Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Whichever comes first. So it could even be sooner than December 11. Second, the administration has stated that it will use this authority to train Syrian fighters outside Syria. I have a fact sheet, which I will enter into the Record, provided by the administration, stating that the training will take place outside Syria and that the Saudis have agreed to host facilities. Mr. Chairman, can you confirm that it is, indeed, the administration's plan to do the training outside Syria?

Mr. SHERMAN. Is it your understanding that the training bases will be outside Syria? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answers. Attached, please find a fact sheet on the Title X program, as well as a Q&A your boss may mind helpful. I stand by ready to answer any questions. --Robert Robert N. Marcus, Special Assistant to the President, White House Office of Legislative Affairs.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is not a perfect plan. What America wants is a plan that guarantees success, and that success should be total destruction of ISIS immediately and without U.S. casualties. But the plan is a reasonable approach. It is the only approach on this floor. The alternative is to do nothing. No one has brought a better plan to this floor. For those who say, ``Let's do nothing,'' reflect what we have accomplished through the President's action. The Yazidis have been saved from genocide. The Turkmen who otherwise would have been slaughtered in the many thousands are no longer besieged. The Mosul and Haditha dams are no longer under the control of ISIS. None of that would be true if the President had already not begun to take action. I now yield to the gentleman from California for a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, all the authority provided in this amendment will expire no later than December 11, 2014. Is that correct? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. By our failure to repeal and replace the War Powers Act resolution, which no longer fits current circumstances, we are complicit with many administrations in the multidecade decline of the role of this Congress in shaping American foreign policy. I look forward to restoring the balance provided by our Founders, to following the policies followed in the Jefferson administration, in following the War Powers Act, and in crafting a resolution applicable to today's circumstances rather than abdicating our responsibility and sitting back as the President stretches words that were never intended to apply to the situation we face in Iraq today.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we ought to focus on what is the appropriate foreign policy and what is the appropriate role in Congress. I rise in support of this amendment. In fact, the amendment is quite similar to the Free Syria Act, which was introduced by several of us, under the leadership of Eliot Engel, a year and a half ago. That approach of vetting appropriate Syrian forces and of providing training was a good but difficult policy then. It is a good and even more difficult policy now. We have to vet those we train, and it should only be certain elements of the Free Syrian Army in that we should only cooperate with those who are not only going to stand up for the Sunni majority but protect the Christian and Alawite minorities, and we have to arm only those who are strong enough and careful enough not to lose the weapons we give them to more extremist forces. This arming of the Syrian rebels is part of an overall plan that will include American military action. There is general agreement of no boots on the ground or at least of no boots on the front lines, but let us speak honestly to the American people. The American people are asking for a guaranteed, successful plan that would provide the immediate and total destruction of ISIS, with very few or no American casualties. Such a plan cannot be created. Instead, the policy that this amendment is part of will contain and weaken and punish ISIS and keep limited American casualties, and hopefully avoid them altogether. We must remember that the enemies of ISIS are nearly as evil and are probably more dangerous than ISIS itself. Those enemies include Assad, who has killed well over 100,000 of his own people and gassed many of them until he faced world pressure; Iran and Hezbollah, which have killed many hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans; and the Iraqi Shiite militias, including Mr. Maliki, who created the situation on the ground in Iraq which led to the creation of ISIS. What is the role of Congress? We look at article I and article II of the Constitution, with different roles for the President of the United States and Congress in military policy. Thomas Jefferson determined it was necessary to get the approval from Congress before he deployed marines to the shores of Tripoli--our first non-declared war, our first intervention in the Middle East. That wisdom is reflected in the War Powers Act, adopted in 1973. That act, I think, is a fair, constitutional, and reasonable clarification of the interaction of article I and article II--the war powers of the Congress and the Commander in Chief power of the President. Now, under some questioning, the President and his administration have finally come up with their theory as to why Congress has already authorized the military action he anticipates. And that is, this Congress, in 2001, authorized every effort to go after al Qaeda. The forces of ISIS are a group that joined al Qaeda after 2001 and left al Qaeda a year ago or so. Does this mean you can leave al Qaeda, or are you always part of al Qaeda? Do we have several al Qaedas? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The President's authority to engage in this war is questionable. The fact that he is stretching the 2001 War Powers Act resolution is not commendable, but this Congress has also failed to play its role. We wrote a resolution in 2001. Instead of revising it, we leave it there, and then some of us are upset that the President stretches it or applies it to circumstances not then anticipated. We should be revising and repealing the War Powers Resolutions of 2001 and 2002, and we as a Congress should indicate what we think is the appropriate foreign and military policy. Instead, we focus only on the narrowest part of the President's policy. In doing so, we join with several administrations in being part of the multidecade decline of the role of Congress.