Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Before yielding to our next speaker, I just want to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Honda and Mr. Issa. For one who remembers some of the key figures in this terrible tragedy, President Roosevelt; Justice William Douglas, who is an icon and a symbol of respect for civil liberties generally, you learn what war hysteria and a tendency to extrapolate the notion of an enemy into sweeping generalizations which are not justified by the evidence is something that we should be careful of. At this point, I am very pleased to yield to my dear friend, whose late husband I worked with very much on the 1988 legislation who was one of the great spark plugs in passing that legislation and now his widow and our colleague, Congresswoman Doris Matsui, for 3 minutes.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished and accomplished constituent: Louis Posen, who has dedicated the last 6 years of his life to two extremely important causes: achieving mental health parity and reducing the unacceptable rate of suicide that plagues this country. Each year, more than 30,000 people die from suicide. For our youth, it is the third leading cause of death. And these deaths can be prevented. Louis's story is remarkable in many ways. In 1993, he started his own record label, and called it Hopeless Records--not for lack of hope, but in honor of one of the first songs he produced. It is hard to imagine that this successful label began in his living room with only $1,000 of seed money which was contributed by his helpful brother. As Hopeless Records grew, Louis started a subsidiary label called Sub City. From this label grew the Take Action Tour, which uses the proceeds from concerts and record sales to support worthy charities. Since 2001, the Tour has joined with the National Hopeline Network, 1-800-SUICIDE. So far, Louis and the Tour have raised over $1 million to help target the Hopeline and other mental health issues. Louis has also collected over 100,000 signatures in support of mental health parity. He has educated both the public and their elected representatives about this and other important mental health issues. As recently as 2000, the Federal budget had no funding for suicide prevention. Due in no small part to Louis's tireless work, Congress now provides at least modest support for programs to help prevent suicide. We are grateful to Louis and the Tour for helping to fund programs such as the National Suicide Hotline and the Youth America Hotline. These are extremely valuable resources for individuals in times of crisis. It is also a privilege today to recognize Reese Butler, founder of the Kristin Brooks Hope Center and the National Suicide Hotline. Together, Reese and Louis have created a public/private partnership that has helped tens of thousands of people and is a great example of how such a partnership can work. I strongly support legislation to provide mental health parity and additional funding for programs that will help reduce the unacceptably high number of suicides in this country. Again, I congratulate the Take Action Tour, Reese Butler and Louis Posen for their work on these critical Issues.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this long- overdue legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The war on terror isn't just a military operation--it's also a battle to persuade people in Arab and Muslim countries that the universal values of freedom and democracy are far superior to radical ideologies that preach intolerance, hate and violence. This bill includes several important provisions to help us succeed in that struggle. Building on previous legislation, it establishes an enhanced International Arab and Muslim Youth Opportunity Fund to provide educational opportunities for young people. The Fund will support teacher training, the development of modern curricula, and the translation of western publications to help ensure that students have alternatives to the radical Madrassas that nurtured the Taliban and al-Qaeda. A related provision in the bill extends a program I authored with Mr. Knollenberg that provides scholarships for Arab and Muslim students to attend American-sponsored elementary and secondary schools in their home countries. This can be a cost-effective means to ensure that needy students receive an American-style education and exposure to western ideas and values. H.R. 1 also authorizes the designation of a Middle East Foundation to support democracy, human rights, civil society, independent media and the rule of law in countries throughout the greater Middle East. Like the highly successful Asia Foundation, this non-profit, non- governmental institution will make it easier for the U.S. to support reform-minded organizations and individuals without arousing the suspicion and mistrust that often comes with direct government funding. Consistent with the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, this legislation also calls for a significant expansion of U.S. international broadcasting and other public diplomacy in Arab and Muslim countries, and provides new authority that will allow the Broadcasting Board of Governors to respond quickly to a crisis overseas. As Congress takes these steps to improve our international broadcasting capabilities, I hope the President will appoint a new Chairman of the BBG to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of that important organization. Finally, this bill also contains some very important provisions to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It repeals unnecessary restrictions on the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, strengthens the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, and establishes a U.S. Coordinator for the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this important legislation.