Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of points in response to my friend, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], who has led the effort for the program. Rarely do we disagree. But the notion that it has no cost, CBO says, because some of the countries eligible for guarantees under the program are high-credit risks, the subsidy costs could be significant. We are in the process of practically dismantling all of our public- private partnerships on defense conversion, on technology transfers, on providing commercial outlets for our defense industry. As we do that, do we really want to provide again the full faith and credit of the United States and its taxpayers behind the question of whether or not a China or a Turkey or some other country will repay its obligations? We have a history; we have billions of dollars of outstanding loans that have not been repaid at this point. I would suggest this is not a wise move.

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

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

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman talks about French programs and other countries' programs. The United States has well over half the world market. It should only be that in any other area we have this percentage of the world market.

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

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoyer amendment and in deep opposition to the Burton amendment and in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to my good friend Larry Fisher and others for launching the New Los Angeles Marketing Partnership, a much-needed effort to counter the negative image of Los Angeles in the media. With a riot, an earthquake, fires and a sensational murder trial having dominated the news from Los Angeles in the past 3 years, the New Los Angeles Marketing Partnership could not be arriving at a better time. I wish them all the luck in the world. Seeing the outline of the program, which will officially kick off on June 7, I am confident it will achieve its goals. The participants truly love Los Angeles, and have a keen sense of what it is that makes this a great city, including climate, extraordinary ethnic diversity and a thriving entertainment industry. The chosen theme, Together we're the best, Los Angeles conveys the spirit of optimism guiding this project. For the first 5 years, New Los Angeles Marketing Partnership will be reminding the people of Los Angeles County about the exciting place in which they live. This effort will be specifically targeted at all 88 cities in Los Angeles County. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Larry Fisher and the other members of the New Los Angeles Marketing Partnership, whose faith in the city of Los Angeles and dedication to improving its image is an inspiration to all of us who live and work there.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Through the gentleman I would like to ask the gentleman from Illinois: ``I think there is a good case that the 60-day provision creates a level of uncertainty and can create an expectation in the enemy that doesn't serve [[Page H5661]] U.S. national interests. But you don't need to repeal the War Powers Act to do that. You need to deal with the 60-day requirement, and I just wonder how the gentleman feels about that particular concern, given that it is not enough to say the appropriations process. If you are talking about rescinding the appropriations for the military in the middle of a fiscal year, you are talking about getting the votes to pass it to override a veto. It's very different than the majority of the Congress cutting off--as simple as cutting off the appropriations in the middle of the year. That can't happen.''

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

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, I appreciate his comments and certain parts of his argument I find very compelling.

Mr. BERMAN. The part I am going to get into right now. You spoke about working in the Bush White House and the War Powers Act tended to create some uncertainty, tended to immobilize the administration in some fashion, undercut the administration's aims. I would like to develop this more extensively because the way I look at the War Powers Act, it is a law that no President recognizes, no court is willing to enforce, and as you pointed out, in almost every instance the Congress [[Page H5658]] is not willing to step up to the plate anyway because they do not want to take a firm position because they want to see how it is going before they jump on the bandwagon.

Mr. BERMAN. If the gentleman wil continue to yield, I started out thinking that I would vote for the repeal of this act. But if the consequences of repealing the act, if the existence of the act did in fact argue for the President to come to Congress to ask for authorization for the use of force, you have given me the most serious, important, and useful purpose, more than I ever thought that I had.

Mr. BERMAN. If the gentleman will yield, I understand there was all kinds of consultation, and I was in some of those meetings as well. But what the gentleman in the well is saying is, in the end, the decision to come to Congress and ask for authorization was at least in part made because of the existence of the War Powers Act.

Mr. BERMAN. Would you endorse me for reelection.

Mr. BERMAN. I said would you just endorse me for reelection?

