hearing, the post of the U.S. Ambassador for International Religious Freedom had been vacant for 2 years.

While the hearing predated the so-called ``Arab Spring,'' without question the dramatic changes in the region have only further jeopardized these communities. I was convinced then and remain convinced today that religious minorities in the Middle East and in key countries in South Central Asia, such as Pakistan--as the chairman mentioned--and Afghanistan need someone who can be their voice both within the halls of Foggy Bottom and abroad with foreign governments.

Last Congress, this legislation overwhelmingly passed the House only to stall in the Senate in the face of opposition by the State Department--the same State Department which to date has failed to designate any Countries of Particular Concern for egregious religious freedom violations since August of 2011.

The administration's opposition is shortsighted and, frankly, indefensible. As we debate this legislation, Coptic Christians are leaving Egypt in droves. As we debate this legislation, several Baha'i leaders languish unjustly in an Iranian prison, as does American citizen Saeed Abedini.

As we debate this legislation, Ahmadi Muslims, as the chairman said, in Pakistan are prohibited from voting and their graves are desecrated. As we debate this legislation, Syrian Christians fear they too will be caught in a crossfire like Iraqi Christians, or worse yet, like the Iraqi Jewish community. I am told only a single Jewish person remains in the country today where once a vibrant Jewish community flourished.

This legislation is supported by such diverse groups as faith-based organizations, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, United Methodist Church, The Ahmadi Muslim community, Southern Baptist Convention, and Christians United for Israel, among others, as well as a multitude of diaspora organizations which are directly linked with the very people the Special Envoy would serve.

Will a Special Envoy guarantee these communities' survival--and even flourishing? I do not know. But I am certain that to do nothing is not an option--lest on this administration's and this Congress' watch we witness a Middle East emptied of ancient faith communities, foremost among them the ``Sunday People.''

German Lutheran Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, faced with the tyranny of and horror of Nazism, famously said: ``Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.''

I want to thank the chairman again, Mr. Royce, and urge my colleagues to join me in sending an undeniable message to persecuted people of faith the world over--and just as importantly to the forces that oppress them--that America, this shining city on the hill as envisioned by our Founders, will not be silent in the face of evil.

Please vote ``yes'' on H.R. 301.

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