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to commend Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member Lantos and their excellent staffs for their hard work on his legislation. I'd like to offer special thanks for their efforts to ensure that the conference agreement retains a provision I suggested, which would halt nuclear cooperation if the Indian government exports sensitive technologies that violate the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and Missile Technology Control Regime. This conference agreement--and the underlying nuclear deal with India--are far from perfect. I believe the Administration could have and should have pressed for a much better deal. But having said that, it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is a major improvement over the Administration's original legislative proposal. That bill would have cut Congress out of the process and put the nuclear deal with India on auto-pilot. Among other things, this agreement preserves the right of Congress to vote on the final nuclear cooperation agreement with India--which is still under negotiation--before it goes into effect. While I wish this conference agreement included some stronger nonproliferation provisions--including an amendment on fissile material I offered on the floor--I intend to vote ``yes'' because I believe the U.S.-India relationship is extremely important, and rejecting the bill at this point would be a major setback.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to my close friend of more than 30 years, Joe Edmiston, recipient of he Environmentalist of the Year Award at the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life of Southern California (COEJLSC)'s 7th Annual Awards Reception. COEJLSC could not have chosen a more deserving person to receive this honor. Joe is a remarkable man whose accomplishments are legion and whose passion and commitment to the environment is unparalleled. He has literally and figuratively transformed the landscape of southern California for the better. He has also, through his infectious enthusiasm, his innovative work with professional associations and his formal academic teachings, helped change the way we think about environmental protection and stewardship. He epitomizes COEJLSC's guiding principles and his work is perfectly aligned with COEJLSC's mission and purpose. I first met Joe in December 1976 when he interviewed for the position of executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Comprehensive Planning Commission, a State agency created by legislation that I authored as majority leader of the California State Assembly. He was then a young member of the conservation staff of the Sierra Club, but his ideas impressed everyone and ultimately Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., appointed him to the commission directorship. His decision to implement the plan through the establishment of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy was an insightful--but risky-- decision to forego traditional approaches. I carried the legislation, and it was a tough fight. Looking back, it was pretty audacious of Joe to think that market forces could be used to control the market, and more audacious still to think that his band of planners and ecologists would be the ones to do it. But the gamble paid off. Now, 26 years later the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has expended close to $550,000,000 and acquired and preserved more than 55,000 acres of park and open space lands--much of it accessible and regularly enjoyed by the urban population that surrounds it. Serving his fifth Governor, Joe is close to being the longest serving State agency head in modern history. For a plodding bureaucrat that would not be so remarkable an accomplishment, but he is anything but that. Dynamic, sometimes controversial, he has taken the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to the forefront of conservation leadership in California and the Nation by his innovative approaches and his impact has even been felt in other countries that are attempting to model his success. I am proud to know Joe. He and his wife Pepper are great friends and they have a wonderful family. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Joe Edmiston and congratulating him for receiving COEJLSC's Environmentalist of the Year Award.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Judea Pearl and Dr. Akbar Ahmed, co-recipients of the Purpose Prize. Drs. Pearl and Ahmed have been recognized for innovation and success in using their lifetime of experience for the greater good. The Daniel Pearl Foundation, which Dr. Pearl founded following the tragic death of his son, Daniel, at the hands of terrorists in Pakistan, is dedicated to promoting cross-cultural tolerance and understanding through public dialogue and the training and support of journalists. Together with Dr. Ahmed, Pearl created the Daniel Pearl Dialogue for Muslim-Jewish Understanding, which holds dialogues around the world to frankly discuss contentious issues and provide different perspectives on the topics that are causing so much violence today. The Purpose Prize was created in 2005 by Civic Ventures, a California-based non-profit organization dedicated to generating ideas and inventing programs to help society achieve the greatest return on experience. Over 1,200 adults age 60 and over competed for the five $100,000 cash prizes and the accompanying benefits of publicity and support for their projects. The Purpose Prize aims to stimulate, recognize and support the entrepreneurial efforts of older adults who use their passion, smarts and experience to address serious social challenges. Unlike lifetime achievement awards, it seeks to reward new and creative efforts by older persons from all walks of life. Ultimately, the Purpose Prize will contribute to the transformation of our society's view of aging and lead to investments in America's greatest untapped resource: experienced and engaged older adults. Mr. Speaker, I extend my heartfelt congratulations and appreciation to Drs. Pearl and Ahmed on receiving this prestigious award in its first year and I wish them continued success. I also commend Civic Ventures, The Atlantic Philanthropies, and The John Templeton Foundation, for their vision and generosity in creating this important stimulus for expanding citizen initiative for public good.