[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 215 (Tuesday, December 14, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H7794-H7803]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                COMBATING INTERNATIONAL ISLAMOPHOBIA ACT

  Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 849, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 5665) to establish in the Department of State the Office 
to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia, and for other purposes, and ask for 
its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Castor of Florida). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 849, in lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs, printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-23, 
modified by the amendment printed in House Report 117-218, is adopted, 
and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5665

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Combating International 
     Islamophobia Act''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE TO MONITOR 
                   AND COMBAT ISLAMOPHOBIA.

        Title I of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 64. MONITORING AND COMBATING ISLAMOPHOBIA.

       ``(a) Office To Monitor and Combat Islamophobia.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of State shall 
     establish within the Department of State an Office to Monitor 
     and Combat Islamophobia (in this section referred to as the 
     `Office').
       ``(2) Head of office.--
       ``(A) Special envoy for monitoring and combating 
     islamophobia.--The head of the Office shall be the Special 
     Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Islamophobia (in this 
     section referred to as the `Special Envoy').
       ``(B) Appointment of special envoy.--The President, by and 
     with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint the 
     Special Envoy. If the President determines that such is 
     appropriate, the President may appoint the Special Envoy from 
     among officers and employees of the Department of State. The 
     Secretary of State may allow such officer or employee to 
     retain the position (and the responsibilities associated with 
     such position) held by such officer or employee prior to such 
     appointment.
       ``(b) Purpose of Office.--Upon establishment, the Office 
     shall assume primary responsibility for the following:
       ``(1) Monitoring and combating acts of Islamophobia and 
     Islamophobic incitement that occur in foreign countries.
       ``(2) Coordinating and assisting in the preparation of that 
     portion of the reports required by paragraph (9) of section 
     116(d) and subsection (k) of section 502B of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d) and 2304) relating 
     to an assessment and description of the nature and extent of 
     acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement.
       ``(3) Coordinating and assisting in the preparation of that 
     portion of the report required by clause (viii) of section 
     102(b)(1)(A) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 
     1998 (22 U.S.C. 6412(b)(1)(A)) relating to an assessment and 
     description of the nature and extent of acts of Islamophobia 
     and Islamophobic incitement.
       ``(c) Consultations.--The Special Envoy shall consult with 
     domestic and international nongovernmental organizations and 
     multilateral organizations and institutions, as the Special 
     Envoy considers appropriate, to carry out this section.''.

     SEC. 3. INCLUSION IN DEPARTMENT OF STATE ANNUAL REPORTS OF 
                   INFORMATION CONCERNING ACTS OF ISLAMOPHOBIA IN 
                   FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       (a) Inclusion in Annual Country Reports on Human Rights 
     Practices.--The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2151 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 116(d) (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d))--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (9), (10), (11), and (12), 
     as paragraphs (10), (11), (12), and (13), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(9) wherever applicable, a description of the nature and 
     extent of acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement 
     that occur during the preceding year, including descriptions 
     of--
       ``(A) acts of physical violence against, or harassment of, 
     Muslim people, and acts of violence against, or vandalism of, 
     Muslim community institutions, including schools, mosques, 
     and cemeteries;
       ``(B) instances of propaganda in government and 
     nongovernment media that attempt to justify or promote racial 
     hatred or incite acts of violence against Muslim people;
       ``(C) the actions, if any, taken by the government of the 
     country to respond to such violence and attacks or to 
     eliminate such propaganda or incitement;
       ``(D) the actions taken by such government to enact and 
     enforce laws relating to the protection of the right to 
     religious freedom of Muslim people;
       ``(E) the efforts of such government to promote anti-bias 
     and tolerance education; and
       ``(F) any instances of forced labor, reeducation, or the 
     presence of concentration camps, such as those targeting the 
     Uyghurs in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the 
     People's Republic of China;''; and
       (2) in section 502B (22 U.S.C. 2304), by--
       (A) redesignating the second subsection (i) (relating to 
     child marriage status) as subsection (j); and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Information Concerning Acts of Islamophobia in 
     Foreign Countries.--The report required by subsection (b) 
     shall include, wherever applicable, a description of the 
     nature and extent of acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic 
     incitement that occur during the preceding year, including 
     descriptions of--
       ``(1) acts of physical violence against, or harassment of, 
     Muslim people, and acts of violence against, or vandalism of, 
     Muslim community institutions, including schools, mosques, 
     and cemeteries;
       ``(2) instances of propaganda in government and 
     nongovernment media that attempt to justify or promote racial 
     hatred or incite acts of violence against Muslim people;
       ``(3) the actions, if any, taken by the government of the 
     country to respond to such violence and attacks or to 
     eliminate such propaganda or incitement;
       ``(4) the actions taken by such government to enact and 
     enforce laws relating to the protection of the right to 
     religious freedom of Muslim people;
       ``(5) the efforts of such government to promote anti-bias 
     and tolerance education; and
       ``(6) any instances of forced labor, reeducation, or the 
     presence of concentration camps, such as those targeting the 
     Uyghurs in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the 
     People's Republic of China.''.

[[Page H7795]]

       (b) Inclusion in Annual Report on International Religious 
     Freedom.--Section 102(b)(1)(A) of the International Religious 
     Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6412(b)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (vii)(II), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(viii) wherever applicable, an assessment and description 
     of the nature and extent of acts of Islamophobia and 
     Islamophobic incitement that occur in that country during the 
     preceding the year, including--

       ``(I) acts of physical violence against, or harassment of, 
     Muslim people, acts of violence against, or vandalism of, 
     Muslim community institutions, instances of propaganda in 
     government and nongovernment media that incite such acts, and 
     statements and actions relating thereto;
       ``(II) the actions taken by the government of that country 
     to respond to such violence and attacks or to eliminate such 
     propaganda or incitement, to enact and enforce laws relating 
     to the protection of the right to religious freedom of 
     Muslims, and to promote anti-bias and tolerance education; 
     and
       ``(III) any instances of forced labor, reeducation, or the 
     presence of concentration camps, such as those targeting the 
     Uyghurs in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the 
     People's Republic of China.''.

       (c) Effective Date of Inclusions.--The amendments made by 
     subsections (a) and (b) shall apply beginning with the first 
     reports required under sections 116(d) and 502B of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n and 2304) and 
     section 102(b)(1)(A) of the International Religious Freedom 
     Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6312(b)(1)(A)) that are submitted 
     after the date that is 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION.

       No funds made available pursuant to this Act or an 
     amendment made by this Act may be used to promote or endorse 
     a Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement ideology or 
     used to promote or endorse a Muslim ban, such as the one 
     instituted by former President Trump.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. McCaul) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).


                             General Leave

  Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 5665.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5665, the Combating 
International Islamophobia Act.
  Before I continue, let me insert in the Record a Statement of 
Administration Policy, which begins by stating: ``The administration 
supports passage of H.R. 5665, the Combating International Islamophobia 
Act.'' And ``Our country's commitment to defending freedom of religion 
and belief goes back centuries, and the administration strongly 
believes that people of all faiths and backgrounds should be treated 
with equal dignity and respect around the world.''

