Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. I respect that the gentleman is not saying they shouldn't exist. But this isn't a matter of whether or not they should exist. It's that we, by statute, decided to create them for very specific purposes. If you don't think this is worthy of Federal funds, then put in legislation to repeal the authorization and the creation of this institute. Don't keep a statute on the books that creates an institution which we're now going to take away the direct appropriation for.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

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

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, and I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. This is called the YouCut agenda. It's the second bill on the YouCut agenda. If this is the kind of bill that's going to be on the YouCut agenda, I would suggest that we name it the ``YouCut what?'' agenda. The CBO says, in its official cost estimate, implementing H.R. 519 would have no effect on the Federal budget, no effect. Not $1 is saved by this particular proposal. So we are faced with a piece of legislation that jeopardizes critical security upgrades at the United Nations headquarters, and let me just point out here, there's a large improvement plan for the U.N. building that's going on now. That is not paid by the U.S. It is paid by the apportioned assessed dues of all the member countries. This is about a perimeter cost dealing with FDR Drive that our colleagues Mr. Thompson and Mr. King and the other New Yorkers who will speak on this will go into more detail on, that's a host country obligation. There is not $180 million in that fund because $100 million of it has been committed to the request of the New York City Police Department to securitize the perimeter of the U.N. building where FDR Drive goes under the U.N. Secondly, it puts us back in arrears at the U.N. We tried that once. That doesn't get our agenda through. We have a big agenda and a big reform agenda at the U.N. Failing to pay our obligation is not the answer, and because of the nature of this fund and the commitments already made, I repeat what the CBO says: H.R. 519, this legislation, would have no effect on the Federal budget. So we are not saving money. We are spurning the important security requests, and we are going back into a pattern of arrearages that undermines our efforts at the U.N. and does not help to achieve those goals. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the ranking member of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee of House Foreign Affairs.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) in whose district these security perimeter improvements are being made.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, a former member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Ellison.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, let's go through some of the issues and sort of disaggregate all of this. We have a bill that seeks to withhold funds unless the Secretary of State certifies she has gotten back $179 million from the fund. The fund doesn't have $179 million, because $100 million has been designated to this perimeter security on FDR Drive at the request of the New York Police Department. Why did they do it that way? Because to do it now in the context of the overall U.N. reconstruction will save at least $100 million over doing it when we finish appropriating. Well, why didn't we do an appropriation? Well, if anyone has noticed, the Congress didn't exactly do appropriations this fiscal year. So we are left in a situation where the administration makes a decision to designate $100 million from the fund to do something that if they don't do it now will cost twice as much to do it later through the appropriations process and to take the rest of that fund and offset it against our fiscal year 2012 dues. But the strangest part of this bill, in addition to all the arguments that have been made, it seeks to withhold the payment of dues that the CBO says will have already been paid and there will be nothing to withhold. Fiscal year 2011 dues will be paid before this bill is ever law. You can ask the Secretary and require the Secretary to withhold a certain amount of dues, but once you have paid it all, there is nothing to withhold. It is really a poorly crafted bill, not contemporaneous with the situation that exists now that seeks to jeopardize an important security project and start us going down the road towards simply trying to not pay; but it won't even work to not pay the dues that we owe through our assessed contributions. I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I oppose this resolution. I oppose it because I think its provisions with respect to our own economic recovery and the production of jobs is offset tremendously by its passage. But I want to focus my time on the limited question but the very important question of what is in and what is not in security funding, because security funding, as has been pointed out, is exempted from the requirements to go back to fiscal year 2008 functions or less. The chairman of the Rules Committee, when asked at the Rules Committee whether foreign assistance, diplomacy, and development were part of security--was that part of the exemption?--he said no. My definition--me, David Dreier, chairman of the Rules Committee, out of which this resolution comes--is as we have outlined in here: This is discretionary spending--that is non-security spending--other than defense, military construction, VA, and homeland security. I assume the gentleman's interpretation is one he still holds to less than a week later.

