Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. All of us know, Mr. Speaker, that Iran is a growing threat to the region and to U.S. national security interests. Iran's record for supporting Islamic extremists is dangerously supplemented by its continued violation of its nonproliferation obligations, its mockery of the International Atomic Energy Agency process, and its continued defiance of the United Nations Security Council's demands to halt its nuclear enrichment and reprocessing program. Just last week, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told Britain's newspapers, the Independent and the Guardian, that uranium enrichment was ``like breathing'' for his country, and that Iran would not halt the spinning centrifuges at its main enrichment plant at Natanz, even if the Bush administration offered security guarantees. We could just wait for further action from the United Nations to counter the Iranian threat, but even the Iranian regime is aware of the influence of Russia and China at the U.N. Security Council and the refusal of some of our European and Asian allies to sacrifice commercial interests for the sake of nonproliferation. Just last Wednesday, Iranian leader Ahmadinejad said that U.N. resolutions could not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear technology. He stated, ``Let's say that they issue Resolution Number 300. What will happen? It should be remembered that Iran is obtaining nuclear technology. They will have to eventually accept that.'' Well, for almost 5 years, Mr. Speaker, Iran has been manipulating the so-called international community buying time to expand, to strengthen and to hide its nuclear activities. In fact, recent public reports further document the construction of a major tunnel complex inside the mountain near the Iranian facility at Natans, near the fortified buildings where the Iranian uranium is reportedly being processed. This clearly illustrates the frenetic and advanced nature of that regime's nuclear weapon pursuit and should increase our sense of urgency. But the regime's pursuit of these destructive policies has one weakness: Iran's energy infrastructure. Iran's economy and its ability to influence events is heavily dependent on the revenues derived from energy exports. As such, recent U.S. efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction have focused on deterring and prohibiting investments in Iran's petroleum sector. U.S. law prohibits American firms from investing in Iran. In addition, the Iran Sanctions Act seeks to influence responsible nations to stop their investment in Iran's energy sector, that is the economic lifeline of the regime, by calling for sanctions on those entities. Unfortunately, due to lack of enforcement, lack of commitment from some of our allies, foreign entities which fall outside of the jurisdiction of our country continue to invest in Iran, helping to fill the coffers, enabling the regime in Tehran to pursue not just a nuclear capability, but a chemical and biological program, long-range ballistic missiles and, as all of us know, they are a state sponsor of global Islamic extremism and terrorism. As part of their effort to isolate Iran and deprive it of its revenues, it needs to fund its nuclear weapons program. My distinguished colleague, Chairman Lantos, and I introduced the Iran Freedom Support Act, which was enacted into law in September of last year. This legislation strengthens sanctions against those who invest in Iran's petroleum sector, the economic lifeline of the Iranian regime. However, the final version of the law did not include language that would make export credit agencies, insurers and other financial institutions subject to sanctions for their facilitation of investments in Iran's oil industry. The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 957 seeks to close this loophole. The imminent need to close this loophole and to compel responsible nations to do the right thing was clearly articulated in February of this year by Ambassador George Schulte, the chief U.S. representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Ambassador Schulte called on European governments to stop giving credits to subsidize exports to Iran and to take more measures to discourage investment and financial investment with Iran. It is my hope that, despite the clarifications included in the suspension text at the request of other committees, that H.R. 957 is applied vigorously against those governments that claim to support our efforts to stop Iran's nuclear pursuit but fail to take tangible actions to deny the regime the resources to continue along this destructive and dangerous path. H.R. 957 also seeks to expand the activities covered under the law to include petrochemicals and liquefied natural gas. Concerns were raised that existing law required the clarification that sanctions under the ISA should apply to certain foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies; therefore, H.R. 957 expands and extends the applications to U.S. foreign subsidiaries as defined in the bill. This is a straightforward bill with a simple purpose: to enhance our ability to deprive Iran of the revenue it needs to fund its nuclear weapons and to secure greater cooperation from European, Asian, Russian and other allies to cut off the flow of funds to Iran. Responsible nations must immediately stop their multi-million, and in some cases billion, dollar investments in Iran's energy sector. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical bipartisan measure to confront the Iranian threat. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my good friend from California, Ms. Barbara Lee, for her leadership in introducing this bill, which is intended to deepen our educational cooperation with our neighbors in the Caribbean. H.R. 176 authorizes the creation of the Shirley A. Chisholm U.S.