Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, would you inform us as to the amount of time remaining on each side.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we are 90 days into this operation, and the majority is bringing up this resolution in order to embarrass the White House. Let's just call it for what it is. They know it will fail. They want to continue to play games with U.S. national security. Let's be honest about what's happening here. The Republican leadership allowed this resolution to come to the floor for one reason and one reason only: They know it will fail, and they think its defeat will be a political defeat for the White House. If that type of trifling and toying with national security appeals to them, so be it. Mr. Speaker, I think our commitments to NATO and the humanitarian crisis that created the NATO operation in Libya are too important to be exploited for cynical political purposes. In my view, the perfect authorization would have been a 6-month authorization for a limited purpose with a limitation on that authorization with respect to a position the House has stood for the entire time, as has the President, and that is no boots on the ground. But the Republicans didn't give this side the choice of the resolution for authorization. They told us what the resolution for authorization would be, and that's a very unfortunate kind of a situation. So we will go through this process. And perhaps, at the end of the day, after this resolution fails, we will get another letter to the House of Representatives sent to the Speaker thanking us from Colonel Qadhafi for once again demonstrating that we want to send a message that he is going to prevail in this conflict. And when that happens, what do we think the dictator of Syria is going to think? Faced with the choice of change or quitting, he will hear the message: the way to survive, the way to hold onto power is for a despot to continue to kill his own people without the rest of the world doing anything. There are critical alliances at stake. There are critical interests at stake. The national security question is far beyond simply what is going to happen in Libya, but in its neighbors, Egypt and Tunisia, throughout the Middle East and through the entire world, the message of trying to say that we're going to pull the plug on this particular operation. And heaven knows, we could spend time talking about the way the administration has handled it; but right now we have one choice, to pull the plug on this baby, or to let it play out in a limited and responsible fashion, to achieve our goals and send a message that the civilized world is not going to stand for this kind of barbarity and brutality. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the joint resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House has made some very legitimate points, but then his conclusion is so contrary to the points he made. The proposition before us today, Mr. McClintock is right, it is an authorization of a series of acts of belligerence, acts of war, that by their own definition cannot possibly help us either achieve the humanitarian goal of this mission or achieve the goal, the true humanitarian goal of removing Qadhafi from power. We are authorizing intelligence-sharing, aerial refueling, operational planning, intelligence-gathering; but we are denying the only aspects of this operation that can allow us to achieve that goal-- the suppression of air defense systems and the utilization of drones with missiles to stop Qadhafi from resuming his effort to massacre his own people. I understand the argument. You don't buy my notions of our national security interests. You don't see the context of bringing this operation to a halt in terms of what it does to the stability of the democracy movements in Egypt and Tunisia. You don't see any consequences in terms of Syria or the larger Middle East or the damage to alliance. I understand and accept that argument. But Mr. Rooney tries to have it both ways and in fact comes up with a proposal that ensures that the mission is allowed to continue, but by definition cannot achieve its goals. It is the worst. It is not the reasonable proposal. It is the worst of all solutions. If you're going to authorize an operation through airpower and other methods, you don't exclude the only parts that can possibly achieve success. If you're against this operation, you stop the funding of the operation. Mr. Rooney and apparently a number of members of the majority want to have it both ways. We don't like Qadhafi so we want to do something. We don't want to do anything that could work, but we don't want to come out against the operation. But the fact is you're ending the operation if this were to become law, because our European friends have said very clearly that, Those parts of this operation that this amendment prohibits, those parts of the operation we cannot undertake if you are not doing it. So why not be straightforward? Why not do what a number of colleagues on the other side have called for: stop funding the operation. Don't try to have it both ways, ensure the operation's defeat and end the operation, while pretending to still be interested in seeing Qadhafi go and the operation succeed. I urge a ``no'' vote from anyone who cares about the consequences of what they vote on.