tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN December 15, 2009 1:00pm-5:00pm EST
there will be no interference caused by reducing the required separation between new lpfm broadcasts and existing full-power broadcasts. i encourage all of my colleagues to support this important community-based legislation and looking forward to it being enacted into law. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. boucher: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boucher: the bill before the house is the local community radio act of 2009. it was introduced by representatives doyle and terry and will provide additional opportunities to create new low-power f.m. radio stations by allowing their operation on third adjacent channels to the full powered radio stations. low-power stations, which are community based nonprofits that operate at 100 watts or less of
power and have a broadcast reach typically of only a few miles play a unique role in our media. they are far more likely than their full-powered counterparts to be owned by women or minorities, and they're an important forum for local clergy, for institutions and for a wide array of community leaders to have a say on important local issues. . i commend radio broadcasters, significant stakeholders in this matter, as we have resolved the concerns of local public broadcasting stations that have a special need to protect the numerous translator stations that they operate for many local -- from any local channel interference. the amendments we adopted in the subcommittee consideration of the bill achieve that protection. among other provisions, the bill directs the federal communications commission to
allow the operation of low-power f.m. stations on third channels to the full power of f.m. stations and f.m. translator and booster stations. retains the s.e.c.'s existing minimum distance separation requirements for f.m. stations that provide radio reading services for the visually impaired. at the same time the bill provides for remediation of interference complaints between low-power f.m. stations and full-power stations as well as f.m. translator and booster stations, and the measure directs the f.c.c. to conduct an economic study of the effect of low-power f.m. stations on full service commercial stations and submit those findings to the congress within one year. i want to thank mr. doyle for his tireless work on this measure. he has introduced this bill several times and this is the
first congress in which it has been brought to the house floor. i tremendously appreciate his work and the work of mr. terry, his partner in this exercise, with the various stakeholders and with members of our subcommittee, their work collectively has resulted in our being able to present this bill to the house today. i also want to commend the bipartisan approach that we have taken in our subcommittee and full committee to processing this measure. i commend chairman waxman and ranking members barton and stearns for the highly cooperative manner in which we have all together advanced this measure. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from tennessee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i do thank the gentleman from
nebraska and i am thrilled to stand today and support the local community radio act. this is an issue that i have been engaged in since my days in the tennessee state senate. in an age of consolidating radio stations and a competitive marketplace for air time, this legislation will allow smaller groups to be heard. indeed, chairman boucher has mentioned this as has mr. terry. it is an important reason for having this low-power radio act for having this available for our communities. whether we are talking about the aspiring blues performer in memphis or whether we are talking about an up-and-coming country star in nashville, one of our colleagues or -- colleges or universities getting on the air own showcasing their local talent and some of their personalities. or maybe it is some of our religious organizations or churches. it is a way for them to spread
their message. so this legislation does give a crucial voice to these communities. i was pleased that mr. boucher mentioned women, small businesses that are owned by women. the number of women we have seen move into the communications field because they had the ability to get to a low-power station and develop a format and programming that will help them to launch a dream. actually innovate for our airwaves. we have heard from a wide range of groups. they do stand in support of this. it is a pleasure to stand and support the bill and i urge this chamber to move forward on passing this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. boucher: at this time i yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. doyle: thank you, mr.
speaker. i want to thank chairman boucher and chairman waxman for strongly supporting my bill that will give local communities across this country access to their airwaves. i'm grateful for the support this bill has from both sides of the aisle, including the bill's lead co-sponsor, my good friend, lee terry, from omaha. when the federal communications commission created the low-powered f.m. radio service, they sought to create opportunities for new voices on the airwaves and to allow local schools, churches, and other community-based organizations to provide programming that would be responsive to local community needs and interest. congress, however, passed the radio broadcasting preservation act in 2000 and many of those organizations were prevented from communicating to their members, supporters, and residents on the f.m. radio dial. that bill called for a field study performed by the mitre corporation and for the f.c.c.
to recommend to congress what we should do. in 2004, on a unanimous bipartisan basis, and for a second time in november, 2007, and for a third time, once again, in september of 2009, all five f.c.c. commissioners agreed that congress should lift the restrictions on lpfm stations and allow the f.c.c. to license new stations in more communities. the bill we debate today, the local community radio act of 2009, does just that. where they are allowed to exist under current law, the station vs. proven to be a vital source of information during local and national emergencies. and these stations promote the arts and education from religious organizations, community groups, organizations promoting literacy, and many other civically oriented organizations.
stations like kocz in louisiana which is operated by the southern development foundation, a group active in african-american community. this station broadcasts public affairs shows, religious programming, hip-hop, and zydeco music 24 hours a day. zydeco music is central to the cultural heritage of the acadian region--- region that had recently disappeared from the radio. and wqrz in bay st. louis, missouri, which remained on the air during hurricane katrina and served as the emergency operations center for hancock county during the worst storm there in the century. the congress has to act on o the commission's recommendations otherwise similar stations are prevented from operating in communities across america. communities like mine which are too large to have any slots for new lpfm stations, but could
fit several at third adjacent. stations like wmkp the roar at penn state's allegheny campus, one that serves the mckeys mckees port area. they one to simultaneous on the air as well. we must pass this bill today to make sure that can happen. my bill has undergone some changes from the full committee and the national association of broadcasters as well as national public radio have removed their objections and do not oppose the bill. this bill has broad support and i will be adding into the record these letters from almost a dozen leaders from catholic and protestant faiths like the ue into thed church of christ and the national association of evangelicals, a letter from two dozen national and local public interest, civil rights, and local groups. another letter from the leadership conference on civil rights, and finally a letter from the national federation of community broadcasters and
prometheus radio project, all of whom strongly support the local community radio act. mr. speaker, the time has come for congress to rewrite the law. the time has come to make the airwaves available to the people they serve. the time has come to bring low power to the people. i ask my colleagues to support the local community radio act and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: thank you, mr. speaker. appreciate your efforts, mr. doyle. mr. doyle mentioned the variety of religious organizations that support this and i found the same thing in my community and i want to yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina who in fact wanted to speak on that aspect of our low powered community radio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r.
1147, the local community radio act of 2009. i appreciate the leadership of congressman lee terry of nebraska on this important issue. passage of this bipartisan legislation is vital to expanding the availability of noncommercial, low-powered f.m., l.p.f.m. radio stations to towns and cities across our country. this legislation repeals certain restriction that is limit broadcast capabilities for low-powered f.m. stations. expanding lpfm licenses will make owning a radio station possible for churches, synagogues, schools, emergency responders, and other community groups that best understand the needs of their local communities. these stations give civic, clergery, and community leaders a forum to discuss local issues and provide essential emergency services during times of crisis. hundreds of churches and ministries already rely on lpfm stailingses to get their message out -- stations to get
their message out. unfortunately, service is currently limited only to rural areas and frequently limited to property lines. i urge members to pass h.r. 1147 which will move to expand low-power f.m. radio for churches, synagogues, schools, community groups, and emergency responders in the united states. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. at this time i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. boucher: mr. speaker, we also have no further requests for speakers. at this time i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1147, as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
in the opinion of the chair the chair -- mr. boucher: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. the gentleman from virginia. mr. boucher: mr. speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and agree to h.r. 1084, the commercial advertisement loudness mitigation act, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1084, a bill to require the federal communications commission to proscribe a standard to preclude commercials from being broadcast at louder volumes than the program material they accompany. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. boucher, and the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. boucher: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that
all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boucher: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. boucher: i request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boucher: the bill before the house is the commercial advertisement loudness mitigation act, or in short the calm act. it sets standards on the permissible volume levels for commercials aired on television and is patronned by the gentlelady from california, our colleague on the energy and commerce committee, ms. eshoo. it addresses an appropriate manner a major consumer complaint. we have all experienced the frustration of tv commercials blaring well above the volume levels of the programs that accompany them on broadcast television. after scrambling for the remote
control and turning down the volume on the commercial, we then have to pick up the remote again in order to restore the volume when the program that the commercial ends and the program resumes. it's an annoying experience and something really should be done about it. other countries including australia, brazil, israel, the united kingdom and france all have regulations addressing the volume on television commercials. and with the bill that is now before the house, we have the opportunity to confer on american tv viewers a similar benefit. . the television industry based advanced tv systems committee has developed to the technical standards that are permitted to control commercial loudness.
the industry has approved that standard, and the bill before us directs the federal communications commission to incorporate that standard in a rulemaking. a waiver for the rule is available for any television station that can show financial hardship in making the changes to its equipment needed in order to comply with the terms of the rule. some may say that there is no need to take this step. but i think that the american public is going to react very differently and in a very supportive way. in fact, i think that the calm act has the potential to rival in popularity the do-not call list that was adopted by this congress several years ago. that act, as most will recall, protected against unwanted commercial telephone calls. this will protect against intrusive higher volume levels that attend television
commercials. i want to commend ms. eshoo. she has shown great leadership in bringing this measure before the house. she has worked with the industry and with members of our subcommittee as we have revised the bill in order to achieve the broad consensus that it enjoys today. it is my pliverage to encourage a-- privilege to encourage approval of the house of the calm act, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stearns: this bill, h.r. 1804, the commercial advertisement loudness mitigation act, or the calm act, is a bill its time has come. this is a perfect opportunity for industry to take care of this. but they did not take care of this for some 60 years. the bill would require the federal communications commission to issue regulations
based on industry standards for loud commercial adversements within one year of enactment. the regulation would take effect one year after adopted by the f.c.c. now, according to testimony at a june energy and commerce hearing, consumer complaints about loud commercials have been streaming, streaming into the f.c.c. as far back to 1960. and among the most common complaints. complaints continue to come into the f.c.c. today. in fact, in the 25 quarterly reports in consumer complaints that have been released since 2002, 21 have listed complaints about the, quote, abrupt changes in volume during transition from regular programming to commercials, end quote. as among the top -- the top consumer grievances regarding radio and television broadcasting. as we can tell, this issue is a
top issue for our consumers. now, this issue is a little bit more complex than it appears. many different entities are responsible for producing and distributing the content that consumers hear and see in their living rooms. each element may be recorded provided at a different respective volume level. moreover, shows and movies have a dynamic sound range to cover everything from a quiet scene to a huge explosion. commercials, meanwhile, tend to have a narrow sound range. volume levels are typically set for the programming which can simply throw off the volume levels for the commercial. but as i pointed out earlier, now we have a solution in place because the transition to digital has made that possible. two years ago, the advanced television systems committee established a subgroup on digital television loudness. now, as this subgroup,
consisting of leaders on auto and technology who participated together from all the major broadcasting networks, cable production companies and postproduction, manufacturing and education, all these very bright, talented, highly technical people got together into this subgroup. they established a way to solve the problem. and since it was established, these audio-technology experts have fought this consensus on a recommended practice that should be employed across the tv industry to deal with the complaints that the consumers have made for almost 50 years. i trust the collective rizz dom of these technical -- wisdom of these technical experts and craft a solution to the tv loudness issue. let me say a few more comments about this. there are going to be some small cable companies, broadcasters are going to have
difficult time complying with this. remember now, after one year the f.c.c. is going to take this directive that the advanced television system established and is going to make it industrywide. now, some are going to complain that they can't afford to implement it. there is a one-year extension for some of those small companies. and if they can't make it there is another extension. so, now we have the majority of the industry able to do this. but we have set aside within the bill a safety hardship in which they just demonstrate they can't do it for financial reasons. and they'll be left to have another year to meet the standards. so in a sense, mr. chairman, i think we have a solution to a problem that has been one of the biggest complaints of the f.c.c. all these years. with that in mind, i urge my colleagues to support h.r.
