Global Respect Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 900 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), 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.

Madam Speaker, in a moment I will ask to amend the rule to make a technical correction regarding en bloc debate time.

Amendment Offered By Ms. Ross

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the pending resolution with an amendment that I have placed at the desk.

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

Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 900, providing for the consideration of three measures: H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, makes in order six amendments, provides en bloc authority to Chairman Meeks, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, under a structured rule. This rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It makes in order one amendment, and provides for one motion to recommit. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4521, the America COMPETES Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, makes in order 261 amendments, provides en bloc authority to Chairwoman Johnson, and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides recess instructions, suspension authority, and same day authority through April 1, 2022, and provides that requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on February 1, 2022, may be postponed through March 3, 2022.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the three bills we will consider under this rule: H.R. 4521, the America COMPETES Act; H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act; and H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act.

H.R. 4521 will make historic investments to advance the production of American-made semiconductors, tackle supply chain vulnerabilities, and turbocharge America's scientific research and technological leadership.

Our Nation has long been a global leader in science and technology, propelled by companies and universities like the ones in my district that perform cutting-edge research every single day.

Maintaining this position requires significant investment and cooperation across the government and private sector.

This bill will increase funding for the National Science Foundation. It will support the work of the Department of Energy's Office of Science in fighting climate change. It will empower the next generation of STEM teachers, researchers, and scientists of all backgrounds.

Our legislation will also establish a new office at the Department of Commerce charged with leading a government-wide effort to strengthen supply chains, invest $52 billion to support American semiconductor manufacturing, and bolster our domestic solar manufacturing capacity.

In addition, H.R. 4521 will reaffirm American leadership abroad by reasserting our commitment to protect human rights and strengthen international trade laws to protect American workers and businesses from unfair trade practices.

I am proud to have led a number of bipartisan bills included in this legislation that will fund research activities, facilitate public- private partnerships to grow clean energy technologies, and mandate the development of a national science and technology strategy.

At a time when America faces unprecedented international competition, H.R. 4521 will reinforce our Nation's global leadership in science, technology, and innovation. I am thrilled we are bringing it to the House floor.

Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 4445. Too often in our country today businesses use mandatory arbitration clauses to cover up sexual assault and harassment in the workplace.

Forced arbitration has a chilling effect on the ability of survivors to speak out, allowing businesses to take legal action against employees simply for seeking justice that was not provided during the arbitration process.

Last year, the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from women in a variety of disciplines who have faced persistent harassment and abuse at their jobs. These women bravely recounted both the appalling behavior they experienced and how forced arbitration kept them from speaking out about their experiences and aiding others.

I am grateful to these women for their courage in shining a light on this abuse. Unfortunately, countless other women in our country are still silenced by mandatory arbitration.

When mandatory arbitration processes are used to preserve the reputations of companies, rather than to provide due process to employees facing mistreatment, Congress has a duty to step in. I am glad we are doing that by taking up this bill today.

Finally, I rise in support of H.R. 3485. Today, 68 countries, more than one-third of the United Nation member states, still criminalize same-sex relations. In nine countries, same-sex relations are punishable by death. That is a human rights violation.

In the United States, freedom is the foundation of our democracy, and the liberty to love whomever we choose without concern for retaliation or violence is safeguarded by our Constitution.

Denying the right of entry to foreign nationals who violate the human rights of LGBTQ people sends a clear message that hate has no home in the United States.

It is time to pass all three of these bills.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), who is another distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I do have a few more minutes to share some information about the America COMPETES Act. Then I would be prepared to close.

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

In addition to having the privilege of serving on the Rules Committee, I also serve on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which, as a freshman, I can tell you is probably the most bipartisan place in this entire Congress. It is also a privilege to represent the science and technology area of this country in the Research Triangle Park.

I must share information about the work that the Science Committee has done on this bill. The Science Committee bills included in the America COMPETES Act are strongly bipartisan. Every one of these bills either passed the House floor under suspension or passed through the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology favorably.

The House is ushering in a bold and prosperous future for American science and innovation with a suite of bills, including the National Science Foundation for the Future Act, the Department of Energy Science for the Future Act, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology for the Future Act.

The Science Committee provisions included in the America COMPETES Act were built from the ground up with rigorous deliberation and input from the scientific community, industry, and other stakeholders on what they needed most to succeed in the 21st century. These provisions will ensure that the United States is well equipped to compete globally in science and innovation. These provisions will help build a strong and diverse STEM workforce ready to address our greatest scientific and societal challenges.