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the events in the Middle East and with ISIS, and I want to address three separate areas. The first is what should be the role of Congress in deciding American policy on these horrific events. Second is to respond to the unjustified attacks on the President of the United States by those who claim he doesn't have a plan, doesn't have a detailed enough plan, doesn't have a perfect plan, or whatever. And the third is to discuss what should be our policy in the Middle East and what dangers there are, no matter which policy we pursue. As we try to protect our Nation, we should also protect our Constitution. Article I of the Constitution vests in Congress the exclusive duty to decide when we declare war, when we go to war. Article II makes the President of the United States Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. These two provisions need to be reconciled so that both the Congress and the President can make the decisions that the Constitution charges to them in our foreign and military policy. This is not a new issue. President Jefferson sent our Marines, in the words of the song, ``to the shores of Tripoli'' in 1801. This was our first foreign military deployment. This was our first fighting and involvement in the Middle East. And most relevant today, it was the first use of our military abroad in the absence of a formal declaration of war. Well, what did Thomas Jefferson think was the appropriate congressional role? Thomas Jefferson sought and obtained advance authorization to put our Marines ashore in North Africa. We still face the same constitutional provisions, but several decades ago, we passed the War Powers Act, a reasonable statute that harmonizes the two provisions of the Constitution that I have discussed. The War Powers Act makes it clear that the President can act for 60 or 90 days without the authorization of Congress, but that is it. Beyond those time limits, deployments require congressional authorization. Now, we have heard from the President that he respects Congress, likes us, consults with us, and would welcome our support. But the President, I am sure, consults with many academics and think tanks and foreign officials, not as a constitutional duty, but just because it makes sense to consult with them. And the President would welcome the support of The Heritage Foundation or The New York Times editorial board for his policies. Saying that you welcome the support of Congress, or that you consult with Congress, has nothing to do with the legal rights of Congress and the American people. Now, the President has taken a very unusual legal stance. He asserted broadly last night that he has the authority to conduct the bombing campaign, but he needs Congress to approve training Syrians and providing arms. This stands the Constitution on its head. The main decision to be made here is whether we put our pilots and/or soldiers in harm's way, whether we wage war and cause casualties, and perhaps incur casualties. The far less important decision is whether we train a few hundred or a few thousand Syrians and provide them with weapons. Keep in mind, this training and arming of Syrians has occurred for well over a year without congressional authorization. What is happening here is the President wants us to vote in favor of his plan, or to take a vote of Congress and claim it is a vote in favor of his plan, when, in fact, we would only be voting on the smallest part of that plan, and that is, whether, without any risk of casualties to ourselves, without any risk that we would be directly causing casualties in the Middle East, to provide training to Syrian rebels. This is hardly what the Constitution requires. Today, in response to my questions, the President's Deputy National Security Adviser explained, for the first time from this administration, why they think they have authorization to bomb Iraq and Syria without any further action from Congress. He cited the authorization to use military force passed in this House 13 years ago, in response to the tragic events which occurred 13 years ago to this day. When Congress authorized going after al Qaeda, we never envisioned that that authority would be used in this manner. Just as important, the President's plan is to go after ISIS, which has been repudiated by al Qaeda, which broke from al Qaeda, and which wages war against the al-Nusra Front, which is part of al Qaeda. It is difficult to say that an authorization to use force against al Qaeda is an authorization to use force against those who are fighting al Qaeda, but it is a technical argument. On the President's side, you can say that al Qaeda splintered, and that all the splinters constitute part of the organization that attacked us 13 years ago to this day. That is why Congress needs to revise the authorization to use military force of 2001. We passed it for one purpose. Is it going to be there for 100 years? Is it going to authorize things we never imagined? Or shouldn't Congress define what it is we are authorizing under today's circumstance? The other argument raised by the President's Deputy National Security Adviser is that the authorization to go to war against Saddam Hussein somehow applies to this situation. A reading of that resolution clearly shows that it is confined to Iraq, and would not justify that portion of the President's plan, a necessary portion, that involves bombing Syria. So, again, Congress should vote on our authorization to use military force that is crafted to this situation at this time. But it is unlikely that we will do so because there is almost a silent conspiracy here in Washington. Presidents want more power to act as they decide in the national interest, without having to ask Congress for authority. Members of Congress sometimes just want to avoid a tough vote. So, the desire of the President to have all power, and the desire of some Members of this House to avoid responsibility, coincide with the idea of the President just boldly saying he has the authority to enter a new conflict and to enter it for far more than 60 or 90 days, and Congress never has to