Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the author of Florida legislation with respect to disinvestment from Iran's energy sector, our newest Member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, since the founding of the State of Israel sixty two years ago, the United States has had no greater friend in the Middle East. The U.S.-Israeli friendship is based on shared democratic values, progress, and our hope for peace between nations. This friendship is buttressed by our nation's unshakeable commitment to Israel's security. Since its founding in 1948, Israel has spurned the authoritarian model that dominates its region and has built a world-class civilization: a vibrant democracy, a thriving economy, and a culturally and academically rich society. Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation. Nearly a quarter of the Israeli workforce holds university degrees, ranking Israel third in that category in the industrialized world, after the United States and Holland. Israel also claims one of the world's highest numbers of books and museums per capita. Over the last sixty two years Israel has become a global leader in medicine and technology. Israeli medicine and medical equipment is exported world wide. And Israeli technologies are protecting and assisting U.S. military personnel deployed around the globe. High-tech companies are rushing to get an Israeli presence. In addition to boasting the highest density of start-ups in the world (a total of 3,850 start-ups, one for every 1,844 Israelis), more Israeli companies are listed on the NASDAQ exchange than all companies from the entire European continent. Moreover, Israel is leading a green revolution with its high-tech companies and Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees. The American people--and particularly the United States Congress-- have contributed mightily to Israel's sustenance and security over the years. Of that we are justifiably proud. Still, despite its strength, Israel faces incredible challenges to its existence. The Islamic-militant group Hamas, which is determined to bring about Israel's destruction, remains in control of the Gaza strip and continues to plot against Israel. Hamas is actively working to disrupt the return to peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Hezbollah, which is sustained by Iran and supported by Syria, remains perched on Israel's northern border. As The New York Times recently noted, it is believed that Syria has delivered accurate long-distance Scud missiles to Hezbollah, placing cities deep in Israel's heartland, including Tel Aviv, within range. Furthermore, the Islamic Republic of Iran, a theologically-based state whose President has threatened to ``wipe Israel off the map'', is rapidly developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. In my view, there is no greater threat to Israel, the United States, and the world than the prospect of a nuclear Iran. For this reason, in the coming weeks the Congress will send President Obama legislation designed to strongly sanction Iran in order to cripple its nuclear weapons program. I am proud to be the sponsor of that legislation. In closing, I congratulate Israel on its 62nd anniversary of independence. Today we reaffirm our nation's pledge to Israel: that we will stand in solidarity with Israel against all violent assaults on its security and well-being. Israel's security is America's security, Israel's hopes for peace are America's hopes for peace, and we will always stand side by side.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to my friend Professor Steven Sample, on the occasion of his retirement from the University of Southern California. I have had the pleasure of working with him on many issues of concern to USC and educational reform, and I know firsthand of his many accomplishments. In 1991, Professor Sample was appointed USC President. Under his leadership, USC has become world-renowned in the fields of communication and multimedia technologies, received national acclaim for its innovative community partnerships, and solidified its status as one of the nation's leading research universities. President Sample transformed Jewish life at USC by bolstering the school's efforts to identify, reach, and direct talented Jewish students into community activities and involvement. He also attracted successful Jewish philanthropists, through the Board of Trustees, generating unparalleled financial support to the USC Hillel Foundation's schools, centers and institutes. President Sample is to be recognized for his role in building and supporting Jewish institutions on campus such as the Casden Institute, Chabad at USC, the Jewish Studies Department, and most recently, the Shoah Institute, as well as off campus institutions such as USC Hillel and Hebrew Union College. Professor Sample is an extraordinary individual. In addition to being an electrical engineer he is a musician, outdoorsman, author, and inventor. In February 1998, he was elected to the National Academy of Engineering for his contributions to consumer electronics and leadership in interdisciplinary research and education. In 2003, he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in recognition of his accomplishments as a university president. Professor Sample has received numerous awards and great support from the community in recognition of his achievements. He recently received the Distinguished Business Leader Award from the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, the Heart of the City Award from the Central City Association of Los Angeles, and the Chancellor Charles P. Norton Medal, the highest award bestowed by the State University of New York at Buffalo. He has also received the Humanitarian Award from the National Conference for Community and Justice, the Hollzer Memorial Award from the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles, and the Eddy Award for excellence in economic development from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, I ask you to join me in saluting Professor Sample for his impressive career and dedication to the people of Southern California, and congratulating him on the occasion of his retirement.