Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act of 2009

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

A little over a year ago, Mr. Boehner and I spoke on a bill that I said would be noted as a day of consequence in the House of Representatives. That bill was to, at the request of President Bush and Secretary Paulson and Ben Bernanke, give some $700 billion to the Treasury to try to stabilize the financial sector of our economy. Mr. Boehner voted for that. My friend, Mr. Blunt, voted for that. I believe Mr. Cantor voted for that. Others of you voted for that. And many on our side voted for that bill. It failed.

And we came back here a few days later, on Friday, and that bill was called up again. It was called up again because we knew that there really wasn't an option. Mr. Bernanke, President Bush's appointee as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, said that we were at risk of going into a depression if we did not vote for that bill. Nobody wanted to vote for that bill on either side of the aisle. That was a bill that we ultimately concluded on that Friday, approximately half of the Republican side of the aisle, a little more than half on my side of the aisle, was a bill that we needed to pass to avoid the risk of depression.

Since that time, over the next 4 months, we saw an erosion in the economy, not a depression, but the worst recession we had seen in 8 years. Now I have a speech here that we've prepared. I'm not going to give it because it, to some degree, points the finger at one another. And I agree with Mr. Boehner. There's blame to go around. We have been concerned about cutting revenues and increasing spending during the first part of this decade. You have been concerned about the spending that we believed was necessary to make to try to create jobs and bring our economy back.

Mr. Boehner and I disagree on the impact of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Since its passage, the stock market has gone from 6,500 to 10,500.

Anybody who opens up their 401(k) or Keogh or Thrift Savings Plan believes that we've made progress on that because their value has gone up about 60 percent. That's progress, but not success. We want to get back to where it was in terms of the value of those plans.

In addition, in the last month of the Bush administration, we lost 741,000 jobs, after adopting a policy that many believed, on your side of the aisle, would lift our economy. And, in fact, it did for a while. But it did not create the kind of jobs you wanted. And, in fact, on average, over the 8 years of the Bush administration, it produced approximately 4,200 jobs per month, on average, in comparison with the 216,000 jobs, on average, per month that the Clinton administration saw during its term.

So we could point fingers, but that would not be particularly useful. I have listened to this debate, and I am chagrined. And I want to plead guilty, because I've demagogued this issue as well. We had a quote presented about the morality of incurring debt. It was taken a little out of context, but we all say things that we look back on. And I voted against increasing the debt. It was a demagoguing vote. I voted four times against raising the debt. It was a demagoguing vote. I want to admit that and tell people. Why? Because I didn't believe then, nor do I believe now, that not paying America's bills is an option that Americans expect of us. Americans expect us to pay our bills. Some Americans would like us not to incur some bills for war, but if we do incur bills for war, they would like us to pay for it. Some Americans would not like us to incur bills for nutritional programs or education or whatever else may be, too much, too little, but if we do incur those bills, Americans expect us to pay the bill.

I have a list here of everybody who spoke who was here who voted to increase the debt limit four times during the time that you were in charge of the House and of the Presidency. And we didn't support it. My suspicion is that we will find ourselves in the same place today. You all are not responsible for the running of the government or the passing of policy. We are. I understand that. And so my presumption is, perhaps, to a person, as we did on this side of the aisle, you will vote against this bill.

And so I say to my friends on this side of the aisle, the American people have given us a responsibility. The American people have reposed in us a trust. And this year, in meeting that confidence and trust, we have taken some very tough votes. One of the things I said that was quoted that was immoral, that's the quote you used, and if you take out the whole quote, which a lot of times none of us do, we take the part of the quote that we like, I said that not to pay for what we buy, and to jettison PAYGO, was not right.

One of the reasons that we find ourselves in this position is because we haven't adopted a statutory PAYGO, and we should adopt statutory PAYGO. I understand my friends on this side of the aisle are not clapping. And the reason you're not clapping is because you believe, correctly, that that will constrain you in effecting tax cuts, because you believe that cutting taxes does not create debt.

The tragedy is, during the 8 years President Bush was President and you were in charge--because we couldn't pass any economic policy past President Bush's budget veto--you incurred $2 trillion of debt as you cut revenues and increased spending at a greater rate than was increased under the Clinton administration, and you were in charge of everything. But Mr. Boehner is correct, my grandchildren and his don't care whether you did it, we did it, or we did it together.

But my colleagues on this side of the aisle, if we take seriously that oath to protect and preserve this Nation, there is no one on either side of the aisle, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, who will rationalize that America's not paying its debt is a good policy, because all of us know it is a disastrous policy and that the consequences of not passing this bill, in the stock market, globally with our creditors, and, yes, with Mom and Pop running that store in my town and your town, will be very substantial and unacceptable.

