Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment to strike section 1034 from the bill. Let's be clear what we are debating here today: the bill before us would amend the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that Congress passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks--not just reaffirm the existing authorization. As a threshold matter, I question the premise for this amendment. Proponents argue that Congress needs to act now lest a court change its interpretation of the AUMF. Proponents also argue that the President has been hamstrung in his ability to detain and target groups linked to al Qaeda, like al Qaida in the Peninsula (AQAP). Yet Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson made clear in public testimony that DoD has all the authority it needs to fight terror. And I've seen no evidence that the Administration feels any restraints on its ability to target threats like AQAP. In fact, the White House stated yesterday it ``strongly objects'' to section 1034. If the Administration, which stands to benefit most from the proposed amendment to the AUMF, is arguing against it, I have serious doubts we should proceed. I support efforts to update the AUMF of 2001. The AUMF should reflect the diffuse terrorist threat faced by the US today and clarify that the President has the authority to target groups closely linked to al Qaeda and the Taliban that came into being after 9/11 and that pose a direct threat to the United States. We should also update it as a matter of congressional prerogative. Congress should take ownership of the AUMF rather than let the courts and the Executive interpret the 2001 legislation unilaterally. At some point, congressional failure to update the AUMF could force the President to rely on his Article II authority to target entities increasingly removed from 9/11. But this provision in the NDAA is no way to do it. Sec. 1034 was advanced with no hearings in the Foreign Affairs Committee--the principal committee of jurisdiction--and with only a passing mention in an Armed Services Committee hearing. There's been no floor debate beyond this amendment, and no opportunity for the Administration or outside experts to weigh in. This is not the way Congress should authorize an expansion of the President's authority to use force. And make no mistake: that's exactly what we're doing here, even if the proposed authority is consistent with how courts have interpreted the original AUMF. The 2001 AUMF makes no reference to associated forces, nor does it authorize the President to attack nations, organizations, and persons who are substantially supporting al Qaida or the Taliban. We need to examine these provisions closely, some of which could have unintended consequences and which remain cutting edge legal theories. For example, Sec. 1034 authorizes the President to use force against ``nations who are substantially supporting the Taliban''. Would that allow the President to use force against Pakistan or Iran if they were providing material support to the Taliban? That isn't what I signed up for when I voted to authorize the President to attack those responsible for 9/11 in the original AUMF. With adequate due diligence, I would support giving the President authority to target so-called ``associated forces''. Indeed, the concept of co-belligerency is one well-founded in the laws of war, at least against nations. I could even envision authorizing the detention and targeting of those substantially supporting al Qaeda, as the McKeon provision suggests. But there should be limits to these authorities. We need to ensure a sufficient link between an associated force and the Taliban or al Qaeda, and that such a group is hostile to the United States. We also need to make sure there are clear ways to determine whether an entity is ``substantially supporting'' al Qaida. At a minimum, I would urge my colleagues to place a time limit on such authorities. I want to make sure we are not extending a war--something Jihadists might welcome--at the exact time when we should be narrowly focusing our counterterrorism efforts. I tried to work with my colleagues to find a mutually agreeable text, one that would restrict the proposed text while addressing the proponents' interest in incorporating ``associated forces'' and detention authority into the 2001 AUMF. Given the late hour, we could not reach a deal. But I remain willing to work with my counterparts across the aisle to find a mutually agreeable, bipartisan text. Mr. Chairman, in light of the flawed language in Sec. 1034, and the equally flawed process, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike that section from the bill.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 92, which would eliminate the U.S. Institute of Peace. Mr. Chair, the law creating the U.S. Institute of Peace was passed by a Republican-controlled Senate and signed into law by President Reagan. That law cited a ``deep public need for the Nation to develop fully a range of effective options, in addition to armed capacity, that can leash international violence and manage international conflict.'' Is there anyone here who doubts that we still need a range of effective alternatives to armed conflict? It boggles my mind how we can argue one minute about whether to withdraw troops from Afghanistan or to authorize the use of force in Libya, and the next minute seek to eliminate the one U.S. government institution that is dedicated to resolving such conflicts peacefully. The State Department, USAID and the Defense Department each have their own important roles to play in preventing and resolving conflict. But none of them have the capacity to do what the U.S. Institute of Peace does: working ``outside the wire'' with all parties to conflict; acting as a bridge between governmental and non-governmental actors; conducting cutting-edge research and developing innovative peacebuilding tools; and training soldiers, diplomats, and aid workers prior to deployment in conflict zones. No other institution can accomplish the mission Congress gave to USIP. No other agency has this peacebuilding mandate. Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy says that ``our long-term success in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as overall U.S. efforts to prevent conflict and strengthen peace-building globally, depend in part on USIP experts and programs in the field.'' She specifically cites an example in Iraq, where ``the USIP helped tribal and local government leaders forge a groundbreaking agreement, viewed by local leaders and military officials as ``a turning point'' toward peace and stability in one of Iraq's most violent regions.'' General Anthony Zinni writes in the New York Times, ``Congress would be hard-pressed to find an agency that does more with less. The institute's entire budget would not pay for the Afghan war for three hours, is less than the cost of a fighter plane, and wouldn't sustain even 40 American troops in Afghanistan for a year.'' General Petraeus calls USIP's work ``invaluable'' and a ``potential key to success in the enormous challenges we face.'' According to General Wesley Clark, ``Eliminating USIP funding is a jaw-dropping, backward step. Although other national security contributors can perform some of USIP's functions, none can perform them all in unity or has such convening power. More important, none can perform them as effectively.'' And the Deputy Commanding General of the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan says, ``USIP is at the center of work on doctrine, interagency cooperation, military-NGO relations, and cutting edge efforts on rule of law, reconciliation, minority rights in conflict zones, and democratization--all at the heart of what the military needs to succeed in complex operations.'' Mr. Chair, I fail to understand what national interest could possibly be served by reducing the number of tools at our disposal for preventing and resolving conflicts without putting the lives of our troops on the line. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. BERMAN. I have to say it boggles my mind how we can argue one minute about whether to withdraw troops from Afghanistan or authorize the use of force in Libya and in the next minute seek to eliminate the one U.S. government institution that is dedicated to resolving such conflicts peacefully. No other institution can accomplish the mission Congress gave the USIP. No other agency has this peace-building mandate. General Petraeus called USIP's work invaluable, a potential key to the success in the enormous challenge we face; Under Secretary of Defense Flournoy, talking about one specific example in Iraq where ``The USIP helped tribal and local government leaders forge a groundbreaking agreement viewed by local leaders and military officials as a turning point toward peace and stability in one of Iraq's most violent regions.'' I fail to understand what national interests could possibly be served by reducing the number of tools at our disposal. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment to strike section 1034 from the bill. Let's be clear what we are debating here today: the bill before us would amend the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that Congress passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks--not just reaffirm the existing authorization. As a threshold matter, I question the premise for this amendment. Proponents argue that Congress needs to act now lest a court change its interpretation of the AUMF. Proponents also argue that the President has been hamstrung in his ability to detain and target groups linked to al Qaeda, like al Qaida in the Peninsula (AQAP). Yet Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson made clear in public testimony that DoD has all the authority it needs to fight terror. And I've seen no evidence that the Administration feels any restraints on its ability to target threats like AQAP. In fact, the White House stated yesterday it ``strongly objects'' to section 1034. If the Administration, which stands to benefit most from the proposed amendment to the AUMF, is arguing against it, I have serious doubts we should proceed. I support efforts to update the AUMF of 2001. The AUMF should reflect the diffuse terrorist threat faced by the US today and clarify that the President has the authority to target groups closely linked to al Qaeda and the Taliban that came into being after 9/11 and that pose a direct threat to the United States. We should also update it as a matter of congressional prerogative. Congress should take ownership of the AUMF rather than let the courts and the Executive interpret the 2001 legislation unilaterally. At some point, congressional failure to update the AUMF could force the President to rely on his Article II authority to target entities increasingly removed from 9/11. But this provision in the NDAA is no way to do it. Sec. 1034 was advanced with no hearings in the Foreign Affairs Committee--the principal committee of jurisdiction--and with only a passing mention in an Armed Services Committee hearing. There's been no floor debate beyond this amendment, and no opportunity for the Administration or outside experts to weigh in.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Representatives Adam Schiff, Brad Sherman and Henry A. Waxman, as we pay tribute to Dr. Robert Wexler who is being honored by the American Jewish University. We know firsthand of his many outstanding contributions to our community. For 18 years, Bob has been the President of the American Jewish University, where students are offered an educational setting which embraces both the history of the Jewish heritage and the skills necessary to become leaders in society. During his time at the university, Bob's many accomplishments contributed greatly to the growth and prestigious reputation of the institution. In 2007, he led the merger between Brandeis Bardin Institute and the University of Judaism, creating the American Jewish University and making it one of the largest Jewish institutions in the United States. Bob is also responsible for the establishment of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at AJU, which is the first independent conservative rabbinical school in the west. Bob is also a founder of the Whizin Center for Continuing Education. In addition to his distinguished work as the President of AJU, Bob has been deeply involved in many charitable organizations. He has generously given his time to many of the Los Angeles Federation's commissions and committees, and has been named to Newsweek's list of America's 50 most influential rabbis, as well as Forward's list of the 50 most significant American Jewish leaders. Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, we ask you to join us in recognizing Dr. Robert Wexler for his invaluable service and dedication to the community.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget cuts the President's 2012 request for international affairs by $20 billion. That's 39 percent of the amount in diplomacy and development outside of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. While diplomacy and development account for only about 1 percent of the overall budget, under the Republican plan this tiny portion of the budget would absorb a wildly disproportionate share of the cuts. Here's what it means on the ground: Taking AIDS patients off lifesaving medication, withholding bed nets from children in malaria zones, and standing idly by during humanitarian emergencies. I know the chairman of the committee, I know he doesn't want to see those things happen, but the effect of his plan would make them happen. The Democratic alternative takes a wise and responsible approach to reducing the deficit. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. BERMAN. May I inquire how much time is remaining on the time allotted to me?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent that 8 of those 22 minutes be yielded to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who is now controlling the time for the majority on the committee.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to take a couple of minutes to talk about one point. That part of the majority party that is urging the same position I am on this resolution, which is a ``no'' vote, has made the argument a number of times that when you're dealing with fundamental issues of national security, you spend money, even under difficult times, a point that I have no disagreement with. And they argue the issue of what the alternatives will be and the potential for providing new safe havens for terrorists or more safe havens for terrorists or a return of Afghanistan as a safe haven for terrorists if we pass this resolution, and I don't disagree with that point. What I find upsetting about the majority's position is their denial of the fundamental point. They quote General Petraeus for every position that they find philosophically and factually satisfying and ignore General Petraeus and Secretary Gates on the fundamental concept of how we hope to change the course of what is happening in Afghanistan. Because if we don't change it, then we have to come and address the fundamental question of what we're doing there through a counterinsurgency strategy. So we talk about clear and hold and build. And it is the military's job to clear and, for a time, to hold, but build is fundamentally a civilian program. General Petraeus over and over again has said this conflict in Afghanistan cannot be won unless we strengthen the governance of a very flawed government in Afghanistan, unless we provide economic opportunities for that society to progress and win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan to the cause for which we are fighting. It's also a view of Afghanistan as if it's isolated from the rest of the world. I can go through countries around the world--failed states, nearly failing states, terrible problems--which are certainly becoming safe harbors for terrorism. So when the same party that makes a strong case for our national security interests here at the same time passes legislation which slashes every aspect of efforts to strengthen governance and development assistance and to provide the kinds of opportunities that serve our national security interests, I find it a strange kind of logic and a flaw in their approach to this. I understand the economic hardships we have. If one wanted to look at the foreign assistance budget and take specific things that aren't working and get rid of them, I understand that, and if one wanted to make proportional cuts in the foreign assistance budget. But to come with the argument of, ``We're broke; we've got to cut spending,'' and then disproportionately focus on that aspect of our national security strategy which will do a tremendous amount and will be fundamental to any effort to stop them from being safe harbors for terrorism, and that is to massively slash disproportionately foreign assistance, it's a terrible mistake. It terribly undermines the national security strategy that we're trying to achieve through our operations and our presence and the money we're spending in Afghanistan. It's not thinking, I think, as clearly as needs to be thought. And I urge those in the majority to think again about how much the cuts that we need to make should be coming from that part of the budget that constitutes 1 percent of the Federal budget. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BERMAN. I simply would very quickly make the case that the resolution should be voted against for several reasons. Initially, because it improperly invokes a provision of the War Powers Act that's inapplicable. This war was authorized by the U.S. Congress. Secondly, the manner in which it would force withdrawal is irresponsible and I don't think is the right way to do it. And, thirdly, that I am not prepared, from this point of view, to say that failure is in any way inevitable, and that we should not at this time make the judgment to pull the plug out from what we are doing in Afghanistan. I would urge a ``no'' vote on the resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the resolution. Mr. Speaker, this is the third debate we have had pursuant to a war powers resolution in the last year. I completely agree with the gentleman from Ohio that as we are moving into the 