                   Statement of Administration Policy


H.R. 5665--Combatting International Islamophobia Act--Rep. Omar, D-MN, 
                           and 56 co-sponsors

       The Administration supports passage of H.R. 5665, the 
     Combating International Islamophobia Act. Religious freedom 
     is a fundamental human right. This freedom is enshrined in 
     the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is also part of 
     the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Our country's 
     commitment to defending freedom of religion and belief goes 
     back centuries, and the Administration strongly believes that 
     people of all faiths and backgrounds should be treated with 
     equal dignity and respect around the world.
       The Administration also supports language in H.R. 5665 that 
     calls attention to instances of forced labor, reeducation, or 
     the presence of concentration camps, such as those targeting 
     Uyghur and other minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous 
     Region of the People's Republic of China.
       The Administration looks forward to working with Congress 
     to ensure the Secretary of State has the necessary 
     flexibility and permissive authority to designate such an 
     office and special envoy and to provide for an annual report 
     monitoring concerning acts of Islamophobia in foreign 
     countries.
  Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. The world is seeing 
an alarming rise in anti-Muslim sentiment and violence, and we are 
witnessing those same trends, unfortunately, here in the United States 
of America.
  In recent years, anti-Muslim bigotry has been on the rise with 
mosques being vandalized and Muslims beaten and attacked and elected 
officials on the receiving end of death threats and other hateful 
rhetoric all due to their Muslim faith.
  Bigotry is unacceptable, and it is incumbent on all of us to condemn 
it wherever and whenever it occurs.

                              {time}  1815

  The great Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said: ``Injustice 
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Not only must we address 
anti-Muslim bigotry here in the United States, but we are also 
obligated to confront that bigotry wherever and whenever we see it 
happening around the world.
  In 2019, New Zealand witnessed the worst terrorist attack in that 
nation's history when a white supremacist gunman killed 51 Muslim 
worshippers and injured 40 others at two mosques.
  Just last week, here on the House floor, we discussed the horrific 
atrocities being committed against Uyghur Muslims in China and the 
Rohingya Muslims in Burma. We did it in a bipartisan way with my good 
friend and colleague Mr. McCaul. That is who we should be, and that is 
what we should represent because freedom of religion is a fundamental 
human right, and no one should be the target of discrimination because 
of their faith.
  Prior to considering H.R. 5665, the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs held numerous hearings, including with Secretary of State 
Anthony Blinken, U.N. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, and leading 
academics across the country that discussed and better informed our 
understanding of anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamophobia.
  With the passage of H.R. 5665, the establishment of an office at the 
State Department to help combat the scourge of Islamophobia, we take an 
important step toward addressing this problem. That is why I am proud 
to support the Combating International Islamophobia Act. This important 
legislation would do three very, very important but simple things. 
First, it would establish an office to monitor and combat Islamophobia 
at the State Department. Second, it would provide the authority to the 
executive branch to appoint a special envoy for monitoring and 
combating Islamophobia. And third, it will help to improve State 
Department reporting on threats to Muslims around the world.
  Now, several of my colleagues on the other side have stated that they 
oppose this bill, that the bill does not define Islamophobia, but I 
believe, and I think they seem to have an awareness, as we all do, for 
Islamophobia when they criticize the bill for not doing enough to 
address Islamophobia against the Uyghur population in China.
  Madam Speaker, discrimination and bigotry are abhorrent, and 
combating them is something which we should all be able to do together. 
That is why I am so heartened to see this important piece of 
legislation being led by a Muslim Member of Congress and a Jewish 
Member of Congress. I wish I could say by a Democratic Member of 
Congress and a Republican Member of Congress. That would be the right 
message to send to the world.
  Discrimination and bigotry bring out the worst in humanity. I know 
that my friend and colleague feels the same way. I know he does, as do 
many of my colleagues on the other side. But we have to stand up and 
say it right here on the floor so the world knows what we stand for. If 
left unchecked, they can lead to terrible atrocities, to crimes against 
humanity, and even to genocide. So this legislation will help shine a 
light on this problem and help address the global rise of Islamophobia 
at a time in which Islamophobia remains rampant.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage all Members of this House to 
support this very timely and important bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H7796]]

  Madam Speaker, let me just say to my good friend, Chairman Meeks, we 
all deplore anti-Muslim persecution. No one should ever be attacked or 
denied their human rights or dignity because of their faith. So, we 
actually agree on the intent and the spirit behind this. But I do have 
some concerns with the wording in many parts of this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, the United States Government is rightly committed to 
opposing these monstrous acts of violence that we have seen directed at 
Muslims around the world. This includes the horrific mosque shootings 
in Switzerland, Quebec, and Christchurch.
  Our commitment must also apply to anti-Muslim persecution by foreign 
regimes, especially when it amounts to genocide. I am proud of our 
bipartisan work to condemn and punish the Burmese military's genocide 
against the Rohingya Muslims that began in 2016.
  We are also working in a bipartisan fashion to oppose the Chinese 
Communist Party's ongoing genocide against the Uyghur Muslims that we 
passed together in a bipartisan manner on this floor just the other 
day.
  Today, more than 1 million Muslims and other ethnic and religious 
minorities are held in camps and exploited as slave labor. Muslim 
children are ripped from their mothers' arms to be raised by the 
Communist Party. Muslim women are suffering systematic sexual violence, 
forced sterilization, and forced abortion.
  Members on our side are fully committed to combating these anti-
Muslim atrocities. I am proud of the work, again, that Chairman Meeks 
and I were able to do together to hold the Chinese Communist Party 
accountable for their genocide, and I thank the gentleman for his 
efforts.
  In addition, I am pleased that right after this bill, Chairman 
McGovern, who has worked so hard with this committee, and Senator Marco 
Rubio in the Senate will finally be able to send to the President's 
desk a bipartisan, bicameral bill to combat the forced labor that 
supports the CCP's Uyghur genocide.
  Unfortunately, the rushed, partisan bill before us today does not 
live up to these two serious bipartisan efforts. Committee Democrats 
made no effort to work toward a bipartisan agreement before the markup, 
and the bill has no Republican cosponsors.
  This legislation is dangerously vague and unnecessarily duplicative. 
It doesn't frame things in terms of anti-Muslim persecution, nor does 
it use the typical statutory language like ``gross violations of 
internationally recognized human rights.''
  Instead, it uses the undefined, nonlegal term of ``Islamophobia.'' 
This word appears nowhere in the Federal statutes. It is so vague and 
subjective that it could be used against legitimate speech for partisan 
purposes. Even the term ``phobia'' connotes irrational fear, not 
discrimination.

