Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7112) to impose sanctions with respect to Iran, to provide for the divestment of assets in Iran by State and local governments and other entities, and to identify locations of concern with respect to transshipment, reexportation, or diversion of certain sensitive items to Iran.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have one speaker, the sponsor of the resolution, and I yield her, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, 4 minutes.

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

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I yield myself 3 minutes. I would like to thank, Madam Speaker, my friend and distinguished colleague, Representative Barbara Lee, for introducing this important resolution to highlight the work done by the NGO community in support of Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. In spite of the shaky cease-fire reached between Israel and Hamas on the Gaza Strip, Hamas and other extremist Palestinian groups have neither changed their stated aim, namely, the destruction of the State of Israel, nor given up the use of terrorism and violence as a means to achieve that end. But while the terrorists of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic jihad continue to threaten innocent civilians and undermine peace efforts, we should recognize the courageous efforts being made by many nongovernmental organizations to do just the opposite, that is, to foster conditions that can lead to peace. Many of these groups work tirelessly and selflessly not only to improve the daily lives of Palestinians but also to effect peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis. One example, Seeds of Peace, brings Israeli and Arab youth together for summer retreats that cultivate a culture of understanding and tolerance among tomorrow's leaders. As this resolution affirms, it shall remain U.S. policy to actively support all those nongovernmental organizations that provide humanitarian assistance, promote democracy, human rights and work towards Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation while unequivocally opposing the use of violence. This resolution lends that encouragement and backing only to those NGOs that explicitly renounce violence, accept Israel's right to exist and support existing agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. I join the author of this resolution, Congresswoman Lee, in lauding contributions to peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians made by nongovernmental organizations. I hope, and believe and want to believe that this is the way of the future. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1369) recognizing nongovernmental organizations working to bring just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam 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 resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, with great appreciation to both of the sponsors of this resolution, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to a cosponsor of the resolution, to a gentleman who brought it to my attention some months ago. He is the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume but no longer than 3 minutes as I need an arbitrary restraint. I want to begin first by thanking both the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) for this resolution and for coming to the committee with a sense of the importance of this resolution and for the broader sentiment this resolution reflects, which is a broad and sincere commitment to global interfaith dialogue. I think it's a brilliant proposal. I am pleased to have before us this resolution that supports such interfaith dialogue. I know its authors were inspired by a dialogue that 138 Muslim scholars, from all major sects of Islam, initiated in a letter to the Pope and to other Christian leaders. The letter emphasizes the importance of religious tolerance and of mutual respect between Christians and Muslims. In fact, the Pope graciously responded to this letter by agreeing to host a summit of Catholic and Muslim leaders that is scheduled for this November. This initiative reflects the same spirit as that of several other major interfaith initiatives meant to strengthen relations among the Abrahamic faiths, such as the 2005 Amman Initiative of King Abdullah II of Jordan and the 1998 initiative launched by the now Israeli President Shimon Peres, by King Juan Carlos I of Spain and by the late King Hassan II of Morocco. Ever since Samuel Huntington coined the phrase, much is said in our public discourse about a ``clash of civilizations'' and about how to avoid it, but we really have to shoot higher than that. We have to aim to seek a comedy of civilizations. To do so, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and other religious leaders must emphasize the core similarities of their faiths and values. This resolution encourages understanding and partnership among Christians, Muslims and Jews. Much of the cultural heritage of the West and the Middle East can be ascribed to these three Abrahamic religions, but of course interfaith dialogue doesn't need to and should not stop there. We should support and encourage the sentiments expressed in this resolution in favor of dialogue, not only among Abrahamic religions but among all religions. While there is much work still to be done to reach our goals, I again want to thank Mr. Ellison and Mr. Wamp for this resolution that points the way towards developing societies, in the words of the resolution, based on peace, reconciliation and on a commitment to tolerance. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 374) supporting the spirit of peace and desire for unity displayed in the letter from 138 leading Muslim scholars, and in the Pope's response, 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

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