10th year of this conflict, it is critical--not just nice, it is really critical for the House to have an open and honest debate on the merits of our ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, and that debate should be outside of the context of a defense spending bill. But what I also do is take strong issue with the invocation of section 5(c) of the War Powers Act as the basis for this debate. If we are here to respect the law and the procedures, you have to remember that it is that section which authorizes a privileged resolution, like the one we have before us today, to require the withdrawal of U.S. Forces when they are engaged in hostilities and Congress has not authorized the use of military force. There may be aspects of our operations around the world that people can claim under section 5(c) have not been authorized. No one can make a contention that what we are now doing in Afghanistan was not authorized by the Congress. There can be no doubt this military action in Afghanistan was authorized. It was authorized in 2001, soon after 9/ 11. But let's set aside the procedure and the specific dictates of the statute. I do think and share my concerns, well articulated by the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, that it is not responsible to demand a complete withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year without regard to the consequence of our withdrawal, without regard to the situation on the ground, including efforts to promote economic development and expand the rule of law, and without any measurement of whether the current strategy is indeed working. I am very sensitive to the arguments posed by the gentleman from Ohio. The cost of human life due to the war and the heavy costs incurred by our country at a time of great economic hardship should give any Member of Congress pause. I am also keenly aware of the concerns regarding our overall U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. It remains to be seen whether a counterinsurgency strategy will succeed there and, equally important, whether the Afghans are taking sufficient responsibility for this war. I am troubled that the war very much remains an American-led effort and that the U.S. presence has created a culture of dependency in Afghanistan. Notwithstanding all that, I won't support a call for a full withdrawal until we give the President's strategy additional time, at least through the spring, to show results or, without a responsible withdrawal strategy, to ensure gains made thus far will not be lost. A number of positive developments make me unwilling to throw in the towel just yet. For example, as noted by General Petraeus in testimony yesterday, coalition forces have been making some progress against Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan. In addition, the training of Afghan security forces has exceeded targets, and we are inching slowly toward the point at which they may be able to secure their own borders. A final plea to my colleagues, and that is to some of my colleagues who are joining me in opposing this resolution. I am sure we are not going to succeed in Afghanistan unless our civilian efforts are fully resourced. When I traveled to Afghanistan last April, I was encouraged to see our military forces, diplomats, and development experts working closely together in the field. General Petraeus couldn't have been more clear in his testimony: We are setting ourselves up for failure if we fully fund the clear part of the President's counterinsurgency strategy, the part carried out by the military, but shortchange the hold-and-build portions of the strategy, like economic development and building good governance. These are the keys to lasting success in Afghanistan. These are the keys to a successful counterinsurgency strategy. And when we meet those tests and do those works, we may be able to create the environment that will allow our troops to return home. For all these reasons, I oppose the resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

Mr. BERMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent to yield 2 minutes of my remaining time to my chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. If retroactively you could undo the money that was spent to build the building, make that argument. You are right now trying to zero out the appropriation for the programs of an institute that Congress created through legislation passed in both Houses. Put in a bill to repeal the legislation, and then we will go through the arguments about its merits or not and decide. Don't wipe it out through this indirect fashion. If you put in legislation, the authorizing committees will consider that legislation. This isn't the right way to do it. I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, it seems to me that in this frenzied competition to see who can cut the most and the fastest, we are losing all sense of reason and rationality. I am deeply concerned by what I see happening to the international affairs budget which is contained in this title XI of the bill before us. In the past, the State Department and foreign appropriations bill has passed with strong bipartisan support, often by an overwhelming margin. Members of both parties have understood how important diplomacy and development are, not only to U.S. standing in the world, but to our country's own economic growth, to American jobs and to American national security. They recognize that problems such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the spread of deadly disease cannot be resolved unilaterally. They know that over the long term, the best way to create more jobs at home is to build more export markets overseas. They understand that we cannot defeat violent extremism by military means alone and that, as Secretary Gates said last fall, ``Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers. Yet the process by which this CR has been produced makes a mockery of the responsibilities we have as Members of Congress to advance our economy and protect our national security. First, the Republican leadership announced a plan to make $44 billion in