vote on the matter. The President, of course, would like to say that he has a vote of Congress in favor of his plan. So we are going to end up with the sneakiest of all maneuvers. What is likely to occur, and I hope it doesn't, is that we will vote next week on whether to continue government operations, whether to fund the government for the next several months, whether to prevent our national parks from closing, and buried in there will be a provision authorizing and funding the training of Syrian dissidents, and we will pass that package. The President will claim that since we funded and authorized the training of Syrian dissidents, we voted for his entire plan, including the bombing. And Members of Congress can say they had no choice but to vote for the Syrian provision, but didn't actually like it, never really voted for it. They just voted to keep the national parks open. A silent conspiracy of empowerment and shirking responsibility. What we should do next week is have three separate votes: one vote on whether to fund and authorize the arming of Syrians, because the President has asked for that vote; second, a vote on whether to authorize military force limited exclusively to air forces and not authorizing ground operations; and the third would be a vote to go further and authorize ground operations. The exact contours of these resolutions should be subject to amendment and open amendment in this House. We would have to deal with the duration and the exact limitations. But then we would be performing our constitutional duty. Then we would be protecting the American Constitution. I fear that, instead, we will cleverly avoid responsibility and the President will be able to say, ah, but you voted for my plan. Now, in defense of the President, I want to respond to the constant harping that the President doesn't have a plan, doesn't have a detailed enough plan, doesn't have a strategy. Well, first the President put forward a plan last evening. While Republicans have blasted it as insufficiently detailed, it is just as detailed as the plans put forward by the former President to invade Afghanistan and to invade Iraq. Now, keep in mind, as we learned from those wars, whatever plan is put forward is going to be dramatically changed because once you engage in hostilities, things change. Second, if the President were to provide as much detail as some hyperpartisan Republicans are demanding, he would then be attacked for revealing our strategy, our tactics, and classified information. The only thing that holds together, creates consistency among certain extremist partisan Republicans, is that whatever the President does, it is wrong. Then I have got to ask, where is the Republican plan? Have Republicans coalesced around any plan? Has any prominent Republican even put forward a plan? Where is your plan? Vice President Dick Cheney has not put forward a plan, just an expression of anger and partisanship. Speaker Boehner has not put forward a plan. The Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee majority has not put forward a plan. There are a host of think tanks here in Washington that could aid Republicans in drafting a plan, yet, the Republicans have yet to even discuss their own plan, let alone coalesce around the Republican plan. It seems like the Republicans do have a plan. Their plan is to reap political advantage from this crisis in the Middle East, while avoiding any responsibility for making decisions. The Republicans are politically clever. And when I say Republicans in this speech, I am referring only to the hyperpartisan Republicans who have engaged in the activities that I described. These Republicans understand that no one can draft the plan the American people really want. Americans want a plan that guarantees the immediate and total destruction of ISIS, without significant American casualties. So hyperpartisan Republicans can constantly berate the President because he doesn't have a guarantee. He isn't offering immediate total destruction. He does have a plan designed to avoid American casualties. Instead, we get a suggestion that somehow this guaranteed, no-cost, immediate total victory would be achieved if only we had a different President. I think it is time for Congress to stop harping about whether the President has a plan. He has put forth a plan. Now Congress must exercise its constitutional role in defining what authorizations the President is going to be granted and what portions of his plan are going to be authorized. I look forward to--I hope, though doubt--a serious debate on the floor of this House, where we will discuss and vote on and amend and vote on the amendments of a resolution dealing with whether to arm Syrians and train them, with a resolution as to whether to have a long- term, multiyear, perhaps, bombing campaign against ISIS, and whether the President is authorized to use ground forces. Finally, I want to focus on the Middle East, itself, and how complicated the situation is, and I want to praise the President not only for his decisive action but also for his wise caution, because the situation we face in the Middle East is far more complicated than the President's detractors would let on. The natural reaction upon seeing those horrific videos is to say ISIS is the embodiment of all evil, and its total and immediate destruction is all that we need to do, that it should be our entire focus, but let's look at the situation. We look not only on the entity we want to destroy but also at who will be empowered by its destruction. Who is on the ground in Syria and in the Sunni areas of Iraq that is fighting ISIS and stands to gain if ISIS is destroyed? If we make the list, we see entities that are nearly as evil as ISIS and are, if anything, more capable of hitting our homeland, of hitting Europe, of hitting targets outside the Middle East, than is ISIS itself. First, we see that ISIS is engaged in war with the al-Nusra Front. Al-Nusra is a dedicated branch of al Qaeda, one of its more capable branches. So the destruction of ISIS will, to some degree, empower al Qaeda and al-Nusra, since they are both rivals in fighting for support among extremist Sunnis. Second, on the list of ISIS' foes is the Assad regime. Now, the very people who are attacking the President for not acting precipitously today were attacking the