  The bill also completely ignores the State Department's extensive 
efforts already underway to protect the rights of Muslims. Regular 
monitoring and reporting are already carried out by human rights 
officers or embassies worldwide, as well as the Bureau of Democracy, 
Human Rights, and Labor; the Office of International Religious Freedom; 
and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.
  The annual ``Country Reports'' on human rights contain detailed, 
country-specific narratives of human rights violations targeting 
Muslims. The ``Annual Report on International Religious Freedom'' 
details anti-Muslim abuses and U.S. Government policy to address such 
challenges.
  In addition, the current nominee to serve as the Ambassador at Large 
for International Religious Freedom, Rashad Hussain, is a prominent 
Muslim American.
  Madam Speaker, the lack of a special envoy is not a sign of bigotry. 
In fact, there is no special envoy for the hundreds of millions of 
Christians who face dangerous persecution today. Also, there is no 
special envoy for the Hindus or the Buddhists or the Baha'is or the 
Yazidis or many other people of faith who experience persecution.
  We have heard a lot from the other side about the office and special 
envoy on anti-Semitism, and I imagine that we will continue to hear 
about this during this debate. But while the wording of today's bill is 
modeled after the two prior anti-Semitism bills, the process has been 
completely different and inadequate.
  Both bills, in 2004 and 2020, came after dedicated hearings showing 
the need for specialized legislation. The second bill is based on 16 
years of experience before a Senate-confirmed special envoy was added.
  In stark contrast, today's bill is the result of a hurried, partisan 
push over the last 6 days. This legislation was introduced less than 2 
months ago. We have not held any hearings focused on whether the new 
State Department bureaucracy is needed or useful to counter anti-Muslim 
hate.
  Finally, today we received the oddest Statement of Administration 
Policy that I can ever recall, basically saying that while the 
administration supports passage of the bill, it would like for this 
bill to be rewritten. This State Department would like for this bill to 
be rewritten. Why aren't we consulting with the State Department to get 
this bill right before we throw it on the House floor and pass it with 
such haste?
  In it, the administration also says that it wants to include language 
to ``ensure the Secretary of State has the necessary flexibility and 
permissive authority to designate such an office and special envoy.'' 
In other words, the administration doesn't want to be required to 
create this office and position, as this bill mandates.
  Combating religious persecution against all people of faith, 
including Muslims, is a serious issue, and it deserves the kind of 
serious attention that draws bipartisan support. I also believe that a 
definition for clarity as to what Islamophobia is and how it would 
apply should be done through the legislative intent of the Congress and 
not left up to the bureaucracy in the State Department.
  Unfortunately, the text has been rushed to the floor. It is vague and 
redundant, as I have said. For that reason, I do oppose it.
  I am going to get, later, into some definitions of Islamophobia from 
various scholars and lawyerly articles that really bring out how vague 
this term is. We are not saying we are protecting against persecution 
of Muslims or international human rights for Muslims. It is 
Islamophobia that I think draws the most scrutiny to this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. Omar), the sponsor of this most timely bill.
  Ms. OMAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, today, I rise because we are in the midst of a 
staggering rise of anti-Muslim violence and discrimination around the 
world. At its worst, it is Uyghurs in concentration camps in China and 
genocide against the Rohingya in Burma. But those atrocities are part 
of a deeper fabric of violence against Muslims and impunity for 
violence against Muslims at a global level.
  In India, Prime Minister Modi's government has moved to strip 
citizenship from millions of Muslims. In Sri Lanka, anti-Muslim laws 
and violence have imposed terror on the community. In Hungary, Belarus, 
and Poland, politicians have stoked fear of Muslim migrants and 
refugees. In New Zealand and Canada, white supremacist violence has 
targeted Muslims, including at their places of worship. And, of course, 
we in the United States are not immune to this hatred.
  It is no secret that the previous President of the United States 
explicitly vowed ``a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering 
the United States.'' But Trump was simply taking advantage of a deeper 
culture of Islamophobia that has existed for the past two decades, from 
the PATRIOT Act to the CVE program to Abu Ghraib.

                              {time}  1830

  None of these things are happening in isolation. We must understand 
that these problems are interlinked. In fact, earlier this year the 
United Nations commissioned a report and concluded that Islamophobia 
has reached ``epidemic proportions,'' and urged nations around the 
world to take all necessary measures to combat it.
  As a country that was founded on religious liberty, our leadership on 
international religious freedom depends on

[[Page H7797]]

recognizing that Islamophobia is global in scope and we must lead the 
global effort to address it. That is why Representative Schakowsky and 
I have introduced this bill, to create a special envoy for monitoring 
and combating Islamophobia at the State Department.
  This bill also adds violence and incitement targeted at Muslims to 
the State Department's annual human rights report and international 
religious freedom report.
  There are cynics who would rather see us divided on racial, ethnic, 
gender, and religious lines because it suits their political agenda. 
But I believe as Americans we should stand united against all forms of 
bigotry.
  In fact, this legislation is modeled on the special envoy to combat 
anti-Semitism, and I was proud to cosponsor and vote last Congress on 
legislation to elevate that envoy to a cabinet-level position.
  Because it is important, Madam Speaker, that we live in a world where 
everyone is free of persecution based on their religious background and 
beliefs. And until everyone is free to practice their religion, no one 
is.
  I want to thank the colead of this bill, a partner in justice, 
Representative Jan Schakowsky, along with Chairman Meeks, Speaker 
Pelosi, and the leadership team for their commitment to this 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I also want to thank the Council on American-Islamic 
Relations for their advocacy on this, and all the groups representing a 
cross-section of human rights, civil rights, and faith coalitions, who 
fight for religious rights for everyone around the world.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening in opposition to H.R. 
5665.
  All Americans can agree that persecution against any person or any 
group on the basis of religion is wrong. Religious tolerance is a 
fundamental value upon which this Nation was founded, which is why the 
free exercise of religion is protected in the very first amendment to 
our Constitution.
  That same fundamental principle is why I persistently, in a 
bipartisan manner, supported the Rohingya Muslims who have been 
oppressed, victimized, and suffered genocide at the hands of the 
Burmese military. This principle also explains why the Ambassador At 
Large for International Religious Freedom and two other human rights 
offices at the State Department are already doing the work called for 
in this legislation.
  However, the reasons to oppose this bill go beyond mere redundancy. 
It is also significantly flawed because Democrats have refused to 
include a definition of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement--the 
very subject matter the bill purports to address. In fact, Democrats 
voted down an amendment that I offered in committee to exclude 
legitimate criticism from what counts as Islamophobia.
  As a result, this bill doesn't make it clear whether the term 
Islamophobia includes, for example, criticizing radical Islamic 
terrorist groups or calling out the persecution of Christians. Is it 
Islamophobic to oppose unacceptably intolerant blasphemy laws, or 
criticize those who call for the destruction of Israel?
  What about criticizing the Taliban's brutal repression of women, or 
condemning those who deny the Holocaust, as Iran's Supreme Leader has 
repeatedly done?
  While clearly, none of these criticisms should be considered 
Islamophobic, it is deeply concerning that this bill's supporters have 
refused to protect such legitimate free speech. Thus, this legislation 
could be used to label almost any criticism of Islam, including 
criticism of Sharia law as Islamophobic.
  It is almost as if its goal is to shut down all debate and protect 
Islam from any criticism in polite society. Thus, we get to the core 
problem of this bill--it treats the persecution of Muslims as uniquely 
unacceptable. Let's face it, pretty much every religion faces 
persecution, as anyone who has studied history can attest.
  Arguably, Christians endured global persecution equal to or worse 
than Muslims. Further, Hindus, the Falun Gong, the Baha'is, Tibetan 
Buddhists, even atheists all experience repression on some corner of 
the globe. While Muslims do face heinous genocides in China and Burma, 
Christians and Yazidis also faced genocide at the hands of the Islamic 
State not long ago.
  Finally, this legislation ill-advisedly evaluates the persecution of 
Muslims to a special category similar to the legislation that created 
the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism. Unlike alleged Islamophobia, 
anti-Semitism is a truly unique problem. In the aftermath of the 
Holocaust, the world realized just how pernicious anti-Semitism was and 
has been for centuries, and rightly sought to eliminate it.
  Putting Islamophobia in the same category as anti-Semitism 
dramatically understates, even trivializes the historic and pervasive 
nature that makes anti-Semitism such a difficult problem to overcome. 
Such a dangerous false equivalence might be used by extremists to 
justify further anti-Semitic activity.
  Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
legislation.
  Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, let me just reply to Mr. McCaul earlier 
that the anti-Semitism legislation was introduced on January 3 of 2019, 
passed the House on January 11 of 2019. There were no hearings that 
were held that last Congress before we passed the vote, and there was 
no markup, as we had in our committee this year at all.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Schakowsky), the cosponsor of this legislation.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise as a proud colead of the 
Combating International Islamophobia Act.
  In the United States alone, nearly 70 percent of American Muslims 
have reported personally experiencing anti-Muslim hate, bigotry, and 
even violence. This anti-Muslim hate isn't just confined to certain 
communities and areas of this country. It has reached out in ugly ways, 
including in my own community, in my own district, to a member of my 
staff and her family.
  My colleagues and friends in Congress know that Congresswoman Ilhan 
Omar, the chief sponsor of this legislation, knows all about this in 
far too personal a way. She has been subjected to relentless attacks 
and horrifying threats, not just from her fellow Americans, but even 
within the Halls of Congress. Enough is enough.
  This should not be a controversial bill. We have had a special envoy 
to monitor and combat anti-Semitism for years, and I proudly support 
that office's work. As a Jew myself, I see the parallel quite directly 
between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and we need to be combating 
both.
  As a Nation that prides itself on defending human rights and standing 
up against hate and bigotry, creating a special envoy to monitor and 
combat Islamophobia makes perfect sense.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to do what is right, which is to vote ``yes'' on the Combating 
International Islamophobia Act.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent south central 
Pennsylvania, where there is a large community of Ahmadiyya Muslims, 
the most persecuted--the most persecuted Muslims--in the Muslim faith, 
but yet there is nothing in this bill to safeguard them.
  As a matter of fact, many of my colleagues have and will continue to 
speak about the lack of definition because it is going to be made up, 
ladies and gentlemen, it is just going to be made up based on your 
political proclivities. You are either going to be persecuted or you 
are not, depending on who you are and who you vote for.
  Let's face it, aside from the attempts to placate an anti-Semitic 
Member of this Chamber, all that is really happening here is that House 
Democrats are deflecting from the real issue confronting the House of 
Representatives, and that is that the maker of this bill has no 
business sitting on House committees, has no business in this Chamber--
a myriad of anti-Semitic comments and those of support of violence and 
terrorisms against the United States are wholly unacceptable. But we 
are not going to deal with that because we are going to deal with this.