So we come, as I said on the TARP vote, to a day of consequences. Not every day is a day of consequence in this House, the people's House. We vote on suspension bills and post offices and this, that, and the other. And even the bills that we'll consider next, we'll send it to the Senate or we won't send it to the Senate, and the world will little note nor long remember, as Abraham Lincoln said. But if America and its duly elected Representatives say to the rest of the world, We will not pay our bills, that will be of consequence.

It is not about pointing fingers. It is about taking responsibility. It is about showing courage to do what all of us know. Whatever the rhetoric on this floor has been today, what all of us know is the only option for a responsible country, for a country that is perceived around the world as the wealthiest country on the face of the Earth, and for us to say this day, We will not pay our bills, that the consequences in January to the person who receives Social Security, the consequences to the Defense Department--not that they won't pay their bills. They're going to have to under the emergency clause. But the fact of the matter is, my friends, this is absolutely essential to do.

Therefore, on my side of the aisle, I ask us to do it. And don't point fingers at their side if they don't do it, because we didn't do it. And very frankly, my friends, we have to stop that. We have to stop it for whoever is in charge, because Americans expect better of us.

I ask you, therefore, as we consider this, we ought to vote on it not because we agreed with policy A or policy B or tax cut Y or tax increase Z, but because we know--and I tell my young friend who spoke on the floor about fiscal responsibility who is here for the first time--as we debate these issues on spending and cutting, that they are legitimate to debate, discuss, and vote however one believes is necessary.

But in the final analysis, when the roll is called as to whether America will be a responsible debtor, whether we incurred that debt as a result of decreasing taxes, which we did, or increased spending, which we have, it matters not. What matters is that America pays its bills. Vote for this bill.

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 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 4 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 89 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 gubernatorial candidacy papers for a provincial politician.

Unbelievable stories of physical harassment and acts of violence against journalists contribute to this grim picture. In Mexico, there has 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 the lives of their families.

Legal mechanisms are also increasingly being used to restrict the media, both through overt censorship and through the use of repressive legislation. This past April, the Sudanese Parliament began 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 censored.

Freedom of expression cannot exist where journalists and the media are not independent and safe from repression, persecution, and physical attacks. And 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, arms smugglers, and others to target journalists in an effort to silence them. Sadder still is the indifference of 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 to 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 State to greatly expand its examination of the status of freedom of the press worldwide 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 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 that by spotlighting media repression in the human rights reports, 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 for 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 this legislation.

I thank the gentleman. I will be very brief.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to add to the comments that my colleagues have made in their segue to the bill that follows the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act, which is the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.

I am a strong supporter of this legislation. I commend my colleagues, Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, for their leadership on this issue.

One of the most serious threats facing our country is the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. This is an oppressive regime, one that has threatened to wipe one of its neighbors off the map. The possession of a nuclear bomb by Iran is enormously dangerous in its own regard, but it is all the more destabilizing in its potential of starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

The President has offered carrots and the international community has offered carrots to Iran to step back from its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Congress today takes an important step to make sure that there are sticks which are offered as well if Iran refuses the very generous offer by the international community to reprocess uranium--to provide it for peaceful energy purposes, to have Iran send its uranium out of the country so that it can be put in a form where it cannot be used for nuclear weapons.

This legislation, which will potentially crack down 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, as much 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, will put pressure on Iran to back away from its nuclear bomb-making efforts, and in so doing, will inure to the safety of our own country, to the safety of Israel and to the entire region.

So I thank the chairman for his leadership on this. I urge my colleagues to support the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3714, the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act. I do so with a profound sense of privilege and gratitude to those who have gone before me on the floor today.

To 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 of 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, and I commend the gentleman from California for his singular leadership on this issue and the privilege of working with him.

It is altogether fitting, as the gentlewoman referred earlier, though, that I should do so not only during this debate but also in anticipation of the debate on the next legislation, a 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 Iran 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 to the world community again and again. But to the point of this debate, it is also imperative that the people of the

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 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 in prison in Iran. Last week, we received word that another opposition newspaper was closed in Iran. And, of course, the world watched 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 billy club and violence, the dissidents, but we also watched in horror as the Internet was silenced, as YouTube videos were cut off, as access to the free flow of information was stymied by the brutality of the regime in Iran. So I endorse the legislation that will be brought up, 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 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 just 4 months after the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. He was serving as a South Asia Bureau Chief for The Wall Street Journal that, at the time, was based in Mumbai, India. He went to Pakistan as part of an investigation into the alleged links between Richard Reid, the convicted would-be shoe bomber of American Airlines flight 63, and al Qaeda and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency. Tragically, Mr. Pearl was brutally executed by his captors. The legislation today is named in his memory, and I hope his family may well be looking on today and know that 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.