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw attention to Iran's ongoing efforts to assist the Syrian regime in violently suppressing peaceful protestors. I submit the articles ``Iran Helping Syrian Regime Crack Down on Protestors, Say Diplomats,'' printed in the May 9, 2011, Guardian, and ``Iran Reportedly Aiding Syrian Crackdown,'' printed in the May 27, 2011, Washington Post. Press reports indicate that Iran is playing an active role in helping Syrian President Bashar al-Assad brutally crackdown on peaceful democracy protestors. As the Washington Post reports, ``Iran is dispatching increasing numbers of trainers and advisers--including members of its elite Quds Force--into Syria to help crush anti- government demonstrations that are threatening to topple Iran's most important ally in the region.'' Syrians have witnessed an increase in arrests, and door-to-door raids, similar to those that helped to crush Iran's Green Movement protests in 2009. Human rights groups suggest that more than 7,000 people have been detained since the uprising began. And more than 1100 people are said to have died. Mr. Speaker, Iran is terrified that it is about to lose its most important ally in the Arab world--they will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. It appears that human life holds no value to the leaders in Damascus and Tehran. I encourage all of my colleagues to read these articles and follow this development closely. The Congress must continue to put pressure on Syria and Iran so that freedom, respect for human rights and democracy can emerge in both nations. [The Guardian, May 9, 2011] Iran Helping Syrian Regime Crack Down on Protesters, Say Diplomats Iran is playing an increasingly active role in helping the Syrian regime in its crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, according to western diplomatic sources in Damascus. The claim came as Syria's security forces backed by tanks intensified operations to suppress unrest in three new flashpoint towns on Sunday and it was confirmed that four women had been shot dead in the first use of force against an all-female demonstration. A senior western diplomat in Damascus expanded on assertions, first made by White House officials last month, that Iran is advising president Bashar al-Assad's government on how to crush dissent. The diplomat pointed to a ``significant'' increase in the number of Iranian personnel in Syria since protests began in mid-March. Mass arrests in door-to-door raids, similar to those that helped to crush Iran's ``green revolution'' in 2009, have been stepped up in the past week. Human rights groups suggest more than 7,000 people have been detained since the uprising began. More than 800 people are said to have died, up to 50 during last Friday's ``day of defiance''. Last night two unarmed demonstrators were reportedly killed during a night rally in the eastern city of Deir al-Zor. ``Tehran has upped the level of technical support and personnel support from the Iranian Republican Guard to strengthen Syria's ability to deal with protesters,'' the diplomat said, adding that the few hundred personnel were not involved in any physical operations. ``Since the start of the uprising, the Iranian regime has been worried about losing its most important ally in the Arab world and important conduit for weapons to Hezbollah [in Lebanon],'' the diplomat said. Last month White House officials made similar allegations about Iranian assistance for the regime, particularly in terms of intercepting or blocking internet, mobile phone and social media communications between the protesters and the outside world. But the officials did not provide hard evidence to support their claims. Activists and diplomats claim Iran's assistance includes help to monitor internet communications such as Skype, widely used by a network of activists, methods of crowd control, and providing equipment such as batons and riot police helmets. Syria has denied seeking or receiving assistance from Iran to put down the unrest. In a statement issued on Friday, Iran's foreign ministry stressed Syria's ``prime role'' in opposing Israel and the U.S., and urged opposing forces in the country to compromise on political reform. U.S. policy towards Syria was based on ``opportunism in support of the Zionist regime's avarice'', it said. The Assad family, from the Shia Muslim minority Alawite sect, is likely to be nervous about appearing to be helped by its Shia-dominated ally to crush protesters drawn from the 75% Sunni population. Regime forces backed by tanks were in action over the weekend in Horns, in the town of Tafas north of Deraa, and in the coastal city of Banias, activists said. Violence was also reported in the Damascus dormitory town of Zabadani. Along with arbitrary detentions, shootings have continued. Razan Zeitouneh, a lawyer in the capital who is monitoring the protests, said four women were shot dead in the village of Merqeb, close to Banias, and six men were shot dead in Banias on Saturday. Iran Reportedly Aiding Syrian Crackdown [From the Washington Post, May 27, 2011] U.S. officials say Iran is dispatching increasing numbers of trainers and advisers--including members of its elite Quds Force--into Syria to help crush anti-government demonstrations that are threatening to topple Iran's most important ally in the region. The influx of Iranian manpower is adding to a steady stream of aid from Tehran that includes not only weapons and riot gear but also sophisticated surveillance equipment that is helping Syrian authorities track down opponents through their Facebook and Twitter accounts, the sources said. Iranian- assisted computer surveillance is believed to have led to the arrests of hundreds of Syrians seized from their homes in recent weeks. The United States and its allies long have accused Iran of supporting repressive