Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in 4 months we are debating a resolution under the War Powers Act. I welcome congressional scrutiny of the commitment of U.S. forces abroad, and I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's effort to focus attention on one of the most sacred duties of Congress. But once again, I have to take issue with the invocation of Section 5(c) of the War Powers Act as the basis for this debate. That section authorizes a privileged resolution, like the one before us today, to require the withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces when they are engaged in hostilities and Congress has not authorized the use of military force. Whereas the Afghanistan war powers debate focused on whether there was an authorization for U.S. military force, here we do not even reach that question because, based on everything I know, U.S. forces are not engaged in hostilities in Pakistan. The Wall Street Journal article distributed by my friend from Ohio refers to the U.S. military's role in training and humanitarian assistance programs in Pakistan. That's not ``engaging in hostilities.'' In fact, our Armed Forces participate in these types of programs in dozens of countries around the world. The gentleman refers to the terrible tragedy of three U.S. forces killed by an IED. They were on a humanitarian aid mission. We have people on such missions, people involved in military training, uniformed officers, who have been killed in many different parts of the world. From that, one does not draw the conclusion that the U.S. is engaged in hostilities with enemy forces. In fact, since U.S. forces are not engaged in hostilities in Pakistan, there is no factual basis for invoking the War Powers Act. Mr. Speaker, Pakistan is an important partner in the fight against extremism. Last year Congress demonstrated America's long-term commitment to Pakistan by passing the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009. Any attempt to cut the military ties between our two countries would be counterproductive for our national security interest in the region. No matter what your position on the situation in Afghanistan, whether you think we should withdraw tomorrow, shift from a counterinsurgency strategy to a counterterrorism strategy, or send in even more troops, there is no reason to automatically conclude that we should cease our efforts to help Pakistan address the dire threats to its security. In 1990, we stopped providing military assistance and training to Pakistan for what seemed like a good reason at the time. But as a result, a whole generation of Pakistani military officers rose through the ranks without any connection or affinity with the United States, and that contributed to some of the suspicion and mistrust that we are still struggling to overcome. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Pakistan needs to step up in a number of important areas. We hope to improve cooperation on various security issues, strengthen the role of Pakistan's democratically elected government and achieve a greater parity between military and civilian assistance. The United States is aiding Pakistan because it is in our interest to ensure an economically and politically stable Pakistan does not provide sanctuary for al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. The reports in recent days that elements of the Pakistani intelligence service may have been aiding our enemies is nothing new to those of us who have been following this issue and is not a reason to abandon our many friends in Pakistan who are struggling to modernize their economy, their political system, and their military. The security forces of Pakistan are steadily taking on a Taliban-backed insurgency, taking direct action against those who threaten Pakistan's security instability, including military operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the North West Frontier Province. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that using the War Powers Act to call for the removal of U.S. combat forces, which do not exist, will only serve to inflame Pakistan's sensibilities and do nothing to strengthen the partnership that we need to achieve our goals in this critical region. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds in response to my friend from California's point. The War Powers Act, I repeat again, doesn't deal with the presence of military forces without an authorization from Congress. It deals with engaging in hostilities or imminent hostilities without the authorization of Congress. We have uniform personnel in Pakistan. They are working on the military assistance program. They are working in training Pakistani military. They are involved, as the Wall Street Journal revealed, in the delivering of humanitarian assistance in areas that are not secure enough for AID and civilian personnel to go. The WikiLeaks documents, with all the transparency that it provided for us about what the situation is, I'm unaware of any excerpt which indicates reports of U.S. military forces engaged in hostilities in Pakistan.