Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill that increases taxes on small business.

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I believe the status quo of our nation's health care is unacceptable. We need real reform in this country that will lower costs and keep health care decisions in the hands of patients and their doctors.

This bill would establish a new government run bureaucracy and a public-plan that will drastically expand the role of government into personal health care, at a massive cost of more than $1 trillion. And it's important to note, that like nearly every other entitlement program, the costs from this bill will only skyrocket.

The bill raises taxes on small businesses, individuals and medical devices like pacemakers and stents. Indeed, this bill would impose $729.5 billion in higher taxes. $135 billion in taxes will be levied on business. $20 billion in taxes will be levied on medical device manufacturers. Using President Obama's economic measuring stick, as many as 5.5 million jobs could be lost from the taxes in this bill.

We all heard over and over again that, ``those of you who like your health care plan can keep it.'' What is not mentioned is that every plan will need to meet government requirements for a government seal of approval. This plan cuts $500 billion in Medicare benefits to seniors, including over $170 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage--a plan that is used by more than 19,000 seniors in my district. These seniors will no longer get the same care and coverage that they need.

Mr. Speaker, in the bill before us there is no provision in this bill to allow small businesses to pool together, no protection for those who want keep the coverage they have, and no medical liability reform.

The health care plan I support lowers health care premiums for all Americans, guarantees affordable coverage for patients with preexisting conditions, protects seniors, Medicare benefits, includes no tax increases, enacts real medical liability reform, empowers the doctor- patient relationship, and reduces the budget deficit.

I also want to point out that I offered five amendments to the healthcare bill, but none were made in order. The first amendment would have removed the onerous medical device tax from the bill and replaced it with unobligated stimulus funding. It makes no sense to me that this bill taxes innovation and our job creators and takes away funding for life saving technology.

I had another amendment that would have required a study of the harmful effects the innovation tax would have on the medical technology industry. Americans should know the implications of the negative effects on life saving technologies in this nearly 2,000 page bill.

Yet another amendment I offered would have removed the seasonal and temporary workers from the employer mandate. This amendment would have helped to lessen the heavy burden this legislation imposes on small businesses.

In addition, I offered an amendment that would have improved and expanded health savings accounts. This would have helped make health care more affordable for the millions of people covered by high deductible health plans.

Finally, I offered an amendment to clarify that nothing in this bill would have infringed on the healthcare that was promised to our nation's veterans. Unfortunately, this health care bill makes massive changes and our nation's veterans are owed the assurance that they will have adequate care.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by saying that I oppose this bill because it puts the government in between the decisions of a patient and their doctor. This is simply unacceptable. Patients should have the right to make their own choices regarding the medical care they need without government interference. Whether it is taking care of your children, parents or grandparents, there is no issue that is more personal to a family than health care. No special interest group, Member of Congress or federal bureaucrat should stand between a patient and their doctor.

Americans continue to lose jobs and faith in their American government each day. This bill is not only the wrong direction for our economy but also the wrong direction for America.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Edina High School girls tennis team who won the Minnesota 2-A State Championship just last week. Their final victory, a 6-1 triumph over a strong Elk River team, continued a string of dominance by the Edina program that has clearly become one of the most successful high school athletic programs in the entire State of Minnesota.

The Hornets' victory marked the 13th consecutive State tennis championship, a streak in which Edina has impressively won 248 of their past 249 dual matches. Led by coach Steve Paulsen, the Hornets finished the 2009 season with a record of 24-0 in dual matches.

To all of the student athletes, to the coaches and the parents, I offer my congratulations on a great accomplishment and for an impressive run of championships that is truly a tribute to everyone involved. The streak is still alive, and I am proud to represent a school and athletics program with such a longstanding commitment to success.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to commemorate and pay tribute to a great American, Stephen H. Mahle, a man who achieved great personal and professional success through courage, dedication and an unwavering commitment to improving the human condition.

Steve Mahle received his bachelor of arts degree in physics from Beloit College in 1967 and his master's degree in physics from Pennsylvania State University in 1969. He served in the U.S. Army, where he held the rank of Captain while serving as a research scientist at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston.

In 1972, Steve Mahle began what would become a highly successful 37- year career with Medtronic, Inc. where he held numerous leadership positions, including serving as president of Cardiac Rhythm Disease Management, CRDM.

Steve played a key leadership role in many important milestones in cardiac rhythm disease innovation. He was the product development manager on the first Medtronic pacemaker programmer, and was instrumental in developing the world's first rate responsive single chamber pacemaker, which revolutionized and advanced cardiac pacing technology.