Mr. BERMAN. If the gentleman would yield, but in the end, the Constitution gives the warmaking power to the Congress. Obviously, statute cannot repeal or modify or limit the power. I would have thought that the President would feel compelled to come to the Congress and that the use, authorization for use of force was the substantive equivalent of a declaration of war, and if in fact that is not the case, that was not the constitutional power of that provision that motivated him to come to Congress but, in part, was one of the considerations, it makes me a little concerned about what was, when I got up, an inclination to vote for repeal of this law.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Chairman, I came to the floor this afternoon planning to support the Hyde amendment, and have been giving it a lot of thought since then and have decided to change my mind, one of those rare times where the debate on the floor actually affects somebody's decision. I agree with so much of what the gentleman says. First of all, the argument that this law could be at the center of congressional participation in the decisions about whether or not to go to war. When you get right down to a law that no President has ever considered constitutional, no court has ever been willing to enforce, and in most instances Congress has not even been willing to implement just does not I think, make a lot of sense to me. This is law that at its heart and at the part that Mr. Hyde wishes to change and repeal, since once the President submits a report pursuant to the War Powers Act, within 60 days after the hostilities or the imminent threat of hostilities for U.S. forces within 60 days either Congress has to extend, has to grant that authorization for additional time or the forces must come back. In the Lowry case, in the reflagging of the Kuwaiti tankers, the district court in response to the lawsuit seeking to compel a determination that the Presidential information on the reflagging of the Kuwaiti tankers constituted a report said we are not going to get into that, we are not going to declare it a report. If the report has not been made pursuant to the War Powers Act, the 60 days do not run. So the act becomes meaningless and it has become meaningless in any legal sense. The more interesting question is whether the act serves a purpose. There has been some discussion on the floor. Initially it was stated on the floor that in fact President Bush decided to come to the Congress with the authorization for the use of force in the Desert Storm because of the existence of the War Power Act, and that that played some role in this decision. Others have said that really played no role in the decision, and of course I do not know the full story of what went on in his mind. But what I do know is that the Committee on International Relations should conduct hearings on this [[Page H5669]] subject. We should look at modifications. We should get rid of the 60-days requirement. I think we should change the threshold. There are a lot of times where our forces are in imminent threat of hostilities where we do not want to trigger any particular congressional action. We should look at a meaningful consultative process that has an ongoing precedent the Executive Branch involved. If we pass the Hyde amendment today without more attention to what that consultative process will be, and that were to go into law, we have no leverage to get the more meaningful consultative process from a President who would like to see the repeal of the 60-day requirements and of the requirement for the report which triggers any time period set. So I would suggest a better course, and I do it very reluctantly, is to vote against the Hyde amendment today, for the Committee on International Relations have hearings, to draw up a bill which goes to the heart of what the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. HYDE, does but provides for a more meaningful consultative process with the executive branch, and hand the administration a package which allows them to get out of a requirement which they do not consider constitutional, which, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] points out, in some cases give aid and comfort to our adversaries by giving them hope that the Congress will not act, even though no one argues that the President will listen to what the Congress said on this subject anyway or is legally compelled to listen, get rid of that 60-days requirement and substitute a more carefully drafted consultative process and I would urge, and thereby maintain some legislative role in those decisions. So I would like to get a separation of two different kinds of questions. In Desert Storm I think the President was constitutionally compelled to come before Congress. I considered it would have been an impeachable offense for him to engage in that kind of attack with time for preparation, with a date certain set, without coming to Congress. I am not sure Mr. Hyde agrees with me. I would like to go through a process where we seek to separate the more minor incidents, which it does not work to have a congressional role, from the more serious incidents where we want to preserve the core congressional functions.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think, let us step back and take a look at what is going on. The majority party has put a bill on the floor which is a frontal assault on the President's authority to conduct foreign relations, micromanages to a level that the Democrats during Ronald Reagan's presidency never even presumed to go to, and massively slashes the amount of money spent on the foreign relations function. But they have got a problem because some of their members said they never would vote for anything, and the bill still is a $17 billion bill and they have got to get their members to vote for it. So they say, ``Well, this does something else. This reforms the foreign affairs agencies by consolidating them.'' It gives total discretion, or pretty close to total discretion, to the executive branch as to how to consolidate it. There is no inherent savings in the consolidation. The gentleman from New York has pointed out why the act of consolidation will cost money, but now they can say it is reform, it is slashing, and it is attacking the President, so maybe now they can pick up the votes. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], my friend, says we are cutting each by one-third. You could leave the agencies separate and cut them by one-third. The act of consolidation does nothing to save money. What it does do is ensure commercial interests, like they did in Iraq, will supersede nonproliferation issues when you eliminate the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. What it does take independent radios and make them subordinate to the geopolitical relationships between countries, moves that independence which allows an accurate voice of what is going on in a country to be broadcast to that country where there is a dictatorship, where there is an absence of free press, and has caused conservatives, who are very much supportive of bringing that word to those countries, to oppose this consolidation. What it does is make development assistance goals and humanitarian goals subordinate to government-to-government relationships. There are major bad policy consequences from the consolidation. There are no savings. But now you can say you slashed and you reformed and you have attacked the President, and maybe you can pick up your party's members who said they would never vote for an even $17 billion Foreign Assistance Act. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman] calls that bluff by saying, through a cost-benefit analysis, demonstrate the act of consolidation saves money. It puts you to the test. If this is the goal of consolidation, you will have no objection to the Ackerman amendment. If the goal is simply to put a label of reform onto a bill, then you probably want to oppose the Ackerman amendment. I urge adoption of it.