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to submit this letter signed by 48 retired four- and three-star generals/flag officers urging Congress to support the President's FY11 International Affairs Budget request--given its importance to U.S. national security. These military leaders state that ``balancing our military power with the range of International Affairs programs funded by the International Affairs Budget is critical to stabilizing fragile states, combating terrorism, and deterring threats before they reach America's shores.'' I couldn't agree more, and appreciate the hard work that these signatories and the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition have done to support our international affairs budget. March 10, 2010. Dear Member of Congress: As retired officers of the U.S. military across all branches of the armed services, we are writing to express our support for the President's FY 2011 International Affairs Budget request, a fundamental pillar of U.S. national security and foreign policy. The critical programs in the International Affairs Budget invest in the non-military tools of development and diplomacy, foster economic and political stability on a global scale, strengthen our allies, and fight the spread of poverty, disease, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Continuing the bipartisan precedent set by the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration views the International Affairs Budget as part of the national security funding alongside Defense, Homeland Security, Intelligence, and Veterans programs. However, the International Affairs Budget remains underfunded, representing 1.4 percent of the entire federal budget and less than 7 percent of our total national security funding. Our view is shared by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has stated that ``America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long--relative to what we traditionally spend on the military, and more important, relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation has around the world.'' Secretary Gates and other military leaders believe, as we do, that our national security is dependent not only on a strong military force but also on increased investments in the full range of diplomatic, development and humanitarian tools funded through the International Affairs Budget. The United States must combine its strong military with robust, effective civilian tools of international development and diplomacy to secure its national interests in an era when many of the challenges of the 21st century recognize no borders. While our military power can provide the logistics and organizational support to help those in need in times of humanitarian crisis, as demonstrated by our current efforts in Haiti, it can only help create the conditions necessary to allow the other tools of statecraft--our diplomatic, development and humanitarian programs--to effectively address these issues. Balancing our military power with the range of International Affairs programs funded by the International Affairs Budget is critical to stabilizing fragile states, combating terrorism, and deterring threats before they reach America's shores. Therefore, we urge you to support no less than the Administration's request of $58.5 billion for the International Affairs Budget. Sincerely, General Michael W. Hagee, USMC (Ret.), Co-Chair, National Security Advisory Council; Admiral James M. Loy, USCG (Ret.), Co-Chair, National Security Advisory Council; Charles S. Abbot, USN (Ret.), Deputy Commander in Chief, U.S. European Command ('98-'00); General John P. Abizaid, USA (Ret.), Commander, U.S. Central Command ('03-'07); Admiral Frank L. Bowman, USN (Ret.), Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion ('96-'04); General Charles G. Boyd, USAF (Ret.), Deputy Commander in Chief, U.S. European Command ('92-'95); Admiral Archie R. Clemins, USN (Ret.), Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet ('96-'99); General Richard A. ``Dick'' Cody, USA (Ret.), Vice Chief of Staff, United States Army ('04-'08); Lieutenant General John B. Conaway, USAF (Ret.), Chief, National Guard Bureau ('90-'93); General Richard D. Hearney, USMC (Ret.), Assistant Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps ('94-'96); General James T. Hill, USA (Ret.), Commander, U.S. Southern Command ('02-'04); Admiral James R. Hogg, USN (Ret.), U.S. Military Representative, NATO Military Committee ('88- '91); General James L. Jamerson, USAF (Ret.), Deputy Commander in Chief, U.S. European Command ('95-'98); Admiral Gregory G. Johnson, USN (Ret.), Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe/Commander in Chief, Allied Forces Southern Europe ('01-'04); Admiral Jerome L. Johnson, USN (Ret.), Vice Chief of Naval Operations ('90-'92); General John P. Jumper, USAF (Ret.), Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force ('01-'05). Lieutenant General Jeffrey W. Oster, USMC (Ret.), Deputy Administrator and Chief Operating Officer, Coalition Provisional Authority, Iraq (2004); Deputy Commandant for Programs and Resources, Headquarters Marine Corps (ended in '98); Lieutenant General Charles P. Otstott, USA (Ret.), Deputy Chairman, NATO Military Committee ('90-'92); Admiral William A. Owens, USN (Ret.), Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff ('94-'96); Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.), Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command ('96-'99); Lieutenant General Harry D. Raduege, Jr., USAF (Ret.), Director, Defense Information Systems Agency ('00-'05); Manager, National Communications System ('00-'03); Commander, Joint Task Force for Global Network Operations ('04-'05); Vice Admiral Norman W. Ray, USN (Ret.), Deputy Chairman, NATO Military Committee ('92-'95); General Robert W. RisCassi, USA (Ret.), Commander in