Our future prosperity depends on what we do now to nurture the STEM talent in our country. From clean energy technologies to emissions measurement, with the bold funding for science and innovation included in these provisions, we will be able to address a climate crisis head- on. These provisions will strengthen American manufacturing, bolster our national security, and enhance our semiconductor manufacturing capabilities.

The United States has long been a beacon of excellence in science and innovation. We must invest in our Nation's future, and now is the time. The United States has endless potential to compete globally in science and innovation. The America COMPETES Act provides the critical resources and tools we need to achieve that, not just today but for the next generation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to add to the comments that I made about the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Our chair, Eddie Bernice Johnson, will be retiring at the end of this session. The contributions that she has made to this Congress and to the State of Texas have been extraordinary.

I have an ``amen'' from our colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson) has been a model of civility and bipartisanship on that committee. This bill, the America COMPETES Act, will just be a crown jewel in her legacy.

Madam Speaker, now is the time for Congress to take comprehensive action to strengthen our supply chain, support American manufacturing, and invest in innovation and scientific research. H.R. 4521 will accomplish these goals, bolster American semiconductor manufacturing, advance clean energy technology, and reaffirm our leadership on the global stage. Our workers, businesses, research institutions, and constituents are depending on us to pass the America COMPETES Act.

Madam Speaker, we also must pass H.R. 4445. As long as forced arbitration remains an option, businesses will be able to abuse this mechanism to put profits over people and silence survivors of sexual assault and harassment.

Our laws should end practices that enable the abuse of working women. Ending mandatory arbitration for sexual harassment and assault is a just way to put an end to one of these practices.

Finally, we must pass H.R. 3485. Our support of LGBTQ rights must not stop at our border. The global LGBTQ community deserves the full support of American diplomacy.

The Global Respect Act enshrines our commitment to equality in our foreign policy, and I am proud to support this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, this is reminiscent of more than a decade and a half ago, but it means that it is long overdue for us to now start anew with the America COMPETES Act, H.R. 4521.

Let me, first of all, say that in the passage of legislation, isn't it exciting that we have a bipartisan infrastructure bill that will match very nicely along with the America COMPETES Act and, as well, we will pass the Build Back Better Act, that has a sizeable proportion of broadband and many other aspects dealing with climate.

So I rise today to support H.R. 4521 for a number of reasons, but I will put in the forefront the idea that it will promote around the world America's values of justice and competitiveness, equality and, yes, human rights. And all the nations that pretend to be competitive, but yet do not have the aspect of compassion and laws that the United States has will be in the back seat, and we will be in the front seat.

Let me, first of all, say that we are bringing relief to all the folks that are trying to get their automobiles; $45 billion in the American fund for chips that will incentivize private sector investments and continued American leadership in semiconductor fabrication, and will address simply the supply chain disruption, and ensure that more semiconductors are produced here at home.

There are also jobs for my inner-city young people, my rural young people.

I was at TRRX in the city of Houston, and we were looking at--a truck driver talked to me and said, I stopped driving trucks. I had health issues, and I am now dealing with technology training that they are giving in at-risk communities.

Strengthening the supply chain with $45 billion to improve the Nation's supply chain and national security by preventing the shortages of critical goods and ensuring that more of these goods are made right.

And advancing what is very important to me, having served on the Science Committee, NASA is in my backyard, the Johnson Space Center, and I am excited about what we have been able to do over the decades. But

now we will be able to focus on scientific research, technology and innovation and excellence. That creates jobs.

Madam Speaker, I rise with enthusiasm to support H.R. 4521. Let's compete. Let's show our values. Let's train, and let's make money. Make it in America.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the House and the Committee on Homeland Security, and as Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I rise in strong support of the Rule governing debate of Rules Committee Print 117-31 and H.R. 4521, the America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing Pre-Eminence in Technology and Economic Strength or ``America COMPETES Act of 2022,'' as well as the underlying legislation.

I also support the Rule as it pertains to H.R. 3485--Global Respect Act H.R. 4445--Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, both of which I strongly support on the merits.

Madam Speaker, the America COMPETES Act of 2022 is a bold legislative package that makes transformational new investments in research, innovation and American manufacturing that will ensure that America can outcompete any nation in the world, now and for decades to come.