1804, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. boucher: mr. speaker, i yield such time as she may consume, the sponsor of the bill, the gentlelady from california, ms. eshoo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to begin by thanking the chairman of my subcommittee, mr. boucher, for his consistent support and cooperation to help bring the bill to the committee. i doubt we would be here today were it not for that. and i want to recognize and thank the ranking member of our subcommittee for the work that he has put into in as well and the suggestions that he made in order to bolster the bill and to make it imminently workable. i also want to thank, of course, the chairman of the full committee, mr. waxman, for his support. mr. speaker, i rise today to ask my colleagues to vote in
favor of this bill, which is designed to eliminate the ear splitting levels of television advertisements and return control of television sound modulation to the american consumer. i first introduced the commercial advertisement loudness mitigation act called calm act more than three years ago. this is something that many of our constituents now refer to in their shorthand, the loud commercial law. i have heard loud and clear from people across the country, so we have consumers across the country that are with us and would like to see this accomplished. the premise of the bill then as now was really simple. and in an era of 1,000 or 1,800-page bills, this is a two-page bill and it is to make the volume of commercials and programming uniform so that consumers control the sound. the problem has existed for
more than 50 years, 5-0, 50 years when television advertisers first realized that consumers often left the room when commercials were playing. they used the loud commercials as a gimmick to grab the attention of consumers even as they moved to other parts of their home. but for anyone who can't get to the mute button fast enough, we know that we are all subjected to blasting ads. for those with sensory difficulties, the loud commercials are more than just an annoyans. it can harm hearing and sometimes they are painfully loud. this issue, as my colleagues have referenced, is also one of the top complaints consistently one of the top complaints from consumers across the country to the federal communications commission. this bill is going to bring a measure of relief to the american consumer. it's also, i think, an important step in identifying the knee to make broadcasters
and individual -- the need to make broadcasters and video people accountable. it takes into account the economic health of licensees and the importance of smaller providers. the atfc, a body that sets technical standards for digital television, has developed the solution to the problem of the very volume between commercials and programming with one stream that keeps the volume uniform. the bill directs the f.c.c. to adopt these engineering standards as mandatory rules within one year. these standards were not in the works until we introduced this legislation in the last congress. so i'm pleased to have encouraged the industry to find the answer to this problem so we don't have to wait another 50 years for a solution. i look forward to voluntary and immediate adoption of the
standards by broadcasters, cable, satellite and all multichannel program providers. but the bill exists because we know that voluntary compliance or adherence to consumer needs has been a failure. and we need to assure enforcement to protect the rights of consumers. the bill also requires cable and satellite operators to install the engineering fix necessary to ensure that the sound is modulated. the bill is not inflexible. it heeds the call by industry for compliance grace period, those affected. and i think it's very reasonable. will have one year after the f.c.c. adopts the rule for purchase and installation of the atsc standard equipment and they may grant up to two successive extensions. they should be able to comply in three years, plus the amount
of the time it takes the f.c.c. to enforce the rules. i read the minority comments that have been filed relative to the bill. and i want to answer directly the concern of some of my colleagues about the necessity of the bill. so i want to reiterate the following. first, i think the bill is necessary because we need a mandatory enforcement tool. and i stated that earlier. volunteerism hasn't worked for 50 years. second, the bill makes the atsc standards applicable to all f.c.c. licensees, and that includes satellite and cable providers as well as broadcasters. the voluntary systems is only applied to broadcasters. thirdly, the bill matters to our constituents. and i think that that's what really matters the most. and it stands as proof that congress can listen to their concerns. fourthly, it's been said that
congress has better things to do. i have never suggested that this solves the great challenges that face our country today. as i said, it's a two-page bill. but it is something that's been left unattended to for half a century. and i think the time has come that we end the practice of consumers being blasted out of their seats when they're listening to their favorite programming. so the technical fix is long overdue, and under the calm act, as amended, consumers will be in the driver seat. i look forward to the passage of this bill, and most importantly, so do millions of our other consumers and constituents across the country. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: mr. speaker, i yield such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman is recognized. mr. stearns: let me just perhaps move a little forward. the gentlelady from california mentioned several people said, well, why does congress need to get involved? that has been brought before me before. and i would say -- and this is the compliment to the gentlelady from california, what she did with her bill, a bill originally directed the f.c.c. to write its own rules. but she reached out to industry and engaged them, which is a commendation for her, and asked them, well, how can we solve this? for those people that says, why can't industry solve this? she was an impetus to do this. now industry developed a subgroup. the subgroup came up with the technology to be able to solve the problem. and now she's saying basically, let industry solve the problem and let the f.c.c. adopt what they've come up with. another thing that i think came through the process, which is also, i think, a compliment to her that she was willing to realize that some of the industry, some of the smaller companies might have a financial problem with this. so she was willing to change
the bill to allow this -- i'll call it a safety valve -- for those small companies that petition the f.c.c. to get a delay so that they have one year and possibly another year. so i think what this bill shows to those people that say why can't you let industry solve it, i think the simple fact that she engaged and developed a subgroup working with industry as she did, works it in a way that industry is solving their own problem but they also realize after all these years, going back to the 1960's, these complaints, something's got to be done. and i think many of us nth last weekend -- last weekend watching football games can remember that time where we have to get up and turn it off. that's fine. turn it off. but it's constantly an irritant when you do it. we have all these bowl games coming up. i think the aspect about this we should realize that ms. eshoo is willing to change the bill and reach out and work with industry to get this done
and also provide the safety valve. so i think that's an important aspect to bring to the attention of my colleagues how this bill works, i think, in a way to help industry. . i have no more speakers. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. boucher: i yield 30 seconds. mr. speaker, i simply want to take this time to thank the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, for the bipartisan way in which we have processed this measure through our committee and for his strong support of the measure that we bring to the floor this afternoon. the work on this bill is reflective of the best traditions of our committee. where we work out problems. we resolve concerns within the confines of the committee process. and we do so in a collaborative way, with people on both sides of the aisle participating in that effort. in no matter has that spirit of cooperation been better
reflected than in the way we have processed and handled this bill today. i want to thank mr. stearns and his colleagues on the republican side for that outstanding bipartisan cooperation. mr. speaker, we also have no further requests for time. i yield back the balance of my time. and urge passage of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1084 . as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the reconsider is laid upon the table.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? mrs. capps: i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to hoogs -- house resolution 971 expressing the sense of the house of representatives regarding guidelines for breast cancer screening for women 40 to 49. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of
the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 971, resolution expressing the sense of the house of representatives regarding guidelines for breast cancer screening for women ages 40 to 49. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, and the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of house resolution 971. in resolution expresses the sense of the house of representatives that the u.s. preventive services task force guidelines would not prohibit an insurer from providing coverage for mammography
services beyond those recommended by the task force. it further states these guidelines should not be used by insurers to deny coverage for these services. it also expresses the sense of the house that the national cancer institute should continue to invest and provide leadership regarding research to develop more effective screening tools and strategies for improving the detection of breast cancer. on november 16, 2009, the u.s. preventive services task force issued a series of six recommendations regarding breast cancer screening. three of which pertain to mammography screening among women of various age groups. at a recent hearing in our energy and commerce committee's health subcommittee, the task force representative acknowledged that they should have done a better job communicating their findings to the public. unfortunately, the failure in communication has led to much concern and confusion about what their findings and
recommendations are and what the implications would be. mr. speaker, this task force is not suggesting that women in their 40's forgo mammography. the task force is recommending that women in their 40's determine which when to begin screening and base this decision on a conversation with their doctors or health providers. we can all agree that women in their 40's should have access to mammography if these women and their physicians decide it's right for them. i think we can also agree that while mammography is still the best tool that we have to detect breast cancer in its earliest stages, it is by every means an imperfect tool. we need continued research into more effective screening tools and strategies to improve the detection of breast cancer. breast cancer is the second most common cancer among united states women and it is the leading cause of cancer death for women between the ages of 29 and 59. this year new cases of breast
cancer among american women will reach an estimated 192,370. an over 40,000 women will die from breast cancer this year. the american cancer society estimates that one in eight women will have invasive breast cancer at some point in her lifetime. these statistics illustrate that breast cancer continues to be a major health issue despite recent declines in breast cancer mortality rates. beyond these statistics, cancer is a very personal situation for many of us in this chamber. whether it has affected a mother, a daughter, a wife, a friend, a colleague, or as it has for me, my own sister. i want to commend my colleague, debi wasserman schultz, for -- debbie wasserman schultz, for introducing this resolution and being so forthcoming about her very personal experience being diagnosed with and treated for
breast cancer. at this point i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i do rise in support of the resolution. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. blackburn: i am pleased to see this resolution before us and i want to commend congresswoman wasserman schultz and also congresswoman capps for their work on this issue. i appreciate their leadership to raise awareness and i have grave concerns, very grave concerns on how this issue translates into the health reform bills that are currently before us. while i do rise in support of this, i do think that it is important, it is imperative as a matter of fact, that we revisit why we are here an why we are having this discussion today. and it's important that we realize that even with the resolution before us, it is not going to get to the crux of the issue, but it is a good, solid
first step. with or without a government-run health plan, h.r. 3962 would still be a massive takeover of health care. government bureaucrats will be charged with making decisions of what can be in your health plan and they can make it illegal for a health plan to cover anything not approved by the government. in the house version of the democrats' health reform, the u.s. representative services task force and its successor organization are cited over one dozen times and given disturbing new authority over coverage decisions regarding breast cancer screening. for example, on page 1762 of the democrat health reform bill, the u.s. preventive services task force is given the authority to determine, and i'm quoting, the frequency and i'm quoting, the population to be served, and quoting again from the bill, the procedure or technology to be used for breast cancer screenings covered under the indian health
service act. section 303 of h.r. 3962 states that the, and i'm quoting again, commissioner shall, which is a mandate, mr. speaker, shall specify the benefits to be made available under exchange participating health plans, end quote. in plain english, that means the new health choices commissioner will determine what preventive services including mammography are covered under your health insurance based on what the task force says is right. passing a resolution and passing this resolution before us, as i said, is a good, solid first step. however i do believe to strike at the heart of the problem we indeed need to move forward on a motion to instruct conferees to make certain that we revisit this issue. under the democrat's bill the task force will set government policy and will determine what is covered and make it illegal
for plans to cover other items. our recommendations of the preventive services task force and the task force on community preventive services as an existence on the day before the date of the enactment of this act which would be h.r. 3962, shall be be considered to be recommendations of the task force on clinical preventive services. mr. speaker, in order to prevent any type rationing, that is why we need to take any further -- even further steps. i commend my colleagues for their work on thisish shue. it is the right first step and i encourage all of us to continue to work to resolve the issue. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. speaker. i wish to remind my colleagues that in the health reform bill as it was considered in the house of representatives, once the essential benefits package
is established, it acts as a floor not as a ceiling. with regard to preventive services, the bill says that recommended items and services with the grade of a or b from u.s. representative services task force shall be covered as part of the essential benefits package with no cost sharing and that the secretary may approve such coverage regardless of what the task force or the benefits advisor committee says. at this point i'm very pleased to yield to representative wasserman schultz, the sponsor of this legislation, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for five minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to support house resolution 971, which underscores the importance of access to breast cancer screening for all women. as many of you know, last month the united states preventive services task force issued guidelines regarding mammography screening for women. these guidelines reflect a change from recommendations
issued in 2002 in that they recommend against routine screening mammography for women ages 40 to 49. the new guidelines conflict with many of the well established recommendations from the american medical association, the national comprehensive cancer network, american cancer society, and susan g. komen for the cure. in addition, numerous studies and scientific research over the past 20 years have confirmed the annual mammograms are of value to women ages 40 to 49. in fact, the task force itself concluded the screening women in their 40's would reduce the risk of death from breast cancer by 15%, while finding the screenings for women in their 50's would reduce their risk by 14%. as a result, many young women and health care providers have been left feeling uncertain and concerned. recommendations like those the task force made are supposed to provide clarity for doctors and their patients. unfortunately, the guidelines issued by the task force left most women and oncologists
baffled. currently, there is no available breast cancer screening tool that is perfect, but what is clear is that intervening through routine screening for breast cancer using mammography can save the lives of women at a time when medical identifiens is unable to prevent this disease. at the end of the day, mammography screening savings be lives. i offer this resolution to underscore the houses' commitment to expanding access to health care for women. this resolution underscores the sense of the house that the task force recommendations must not be used by insurers who are at the end of the day getting in between women and their doctors and getting women the access that they need to preventive service that is they must not be used by insurers to deny women coverage for routine screenings. it also urges the national cancer institute to continue to invest and provide leadership regarding research to develop more effective screening tools and strategies for improving the detection of breast cancer. while we develop bert tools for screening, we cannot leave
certain women, particularly young women, with nothing, which is what the task force recommendation essentially did. to be sure while we have come a long way in the fight against breast cancer, we still have a long way to go. this year in the united states alone, over 190,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, 40,000 will not survive. that's why we cannot rest in our efforts to fund research and find a cure for this disease. it's why we cannot rest in our efforts to provide education and awareness for all women. we must ensure that they have access to screening and treatment, and we must ensure that we do all we can to support the survivors in our country today. as many of you know and has been gratefully acknowledged i recently had my own battle with breast cancer and i'm so grateful and humbled to count myself among this growing group of survivors. i was fortunate to have the access to the treatment and support i needed to win my own fight. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution to make sure that everyone has that same opportunity.
mr. speaker, since the task force issued these guidelines, i have spoken to so many young survivors who have been left feeling so frustrated and as if their lives somehow mattered less than the lives of older women. and this resolution sends a message to those young women across america today that that is not so. that the house of representatives, that the united states government cares about all women's lives pane with all due respect to my good friend, mrs. blackburn, who i greatly respect and appreciate your support for this resolution, what this resolution does not do, and what the task force guidelines do not do, and what our health care reform bill does not do is it does not ration health care. . she will see that our language in our health care reform bill is a floor. the gentlelady should know that
the secretary of health and human services can go beyond the task force's recommendations, that they can go further and that at the very least the health care reform bill that we passed off the floor of this house ensures that women get access -- all women get access to the appropriate preventative screening that they need and assure that coverage is free and that the health and human services secretary can do further than those recommendations that is labeled at an a and b level. i appreciate the indulgence of the leadership and the support of my colleagues, and i want to particularly single out the colleagues that sit to the left of me of being a leader on issues that have supportive to young women. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from north carolina, mrs. myrick, who has been a true champion, women and breast
cancer issues and has really led on our side of the aisle as we have worked to deal with so many of these issues. at this time i yield to mrs. myrick of north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. mrs. myrick: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my friend for yielding. i also thank my friend on the other side of the aisle, debbie wasserman schultz, and lois capps, in particular, the two of them have been very upfront and aggressive in leading the charge on these issues. i'm grateful for it. as you've already heard, the task force recently advised that women under 50 don't need mammograms and that those over 50 don't need them every year and that doctors shouldn't encourage breast self-examines due to false positives -- self-exams due to positives. what does this send to women? we know that breast exams
aren't perfect and we hope to have better technology to do the job. you know, cancer is a tricky disease, and breast cancer exams should could lead to some tests that aren't necessary and same with mammograms and people can say it's all nerve racking to do it. but as a breast cancer survivor, i know that screening works. you know, it saves lives. and it's not always easy. i had to go to several doctors before my cancer was detected. and if i hadn't been persistent and -- i might not be standing here today. screening does save lives. it makes a difference for many women whether they're 40 years old, 65 years old, 75 years old, it doesn't matter. you know, many women look for excuses anyway. they don't want to get screened for cancer. they really don't like to do it. and some of them say, i don't even want to know. well, this recommendation certainly doesn't help that problem. statistically, maybe mammograms are more likely to save your
life if you're over 50, but they save lives for those under 50 every day and we know that. what if you're 45-year-old sister or daughter or your mother doesn't know she has breast cancer until it's too late? and as i said before, the recommendation even advises doctors to discourage self-breast exams. come on, what more simple tool do women have to guard against what can be a very aggressive disease? after all, we don't know what causes cancer. and women need to pay close attention -- may i have 30 more seconds? mrs. blackburn: i yield 30 more seconds. mrs. myrick: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 more seconds. mrs. myrick: women need to pay close attention to their bodies, because if something is wrong they need to be aggressive about testing and finding the answers. and that doesn't matter how old you are. as was mentioned, too, so many younger women are getting cancer today. so many more than ever did before.