[[Page H7798]]

  Let's not forget the moment the author of this bill breathtakingly 
referred to the murder of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 by Islamist 
terrorists as some people who did some thing--some people who did 
something.
  During last week's markup of this legislation in the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, I was assailed by my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, they told me I was Islamophobic, nasty, mean, and rude. Why?
  Because I offered amendments that would have prevented American tax 
dollars from going to organizations with ties to terrorism. Ties to 
terrorism. You would think that that would be something we could agree 
on because we all agree that nobody should be persecuted based on their 
faith. We all agree on that.
  But American taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay terrorist 
organizations; organizations that the maker of this bill is affiliated 
with, like the one that is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest 
terror finance case in the United States of America's history. Not 
because I say so, because the judge says so.
  By intentionally leaving the definition of Islamophobia blank in this 
bill, the gentlelady and my friends on the other side of the aisle are 
creating an office in our State Department that will likely spew anti-
Semitic hatred and attack Western ideas throughout the world under the 
farce of protecting Islam.
  As you can see by this debate, the goal is to silence dissent and 
critics of terrorism.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, we want to take down the words. I ask that 
the words be taken down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will take 
his seat.

                                 (1945)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       You are either going to be persecuted or you are not, 
     depending on who you are and who you vote for.
       Let's face it, aside from the attempts to placate an anti-
     Semitic Member of this Chamber, all that is really happening 
     here is House Democrats are deflecting from the real issue 
     confronting the House of Representatives, and that is that 
     the maker of this bill has no business sitting on House 
     committees, has no business in this Chamber--a myriad of 
     anti-Semitic comments and those of support of violence and 
     terrorisms against the United States are wholly unacceptable. 
     But we are not going to deal with that because we are going 
     to deal with this.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will further report the words.
  The Clerk continued to read as follows:

       But American taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay terrorist 
     organizations; organizations that the maker of this bill is 
     affiliated with, like the one that is an unindicted co-
     conspirator in the largest terror finance case in the United 
     States of America's history. Not because I say so, because 
     the judge says so.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule. The words 
from the gentleman from Pennsylvania contain an allegation that the 
``maker of the bill'' is affiliated with a terrorist organization. This 
remark impugns the patriotism or loyalty of a Member of the House, 
which is not in order as stated in section 370 of the House Rules and 
Manual. The gentleman from Pennsylvania also alleges that the ``maker 
of the bill'' is anti-Semitic. This remark constitutes an allegation of 
discrimination, which is not in order as stated in section 370 of the 
House Rules and Manual. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is the sponsor 
of this measure, H.R. 5665, as reflected in the official records of the 
House. Therefore, the Chair finds that the remarks constitute 
personalities directed toward an identifiable Member.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BIGGS. I have several inquiries, if I might. I am not trying to 
press. I am trying to understand.
  The first one is did the Speaker and the Parliamentarian distinguish 
or identify by the term ``author'' of the bill, ``maker'' of the bill, 
or ``sponsor'' of the bill when making its ruling and determination in 
this case?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has addressed that in the ruling.
  Does the gentleman have an additional inquiry?
  Mr. BIGGS. Yes, I do. Thank you.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. BIGGS. My question is regarding the determination that these 
words were nonparliamentary. What is the extent of the protection of 
the debate and speech clause, vis-a-vis, for instance, when we have had 
a resolution to strip a Member of committee, another resolution to 
strip a different Member of committee this year. And during the debate 
of that we had all kinds of aspersions and comments, and if these 
allegations, which were put forward by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
are accurate and can be defended, was that taken into account in both 
the context and his terms, this taking into account, when you made the 
determination that his speech was nonparliamentary.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not going to provide an 
advisory opinion.
  Mr. BIGGS. I am not asking for an advisory opinion. I am asking what 
you took into account with the Parliamentarian to determine that his 
words were nonparliamentary. That is what I am asking. And I have given 
you context and relationship of previous actions, and I have asked for 
specifically how you limited the speech and debate clause here, and 
whether the fact that he has documentation to prove his assertions or 
not or whether they are relevant.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair relied on section 370 of the House 
Rules and Manual as stated in the ruling.
  Mr. BIGGS. Thank you.
  Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis) a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong 
support of passage of H.R. 5665, and commend its sponsor, 
Representative Omar, and my colleague from Illinois, Representative 
Schakowsky, for its introduction.
  I was taught early in life to accentuate the positive, eliminate the 
negative, and don't mess around with Mister-In-Between.
  This resolution reaffirms many of the principles in practice that we 
have been taught and learned that religion is sacrosanct, that religion 
is sacred, and every person deserves to have their religious thoughts, 
ideas, and ideology protected.
  I urge support and passage of this legislation.
  Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee, (Mr. Burchett), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. BURCHETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I oppose this bill, Madam Speaker, because it is redundant and will 
grow a State Department bureaucracy that is already overgrown. This is 
the same State Department that already has two bureaus tasked with this 
issue.
  I wish someone would tell me what exactly it is these bureaucrats are 
doing now, since they now need a third department to help them do their 
job.
  These are the same State Department bureaucrats who spent 4 years 
undermining the foreign policy of a Republican President from deep 
within the government. Now they are getting a pass from the Biden 
administration to be soft on China, soft on Russia, and of course, soft 
on Iran.
  And the Democrats in the House want us to spend even more taxpayer 
money on this already bloated bureaucracy, Madam Speaker.
  For my friends across the aisle, the solution always seems to be 
throwing more money at a problem.
  After 3 years in the House, I am beginning to realize that, for the 
Democrats in Congress, our tax dollars are nothing more than political 
duct tape. The problem with duct tape, Madam Speaker, is it does not 
actually fix anything, contrary to what some people believe. Like 
growing government and spending more money, duct tape is not a 
solution.
  So here is an idea I wish my friends across the aisle and President 
Biden would consider: Rather than feeding the beast, let's cut the 
State Department's budget until the bureaucrats