Mr. BERMAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman for reaffirming that position. Now let's take a look at what that means. That means not exempt from these drastic cuts are: weapons in training to build the capacity of key partners in the fight against terror in Yemen, in Pakistan, in the Philippines. That's all part of our security assistance package, part of our international affairs budget; financing for the purchase of U.S. military equipment to ensure Israel's qualitative military edge; defense items and services that enable other countries to cooperate with us on counterterrorism. In Afghanistan, they're cuts that would mean an end to the civilian surge. It would force the military to perform civilian jobs. The reductions would harm four Provincial Reconstruction Teams and forward operating bases, security forces and police training, explosive ordnance disposal, counternarcotics and poppy eradication programs. In Iraq, the state programs that would be harmed by virtue of the gentleman's definition of ``non-security funds'' that have to be dramatically cut back are: training for Iraqi police and security forces to take over when the U.S. troops depart; funding for our Special Inspectors General in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure that programs are designed to achieve maximum impact and are properly managed and implemented.

Mr. BERMAN. Everything the gentleman has stood for in his years in Congress is going to be undermined by virtue of what he is proposing. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, which provides for consideration of a resolution to reduce what is being called ``non- security'' spending to 2008 levels. That resolution, H. Res. 38, sends a very damaging message that the Congress will not stand up to protect those programs that are absolutely essential to jobs and the economy. It also rejects a key principle that military leaders and Presidents of both parties have clearly recognized: Foreign assistance and diplomacy are essential to United States national security. That principle has been honored on a bipartisan basis ever since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. On that terrible morning, Americans woke to the realization that while the Cold War was over, their safety and security could be threatened by much less sophisticated means. The ideologies and the weapons of terror could not be thwarted by military power alone. In 2004 the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act by a vote of 336-75. It was supported by all the Members who are now in positions of leadership in this body. The Speaker, the Majority Leader and the Budget Committee Chairman all voted for it. The bill, now Public Law 108-458, states: ``Long-term success in the war on terrorism demands the use of all elements of national power, including diplomacy, military action, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and homeland defense.'' It continues: ``To win the war on terrorism, the United States must assign to economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that is assigned to military capabilities.'' In fact, the portion of the bill that makes these findings is known as the ``9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004.'' It states: ``The legislative and executive branches of the Government of the United States must commit to robust, long-term investments in all of the tools necessary for the foreign policy of the United States to successfully accomplish the goals of the United States.'' All of the tools necessary--that includes diplomacy and foreign assistance, which would be slashed under this resolution. The 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004 goes on to say that these investments ``will require increased funding to United States foreign affairs programs.'' In May of this year, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to then-Speaker Pelosi regarding proposed cuts to the international affairs budget. The opening paragraph stated: ``We are living in times that require an integrated national security program with budgets that fund the full spectrum of national security efforts, including vitally important pre-conflict and post-conflict civilian stabilization programs.'' He was reinforcing a message that had also been communicated, on several occasions, by Secretary Gates, when he wrote: ``The diplomatic and developmental capabilities of the United States have a direct bearing on our ability to shape threats and reduce the need for military action. It is my firm belief that diplomatic programs as part of a coordinated strategy will save money by reducing the likelihood of active military conflict involving U.S. forces. Admiral Mullen penned a personal note at the end, which read: ``The more significant the cuts, the longer military operations will take, and the more and more lives are at risk!'' President Bush, when sending up his wartime supplemental request in FY 2006, integrated diplomatic and military spending. He asked Congress to provide ``the Resources to Win the War on Terror.'' The message from our military leadership, this Congress, and even former President Bush is clear: U.S. civilian agencies must be fully resourced to prosecute the fight against terror effectively. A cut to the 150 budget harms U.S. national security and puts American lives at risk. And yet, the Chairman of the Rules Committee explained, during consideration of this resolution, that ``security spending'' does not include diplomacy and development. He said, ``No, my definition, my definition is, as we have outlined in here, this is discretionary spending other than defense, military construction, V.A. and homeland security.'' The resolution itself does not define what is security or non-security, but the authors say they do not consider diplomacy and development part of our national security budget. Before voting on this resolution, I would urge my colleagues to think about what the practical implications would be of major cuts in the international affairs budget. In 2008, the vast majority of U.S. assistance to Iraq was provided by the military. This year, at long last, we are withdrawing the remainder of our troops, and handing over the job to civilians. If we cut our diplomatic and development budget for Iraq, then all the investments we've made, and all the American lives that have been lost, will