and you know, we need to find out why. but in the meantime, we need to give them the options that they need. and in is -- this resolution is a sense of congress that these new recommendations shouldn't deny women screening or tests. i urge my colleagues to support it and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, may i inquire of the remaining time on this side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentlewoman from tennessee has 14 minutes remaining. mrs. capps: at this time it's my pleasure to acknowledge and yield to the congressman from new york, mr. engel, 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague from the health subcommittee and energy and commerce subcommittee, lois capps, who is a leader on issues like this. i want to commend debbie wasserman schultz, the gentlewoman from florida, for
her courage and in talking personally, as well as congresswoman sue myrick for speaking personally. this is dazz that affects so many americans and their families personally. i rise in strong support of this resolution. as the second most common cancer among women in the u.s. and the leading cause of cancer deaths for women under 60, breast cancer is an issue that resonates with us all. the recent changes in recommendations for breast cancer screening made by the u.s. preventative service task force on november 14 have been met with considerable attention and consternation nationwide. i can say quite frankly that i was extremely concerned that news reports related to these screenings would cause some women in their 40's to no longer get mammograms annually for breast cancer. i think what was announced was a mistake. this would really be a travesty
if women were prevented from getting mammograms annually. we know that the decline in breast cancer death rates since 1990 are primarily attribute uble to early detection -- attribute ute -- attributable to early detection. it was in part due to expanded access to mamography. although these tools are not perfect they help. the american medical association, susan b. komen for the cure continue to support mammograms starting at 40, not 50. they never meant to send the message that women should not get breast cancer screenings but women should consult with their personal physicians about the preventatives, risks and limitations on mammography. they admitted at a hearing this message has largely been lost in the media. i therefore again commend the
gentlewoman from florida for her resolution today and really her work all year guided by her personal experience to improve education and awareness and the benefits of breast cancer screeling screening. the -- cancer screenings. we recently marked the 25th anniversary of the national breast cancer awareness month which celebrated great strides. we must continue that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. engel: and i urge support of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, who has been a leader in the health care debate on our energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes.
mr. rogers: thank you, madam. thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank debbie wasserman schultz to talk about her illness. i am a cancer survivor. and it's a grave process. our concern is what is the actual result of that health care reform bill that leads us to this resolution. we are scrambling around on the floor today to say that a government appointed commission, this task force, has made a recommendation based on quality of year lives and cost, not good science, not what saves lives, that women between 40 and 49 need not get mammograms. and you say, listen, that doesn't mean rationing, it doesn't anything, it doesn't have a weight at all. but guess what, the health care reform bill that passed this house makes those recommendations law. let me read a couple quick things, mr. speaker, if i may. in one section -- and by the way, you have to go to three different sections, two
different complete books to understand how this impacts real women in america, some 2,000 pages into it. one section. limitation on individual health insurance coverage may only be offered on or after the first day of year one as an exchange participating health care plan. pretty fancy washington speak. let me tell you what it means. in another section of the bill about 1,000 pages later, a health plan is prohibited from offering coverage for benefits not included in the essential benefits package. and you say, oh, that's a floor. it's not a floor. the language in the bill goes on further. you know what it does? it says the only difference between the levels of plans is the amount of cost sharing. not what it covers. here's the scary part of which i don't think you all realize that you did to about 47,000 women in america. all recommendations of the preventive services task force and the task force preventive services is in existence on the day before the date or
enactment of this act and shall be considered recommendations. the bill goes on to say that they must use that in the calculation of benefits. guess what? 47,000 women who are under the age of 50 today will be diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer because of your bill. it's in your bill. it's in your language. you know what that means? 80% of them will have a mortality rate -- excuse me -- will die because of their diagnosis. do you know that more women will die because of this bill, than we lost men in the korean war? oh, you think, scare tactics. no, it's the bill. you know what, you can't read it on page 1 or 2. you have to keep going back and forth. in 2,000 pages to understand the full impact of what will happen to women who are 40 to 49 years old. you did it in your bill. i am going to plead with you
for the lives of 37,000 women who will die and 47,000, according to the recommendations of this task force which you make law, will be diagnosed -- additional 30 seconds, if i may. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mrs. blackburn: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. rogers: i am going to plead with you. please, read the bill. not just 1 to 2,000. go back to the other sections and understand its full impact. and you say it won't happen in america. guess what, this task force recommendations resulted on december 2 for california prohibiting low-income women under the age of 50 for receiving mammograms. it's happening today. this task force is doing it today. with your bill it becomes law. they are prohibited and it is illegal for them to get coverage other than what the government says they can get. and guess what, mammograms don't qualify for women 40 to 49. please, think of those women and those families.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair reminds members that they are to address their comments to the chair. the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. speaker. i would remind my colleagues that at the hearing two weeks ago at the energy and commerce committee, the breast cancer stake holders were asked a simple question. would h.r. 3962, the health reform bill, help women with breast cancer? every witness on that panel, including the american cancer society, komen, the national breast cancer coalition, the american college of physicians, every witness on the panel agreed that this bill, the health reform bill, will help women to prevent and women who already have breast cancer. and at this point i am very pleased to yield two minutes to my colleague and big supporter of the breast cancer caucus, jerry nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in
support of the resolution offered by our colleague, representative wasserman schultz. with this resolution, which has the -- should have the full support of the house, would be on record with our commitment not to allow women over 40 to go without the life-saving screening tests currently available to address breast cancer at early stages. and we will have continued research into better tests so that no woman will face a death sentence due to a diagnosis of breast cancer. i thank my colleague, representative wasserman schultz, for bringing this resolution to the floor. but unfortunately this resolution won't cure the potential problem created by or actually highlighted by or dampen the frustrations sparked by the task force's decision a few weeks ago. even before the recommendations of the task force, and having nothing to do with the recommendations of the task force, many insurance company today deny coverage for screening mammograms to women over 40. .
to do -- deal with this be problem, we should pass a bill which i introduced which would legally mandate that any insurance policy that covers diagnostic mammograms must also cover screening mammograms for all women over 40. women over 40 would have legal assurance that is no insurance company would be allowed to denied her coverage for a mammogram. i hope this resolution will serve as a first step toward attaining adoption of mandatory legislation to guarantee annual mammography coverage to women over 40 and m.r.i.'s to women who need it because they have a particular genetic or other family history indicating a specific susceptibility to breast cancer. i ask my colleagues to show their commitment to women's health by voting yes on this resolution and by joining me as a co-sponsor of h.r. 995. i thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: yes, mr. speaker. at this time i yield three minutes to dr. gingrey, the gentleman from georgia, who has
practiced medicine, obstetrics, gynecology, has worked with women and women's health care issues and joins us on the energy and commerce committee. i yield to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. do i rise in full support of my good friend and colleague from florida, representative debbie wasserman schultz, for introducing this resolution. i certainly encourage all of my colleagues to support it. and i am sure if we have a recorded vote, the vet will be 100% in favor -- vote will be 100% in favor of this resolution. mr. speaker, as my colleague from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, and my colleague from michigan, mr. rogers, both members of the energy and commerce committee, both -- as well as myself at that hearing when we heard from the american cancer society, when we heard from the other witnesses such as the susan g. komen for the cure organization and in talking with our own
specialty society, the american college of obstetrics and gynecology, they will continue to recommend very strongly that women in their 40's continue to be screened, to have mammogram screening, maybe even digital mammogram screening because they are at high risk. mr. speaker, as our colleagues have pointed out, the two -- in our body, victims of breast cancer, god forbid if they had not gotten early detection, maybe their outcome will not be so great. i think because of early detection the cure is probably almost 100%. so we are at a situation where physicians practicing across this country, if they are sort of in a catch-22 f. they don't follow these guidelines that will be passed in this bill, in the senate version, when this united states preventive services task force will no longer be an organization making recommendations, they
will be making law. they will be issuing mandates. if a physicalian decides my patient's in their 40's, i'm going to go ahead and order a mammogram anyway. that mammogram is suspicious and it leads to a needle biopsy, which may turn out to be negative but it results in a complication such as a breast abscess. that physician, mr. speaker, could be sued for practicing below the standard of government health care. as established by the new massive bill that the democrats want to force on the american public. i say that i stand here commending representative debbie wasserman schultz and this resolution. i'm in favor of it. but i would also recommend that my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle instruct their conferees if this bill, this massive health care reform bill, goes to conference. and take this resolution with them and say, look, this is our concerns. change the language. that's my recommendation.
that's what my colleagues can do for the women in this country. the 47,000 that congressman mike rogers from michigan was talking about. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. i thank my colleagues on this side of the aisle for absolutely right as they point out in this legislation what the danger is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased at this point to yield to our colleague from indiana, mr. donnelly, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. donnelly: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to support the resolution and my colleague, debbie wasserman schultz. and support the importance of annual mammograms for women age 40 to 49. i, unfortunately, lost my mom to breast cancer when she was very young and when i was very young. these mammograms save lives. there's nothing more important than the health of our moms, our daughters, our wives, our
friends, and our sisters. so i support this resolution. i support these annual mammograms. so that we lose no more of our loved ones. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. lance: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the resolution offered by the gentlewoman from florida. i thank the gentlewoman from tennessee for her leadership on this issue as well. i recently met with new jersey cancer survivors, cancer care advocates from the susan g. komen for the cure in new jersey, and medical professionals at the steeples chase cancer certainty, somerset medical center in new jersey. cat lin of white house station who shared her personal story
of being diagnosed in her 40's with breast cancer. i strongly oppose the task force recommendations against yearly screening in women 40 to 49. my mother died of breast cancer when my twin brother and which is it. her cancer was diagnosed when she was 47. most disappointing about the task force conclusions is the fact that they come on the heels of a fall 2009 report published by the american cancer society indicating a large decline in breast cancer deaths in women under 50. breast cancer continues to be the most common form of cancer in women. we should be promoting a federal health policy of encouraging not discouraging mammography screening and self-examination for women 40 to 49 years of age. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i'm now pleased to yield to our colleague from pennsylvania, congresswoman dahlkemper, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from pennsylvania is
recognized. miss dahlkemper: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of this resolution and i thank congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz for her leadership on this issue. an issue that defends women across the united states and advocates for their health and well-being. breast cancer is a real caninger to women and their families. -- real dangetory women and their families of the it is -- danger to women and their families. it is not an adversary to be underestimated. more than 40,000 women will sadly succumb to the disease. some of these deaths can be prevented by mammograms and regular breast cancer screenings. let me tell you one story of a woman from my own district whose mammograms saved her life. sue was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was in her late 40's after an annual mammogram. her doctor told her she had to choose between a lump extommie and masectomy. she shade shared her journal with a newspaper. she writes, the words ring out
unlike anything i have ever experienced before. i find no earning, just feel numb. fum downeded and questioning how, when. it was just a routine mammogram. sue survived her battle because she had a mammogram. if she was one of the thousands of women in my district without health care coverage, which she still be with us today? through passage of health care reform can he wee can ensure the decision for mammogram testing remains between a woman and her doctor. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: at this time i yield a minute and a half to our ranking member on international affairs, dr. ros-lehtinen, from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank my good friend for the time. i strongly support the resolution before us, mr.
speaker, put forth by my good friend from florida, congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz, related to breast cancer screening. it is through more effective screening strategies that we will save lives. early detection makes the difference in surviving this terrible disease. as proven by the hiroic fight we heard this morning, the incredible stories of will and perseverance of our colleagues, congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz, and sue myrick, screening must remain a priority. it must be our mission. almost everyone in this country unfortunately knows someone who has suffered from breast cancer, but as is becoming more and more likely, we also know someone who was survived breast cancer. and they have survived breast cancer due to routine screening and early screening and screening for young women. we must remain vigilant in our efforts to educate, to
diagnose, and to treat. let us make sure that our efforts to defeat this terrible disease is not put in jeopardy because insurance companies do not want to pay for routine screenings for young women, screening that could save their lives. thank you, my good friend from tennessee, and i'd like to give you back my remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, may i inquire again the time that remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california has four minutes remaining. and the gentlewoman from tennessee has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point i'm very pleased to yield one minute to our colleague from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for one minute. >> i would like to thank my good friend, debbie wasserman schultz, for her personal courage but also for her focus on this very important issue.
and commend her for the introduction of this important resolution. each of us knows whether in our own personal lives or in that of our family and friends how important it is that people get early detection and intervention for any type of cancer, but we know that breast cancer steals the lives of our women in this country, mothers, friends, sisters, daughters. and despite the task force report, we need to listen to common sense and scientific based guidelines that tell us that breast cancer screening for women ages 40 to 49 is extremely important and should not be ignored despite the recommendation of the task force. because we know these things to be true, the resolution states that the task force would not be be used for insurers to deny coverage for routine screenings. so through our support here of this resolution, my colleagues and i encourage all women to remain vigilant and protect their health by getting regular
mammograms at early ages. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: at this time i yield a minute and a half to mrs. mcmorris rodgers from washington state vice chair of our conference. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. i, too, rise in support of this resolution and do want to applaud the leadership of representative debbie wasserman schultz and representative lois capps and representative marsha blackburn and sue myrick. last month many of us stood and voiced concern over these recommendations by the u.s. preventive task force because we believed that they would turn back the clock on the war on breast cancer. recommendations that would no doubt impact the united states 98% five-year breast cancer survivibility rate. republicans over and over have expressed our concern that health care reform would
shortchange women. well, through these recommendations made by the united states preventive services task force, you start to see what rationed care looks like. in this example the potential impact on women when the government is making health care decisions for them. how the doctor-patient relationship is jeopardized. how bureaucrats using computer software and statistics will be making critical life and death decisions for women. this is wrong. these recommendations mirror policies like ink england where women over 50 are invited once every three years to be screened. we cannot go down this same path. yet this task force which doesn't include any oncologist or radiologist recommended that women between ages 40 and 50 not get mammograms because save one woman for every 2,000 screened was not worth the cost. well, if you're that one woman, you might not see it that way. for that woman saved by early detection the mammogram is well
worth the cost. america's health care decision has been based on saving lives. its great britain's health care system that's based on saving cost. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: i'm pleased to introduce and acknowledge my colleague from california, congresswoman -- congressman connolly, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, i want to join in my colleagues on the other side in rejecting the finding of a task force, all 16 members of whom were appointed by republican president george bush. young women's cancer is are generally more aggressive, diagnosed at a later stage, and lower survival rates. in tway the american cancer society estimated there would be 4,6060,000 -- 460,000 new cases of breast cancer in women. while no screening tool is
perfect, we know that intervention through routine screening for breast cancer and using mammography can save lives of women at a time when medical science is still unable to prevent the disease. this resolution expresses the sense of the house of representatives regarding guidelines for breast cancer screening for women ages 40 to 49 and supports the importance of women's access to member moggraphy screening. i urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support the resolution and commend representatives debbie wasserman schultz and lois capps for their leadership. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee? mrs. blackburn: i have an inquiry, is the gentlewoman prepared to close or does she have additional speakers? mrs. capps: i have two additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california.