But the legislation today is not simply a tribute. The Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act also will result in an effort to highlight and promote freedom of the press by including such reports in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices information.

As we consider this legislation, we remember Daniel Pearl's legacy, and we think of the stories of so many others on the front lines of freedom.

Gustavo Azocar is a political talk show host, newspaper correspondent and blogger in Venezuela, and he is a vocal critic of Hugo Chavez. Azocar 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 who 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. I believe it's because they believed in limited government and believed in the need to constrain consolidations of power.

A free and independent press ensures the free flow of information to the public. It serves as a vital check on such abuses during a time when the role of government in our lives and in our enterprises here at home seems to grow every day. Yet taking a stand today for the principle of a free press, not only home but in making the means available to hold the lamp of liberty high and to shine it deep into the crevices of this world to expose abuses of the freedom of the press, is a noble task, indeed. So I rise today in support of this legislation.

I commend Chairman Berman and 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 Gustavo Azocar and of press outlets around the world which, day in and day out, stand in the gap, oftentimes risking their liberty and, in the case of Daniel Pearl, in fact, 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, to take heart and to know that those of us in public life, that those of us in public service, also understand that those who serve in the world of 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 the freedom of the press, and I urge support for the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act and for the legislation that will follow.

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

I rise in support of House Resolution 3714, 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 indispensable to an informed public, to government accountability, and to the efficiency and integrity of public and commercial 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 parts of the world, telling the truth as a journalist is dangerous 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 kidnapped 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 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 of those, sadly, at least 30 journalists, 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 a 9 percent 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 very close second, 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 one-twelfth of 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 Yoani Sanchez, Claudia Cadelo, and Omar Luis Pardo Lazo as they were on their way to a 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's annual Country Reports 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the chairman of our Republican Conference, a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. Pence is the primary cosponsor of this measure, and I hope that he takes the time to talk about our next bill, the Iran Sanctions Act, as well.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe, a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and a cosponsor of this measure. I hope that he will address not only this resolution but the one that follows it, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, 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 was a new intelligence report that outlined the schemes of Hugo Chavez, who is the supposed President of Venezuela, to control media. It is a sign of further deterioration of the freedom of expression, of democracy and of human rights in Venezuela under the Chavez rule.

He ratcheted up his rhetoric against free speech and against political opponents by shutting down broadcast stations across the country. These are assaults on the pillars of a democratic society, and they will continue unabated unless responsible nations stand up to Chavez and send a clear message to him and to others in the region that this behavior will not be tolerated.

There is a list that I would like to read of five journalists who were killed in Venezuela: Orel Sambrano of ABC de la Semana and Radio America, who was killed on January 16, 2009, in Valencia; Jorge Aguirre of Cadena Capriles, who was killed on April 5, 2006, in Caracas; Jorge Ibrain Tortoza Cruz, who was killed on April 11, 2002, in Caracas; Maria Veronica Tessari of Colombian Media, who was killed on January 15, 1993, in Caracas; and Virgilio Fernandez of El Universal, who was killed on November 27, 1992, in La Carlota, Venezuela.

Just a little while ago, the Committee to Protect Journalists gave us the news of a journalist who was critical of the Venezuelan Government. He was arrested on contempt of court charges. Journalist Gustavo Azocar was arrested with trumped-up charges. Azocar is the host of a news and political commentary show on local TV station Televisora del Tachira, and is a correspondent for the national daily El Universal in the western city of San Cristobal.

These are just more examples of the repression and suppression of free press by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Yes, I yield to the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, my good friend from New York (Mr. Engel).

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, he makes excellent points also about the tie-in between Chavez and Ahmadinejad as they seek to suppress any dissidents and any free press.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3714) to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to include in 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, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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 truth, 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 authoring this legislation which will enshrine in law the practice of including information about media freedom in the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices written by the Department of State.

With passage of this legislation, our embassies 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 media freedom is threatened in a country, our diplomats will report on what steps that government has taken to preserve journalists' safety and independence and to 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 and with deterioration occurring in every region of the world. Of the 195 countries and territories that Freedom House monitors, 36 percent have a free press while 31 percent are rated partly free and 33 percent not free at all. As the organization noted, ``The press is democracy's first defense, and its vulnerability has 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.

Although 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 initiatives 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 interests of ensuring that those who would seek to extinguish the light of truth around the world will instead be dragged out of the shadows and defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), my friend, colleague, and neighbor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.