Michael McCaul

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz), the lead Republican on this resolution, who was born and raised in Ukraine. Her grandmother is still there and has told her the stories of Hitler and Stalin and how bad this situation is on the ground.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia, and Nonproliferation.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Pfluger), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

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

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

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for his remarks. I think it is very important this Chamber passes this resolution unanimously to send one voice to Putin that the American people stand for the Ukrainian people and against Mr. Putin. I think it is no coincidence--to me, it is fitting--that today is Texas Independence Day. My forefathers fought for freedom and liberty for the same purpose, from tyranny. Since 2014, the world has watched the Ukrainian people fight to forge their own destiny in the face of violent attacks by Russia. They are facing down Putin's missiles and tanks, risking life and limb for their freedom today. As President Zelensky warned the Russian troops invading his country just a few days ago, as he sits in the bunker, putting his life on the line, he said: ``If they try to take our country, our freedom, our lives, the lives of our children, we will be defending ourselves. . . . As you attack, it will be our faces you see, not our backs.'' Today, we have the opportunity to honor his leadership and the bravery of the Ukrainian people, to send a strong message to these brave men and women that they are not alone, that the United States stands with them and will continue to stand with them for as long as it takes. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote in support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCAUL

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

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Science to consider my amendment to ensure that this bill will not fund the Chinese Communist Party. I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. McCAUL. As I said yesterday, the generational threat of the Chinese Communist Party is a test, not only for our national security but for American values. Sadly, this bill fails that test. The CCP exploits our economy. They are building hypersonic weapons on the backbone of U.S. technology, and they are using American intellectual property to further their genocide. A substantive bill to counter the CCP isn't just a security issue. It is a moral issue. Yet, this bill takes no meaningful steps to keep U.S. technology out of the hands of the CCP's military. Even worse, my Democratic colleagues have refused safeguards that would stop this money from financing slave labor and genocide in the Xinjiang province. Madam Speaker, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to reconsider this Trojan horse bill and to adopt my straightforward amendment. It would stop huge sums of U.S. taxpayer dollars from going to the Chinese Government, from funding their genocide. It would stop research funds in this bill from being used by entities like the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Madam Speaker, this is the test of our time. We must not help the CCP build the future of global energy on a foundation of slave labor and genocide. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand on the right side of history and to support my motion to recommit.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, last year, the CCP's hypersonic weapons program successfully launched a missile that traveled all the way around the world. That program was built on the backbone of U.S. technology. And as we speak, the Chinese Communist Party is committing genocide against their own people. Women are forced to abort their children. Families are ripped apart. And all the while, American IP is being used to build the CCP's police state to help the CCP surveil and imprison the ethnic and religious minorities that they torture. A substantive bill that counters the CCP isn't just a national security issue; it is a moral issue. That is why any serious legislation must include export controls to keep U.S. technology out of the hands of the CCP's military and surveillance state. The stakes could not be higher, and the outcome hinges on a technology race. Unfortunately, this bill takes no meaningful step to address this significant risk to U.S. national security. Instead, it is a Trojan horse being used to inject $8 billion worth of taxpayer money into an unaccountable United Nations slush fund. That is more than double the amount of money authorized for actual foreign policy programs. This U.N. slush fund has already provided at least $100 million directly to China, U.S. taxpayer dollars to a country that this Congress, that the former Republican President and the current Democrat President have all agreed is committing genocide; to a country that even Secretary Kerry admitted is using slave labor to make green energy projects, like solar panels and batteries. And for some unknown reason, Democrats rejected Republican efforts to guarantee that the CCP could not access U.S. taxpayer money in this bill. But even worse, this legislation could send U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund green energy projects built on the CCP's genocide program against its own people, to fund their slave labor, to prop up their forced abortions. Shockingly, Republicans attempted to stop this from happening, to stop U.S. taxpayers from funding slave labor, but we were outright rejected by the Democrats. Mr. Speaker, this is a moral issue. It is the test of our time. If we allow this legislation to pass, we will be on the wrong side of history. We will be helping the CCP build the future of global energy on the foundation of slave labor and genocide. And Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today both angry and disappointed. This bill could have been the bipartisan crowning achievement of this Congress and we could have worked together. We could have shown the American people that when it comes to generational threats posed by the CCP, that Republicans and Democrats can put U.S. interests over special interests; that we can put national security over party politics; that we can put morality over money. Instead, the gentlewoman from California hijacked this legislation that was bicameral, bipartisan; hijacked these negotiations, and threw it together in this legislation that she well knew contained provisions that Republicans could not support. In other words, she chose to turn this into a partisan political stunt. And she did it in secret, behind the backs of Republicans, while many of us were still negotiating with our Democrat counterparts in good faith to find a bipartisan agreement. So, Mr. Speaker, the CCP is the most significant economic and national security threat the United States faces. The American people deserved better than this superficial partisan response. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this immoral bill and stand with me against genocide.

Mr. McCAUL

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from New York is prepared to close, I am ready to close.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. McCAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Burchett), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

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

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

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

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