Chief, United Nations Command/Commander in Chief, Republic of Korea/ U.S. Combined Forces Command ('92-'93); Lieutenant General John Costello, USA (Ret.), Commanding General, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/U.S. Army Space Command ('98-'01); Admiral James O. Ellis, Jr., USN (Ret.), Commander, U.S. Strategic Command ('02- '04); Admiral Thomas B. Fargo, USN (Ret.), Commander, U.S. Pacific Command ('02-'05); Admiral S. Robert Foley, USN (Ret.), Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet ('82-'85); Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr., USA (Ret.), President, National Defense University ('77-'81); Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., USN (Ret.), Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ('05-'07); Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.), Inspector General, U.S. Navy ('97-'00); General Michael W. Hagee, USMC (Ret.), Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps ('03-'06); General Richard E. Hawley, USAF (Ret.), Commander, Air Combat Command ('96-'99). General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.), Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command ('01-'04); General William F. Kernan, USA (Ret.), Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic/Commander in Chief, U.S. Joint Forces Command ('00-'02); Admiral Charles R. Larson, USN (Ret.), Commander, U.S. Pacific Command ('91-'94); Vice Admiral Stephen F. Loftus, USN (Ret.), Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Logistics ('90-'94); General John Michael Loh, USAF (Ret.), Commander, Air Combat Command ('92-'95); Admiral James M. Loy, USCG (Ret.), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard ('98-`02); General Dan McNeill, USA (Ret.), Commander, International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan ('07-'08); Lieutenant General Paul T. Mikolashek, USA (Ret.), The Inspector General, U.S. Army/Commanding General of the Third U.S. Army Forces Central Command ('00-'02); Commanding General, Southern European Task Force ('98-'00); Admiral Robert J. Natter, USN (Ret.), Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet/Commander, Fleet Forces Command ('00-'03); General Peter J. Schoomaker, USA (Ret.), Chief of Staff, U.S. Army ('03-'07); General Henry H. Shelton, USA (Ret.), Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff ('97-'01); Admiral Leighton W. Smith, Jr., USN (Ret.), Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe/ Commander in Chief, Allied Forces Southern Europe ('94- '96); Admiral William D. Smith, USN (Ret.), U.S. Military Representative, NATO Military Committee ('91- '93); General Carl W. Stiner, USA (Ret.), Commander in Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command ('90-'93); Admiral Carlisle A. H. Trost, USN (Ret.), Chief of Naval Operations ('86-'90); General Charles F. Wald, USAF (Ret.), Deputy Commander, U.S. European Command ('02-'06); General Charles E. Wilhelm, USMC (Ret.), Commander, U.S. Southern Command ('97-'00); General Michael J. Williams, USMC (Ret.), Assistant Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps ('00-'02).

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Sergeant Candice Briese on the occasion of her retirement from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and to recognize her contributions to the community for over three decades. Sergeant Briese is a native of Galt, Missouri, but a lifelong resident of southern California. She has been a committed public servant with a professional career worthy of mention. Her extensive achievements and experience in law enforcement and security established her as a leader in community safety. Sergeant Briese served as a Deputy Sheriff in the Sybil Brand Institute, Lakewood Sheriff's Station, and Employee Support Services. As a Deputy Sheriff, she devoted her time and effort to ensuring safety in prisons, enforcing the law, and helping her department members through counseling and peer support. Sergeant Briese has been a model public servant who always rises to meet challenges and never allows an obstacle to stop her in her efforts to improve the community. She served as a sergeant in the Men's Central Jail and in the notorious Twin Towers Correctional Facility. She has served with great dedication in various courts in Long Beach, Los Angeles, Inglewood, and Van Nuys. While Sergeant Briese was serving at the Lakewood Sheriff's Station, she received a commendation from Sheriff Sherman Block for her heroic actions that saved the lives of five infants. She is known not only for her professionalism on the job, but also for her generous and compassionate nature. She was the leading force behind efforts to teach inmates how to read in the Biscailuz Recovery Center. In addition to being a hardworking law enforcement officer, Sergeant Briese is also a wife and the mother of three successful children. I know that her husband, Glenn Jorritsma, and her children, Beu Alan Briese, Cara Bethanie Briese, and Ted Dustin Briese, are proud of her service. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Sergeant Candice Briese, for her distinguished service and outstanding commitment to our society.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. To reclaim my time, this is not a discussion of post offices. This is not a discussion of suspension legislation, and both parties seem to like naming post offices and introducing other kinds of resolutions. This is a discussion about the decision to send our forces into harm's way. It's worthy of a serious debate. There is nothing wrong with that debate. I don't believe our troops are going to get demoralized by our having that debate. I believe for the country, they are going to say, We are proud to represent a country that is willing to undertake that debate.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, first I would like to yield at the end of the ranking member's time an additional 5 minutes from our time on the assumption that 2 of those 5 minutes will be given to someone from California.