be in vain. The civilian presence costs only a tiny fraction of what we were spending on the military. But this resolution would make that civilian presence impossible. The proposed cuts will mean snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Returning to the past would also mean violating our Memorandum of Understanding with Israel, under which we pledge to help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge against those who seek its destruction. Do my colleagues suggest we renege on our commitment to Israel? In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we cannot defeat violent extremism by military power alone. As Secretary Gates recently said, ``without development we will not be able to be successful in either Iraq or Afghanistan.'' Our military strategy in Afghanistan is often described as ``clear, hold, and build.'' How can we succeed if there is no one to do the holding and the building? Foreign assistance programs protect us even outside the areas of active combat or potential conflict. Our efforts to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases, counter the flow of illegal narcotics, prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, reduce human misery and halt environmental destruction, all help to protect the safety and security of American citizens. Mr. Speaker, we can't afford to go back to the isolationist, unilateralist policies of the past. Cutting spending to 2008 levels takes us back to a period when America's standing in the world was at an all-time low. Whether it's finding new markets for U.S. goods and services, addressing climate change, sharing the burden of peacekeeping, enforcing sanctions against Iran, or improving travel and communications, we need to build strong international relationships. We all remember the period when the United States tried to go it alone, unwilling to cooperate with other countries and demonstrate global leadership. We've finally begun to turn that all around. Let's not go back to the bad old days when the U.S. turned away from the rest of the world, and lost so much of its influence and respect. Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the very difficult budget and economic situation that confronts us. There is no doubt that well-crafted reforms will help us to use our foreign assistance dollars more effectively and efficiently, and ensure that aid reaches those who need it. That is why I am continuing my efforts to develop legislation to modernize our foreign assistance policies and programs. But what we need to do, as one conservative blogger has suggested, is to ``mend it, not end it.'' Comparatively speaking, diplomacy and development don't cost much, and save us money over the long run. International affairs funding helps promote U.S. exports and saves U.S. jobs. Our economy can't grow without creating and expanding new markets abroad. Our diplomats help to identify export opportunities, help American companies navigate foreign political systems, and level the playing field for American products around the globe. We should also keep in mind that international affairs accounts for just one percent of the budget. Even if we eliminated such spending entirely, it wouldn't balance the budget and it wouldn't make a dent in our national debt. But it would devastate our economy and our national security. As Secretary Gates said last fall, ``Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.'' In places like Haiti and Sudan, we provide assistance not only for purely humanitarian reasons, but also because a failure to do so could lead to chaos and bloodshed that would be far more costly in the long run. Going back to 2008 levels of global AIDS funding would mean ending antiretroviral treatment for people who are currently receiving it. It would mean abandoning pregnant women who run a high risk of transmitting HIV to their newborns. It would mean fewer orphans and vulnerable children will get care and support, and fewer people in poor countries will get HIV counseling and testing. President Bush made clear not only the need to not cut funding, but to make greater investments in these programs when he wrote, just a few months ago, ``there are millions on treatment who cannot be abandoned. And the progress in many African nations depends on the realistic hope of new patients gaining access to treatment. . . . On AIDS, to stand still is to lose ground.'' Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the most obvious and damaging implications of reducing the international affairs budget to 2008 levels. This resolution would set the stage for reckless cuts that endanger our national security, abandon our national interests and throw Americans out of work, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, which provides for consideration of a resolution to reduce what is being called ``non-security'' spending to 2008 levels. That resolution, H. Res. 38, sends a very damaging message that the Congress will not stand up to protect those programs that are absolutely essential to jobs and the economy. It also rejects a key principle that military leaders and Presidents of both parties have clearly recognized: Foreign assistance and diplomacy are essential to United States national security. That principle has been honored on a bipartisan basis ever since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. On that terrible morning, Americans woke to the realization that while the Cold War was over, their safety and security could be threatened by much less sophisticated means. The ideologies and the weapons of terror could not be thwarted by military power alone. In 2004 the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act by a vote of 336-75. It was supported by all the Members who are now in positions of leadership in this body. The Speaker, the Majority Leader and the Budget Committee Chairman all voted for it. The bill, now Public Law 108-458, states: ``Long-term success in the war on terrorism demands the use of all elements of national power, including diplomacy, military action, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and homeland defense.'' It continues: ``To win the war on terrorism, the United States must assign to economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that is assigned to military capabilities.'' In fact, the portion of the bill that makes these findings is