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on May 22, 2006, I was unable to cast a vote on H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act, rollcall vote No. 178. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the body of what we have here. We have a bill with three sections, the first of which, in the chairman's own words, reinforms the authority of the local governments to do something that he apparently believes and we all accept that they would have the authority to do anyway. I call that one the let's use the Iraq model for dealing with the issue of illegal immigration; subcontract large functions of it, but unlike in Iraq where we overpay the subcontractors, here tell the local law enforcement people we are giving up at the Federal level trying to deal with this problem, we are not going to give you a penny for more jail cells or a penny for more resources, we are not going to give you a single dime to do anything about it, but we are here to tell you if you want to, you have the authority to arrest and detain people who are in this country illegally without regard to whatever acts they may have committed. The second section of the bill is alien smuggling. It has a bunch of findings, it has a sense of Congress, and then says we authorize, but no funding, 20 more people to do something about alien smuggling. And the third one is designed to deal with catch and release, the practice whereby non-Mexicans who are caught in this country in the past have been released rather than returned immediately to the country they came from because Mexico is not the country that they are from. According to the Director of the Department of Homeland Security, we are currently detaining all El Salvadorans, or virtually all, because we now have enough beds, and we have enough to significantly reduce the total number of non-Mexicans. Catch and release is over. This bill won't make it. It is over. No one should be under the illusion that we are doing anything about the program catch and release by this bill because that program has ended. What this bill in the larger context is, it is another one-House bill. Let me quote from the September 21 Washington Post. ``With little more than a week left before the September 29 start of the Congress's scheduled recess, GOP leaders are considering appending some or all of the bills to must-pass spending measures before they leave town. But Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran (R-MS) appeared to close off that avenue last night, saying he will not add any legislative language onto the spending bills that could slow their progress in the final days before the coming recess.'' Another one-House bill. And then what will happen, a week from now we will recess, and the Republicans and the majority hope that the American people will be conned into thinking they have done something about one of the most serious national crises we have, and that is the crisis of inability to enforce our borders. There are 12 million people in this country using false identifiers, the absence of any employer verification system. But in reality, none of that will have happened. The Republican Congress will have recessed for the elections with the mere hope that maybe when we come back with the lame duck, or maybe if you reelect us next year, we will get serious about this problem. There is nothing in this bill or other bills that are being sent over to a House that will not take them up and not consider them that will make this crisis better. And what do we have to do to do something serious? Back in June or July or in the beginning of September, a motion to go to conference on the two larger bills that the Senate and the House passed. This won't work. This bill is nothing. It doesn't do anything for anybody. It won't become law. So you can have the meaningless gesture act that this bill represents. You can pass some of these other bills that are being brought up at the last minute to go into that vacuum on the other side; but one day I would like to understand how the majority explains the fact that they were not willing to make a motion to go to conference to reconcile the differences between the two bills, because in 1 week we will have done nothing to implement an employer verification system. We will have done nothing about 12 million people who are here under false identifiers, some portion of whom might be actual threats to our own national security. We will have done nothing to provide the meaningful, comprehensive approach, which is the only way to deal with the problem of illegal immigration in this country.