Mr. BERMAN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to deal with the comments of my friend, the previous speaker. I would suggest that the decision to schedule this debate did not come out of a desire to make a gesture to the extreme left or any such particular move. It was rather some sense of fealty to the institution of Congress, the institution vested with the war-declaring authority, the oversight of how our expenditures are spent. And I don't understand why you and I, who both have feelings about the wisdom of pursuing the current strategy of this administration on this issue, should be afraid of that debate or wanting to attribute motivations to the willingness to have that debate other than the congressional responsibility to have such discussions and have such debate.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee, to the Chair of the organization of NATO parliamentarians, known as the North Atlantic Assembly, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner). (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from California, I just want to take 15 seconds to make a point with respect to the gentleman from Ohio that, while the authorization for the use of force in 2001 certainly referenced the War Powers Act, our point is that, while this debate makes sense and is appropriate, it is truly not pursuant to the War Powers Act because the War Powers Act says the direction to withdraw comes when there has not been an authorization for the use of military force, and here there was an authorization for the use of military force. I am for the debate; I am against the basis on which the debate is being held. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the chair of the Intelligence Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee of our committee, my friend from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, and I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say I have quite enjoyed working with the gentleman from Ohio on this issue and a number of the issues we have had dealings with since I have become chairman, and I fundamentally agree with him and other supporters of the resolution that it is right for the House to have an open, honest debate on the merits of our ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, and outside, outside, the context of a defense spending bill or a supplemental appropriations bill. This is a good thing to be doing. By vesting the power to declare war with the Congress, the Founders intended the United States would go to war only when absolutely necessary, and it is incumbent on this body to consider as thoroughly as possible the purpose and ongoing necessity of committing U.S. forces to battle. Now, as a procedural matter, I take issue with the invocation of section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution as the basis for this debate, because that section authorizes a privileged resolution, like the one before us today, to require the withdrawal of combat forces when Congress has not authorized the use of military force. There really can't be any doubt that Congress authorized U.S. military action in Afghanistan. The authorization for the use of military force passed by Congress in late September 2001 explicitly empowers the President to use force against the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks and those who harbored them. President Obama is doing just that. But putting aside procedure, the notion that at this particular moment we would demand a complete withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year, without regard to the consequence of our withdrawal, without regard to the situation on the ground, including efforts to promote economic development, expand the rule of law, and without any measurement of whether the ``hold'' strategy now being implemented is indeed working, I don't think is the responsible thing to do. Our troops are fighting a complex nexus of terrorist organizations-- al Qaeda, the Taliban--all of which threaten the stability of the Afghan Government, and they have demonstrated their ability to strike our homeland. If we withdraw from Afghanistan before the government there is capable of providing a basic level of security for its own people, we face the prospect that the Taliban once again will take the reins of power in Kabul and provide safe haven to al Qaeda. That would be a national security disaster. I am keenly aware that even if we remain in Afghanistan, and here I want to emphasize this, there is no guarantee we will prevail in this fight. But if we don't try, we are guaranteed to fail. President Obama has taken a very deliberative approach. He has examined numerous options over the course of several months and consulted with all relevant military leaders and allies. He really left no stone unturned and no issue unvetted as part of this review. He deserves an opportunity now to implement his strategy. He has given us the timeline for when he expects to see results, and there will be a reassessment of our strategy in 18 months. General McChrystal, the commander of the U.S. and international forces, indicated that we have made progress since the new strategy was announced on December 1. We are witnessing the first major joint NATO- Afghanistan military operation in the city of Marja, considered a strategic fulcrum for ridding the region of the Taliban. Our troops are working side by side with their Afghan counterparts. They retook Marja in 3 weeks of hard but well-executed efforts. They are making the Afghan people their number one priority, which is the basis for this counterinsurgency strategy. And to that end, the State Department and USAID have been working very hard to develop a concrete governance and development strategy. I was here during the frenzied debate following 9/11 when Congress authorized the use of force against those responsible for the horrors of that day and those who chose to provide the perpetrators a safe haven.