or violent regimes in the region, including Syria's government, the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Many previous reports, mostly provided by Western officials, have described Iranian technical help in providing Syria with riot helmets, batons and other implements of crowd control during 10 weeks of demonstrations against President Bashar al-Assad. The new assertions--provided by two U.S. officials and a diplomat from an allied nation, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive intelligence-- are clearly aimed at suggesting deepening involvement of Iranian military personnel in Syria's brutal crackdown against anti-Assad demonstrators.There was no response on Friday to requests for comment left with the Syrian Embassy and Iranian interests section in Washington. In the account provided by the diplomat and the U.S. officials, the Iranian military trainers were being brought to Damascus to instruct Syrians in techniques Iran used against the nation's ``Green Movement'' in 2009, the diplomat said. The Iranians were brutally effective in crushing those protests. Officers from Iran's notorious Quds Force have played a key role in Syria's crackdown since at least mid-April, said the U.S. and allied officials. They said U.S. sanctions imposed against the Quds Force in April were implicitly intended as a warning to Iran to halt the practice. The Quds Force is a unit of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps responsible for operations outside the country. It has helped fund and train Hezbollah and Hamas militants and supported anti-U.S. insurgents inside Iraq. While the size of the Iranian contingent in Syria is not known, the numbers of advisers has grown steadily in recent weeks despite U.S. warnings, according to the U.S. and allied officials. The Obama administration mentioned the role of the Quds Forces in announcing two sets of sanctions imposed against Syrian government officials in the past month. A White House executive order last week that targeted Assad and six other top government officials also included a little-noticed reference to Mohsen Chizari, an Iranian military officer who is the No. 3 leader in the Quds Force in charge of training. The naming of Chizari--who in 2006 was arrested but later released by U.S. forces in Iraq for allegedly supplying arms to insurgents there--suggests that officials possess evidence of his role in assisting Syria's crackdown on protesters, said Michael Singh, a former senior director for Middle East affairs for the National Security Council during George W. Bush's administration. ``There's a deeply integrated relationship here that involves not only support for terrorism but a whole gamut of activities to ensure Assad's survival,'' Singh said. It is not unusual for governments to draw on foreign assistance during times of unrest, as Western-allied governments in Bahrain and Egypt did when protests were building in those countries. Iran's increasing engagement in the Syrian crackdown reflects anxiety in Tehran about the prospects for Assad, who has failed to end the protests despite rising brutality that human rights groups say has left more than 800 people dead and perhaps 10,000 in prison. While managing to hold on to power, Assad has been severely weakened after months of Syrian unrest, according to current and former U.S. officials and Middle East experts. ``Iran is focused intently on how things are evolving in Syria,'' said Mona Yacoubian, a former Middle East expert with the State Department's intelligence division and who is a special adviser to the U.S. Institute of Peace. ``The two countries have a long-standing alliance of 30 years-plus. Syria is Iran's most important inroad into the Arab world, and its perch on the front line with Israel.'' Assad, whose army is stretched across dozens of cities in an unprecedented domestic deployment, increasingly needs help to survive, Yacoubian said. And Iran desperately needs Assad. ``If they lose the Syrian regime, it would constitute a huge setback,'' Yacoubian said. Iran, a longtime supplier of military aid to Syria, has been helping Dasmascus battle the current wave of civil unrest since at least mid-March, said the U.S. and allied officials. The emergence of Syria's first true mass protests--with tens of thousands of demonstrators pouring into the streets demanding Assad's ouster--initially flummoxed the country's security leaders, who had little experience with such phenomena. On March 23, Turkish officials seized light weapons-- including assault rifles and grenade launchers--on an Iranian cargo plane bound for Syria. Whether the shipment was intended to help suppress the uprising is unclear, but around the same time, Syria received other Iranian shipments that included riot control gear and computer equipment for Internet surveillance, the U.S. and allied sources said. Just before the shipments, Assad announced with great fanfare that he was lifting the country's ban on the use of social media such as Facebook and YouTube. While widely hailed at the time, the move gave Assad's security police an Iranian-inspired tool for tracking down leaders of the protest movement, said Andrew Tabler, a former Syria-based journalist who is a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. ``Lifting the ban on Facebook helped the regime pinpoint where the [activists] were coming from,'' Tabler said in an phone interview from Lebanon, where he remains in contact with opposition figures. ``It was not about being magnanimous; it was a way to allow more surveillance, leading to thousands of arrests.''