The package will accelerate production of critical semiconductor chips, strengthen the supply chain to make more goods in America, turbocharge our research capacity to lead the technologies of the future, and advance our global competitiveness, while supporting strong labor standards and human rights, among other key provisions.

The America COMPETES Act of 2022 is a bold, comprehensive package to strengthen America's competitiveness, which includes the ``Creating the CHIPS for America Fund,'' providing $52 billion to incentivize private- sector investments and continue American leadership in semiconductor fabrication, helping address supply chain disruptions and ensure that more semiconductors are produced here at home.

The legislation strengthening the supply chain and American manufacturing by authorizing $45 billion to improve our nation's supply chains and strengthen our economy and national security by preventing shortages of critical goods and ensuring that more of these goods are made right here in the United States.

The America COMPETES Act of 2022 advances American scientific research, technology, and innovation excellence by making major new solutions-driven investments in every aspect of innovation and scientific research, making the kind of investments that will lead to breakthrough discoveries.

I am particularly pleased that the America COMPETES Act will help maintain and secure America's global competitiveness and leadership through economic development diplomacy, human rights, and partnering with allies by including numerous provisions to strengthen and promote America's leadership around the globe, including in such areas as investing in partnerships and alliances, investing in standing up for America's values, expanding our investments in diplomacy, and promoting human rights.

Madam Speaker, the United States has long been a beacon of excellence in science and technology in the world.

I have worked hard on the COMPETES Act over time to make sure that this legislation includes provisions that stimulates government reinvestment in the private sector; and reimagination of the Federal government's approach to innovation that ignites and excites new ideas that ensure that the United States remains the leader in innovation globally.

The need to reinvest in and reimagine our approach to science and innovation has become a national imperative so I am very pleased that the legislation before us retains provisions I sponsored that were included when the America COMPETES Act was previously passed.

One of those provisions, which is incorporated in RCP 117-31 addresses the STEM education gap for K-12 students by creating State and regional workshops to train K-12 teachers in project-based science and technology learning, allowing them to provide instruction in initiating robotics and other STEM competition team development programs.

Another provision included in the legislation requires the National Science Foundation (NSF) to report on the economic and ethnic breakdown of ``Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics'' (STEM) industry internship program recipients.

Facilitating links between institutes of higher education and the private sector is vital to ensuring that education enables a skilled and relevant workforce.

Such links are especially important for minorities and under-served communities because these students often lack alternative avenues to connect their education with an industry.

Internship experience is an increasingly vital component of a successful resume, yet the unpaid nature of internships is cost- prohibitive for many people.

Mandating that the National Science Foundation report on the economic and ethnic breakdown of STEM program recipients will help ensure that minorities and economically-disadvantaged students have adequate access to internships that bridge STEM academia and industry.

I am hopeful this data will provide evidence of robust participation by minority and economically-disadvantaged students; however, if such students are not fully participating, these reporting requirements will provide Congress with the data it needs to facilitate broader participation.

Now is the time to recommit to boldly and strategically investing in our nation's future--to promote America's economic strength, the well- being of our communities, our national security and our leadership in the world. This transformative legislation will ensure that America can out-compete any nation, for decades to come.

Madam Speaker, I also support the provisions of the rule governing debate of H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, bipartisan and bicameral legislation that empowers survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment by giving them a choice to go to court instead of being forced into arbitration.

This legislation would amend the Federal Arbitration Act for disputes involving sexual assault and sexual harassment in order to stop employers and businesses from forcing employees and customers out of the court system and into arbitration.

It would ensure that predispute arbitration clauses and waivers of the right to bring joint actions in cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment would not be valid or enforceable for cases that are filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law.

Under current law, many employment and other contracts require binding arbitration for a wide range of matters before a dispute arises, which denies survivors the ability to decide whether to pursue their claim with the procedural protections provided by courts, and silences victims of abuse by forcing them into a confidential dispute forum without the right to appeal.

More than 60 million Americans are subject to mandatory arbitration clauses in the workplace, often without realizing it until they come forward to bring a claim against their employer.

The Report of the Co-Chairs of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace notes that between 50-75 percent of women have faced some form of unwanted or unwelcome sexual harassment in the workplace.

Additionally, contracts for services may include mandatory arbitration clauses in the fine print that shield companies and businesses from being held publicly accountable for the harm caused.

I support this necessary legislation because it advances efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment and sexual assault, strengthen rights, protect victims, and promote access to justice.