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1359, calling for Hamas to unconditionally release captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. On June 25, 2006, Hamas terrorists illegally crossed into Israel from the Gaza strip, killed two Israeli soldiers, and kidnapped Corporal Gilad Shalit. Tomorrow marks the fourth year Gilad Shalit continues to be held captive by Hamas. He has been held in violation of international humanitarian law, without access to proper medical care, without access to his loved ones, and without access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, despite that organization's repeated requests to visit him. I also rise today to strongly reaffirm America's unwavering commitment to the safety and security of the Jewish State of Israel. Israel and America's shared goal of a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved when Hamas renounces acts of terrorism such as rocket attacks against civilian populations, suicide bombings in civilian areas, and the extortionist capture and detention of Israeli soldiers. We continue to stand with the Shalit family in this very difficult time, and are praying for the safe and timely release of their courageous son.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues in the Congress to another successful meeting of the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue (TLD) that was held in Madrid, Spain from June 4-6, 2010. Chairwoman Shelley Berkley, yet again, showed her strong commitment to furthering the transatlantic relationship in her leadership of a bipartisan delegation, which included Vice-Chairman Jim Costa (D-CA), Vice-Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) and Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL). I wish to recognize and thank Chairwoman Berkley and the entire U.S. delegation for their contribution to a constructive dialogue with Members of the European Parliament. The TLD is the formal response by the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress to the commitment in the New Transatlantic Agenda of 1995, which enhances legislative ties between the European Union and the United States. The TLD biannual meetings foster transatlantic discourse and encourage the exchange of views on topics of mutual interest. With the additional powers provided by the Lisbon Treaty to the European Parliament, it is more imperative now that legislators engage in this dialogue and seek joint solutions to the pressing issues that affect citizens on both sides of the Atlantic. The most recent meeting in Madrid addressed a wide range of common challenges, including energy security and climate change, cooperation in both responding to international crises and in providing development aid, and current economic challenges within the Eurozone, the United States, and the world. The session addressing the transatlantic response to volatile regions of the world was moderated by the Honorable Miguel Angel Moratinos, Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and current President of the EU General Affairs Council. Members discussed the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, and Cuba and stressed the need for transatlantic engagement to address these shared foreign policy interests. There was also an extensive session on the implications of the Lisbon Treaty for Europe, the transatlantic relationship, and the TLD. The newly enhanced legislative power of the European Parliament reinforces the relevancy and importance of TLD meetings in fostering transatlantic cooperation. In conclusion, I submit the joint statement that was agreed upon by American and European legislators at the 68th TLD meeting held in Madrid. It underscores the rich agenda of this meeting and highlights the many areas in which there was strong transatlantic agreement. Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue 68th Meeting of Delegations [From the European Parliament and the United States Congress, Madrid, Spain, 3-6 June 2010, Joint Statement] (By 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 68th Interparliamentary meeting (Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue) in Madrid, from 3-6 June 2010. Building on the joint statement issued following our last meeting in New York on 4-7 December 2009, we reasserted the importance of regular dialogue on political, social, 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 Madrid, in particular in the areas where joint efforts are likely to produce positive outcomes. The first experiences with the Lisbon treaty, and the enhanced powers it gives to the European Parliament, were evaluated and we concluded that this emphasizes the need for continued and expanded dialogue and interaction between legislators in the United States Congress and the European Parliament. In the field of civil liberties, we recognised that we share many common values yet we also recognised that we may have different approaches to finding optimal solutions. It was noted that these differences in approach are being addressed with a view toward coming to a permanent agreement on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP). We welcomed the intensified contacts, also on the level of the relevant committees, to understand differences and explore common ground. We took note of the EU-US and Member States 2010 Declaration on Counterterrorism of 3 June 2010 `Forging a durable framework to combat terrorism within the rule of law'. In the same spirit we discussed issues concerning energy and climate change. We exchanged views on adopted legislation on the EU side, in particular the 2020 goals, and on pending legislation on the US side. We emphasized the importance of sustainable policies on both sides of the Atlantic which could facilitate agreement in the larger international context. In this respect the up-coming COP 16 in Cancun was noted. We discussed the aim of `greening the economy', including alternative energy sources, to provide the opportunity of enhancing the quality of the environment and improving the economic situation, as well as the perspective of setting common standards for new and environmentally friendly technologies, such as