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. If the Members of the House choose to pass the Speaker's one-Chamber resolution, it should add one finding: that we declare ourselves to be one big constitutionally created potted plant. This resolution casts all kinds of aspersions on the President. It states the President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale for operations in Libya. It implies that there has been a withholding of documents and information from this body. Could the President provide more information to the Congress? Of course. But we need to look not just at the President's failure to seek an authorization, but the refusal of this body to exercise its authority in this area. The onus rests with us to recognize the sacred duty of authorizing the use of force. A resolution like this, with no operative language, with no invocation of the War Powers Resolution and which was presented to Members for the first time just 14 hours ago, simply perpetuates a dynamic of congressional acquiescence and acquiescence that, for the most part, has gone on truly since the Korean War. There are two choices here. If the majority thinks that the President's initial efforts to stop a humanitarian catastrophe were wrong or that current operations in Libya do not have a compelling national security rationale, it should support Mr. Kucinich's approach and offer a concurrent resolution pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution requiring the removal of U.S. forces. If the majority has concerns with Mr. Kucinich's approach, as many of us do, and believes terminating military action would have grave consequences for U.S. national security, it should simply authorize the use of force in Libya, incorporating the restrictions on ground forces that this resolution has, that the Conyers language in the DOD bill had. I would gladly join the Speaker in cosponsoring such an authorization of the limited use of force. But pursuing a nonbinding House Resolution that takes potshots at the President and amounts to nothing more than a sense of the Congress is just an exercise in political gamesmanship. It is a pedantic effort to embarrass the President without taking any ownership for the policy of the intervention. The majority, not the President, puts this body in a position of powerlessness through such toothless efforts. We are 60 days into this operation. Either we should authorize this action or terminate, not play around with reporting requirements. The resolution is also confusing. It states that the President shall not deploy or maintain the presence of U.S. military units on the ground in Libya. But as the majority well knows, U.S. military activities are limited to air operations and nothing more. So does this language mean the majority is okay with the current intervention in Libya? The majority seems to be raising a fuss while winking at the White House. That's not the way to legislate. Finally, I object to the resolution because it is downright inaccurate. The resolution implies that there is no compelling national security rationale for operations in Libya. But U.S. interests are clear. They have been forcefully articulated by the administration and, ironically, by conservative advocates like Bill Kristol. We are in Libya because we are averting a probable massacre against civilians. We are in Libya because our NATO partners need our help. Refusal to act there would send a message to NATO allies, who are putting their forces on the line in Afghanistan, that we are not a dependable partner. We are in Libya because our friends struggling for democracy in the Middle East are watching events there. If we failed to act, or worse, seek withdrawal today, what will we be saying to the activists in Tunisia and Egypt, whose fragile movements for democracy could be stifled by the destabilizing effect of a Qadhafi-led government remaining in power? And what message would we be sending to Assad and to other dictators and enemies about our staying power? Let's not kid ourselves. A Qadhafi who is unleashed to commit acts of terrorism around the world will do so with unspeakable barbarity. We know Qadhafi's record of bloodshed, and we know his readiness to use terror, especially now that he has nothing to lose. I cannot think of a more compelling rationale for current operations in Libya. I object to the characterization that U.S. national security interests and humanitarian objectives are incompatible. In Libya, it is quite clear that stopping murder and preventing a refugee crisis very much correspond with U.S. national interests. The Republican sponsors of this resolution are trying to have it both ways. They want to criticize the President for taking the very action that many of them called for 3 months ago. And they want to do so without taking any responsibility. In the process, they are offering nothing but criticism, obstruction and endless second-guessing. President Bush once accused the Democratic Party of becoming ``the party of cut and run.'' Well, it seems the running shoe is now on the other foot. It is a Democratic President that is taking on a brutal tyrant, and it is the Republican Party that refuses to back him. I urge my colleagues to take seriously U.S. military involvement in Libya and vote ``no'' on this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. BERMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it's important to get the record straight on what we're doing and what we're not doing. ``No boots on the ground'' did not come because of this resolution we are considering now. This was the decision of the President, the Commander in Chief, at the time. But the figures given by my friend from Indiana don't reflect the reality of our participation. What are we doing now? While we're not in the lead, the United States is contributing significantly to the operation: fighter aircraft for the suppression of enemy air defense, ISR aircraft, electronic warfare aircraft, aerial refueling aircraft, one guided missile destroyer and predatory armed unmanned aerial surveillance systems. Twenty-four percent, not two-thirds of the total aircraft; 27 percent of the total sorties flown; over 75 percent of all refueling sorties; 70 percent of intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. Now there's no boots on the ground, but to me that involvement implicates the War Powers Resolution. This is within the meaning of that