Finally, I strongly support H.R. 3485 the Global Respect Act, which would mandate the listing of, and visa restrictions on foreign persons responsible for or complicit in human rights violations against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons.

In the face of rising violence targeting LGBTQI+ persons around the world, the Administration recognizes that LGBTQI+ persons face serious and unique threats to their safety due to their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or sex characteristics.

While many countries have made tremendous strides in embracing equality for LGBTQI+ community members, other countries remain stagnant or, worse, are undertaking steps to further marginalize or harm LGBTQI+ community members.

That is why I support H.R. 3485, a bi-partisan bill, which requires the Administration to provide Congress with a list of foreign individuals found responsible for human rights violations against LGBTQI+ persons abroad, and equally important, mandates that individuals included on this list are ineligible for visas to, or entry into, the United States.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for the rule governing debate of RCP 117- 31, the America COMPETES Act of 2022, H.R. 4445, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, and H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of H.R. 3485. I want to begin by expressing my profound gratitude to Chairman Meeks for his consistent, passionate, and powerful support of this bill and of the LGBTQI community broadly. He has been such a champion for our community. We would not be here today on this floor without his support, and we are grateful for that.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to recognize Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Portman for their partnership and leadership in making this legislation bipartisan and bicameral.

Of course, I want to recognize and thank President Biden for his incredible commitment to LGBTQI equality here at home and around the world.

With today's vote, the U.S. House will send a strong message across the world that every member of the LGBTQI community deserves to live with dignity and free from violence, unlawful detention, torture, and other forms of brutality.

H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act, builds on existing sanction authorities by requiring the President to deny visas to foreign nationals who commit gross human rights violations against members of the LGBTQI community. Let me be clear. This bill protects LGBTQI people from murder, torture, and other forms of violence.

If you reject this proposal, you are saying people like me can be murdered and tortured with no consequence. Whether that is your intention or not, that is the impact of your vote.

In past years, we have seen a dangerous increase in violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people and their families.

So, when my colleague on the other side of the aisle says, ``What is the need for this?'' tell that to the victims who are being tortured, detained, and murdered because of who they are.

In too many places, violence against this community is pervasive and even sanctioned or directed by government officials.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that ``all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.'' As with any form of social or legal marginalization, whether based on sex, race, religion, ethnicity, or other status, the denial of human rights of LGBTQI people is not only wrong but negatively affects health outcomes, social stability, the rule of law, and economic potential.

This bill sends a signal to not just the abusers but also signals to the victims and survivors that the United States stands with them, as we have throughout the course of human history, in standing up for human rights.

Victims like Camila Diaz Cordova, a 29-year-old transgender woman from El Salvador who was arrested, beaten, and thrown from a moving vehicle after being deported from the United States--she died several days later; or the young gay man who fled from Sudan to Egypt after threats of public outing and violence, only to experience kidnapping and further stigmatization and violence in his new home; or I.J., a victim of Ramzan Kadyrov's systematic rounding up and torture of men and women thought to be gay in Chechnya.

In recounting the attack, I.J. said: ``They threw me to the floor and beat me. They beat my chest and my face with their feet, and they hit my head against the floor. One of them said: `Do not beat him until the shock stage. At that point, he will stop feeling pain. We don't need that.' They addressed me with female pronouns and demanded that I tell them the names of other gay people I knew. They threatened to kill me if I didn't.''

In public reports, we heard of ISIS officials throwing gay men off rooftops and then stoning them to death.

These are just some examples of the many, many stories.

The Global Respect Act is simple. It is straightforward. It gives the executive branch greater tools to punish those who murder and torture members of the LGBTQI community.

I want to take a quick moment to tell you what this bill does not do. It doesn't duplicate existing rights legislation such as the Global Magnitsky Act because Global Magnitsky is obviously a very important tool for human rights, but it is voluntary. It has only been used once for LGBTQI human rights violations, despite many documented cases.

The Global Respect Act is different because it requires sanctions if a foreign national commits gross human rights violations against LGBTQI people.

It doesn't have overly broad language. As the chairman said, it has language that comes from 22 U.S.C. 2304. It doesn't create any new definitions. It has the definition in existing law of what gross human rights violation is.

It doesn't prevent speech or religious beliefs. This bill targets conduct and actions. The Global Magnitsky has never, nor will this bill ever, be used to impede anyone's right to say or believe anything. It is their actions, the gross human rights violations, that are at issue.

My friend on the other side of the aisle said it is cancel culture. When did preventing murder, torture, and violence, and standing up for human rights, become cancel culture?