Mr. BERMAN. If you just would yield one more time, but that sort of begs the question. Consulting, we have all kinds of consultations, and all kinds of notifications, the fact is Desert Storm was a carefully planned, date-certain decision to use force. If it was not a war, then there is not any. You are telling me, it sounds like, that in the Bush White House one of the reason they decided to come to Congress, to not consult, not notify but to seek authorization for the use of force, was the existence of the War Powers Act, which makes a case for the existence of that act and an argument against the repeal. I think, perhaps more than any I had though of, making me change my mind.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, is the gentleman saying that without the existence of the War Powers Act, the President would not have asked Congress to take a position authorizing the use of force in the Gulf?

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my congratulations to a great American, Morton Gould, who was recently honored with this year's Pulitzer Prize for music composition, adding yet another great honor to a career filled with achievement and distinction. Mr. Gould has been a musician since he was able to touch a piano. A child prodigy, he published his first composition at the age of 6, and by the age of 21 was conducting and arranging a weekly series of orchestra radio programs for the WOR Mutual Network. In a career that has spanned the greater part of this century, he has become famous for music which sings with a uniquely American voice; his compositions have integrated folk, blues, jazz, gospel, and other elements into music that both explores and elevates all aspects of American style. Appropriately, this composer of truly American works was honored with three commissions for the celebrations of the bicentennial of our Nation in 1976. These were his Symphony of Spirituals, American Ballads, and Something to Do. He has appeared with and conducted orchestras across the United States and the world, and his compositions have been played in countless concerts, danced by the finest ballet companies, sung in Broadway theaters, and most importantly, enjoyed by all. His skill as a musician is matched by his warmth and humor in person. His friends marvel at the way he can tell a story with the same grace with which he conducts an orchestra. His talents have been recognized long before his receipt of the Pulitzer Prize. The numerous awards he has received include a Grammy Award and 12 Grammy nominations, the 1983 Gold Baton Award presented by the American Symphony Orchestra League, and the 1985 Medal of Honor for Music from the National Arts Club. In 1986 he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters and received the National Music Council's Golden Eagle Award, and in 1994, he received the prestigious Kennedy Center Honor for a lifetime of contributions to the performing arts. I am happy, but in no way surprised, that Morton Gould and his music have been honored again.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for one further question, is the plan to bring this rule to the floor on Wednesday, June 7?