mrs. capps: i'm pleased to yield a minute to our congresswoman from colorado, ms. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. markey: i rise today in support of mothers, daughters, sisters, and nieces and every woman across the country. every person in this chamber can name someone they know who has had breast cancer. i'm pleased to support this resolution sponsored by ms. wasserman schultz. recently, guidelines released saying mammograms are unnecessary for women between the age of 40 and 49 have caused confusion. when early diagnosis and treatment has been proven to greatly reduce the risk of cancer, it's important that these decisions be made by women and their doctors, not a government task force. an early diagnosis of breast cancer can save a woman's wife
and -- woman's life and it's important that women get these screenings. i urge my colleague to support this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. california: -- mrs. capps: i yield to the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. halvorson, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. halvorson: i rise today in support of women across the country. as the daughter of a breast cancer survivor -- my mother got breast cancer under the age of r50 -- i know mammograms save lives. i know so many wame across my district who are still with us because of preventive care. we should never allow insurance companies from standing between a woman and her doctor and a procedure which may save her life. this is a disease that's
affected so many of us in this chamber and so many of our constituents back home. i call on my colleagues to support this resolution and support women's health. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i think that all of us come here because of our concern, great concern, about women and mammography and the health care issues that are found before us. when it comes to breast cancer we know prevention is important and it is with great sadness we have read what's in this bill. because in h.r. 3962, it show house the recommendations will limit america's choices and women's choices. reading through the bill, section 2301 does establish the task force on clinical preventive services and it
clearly says that a and b are priority levels for these treatments. you can read on page 1318, and i do, mr. speaker, it says in line two the speaker shall ensure -- shall ensure -- that a and b is going to be the rating that is covered. but c is not. and what we're discussing in this 40 to 49 age group is those c ratings. an the speaker is not going to have the -- the secretary will not have the power to downgrade that decision. section 222 of the bill, what you have in this resolution is going to be negated by section 222 of the bill that says the services designated a or b priority are part of the essential benefits package. just saying that the guidelines would not prohibit an insurer from providing coverage, your own legislation is going to end
up negating that, if that is signed into law. the language of this bill is clear. all insurance providers must offer a and b priority services. they have no incentive or a mandate to offer priority c or below. that is where it affects women under 50 and women over age 75 and those, indeed, are valuable lives. mr. speaker, we do look at this legislation, we look at section 2301, where it says that all recommendations, all recommendations of the preventive services task force and the task force on community preventive services, as in existence on the day before the date of the enactment of this bill shall be considered to be the recommendation of the task force on clinical preventive services. at that point, mr. speaker, unfortunately, they are going to have the full weight of law behind them.
it is in the bill. yes, we look at this and see the bureaucrat in the exam room right here. we look at it and we all the and -- know and have loved and have held family members in our arms that have been expected and would have lost their lives had they not had access to early detection. it concerns us. do not ration health care. support the resolution but let's go further and get it out of the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, in yielding back our time, i remind our colleagues that the truth is when enacted into law, h.r. 3962 will result in millions of uninsured americans receiving their first mammogram and will no longer face being dropped by their insurance company if they are diagnosed with cancer. i wish to acknowledge and thank the leader of this resolution
and -- for her hard work, our colleague, representative wasserman schultz. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 971. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the resolution -- the gentlelady from california? mrs. capps: in the absence of a quorum, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clauds 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from californiaize? -- from california rise? >> i move to suspend the rules and agree to the bill h.r. 3714 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3714, a bill to amend the foreign assistance act of 1961 to include the annual country reports on human rights practices, information about freedom of the press in foreign countries, establish a grant program to promote freedom of the press worldwide and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. berman, and the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california.
mr. berman: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this legislation and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: h.r. 3714 reinforces and broadens our country's commitment to media freedom around the world. dedicated to the memory of a prominent u.s. journalist who lost his life in the pursuit of duty, the daniel pearl freedom of the press act will ensure that our embassies and consulates overseas bring word to washington in a timely and regular fashion about those parts of the world where
journalists face obstacles, harassment, and physical harm, merely for doing their job. i want to particularly congratulate my colleague and recognize him, adam schiff of california, for offering this legislation, which will enshrine in law the practice of including information about media freedom in annual country reports on human rights practices, written by the department of state. with passage of this legislation, our embassy and consulates will be required to report every year on the status of press freedom in each country, both the good and the bad. where the media freedom is threatened in a country, our diplomats will report on what steps that government has take ton preserve journalist safety and independence and ensure the prosecution of those who commit violence against journalists. mr. speaker, the dangers faced by the media worldwide continue
to mount. on world press freedom day this past may, freedom house reported a seventh straight year of decline in global media freedom, with twice as many losses as gains wand deterioration occurring in every region of the world. of the 195 countries and territories that freedom house monitors, 36% have a free press, while 31% are rated partly free and 33% not free at all. as the organization noted, the press is democracy's first defense and its vulnerability as enormous implications for democracy if journalists are not able to carry out their traditional watchdog role. daniel pearl was one such watchdog. a long-standing correspondent for "the wall street journal" and its south asia bureau chief, he was investigating possible terrorism links in
pakistan in early 2002, when he was kidnapped, held hostage, tortured, and killed. his murder was videotaped and released on the internet. though the circumstances of this horrific crime were meant to send a chilling message to the u.s. government and the world's media, it served instead to strengthen our resolve. a number of niche tiffs have been established in his name to promote intercultural understanding and freedom of the press. we should let the legislation before us today, mr. schiff's bill, become part of this legacy, in the interest of ensuring that those who would seek to extinguish the light of truth around the world will be dragged out of the shadows and defeated. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized.
ms. ros-lehtinen: i rise in support of house resolution 4714, the daniel pearl freedom of the press act of 2009. i want to thank the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, my good friend, and also my friend from indiana, mr. pence, our conference chair, for introducing this important legislation on an issue of growing international concern. a free press is indy spenceable to an informed public. to government accountability, and to the efficiency and integrity of public and commeble institutions. here in the united states, we enjoy the benefits of a robust free press protected by the first amendment to our constitution, but in many other part theefs world, telling the truth as a journalist is dangerous and an even chay -- and an even deadly calling. sadly this fact was underscored by the life and death of the person for whom this bill is named, the brave and
accomplished "wall street journal" reporter daniel pearl. in 2002, while reporting in pakistan, pearl was kid napped by violent islamic extremists who chose to murder him on videotape after compelling him to recite the fact of his jewish religion on camera. whether the cause is extremism, corruption, political repression or the dangers of reporting from conflict zones, journalists around the world face a rising threat -- a rising tide of threats. so far this year, 68 journalists have been confirmed killed in the line of duty or because of their reporting. . nearly half were killed in the shocking election related massacre in the southern philippines on november 23. according to the committee to protect journalists, there has been 59% increase over the 2008 levels in the imprisonment of journalists worldwide. the one party regime in china
continues to imprison the largest number of reporters of any one nation. but the iranian regime runs a close section and its closure of yet another newspaper last week is another sad reminder of the extent to which it has targeted independent and foreign media in the aftermath of the widespread election related protests by the iranian people. and rounding out the shameful top three, cuba suffers perhaps the greatest per capita levels of press repression. even though it has only 1/12 the population of china, the cuban regime imprisons roughly the same number of journalists. just last month state security agents detained and beat cuban bloggers, as they were on their way to peaceful march in havana. what a sad irony that is. to help address these and other
outrages, the bill before us today would beef up press related reporting in the state department annual country report on human rights practices. among other issues the expanded reports would describe the extent to which foreign governments are complicit in attacks on press freedoms and what steps are being taken to protect the media and to prosecute those who attack and murder journalists. this new reporting will help focus the sunlight of public scrutiny even more powerfully on these violators of basic rights. i want to thank again mr. schiff and mr. pence for bringing forward this important legislation which deserves our unanimous support and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker. i'm very pleased to yield for such time as he may consume, the author of this legislation,
my friend, colleague, and neighbor from california, mr. schiff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. schiff: thank you, mr. speaker. at the outset let me extend my thanks to my friend and fellow californian, the distinguished chairman of the foreign affairs committee who has been such a forceful advocate on the issue of media freedom around the world. by passing the daniel freedom press -- the daniel pearl freedom of the press act today, the house brings much needed attention to a critical human rights issue. it is especially auspicious that we do it today, december 15, which is bill of rights day in honor of the first 10 amendments to our constitution. the first amendment which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press is considered by many historians and legal scholars to be the single most important of our constitutional liberties. we all remember when daniel pearl, a highly respected reporter from the "wall street journal," was kidnapped and
murdered by terrorists in pakistan just four months after 9/11. although four of the kidnappers were convicted in july of 2002, seven other suspects, including those who allegedly helped murder daniel, remain at large. this past year has been particularly deadly for journalists. according to the committee to protect journalists, a total of 8 9 journalists and media workers have been killed this year. more than a third of these victims, 30, were gunned down in one horrific incident in the philippines when 29 journalists and at least one media support worker were ambushed and brutally slain on november 23 as they traveled with a convoy of people who intended to file george w. bush george w. bushial candidacy papers for a pro-- intended to file a george w. bush in a torrey candidacy papers. in mexico there's been a dramatic increase in attacks on media workers who try to cover
corruption or gang activities. very few of these attacks result in prosecution. as a result journalists are driven towards censoring their own reporting out of fear for their personal safety and lives ever their families. legal mechanisms are also increasingly being used to restrict the media both through censorship and the use of repressive legislation. this past april the sudan yeast parliament granular consideration of a bill that grants unprecedented authority to impose strict disciplinary measures against journalists and allows the government to both confiscate printing equipment and determine journalists suitability for their profession. sudanese security officers visit newspapers nightly to determine what can be printed and what will be sensored. freedom of expression cannot exist where journalists and the media are not independent and safe from repression, persecution, and physical attacks. i believe freedom,
accountability, and democracy cannot flourish without a free press, it is the essential check on the power of the state. sadly that power has tempted too many governments, drug cartels, armed smugglers, and others to target journalists in an effort to silence them. sadder still is the indifference that governments worldwide who have failed to recognize that by failing to protect the media we are endangering fragile, young democracies and buttressing autocratic regimes and criminal syndicates. to highlight the work of journalists worldwide and document the dangers they confront, my colleague from indiana, mr. pence, and i introduced the daniel pearl freedom of the press act, to focus the world's attention on those countries in which journalists are killed, imprisoned, kidnapped, threatened, or censored. i couldn't have a better partner in this legislation than mr. pence and i greatly appreciate his advocacy of the freedom of the press. the legislation calls upon the
secretary of the state to greatly expand its examination of the status of freedom of the press worldwide and in the state department's annual country reports on human rights practices. the daniel pearl act requires the state department to identify countries in which there were violations of the freedom of the press and whether the government authorities in those countries participate in, facilitate, or condone the violations. this report will spotlight those governments which seek to silence media opposition. it is my fervent hope by spotlighting media repression in the human rights supports american diplomats, members of congress, and journalists will press for greater protections and for the capture and punishment of those who abuse or kill reporters. we cannot and we must not remain silent in the face of these purposeful atrocities. again i thank chairman berman for his leadership on human
rights issues and his support of the daniel pearl freedom of the press act. i also offer my gratitude again to my colleague from indiana who has been such a leader on this issue. i urge all members to support the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i'd now like to yield to the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, the chairman of our republican conference, a member of the committee on foreign affairs, such time as he may consume, mr. pens is the primary co-sponsor of this measure and i hope that he takes the -- mr. pence is the primary co-sponsor of this measure and i hope that he takes the time to about the next bill. mr. pence: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i ask, mr. speaker, for unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: today i rise in support of h.r. 3714, the daniel pearl freedom of the press act. i do with a profound sense of
privilege and gratitude to those who have gone before me on the floor today. chairman berman of california, to the ranking member, ms. ros-lehtinen of florida. your partnership on behalf of a free and independent press on the world stage should be an inspiration to every american looking on these proceedings. i especially want to express my appreciation for the visionary leadership of congressman adam schiff. who brought this legislation and who invited us to partner in his vision for expanding awareness to the people of the united states and the people of the world of the repression of the free press. congressman schiff and i were elected in the same year. we have undoubtedly followed different paths and usually voted differently on things, we
occasionally disagree, but we always agree on freedom. and a free and independent press. i commend the gentleman from california for his singular leadership on this issue and the privilege of working with him. it is altogether fitting that the gentlelady referred earlier though that i should do so not only during this debate but also in anticipation of the debate in the next legislation, the bipartisan measure known
as the iran refined petroleum sanctions act to specifically point out the abuses of the regime in iran and express my strong support for h.r. 2194 as well. in the midst of this debate. the reason why the identify ran refined petroleum sanctions act has broad bipartisan support and that will be reflected on the floor this day is among other reasons the support for terrorism by iran, the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, the deception of the world
community again and again, but to the point of this debate, it is also imperative that the people of united states of america send a message to iran that the aggressive repression of a free press in iran will not be tolerated in the form of of normal relations with the united states of america. either diplomatically or economically. at this point the
committee to protect journalists reports there are some 23 journalists imprisoned in iran. last week we received word that another opposition newspaper was closed in iran. and of course the world watch in horror in the aftermath of the blatantly fraudulent elections of this past june in iran as not only did the secret police stream into the streets to silence oftentimes by billie club and violence the dissidents, but we also watched
in horror as the internet was silenced. as youtube videos were cut off. as access, the free flow of information was stymied by the brutality of the regime in iran. i endorse the legislation that will be brought up before, but i see a nexus here between the two and can't help but reference it. the legislation that congressman schiff and i have brought to the floor is -- will serve two purposes. number one, it will remember the extraordinary sacrifice and courage of one daniel pearl. kidnapped and murdered by terrorists in karachi, pakistan, four months after the attacks of september 11, 2001. he was serving as a south asia bureau chief of the "wall street journal," at the time was based in mumbai, india. went to pakistan as part of an investigation of the shoe bomber of american airlines
flight 63 and al qaeda and pakistan enter services intelligence agency. tragically mr. pearl was brutally executed by hisp captures. the legislation today is -- captors. the legislation today is made m thinks memory and i hope his family is looking on today and know his memory, his courage, and his example of what it means to advance the practice of journalism on the world stage will never be forgotten in this body. the legislation today is not simply a tribute the daniel pearl freedom of press act also will result in an effort to highlight and promote freedom of the press by including it such reports in the state department's annual country reports on human rights practices information. as we consider this legislation, as we remember daniel pearl's legacy, we think of the stories of so many others on the frontlines of freedom.