We have a long tradition in this country of doing this all around the world. The Global Respect Act honors that history, that responsibility that we have as a world superpower to continue to protect and stand up for human rights in the face of unspeakable human violence.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I end where I began, with enormous gratitude to our extraordinary chairman for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 900, I offer the amendments en bloc.

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

Before I address the en bloc amendments, I just want to respond quickly to a claim that has been made again on this floor that was made in the Rules Committee by my friend on the other side of the aisle that the Magnitsky Act has already adequately covered LGBTQI human rights violations. I am going to say it one more time: That is simply, factually incorrect.

All of the cases that my friend cited, Mr. Speaker, do not involve LGBTQI people, save one. There is one specific LGBTQI case in which sanctions were imposed in 2019 against the Chechen leader for kidnapping, torturing, and killing members of the LGBTQI community.

The cases she makes reference to in Bangladesh, in Cuba, and in Uganda involve judicial corruption, and they involve a government crackdown on democracy, but they don't involve individuals who were targeted or brutalized because they were members of the LGBTQI community.

So there is, in fact, not sufficient use of Magnitsky. That is what the Global Respect Act will fix. It will make visa sanctions against such individuals a mandatory requirement.

So this idea of pulling other human rights cases and saying, Isn't this enough?

It is not. This is a growing, serious, and deadly problem.

Mr. Speaker, I move these amendments which, taken together, both

strengthen the bill and make a strong statement that the United States stands with the LGBTQI community around the world.

This package of amendments clarifies that torture is a part of the definition of a human rights violation. This definition, which we have used since the passage of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, makes it clear that it is actions--torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment--that lead to sanctions.

These amendments firmly state that the value of religious freedom is protected. The United States has long been a leader of protecting freedom of religion, and our foreign policy must uphold that tradition. The Harder amendment within the en bloc makes it clear that no one--I repeat, no one--will be sanctioned due to their religious beliefs; instead, only those who commit egregious acts of violence--torture, enforced disappearances, or extrajudicial killings--will be denied entry to the United States.

Despite what some of my colleagues may say, religious freedom is not in conflict with the promotion of global LGBTQI rights. This amendment acknowledges this truth and upholds the rights of all people regardless of their religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex characteristics to be protected from violence and brutality.

These amendments will also provide the Biden-Harris administration with additional tools to continue its historic work to build the international coalition of countries protecting LGBTQI people. It is important that we stand with countries around the world, including those like Botswana, which legalized same-sex relationships in 2019, to strengthen equality around the globe.

With today's vote, the U.S. House will send a strong message around the world that every member of the LGBTQI community deserves to live with dignity and free from violence, unlawful detention, torture, and other forms of brutality.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I just want to respond quickly to two things before I close. The first is, again, the Global Respect Act, like Magnitsky, does not punish and cannot be invoked for speech. It is very clear. It has never been used in that way, and it specifically targets conduct. But out of an abundance of caution, to reassure our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Harder offers an amendment that makes that explicit, that says that no one will be sanctioned due to their religious beliefs. Instead, only those who commit egregious acts of violence, including: torture, enforced disappearance, or extrajudicial killings will be denied entry into the United States.

This notion of like, well, we were concerned about this religion issue, but when it is explicitly addressed because it is offered by a Democrat through the

amendment process and not a Republican, it doesn't satisfy my friends on the other side of the aisle. It is very disappointing; very disappointing.

This Global Respect Act legislation is designed to address a real problem, and I will just say one last time, in section 3 of the bill, the language in the bill includes gross violations of internationally recognized human rights as codified in 22 U.S.C. 2304. What is that? Not your view on marriage, not whether you like someone. It is defined as: ``. . . torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, and other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of person.''

This is a well-established definition for gross human rights violations. This bill simply says, if you engage in that kind of behavior, you do not have a right to enter the United States of America. We will deny you a visa because we stand for human rights.

So I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment, support this bill, be proud today that the United States is standing again for the protection of human rights of all people here in the United States, and around the world.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we all believe that all people have inherent dignity and possess equal human rights. We all reject violence directed at individuals on the basis of their race, religion, biological sex, or sexual orientation. The problem with this bill, however, is that it borrows language from two existing laws: the Global Magnitsky Act and the so-called Section 7031(c) sanctions, and then creates a new reporting mechanism that is not focused on the human rights of all, but rather the human rights of particular groups.