electric vehicles. The national security implications of energy sources and independence were also discussed. In the presence of the Director General for External Relations of the European Commission, Mr. Joao Vale de Almeida, the prospects for bilateral and global cooperation between the EU and the US were discussed and our shared commitment for disaster relief in third world countries and our common interest in stable and sustainable development in all areas of the world were recognized. In the presence of the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and current President of the EU General Affairs Council, Mr. Miguel Angel Moratinos, we exchanged views on regions in the world where tensions are high. In this respect we focused attention on the situation in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in Iran, Somalia and Cuba. An extensive discussion was held on the latest financial and economic developments in Europe, the US and the world. With regard to Europe, government interventions to stabilise the situation in Member States and the Eurozone are needed. We recognised the global character of the crisis and its effects and therefore emphasised the importance of coordinated action. In this respect the prospects for common approaches regulating the financial sectors of the economy were explored. We evaluated the state of play of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) and ways to enhance EU-US economic cooperation. The transatlantic market should be allowed to develop its full potential in particular through reducing non-tariff barriers and joint efforts to find common standards. The importance of a successful outcome of the Doha Round was reiterated. We welcomed a proposal to submit a TLD paper to our respective administrations on ways to expand US- EU trade and economic cooperation. Finally, we reviewed progress in strengthening the Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue, in particular: --the growing interest in communication among Members of our institutions, both in general and on specific topics, --the strengthening of the TLD in the Congress by enhancing its status, increasing stability of membership and involving the Speaker of the House of Representatives, --the opening on 29 April 2010 of the European Parliament Liaison Office (EPLO) in Washington, --the steps in expanding contacts among staff of our institutions, and discussed options for further enhancing it, such as: --inviting EU and US officials to provide perspectives on strategic issues related to financial recovery and economic growth, --expanding interaction between the US Congress and the European Parliament in Brussels and in Washington, including through video-conferencing, --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. Annex: Statement on Iran We, the members of the Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue, condemn the systematic violations by the Iranian regime and its agencies of the human rights of the Iranian people. The actions of the regime are denying the Iranian people the basic human rights as described in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. We call on our respective Administrations to strengthen their efforts to assist the Iranian people in achieving the rights that they are due, through effective means to counteract the regime's repression. We welcome the coordinated strategy and concerted action by the US government and the European Union to halt the threat posed by Iran's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

Mr. BERMAN

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate be extended by 10 minutes, divided equally between the chair and ranking member.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the House, a tough taskmaster on this issue because of his passion for this legislation, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to a key member of the conference committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of the committee.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a key member of the conference committee on this bill, a bill that has a number of areas within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. My friend from California raises, as others have, the issue of waivers. I just want to remind the body this legislation has increased the standard for waivers, tightened the situations when waivers can be given. And, remember, we're talking about a process I hope will be rarely used, and I think we have to push that notion. We're not talking about Ahmadinejad giving the waivers, the Supreme Leader giving the waivers, the violating company giving the waivers. We're talking about a President of the United States, hopefully quite rarely, utilizing the enhanced standard waiver authority, a President who has spent more time diplomatically and in every other way trying to estop Iran from achieving this goal than any other President in the history of this country has ever done. I'll stand with this legislation, with this authority, with this President as the toughest, most comprehensive sanctions ever on the Iran nuclear weapons program. I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a key supporter of this legislation, the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Eliot Engel.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee, who has been a wonderful partner on this legislation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa), a member of the committee and the conference committee and very helpful in our efforts here.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, would you tell me the remaining time on each side?