bill. And, once again, only Kucinich has before us a proposal that seeks to deal with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. I just think we should get the record straight about what our involvement is. It's not as large as the previous speaker said, but it is significant. And in my opinion, it's within the terms of the War Powers Resolution. I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from California, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond to my friend's arguments. I agree with every word he said except that this is a manifestation of the Congress exercising its authority. This is an abdication of Congress exercising its authority, because nowhere in this resolution is the authorization for the operations that we want to authorize, that we should be authorizing if we think they are appropriate. The gentleman from Ohio doesn't think they are appropriate. Some of us do think it is appropriate, and this isn't about buying time. We are not a supplicant to go to the executive branch and ask for them to request of us authorization. We have the institutional power to decide what to do, and this resolution fails to take that option. I think the gentleman makes a wonderful case for why this resolution is not sufficient to step up to our responsibilities under the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. With that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds in response to the previous speaker. What I'm curious about is what the resolution doesn't tell us. If the President doesn't provide us the information within 14 days, what are we doing? The resolution is silent. This is a resolution filled with things we want and are asking for and demanding and are harumphing about with no consequences. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), former member of the committee.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just listened to my chairman--I am very fond of her--make a very compelling case for the national security interests we have in seeing through this operation that is now going on against Qadhafi and Libya. In detail, with specifics, I completely support it. The only thing I didn't hear was, ``Mr. President, while you didn't consult with us enough and you haven't provided us all the information, I want to thank you, as our President and our Commander in Chief, for pursuing America's national security interests in this current operation. Great job, keep it going, be a little better on the information, a little more on the consulting, but stick with it.'' That's what I didn't hear. I want to compliment Mr. Kucinich for offering this resolution. We disagree on the President's policy. My colleague wants to withdraw forces, while I support the ongoing operations in Libya. But unlike the majority, Mr. Kucinich is taking seriously this body's fundamental responsibility to legislate on the use of force. The President commenced combat operations in Libya to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, a massacre at the hands of Qadhafi's forces. There was bipartisan support for this effort and the President prevented massive loss of life through the decisive use of force. We don't have to speculate about that. Qadhafi told the entire world about his plans for Benghazi, to go door to door, closet to closet to find and eliminate his opponents. I continue to believe the mission in Libya is relevant and necessary, as does my chairman and as does the Speaker, and I believe it's achieving success. Qadhafi's forces have been driven out of eastern Libya and out of Misrata in the west. High-level defections are on the increase. Demonstrations are once again breaking out in Tripoli, suggesting a weakening of government control. Progress is slower than we would like, but it is steady. Efforts to force a withdrawal of forces would reverse this process and jeopardize the lives of hundreds of thousands of Libyans now benefiting from the NATO operation. And this resolution demands not merely withdrawal; it demands withdrawal within 15 days. Think about what a removal in 15 days, as required by this resolution, would mean. We would be giving Qadhafi a free hand to maintain control in Libya and continue his campaign against civilians. We would be thumbing our nose at our NATO partners whose support on the ground has been and continues to be so crucial in Afghanistan. We would likely threaten the stability for the very Arab nations where democracy has its best hope of success: Egypt and Tunisia, each of which flank Libya and are inevitably affected by its internal developments. And we would send a message to Assad of Syria and dictators everywhere that our support for freedom and humane governance is, at best, lukewarm and transitory: Hang in there for a few weeks, Mr. Dictator, and we'll go away. And as the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 know better than any of us, a Qadhafi who is unleashed to commit acts of terrorism around the world will do so with unspeakable barbarity. He might even reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction. We need to give the President more time to pursue this mission. To do otherwise would be to alienate our allies, to damage our regional interests, and, once again, to invite a horrible massacre of Libyan civilians. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I inquire of the amount of time remaining for all of the managers.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

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

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, just in closing our time in the debate, I would take up Mr. Kucinich's comments. If you think there has been an inappropriate abuse of power here, voting for the Boehner resolution does not cure that. But the Constitution doesn't say the President must come to Congress and get a declaration of war. It says Congress must declare war. I agree very much with the thinking of my friend, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rogers, that there are national security issues involved here as well as humanitarian issues, and that's why I oppose Kucinich. But the notion that the President has to come to Congress when Congress has the authority to address this issue directly through a declaration or through an authorization or a limited authorization is the right way to do it. I urge a ``no'' vote on both the Boehner amendment and the Kucinich amendment.