I don't see why we should focus on some human rights violations more than any others. Every person's human rights are of equal value and certain violations of those rights should not be subordinate to others.

Furthermore, the bill's broad language has the potential to sweep in nonviolent conduct and impose visa restrictions on individuals engaged in that conduct.

For example, it speaks about ``complicity'' and ``cruel treatment,'' vague terms. Is a parent overseas who rejects her minor child's wish for a sex change operation complicit in cruelty? Is the Pope engaged in ``degrading treatment'' when he expresses opposition to same-sex marriage based on the tenets of his religious faith?

Mr. Speaker, there are no safeguards in the bill that address these situations. When free speech, religious freedom, and parental rights' protections were proposed to be added to the bill, the Democrats balked and voted against it. They preach tolerance until they are asked to vote on it.

Regardless of the author's intent, which I think is good, there are people that will use the bill to target their political and ideological opponents in the culture wars. The bill's author will say that there should be no problem since it just uses the very same language as other human rights statutes, but those existing provisions already address and punish the conduct this bill targets.

So, the real question is, why is this bill so necessary? In the committee report, Democrats acknowledge the bill is redundant. But in search of some--any, perhaps--rationale, they claim that not enough sanctions have been rolled out that cover crimes committed against LGBT-identifying individuals. That is simply not true.

We know, for example, under the Trump administration, groups and individuals from Chechnya were sanctioned under Global Magnitsky for human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings and the torture of LGBT-identifying individuals.

The former Gambian President was also sanctioned after having rounded up people based on sexual orientation and after making shocking statements against LGBT-identifying individuals. These sanctions, as I said, were imposed under the Trump administration, but even more have been imposed, using the Global Magnitsky Act, under President Biden.

We know, based on a recent Global Magnitsky report to Congress that came out a few weeks ago, individuals last year in places like Cuba, Uganda, and even Bangladesh have been sanctioned, and all are associated with groups or conduct targeting LGBT-identifying individuals.

So, this bill is clearly unnecessary. It reflects and represents the administration's aggressive attempts to push the envelope regarding culture war issues at every possible juncture, not only domestically but abroad.

That is distracting and requires diplomats to devote time and resources to culture war issues at the expense of attention paid to China, Russia, Iran, the quagmire in Afghanistan, and the crisis at our southern border.

It is disappointing that as Ukraine is on the verge of being invaded by Russia, as North Korea continues to conduct ballistic missile tests, as illegal aliens stream through our southern border--some on our terror watch list--the majority has decided now is the time to bring this bill forward.

The State Department agrees. It has reviewed the Global Respect Act and recommended extensive changes, signaling it, too, sees this bill as superfluous, potentially misguided, and definitely duplicative. Other groups have said much the same, including The Heritage Foundation, the Center for Family and Human Rights, Concerned Women for America, and the Family Research Council.

Although I agree with the sentiment that human rights violations of any kind are deplorable and despicable, the devil is really in the details on this bill. We oppose this bill for the reasons I have stated.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's passion, and I support his support of condemning and sanctioning these terrible acts against the LGBT community.

I just wanted to let the Speaker know, in the newest Global Magnitsky Act report, which was just released a few weeks ago and covers 2021, sanctions were imposed on Cuban police; in Uganda, the Chief of the Military Intelligence; also in Bangladesh, the Rapid Action Battalion.

All of these were associated with LGBT causes, which means this act is being used to sanction those who commit acts of violence of any kind against people of the LGBT community. I just wanted to make sure that the gentleman is aware of that. The State Department is already reporting and already doing this, and it is being done.

Though I support everything that he is stating here, it is already being done. In the interest of good legislation, we don't want to overburden our bureaucrats and people that are working on these issues. Also, reporting, they have indicated that additional reporting requirements only take more time out of the organization.

I do appreciate the messaging from the gentleman from Rhode Island. It is very important that we signal to the world that we condemn acts against the LGBT community. The problem is, we already have this, and we already have the ability and two tools that are very effective and used internationally to condemn these acts.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I support the underlying idea behind the bill, and I really appreciate the passion of the sponsor and those speaking out on behalf of it and protecting the human rights of all individuals living abroad and holding violators accountable. But as I have said, we have a strong difference of opinion about whether a bill that is duplicative of current law is necessary.