a political talk show host, newspaper correspondent, and blogger in venezuela, a vocal critic of hugo chavez. of he was jailed in 2009 after posting information about his court case online. amnesty international's 2009 report on human rights in venezuela noted the physical attacks and imprisonment of journalists by this corrupt and despotic regime. as a conservative that believes in limited government, i believe the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press. i don't believe our founders put the first amendment freedom of the press in our bill of rights because they got good press. . a free and independent press ensures the free flow of information to the public and serves as a vital check on such abuses. during a time when the role of
government in our lives and our enterprises here at home seem to grow every day, taking a stand for a free prees and making the means available to hold the lamp of liberty high and shine it in the crevices in this world is a noble task indeed. i rise today in support of this legislation and i commend chairman berman, ranking member ros-lehtinen for their bipartisan leadership. i commend the gentleman from california, congressman adam schiff, for his visionary leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. more importantly than that, i salute the bravery of reporters like daniel pearl and others and press outlets throughout the world who day in and day out stand in the gap, often risking their liberty and in the case of daniel pearl, risking his life to do the work of a free and independent press in the world.
i urge those in that service to stand firm and take heart and to know that those in public life, those of us in public service also understand that those who serve in world journalism are also in the business of public service. i urge this congress to stand in solidarity with those on the front lines of the worldwide fight for freedom of the press and i urge support for the daniel pearl freedom of press act and the legislation that will follow. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'll be glad to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, and i hope he'll address not only this resolution but the
one that follows it, the iran sanctions bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: thank you, i appreciate the gentlelady yielding. i totally support this legislation. mr. speaker, the first amendment to our constitution is first for a reason. the items stated in the first amendment, the right of freedom of religion, the right of freedom of speech a free press and the right to peaceably assemble are in the first amendment because they are the most important. without those four, the rest of the amendments that follow are meaningless. especially the two that deal with freedom of speech and the freedom of press. you notice the amendment to our constitution guarantees a free press. it does not guarantee a fair press. fair is always in the eye of the beholder.
but it guarantees the right that a press may exist and communicate first through the written word about what has taken place in a free society. in a democracy in a republic. iran is a perfect example of a nation that does not believe in a free press or a press of any kind. does not want to have its illegitimate regime exposed to the world or let the world know what's taken place -- what's taking place in that country. we've all seen the students that protested last summer and more recently in the last week and a half and how the regime in iran flocked the internet access -- blocked the internet access, blocked cell phone usage so photographs of what took place could not be transmitted somewhere else. that journalists were hauled off to jail and tried before
the star chamber in secret and how some of them have been sentenced to the penitentiary. speech is silenced in iran, both that of the oral word and the written word and a free press is the enemy of a dictator. president ahmadinejad is in defiance of world peace. he is determined to build nuclear weapons and he is determined to build missiles that are capable of delivering those nuclear weapons. of course he has made those plans of his clear, to destroy israel to be a constant threat to the west, especially europe, and to the united states. and he oppresses his own people, that's why those people, the young people, including journalists, include regular formed clergy members are opposing his legitimacy to be ruler over them. my own opinion is that in that nation, the more the world
hears about what takes place there, the more the world will support the people of iran in a regime change and i hope that we stand by the people of iran that desire to have self-determination and to rule their country in spite of their rogue dictator. of course, now before us today is another bill regarding sanctions of iran. i personally am not a big fan of sanctions. historically, they haven't worked. some countries have always figured out a way to get around this to me, sanctions usually mean that we kick the problem on down the road with the intention of maybe dealing with it later. however, preventing refined gasoline from getting to iran is a good idea. that's what this sanction we'll talk about later and vote on is all about. it may have the result in helping the people of iran change their illegitimate government.
mr. speaker, dictators hate a free press. but a free press is essential to a free people. whether those free people are in the united states or whether those free people are in the nation of iran. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i have no further -- the gentleman from california seeks two additional minutes, mr. schiff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. schiff: i want to address a couple of comments my colleagues have made in their segue to the bill that follows the daniel pearl freedom of the press act, that is the iran refined petroleum sanctions act. i commend my colleagues, mr.
berman and ms. ros-lehtinen on this. one of the biggest threats facing us is a nuclear-armed iran. they've threatened to wipe one of their neighbors off the map. the possession of a nuclear bomb by iran is enor moutsly dangerous in its own regard but is all the more destabilizing in its potential of start agnew clear arms race in the mideast. the president has offered carrots and the international community has offered carrots to iran to step back from its nuclear weapons. the congress takes important steps to make sure there are sticks as well, to have iran send its uranium out of the country so it can be put in a form that cannot be used for nuclear weapons.
this legislation, which will potentially crack town on iran's ability to refine its petroleum, will put the most severe pressure on the iranian regime to back away from a program that time and again we have seen it pursue, much of it as it has declared to the contrary. so this legislation, i think, more so than any other, will put teeth in a regime of sanctions, put pressure on iran to back away from its nuclear bomb-making effort and in so doing, strengthen the safety of our country, the safety of israel and the rest of the region. i urge us to sthep iran refined petroleum sanctions act and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield myself such time as i may consume.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i would like to take the time to talk about the problems of media control in venezuela as ruled by hugo chavez. as we know, there's been a -- there was a new intelligence report that outlined the zeems of hugo chavez, the supposed president of venezuela, to control media and its a sign of further deterioration of freedom of expression, democracy, and human rights in venezuela under the chavez rule. he ratcheted up his rhetoric against free speech and against political opponents by shutting down broad cags stations across the country. these are assaults on the pillars of a democratic society and they -- they will continue unabated unless responsible nations stand up to chavez and send a clear message to him and others in the region that this
behavior will not be tolerated there is a list that i'd like to read of five journalists who were killed in venezuela. orel sambrano, killed on january 16, 2009, jorge uribe, killed on april 5 in 2006, hor ray derah cruz, april 11, 2002, he was killed in caracas, maria , killed in caracas and fernandez of universal, killed in 1992 and the committee to protect journalists just a little while ago gave us the news of a journalist who was critical of the venezuelan government arrested on contempt of court charges. the arrest of the journalist, his name is gustavo azucar was
arrested on trumped up charges. he was host -- he is host of a news and political commentary show on local tv station televisor -- he's in the western city of san cristobal. these are more examples of the repression of the freedom of the press by hugo chavez of vens way. -- venezuela. i yield to the chairman of the western hemisphere subcommittee, my good friend from new york, mr. engel. mr. engel: i thank the jerusalem for -- gentlewoman for yielding. he was mentioning venezuela, i agree with everything she said about the lack of freedom of the press and the shutting down of opposition papers, newspapers, but i wanted to add, because the next bill
we're going to talk about, involves sanctions against iran, i wanted to mention, subcommittee chairman of the western hemisphere, i want to raise a concern with venezuela, which arose at my october hearing, on iran's role in the western hemisphere. wins -- venezuelan leader hugo chavez agreed to provide 20,000 barrels a day of refined gasoline to iran. it's anyone's guess whether this would be implemented but it may be covered by the bill we consider now and that we're considering next. while some question whether venezuela has the ability to provide gasoline to iran since it imports gasoline to meet its own demand, president chavez is approaching a perilous area and i hope he reconsiders this unwise step. i thank the gentlewoman. ms. ros-lehtinen: the gentleman makes excellent points about the tie-ins between chavez and
ahmadinejad as they seek to suppress any dissonance and any free press. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker. i have no further requests for time and if the ranking member is prepared, i'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time. ms. ros-lehtinen: i have no further requests for time, i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. mr. berman: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the yes que is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3714 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 -- mr. berman: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and
without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and agree to the bill h.r. 2194 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2194, a bill to amend the iran sanctions act of 1996 to enhance united states diplomatic efforts with respect to iran by expanding economic sanctions against iran. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from florida -- the gentlewoman from florida oppose -- is the gentlewoman from florida opposed to the bill? is the gentlewoman from florida opposed? ms. ros-lehtinen: no, i do not oppose mr. kucinich's motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio will control the 20 minutes in opposition. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. berman, and the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to split the time evenly, the 20 minutes, in support of the bill with my colleague, the ranking member from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from florida will control 10 minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to extend the
time of the debate on h.r. 2194 by an additional 20 minutes. mr. kucinich: mr. speaker. mr. berman: let me add to my consent, with my control of 10 of those additional 20 minutes and mr. kucinich's control in opposition of 10 of those 20 minutes. that's my unanimous consent request. mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, would my colleague yield to a question? mr. berman: if appropriate. the speaker pro tempore: is there a -- is there an objection to the request? mr. kucinich: i reserve the right to object. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized under his reservation. mr. kucinich: so, my friend, what we're saying is that in your interest of making sure that there is an opportunity for members to speak on various -- the various sides, you want to
make sure the time is evenly divided both for the underlying bill and also for the extension of time. mr. berman: perhaps more accurately, you want to make sure the time is divided and i'm prepared to say the rule will require that and the extension of time i have in mind of additional 20 minutes -- mr. kucinich: i withdraw -- the speaker pro tempore: the additional time will be split. mr. kucinich: which draw my objection. -- i withdraw my objection. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. berman: then, mr. speaker, i have a further unanimous consent request that the 10 additional time on behalf of the supporters of this legislation be that additional 10 minutes be split five minutes for the majority and five minutes for the ranking member. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlelady from florida will control an additional five minutes. mr. berman: point of parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. berman: is it correct we are now in a situation where we will have a one-hour debate on this bill in which i will have 15 minutes to yield the ranking -- yield, the ranking member will have 15 minutes to yield and mr. kucinich will have 30 minutes? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i have unanimous -- i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield myself 4 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: mr. speaker, this bill has one overriding goal, to prevent iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability. the prospect of a nuclear armed iran is the most serious and
urgent strategic challenge faced by the united states and we must use all of the diplomatic means at our disposal including tougher sanctions to prevent that from becoming a reality. a nuclear armed iran would spread its influence by intimidating its neighbors, it would, with near inpunity, continue to support terrorists and destabilize the middle east, it would spark an arms race in the region that would tear the nuclear nonproliferation treaty to shreds and most frightening of all it could in the light of iran's repeated threats to wipe other nation off the map result in the actual use of nuclear weapons. when one considers the regime's ideological nature, the fact that it sent thousand of children to their deaths in the iran-iraq war and the current disregard for the human rights of its own citizens, it is clear the iranian regime is anything
but a rational actor. and we certainly cannot take the chance that a nuclear iran would be -- would behave responsibly. with each passing day the situation becomes more urgent as iran takes additional steps to developity nuclear weapons capability. by many estimates it would have that capability by some time next year and even the predictions that they could not be ready to deliver a bomb within five years have to be reevaluated on a shorter time frame based on recent revelations about iran's nuclear program. in september iran's efforts it to construct a new secret uranium enrichment facility were exposed to the world and what was tehran's response when the international community rightly condemned them for that action? declared it would build 10 mors. it could have been resolved without -- more. it could have been resolved without further actions but regrettably iran has not
unclenched its fist. the regime has refused to endorse even a confidence building measure agreed to by its negotiators in geneva that would have seen iran ship most of its low enriched uranium abroad to be further enriched for use in iran's civilian medical research reactor. that deal would have brought everyone significant time, delaying iran's nuclear arms clock for up to a year as negotiators dealt with the heart of the issue. iranian compliance with the u.n. security council requirement that it spend its enrichment program altogether. by rejecting the deal, iran retains its full stock of low enriched uranium, enough to serve as the basis for one nuclear bomb and it forces the world to respond urgently. the bill before us today is an important part of that response. it will take advantage of iran's considerable dependency on refined petroleum imports. it would sanction foreign
companies that sell refined petroleum to iran or help iran with its own domestic refining capacity. dy depreviousing those companies of access to the united states market. and in to so doing we're asking no -- and in so doing we're asking no more of foreign companies than we do of firms. i believe the passage and implementation of this act would have a powerful affect on the iran an economy. and i believe it would force unpalatable budgetary choices on the iranian regime, vastly increasing the domestic political cost of pursuing its nuclear program. that said, i want to reiterate that my overriding goal in moving forward with this legislation is to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. as we move toward a likely conference with the senate, most likely early next year, and as the administration continues its efforts to pursue stronger multilateral sanctions, i am open to making adjustments to the bill that would make it as
effective as possible in meeting that objective, including providing incentives to other nations to join us in supporting a strong multilateral sanctions regime. one possibility would be to provide an exemption for companies whose host nations are already enforcing robust sanctions in their national law. but for now it is sufficient to say that iran has had ample time to respond positively to president obama's generous engagement offer, regrettably the response has been only one of contempt. it is time for this body to act. i urge the support of this legislation, reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, mr. kucinich, for permitting me to speak on this.