- Caribbean Educational Exchange Program to help provide U.S. educational opportunities to qualified students from the countries of the Caribbean community. It also authorizes State and USAID to expand existing primary and secondary school initiatives in the Caribbean to provide programs on teacher training methods, school management, curriculum development, and increase community involvement in school activities. Increasing the quality of educational opportunities available to our good neighbors in the Caribbean serves the interests of our entire region, and deepens the goodwill that already exists between the people of our countries. I want to thank Congresswoman Lee and Chairman Lantos for working with me at the committee level to incorporate language ensuring that state sponsors of terrorism do not receive the benefits provided under this bill. The committee also amended the text to authorize such sums as may be necessary rather than a sum certain for the new programs. This will help ensure that any new activities under the act will not disrupt those educational and exchange programs already being implemented in the region by the State Department and USAID. Again, I thank my colleagues for their cooperation in preparing this bill for floor consideration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the sponsor of this resolution, Mr. Chabot, is unfortunately delayed due to airport difficulties, but his statement will be included for the Record. Confucius once declared that ``greeting an old friend from afar is one of life's greatest pleasures.'' Well, the purpose of this resolution is to carry out this wise saying of Confucius, for the leaders and people of Taiwan have been among the most steadfast friends of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region. From the dark days of the Korean War and the Taiwan Strait crisis of the late 1950s, the people of Taiwan and the people of the United States have stood together against the threat of communist tyranny. A half century of friendship has developed, with deepening commercial ties, and in more recent years, a shared love of democratic values. It is only natural, as Confucius noted, to warmly welcome the leaders of such close friends to Washington. But the restrictions placed on travel to our country by democratically elected officials in Taiwan, adopted by a series of U.S. administrations, is a self-inflicted wound. The often-quoted Shanghai communique issued in 1972 contains no such restriction. Nor is there any limitation spelled out in the Taiwan Relations Act. In this regard, the intentions of Congress in the Taiwan Relations Act are clear: ``To promote the foreign policy of the United States by authorizing the continuation of commercial, cultural and other relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan.'' How can such relations be promoted without direct communications between officials of the United States and Taiwan? No one likes being told whom they can or cannot invite to their own home. Americans consider their home to be ``their castle,'' with a sacred right to decide their own affairs within. No outsider should dictate rules and regulations within the American home. So let's put out the welcome mat for our friends, the democratically elected officials from Taiwan, by giving overwhelming support to this long overdue resolution. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for authoring it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise also in support of this resolution, which strikes an important balance, protecting the integrity of history and recognizing present- day reality. It also addresses an issue of great significance for the peoples of the Asia Pacific region. The tragedy of the ``comfort women,'' the thousands of Asian and European women forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army during the first half of the 20th century, was a horrific crime. For the surviving ``comfort women'' these issues are not historical; they are profoundly personal. Some of them were in our Foreign Affairs Committee when this bill was marked up. Attempts to deny or minimize these facts are a disservice to future generations. The case of Darfur, which we spoke about earlier today, Mr. Speaker, reminds us all that the issue of the use of military force to abuse women, to abuse children through rape and exploitation is one which we need to look at and one which unfortunately continues to this very day. At the same time, the resolution makes clear that Japan has been a vital ally of the United States and a generous benefactor of the international community through several decades. It has been a strong ally of the United States on issues relating to, for example, nonproliferation. It was recently reported that three Japanese banks have stopped engaging in any new business with Iran and that Japanese financial institutions are restricting loans and rejecting an Iranian request to pay for oil imports in currency other than dollars. So we are proud of the U.S.-Japan alliance and grateful for the friendship of the people of Japan. At the same time, we should also recognize that the issue of unresolved historic grievances from the Pacific war is one that cannot be ignored. It is through reconciliation of these issues that our Asian allies can work constructively together, as is the case with our European allies, and the achievement of regional harmony is in America's vital national security interests Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Harp seals, which live off of Canada's east coast, are sought for their pelts. Canadian hunters, who are regulated by Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans, have killed almost a million seals in the past 3 years. The government set a quota of 270,000 seals for the season of 2007, which is lower than the limit of 335,000 seals set in last year's season. The quota is determined annually by the department and is set based on estimates of the current seal population. Many concerned citizens are quite upset that these seals are killed in an inhumane way, since many are beaten unconscious and then skinned while they are still alive. An independent group of veterinarians, invited by the International Fund for Animal Welfare to observe the seal hunt, concluded that the seal hunt was out of compliance with basic animal welfare regulations in Canada. Also, 95 percent of the seals are less than a year old. This resolution urges Canada to end the commercial seal hunt. Our Canadian friends are good allies and partners in many areas of common interest, and we hope that they will take this important step. Many have raised alarm about this, including our distinguished chairman of our committee, Mr. Lantos, and I thank him for his many years of leadership on the plight of people who have been abused, but also animals who have been mistreated. I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, Hope for Vision was founded to assist individuals dealing with the loss of vision and to raise much-needed funding for scientific research on retinal degenerative and other blinding diseases so that future generations will not have to cope with this tragic issue. I have known Carlos and Betty Lidsky, leaders in Hope for Vision, for many years, and their son Isaac, an attorney here in Washington, serves as the Chairman and President of Hope for Vision. At the age of 12, Isaac was diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa, a retinal degenerative disorder. However, this did not slow Isaac down. He attended New Walls School of the Arts in Miami before receiving his bachelor's and his law degree from Harvard University. While at Harvard, he met Dorothy, who has become a passionate advocate for the vision impaired. On Saturday, September 8, this organization will hold an event in south Florida to ensure that this horrible condition receives the proper attention and research needed to find a cure. Their tenacity and courage in the face of such adversity and heartbreak is commendable. Inspired by their dedication and hard work, we are working towards a cure.