I think the Global Respect Act, at the moment, the way it is drafted is counterproductive insofar as it would create a separate regime aimed at protecting human rights of some rather than human rights of all. And I fear it could be used to target the left's political opponents in the culture wars.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to respond a little bit to the sponsor, and, again, I can't say enough that we support and echo the sentiments of protecting the rights of the LGBT community around the world and at home.

But this bill actually mirrors the Global Magnitsky Act, and the language is the same. So it is kind of hard to argue we should just have another set of standards and require even more reporting from a State Department that is overwhelmed by issues around the world when we already have this.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at these instances, the State Department doesn't disclose necessarily what the nature of it is because of the confidentiality, but if you actually go into a Google search and look at the reporting in each of these countries, they are all based on conduct against people with LGBT leanings, and that is why the act was used. The State Department preserves confidentiality.

So in the end, yes, we are using this act right now, today, to condemn and to sanction this activity against the LGBTQ communities around the world. So I oppose the en bloc of amendments. While some of the amendments are well-intentioned, they are ultimately duplicative and unnecessary, again, just like the underlying act. They require the Department of State to do what it is already doing in practice.

For example, the Gottheimer amendment No. 2 requires a study examining risks to LGBTQI individuals. The State Department publishes its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices each year, including this data, and they just provided another report recently.

Human rights officers who are stationed at our embassies and consulates around the world meet routinely with local activists and local officials to gain this information. They talk to individuals on the ground to compile these reports, which are detailed and comprehensive. Each regional bureau in the Department is involved in this process. This amendment, therefore, calls for the Department to do what it is already doing, and is burdensome on the Foreign Service officers and career officials.

Other amendments, like the Harder amendment No. 7, also very well- intentioned and also messaging in a very positive way, show that the Democrats know they have overreached on the bill. The Harder amendment prevents sanctions against any individual based solely upon religious belief.

I agree with this sentiment, but at markup, Democrats rejected a very similar religious freedom and free speech amendment offered by Representative Scott Perry. The rationale was: Well, this bill just isn't about that. Well, it seems one of their colleagues disagrees.

While I appreciate the Democrats are willing to acknowledge some of the flaws in the bill, the Harder amendment is also insufficient. The amendment speaks only of religious belief. It does not speak to situations in which religious adherents manifest or express their beliefs in daily life.

So under Representative Harder's amendment, a person who expresses belief in the traditional family, or in conventional human biology, could still be sanctioned because sanctions would not be based on beliefs but, rather, on actions.

This amendment is not as robust as the measure that Representative Perry put forward at markup, and we have no choice but to oppose it.

This en bloc does not contain amendments that would enhance the legislation, in our opinion. Instead, these amendments seek to add safeguards to a bill that, as I have explained, is duplicative, unnecessary, and even dangerous insofar as it can be used by the left to target political opponents in the international culture wars.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield back balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 900, I call up the bill (H.R. 3485) to impose sanctions on foreign persons responsible for violations of internationally recognized human rights against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) individuals, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3485.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day with a very important bill, and I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act, as amended, and introduced by my friend and great American, Congressman David Cicilline.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a country that espouses that all human beings are created equal, endowed with equal rights, no matter what we look like, how we pray, or where we come from.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights tells us, ``all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.'' The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights states that, ``All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.''

And our own Declaration of Independence famously says, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''

Mr. Speaker, the Global Respect Act brings us closer to realizing these treasured ideals.

Today, unfortunately, shamelessly, millions of people are living in fear. In countless countries, LGBTQI-plus people face punishment simply for being who they are. They are subject to brutal beatings, imprisoned for lifetimes,

tortured, hanged, and stoned. When human rights abuses are being committed, the United States of America must do its part to hold the perpetrators accountable. And that is why Congressman Cicilline introduced H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act.

This legislation is critical, straightforward, and overdue. It requires the President to identify foreign individuals responsible for these human rights violations against LGBTQI-plus people and to prevent them from entering the United States of America.

In addition, the Global Respect Act requires the State Department to designate at least one senior officer responsible for tracking violence, criminalization, and restrictions on the freedoms of LGBTQI- plus people abroad. This legislation also requires the Department of State to include information relating to violence or discrimination against LGBTQI-plus communities in its annual human rights reports.

Now, unfortunately, several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they oppose the bill because they claim it is duplicative of Magnitsky sanctions. While Global Magnitsky is a landmark tool in the fight against human rights abuses, rarely has it been used by administrations to sanction those who persecute LGBTQI-plus persons. This bill simply builds on existing human rights-related authorities to ensure that human rights abusers are held accountable everywhere on this planet.