Mr. BERMAN. I am very pleased to yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to my neighbor, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2194) to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. The conference agreement for H.R. 2194 is by far the most comprehensive Iran sanctions legislation Congress has ever passed. This legislation greatly strengthens our Nation's overall sanctions regime regarding Iran, enhances the prospect that we will be able to dissuade Tehran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions in blatant defiance of the international community as reaffirmed once again this month in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929. Like the House bill passed in December, the conference agreement imposes sanctions on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also plugs a critical gap in our sanctions regime by imposing sanctions on foreign entities that sell Iran goods or services that help it develop its energy sector. Some believe that Iran has prepared itself for tougher energy sanctions by reducing its dependence on the import of refined petroleum. To ensure that our sanctions are as effective as possible, we added a potent new financial measure in conference that, if applied effectively by the administration, has the potential to be a game- changer. That provision sanctions foreign banks that deal with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps or other blacklisted Iranian institutions, including Iranian banks involved with WMD or terrorism. Foreign banks involved in facilitating such activities would be shut out of the U.S. financial system, and U.S. banks would not be allowed to deal with them. The conference report also requires the executive branch to pursue all credible evidence of sanctionable activity. We have been profoundly unhappy over the years that successive administrations failed to implement the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act. Our bill will also put an end to the absurd practice of the U.S. Government awarding contracts to companies engaged in sanctionable activity. In addition, the legislation imposes penalties on Iran's human rights abusers and sanctions foreign entities that provide Iran with the means to stifle freedom of expression. This portion of the bill will absolutely not terminate until Iran unconditionally releases all political prisoners, ends unlawful detention, torture, and abuse of citizens engaged in peaceful activity, and punishes the abusers. Finally, the conference agreement will help empower Iran's democratic opposition by exempting from our embargo the transfer of technologies that can help them overcome the regime's apparatus of oppression. I don't know if sanctions will work in bringing Iran's leadership to its senses. But I do know this: doing nothing certainly won't work. In light of Iran's rapid progress toward achieving a nuclear weapons capability, Tehran's repeated rejection of President Obama's diplomatic overtures, the measures in this conference agreement, if implemented effectively by the administration, are our best and, I believe, only hope for a positive and peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue. The two alternatives to strong sanctions are both horrible and horrifying--either employing the military option or, even worse, accepting the inevitability of Iran as a nuclear power. The U.S. Congress needs to do everything it can to ensure we avoid both of these miserable results. We have taken some steps in the past, but we can do far more today by voting to pass the enhanced sanctions in H.R. 2194. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to a valued member of our committee, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee. (Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the first Member on our side, as was mentioned earlier, to come up with a concept of sanctions on refined petroleum, the former head of the Iran Working Group. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 55 seconds to a member of our committee who has been a great supporter of this legislation, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues who played a pivotal role. Particularly, I would like to thank my conference co-chair, Senator Chris Dodd, and his staff Colin McGinnis and Neal Orringer; my ranking member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; both Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Cantor; all of the conferees; the staff director for the minority, Yleem Poblete--she drives a hard bargain--and the wonderful staff on our side, led by Rick Kessler, and particularly the efforts of Shanna Winters, Alan Makovsky, Daniel Silverberg, David Fite, Janice Kaguyutan, Ed Rice, and Robert Marcus. With that, I urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I provide the following Joint Statement by myself and my co-chair Senator Dodd: The Chairs recognize the importance of the new authority provided to the President to waive sanctions on certain persons from countries closely cooperating with U.S. and international efforts to constrain Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. The Chairs encourage the Administration to use this new authority judiciously for those most deserving of allies and other truly cooperating nations. We trust this will be an important multilateral incentive in inducing compliance with the recently passed Security Council Resolution and with other regional and unilateral measures. The closely cooperating waiver draws upon the existing authority in Section 4(c) but extends the period of time available for the waiver to 12 months. The chairs do not view this authority to be a wholly preemptive waiver. In fact, we expect a meaningful investigation, as warranted, into the conduct of the alleged violator to be conducted prior to exercising the waiver. While the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Act indicates that a determination on sanctionability must also be made prior to exercising the 4(c)(1)(B) waiver, there are differing and legitimate views on whether such a determination is required. While divergent from the views in the joint explanatory statement, we accept that this may be a fair reading of the obligations under Section 4(c)(1)(B). In the end, we encourage the Administration to use all of the tools at its disposal in this Act and under existing authorities to achieve the overriding goal of constraining Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. But we will clearly need to monitor the implementation of this waiver.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield, unfortunately only 1 minute to the author of the mandatory procurement sanctions in this legislation, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).