He expanded Medtronic's international presence and was an integral part of growing the implantable cardioverter defibrillator business in the late 1990s. He is credited with creating cardiac resynchronization therapies that address heart failure, as well as establishing CareLink, a patient management system, that now serves more than a quarter of a million patients in the United States. Under his leadership the CRDM business grew from $500 million to just under $5 billion.

Madam Speaker let us join his friends, family, and colleagues in congratulating Stephen H. Mahle on his many accomplishments, and wish him well as he begins his retirement from a lifetime of leadership and innovation, and starts the next chapter in his life where he will undoubtedly continue his own personal mission to ``make a difference in the lives of people throughout the world.''

Mr. Speaker, with the new health care bill that spends $1 trillion and creates over 100 new bureaucracies and projects, I believe all the focus is in the wrong place.

The bill still raises taxes on small business, hitting many with a 5.4 percent surtax when they are struggling in a tough economy. The bill imposes a new tax on medical devices, which will increase costs for patients by adding costs on hearing aids, bandages, and wheelchairs. This will also result in lost jobs for medical technology companies that employ over 20,000 people in my State of Minnesota.

The bill will hurt seniors with $500 billion of cuts to Medicare, including eliminating Medicare Advantage programs for over 19,000 seniors in my district. Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't ram through a 2,000- page bill on the backs of small businesses and seniors.

There is a better way. We should be working on commonsense reforms that will actually lower premiums for families, individuals, and small businesses.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the resolution before us calling for the unequivocal opposition to any endorsement or further consideration of the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.

This report, more commonly known as ``the Goldstone Report'' continues the U.N.'s misguided treatment towards Israel.

Madam Speaker, this report and its findings have been skewed from the start. Former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, condemned the mandate to initiate the report as being one- sided and ``guided not by human rights, but by politics.''

Therefore, the results are not surprising. The report gives a one- sided account of the conflict and does nothing to promote or bring about stability in the region.

While seeking to condemn Israel with outrageous accusations, nowhere in the misguided report does it recognize the fact that Israel has a right to defend itself from violent terrorist attacks.

Adopting this resolution will go a long way in sending a message to the U.N. that the American people will not stand for this biased and misleading action.

I want to thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their thoughtful work on this resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and move towards real, meaningful peace in the Middle East.

Well, thank you. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for organizing this little discussion tonight, and I know we're going to have some of our freshman colleagues joining us.

I think, first and foremost, it's important for me to outline--and I think you share this view. You know, no one is denying that our health care system is in need of reform. Certainly, as a freshman Member, I know that the Members of our class, actually both Republican and Democrat, know that there need to be changes in the status quo. I know the Republicans, in particular in the freshman class, have been very frustrated that the media may not center or focus on some of the proposals that we actually have offered because, as you indicated, there are some very incremental approaches and piecemeal approaches which actually could be done and could be done bipartisanly to show success and progress in helping lower premiums for families, for individuals, and for small businesses.

As most of the public is well aware now, I think, just as early as last week, we had dropped on our desks a 1,990-page bill, which is a huge, mammoth bill, and we can bring that up a little later for a prop. It is a big piece of legislation, and I know we're going to be voting on that later this week.

I think I've come to realize in my first few months in office, as probably you have, that Washington is a place where actions are often taken without properly weighing the consequences and the impact of those actions. I think the bill that has been laid before us is very misguided in that it's going to have a heavy tax load put on the small business community. It's going to tax medical device companies in particular and medical device products, which impacts my district very greatly and the jobs there. We'll talk a little bit more about that in a little bit.

Our goal also is to make sure we are providing adequate coverage and are lowering the costs of health care premiums for all Americans--for individuals, families, and small businesses--because it is a pocketbook issue; but I think the approach that the majority is taking is a very misguided approach, and we're going to have some discussion about that tonight and about some of our alternatives, which, I think, make absolute common sense.

I would like to yield back.

Thank you for yielding.

Well, I think, as you just mentioned, there is no doubt that there have been other Republican plans that have been offered. There are a variety of bills, 50-some bills that have been out there. In fact, all of these, nearly all of these pieces of legislation have actually been introduced prior to this mammoth nearly 2,000-page bill that has been dropped on our desk just last week.

I want to go back to some of the comments you made earlier about the deficit, because as someone who came to Washington fully acknowledging and recognizing that Republicans were part of the problem on deficit spending many years ago, that is no reason to continue to do the same.