[[Page H7799]]

deep within decide to get back to work for the American people.
  Instead of pushing a woke globalist agenda, Secretary of State 
Blinkin needs to call his workers back to the office, rather than 
letting them continue to stay home while passports and visa 
applications go unprocessed for American citizens and visitors.
  Let's not waste our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars playing 
politics. Our government is big enough. We can do without another 
dadgum bureaucracy at the State Department.
  Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, Islamophobia is a problem 
across the world, including in my own district, where one of the many 
mosques that I represent was vandalized last year.
  It is a problem in this body, where only four Muslims have ever 
served, and where the most visible among them, Congresswoman Omar, has 
been the subject of horrible anti-Muslim attacks.
  And it is obviously a problem abroad, even rising to the level of 
genocide in Burma and China.
  I am a Jewish Member of Congress who considers fighting all forms of 
oppression and all instances of religious discrimination core to my 
faith.
  Mr. Speaker, let's all come together and reaffirm that cardinal 
American value, freedom of religion. Let's pass this law as a step 
towards protecting the rights of the world's 1.8 million Muslims and an 
integral part of our work to win freedom and security for all people 
everywhere.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, Islamophobia 
is wrong, just as anti-Semitism, anti-Christian hatred, and all forms 
of discrimination based on race or religion are wrong.
  But this bill, despite whatever the author and defenders of this 
legislation claim as its purpose or their intent, is not targeted to 
counter actual Islamophobia.
  In fact, this bill is so poorly drafted, any objective analysis of it 
raises serious concerns about what the true intentions of the bill are 
because it specifically does not define Islamophobia.
  This lack of definition not only risks confusing U.S. foreign policy, 
but it also would compromise U.S. counterterrorism efforts and 
undermine our national security.
  What we need, Mr. Speaker, and what this bill fails to provide is 
moral clarity. We don't need nuance or political correctness or 
silencing debate or censorship on the issue of radical Islamic 
terrorism. What we need is intellectual and moral clarity.

                              {time}  2000

  Before 9/11, radical Islamic terrorists were at war with the United 
States. That was before 9/11. Since then, radical Islamic terrorists 
have been at war with the United States.
  Now, you may wish that wasn't the case, but it is a historical fact. 
If you cannot even acknowledge who the enemy is or that we are at war 
with them, then how can you expect to defeat that enemy?
  We must face the truth, the truth that there is a very real struggle 
within the Islamic world between religious tolerance, the purported 
goal of this bill, and an evil, toxic intolerance, the potential 
byproduct of this bill that says if you are a Christian or if you are a 
Jew or if you are a moderate Muslim, then you must be destroyed.
  This bill, either unintentionally or by design, gives voice to this 
toxic religious intolerance by failing to exclude from the definition 
of Islamophobia any policy or viewpoint that rejects radical Islamic 
terrorism.
  This ideology of evil and extreme religious intolerance must be 
confronted with clarity, as much as each individual act of terrorism. 
And an overinclusive definition of Islamophobia threatens to encourage 
the very extremism that we all say we oppose.
  Is it Islamophobia to criticize the Taliban, a self-proclaimed 
Islamic organization, when they commit grave human rights abuses and 
oppress women?
  Is it Islamophobia to criticize rejoining the Joint Comprehensive 
Plan of Action when talking about the malign, theocratic Islamic 
Republic of Iran, the leaders of which chant, ``Death to America,'' and 
promise the destruction of the State of Israel?
  Is it Islamophobia to condemn Hamas when they are firing rockets on 
innocent Israelis from Gaza?
  Is it Islamophobia to criticize someone who dismissively, derisively, 
and defensively refers to 9/11 hijackers as ``people who did some 
things''?
  These actions are not Islamophobic. These are beliefs motivated out 
of security and fact. However, we are voting shortly on a bill that 
actually does combat Islamophobia, real Islamophobia, a bipartisan bill 
to combat the forced labor of Uyghur people and the systemic genocide 
of peaceful Muslim minorities by the Chinese Communist Party.
  Mr. Speaker, that bill makes a clear, defined difference. This bill 
does not. Simply saying we are against Islamophobia without clearly and 
correctly defining it and establishing an office within the State 
Department to combat it without safeguards against the relativist views 
of the politically correct is an invitation to weaponize our foreign 
policy against itself. We must deal with this problem as it is, not as 
we would hope it to be.
  History teaches us that when Islamic extremists and jihadists are not 
fought, they grow. Their movement metastasizes. The longer they are not 
confronted, the more they become emboldened. The more they are appeased 
and tolerated, the more they overrun territories in the areas they 
occupy and secure safe havens from which they can launch attacks 
against the United States and the West.
  As a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I was more than 
disappointed that my Democratic colleagues, many of whom I respect 
very, very much, rejected a good faith amendment in our markup to 
clearly define what Islamophobia actually is.
  We do have a Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism who 
works off an internationally adopted definition of anti-Semitism. But 
the way this bill is structured fails to acknowledge that a policy of 
countering jihad is not, never has been, and never will be 
Islamophobia. And the bill establishes an office that would actually 
undermine the very mission of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat 
Anti-Semitism.
  In sum, this bill, without definitional restraint, will invite anti-
Semitism and anti-Christian bias into State Department decisionmaking, 
and it will do so under the guise of combating Islamophobia. That is 
what this bill will do without definition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kildee). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. BARR. Maybe this bill is well-intentioned, but if we don't agree 
to some kind of definition, if we do not provide some clarity--moral 
clarity, intellectual clarity--as to who the enemy is versus what 
Islamophobia is, then what we have here in this bill is a wolf in 
sheep's clothing. Nuance and political correctness will not help us 
defeat our enemy, and it leaves peaceful practitioners of Islam robbed 
of the definition that they truly deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
legislation.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, clearly, we are not here to talk about 
criticism. We are here to talk about persecution. We are here to talk 
about anti-Muslim hate. We are even here to talk about genocide. And we 
should know it when we see it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
5665, the Combating International Islamophobia Act. I thank my friend, 
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, for her leadership on this issue, and also 
Chairman Meeks and the Speaker for bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill creates mechanisms for the State Department to 
monitor and combat international

[[Page H7800]]

Islamophobia. There are approximately 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, 
including 3.5 million Muslims in the United States.
  Now, the truth is, while Islamophobia is not a new phenomenon, anti-
Muslim violence has increased significantly over the past 20 years. 
Just ask any Muslim what Islamophobia is.
  We have seen incidents such as the terrorist attacks on mosques in 
New Zealand, atrocities against the Uyghurs in China, and Islamophobic 
laws in France that prevent girls from wearing the hijab in public.