Mr. BERMAN. I yield myself 1 additional minute. But it also includes the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Human Rights First--one of the preeminent human rights organizations--the NAACP, and all the other organizations that are going to Geneva, supporting this resolution and telling them that we're not going to stand for another hijacking. And this resolution creates the framework, with the support of those kinds of organizations, to make that last effort. While I can't tell you what's going to happen there, let's give it our best shot. Passing this resolution, allowing these organizations to go with a statement from the House of Representatives that is clear on the red lines, is very important. I now yield 4 minutes to my friend and colleague, who has been very involved in this process from the very beginning and has helped us to fashion the final product with a tremendous contribution, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. BERMAN. I have one additional speaker. I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a participant in the last conference, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield back our time.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume. First, I want to express my appreciation to the ranking member of our Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, along with the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, Mr. Payne, and my colleague from California, Ms. Barbara Lee, for their hard work on this resolution aimed at preventing a repeat of the tragic outcome of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism. As my colleagues know, the convening of the first World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, in 2001 marked an important recognition of the historic wounds caused by slavery, colonialism, and ongoing racism and racial discrimination. The Durban conference's explicit recognition of the transatlantic slave trade as ``a crime against humanity'' was a watershed event in the global community's effort to begin confronting this indelible stain in human history. Tragically, the seminal achievements of this conference were overshadowed and diminished when some conference participants diverted the focus of the conference from problems in their own countries to a pathological focus on Israel and Jews. The worse abuses took place in and around the NGO forum that took place on the margins of the conference. This forum devolved into a hate-filled circus, as anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic rallies spilled onto Durban's streets. The official document produced by the NGO forum contained abusive language branding Israel an ``apartheid state'' that is guilty of ``racist crimes against humanity.'' The government document, while not as inflammatory as the NGO document, singled out one and only one regional conflict in a biased way by highlighting the ``plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation,'' and in so doing, wrongly branded Israel's treatment of Palestinians as racist. The U.N. is now preparing a Durban Review Conference set to take place in Geneva in 2009. Despite the fact that the U.N. Human Rights Council agreed in Resolution 3/2 on December 8, 2006, that the review conference would be limited in its scope to a focus on countries' implementation of commitments to fight racism and discrimination, the same actors that hijacked the initial Durban conference are threatening to do so once again. In preparatory meetings for the Durban Review Conference in Geneva, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, led by Pakistan, and the African Group, led by Egypt, have boldly stated--and that's the governments of both Pakistan and Egypt here--have boldly stated their determination to go beyond the boundaries established for the Durban Review Conference to attack Israel and to make so-called new forms of racism a centerpiece of the review conference agenda. Our government and the governments of France, Canada, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Israel have stated that unless the direction of the conference is refocused, the review process will not be credible or worthy of support. I strongly support these ``redlines'' and will urge the next administration not to participate in the Durban review process if it continues on its current path. But up to this point, neither the State Department nor the White House has undertaken any kind of sustained diplomatic effort to ensure that this outcome is not a forgone conclusion. Our resolution confronts the diplomatic inaction by calling on the Secretary of State to convey in the strongest possible terms to the governments of Pakistan and Egypt that their campaign to hijack Durban II is completely unacceptable to us. It also calls on the State Department to undertake a worldwide demarche of foreign capitals to seek support for refocusing the conference on its agreed-upon purpose. A focused high-level diplomatic effort on the part of the State Department and the White House could force the OIC and the Arab League to stand down in their campaign to usurp the Durban review and to further unravel global adherence to human rights norms. Unlike in the run-up to the original Durban Conference in 2001, many key U.S. allies have spoken out forcefully and resolutely in opposition to the campaign to hijack Durban II. President Sarkozy of France, for example, has stated that the Government of France will not tolerate ``a repeat of the digression and extremes of 2001.'' It is time for the administration to end any diplomatic retreat from U.N. human rights mechanisms. We have ceded far too much space to human rights abusers by sitting on the sidelines in Geneva. We must confront the fact that among the key spoilers of U.N. human rights bodies are governments we should be in a position to influence, such as Pakistan and Egypt. The United States is in a position to lead. We need the will to do so. Our European allies feel far more threatened than they have been in the past by the intense OIC campaign to unravel key global human rights standards such as the right to freedom of expression. They would certainly respond to the re-emergence of the United States as the leading advocate for universal standards of human rights. The need for a credible global forum to review United Nations member states' efforts to combat racism remains urgent. The scourge of racism and related intolerance has not abated. If anything, discrimination against people of African, Jewish and Muslim descent has increased. We have also seen recently alarming outbreaks of violence against refugees and migrants. It makes no sense, therefore, to cede this critical forum provided by the Durban Review to a group of countries who are hostile to democratic principles and human rights standards. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam 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 resolution under consideration.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1361) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should lead a high-level diplomatic effort to defeat the campaign by some members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to divert the United Nation's Durban Review Conference from a review of problems in their own and other countries by attacking Israel, promoting anti-Semitism, and undermining the Universal Charter of Human Rights and to ensure that the Durban Review Conference serves as a forum to review commitments to combat all forms of racism, as amended.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, before I yield to my colleague from California, I would like to yield myself 1 minute. The gentlelady and I, my ranking member, we're coming from the same place in the sense that we do not want the United States participating in a conference which produces the kind of statements and the kinds of activities that happened the last time. Perhaps in this case I'm a little more of an optimist than the gentlelady from Florida because I can't think of anything better, that, before the last preparatory meeting, the House speaks on what our red lines are--yes, we want the conference to succeed, it's an incredibly important purpose, as the gentlelady has agreed to and acknowledged and has always been supportive of. But we know what's happened before, we know what's being set up to happen this time. But I want to see delegations from the kinds of organizations that are supporting this resolution that plan to go to Geneva for that preparatory meeting to say, in the United States, we speak with one voice, and that includes not simply the American Jewish Committee and APAC and the other Jewish community organizations that support this resolution----

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, on July 15, the Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, was honored at the annual Tribute Dinner of the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, USGLC, for his leadership in supporting our Government's foreign affairs budget. The USGLC has been an important organization supporting adequate funding levels for the conduct of our country's foreign affairs and international assistance programs. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice introduced Secretary Gates and acknowledged his contributions. In his remarks, Secretary Gates strongly advocated for a robust civilian capacity within the U.S. Government: ``When it comes to America's engagement with the rest of the world, it is important that the military is--and is clearly seen to be--in a supporting role to civilian agencies.'' In order to further U.S. national security, Secretary Gates argued that our civilian institutions of diplomacy and development must be adequately staffed and properly funded. It is a message that Secretary Gates has been giving to the American people and to our nation's leadership here in Washington. I wholeheartedly agree with Secretary Gates' thoughtful statement and welcome his support for rebuilding the US civilian diplomatic and development capacity. Over the last four months, I have held a number of hearings of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on reforming American foreign assistance programs and rebuilding our civilian capacity. We will be having another hearing on this issue in September. Madam Speaker, the next Congress and the next Administration will have to take on the necessary, but difficult task of reforming our foreign assistance programs, and equally important, improving the diplomatic and development functions within our government. I look forward to this job that lies ahead of us. Madam Speaker, I ask that the full text of Secretary Gates' remarks to the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign be placed in The Record, and I urge my colleagues to give careful attention to the Secretary's thoughtful speech. America's Voice for Security, Prosperity, and Humanitarian Values-- Remarks by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates at USGLC Tribute Dinner, July 15, 2008 Thank you very much for the introductions. Thank you Condi Rice for the kind words, and above all, for your principled and visionary leadership of the Department of State. One of the reasons I have rarely been invited to lecture in political science departments--including at Texas A&M--is because faculty correctly suspect that I would tell the students that what their textbooks say about government does not describe the reality I have experienced in working for seven presidents. Organization charts, institutions, statistics, structures, regulations, policies, committees, and all the rest--the bureaucracy, if you will--are the necessary pre-condition for effective government. But whether or not it really works depends upon the people and their relationships. For significant periods since I entered government 42 years ago, the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense were not on speaking terms. The fact that Condi and I actually get along means that our respective bureaucracies understand that trying to provoke us to fight with one another is not career-enhancing. Such efforts still occur, of course. After all, this is Washington. But the bureaucratic battles are a good deal more covert. Of course, the human