known as the ``9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004.'' It states: ``The legislative and executive branches of the Government of the United States must commit to robust, long-term investments in all of the tools necessary for the foreign policy of the United States to successfully accomplish the goals of the United States.'' All of the tools necessary--that includes diplomacy and foreign assistance, which would be slashed under this resolution. The 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004 goes on to say that these investments ``will require increased funding to United States foreign affairs programs.'' In May of this year, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to then-Speaker Pelosi regarding proposed cuts to the international affairs budget. The opening paragraph stated: ``We are living in times that require an integrated national security program with budgets that fund the full spectrum of national security efforts, including vitally important pre-conflict and post-conflict civilian stabilization programs.'' He was reinforcing a message that had also been communicated, on several occasions, by Secretary Gates, when he wrote: ``The diplomatic and developmental capabilities of the United States have a direct bearing on our ability to shape threats and reduce the need for military action. It is my firm belief that diplomatic programs as part of a coordinated strategy will save money by reducing the likelihood of active military conflict involving U.S. forces. Admiral Mullen penned a personal note at the end, which read: ``The more significant the cuts, the longer military operations will take, and the more and more lives are at risk!'' President Bush, when sending up his wartime supplemental request in FY 2006, integrated diplomatic and military spending. He asked Congress to provide ``the Resources to Win the War on Terror.'' The message from our military leadership, this Congress, and even former President Bush is clear: U.S. civilian agencies must be fully resourced to prosecute the fight against terror effectively. A cut to the 150 budget harms U.S. national security and puts American lives at risk. And yet, the Chairman of the Rules Committee explained, during consideration of this resolution, that ``security spending'' does not include diplomacy and development. He said, ``No, my definition, my definition is, as we have outlined in here, this is discretionary spending other than defense, military construction, V.A. and homeland security.'' The resolution itself does not define what is security or non-security, but the authors say they do not consider diplomacy and development part of our national security budget. Before voting on this resolution, I would urge my colleagues to think about what the practical implications would be of major cuts in the international affairs budget. In 2008, the vast majority of U.S. assistance to Iraq was provided by the military. This year, at long last, we are withdrawing the remainder of our troops, and handing over the job to civilians. If we cut our diplomatic and development budget for Iraq, then all the investments we've made, and all the American lives that have been lost, will be in vain. The civilian presence costs only a tiny fraction of what we were spending on the military. But this resolution would make that civilian presence impossible. The proposed cuts will mean snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Returning to the past would also mean violating our Memorandum of Understanding with Israel, under which we pledge to help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge against those who seek its destruction. Do my colleagues suggest we renege on our commitment to Israel? In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we cannot defeat violent extremism by military power alone. As Secretary Gates recently said, ``without development we will not be able to be successful in either Iraq or Afghanistan.'' Our military strategy in Afghanistan is often described as ``clear, hold, and build.'' How can we succeed if there is no one to do the holding and the building? Foreign assistance programs protect us even outside the areas of active combat or potential conflict. Our efforts to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases, counter the flow of illegal narcotics, prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, reduce human misery and halt environmental destruction, all help to protect the safety and security of American citizens. Mr. Speaker, we can't afford to go back to the isolationist, unilateralist policies of the past. Cutting spending to 2008 levels takes us back to a period when America's standing in the world was at an all-time low. Whether it's finding new markets for U.S. goods and services, addressing climate change, sharing the burden of peacekeeping, enforcing sanctions against Iran, or improving travel and communications, we need to build strong international relationships. We all remember the period when the United States tried to go it alone, unwilling to cooperate with other countries and demonstrate global leadership. We've finally begun to turn that all around. Let's not go back to the bad old days when the U.S. turned away from the rest of the world, and lost so much of its influence and respect. Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the very difficult budget and economic situation that confronts us. There is no doubt that well-crafted reforms will help us to use our foreign assistance dollars more effectively and efficiently, and ensure that aid reaches those who need it. That is why I am continuing my efforts to develop legislation to modernize our foreign assistance policies and programs. But what we need to do, as one conservative blogger has suggested, is to ``mend it, not end it.'' Comparatively speaking, diplomacy and development don't cost much, and save us money over the long run. International affairs funding helps promote U.S. exports and saves U.S. jobs. Our economy can't grow without creating and expanding new markets abroad. Our diplomats help to identify export opportunities, help American companies navigate foreign political systems, and level the playing field for American products around the globe. We should also keep in mind that international affairs accounts for just one percent of the budget. Even if we eliminated such