cuts. Then we started hearing other numbers: $58 billion, $74 billion, $100 billion. Each time it is measured a different way by a different baseline. And no matter how high the number goes, there are proposals to cut even deeper. These numbers weren't chosen because they looked at programs and said, Here is something that is not working, or, Here is something we don't need to do. No, the number was purely arbitrary, plucked out of a hat, totally unrelated to any thoughtful calculation of what was actually needed and how much that cost. This bill isn't about making government more cost effective or more efficient. It doesn't promote the kinds of reforms and streamlining that are needed to ensure that our aid reaches those who need it most. It is simply a slash-and-burn process, hacking away with a machete without consideration for all the critically important work that is being destroyed or how it affects our national security. The base bill itself might be laughable if it weren't so appalling. Humanitarian programs to provide lifesaving assistance, food, water, medicine and plastic sheeting to victims of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and famines is cut by 50 percent. Do we really intend to stand idly by as innocent men, women, and children starve to death? Will we turn off our television sets when we see people's homes and livelihoods wiped away by an unexpected catastrophe? It is not just disaster aid that is affected. Every other program that protects the poorest and most vulnerable people is savaged: refugee aid, food aid, water and sanitation, massive cuts in international efforts to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Meanwhile, funding for the diplomats and aid workers who carry out these programs is also slashed. If there is anything we have learned over the past few years, it ought to be that we just don't hand over money to contractors and governments without adequate oversight and accountability. Over the last month, we have all watched the incredible events unfolding in Tunisia and Egypt. The United States did not create these democracy movements and does not control them. But our diplomats did and do play a large role in helping to promote peaceful, negotiated solutions so that the will of the people can be heard. Our security assistance helped professionalize forces in both of those countries so they did not crush the demonstrators with force, as has happened in so many other places. And yet this bill and many of the proposed amendments would slash the kinds of assistance we provide nascent democracy movements and human rights activists under other authoritarian regimes. Somehow, the draconian cuts in this bill were not enough for many in this body. Added on top of all these cuts, we now face amendments to remove ourselves completely from the United Nations, to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for Democracy and the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the U.S. Institute of Peace. They would prohibit us from taking action to address climate change and increase the availability of voluntary family planning for couples who cannot feed the children they already have. They would cut aid to countries whose support is essential to us in the areas of counterterrorism, intelligence and nonproliferation just because they don't vote with us in the United Nations. There is one thing the authors of these amendments don't seem to understand: Aid is not a gift. The United States provides foreign assistance because it serves our interests. Helping countries become more democratic, more stable, more capable of defending themselves and better at pulling themselves also out of poverty is just as important for us as it is for them. Madam Chairman, the cuts to international spending in this bill will not create a single U.S. job. In fact, they will cost jobs.

Mr. BERMAN. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, I plan to vote against this amendment. I want to just make two points: one, the gentleman from New York's argument is very good if, in fact, U.S. Institute of Peace was simply another think tank. If it were, then why shouldn't they compete like other think tanks do for projects and contracts through the discretionary funds of the appropriate agencies and decided on that basis? But the U.S. Institute of Peace is not just the Brookings Institute or the Heritage Foundation. It's really more of a ``do'' tank than a think tank. It engages very specifically in projects, implementing projects that have direct benefits for our forces and for our diplomats based on their charter. Secondly, if we're going to zero out the U.S. Institute of Peace because it's no longer necessary because it isn't worthy of a direct earmark, then repeal the legislation that created it. There wasn't legislation that created Heritage or Brookings or American Enterprise Institute. These were private organizations. The U.S. Institute of Peace was created by legislation, passed by both Houses. This wasn't dropped in in some conference committee. This was a piece of legislation that authorized and created that institute. And what the appropriators do each year is decide what appropriation should come, as the gentlelady from Texas said in her opening remarks. They've already taken a whack out of the Institute of Peace for this particular year because--in some cases, they took a bigger whack out of some programs that I wish they hadn't done, but they have cut this. But then to come back with legislation to repeal the authorizing legislation, and then there will be nothing to earmark for, nothing to fund. The fact is, yeah, it's a nice building and it's right next door to a pretty drab building, the State Department. The State Department may not like the building they're in, but they sure like to use the U.S. Institute of Peace for a whole variety of activities that they think they're able to get value added from, and they choose to direct and work with and contract with and partner with the U.S. Institute of Peace on a whole variety of projects, as does the Pentagon. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.