Seeing ourselves now face our very first trillion-dollar budget deficit is of great concern to me. I know it is of great concern to my constituents, for their children and their grandchildren, thinking the share of the national debt for each person now has gone up to about $38,000. Compared to when I was born, it was about $1,500 per person.

At some point we are going to have to pay back that debt, and that's a heavy burden that's going to fall, unfortunately, on our children and our grandchildren. The bill that is being proposed by the Speaker does not address health care costs.

You mentioned earlier there is not a good track record of government introducing legislation and having it be cost-effective or innovative. The reality is, if you look back at 1965, congressional forecasters predicted at that time that Medicare would cost about $12 billion in 1990.

Do you know what its actual cost came in at? The actual cost came in at $90 billion. Today, just like Social Security, it is now on a path to insolvency due to runaway costs. We have massive problems with existing entitlement programs. It doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense to have a new entitlement program that the government doesn't have a good track record on.

Thank you. Maybe I will ask the gentleman from Colorado a question, because he makes a really good point about this bill, that the proposed 1,990-page bill by the Speaker is bad for small business. Why would the Congress in a tough economy want to further penalize small businesses when they are struggling to get by and a third of all small businesses are going to be impacted by this surtax that you had mentioned?

We want to help small businesses grow, knowing that they are the engine of economic growth for this country, and we are making it tougher and tougher on them. Why would Congress even consider that?

Just to mention, I mean, it sounds like it just defies common sense. With unemployment at near 10 percent--I know there are going to be some new job figures that will be released in the very near future--but it defies common sense of why we would really hit the small business community even harder and make it tougher for them to raise jobs.

As the gentlewoman mentioned earlier, the Republicans have a proposal to allow small business to pool together through these associated health care plans to actually help small businesses provide health insurance for their employees.

Well, I am going to just gander a guess. It is going to be several inches thick, which is too thick for us to read in a short period of time, unfortunately, and probably for the public to have that right to know.

Well, I thank you for yielding. I just want to go reference back to the comment that the gentleman, my good friend from Pennsylvania, had made on the tax on medical devices.

I have the privilege of being the co-Chair of the House Medical Technology Caucus. So just about 2\1/2\ to 3 weeks ago I conducted a field hearing in Minnesota in my district and we heard directly from those that would be impacted by this very onerous tax, because the Senate originally proposed a $40 billion tax on medical devices, and now the House, Speaker Pelosi's bill, the 1,990-page version has a $20 billion tax.

I want to tell you what we heard directly from people. One, we heard directly from small companies. I have a medical alley in my district that employs about 20,000 people in this sector, this economy, and these are folks that are producing these new lifesaving technologies that really give families and individuals the peace of mind that they are going to be taken care of in their elder years, or for their children, for instance.

Some of these companies, one in particular that just turned profitable, was very direct in saying, You know what? If we get hit with this tax, unfortunately, we are going to have to take that reduction in payroll. That is where the tax is going to hit us is in payroll and in layoffs and out of research and development.

So we are actually stifling innovation. It is an innovation tax.

Then we heard from a venture capitalist who is involved in new startups to try and get these little companies going again, some that have five employees, some that have nine. They are

hoping to come up with the ``next best thing.''

We are putting another nail in the coffin for them, as it was explained. We are making it that much tougher, because it is kind of a lottery right now. It is so difficult for a company like this to get the venture capital and then bring a product to market.

Finally, we heard from patients. We heard from patients that would be directly impacted. In particular, there was one individual that has an artificial limb, a prosthetic, that now as a patient we are making health care more expensive for him by having a tax on his products. And the tax that we have now as part of the Pelosi bill is going to put a tax on wheelchairs, on hearing aids, on the bandages that hospitals purchase. So it is absolutely a move in the wrong direction. It is going to make health care more expensive.

If the gentleman would yield, he raises a good point, because having visited Pennsylvania and knowing there are some technology sectors right in your district in particular, and there are many States, and maybe that is because some States don't have these medical device technologies growing, they are not being incubated. It is Massachusetts, it is California, it is Tennessee and Minnesota, which surprises me, because the Speaker being from California is proposing this tax. It is actually going to hurt many of these devices.