  The United Nations Human Rights Council now says that discrimination 
and hatred toward Muslims have risen to epidemic portions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, whether in the Halls of Congress, 
our districts, or across the world, we will not tolerate Islamophobia. 
We know what it is. We must work together to end this bigotry.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5665.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).
  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5665. 
Bringing this bill to the floor is nothing more than empty theatrics 
from Democrats.
  Our Nation has delivered more freedom, opportunity, and liberty to 
more people around the world than any nation in our history. We have 
served as the arsenal of democracy and a liberator of oppressed people 
because we are a good and just nation founded on fundamental, God-given 
liberties. Included among those, as part of our very first amendment, 
is the freedom of speech.
  Our Nation has lost precious treasure of our fellow countrymen to 
free people from the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism. We need only 
look at what has happened to women in Afghanistan since Biden's 
disastrous and botched departure. Women are being stoned to death in 
the street for having the gall to be educated. Women are forced into 
marriages with blood-thirsty Taliban savages to serve as breeders of 
the next jihad.
  The fight against these kinds of atrocities deserves plainspoken and 
hard truths be told. Instead, the other side would like to sterilize 
free speech and determine what words are allowed under their Orwellian 
tyranny.
  Our Nation and the world deserve so much better than this ridiculous 
attempt to stifle free speech. There is tremendous evil in this world. 
Every day that evil is trying to infiltrate and undermine our 
exceptional Nation.
  I will never shy away from calling out evil ideologies, and I will 
never back down from speaking against them and how they are used to 
oppress women, children, and the vulnerable. We must stay committed to 
opposing heinous acts of violence directed at any religious group 
around the world, but the fact is, the State Department is already 
doing this.
  This bill brought to the floor today is for one purpose only: to 
appease the hurt feelings of Members who themselves have well-
documented backgrounds of anti-American and anti-Semitic remarks.
  I rise against this bill just as I will rise against any attempts to 
weaken our rights, diminish our liberties, and distract this body from 
dealing with real issues to strengthen our Nation and empower our 
people.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Combating International 
Islamophobia Act.
  This legislation creates an office to monitor and combat Islamophobia 
at the Department of State. In recent years, we have seen tragedies 
like the 2019 Christchurch shooting, as well as the state-sponsored 
persecution of Uyghurs in China.
  My hometown of Dearborn, Michigan, has a very large Muslim community, 
and it is also a constant target of Islamophobic hate. There have been 
thousands of documented complaints of anti-Muslim hate and bias in the 
United States this year alone. In my community are good-standing 
Americans. They are afraid and fearful of these actions, and I have 
heard from constituents who are afraid of visiting their mosques or 
going to events as a result.
  Passing this bill sends a strong message about our shared commitment 
to safeguarding religious liberty worldwide.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Representative from 
the great State of Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise as a Christian to 
say as-salamu alaykum, which means peace be upon you.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5665 addresses the age-old question: Am I my 
brother's and, I might add, sister's keeper?
  If the answer is yes, then what do we do about it when our brothers 
and our sisters are being victimized by Islamophobia--threatened, 
murdered, killed?

  Mr. Speaker, you can't be your brothers' or sisters' keeper without 
keeping your brothers and your sisters.
  H.R. 5665 addresses this by establishing an office to monitor and 
combat Islamophobia in the Department of State. H.R. 5665 does 
something such that we can be our brothers' and our sisters' keepers.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of it, and I close with 
Allah hafiz. May God protect you.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Correa).
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong support of the 
Combating International Islamophobia Act.
  A recent report in California found that 56 percent of the students 
in California feel unsafe in their school because of their Muslim 
religious identity. That is not the America I know. Our Nation stands 
for many freedoms, including the freedom of religion.
  I am a proud sponsor of this legislation to create a special envoy to 
fight anti-Muslim hate crimes in the U.S. and abroad.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5665, Combating 
International Islamophobia Act.
  I have listened to my friends on the other side of the aisle, and 
they are my friends. I hope that we will have the opportunity to work 
together for what the values of America stand for.
  I have heard my colleagues recount the various efforts of inhumane 
treatment of Muslims around the world. This is an important statement 
made by America, to create the position of special envoy for monitoring 
and combating Islamophobia that will be responsible for tracking and 
coordinating efforts to combat Islamophobia. Also, it would require the 
State Department's annual ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices'' 
to include acts of Islamophobia.

                              {time}  2015

  With 1 billion Muslims, the reason why I support this legislation is 
the statement it makes to the world about the values of this country, 
and the values of this country should be grounded in the fact that the 
religious freedom of all should be respected.
  Then, finally, I am really overwhelmed by the constant battering of 
our colleague, Ilhan Omar. To make her the center point of opposition 
in this place is beneath the dignity of this House. So by passing this 
legislation, let the world know that America's values are valuing 
religious freedom and that we stand against the abuse of Muslims around 
the world as well as here in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. I thank the 
chairman for his leadership, and I ask my colleagues, Republicans and 
Democrats, to support H.R. 5665.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5665, the Combating 
International Islamophobia Act,

[[Page H7801]]