side of government is always a source of both humor and embarrassment. Will Rogers once said, ``I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.'' And the conduct of diplomacy, where--as Secretary Rice can attest--protocol and propriety are so very important, provides an especially fertile ground for amusement. For example, there was the time that President Nixon met with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, shortly after Nixon had appointed Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State. With Golda Meir in that meeting was her very erudite foreign minister, Abba Eban, a graduate of Cambridge. At one point in the meeting, Nixon turned to Golda Meir and said, ``Just think, we now both have Jewish foreign ministers.'' And without missing a beat Golda Meir said, ``Yes, but mine speaks English.'' Then there was the time that President Nixon visited Italy and had a meeting with the Pope. Kissinger and Nixon had along with them Secretary of Defense Mel Laird, but they decided that Laird as, in effect, secretary of war shouldn't be invited to a meeting with the Pope. So, Nixon the next morning went in for his private audience with the Pope, and the other Americans waited outside for the general audience. And who should come striding down the hall of the papal apartments but Mel Laird smoking an enormous cigar, he had decided he wanted in on the meeting. Kissinger was beside himself, but finally said, ``Well, Mel, at least extinguish the cigar.'' And so Laird stubbed out his cigar and put it in his pocket. The rest of the American party a few minutes later went in to their meeting with the Pope, everyone took a seat. A couple of minutes into the Pope's remarks, Kissinger heard this little patting sound going on, he was in the second row with Laird on the end, there was a wisp of smoke coming out of Laird's pocket. Everything seemed under control. A couple of minutes later, Kissinger heard this loud slapping noise. He looked over smoke was billowing out of Laird's pocket. The Secretary of Defense was on fire. Now the rest of the delegation heard this slapping noise, and they thought they were being cued to applaud the Pope. And so they did. And Henry later told us, ``God only knows what his Holiness thought, seeing the American secretary of defense immolating himself, and the entire American party applauding the fact.'' I am honored to receive this award, and I consider it a privilege to be associated with the United States Global Leadership Campaign. It is a truly remarkable collection of ``strange bedfellows''--from Save the Children to Caterpillar, from Catholic Relief Services to AIPAC, and even Boeing and Northrop Grumman. This organization has been a prescient, and often lonely, advocate for the importance of diplomacy and international development to America's vital national interests--and I commend you for that. Though my views on these subjects have become better known through recent speeches, in many ways they originated and were reinforced by my prior experience in government during the Cold War. Looking back, it is clear that the strength of America's military forces and intelligence capabilities-- along with the willingness to use them--held the Soviets at bay for more than four decades. But there was another side to that story and to that struggle. There was the Agency for International Development overseeing development and humanitarian assistance programs that improved--if not saved--the lives of millions of people from disease, starvation, and poverty. Our diplomats forged relationships and bonds of trust, and built up reservoirs of expertise and goodwill that proved invaluable over time. Countless people in foreign countries wandered into a United States Information Agency library, or heard from a visiting speaker and had their opinions about America transformed by learning about our history and culture and values. Others behind the Iron Curtain were inspired to resist by what they heard on Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America. In all, these non-military efforts--these tools of persuasion and inspiration--were indispensable to the outcome of the defining ideological struggle of the 20th century. I believe that they are just as indispensable in the 21st century--and maybe more so. Just last month I approved a new National Defense Strategy that calls upon us to ``Tap the full strength of America and its people''--military and civilian, public and private--to deal with the challenges to our freedom, prosperity, and security around the globe. In the campaign against terrorist networks and other extremists, we know that direct military force will continue to have a role. But over the long term, we cannot kill or capture our way to victory. What the Pentagon calls ``kinetic'' operations should be subordinate to measures to promote participation in government, economic programs to spur development, and efforts to address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies and among the discontented from which the terrorists recruit. It will take the patient accumulation of quiet successes over time to discredit and defeat extremist movements and their ideology. We also know that over the next 20 years and more certain pressures--population, resource, energy, climate, economic, and environmental--could combine with rapid cultural, social, and technological change to produce new sources of deprivation, rage, and instability. We face now, and will inevitably face in the future, rising powers discontented with the international status quo, possessing new wealth and ambition, and seeking new and more powerful weapons. But, overall, looking ahead, I believe the most persistent and potentially dangerous threats will come less from ambitious states, than failing ones that cannot meet the basic needs-- much less the aspirations--of their people. In my travels to foreign capitals, I have been struck by the eagerness of so many foreign governments to forge closer diplomatic and security ties with the United States--ranging from old enemies like Vietnam to new