Again, we talked about the nature of the economy, almost 10 percent unemployment. We are going to be making it tougher to have very well, high-paying jobs, tougher for those companies to keep those jobs. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I will yield to the gentleman, but in particular, my colleague from Tennessee, whom I have learned a great deal from, one of the things that I appreciate about you is you're a former mayor and you know how to get things done, and certainly I think Members of Congress could take some lessons from you. Coming from this great State of Tennessee, you've got some of those medical technology companies in your great State. And we should hear from you as a physician as well. You've got a very unique perspective, and you can offer a lot to this Congress.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentlelady for helping coordinate the opportunity for all of us tonight as freshmen to express some of our concerns and certainly opposition and reservations to the bill that has been put now before us that we will likely be voting on later this week. We talked about why this bill is bad for the American public. I just want to recap. Number one, we talked about why this bill is bad for small business. It raises their taxes. It's going to cost jobs. We've talked about why this bill is bad for individuals. It mandates that they will have to buy coverage or else they're going to have to pay a penalty. We've talked about--not at great length but why the bill is, indeed, bad for seniors. That is no doubt. I talk to a lot of seniors in my district that are under Medicare Advantage right now, and they are very concerned about having to give up the health care plan that they're under right now. These Medicare Advantage plans, they offer a lot of what the President himself in this very Chamber talked about, good services that benefit a lot of these seniors, going for regular checkups without having to pay an additional copay, having vision care, having dental care. That is what Medicare Advantage plans offer. And to cut Medicare by $500 billion, to me, makes absolutely no sense.

If you really think about it--and my good friend from Tennessee, the doctor, mentioned earlier--some of the good provisions we should be supporting, like allowing young adults to be put on their parents' policies--I mean, that's common sense, and we support that initiative. We just wish that we could hit the reset button and not have a 1,990- page bill where we would have just a provision where we could do that, as well as allowing the small businesses to pool together. We can absolutely cover preexisting conditions. That is something we absolutely should do and we support doing. So there are some good things that we should focus on. Unfortunately, those aren't the priorities of this bill, unfortunately. And ultimately, the American want people want to have the peace of mind that they can get the coverage that they need when they need it, and they want to ensure that they--not the government, not special interests, not Members of Congress--are not going to stand between a patient and their doctor.

In short, I think we all agree that the bill before us is the wrong approach. It's a very dismissive wave of the hand by Congress to those who have raised the voice on this most personal issue in their lives. There's no other issue that affects families more personally than

health care, whether it is taking care of your children, thinking about how you're going to care for your parents or grandparents down the road. There is a better way, as you mentioned. There is a better way, and the gentlelady from Wyoming had gone through a great detail of other proposals that are out there that, quite honestly, there's bipartisan support for. The truth is, with the right reforms, we can absolutely control health care costs and lower premiums. This bill does not lower health care premiums. It will be a massive intrusion from the Federal Government on our individual and personal economic freedoms, though.

I yield back for our closing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to call attention to November as American Diabetes Month.

Today, 24 million Americans have diabetes, and in this 1 minute that it takes me to give this speech, three more Americans will be diagnosed. The rate of diabetes cases is definitely on the rise, and it is becoming more severe. Based on our current trends, one out of every three children will eventually suffer from diabetes. Unlike cancer, heart disease and strokes, the death rate due to complications from diabetes has actually increased.

Diabetes not only exacts great personal harm; it imposes financial harm as well. Diabetes in the United States costs $174 billion annually, and the cost of caring for someone with diabetes accounts for $1 out of every $5 in total health care costs.

Changing this trend begins with raising awareness about diabetes. So, Mr. Speaker, let's all commit to doing more to educate Americans on the seriousness of this disease.

I rise to offer an amendment, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I rise today to offer an amendment that I am hopeful will help to strengthen and accelerate advancements in medical technology. My amendment would require the SBA to conduct a study that would determine the feasibility of a program that would help bring funding to startup medical technology firms. The amendment would also require the SBA to report its suggestions on how to best structure such a program. It is my hope with this information, Congress will be able to strategically implement a program to help fund medical technology. Programs of this nature are already in place and exist for renewable energy and for rural manufacturing. This amendment would simply look at also expanding this to medical technology. Medical device companies face startup costs that are very steep, and a program under the SBA would help bring funding to these companies and allow them to get their products to market quicker.

Mr. Chair, we know very well that the development of these new cost- saving technologies allow patients to lead longer, healthier and more productive lives. These technologies also improve the quality of health care in America while helping to fight rising health care costs. Furthermore, the medical technology industry is a proven job-creator. According to one study, the medical technology industry nationwide employs more than 350,000 people. These are good, high-paying jobs. The average salary of a med tech employee is higher than the State salary average in 49 of the 50 states; and in some States, medical technology jobs pay nearly 25 percent higher than the State average salary. Many of these jobs are also often in the area of research and development, which keeps America in the forefront of innovation. It should also be noted that these companies are truly America's small businesses and success stories. Of these companies, 71 percent have fewer than 10 employees. It fits right in with this bill, Mr. Chair.