They also argue the language of the bill is overly broad when, in fact, the words they quibble with come directly from what has already been enacted in the United States Code, drawing word-from-word the definition of ``gross violation of human rights.''

There are critics out there who say this bill infringes on religious beliefs. I wholeheartedly, 1,000 percent, reject this notion. The Global Respect Act is about holding accountable individuals responsible for committing human rights abuses against LGBTQI-plus people; Individuals who commit the absolute worst crimes, such as murder, forced detentions, and disappearances of persons. This bill is clear in that it targets heinous acts, and does not authorize any action against an individual based solely upon religious belief.

Mr. Speaker, I can't thank Congressman David Cicilline enough for his work, for his commitment, for his dedication on presenting this legislation so that equality and human rights are protected. I also recognize the courageous LGBTQI-plus activists who are out there and who dared to stand up and claim their basic human rights in the face of violence, discrimination, persecution, simply for whom they love.

Mr. Speaker, I have a brother who had to stand up for who he is. He is a human being. And we should not allow any violations of human rights here in the United States or anyplace we know as planet Earth.

So when LGBTQI-plus people are murdered simply for existing, the world is watching. And the world is watching what we do. And the world is watching how we react to it. And the world is watching what we say, and what we stand for when we say we have value for human beings. That is what is at stake here.

This should not be a partisan issue. It has never been a partisan issue. This should be an issue about all human beings, protecting human beings, the human race, because when you break it down, we are all the same. And that is why I am heartened that this legislation is in fact bipartisan. And I am heartened and proud that this legislation passed out of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by a voice vote. One of the proudest moments I have is introducing and being on this floor today as chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to strongly support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to state that the notion that this bill is not supported by the administration is just blatantly false.

Just last week, the Biden administration released a Statement of Administration Policy in full support of the bill and noted the urgent need to address threats to the human rights of LGBTQI-plus, not just abroad but right here in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this real quick. I don't mind burdening anyone if it is going to save somebody's life. There are certain burdens that we have to carry, and this is one of them.

Mr. Speaker, I, with pride, yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), a strong fighter for human rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start by commending and thanking the Biden administration for its strong support in moving this legislation.

What is noted in his support is that legislation like this is needed at a time especially when countries are undertaking steps to further marginalize or harm LGBTQ-plus community members and that the administration looks forward to working with Congress on what I know will be a bipartisan vote.

I also happen to agree with President Biden and echo his statement that in a time when a global rise in authoritarianism and hate persists that it is critical that we send a strong message to the world that the United States of America, the world's greatest democracy--that the United States of America, who leads with its values--that the United States of America can speak up and speak out striving to be a more perfect Union, and that the United States of America can lead the world to say that we are going to stop the persecution of human beings simply for who they are.

This is the year 2022, Mr. Speaker. I would think by now we would have learned that our voices should never be shut when we see violations of human rights. One of the things that I pledged when I became chair of this committee was that human rights would be on the front burner because if we can't come together no matter what party we are in, no matter what religion we have, no matter what ethnicity we have, and no matter where we come from on this planet, if we can't come together and say that we are going to stand up, speak out, and stop where individuals are being persecuted and prosecuted--murdered--that is the least that we can do.

I don't care how difficult it is. I don't care if it puts a burden on the administration to do it because those are our values, that is what should take precedence.

I have seen too much right here in the United States--individuals just walking down the street holding hands with whom they love, and someone walks up and does something horrific to them.

We have had to pass these bills and laws in our country so that they can live their life. If we see it happening to anyone else, then we have got to make sure that voice is heard and stop individuals who are persecuting and prosecuting people from anyplace else on this planet from coming to this country.

Send a message. Don't send it once, send it twice. If it takes three or four times, then so be it. That is what this is all about. The camera of history is recording this, looking to see what we do and what we say.

How do we react to a human tragedy?

Generations yet unborn will be saying: What did the United States Congress do when they knew?

No one denies what is taking place all over the world when it comes to LGBTQI-plus individuals. Nobody denies that they are being killed. No one denies that they are being tortured. Nobody denies that they are treated in an inhumane way. That is not being denied.

So as long as it exists, we should use every tool available to make sure that we wipe it off the planet Earth, and that is what David Cicilline, this great Congressman, intended when he offered this bill.

This should be an historic moment and a proud moment for the United States Congress to say: We have stood up and led the world to stop human rights violations to people just like us, human beings.

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