partners like India. Nonetheless, regard for the United States is low among the populations of many key nations--especially those of our moderate Muslim allies. This is important because much of our national security strategy depends upon securing the cooperation of other nations, which will depend heavily on the extent to which our efforts abroad are viewed as legitimate by their publics. The solution is not to be found in some slick PR campaign or by trying to out-propagandize al-Qaeda, but rather through the steady accumulation of actions and results that build trust and credibility over time. To do all these things, to truly harness the ``full strength of America,'' as I said in the National Defense Strategy, requires having civilian institutions of diplomacy and development that are adequately staffed and properly funded. Due to the leadership of Secretary Rice and before her Secretary Powell, and with the continuing strong support of the President, we have made significant progress towards pulling ourselves out of the hole created not only by the steep cutbacks in the wake of the Cold War--but also by the lack of adequate resources for the State Department and the entire foreign affairs account going back decades. Since 2001, international affairs spending has about doubled, State has begun hiring again, billions have been spent to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa, the Millennium Challenge Corporation is rewarding better governance in the developing world, and Secretary Rice has launched a program of transformational diplomacy to better posture the diplomatic corps for the realities of this century. The President's budget request this year, as Condi said, includes more than 1,100 new Foreign Service officers, as well as a response corps of civilian experts that can deploy on short notice. And, for the first time in a long time, I sense real bipartisan support in Congress for strengthening the civilian foreign affairs budget. Shortfalls nonetheless remain. Much of the total increase in the international affairs budget has been taken up by security costs and offset by the declining dollar, leaving little left over for core diplomatic operations. These programs are not well understood or appreciated by the wider American public, and do not have a ready-made political constituency that major weapons systems or public works projects enjoy. As a result, the slashing of the President's international affairs budget request has too often become an annual Washington ritual--right up there with the blooming of the cherry blossoms and the Redskins' opening game. As someone who once led an agency with a thin domestic constituency, I am familiar with this dilemma. Since arriving at the Pentagon I've discovered a markedly different budget dynamic--not just in scale but the reception one gets on the Hill. Congress often asks the military services for lists of things that they need, but that the Defense Secretary and the President were too stingy to request. As you can imagine, this is one congressional tasking that prompts an immediate and enthusiastic response. It has become clear that America's civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long--relative to what we spend on the military, and more important, relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation has around the world. I cannot pretend to know the right dollar amount--I know it's a good deal more than the one percent of the federal budget that it is right now. But the budgets we are talking about are relatively small compared to the rest of government, a steep increase of these capabilities is well within reach--as long as there is the political will and wisdom to do it. But even as we agree that more resources are needed, I believe that there is more to this problem than how much money is in the 150 Account. The challenge we face is how best to integrate these tools of statecraft with the military, international partners, and the private sector. Where our government has been able to bring America's civilian and the military assets together to support local partners, there have been incredibly promising results. One unheralded example, one you will not read about in the newspapers, is in the Philippines. There the U.S. Ambassador--Kristie Kenney--has overseen a campaign involving multiple agencies working closely together with their Philippine counterparts in a synchronized effort that has delegitimized and rolled back extremists in Mindanao. Having a strong, well-supported chief of mission has been crucial to success. The vastly larger, more complex international effort in Afghanistan presents a different set of challenges. There are dozens of nations, hundreds of NGOs, universities, development banks, the United Nations, the European Union, NATO--all working to help a nation beset by crushing poverty, a bumper opium crop, and a ruthless and resilient insurgency. Getting all these different elements to coordinate operations and share best practices has been a colossal--and often all too often unsuccessful--undertaking. The appointment this spring of a UN special representative to coordinate civilian reconstruction in Afghanistan is an important step forward. And at the last NATO defense ministerial, I proposed a civilian-military planning cell for Regional Command South to bring unity to our efforts in that critically important part of the country. And I asked Kai Eide, when I met with him last week, to appoint a representative to participate in this cell. Repeating an Afghanistan or an Iraq--forced regime change followed by nation-building under fire--probably is unlikely in the foreseeable future. What is likely though, even a certainty, is the need to work with and through local governments to avoid the next insurgency, to rescue the next failing state, or to head off the next humanitarian disaster. Correspondingly, the overall posture and thinking of the United States armed forces has shifted--away from solely focusing on direct American military action, and towards new capabilities to shape the security environment