A week ago, I held a field hearing in my district on the issue of medical technology, and we heard firsthand from small businesses in my district about the work that they are doing and the jobs they are creating. As cochair of the Medical Technology Caucus, I would ask support for this amendment so we can have Congress spur additional advancement in medical technology.

I urge adoption of my amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who has a

great understanding of the importance of medical technology and who is emerging as one of the more thoughtful members of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

If I could just close by saying I appreciate the leadership of the Chair and of the gentlewoman, and I extend my appreciation for the support of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to remember an American hero, Major Tad Hervas of Coon Rapids, who died in Iraq on October 6.

It's so easy for us in the hustle and bustle of life to focus on our own challenges and our own concerns, and it's only natural for us to seek as much comfort and security as we can get in our own lives. But then something happens that comes to remind us that whatever success, security or hopes that we have depends on the sacrifice and the service of those who offer their lives in defense of our Nation.

Everything that we have as Americans was built on such a foundation over many generations. Every privilege that we will enjoy in the future will be bought with the heroic way our military performs its essential duty.

In the community of Coon Rapids, Minnesota, we continue to mourn the death of Major Hervas, who truly embodied the sacrifice that makes America what it is today.

Tad graduated from Coon Rapids High School in 1979. He went on to attend the University of Minnesota-Duluth, where he began a successful career in the military.

Major Hervas served in the Air Force in the very first Gulf War. After 9/11, he enlisted in the Minnesota National Guard, joining Minnesota's great 34th Red Bull Infantry Division. He was serving his second tour in Iraq when he lost his life in Basra just a few weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, I have never worn our country's uniform myself, but one of the greatest honors of this job is all the opportunities I have to spend with those who do so. Hollywood movies tend to glamorize military folks and portray them as super men or super women, but what I have found to be so truly amazing is that they are just regular people who achieve super things. What makes them special is their drive to answer to a higher calling and truly put service to country above everything else.

As the Scriptures affirm, there is no greater love that a person can show than to lay down their lives for their friends. Major Hervas, over a period of decades, laid aside his own comfort, security and personal plans for his family, friends and neighbors, including millions of people who never, ever knew him. We owe him a debt of gratitude that we can truly never repay.

We stand with his father, Ned, and his mother, Barb, and his whole family in grief, and we assure them that we will do everything we can to try to help ease their pain in his passing.

Basra, Iraq is a long way from Coon Rapids, Minnesota, in every conceivable way. I know that the inspiration for Major Hervas' service was a love for his country and a desire to see freedom grow around the world so that others can enjoy the same freedoms that we all do. By creating a safer place for freedom to grow, Major Hervas gave a gift to future generations of Iraqis who may be able to live better than their predecessors were able to do.

Mr. Speaker, as we get back to debating health care and other important issues here like the economy, I want to make sure, and I hope that we will all take a moment to remember Major Tad Hervas and his sacrifice for all of us. He and thousands like him make our freedom possible and our future bright. Let us do everything in our power to make this a Nation that is worthy of the ultimate sacrifice that he made.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to another job-killing proposal that only Washington could dream up. Only here would people proclaim to lower the cost of health care by taxing it and making it more expensive.

Just today it has been reported that House leadership is now likely to include a $20 billion excise tax on medical devices as part of their health care reform bill. This new proposal will halt innovation and ultimately make health care more expensive for patients.

One week ago I held a field hearing in my district about the impact of this innovation tax. I heard from companies both large and small that there will be resultant job losses and cuts to research and development.

Mr. Speaker, these proposed taxes are a very wrong-headed approach. Let's get back on the right track and remove this tax so we can keep the jobs we have and make sure that we continue the innovation that is alive and well in both Minnesota and in our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the recent winners from my congressional district of the 2009 Tekne Awards from the Minnesota High Tech Association.

In the 10th year of these awards, the Tekne Awards continue to acknowledge companies and individuals who have demonstrated superior technology advancement and leadership in Minnesota. Of the awards, I can proudly boast that 9 of the 14 winners are from my Third Congressional District.