spending entirely, it wouldn't balance the budget and it wouldn't make a dent in our national debt. But it would devastate our economy and our national security. As Secretary Gates said last fall, ``Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.'' In places like Haiti and Sudan, we provide assistance not only for purely humanitarian reasons, but also because a failure to do so could lead to chaos and bloodshed that would be far more costly in the long run. Going back to 2008 levels of global AIDS funding would mean ending antiretroviral treatment for people who are currently receiving it. It would mean abandoning pregnant women who run a high risk of transmitting HIV to their newborns. It would mean fewer orphans and vulnerable children will get care and support, and fewer people in poor countries will get HIV counseling and testing. President Bush made clear not only the need to not cut funding, but to make greater investments in these programs when he wrote, just a few months ago, ``there are millions on treatment who cannot be abandoned. And the progress in many African nations depends on the realistic hope of new patients gaining access to treatment. . . . On AIDS, to stand still is to lose ground.'' Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the most obvious and damaging implications of reducing the international affairs budget to 2008 levels. This resolution would set the stage for reckless cuts that endanger our national security, abandon our national interests and throw Americans out of work, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2, a bill to repeal patients' rights and empower health insurance companies at the expense of consumers. I am proud to have voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, landmark legislation to reform our country's health insurance system and expand opportunities for quality, affordable health care to millions of people who otherwise go without. In my district, in the heart of California's San Fernando Valley, rolling back reforms would have devastating consequences for my constituents. This repeal would leave an additional 116,000 of my constituents without health insurance. It would increase prescription drug costs for 5,600 seniors in the Medicare D ``doughnut hole'' and deny new preventive care benefits to 64,000 seniors. It would expose over 100,000 of my constituents--and perhaps as many as 290,000 people in my district--to the possibility of being denied coverage because they have pre-existing conditions. I have heard from thousands of my constituents who support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, many of whom feel strongly enough to share their stories with me. Some are thankful that their child's pre-existing condition is no longer a barrier to getting coverage. Others are relieved that treatment of their chronic illness is no longer subject to a lifetime spending cap. But some are simply the parents of uninsured young adults who live with the day-to-day worry that their kids are one accident away from financial ruin or that they won't be able to access the care they need. I'd like to share one of these stories with you. Diane, a constituent in Valley Village, wrote me last October to tell me about her daughter's experience with the health insurance reform bill. Her daughter graduated from a prestigious university in 2008 and got a job but still couldn't afford health insurance. She left her job after two years. Two weeks later, she was in a serious car accident. Her car was totaled but she, luckily, was not hurt. At age 24, this young woman found herself unemployed and without health insurance, having narrowly escaped every parent's nightmare. Diane writes, ``And then, two weeks ago . . . she was able to be covered under the plan of her father and stepmother. I wanted to share this story because we want you [to know] that this change has already had a huge impact on our lives. As a mother, I now have one less major issue to worry about.'' On behalf of Diane and her family, and on behalf of children, young adults, parents, seniors, small business owners, small business employees, people with pre-existing conditions, hospitals that provide uncompensated care, and everyone else who benefits from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I stand strongly against H.R. 2 and urge my colleagues to join me in voting against repeal.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this month marks the fourth anniversary of the passing of Beth Sharon Samuels, an extraordinary Angeleno who lost her life to cancer in January 2007 at the age of 31. Beth grew up in Los Angeles, attending the Yeshiva University High School of Los Angeles and graduating as valedictorian. She went on to study at a women's seminary in Israel before graduating from Columbia University with a degree in mathematics. She then completed a three- year program at the Drisha Institute in Bible and Talmud, a Ph.D. in math at Yale, and earned an assistant professorship at the University of California, Berkeley. In the meantime, she gave birth to a daughter, Danelle, and later to daughter Natalia while undergoing intensive chemotherapy treatments. Beth remains with us, even with increasing distance from her passing. Last year, Beth's friends and family published The Wisdom of Bat Sheva: The Dr. Beth Samuels Memorial Volume, a series of lectures and discussions on Torah learning, including an essay by Beth. The book highlights that Beth's spirit continues to teach and inspire. Beth was such a powerful force of spirituality, learning, and divine presence, and her memory will continue to serve as a powerful blessing. My condolences go out to her parents, Elana and Zachary, her husband, Ari, her daughters Danelle and Natalia and her extended friends and family on this solemn occasion.