which will address the increasing number of incidents of Islamophobia 
around the world.
  Specifically, this bill will:
  Create the position of Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating 
Islamophobia, who will be responsible for tracking and coordinating 
efforts to combat Islamophobia abroad; and
  Require that the State Department's annual country reports on human 
rights practices and annual Report on International Religious Freedom 
include, wherever possible, assessments of the nature and extent of 
acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement that occur abroad.
  As Islamophobia rises globally, it is vital that the State Department 
have senior personnel in place charged with understanding, reporting 
on, and combating this scourge worldwide.
  In recent decades, we have seen a staggering rise in incidents of 
violent Islamophobia worldwide.
  Whether it is the atrocities being committed against the Uyghurs in 
China and the Rohingya in Burma, the brutal crackdowns on Muslim 
populations in India and Sri Lanka, the scapegoating of Muslim refugees 
and other Muslims in Hungary and Poland, the acts of white supremacist 
violence targeting Muslims in New Zealand and Canada, or the targeting 
of minority Muslim communities in Muslim-majority countries like 
Pakistan, Bahrain, and Iran, it is time for us as policymakers to 
understand these problems as interconnected and genuinely global.
  A staggering number of people have experienced anti-Muslim hate in 
their lifetime; a number that has only inflated since 9/11.
  America is home to one of the most diverse Muslim populations in the 
world, including people of almost every ethnicity, country, and school 
of thought.
  Approximately one third of the community is African American, one 
third is of South Asian descent, one quarter is of Arab descent, and 
the rest are from all over the world, including a growing Latino Muslim 
population.
  While exact numbers are difficult to establish, there are between 3-6 
million American Muslims. About one half of this population was born in 
the U.S., a percentage that continues to grow as immigration slows and 
younger individuals start having families.
  American Muslims are present in all walks of life, as doctors and 
taxi drivers; lawyers and newspaper vendors; and accountants, 
homemakers, academics, media personalities, athletes, and entertainers.
  Although American Muslims make up approximately one percent of the 
U.S. population, most Americans can name several famous American 
Muslims. Names like Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Mos Def, Fareed Zakaria, 
Shaquille O'Neal, Lupe Fiasco, Dr. Oz, and Rima Fakih are part of our 
popular consciousness.
  Important business figures like Farooq Kathwari (CEO of Ethan Allen), 
Malik M. Hasan (a pioneer in the field of HMOs), and Safi Qureshey (a 
leader in PC component manufacturing) are all American Muslims.
  Many American Muslims are also civically engaged, working with their 
neighbors to better their communities. Well-known American Muslim 
leaders include Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL-Minn.), the first American 
Muslim to be elected to the U.S. Congress; Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.); 
Mohammed Hameeduddin (Mayor, Teaneck, N.J.); and Amer Ahmad 
(Comptroller, Chicago).
  Nevertheless, levels of Islamophobia are so high that the United 
Nations Human Rights Council has declared it an issue of ``epidemic 
proportions.''
  Atrocities have been occurring across the globe, from hate-messages 
spray-painted on buildings in America to the violent genocide of the 
Uyghurs in China.
  The United States State Department estimated that up to 2 million 
members of Muslim minorities have experienced a system on detention 
centers in Xinjiang, known political indoctrination, forced labor, 
torture, and sexual abuse.
  The US, UK, and Canada have accused China of committing genocide and 
crimes against humanity against Muslim populations at Xinjiang.
  In 2018, UN investigators accused the Myanmar's military of carrying 
out mass killings of Muslim populations with ``genocidal intent.''
  There are reports of attacks on mosques in India and Iran, a history 
of anti-Muslim sentiments and attacks in Sri Lanka, police targeting 
against Shia Muslims in Pakistan, massacres of Muslim people in New 
Zealand, and Islamophobic hate-speech in Canada.
  This global injustice must be addressed and rectified and the United 
States must step up to spearhead the movement.
  We need to establish a comprehensive plan for combating Islamophobia 
not only to ensure the religious freedom and human rights of Muslims, 
but to protect against a threat to international religious freedom and 
democratic principles.
  The Combating International Islamophobia Act will require the State 
Department to create a Special Envoy for monitoring and combating 
Islamophobia answering the call of the American Muslim community for 
the past two decades.
  The envoy will work with domestic and international nongovernmental 
organizations and institutions to carry out its directives.
  The special envoy will give reports on acts of physical violence or 
harassment against Muslim people as well as acts of vandalism of Muslim 
community institutions like schools, mosques, and cemeteries.
  Regarding anti-Muslim government actions, the envoy will monitor 
instances of propaganda in media that attempt to justify or promote 
racial hatred or incite acts of violence against Muslim people.
  With the new wealth of information this envoy will bring, 
policymakers will have a better understanding of the interconnected, 
global problem of anti-Muslim bigotry.
  As part of our commitment to international religious freedom and 
human rights, we must recognize Islamophobia as a pattern that is 
repeating in nearly every corner of the globe.
  It is past time for the United States to stand firmly in favor of 
religious freedom for all, and to give the global problem of 
Islamophobia the attention and prioritization it deserves.
  Mr. McCAUL. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the 
great State of Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
  Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of emotions as I stand before 
you today.
  This bill is a strong step toward combating Islamophobia, but it is 
only a start. The reality today is that Muslim Americans still face 
constant abuse right here at home. While it is great to fight 
Islamophobia abroad, we need to be honest with ourselves about how 
widespread this disgusting and bigoted anti-Muslim hate is right here 
in our own country.
  Simply put, my two sons and children across our country deserve to 
grow up in a country where their religion, their faith, will not be 
used as an excuse to target them and endanger their lives and freedoms.
  Muslims across our country deserve Representatives on both sides of 
the aisle who will embrace them and who will love them for who they 
are, not those who encourage religious violence for their own political 
gain.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my fellow Americans who believe in a 
free, inclusive, and accepting country, know that we will win this 
fight. The actions of a hateful group of individuals in our country and 
in this body are out of touch from the vast majority of our Americans 
and neighbors who are good, decent people who reject this violent White 
nationalist hate and will put party aside to protect one another from 
this bigotry.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman   Gregory Meeks, of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to 
the floor which addresses an issue of faith, of values, and of our 
country.
  The House comes together, hopefully, in a spirit of unity--I would 
have hoped--and patriotism to condemn and combat Islamophobia and all 
forms of racism, prejudice, and discrimination.
  Listening to the debate, I heard Mr.   Danny Davis earlier as he was 
singing ``don't mess with Mister In-Between'' talking about religion 
and talking about how it should be off-limits and people's religion 
should be respected. I know--and probably it is true of everyone here--
the respect we have for our own faith and our own religion enables us 
to appreciate the faith and respect people have for their faith. That 
is why this is so sad because it is an attack on the faith of one of 
our Members.
  Sadly, but clearly, Islamophobia is a sinister, growing, and for too 
many American Muslims, a constant presence in our Nation.
  To just review some of the figures: Nearly 70 percent of American 
Muslims have personally experienced anti-Muslim discrimination since 
September 11.
  Thousands of documented acts of anti-Muslim bigotry and violence are 
recorded each year, with many thousands unreported.
  Attacks are growing more common and more brazen--from vandalism of

[[Page H7802]]

mosques, to physical assaults on women wearing hijabs, to hate speech 
from public officials, to bullying and violence of children at schools. 
Think of how the children hear this.
  As we all know, this bigotry has targeted one of our own--shamefully, 
from within this congressional community. Racism and bigotry of any 
form, including Islamophobia, must always be called out and condemned 
in any place it is found. This is particularly true in the Halls of 
Congress which are the very heart of our democracy and where we have a 
responsibility under the rules of the House to behave in a way that 
brings dignity to this body.
  Our first President, George Washington--there he is looking over us--
over 230 years ago in a letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport 
wrote: ``For happily the Government of the United States, which gives 
to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only 
that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as 
good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.'' 
He, himself, was defining what is the right way to live. Indeed, 
bigotry and persecution have always been un-American as demonstrated by 
our patriarch, George Washington.
  Anti-Muslim bigotry affects not only Members but many other members 
of our congressional community. As hundreds of Muslim staffers wrote in 
a letter last week, Mr. Speaker, they said ``hateful rhetoric by public 
officials directly impacts us and puts our safety at risk, both at the 
workplace and in our everyday lives.''
  The Muslim staffers whom we value here further said: ``We must now 
come to work every day knowing that the same Members and staff who 
perpetuate Islamophobic tropes and insinuate that we are terrorists 
also walk by us in the Halls of Congress.''
  It is really frightening.
  Disturbingly, Islamophobia is not a unique American experience but a 
global scourge. Earlier this year, the U.N. Human Rights Council 
declared that discrimination against Muslims has risen to epidemic 
proportions. Around the world, we see tragedy and tragic consequences 
of anti-Muslim attitudes: the genocide against the Uyghur people and 
other Muslim minorities in China, atrocities committed against the 
Rohingya in Burma, attacks on Muslim refugees in central Europe and 
white supremacist violence against Muslims in New Zealand and Canada, 
the targeting of Muslim minority communities in western Asia and the 
Middle East.
  We must confront Islamophobia or any form of racism wherever it is 
found--around the world, in our country, or even in these very Halls.
  This legislation will not only address the rise in incidents of 
Islamophobia worldwide but launch a plan to combat this bigotry.
  I thank Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky and Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for 
their leadership in advancing equity, justice, and dignity in our 
Congress, in America, and in the world with this action. I thank also 
the Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, Gregory Meeks, for his support 
of this important action.