i have great respect for the chair and ranking member and i deeply share their concern about a nuclear armed iran. it is something that i think we are all frankly deeply opposed to, we're deeply concerned about in terms of the potential instability in that delicate region and frankly around the world. but i do think there is deep concern that the approach that is being offered here is not calculated to reach that objective. first and foremost there is cords and i would add to the record, mr. speaker, a letter from the deputy secretary of state, mr. steinberg, talking about the problems of sanction legislation on the senate side, if i may. that talked about how we are injuring a critical period of
intense diplomacy to impose significant international pressure on iran. it's not at all clear, mr. speaker, that moving forward right now with new sanctions on companies of other countries that are involved with the petroleum activities is actually going to be helpful at a time when the administration is ramping up its international efforts to try and deal with iran. i think efforts that we all support and feel need to be as productive as possible. i think there's also a very real question about whether this focus of this legislation is going to be -- has its intended use because there is nobody in the iranian government, in the revolutionary guard, in the
inner circle of either the president or the supreme ruler that's not going to get their gasoline. it's going to be the extent to which it is successful and it remains questionable, it is going to be impactful on the people of iran, the common people who in the main are amongst the few middle eastern countries where they still have a favorable view of the united states, sanctioning those people, not the leadership. i found it interesting in the front page of today's washington "post" it talked about -- today's "the washington post" it talks about the evidence of iran's nuclear arms being expedited, despite sanctions. and in fact there is evidence in this article that in fact it is the sanctionings themselves that have spurred the indigenous development of that capacity in iran. one of them said, thank god for
the sanctions against us. i think we need to be very careful about the application of sanctions and how they're going to be worked. i think we have a short-sighted view for dual use technology and dealing with export controls that have actually developed other countries' capacity, including those that aren't friendly to us, or are companies of other competitors around the world. i think we need to be very careful here. it's going to last but by no means least, mr. speaker -- and last, but by no means least, mr. speaker, i'm concerned that the united states is the only country in the world that doesn't have a thoughtful sanction policy. when to impose them, how to impose them and most when to take them off -- most important when to take them off. i would respectfully suggest that this is not the right time, this is an instrument that's not
likely to be successful and it may complicate efforts. while i agree with the gentleman's objective, i don't agree with the legislation and urge its rejection. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the gentleman. since its secret nuclear weapons program was publicly exposed in 2002 iran has manipulated nations, world leaders and the united nations on its march toward possessing the capacity to unleash nuclear havoc on the world. current and past regime leaders have made their intentions quite clear. the destruction of the state of israel, the extinction of the jewish people, a world without the united states. iran has already produced over 1,400 kilograms of low enriched uranium which can easily be used for a so-called dirty bomb. new iranian documents have been
revealed reportedly detailing a program to produce and test the trigger for an actual nuclear weapon. nuclear experts note that there is no other possible use for such nuclear technology except for a nuclear bomb and in september of this year media quoted international inspectors saying, and i quote, they believe that tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is working on developing a missile system that can carry an atomic war head, end quote. and u.s. officials have calculated that iran already has stockpiled enough uranium to produce one nuclear weapon even as it expands its enrichment capabilities. we have arrived at the press miss and we are staring into darkness. in february of 2006 the congress adopted a concurrent resolution citing the iranian regime's repeated violations of its
nonproliferation obligations, underscoring that, as a result of these violations, iran no longer has the right to develop any aspect of a nuclear fuel cycle and urging responsible nations to impose economic sanctions to deny iran the resources and the ability to develop nuclear capabilities. the idea that we can rely on the so-called international community to handle this problem has been shown to be a mirage. but we too have failed to act quickly and decisively. failing to implement the iran-u.s. sanctions that are already on the books. now, we must use the lifmented time we make to impose sanctions so painful that it should threaten the iranian regime survival, but only threatened with a loss of power will they be compelled to abandon its destructive policies. the bill we are considering today, mr. speaker, the iran
refined petroleum sanctions act ratchets up the pressure on the regime by addressing a key thing, an ability to refine products. in iran, it is estimated to have imported gasoline directly or indirectly from at least 16 countries, including china, india, the netherlands, france and the u.a.e. as well as global oil companies such as total and shell. to stop this trade, the sanctions we are considering today must also be adopted by our allies who continue to talk about the needs to act but hide behind the claim that the u.n. security council must act first. but the u.n. security council due in part to russian and chinese opposition has demonstrated that it will never impose meaningful costs on the iranian regime. there is no shortage of
measures available. what is lacking is the will. beyond this bill today, mr. speaker, the broader question is whether we will be bystanders, complicity in our own destruction. as -- complicit in our own destruction. if you will not fight when your victory will be sure, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival, end quote. for our survival and for that of our friend and ally, israel, render your full support to this legislation. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, ron paul. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chairman states that the main purpose of this bill is to
prevent the iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. that isn't even as a powerful statement as was made that enticed us into the iraq war. it was to claim this they already had them. now, this is a pretense and yet here we are taking these drastic steps. my reason for opposing this bill, i think it's detrimental to our national security. it doesn't serve our interests. i oppose to it. in the late 1930's and early 1940's, the american people did not want to go into war. but there were some that were maneuvering us into war and they wrused the argument that you needed -- used the argument that you needed an event. in june of 1941, sanctions were put against japan incidentally and ironically prohibit oil products from going into japan. within six months there was the bombing of pearl harbor. and there are now talks -- there has been talk in the
media and we heard about it, we need to bomb iran. and that's what the people hear. the sanctions are a use of force. this is just not modest. this is very serious. and the way this is written it could very literally end up with a blockade. it could try to punish our friends and cut off trade. and this cannot help us in any way. we'd like to help the dissidents. we'd like to encourage them to overthrow their government. but hardly should we have their c.i.a. with u.s.-funded programs going in there with a policy of regime change. they know these kind of things happen. we've been involved in this business in iran since 1953. and it doesn't serve us well. it backfires on us. it comes back to haunt us. one of the goals explicitly expressed by al qaeda and their leaders has been they would like to draw us into the middle
east because it would cost us a lot of money and it could hurt us financially. and the second reason they wanted us over there is to get us bogged down in an endless war. and for the last decade that is what we've been doing. we are bogged down to the point we're very discouraging to the american people, very frustrating, no signs of victory, no signs of peace but we're bogged down. these were precise goals of the al qaeda leadership. and, also, one of the purposes of enticing us over there and being involved is to give a greater incentive to recruit those individuals who become violent against us. and this has been unbelievably successful. so we've been involved in iraq. we've been involved in afghanistan. we're bombing pakistan. and almost this is like another bonus for those who want us to be attacked is that we are over there and just fermenting this
anger and hatred toward us. that is why i believe this is not in our best interest. it actually hurts us. once we say that we are going to something like using force and prevent bioproducts to go in means that we have given up on diplomacy. diplomacy is out the window. and they're not capable of attacking us. the idea that they are on the verge of a bomb, you know, our c.i.a. said they have been working on it since 2003. and the other thing is if you want to give them an incentive to have a bomb, just keep pestering them like this, just intimidate them, provoke it. this is provocative. they might have a greater incentive than ever. they can't even make enough gasoline for themselves. i mean, they are not a threat. they don't have an army worth anything. they don't have a navy. they don't have
intercontinental ballistic missiles. so it's not a threat to our national security. i see our threat to our national security with this type of policy which could come and backfire and hurt us. i want to read number 5 in the bill. that particular item, because it makes my case rather than making the case for those who want the sanctions, i think this literally makes my case. number 5 said on october 7, 2008, then senator obama stated, iran right now imports gasoline even though it's an oil producer because its oil infrastructure has broken down. if we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products that starts changing their cost benefit analysis, that starts putting the squeeze on them. the squeeze on whom? on the people. this will unify the iranian people against us.
if we want to encourage true dissent and overthrow that government, which is more spontaneous and honest, i would say this is doing exactly the opposite. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker. a few unanimous consent requests. i first recognize the gentlelady from new york for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: for how long is the gentlelady recognized? mrs. lowey: i rise in strong support of the bill's expansion of economic sanctions against iran and businesses. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to recognize a distinguished member of our committee, the gentlelady from nevada, ms. berkley, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: gentlelady. -- the gentlelady is recognized. ms. berkley: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit my comments for the record
expressing my strong support for h.r. 2194. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. berkley: thank you. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker. further unanimous consent request. a member of the distinguished -- a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connelly: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit my comments for the record voicing my strong support for h.r. 2194 because america's patience is not limitless. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the chairman of the middle east and south asia subcommittee, someone who has been very focused on this issue, the gentleman from new york, mr. ackerman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. ackerman: i thank the speaker and thank the chairman. i rise in strong support of a sanctions bill that will strengthen the obama administration's ability to conduct effective diplomacy. the world, and i mean both our allies and others, needs to know that the u.s. congress is dead serious about sanctions
should diplomacy fail to resolve the real concerns about iran's nuclear program. for those who worry that sanctions may lead to conflict, i would suggest that the opposite is true. with iranian proliferation on the horizon, it is reckless. if you don't want war it seems to me that you absolutely must back the toughest possible political and economic sanctions. it is true that sanctions alone are almost certainly not going to be sufficient to force the iranian regime to change course. but if we are serious about stopping iran's race for nuclear capability, we must apply the maximum possible pressure by enhancing our capacity to unilateral sanctions, as we're doing today, by implementing crippling multilateral sanctions and by developing a strategy that applies more comprehensive pressure than just diplomatic engagement followed by sanctions.
president obama's offer of direct engagement with iran already helped to heal a variety of political woes. but by itself, political and economic sanctions may still lead too much initiative into iranian hands. i want to make it perfectly clear that i want them to be absolutely suffocating of the regime. the initiative is still left to the ayatollahs to decide when they've had enough. tragically, i suspect president obama is soon going to have to decide whether an iranian nuclear weapon is truly unacceptable with the full meaning of that word and with the full meaning of what that means. the best thing we can do to avoid that moment of truth is to act affirmatively on the bill before us today. and i yield back one minute of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california
reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i'll reserve the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm so pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor, the esteemed minority whip and a member of the committee on ways and means, a true leader who understands the clear and present danger that iran presents for the state of israel and for the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and i thank the gentlelady as well as the gentleman from california for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. mr. speaker, a nuclear iran would be a game-changing development that poses irrecognizable damage. yet, with the each passing day, the regime in iran forges ahead to make the nightmare scenario a reality. these are times of sharp partisan rankor in our nation's capital, but today we have the
chance to come together to make a major step forward in the interest of world peace. the time for decisive action to head off iran's nuclear program is now. by passing the iran refined petroleum sanctions act we send the overdue message that the cost of doing business with iran is too much to bear. mr. speaker, this legislation leverages our economic muscle, to punish any individual or company who sells or ships gasoline to iran. it offers one of our best chances to convince iran that it is firmly in its interest to abandon its nuclear ambitions. as iran takes a more belligerent approach to its nuclear program, the united states will not fall asleep at the wheel. we must lead. with the passage of this bill, we must and will rally the international community in
order to stop the middle east from moving irreverseably toward nuclearization. mr. speaker, i urge passage of the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. lynch: i thank the gentleman. i also come here with enormous respect for mr. berman, ms. ros-lehtinen, my friends, and if i thought for one minute that this bill would help the united states or protect israel or undermine mr. ahmadinejad i would support it. but i do not. and i do however take great comfort in the chairman's and the chief sponsor's earlier comments that in the conference
process that he is open and willing to adjust the bill and perhaps if these adjustments and improvements are made i can support it at that time. but i am faced with the bill before me and let me just say that i think that this bill will help ahmadinejad, that this will have the same effect that we have seen as embargos and other sanctions. i point to a couple of examples. one being the example in cuba where we put in an embargo there and ever since then the castro regime has been able to blame everything that has gone wrong in cuba, including tropical storms and hurricanes, on the u.s. embargo. it has helped that regime stay in power. we see the same effect happening in gaza. i've been there a couple of times. the fact that we've got an embargo there and a block aid has caused many in gazza to
rally around the flag -- gaza to rally around the flag in this case, hamas, and that has helped them. that's the -- that's the effect this bill will have in iran. we have watched very closely. this past week tens of thousands of students in iran in the green revolution have come to oppose and call for the ousting of ahmadinejad and his regime. what this will do, however, is this will undermine that opposition. this bill is focused on cutting off gasoline supply to the poor, to the working class, to the middle class families, the very he people who are supporting the revolutionary movement there to get rid of ahmadinejad. we are in a way, i think, substituting a plan that will not work for one that could very well work. we are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with this bill.
i hope earnestly that as the sponsor of this bill has indicated, the chairman, mr. berman, that there will be important changes perhaps made during the conference process. host: that does happen. and i hope that -- process. i hope that that does happen and i hope i'll be able to support this bill when it comes back from conference due to those changes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on africa and global health. mr. smith: mr. speaker, chairman berman's iran petroleum action -- act significantly ratches up strong -- ratchets up strong bipartisan on iran. given ahmadinejad's extreme hostility toward israel, his outrageous threats to annihilate israel from the face of the
earth, and his obsessive hatred of jews worldwide this bill strengthens penalties on those who not only sell or lease or provide to iran any good understand and services to iran -- goods and services to iran. and has other sanctions as well. mr. speaker, any serious effort to peacefully stop iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, which i believe they will use if they acquire them, requires the strongest political and economic pressure that we can muster. h.r. 2194 is a step, the right step, in that direction. i thank the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. kucinich: this legislation obstructs the obama administration's ongoing negotiations with iran, amounts to economic warfare against the
iranian people and brings us closer to an unnecessary military confrontation. i'd like to delineate point by point the objections to this bill. first of all, i agree with mr. paul that the bill is opposed to our national security. i have a letter here as mr. blumenauer submitted for the record from the deputy secretary of state which points out the serious substantive concerns of the administration including the lack of flexibility, inefficient monetary thresholds and penalty levels and blacklisting that could cause unintended foreign policy consequences, quote-unquote, this letter from the obama administration, december 11, 2009, ask unanimous consent that it be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: second, i ask
unanimous consent that an article from the national journal online dated november 2, 2009, be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: in this article it points out that a gas shortage will be created in iran, that iran subsidizes its gasoline, that the regime wants to shrink the program so the u.s. will be creating the gas short and. and the regime -- and the regime -- shortage. and the regime will blame the u.s. third, the revolutionary guard has already been able to build its coffers by being able to sell things on the black market. it's widely underinto that these sanctions -- understood that these sanctions would put the revolutionary guard in a position where they can make more money selling oil on the black market. number four, this proposal would throw energy politics of the region into chaos and the broader geo political landscape is thrown into chaos.
russia, venezuela, our european allies, all come into play in ways. number five, it undermines our diplomacy, it isolates us from our allies, it isolates us from our trading partners. number six, it undercuts international energy companies who work in a back channel road to try to help us with our diplomacy. number seven, it undermines democracy in iran. all of us have seen those pictures, they've been all over the tv and the internet in the last few months, about a growing democratic movement in iran. this sanction will force all people to close iran's leadership, it will strengthen the hardliners who undermine democracy. next, it will make the u.s. presence in iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, even more dangerous for our troops. number nine, it's a path to military escalation.
i will be discussing that later. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: mr. speaker, can we get a little summary of the time remaining on this complicated -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 8 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from ohio has 15 minutes. the gentlewoman from florida has 8 1/2 minutes. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield to the chairman of the terrorism nonproliferation and trade subcommittee of the house foreign affairs committee, the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. sherman: as one of the six original co-sponsors of this legislation, i rise in support. the gentleman from texas, mr. paul, attacks the whole concept of the use of sanctions saying that american sanctions against japan led to our involvement in world war ii.