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. There is only one response to my friend the chairman. If the issue is about papers and the only reason we haven't gone to conference committee is because the papers haven't been delivered, I do have Senator Frist's phone number, and I am happy to provide it. I cannot conceive that it is a matter of paperwork and process that is keeping us from going to conference committee on one of the most serious domestic issues this country has faced. Secondly, in response to the following speaker, the reason we cannot quite unite to do something here, apparently, is because we are not going to unite on a fool's errand. Everyone on your side of the aisle, from the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to the chairman to others, has acknowledged over and over again we are not going to deport 12 million people. You are not going to have local law enforcement pick up the task for you of deporting 12 million people. A meaningful response is border security, because there are people there who are national security issues and there are people who are aiming to hurt us who want to cross this border illegally, and dealing with 12 million people who are operating under false identifiers, some of whom are bad people, and finding some system to either isolate and narrow that group or have them come forward, and most important of all, to get an employer verification system in place. None of these bills does anything about it. We are going to leave here in a week doing nothing about it. I don't understand how you are going to explain to your constituents and the people who are understandably upset about this issue that this Congress has addressed a very serious, urgent issue in a serious and coherent fashion. We haven't.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Brad Sherman (CA-27) to pay tribute to Spectrolab, a subsidiary of the Boeing Company, on its 50th anniversary and to celebrate the delivery of its two millionth solar cell. We are honored to represent many of Spectrolab's employees and are proud of their great accomplishments. Spectrolab is the world's leading manufacturer of space solar cells and solar panels. Throughout the years, Spectrolab solar cells and solar panels have powered more than 500 satellites and interplanetary missions, including the Spirit and Opportunity rovers, which are still exploring the surface of Mars. Also, all of the solar panels on spacecraft on Mars are manufactured by Spectrolab. In 1956, Spectrolab was founded by a group of engineers who began providing high-quality optical filters and mirrors for government systems. In 1958, Pioneer 1 carried the company's first body-mounted solar panels into space. Shortly thereafter, Explorer 6 was the first satellite to use Spectrolab' s solar arrays, and Spectrolab's first solar cell panel was placed on the moon by Apollo's mission in 1969. Galaxy 111C, the world's highest capacity satellite, launched on June 15, 2002 carrying the latest solar cell technology developed and manufactured at Spectrolab. Its contributions to the space industry cannot be overstated. Spectrolab is well respected in its industry and has received a myriad of well deserved accolades. NASA's George M. Low Award for Supplier Quality and Excellence was given to Spectrolab in 2004. Also, Spectrolab's multi-junction cells were inducted into the Space Technology Hall of Fame by the United States Space Foundation that same year. Currently, Spectrolab scientists are working to build and test solar cells for concentrator systems that may one day generate inexpensive and renewable electricity for America's cities and towns. Their expertise in space photovoltaic products earned Boeing the contract to build solar concentrator cells for a leading renewable energy company. Spectrolab's product portfolio includes terrestrial concentrator solar cells and panels, searchlight systems, solar simulators and photodetector products. More than 90 percent of all law enforcement aircraft and helicopters worldwide use Spectrolab's Nightsun searchlights. It is with pleasure and gratitude that we salute Spectrolab for its extraordinary accomplishments over the past fifty years.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rabbi Moshe and Lois Rothblum, a dynamic couple that has been involved in the Adat Ari El synagogue community for 35 years. Rabbi Rothblum is celebrating his retirement, and Lois Rothblum is receiving the Adat Ari El Humanitarian Award. Rabbi Rothblum has long been a part of the Los Angeles community. He attended Fairfax High School and Los Angeles Hebrew High and graduated from UCLA. His parents instilled in him a love of music and musical theater, evident in his role as a counselor and music specialist at Camp Ramah. He went on to direct musical theater at Adat Ari El during his tenure as Rabbi, and his musical compositions for Shabbat and other occasions are still sung in synagogues all over the world. After his retirement, he will continue to stay involved in youth musical theater. Moshe's love of music is only one of many amazing facets of his personality that he has showcased as Rabbi. He has been an eloquent advocate for Israel in the Jewish community and the larger southern California community. He is a quiet champion of social justice. He met with the late Cesar Chavez to discuss the plight of migrant farm workers. He broke precedent with the Conservative Jewish movement when, in 1985, he appointed Rabbi Leslie Alexander, the first woman to serve a large Conservative congregation. Rabbi Rothblum also met the late Pope John Paul II during his time as president of the Southern California Board of Rabbis. He is a renowned spiritual leader who has touched many lives. Lois Rothblum is receiving the Adat Ari El Humanitarian Award. She attended New York University and Columbia University Teachers College. Lois was a religious school teacher for 9 years, and her passion and dedication caused her to become a leading Jewish educator. She currently serves as director of teacher education at the Fingerhut School of Education, University of Judaism. Rabbi Moshe and Lois Rothblum have made lasting impressions on the Adat Ari El community, as well as the larger Los Angeles community. I am proud to call them friends and proud to be a member of their congregation. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting and honoring Moshe and Lois for all that they have achieved.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the committee, both Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos, and their staffs for their hard work on this legislation. There is no question that this bill is a major improvement over the administration's legislative proposal, as Mr. Lantos mentioned. Because of the changes they have made, we will have an opportunity to decide whether or not to approve the nuclear cooperation agreement by a majority vote after the agreement is negotiated, after we see the IAEA safeguards agreement with India, and after the Nuclear Suppliers Group has reached a consensus. Notwithstanding that, I do remain deeply concerned about this nuclear deal, because I fear that it will complicate our efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Not because I think India is going to be a major proliferator, but because once you change the long- established nonproliferation rules for the benefit of one country, even a friendly democracy like India, then it becomes much easier for the other countries to justify carve-outs for their special friends. I would not be so concerned about setting a bad precedent if there was some compelling nonproliferation gain, but I just do not see it here. Later today, Representative Tauscher and I will offer an amendment to provide that missing piece of the proposal. Our amendment, based on a proposal by former Senator Sam Nunn, would allow exports of nuclear reactors and other technology to India after a nuclear cooperation agreement has been approved by the Congress. But it would restrict exports of uranium and other nuclear reactor fuel, until the President determines that India has halted the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons. Otherwise, we incentivize this. Mr. Chairman, I come at this as someone who is unabashedly pro-India. I strongly support efforts to strengthen the U.S.-India strategic partnership. I also accept the fact that India has nuclear weapons, will never give up those weapons, and will probably never sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Mr. Chairman, I welcome civilian nuclear cooperation with India, as long as it is done in a responsible way that does not undermine our credibility as a leader in the fight against proliferation. I believe the Tauscher-Berman amendment will help to achieve that goal.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my co-author of this amendment, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, first I point out that while this amendment was defeated decisively, it was not defeated overwhelming. Secondly, and I say this with great respect both to Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos, who not only do great work here, but made this a significantly better bill by virtue of their efforts. Let's review the bidding here. The U.S. went into this discussion saying, India, we want you to cut off fissile material production. India said no. The administration backed off its position. I now offer an amendment that simply denies the fuel until such time as they cut off their fissile material production. The administration says it is a killer amendment. The language that they proposed in a weakened form now, they call a killer amendment. Let's test the proposition here. Give a good vote to this amendment. As Mr. Sherman and Mr. Markey pointed out, we are incentivizing, if we provide the fuel, we are incentivizing a massive potential increases in India's nuclear weapon production. What is China going to do? I am not that worried about India. But India has minimal deterrent capabilities against China right now. What is China going to do? China right now has halted its fissile material production. Will they continue to do that once this passes? What will they do with Pakistan in the Nuclear Suppliers Group? At least, thank heavens, we will have a chance to see this agreement when it is finally negotiated after the Nuclear Suppliers Group has decided. But don't just accept the words it is a killer amendment. Give this a good vote. Let India know we are very serious about this. Reinforce the administration's commitment to this issue which wavered in the negotiation of India. This issue goes far beyond U.S.-India relationships. It goes on with what happens with the nuclear powers and with the spread of nuclear weapons. It will have ramifications far beyond the U.S.-India relationship. This is a modest amendment. This is the amendment Sam Nunn proposes. This allows reactor technology and all of the other facets of a civilian nuclear cooperation to go ahead. It just says no fuel until you have decided to cut off fissile material production.

Mr. BERMAN. Well, I do. But it wasn't because we gave Libya civilian nuclear cooperation. But I wouldn't compare India and Libya. They are very different countries. And the gain for Libya was a great gain for nonproliferation, I agree. But now we are in a different situation. Think of China, think of Pakistan, think of Iran, think of North Korea.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. But the Nuclear Suppliers Group operates on a consensus. If this amendment is in the agreement, the United States will not support a consensus position that allows another country to send nuclear fuel to India

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

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. My assumption is this bill is now law.

Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time. If you had stripped away the right of the U.S. Supreme Court, of the Federal courts to decide whether segregated schools, whether the doctrine of separate and equal should stand or whether it violated the 14th amendment of the Constitution, there are many States in this country where every State court would have affirmed that separate is equal, is compliant with the 14th amendment, and in many of those States, the voters in those States would have been quite happy with that decision. You have eliminated the Supreme Court's ability to review fundamental decisions involving first amendment rights.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. As the gentleman pointed out, the gentleman from Florida gave a very compelling argument for why it is appropriate to have ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, and therefore concludes that since he thinks that is in jeopardy, based on the court case now moving through the judicial system arguing for stripping away the jurisdiction of the court to decide that issue. But the bill before us goes far beyond the issue of under God, and that is why I would like to ask if the majority whip, I would like to use my time to make sure that you and I have the same understanding of the purpose of this bill. Let's say, for example, that a school board in West Virginia decides that every student in the school system must recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of the school day. And a Jehovah's Witness family goes to court, to State court, after this bill is passed and says, it is a violation of our religious principles to pledge allegiance to anyone other than God. We are prepared to make all kinds of statements with respect to our regard for the country, but we cannot pledge allegiance to anyone but God. And then that case goes to the State courts, and the West Virginia Supreme Court decides that, no, the school board is right. They have the right to compel every student in that school system to recite the pledge, even if it violates their religious principles. Or maybe it is telling an Orthodox Jewish child that they have to remove their skull cap for the recitation of the Pledge, and they say, no, if the West Virginia school board ruled that way, the individual's right to exercise their religious principles by keeping their skull cap on when they are outside and in this public arena is trumped by the school board's policy. Should the U.S. Supreme Court be able to take that case on appeal that compels a decision that a State court, that compels the recitation of the Pledge in a way that violates the fundamental free exercise of religion of a student? That is my question.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) 1 minute of the remaining time I have.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, imagine for a moment that there was a gang, an organization of Mexican nationals who believed zealously and fanatically that the Southwest of the United States had been stolen from them; and that this group of people committed to murdering in order to right that wrong, was funded and controlled by countries that were dedicated to the destruction of the United States; that this group had stockpiled thousands of offensive weapons that could be unleashed on our citizens with little or no warning; that it launched an unprovoked, cross-border attack from Baja, California, kidnapped two of our border patrol agents and killed several others. And it then unleashed a massive barrage of missiles on San Diego with the sole intent of killing innocent civilians. The American people would demand immediate and decisive action. The Congress would overwhelmingly approve a resolution authorizing the President to use force, just as we did after 9/11. And none of us would be satisfied with a cease-fire that allowed the terrorists to regroup and rebuild their weapons stockpile. For America at this point, this is just a fantasy. But for Israel, this is daily reality. For years Israel has lived with Hezbollah's sword of Damocles hanging over its head, and it has shown extraordinary restraint in the face of repeated attacks. But this latest attack and the kidnapping of its two soldiers is a naked act of aggression. Israel did not seek this conflict, but it is compelled to take forceful action to defend itself, just as the United States or any other sovereign nation would do in this situation. The loss of innocent lives on both sides is tragic. When I hear Mr. Rahall and Mr. LaHood and I watch the images on television, one cannot help but want to cry for the damage and the death and the carnage that that conflict brings. But there can't be any moral equivalence between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel goes to extraordinary lengths to minimize civilian loss, while Hezbollah deliberately targets the innocent. When we talk of disproportionate response, I would like for someone to tell me what the proportionate response is in this particular situation. Once again, what this does is highlight the central role played by Iran and Syria in promoting terrorism throughout the Middle East. As Dennis Ross recently observed when Lebanon was withdrawn from, when Gaza was withdrawn from, what did Israel get? It wasn't land for peace, it was land for war. I urge this body to speak strongly in support of expressing its solidarity with Israel in these difficult times, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.