On that note, I would like to recognize the following winners: Minnesota Thermal Science, SearchAmerica, Nonin Medical, Starkey Laboratories, Digital River, Access Genetics, XATA Corporation, and Laurie Toll from Maple Grove schools.

Madam Speaker, their accomplishments are proof positive that the spirit of American innovation and entrepreneurship is alive and well in Minnesota. I am proud to recognize these Minnesota companies and individuals for their hard work, and I congratulate them on their 2009 Tekne Awards.

Madam Speaker, October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, a time to remember the victims of this terrible and often hidden crime and also a time to renew our commitment to eliminating it.

I recently had the privilege of participating in the dedication ceremony for a new Peace Garden at Cornerstone Shelter in my district. The garden honors both the victim of the crime as well as those people committed to restoring hope for those who have experienced domestic violence. The Minnesota Department of Public Safety has reported that 70,000 primary victims have received services from battered women's shelters and domestic abuse agencies in 2008 alone.

Thankfully, we have organizations like Cornerstone who provide needed assistance and resources to victims while working to end domestic violence as a whole. When we bring the light of truth to an issue like domestic abuse, its power to destroy decreases.

It's important that we remember the victims of domestic violence and let them know they are not alone as we fight to make the world a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Minnesota National Guard Honor Guard team for their victory at the Army's recent National Guard Honor Guard competition in Fort Myer, Virginia.

The competition featured eight of the most elite honor guard teams from around the country, testing their knowledge, testing their abilities and performing military funeral honors, uniform items and other aspects of military honors. Properly honoring the men and women who have given their lives and service to the United States demands the utmost commitment, attention to detail, and training.

The Minnesota National Guard holds that commitment in the highest regard, and their victory in this competition is a testimony to that fact. But as we offer our congratulations to the Minnesota honor guard team, let us also remember those who have given their lives in the name of the United States of America and continue today to recognize those that also work and serve to protect our country each and every day.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in strong support for H.R. 1327, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009. The author of this legislation, Chairman Frank, deserves a great deal of credit for helping shepherd this legislation through committee in a very strong bipartisan basis and for his tenacious work in bringing it to the House floor today in a bipartisan manner. I also want to commend my colleague from Illinois, who I know could not be here today, Mr. Kirk, who also has been a champion of this legislation in the past.

Mr. Speaker, with the recent disclosure of a second site for enriching uranium in Iran, our relations with that country continue to be at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy. The Iranian regime has made no secret of its ambitions to acquire nuclear technology while it continues to engage in human rights violations and suppressing dissent.

The U.S. can and should demand that Iran take specific actions, concrete actions, in the near term. This legislation today is going to help in that effort. The Iranian government will be more responsive if the United States can isolate the regime and apply some distinct pressure that will help force Tehran to deliver on its commitments and not merely to do what it has done in the past, and that is use negotiations to merely run out the clock.

This legislation increases the economic pressure that is placed on Iran by permitting State governments, local governments and educational institutions to divest from investments related to Iran's energy sector.

In addition, the legislation would extend to private actors the ability to consider U.S.-Iran relationships in their investment calculus. This means that registered investment advisors are provided a safe harbor, allowing them to divest from or elect not to invest in securities of companies that invest in Iran's energy sector.

Many States, as the chairman had noted, including my own State of Minnesota, have already moved in that direction. But today we have the opportunity to push this important initiative a step closer at the Federal level, and in doing so we can help leverage and we can help slow down Iran's nuclear program and move one step closer to helping diminish this major security threat to the Middle East and the rest of the world.

With the recent revelation of the second enrichment site, passage of this legislation is imperative, and it is even more important than it has been in the past.

So I would urge immediate passage of H.R. 1327, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing for this side, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of last month, Iran finally got around to notifying the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency of a previously undisclosed nuclear enrichment facility located on a military base. This additional enrichment facility will allow Iran to make more enriched uranium and make it faster.

Now, what this means is that previous estimates on when Iran could potentially achieve a nuclear weapons breakout are now inaccurate and unreliable. What is especially disconcerting to many of us in Congress is that this is supposed to be a civilian facility but it's located on a military base. This raises quite a few red flags, and we must make sure and not allow the Iranian regime to buy even more time.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is another violation of Iran's obligation under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which requires all members to declare all nuclear facilities and allow inspection.

Mr. Speaker, it is high time we begin to act on the threat of a nuclear Iran by demanding action, and the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act is one more tool in the toolbox, an important step in moving that direction forward. I ask for its passage, and I commend the leadership again of the chairman for moving this bill in a bipartisan manner forward.

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