if you think that america should have remained neutral in world war ii, you should vote with the gentleman from texas, mr. paul. iran has been found to have vite late -- violated the nonproliferation treaty andity commitments under that treaty by -- and its commitments under that treaty by the united nations security council by the votes of russia and china who also voted to impose some limited sanctions against iran. my district contains, i believe, more iran an americans than any other in -- iranian americans than any other in the country and those who support the effort for democracy in the homeland support the idea of sanctions. this bill is but one step that we need to take in rationing the economic power on the regime in tehran. this bill amends the iran sanctions act. it is important that that act be enforced both before and after we adopt these amendmented. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired --
amendments. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: before i yield to -- well, i'll yield to mr. paul for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman. if the gentleman from california didn't like my analogy about how we were maneuvered into war in world war ii, i think it might be a much more appropriate to compare it to the sanctions on iraq. there were those in the 1990's that wanted us to go to war in iraq. they were looking for an excuse. we put strong sanctions, continued flying over their country and bombing thousands, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of kids died, because of those sanctions and eventually they got their war. we ended up in the war. anybody who believes that taking gasoline away from the common person in iran is going to motivate them to get rid of
their ayatollah, it's the ayatollah that carries the power, that's not going to happen. it just does exactly the opposite. so this is why i believe this is a much greater threat to our national security, it does not help us, it doesn't achieve the goals that are set out. for instance, we now commonly say that the iranians have no right to enrich. well, they signed a nonproliferation treaty and they have not ever been told that they are making a bomb and yet what we're saying in this bill, that they can't enrich anymore. so in a way you're violating international law that's saying they can't enrich period. so that's -- that is just, you know, looking for trouble. now, what else this bill will do is it's going to push the support of the iranians in another direction. it's going to push them towards
india, toward china, russia and these countries have special, you know, associations with iran so we're going to, you know, separate us. we'll be isolated from that and they're going to have a much closer alliance with these countries. that will not serve our interests. it's going to serve the interests of one country, mostly, and that's china. china, you know, they act almost like capitalists. they take our dollars they've earned from us and they're spending the dollars over there. they would like to, you know, buy the oil and refine the oil and drill the oil but here we assume that we have to do it through force, through sanctions and threats and intimidation and secret maneuvers to overthrow their regime. it just doesn't work. it sounds good, it sounds easy, but it does back fire on us. you get too many unintended consequences and besides, our national security does not
depend on what we do in the middle east, our national security is threatened by this. i mean, we are overstretched, would we're broke, and this is part of the strategy as i mentioned before. our arch enemies in that region want to bankrupt us. and they want to stirrup hatred toward us and they want to bog us down and they're achieving what their goals are. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kirk, a member of the committee on appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. kirk: mr. speaker, congressman andrews and i are the two grandfathers of the bill and this policy. after 4 1/2 years of working on this legislation i strongly support this bill and especially its underlying policy which is the last best hope for diplomatically ending iran's nuclear weapons program. in january of 2005 i wrote to
the secretary of defense with a comprehensive analysis of iran's economy, discovering a critical weakness. despite its status as a leading oil exporter, iran has so mishandled her domestic energy supply that the regime relies on foreign sources of gasoline for 40% of its needs. in 2005 and again in 2006 congressman and ruse and i introduced the resolutions calling for the multilateral restriction of gasoline deliveries to iran as the most effective sanctions, to bring their leaders in compliance with their commitments to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. in 2007 we introduced the iran sanctions enhancement act to extend current sanctions to the provision of gasoline to iran and this year congressman brad sherman and i, we introduced the iran diplomatic enhancement act. this bill today is modeled after our bipartisan legislation. a restriction of gasoline deliveries to iran administered through multilateral sanctions
and enforced by the world's most powerful navies will pit our greatest strength against iran's greatest weakness, all without a shot being fired. for the bill to succeed the iranians must believe also that it will be enforced. otherwise we will go down a failed policy of diplomacy in the absence of effective sanctions. my hope is that the senate quickly takes up action on this bill and then the administration provide needed enforcement. i want to truly thank the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, chairman berman, our ranking member, ileana ros-lehtinen, congressman andrews and congressman brad sherman, for all working for me. this has been five years of my life working on this legislation. this is bipartisan legislation which offers the last best diplomatic hope to resolve this problem. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield myself
three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. kucinich: i would like to point out that the organization of iranians in the united states known as the national iranian american council, have issued a statement, a staff report dated monday, the 14th of december, 2009, that this sanctions act, quote, will only contribute to the iranian people suffering by seeking to restrict iran's supply of heating oil and fwass lien. prominent members of iran's opposition movement, such as mousavi and karabi and others have all spoken out others against such sanctions that punish innocent iranians. that's unquote. i ask unanimous consent to that this report from the national iranian council be submitted for the record. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. kucinich: i have an analysis that's done for
americans for peace now, which is a strong group in support of israel, at the same time they did an analysis and summary of concern about h.r. 2194. one of the points that they make is that, quote -- this is a quote --, the crippling of refined petroleum sanctions leads to the very problematic conclusion that the u.s. is seeking to inflict widespread suffering on the iranian people in order to force them to put pressure on their government. if is an approach few believe will achieve the desired goal and many believe could well backfire to the benefit of the regime and so anger at the u.s., not the iranian government, unquote. i ask unanimous consent to submit this analysis for the record. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered . mr. kucinich: in the legislation that we are presented with, it speaks to the purpose of h.r. 2194 as being -- as advancing along feelings of friendship for the
iranian people. we're telling the iranian people we have feelings of friendship for you. we like you so much, but we're going to cut off your home heating oil. so we're asking the people when they're freezing -- again, these warm feelings of friendship. i think people will find that the expression of friendship isn't to be believed and what is happening here is an efforts to punish the people of iran for the policies of their government which our obama administration is trying to still find a way to deal with diplomatically. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. berman: well, mr. speaker, i'm very pleased now to yield to one of the great supporters
of this legislation, the speaker of the house, the gentlelady from california, ms. pels. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. the speaker: thank you very much, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong support of the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, and i'd like to acknowledge the great leadership of our chairman, chairman berman, and ranking member, congresswoman ros-lehtinen for their efforts and leadership to bring this legislation to the floor. all members of congress, regardless of party, agree a nuclear iran is simply unacceptable. it is a threat to the region, to the united states, and to the world. the american people have great hopes for our friendship with the people of iran. we look forward to a day when iran is a much more productive member of the community of nations. until that day, though, we must ensure that iran is prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons
which threaten the security of the world. iran must take the necessary steps to demonstrate its willingness to live as a peaceful partner in the international community, and we must use all of the tools at our disposal, from diplomacy to sanctions, to stop iran's march towards nuclear capability. today, with this legislation we give the president a new option, a new tool, the power to impose sanctions against companies that supply iran with or support its domestic production of gasoline and other refined petroleum products. by targeting iran's ongoing dependence on largely imported refined petroleum, we reduce the chance that iran will require that capacity to produce nuclear weapons. a pillar, mr. speaker, of our national security is diplomacy. and in the case of iran, we must use it.
we must exhaust every remedy. i commend president obama for standing with other u.n. security council leaders earlier this year to condemn iran and to work toward an agreeable diplomatic solution to end iran's development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. however, as we have seen, iran has refused to accept the reasonable offer that was thrown on the table a couple of months ago. instead, it has reiterated its resolve to continue its uranium enrichment program, the cornerstone of its nuclear program. the international community must, therefore, consider stronger options. we have that opportunity today to give the president the option with a waiver to use in the best possible way. now, i've heard, as mentioned, the state of israel in some of the debate here today. and israel certainly has proximity to iran. iran is increasing its capability both to develop a
weapon of mass destruction and a capacity, a delivery system to deliver that. this isn't a bad israel. israel is, again, close and its development of a weapon of mass destruction is a threat to the region, but the development of a weapon of mass destruction anyplace in the world is a threat to the entire world. and it is not in the national security interest of the united states. so while israel may bear the brunt or be the closest target or target of words -- hopefully not anything else -- they have carried this fight, but it's not just their fight. the fight is all of ours. i mentioned diplomacy is the pillar of our national security. another pillar of our foreign policy and of our national security is stopping the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction. imagine what the reaction would be if iran had a nuclear weapon, what that would evoke in the arab world in terms of their interests in having weapons of mass destruction. it simply cannot happen, and with this legislation today, we strengthen the president's hand to grant, to use or to withhold this particular sanction. but to have the capability to use diplomacy in a stronger way. i urge all of my colleagues to support the iran refined petroleum sanctions act. with that i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, representative paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. paul: i talked to somebody today that would be voting for
these but admitted that they won't work in its mere symbolism. already they tonight think these will do much good even those who will vote for it. very possible to enforce is one reason, and it will create a black market. and these particular sanctions are most difficult to enforce just because of the nature of the way it's written. one must understand a little bit about the pressure that's put on this country to act in a defensive way. they happen to be surrounded by a lot of nuclear bombs. and they don't have a history. the iranians, as bad as they are for their leadership and how bad their regime is, they're not expansion is territorially. how many years has it been since they invaded another country for the purpose of taking over another country? it's just not in recent history at all. but the countries around them, india. india has nuclear weapons. china has nuclear weapons. pakistan, israel. china, the united states. they're all around them.
i'm sure they feel like a cornered rat. but what i see here is propaganda. propaganda to build fear into people, to prepare the people for what is likely to happen like in the 1990's, fear of weapons of mass destruction. well, someday they might get a weapon of mass destruction, and unfortunately i am just really concerned that this is going to lead to hostilities because this is the initiation. the fear is building up. so too often in this case -- and we talk of peace at the same time that we pursue war. we pursue war and we use these efforts to push our policies on others. and quite frankly we don't have any more money to pursue this policy, whether it's used by the military or even try to buy france by giving them a lot of money. it just doesn't work. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman's time has expired. mr. paul: i urge a no vote on this resolution in the interest of the united states security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to my good friend from indiana, mr. burton, the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on middle east and south asia. he deals with this issue every day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. burton: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i thank the chairman for bringing this to the floor. god bless you, my son. let me say that i heard the arguments from the opponents of this legislation. and my question to them would be, well, what's the alternative? you mention one, two, three, four, five, six, seven reasons why we shouldn't do this but iran is developing a nuclear weapons system. if you look at the "times" and the bbc, iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb. and it's the mechanism that
explodes the nuclear bomb. now, we've been waiting and waiting and waiting for years for them to stop the development of a nuclear weapon. and they keep giving us all these reasons why they shouldn't be stopped and why they're not doing it and all kinds of things but the fact of the matter is they continue on the path toward a nuclear weapon. now, we get a large percentage of our energy from the middle east. israel is not going to sit by and let their country be threatened with annihilation. they are not going to let iran develop a nuclear weapon, especially since ahmadinejad said he wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. and so if they develop a nuclear weapon and a detonating device, like they're working on right now, israel is going to do something about it. now, do we want a major thing happen in the middle east that would threaten the energy we get in this country? we get about 40% of our energy
from the middle east. if you mess up the peshian gulf, if you have that -- persian gulf, it would suffer us because it would hurt our economy from top to bottom. so i wish my colleagues would stop and think. do we let them just go on and not do anything about it, or do we start ratchetting up the pressure on them, put a little pressure on them, make them stop developing this nuclear weapon system because if they don't the alternative is unthinkable. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from florida reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: could i ask how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has seven minutes. mr. kucinich: i yield two minutes to mr. flake of arizona. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman from indiana mentioned, what do the opponents of this resolution
have in mind, if not these sanctions then what, what do we do? i think you're hard pressed to find anyone who will rationally say that this measure will have any real effect. this is a statement resolution more than anything. and to the extent that it does bite -- right now we don't export any refined petroleum products to iran. but some of our allies do. those allies that we need for real sanctions that may or will bite. and if we hope to get them onboard, the last thing we want to do is get out in front and take measures where there will be action on our allies that we need for sanctions that might actually have an impact. so the notion that we have to do this or nothing is simply false. we need to address this situation. we need to do it in a way that we don't alienate the people in iran who when you're on the streets of iran people are not
vehemently anti--american. we need to keep it that way. -- vehemently anti-american. we need to keep it that way. hopefully they'll get mad at their leadership rather than the u.s. i think that when you look at the history of sanctions you're hard pressed to find examples where that kind of action works. you try to entice some kind of rebellion on the people that you want to help and somehow they'll bring their government rather than those who are imposing the sanction. again, multilateral sanctions can work. multilateral action can work and it needs to work. but in order to do that you need to give the administration the flexibility through a combination of diplomacy and other measures to work with our allies, to bring measures that will work. and so i am glad the gentleman has stood up to oppose this and want people to know that we weren't all in agreement here.
that there are other members -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. flake: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. . ms. edwards: i'm disappointed that i'm here to support the act because it is the extraordinary lack of cooperation on the part of the leadership in iran that brings us to this point. though i share many of the concerns expressed by the opposition, like many, i was hopeful at the beginning of this year and this new president and administration that we would approach iran differently and the leaders in iran would respond. the response from the iran leadership particularly following their flawed election has been anything but forth coming. they rebuffed a plan for the transfer of low-grade uranium
and materials. they have led the world community along in the belief they were negotiating fairly and with integrity and they are pursuing enrichment. this posture is both unfortunate and misguided. attempting to test president obama's resolve and commitment to transparency, deterrence and accountability. it's my hope that our actions today will enable additional leverage for president obama and his team within the governing multilateral institutions and countries. they have to united states that -- to understand that the united states is serious in transparency and accountability. mr. kucinich: i yield myself two minutes. this bill claims to express international diplomatic efforts to halt iran's uranium enrichment program. it actually undermines those efforts. passing legislation effectively forces our president in one
direction, diminishing the power of the president and his diplomatic team by significantly limiting the tools the administration can utilize. it proper jets a negative image in the united states at a time when we need broad international support to succeed in our negotiations. former international atomic energy agency director al-baradai has stated that sanctions against iran will be ineffective. and in a speech to the board of governors this year, he recognized the important developments with respect to iran's compliance with iaea inspections stating and i quote, we are not in a state of panic because we have not seen diversion of nuclear material and have not seen components of nuclear weapons, unquote.
in addition, he states, quote, we went through this during the time of iraq when the agency went exactly through that hype, fabrication and took a war based on fiction and not fact and hundreds of thousands of people dying for the agency to become more strong and credible because we were sticking to the facts unquote. section a-1 of section 2 of this bill says, quote, the elicit nuclear activities of the government of iran combined with ballistic missiles in support of nuclear terrorism represents a threat to the united states, its allies. this language makes dangerous accusations that have been repude dated by the iaea. we cannot afford to make the same mistakes at the cost of the innocent lives of the people in iran.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, a member of the budget committee, and committee on financial services, a co-sponsor of this bill and a former chairman of the republican study committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. given the state of iran's nuclear ambitions and poor record at transparency, it is clear that the united states must lead the world in pressuring iran to give up these ambitions. there is no option. iran's energy sector is the backbone of its economy and provides the majority of its government's revenue. but iran's energy infrastructure is deteriorating badly and in need of modernization. without this modernization, its energy sector very well may deteriorate and along with it consequently, its economy and possibly even its regime. the act gives the president an important tool to help persuade
the iranian regime to peacefully give up its nuclear ambitions. a nuclear-armed iran is unacceptable. it could provide rogue nations and terrorists with nuclear technology. it constitutes the looming threat to the national security of the united states. iran's behavior not only jeopardizes the stability of the region but threatens the existence of many of our allies in the middle east, particularly the state of israel. i encourage all of my colleagues to support the iran refined petroleum act and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: how much time is remaining? how much time do we all have here? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has four minutes. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady from florida has 3 1/2 minutes.