  With this bill's passage, Mr. Speaker, a special envoy for monitoring 
and combating Islamophobia will be created, just as the State 
Department has special envoys on anti-Semitism and international 
religious freedom. That is something we have always shared in this 
body, across the aisle and across the Capitol in a bipartisan way, 
support for and respect for religious freedom at home and 
internationally.
  This special envoy created here will be charged with establishing a 
comprehensive strategy to combat Islamophobia worldwide. The State 
Department's annual human rights reports will be expanded to include 
state sponsors of Islamophobic violence and impunity.
  As a nation that prides itself on the defense of human rights and 
dignity, we must be leaders both on the global stage and at home by 
example to combat violence against Muslims.
  Again, Islamophobia in any place is offensive, dangerous, and must be 
condemned; and Islamophobia in our own congressional community--
specifically, the repeated, ongoing, and targeted Islamophobic comments 
and actions against another Member as we witnessed this past year--is 
appalling and totally unacceptable.
  That language and behavior are far beneath the dignity, integrity, 
and decency with which the Constitution and our constituents require 
that we act in this House. These actions must be called out and not 
tolerated.
  Mr. Speaker, every day that we are in session we begin with a prayer 
because we believe in our own way. Some don't believe, but by and 
large, most people here believe. We do so with reverence for our own 
religious beliefs and with respect for the beliefs of others. If we 
didn't have such strong beliefs in ourselves and our own religion, it 
would be okay and easy to believe that somebody might be frivolous 
about respecting someone else's devotion. But we do. We all profess to 
be people of faith.
  The House will continue to look into an array of options to address 
this priority and to take real action to combat Islamophobia as we have 
many times taken action to condemn anti-Semitism and other forms of 
bigotry.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman again for his leadership and 
Congresswoman Schakowsky, who was very much a part of this, and 
Congresswoman Omar; and I urge a strong, bipartisan vote on this 
important legislation.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from New York is prepared 
to close, I am ready to close.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just first say that all of us deplore anti-Muslim persecution. 
We are seeing a lot of that in Afghanistan today, especially the small 
children. We deplore violence on violence, Sunni against Shia. No one 
should ever be attacked or denied their human rights or dignity because 
of their faith. I believe both sides of the aisle agree on this, and I 
personally agree with the intent and the spirit of this bill.
  The United States Government is rightly committed to opposing these 
acts of violence that we have seen directed at Muslims around the 
world. The State Department has an office to do so.
  What I do object to, Mr. Speaker, is the unfortunate circumstance 
that the bill before us abandons the usual statutory language about 
violations of internationally recognized human rights. Instead, it uses 
this vague term, Islamophobia. Look it up on Wikipedia. It says it can 
mean many things.
  This Islamophobia is not defined. It is not that we are against the 
anti-Muslim persecution or against international human rights 
violations against Muslims, but rather this Islamophobia.
  In connection with that, I would like to quote a 2016 article from 
Columbia Law Review that states: ``There is no singular, cogent, or 
consensus definition of Islamophobia.''
  Similarly, the University of Oslo's Center for Research on Extremism 
calls Islamophobia a ``contested term.''
  These are law review articles, not mine.
  It goes on further to say: ``The term conflates opposition to Islam 
with prejudice toward Muslims.''
  These expert descriptions underscore the need for due diligence that 
this text has not yet received. I wish the minority had been given an 
opportunity to discuss this bill before it was thrown in on the markup, 
for we all oppose religious persecution against Muslims or any other 
faith. I am a Catholic. Any other believers in any faith should be 
protected from this hate speech and violence.
  So for those reasons, because the definition is not provided, 
Islamophobia is a very broad term that can be subject to many 
interpretations.
  If we don't define that in the Congress through legislative intent, 
who will?
  That means we cede our authority over to the executive branch, and 
then they write what Islamophobia means. I wish we had used different 
terms, terminologies that are in statute under law rather than 
something that is sort of borne on a Wikipedia page.

                              {time}  2030

  To me, that is not the way we legislate here. I have done a lot of 
great legislation with the chairman and the previous chairman of this 
committee, and I intend to keep doing that with him. I

[[Page H7803]]

appreciate our joint efforts to advance strong, responsible bipartisan 
legislation to protect religious freedom.
  We are going to have one of those bills coming up right after this 
one on the Uyghur Muslims, and I appreciate that. I know this has been 
a heated debate, and some things have been said today that could be 
offensive. This is not about one Member of Congress. This is about our 
ability to come together as Americans and come out with a strong 
bipartisan bill that makes sense so we can send the message around the 
world that this will not be tolerated, just as we are standing up for 
the Uyghur Muslims with the genocide bill and the bill that is going to 
follow this debate here today.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been a rigorous debate, and we expected this. I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McCaul for his statements. Yes, we work very 
closely together, as well as many Members in this House, especially on 
the House Foreign Affairs Committee, strong fighters on both sides of 
the aisle for human rights.
  The question that presents itself with this plain and simple bill 
that simply calls for us to establish an office to monitor and combat 
Islamophobia at the State Department is: Do we all agree? I think I 
have heard my colleagues on the other side say that Islamophobia is 
wrong. That means you know that Islamophobia exists.
  You know it when you see it. You know it when you feel it. You know 
it when you talk about the Uyghurs, the Rohingyas, or right here in the 
United States of America. There is a definition right there. You see 
it. They have said it. We have said it. Islamophobia exists.
  What we need to do is call it out. What we need to do is lock arms 
and stand together. This is an important bill. The camera of history is 
rolling on us. It is an important bill, and it is a bill of 
consequence. It should be of consequence to every human being on the 
planet, no matter your religion or no matter your race.
  It is important to nearly 2 billion Muslims in the world. We need to 
focus on what this bill does. Some of the proudest moments of mine--I 
live in and represent one of the most diverse districts in all the 
United States, in the most diverse county in the United States. I have 
seen ugliness raise its ugly head, whether it is racism, anti-Semitism, 
or Islamophobia.
  But the proud moment is when I see Muslims and Jews walking arm-in-
arm against Islamophobia and against anti-Semitism, when I see people 
of all races and nationalities standing together and not being silent.
  Inaction is unacceptable. We cannot stand idly by as atrocity after 
atrocity is inflicted on people of the Muslim faith, or any faith, for 
no reason other than bigotry against their religion.
  Freedom of religion is a human right. We can and must do better at 
combating Islamophobia here at home and abroad. I wish it was today, 
but I keep dreams and hopes alive that we will lock arms--we have good 
people here--and say in unison, as I have seen people do in my 
district, that we are going to call out Islamophobia wherever we see 
it, the same with racism and the same with anti-Semitism.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill that everybody is watching--we travel a lot on 
our committee. We know that people watch what is happening on this 
floor. They take it to their gut. I hope that they look at this bill 
and know that we are going to call it out and not accept it. Silence 
will not be accepted.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill that sends 
a clear signal about United States policy with respect to 
discrimination, especially violent, murderous discrimination against a 
whole class of people because of their ethnicity and/or religion.
  But the significance of this bill is much more profound; it moves us 
forward in terms of our self-definition as Americans.
  Our history is pockmarked with violent discrimination against groups 
that ``got in the way.'' Groups that challenged us to improve on the 
prevailing self-definition at the time.
  From Native Americans who were dehumanized, Chinese Americans denied 
citizenship and naturalization as a group in our immigration laws, 
African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Irish-Catholics discriminated 
against by Abolitionists.
  The intent of this bill goes to our self-definition as a nation, 
something every generation must revisit.
  By enshrining this in our State Department as a priority policy, that 
will be propounded with other nations, we make ourselves better too. We 
live up to our ideals as a people.
  I hope we rise above the partisan temptations to score points at the 
expense of a whole class of people, at the expense of people all around 
the world who we have never met but count on us to do the right thing 
on their behalf.
  This bill is important for those people who can't find their own 
voice, because they have been denied it, but let's use ours on their 
behalf. It will save lives and it will improve our own sense of 
identity, who we are, what it means to be American.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 849, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________