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires) who serves on our Foreign Affairs Committee, and this amendment did not go through our committee. (Mr. SIRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to this amendment that rewards a state sponsor of terrorism with unfettered access to our banks and increases the threat to our country. It condones terrorist financing through our banking system. We do not allow other state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran, Syria, Sudan, and North Korea, to have direct access to U.S. banks. During a visit with Iran's Ayatollah in May 2001, Castro declared that together Cuba and Iran will bring America to its knees. We should not allow the Cuban regime to access U.S. bank accounts. And then there is the troubling provision to expedite visas for so- called Cuban agricultural inspectors. This would give free rein to any intelligence agent that the Cuban Government designates as an agricultural investigator to come to the United States. We should not open our borders to any Cuban agent to roam freely throughout the United States under the guise of being agricultural inspectors. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to a member of the Rules Committee, my colleague from Florida, a leader on human rights, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee of the Legislative Branch.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as has been said, this legislation cites the fact that the House of Representatives has passed six, one, two, three, four, five, six separate bills prohibiting or expressing opposition to the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq, including three, one, two, three, which have been enacted into law by the President. In fact, the language contained in H.R. 2929, which is before us today, is nearly identical to the language adopted under a Republican- controlled Congress in section 1519 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. This is the bill before us today. This is the law. The fiscal year 2007 bill states: ``No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows: (1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq. (2) To exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.'' That is law. That has been passed a couple of times. And now the bill before us this morning says this: ``No funds made available by any Act of Congress shall be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows: (1) to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq; and (2) to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources in Iraq.'' Once, twice, three times. We can pass it again. But why are we here? Why are we spending valuable time, Mr. Speaker, debating an issue that the Congress on a bipartisan basis already has agreed to, once, twice, three times, four times, five times, six times? The majority's attempts to score political points on a range of issues, including particularly Iraq policy, has already paralyzed precious months of military planning and congressional business, including the 9/11 bill. It was only last night when the majority conferees finally agreed to incorporate into the 9/11 conference report critical language offered by the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, my good friend Mr. King of New York, which would provide immunity to passengers and commuters who report suspicious activities. In a post-9/11 world, Mr. Speaker, passenger vigilance is essential to our Nation's security. An alert citizenry is our first line of defense against those who may seek to do us harm. Yet, some of our colleagues, rather than supporting or encouraging such personal commitment and involvement from our citizens, would have preferred to leave them vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits and, instead, engage in debates on legislative items and policy already enacted into law and discussed once, twice, three times, four times, five times and six times. However, since we are having this ``Groundhog Day'' discussion, it is important to once again note that there are no permanent United States bases overseas. Rather, the scope and the duration of U.S. basing rights are determined by individual agreements and entered into with host governments throughout the world. It is also important to clarify that a policy position that does not support permanent bases in Iraq does not translate into either a prohibition against the American troop presence in Iraq, we could have that discussion on another bill, or a prohibition against the existence of any U.S. military installation in that country. But that is not what is before us today. The bill before us in its ``findings'' section states that the Iraq Study Group Report recommends that ``the President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq.'' Correct. The bill also specifically highlights the other component of that recommendation, which says, ``If the Iraqi Government were to request a temporary base or bases, then the United States Government could consider that request as it would be in the case of any other government.'' This legislation therefore accepts the prospect of a negotiated agreement for a future relationship with the Government of Iraq to, among other things, allow U.S. military and security forces to operate from U.S. installations within Iraq, including through a possible status of forces agreement that would define the legal status of U.S. personnel in Iraq and would define the rights and responsibilities between the United States and the Government of Iraq. Furthermore, this legislation before us today does not prohibit the United States from entering into the interoperability agreements that allow the United States and Iraq to share common infrastructure and bases. Mr. Speaker, I do not object to this legislation. We have supported it before and look forward to supporting it again. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from Texas, a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee, Judge Poe, who is very cognizant of Public Law 109-364, which already says that they will have no permanent military bases in Iraq.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Absolutely. I would love to yield you 3 minutes. We have two speakers, Mr. Poe, who is already here, and Mr. Rohrabacher. I just want to make sure that they would have enough time. But once they're done, I would be glad to yield you the time.