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, from December 3 to 5, a delegation of Members of the House met with a delegation of Members of the European Parliament for the 69th session of the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue. The TLD is the principal inter-parliamentary organization to foster discussion between U.S. and European Union legislators. Following my remarks is the Joint Statement issued by the TLD chairs and vice-chairs summarizing the results of this meeting. A highlight of this meeting was the participation by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, His Excellency Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who gave an enlightening presentation on current issues in Pakistan and the South Asia region. His remarks stimulated a lively discussion. For the past four years, the TLD Congressional delegation has been ably chaired by our colleague, the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Shelley Berkley. Indeed, she has been the driving force in making the TLD an effective mechanism to strengthen the working relationship between the Congress and the European Parliament. In recognition of her energetic commitment to trans-Atlantic diplomacy, the participants honored her at this meeting. As Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I join them in commending Ms. Berkley for her outstanding leadership of the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue. Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue, From the European Parliament and the United States Congress, Joint Statement Shelley Berkley, Chairwoman, United States Congress Delegation Cliff Stearns, Vice Chairman, United States Congress Delegation Jim Costa, Vice Chairman, United States Congress Delegation Elmar Brok, MEP, Chairman, European Parliament Delegation Sarah Ludford, MEP, Vice Chairwoman, European Parliament Delegation Niki Tzavela, MEP, Vice Chairwoman, European Parliament Delegation We, the Members of the European Parliament and the United States House of Representatives, held our 69th Interparliamentary meeting (Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue) in San Francisco, California, from 3-5 December 2010. Building on the joint statement issued following our last meeting in Madrid on 3-6 June 2010 we reasserted the importance of regular dialogue on political, social, security, economic and environmental challenges that affect all of our citizens. We agreed to report back to our parent bodies on the content and outcome of our discussions in San Francisco, in particular in the areas where joint efforts are likely to produce positive outcomes. We discussed issues ranging from the global financial situation and trade, to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and climate change. We were briefed on data sharing and privacy issues by Mary Ellen Callahan from the Department of Homeland Security and met with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, His Excellency Shah Mehmood Qureshi. Our delegations noted that the U.S. and EU must be aware of long-term trends and challenges including the economical and political rise of Asia, cooperation with Latin America, and seek answers to issues like climate change and cybersecurity. In this context, we discussed inviting a NATO representative to the next TLD meeting. The European Parliament Delegation expressed its gratitude to the U.S. for its vote in support of a strengthened EU presence in the United Nations General Assembly. We noted the statement by the leaders of the U.S. and the EU giving a central role to the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), and outlining ``the potential of transatlantic commerce to boost our growth and generate jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.'' We support the joint efforts to ``promote innovation, streamline regulation, and eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade and investment, bringing benefits to business, workers, and consumers in both markets.'' The reducing of non tariff barriers and the streamlining of regulations were agreed as priorities when the TEC was established. We call on the TEC leaders once again to reach out directly to Congress and the European Parliament. The October 14 2010 European Parliament Delegation `Brief on EU-US trade and economic cooperation' was well received and we look forward to further proposals to improve the Transatlantic market. In this respect we also discussed the need for us as legislators to take a more active role to reduce non-tariff barriers to trans-Atlantic trade, including working with executive agencies on a few specific projects, for instance as regards product testing procedures of automobiles and emerging products through advances in nanotechnology. We discussed ways to further enhance our dialogue and deepen transatlantic ties, even in times of economic constraints and respecting the need for cost effectiveness, including: --expanding contacts among staff of our institutions, --inviting EU and U.S. officials to provide perspectives on strategic issues related to financial recovery and economic growth, --expanding interaction between the U.S. Congress and the European Parliament, including through video-conferencing, --promoting closer contacts between the Members responsible for specific legislative issues, in particular on a committee to committee basis, --the possibility of joint hearings and the issuance of joint statements. In conclusion, we reaffirmed our commitment to strengthening the transatlantic relationship and working in partnership to solve common challenges. We pledged to continue improving the effectiveness of our dialogue in order to realise the full potential of our interparliamentary relationship, as well as to ensure the relevance of the TLD's work to the European Parliament and the United States Congress.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 335) honoring the exceptional achievements of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and recognizing the significant contributions he has made to United States national security, humanitarian causes, and peaceful resolutions of international conflict, as amended.

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

Mr. BERMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, which recognizes and honors the life and career of one of America's most potent diplomatic assets, Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke. For opening comments, I yield as much time as she may consume to someone who was a close and great friend of his. She is the chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, the chief sponsor of this resolution on which the ranking member and I have joined, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague the gentlelady from California (Ms. Harman), someone who worked for a very long time on issues with Ambassador Holbrooke.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).