the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield two minutes. one of my colleagues talked about what is the alternative? the only alternative is to impose sanctions. we know from a report two days ago that iran's foreign minister has said its country was willing to exchange the uranium for processed fuel as the united nations proposed. the article goes along to say, but according to the timetable, western powers have appeared to have rejected. we need to get back into those negotiations. i have some points to share. here's what we can do. the debate in iran is focused on two shipments of 4u00 kilograms. what is proposed a phased delivery to control of iran's low-enriched uranium of three to five months for a total of 800 kilograms.
the iran foreign minister said they put 400 kilograms under iaea custody. iranians want guarantees to continue delivery from russia and france and once it's delivered to iran for medical purposes, they will send another 400 kilo grams to iaea control. the shipment of highly enriched uranium to iran and low i-enriched uranium from iran are confidence-building measures which forms the basis for further cooperation. second, we need a pledge of guaranteed delivery from the participants. third, the u.s. offer of assistance would modernize the instruments for the tehran reactor. iran's willingness to continue with its transparency and full scope iaea safeguards, including
short-notice inspections. iran's willingness to participate in geneva five. six, iran's willingness to participate in multilateral expert meetings on nuclear and nonnuclear and consideration of broad range of topics. we don't need these sanctions. we need diplomacy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm so happy to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the the gentleman from california, mr. royce, ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. royce: time is not on our side. today's "washington post" reports that iran has learned how to make virtually every bolt and switch in a nuclear weapon. it is mastering the technology to enrich uranium, which would fuel that weapon. a secret nuclear facility
located on an iranian military base was recently revealed. for years, iran has been slapping away all of our diplomatic overtures. quote, our outreach has produced very little, unquote. secretary clinton's words, not mine. today, the world's top terrorist state has its tenth ta calls throughout the region. they are in yemen, iraq, lebanon, gaza, afghanistan, syria, sudan. its agents and proxies are practically everywhere in its aspiration for regional dominance, not to mention our own back yard. tomorrow's nuclear iran would have a compounding effect with severe consequences for regional security and u.s. security. the time for action is long past now. this bill would help address this threat, targeting the regime's achilles heal.
but we need a broad-based policy not just based on iran's nuclear program but one to protect u.s. and its allies and speaks out against human rights abuses and bolsters its democracy supporters. disturbingly this administration has backed away from missile defense in europe and the democratic movement inside iran. the administration must realize that promoting democracy in iran and improving our national security go hand in hand. i would just mention that sanctions help bring down apartheid in south africa and ended the south african program to end nuclear weapons. as ranking member of the subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade, i support the pass eaming of this legislation, of which i'm an original co-sponsor and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition?
the the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. we're always ready on this side. i'm proud to yield one minute to the gentlelady from washington, ms. mcmorris rogers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mr. rogers: thank you -- mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i rise in strong support of h.r. 2194 and urge my colleagues to support this bill. my husband and i visited israel and the people of israel want nothing more than to live in peace with their neighbors, many of whom have said repeatedly they want israel wiped off of the map. but the israelis are realistic about peace. they know it comes from strength, from clear military
superiority, from letting your enemies know that they cannot defeat you. that is a hard, realistic peace. it's clear iran wants to break that peace and destabilize that region and make israel live in fear. after delays, we must now back our words with actions. iran must be held accountable. as iran takes one step after another towards nuclear weapons, it edges towards war. a vote in favor of this bill is a vote in favor of continuing a hard peace in the middle east and showing the rest of the world that a nuclear iran is not an option. i pledged to do all i could to maintain and expand a difficult peace. i urge my colleagues to join me in this quest. a strong first step is passing h.r. 2194. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from new
york, the chairman of the western hemisphere subcommittee, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, only a few short months ago the world learned of a secret enrichment city. if there was any doubt, this revelation dispelled any shred of that doubt. it was kept secret and was built deep in a mountain on a protected military base. this is how a country skeels a nuclear weapons program and defies u.n. security council resolutions not how it develops peaceful technologies. it is limiting refining. it will peen liz companies that export refined petroleum products to iran. it's my hope that the administration will apply the additional sanctions to make clear to the ahmadinejad regime that the world will not accept
its nuclear ambition. the u.s., allies and u.n. security council have realized that a nuclear-armed iran would be a danger to israel and nuclear nonproliferation regime. it is unacceptable and we must support this legislation. to my colleagues who say sanctions don't work and only hurts the local population, the same argument was made against south african sanctions. those worked. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? mr. berman: can i be wreck niesed. the gentleman who first introduced legislation on this subject, who i worked closely with the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. mr. andrews: i thank the ranking member, the chairman for their guidance and i rise in strong support of the legislation and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered.
mr. berman: my colleague from virginia, the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran for unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for unanimous consent consent. mr. moran: i would like unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record at this point. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.. who seeks recognition? the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i believe we have 40 seconds left, i'll be glad to use them at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 30 seconds. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. you can do a lot in that time. sanctions, when fully enforced, weaken oppressors and signal support for the opposition. they send a clear message to dissidents and those hungry for freedom that we stand with them. this will force the regime to use its resources to take care of the iranian people, something they have not done, instead of using its funding to
develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. support the iranian people, support peace and security, support this bill. i thank the gentlelady for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the majority leader of the house, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the chairman for yielding. i want to thank the chairman and i want to thank congresswoman ros-lehtinen for her leadership as well. madam speaker, every member of this chamber understands the deep danger inherent in a nuclear iran. that danger includes a new nuclear arms race. as iran's regional rivals scramble to build competing
arsenals, plunging the middle east into an ever greater instability and the world into a new era of proliferation. the danger includes as well a nuclear umbrella for groups like hamas and hezbollah. terrorist organizations. who may take any advantage of their state-sponsored protection to stage more brazen and deadly attacks, on israel, certainly, but on the rest of us as well. the danger includes on a more basic level a new era of fear for all those in range of iran's missiles, fear that could equal or surpass what we ourselves experienced in the first days of the cold war. those consequences, madam speaker, will be felt even if iran's miz isles remain on the launch pad or if its nuclear weapons remain buried. could we imagine those weapons
being used? we would be foolish not. to as long as those weapons are in the hands of a regime whose president denies the holocaust, stokes hatred and openly threatens its neighbors, and the united states of america. in the months since last summer's election, we have seen the character of the iranian regime more clearly than ever. we have seen it in the dissent silenced, in opposition leaders threatened and jailed, in peaceful protesters beaten and shot for the crime of demanding that their votes be counted. we have seen a regime founded on violence and violent disregard for the opinion of its people and the opinion of the world community. even so, our administration has, and i think correctly, in my view, pursued a policy of engagement with tehran. that engagement reversed years
of diplomatic silence that did little to slow iran's growing nuclear program. it showed the world our patience, our commitment to addressing the common threat through diplomacy, and it gauged tehran's honest willingtons resolve the crisis at the negotiating table. america's policy of engagement always came with a timeline. time for tehran to negotiate in good faith, or as so many members have said on this floor today to show that it was only using talks as a cover for continuing enrichment of uranium. sadly, time is running short. there is still no diplomatic agreement. the enrichment continues and the threat grows. the past months have brought revelations of secret iranian nuclear facilities a lack of cooperation with the international atomic energy
agency and a refusal to comply with security council demands to suspend enrichment. just today, "the washington post" reported that, and i quote, iran has learned how to make virtually every bolt and switch in a nuclear weapon. according to assessments by u.n. nuclear officials, as well as western and middle east intelligence analysts and expert that language in the paper today that is why this is the right time to bring strong economic pressure to bear on the iranian regime. none of us want military conflict. economic sanctions are not as effective as we would like them to be. but we just recently heard from a leader, the chancellor of germany that a nuclear armed
iran was unacceptable. prime minister her tell spoke from this rostrum. this is not a perception they have united states, it's a perception also of those who live in europe. even more proximate to the nuclear threat that would be caused by iranian arms -- nuclear arms. the bill was designed by chairman berman and his committee to target iran's economy at one of its weakest points, by penalizing companies that help iran import or produce refined petroleum products. even though it is an oil producer, iran imports a great deal of the refined petroleum that powers its economy. so these sanctions that i propose will increase the high cost of iran's self-imposed isolation from the international community. they're also a proportional response because they're tied
to iran's nuclear program. we should never take sanctions like these lightly. even as we stand with the protesters facing down repression at the hand of their own government. we understand that these sanctions will affect the lives of many ordinary iranians. for the worse. but we know that economic pressure has worked before to alter the behavior of outlaw regimes, especially when such pressure is widely supported by the international community. certainly we must hope these sanctions are. we know these sanctions are our best tool against the nuclear proliferation that risks the security of millions in the middle east. let me say that we have 250,000 or more americans within range of iranian missiles. we know that tehran can choose at any point to negotiate in good faith, abandon its
aggressive nuclear pursuit, and rejoin the community of nations. we shouldn't hope for change of heart from that regime but we can hope for change of behavior. a cold understanding, that as long as iran builds the capacity to catastrophically attack its neighbors, its economy will suffer deeply. these sanctions have the power to force that choice. i therefore urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution. it is time. it is time to do more than talk. we are willing to talk, we want to talk, but talk without action is not acceptable. let us pass this resolution, support the administration in moving ahead with the international community on imposing sanctions that will make not only the middle east
but the international community, safer. i thank the gentleman for the time and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, the vice chair of the subcommittee on the middle east and south asia of the house foreign affairs committee, mr. klein. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. klein: i rise to support the iran refined petroleum sanctions act. it is deeply disappointing that the iranian government continues to choose to isolate itself. the iranian government has chosen its clandestine nuclear program other joining the community of nations and allowing its economy to thrive. that is why i worked to include an important provision in today's legislation that requires companies applying for contracts with the united states government to affirmatively certify they do
not conduct business with iran. it gives companies a single choice, give business with -- do business with the united states or do business with iran. we cannot allow the u.s. government to be a financial crutch of this rogue regime, not on our watch and not on our dime. iranian businesses will have a choice as well. the choice is economic isolation or work to change the behavior of the iranian government. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: one of my colleagues read the cite -- cited the "washington post," but they couldn't authenticate where the information came from. after a while it has the ring of ewe rain yam -- uranium from
najar. we have to be careful this sanction doesn't put us on the path of military escalation. you have to think, why has the obama administration expressed concern about this legislation? that this legislation might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts. that there are serious substantive concerns. that the lack of flexibility this would put on the president and his negotiations. i want to submit a unanimous consent, muhammad alvaradi's comments to the inspector general about the iran situation. we have to be careful we're in the making a situation worse and not giving the president the time he says he needs for diplomacy. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks recognition?
mr. berman: may i inquire, does the gentlelady have further speakers? ms. ros-lehtinen: no time. mr. berman: i would if i could. i'm now pleased to recognize for one minute a very patient member of the -- member of the committee on homeland security, the gentleman from texas, mr. green for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you. madam speaker, today we will impose sanctions. we will sanction with this legislation or we will sanction the unacceptable status quo to which i say, not on my watch. let history record that even if i could not do enough, i did do all that i could. i support sanctions to avert a tyrant from a acquiring nuclear
weapons of mass destruction capable of creating an inferno unlike that which even the mind of dante can imagine. to act later may be to act too late. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio has one minute remaining. the gentleman from california has two minutes remaining. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for the balance of his time. mr. kucinich: this is starting to sound like the debate over iraq. my concerns are is that this resolution is opposed to our national security, it undermines diplomatic initiatives, it creates a gas shortage in iran that in a sense the regime would blame on
the united states, it will benefit the revolutionary guard nits effort to gain profit off a black market. it will throw the energy politics of the world into chaos with russia, venezuela, and our european allies coming into play. it will undermine our diplomacy, isolate us from our allies, isolate us from trading partners, undercut international energy companies who try to work with the united states back channels in diplomacy, it will undermine democracy efforts in iran, it will make u.s. presence in iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan more dangerous for our troops. this sanction resolutions is unfortunately a path toward military escalation and as such, it should be defeated. .
mr. berman: madam speaker, i have heard i guess three reasons put forth about why people should not support this legislation. but first, some hint of a belief that iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, our report lists activity after activity that iran has undertaken to hide its activities from the iaea, to build enrichment facilities that have no purpose in the uranium enrichment program, to talk about neutron triggers, the purpose of which is to detonate. it is an offer by russia and the support of the p-5, a chance for a nuclear energy program and has spurned all those offers to pursue this. that, to me, there can be no
serious doubt about that. the second argument is, so they get a nuclear weapon, we can contain them. for the reasons i gave in the beginning and i believe it believes the proliferation regime, containment is not the right policy. and the third argument is these sanctions are going to hurt the iranian people. i was here in 1986 when we took up a prohibition on any new investment, not investment in the energy sector, any new investment in the apartheid regime in south africa and what was the argument against it? any new investment, curtail economic growth hurt the population of the majority of the people of south africa. don't wreak havoc. we did not listen to that argument and we acted those sanctions and europe followed.
the south african american -- the south african business community was faced with the sanctions. it is ludicrous to think people who are risking their life, liberty and their limbs and doing everything they can to express their opposition to this regime in iran are going to turn into a unifying force behind that regime because the oil gets higher. we are working with them to weaken with that regime and stop this nuclear weapons program. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2194 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. berman: on that, object on
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the gentleman asks for the yeas and nays? mr. berman: i do. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentleman rise? mr. berman: pursuant to clause when the house adjourn today it meets at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.
the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken on house resolution 971 by the yeas and nays. h.r. 2194 denovembero. house resolution denovembero. the first electronic will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes.
the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 971. . the clerk: house resolution 971, expressing the sense of the house of representatives regarding guidelines for breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]