in ways that obviate the need for military intervention in the future. This approach forms the basis of our near-term planning and influences the way we develop capabilities for the future. This perspective also informed the creation of Africa Command, with its unique interagency structure, a deputy commander who is an ambassador not a general, as well as Southern Command's new orientation and priorities in Latin America. Overall, even outside Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States military has become more involved in a range of activities that in the past were perceived to be the exclusive province of civilian agencies and organizations. This has led to concern among many organizations--perhaps including many represented here tonight--about what's seen as a creeping ``militarization'' of some aspects of America's foreign policy. This is not an entirely unreasonable sentiment. As a career CIA officer I watched with some dismay the increasing dominance of the defense 800 pound gorilla in the intelligence arena over the years. But that scenario can be avoided if--as is the case with the intelligence community today--there is the right leadership, adequate funding of civilian agencies, effective coordination on the ground, and a clear understanding of the authorities, roles, and understandings of military versus civilian efforts, and how they fit, or in some cases don't fit, together. We know that at least in the early phases of any conflict, contingency, or natural disaster, the U.S. military--as has been the case throughout our history--will be responsible for security, reconstruction, and providing basic sustenance and public services. I make it a point to reinforce this message before military audiences, to ensure that the lessons learned and re-learned in recent years are not forgotten or again pushed to the margins. Building the security capacity of other nations through training and equipping programs has emerged as a core and enduring military requirement, though none of these programs go forward without the approval of the Secretary of State. In recent years the lines separating war, peace, diplomacy, and development have become more blurred, and no longer fit the neat organizational charts of the 20th century. All the various elements and stakeholders working in the international arena--military and civilian, government and private--have learned to stretch outside their comfort zone to work together and achieve results. For example, many humanitarian and international organizations have long prided themselves on not taking sides and avoiding any association with the military. But as we've seen in the vicious attacks on Doctors Without Borders in Afghanistan, and the U.N. Mission in Iraq, violent extremists care little about these distinctions. To provide clearer rules of the road for our efforts, the Defense Department and ``InterAction''--the umbrella organization for many U.S.-based NGOs--have, for the first time, jointly developed guidelines for how the military and NGOs should relate to one another in a hostile environment. The Pentagon has also refined its guidance for humanitarian assistance to ensure that military projects are aligned with wider U.S. foreign policy objectives and do not duplicate or replace the work of civilian organizations. Broadly speaking, when it comes to America's engagement with the rest of the world, you probably don't hear this often from a Secretary of Defense, it is important that the military is--and is clearly seen to be--in a supporting role to civilian agencies. Our diplomatic leaders--be they in ambassadors' suites or on the seventh floor of the State Department--must have the resources and political support needed to fully exercise their statutory responsibilities in leading American foreign policy. The challenge facing our institutions is to adapt to new realities while preserving those core competencies and institutional traits that have made them so successful in the past. The Foreign Service is not the Foreign Legion, and the United States military should never be mistaken for the Peace Corps with guns. We will always need professional Foreign Service officers to conduct diplomacy in all its dimensions, to master local customs and culture, to negotiate treaties, and advance American interests and strengthen our international partnerships. And unless the fundamental nature of humankind and of nations radically changes, the need--and will to use--the full range of military capabilities to deter, and if necessary defeat, aggression from hostile states and forces will remain. In closing, I am convinced, irrespective of what is reported in global opinion surveys, or recounted in the latest speculation about American decline, that around the world, men and women seeking freedom from despotism, want, and fear will continue to look to the United States for leadership. As a nation, we have, over the last two centuries, made our share of mistakes. From time to time, we have strayed from our values; on occasion, we have become arrogant in our dealings with other countries. But we have always corrected our course. And that is why today, as throughout our history, this country remains the world's most powerful force for good--the ultimate protector of what Vaclav Havel once called ``civilization's thin veneer.'' A nation Abraham Lincoln described as mankind's ``last, best hope.'' For any given cause or crisis, if America does not lead, then more often than not, what needs to be done simply won't get done. In the final analysis, our global responsibilities are not a burden on the people or on the soul of this nation. They are, rather, a blessing. Thank you for this award and I salute you for all that you do--for America, and for humanity.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1266) congratulating Albania and Croatia on being invited to begin accession talks with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and expressing support for continuing to enlarge the alliance, as amended.

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).