President last year for not bombing the Assad regime. So they attacked him last year for not bombing Assad and this year for not bombing Assad's number one enemy. The only consistency here is you are attacking the President for not bombing somebody. The fact is that Assad has the blood of many tens of thousands of people on his hands, and his empowerment, his success in removing the ISIS problem that he has, will be one of the disadvantages of destroying ISIS. Third is Iran and Hezbollah. Iran and Hezbollah are waging war against ISIS today, and embody a greater long-term threat to the United States than ISIS. Keep in mind that Hezbollah killed hundreds of marines during the Reagan administration in Lebanon. Hezbollah and Iran, in working together, have conducted operations on a variety of different continents. There is all this talk about how there are numbers of people fighting with ISIS who have American passports, and they might come back and conduct an operation. There are those who are fighting with ISIS who have European passports who could go to Europe and conduct an operation. That is ``might.'' Iran and Hezbollah have been conducting operations in South America, Europe, Asia for decades, and Iran came close to effectuating an assassination right here in Washington, D.C., just within the last decade. So, yes, it would be good to destroy ISIS, but let's not kid ourselves. Those who would be empowered by that destruction include entities nearly as evil and probably more dangerous than ISIS itself. I bring up this complexity to argue against those who wonder why we didn't just lash out immediately. Why do we need caution? We need caution because the situation is not as simple as an old Western movie where you have the good guy in a white hat and the bad guy in a black hat, and if the bad guy gets killed, there is peace and unity, and life is wonderful and restored, and the good cowboy in the white hat rides off into the sunset with the schoolmarm. Al-Nusra is not a schoolmarm. Hezbollah is not a schoolmarm. Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The Middle East is not nearly as simple as the President's detractors pretend. I look forward to doing something that Members of Congress don't necessarily look forward to doing, and that is taking responsibility and casting tough votes, but if we are going to be true to the Constitution, we will not allow to stay on the books in its present form a 2001 resolution that was adopted in the immediate aftermath of the terrible events that occurred 13 years ago today. We will not allow that statement to be twisted and stretched and applied to situations well beyond its description. We will, instead, do what the Constitution requires of us, and that is to define: What is the President authorized to do, under these circumstances, for the goals that we have this decade and at this time? Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the effective action and wise caution shown by the President of the United States with regard to ISIS. We were all disgusted by the beheading of American journalists and alarmed by ISIS' early military successes. Those who oversimplify the Middle East focus exclusively on the evils of ISIS and demand its immediate destruction without sufficient examination of the costs and the effects. The President recognizes that the situation calls for action but that its complexity also calls for caution. He has ordered over 150 airstrikes, which have punished ISIS, killing hundreds of its fighters and securing military victories at Mosul Dam, protecting the Yazidi minority, protecting our Kurdish allies, and protecting the Shiite Turkmen, four important military victories. And, just as importantly, we have pushed back ISIS and prevented its further expansion in Iraq. Yet, the simpleminded argue that all of our problems in the Middle East would disappear if only we had a President with a different personality. Or they assume that ISIS can be destroyed immediately without any American boots on the ground. The ground forces necessary to destroy ISIS immediately, that deployment would involve hundreds, if not thousands, of American casualties. Even if we had a victory over ISIS that was swift, our forces would be the ones on the ground. We would then be viewed as responsible for providing security, which would require a prolonged presence. Now, some fantasize that Turkey or Saudi Arabia or somebody else-- just not us--will be willing to deploy ground forces and suffer major casualties. Well, keep in mind that Turkey and Saudi Arabia weren't willing to suffer any casualties to destroy Saddam Hussein in our final war against him, and that these two Sunni nations hate some of the enemies of ISIS as much they hate ISIS. If there are going to be troops on the ground, they will not just magically appear from others in the region. The greatest flaw in the simple thinking is to focus exclusively on whom we want to destroy without asking who will be empowered by such destruction. Who are the enemies of ISIS that ISIS is fighting today? Who would step into the vacuum if ISIS were rapidly destroyed? Four entities: the al-Nusra front, ISIS' chief rival in Syria. The al-Nusra front, of course, is part of al Qaeda. Second, Assad, who has killed over 191,000 of his own people. Third, the extremist Shiite militias and perhaps former Prime Minister Maliki. These are forces that killed hundreds of Americans last decade. And fourth, Hezbollah and its patron Iran, who killed hundreds of Americans in Lebanon in 1983 and also killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq last decade. Now, there is constant discussion that ISIS might have the ability to conduct operations outside the Middle East, perhaps against us. Hezbollah and Iran have killed hundreds of people in actions in Asia, South America, Africa, and Europe. So let us be clear: those who will take power if ISIS is swept aside are nearly as evil as ISIS. Let us applaud a President who has taken decisive action, acted with caution, achieved significant military victories, and done it all without a single American casualty. Finally, there is the issue of Congress. What is our role? Some think that our role is to dodge tough votes, leave town next week, and stay away until Veterans Day, all without voting on what America is doing in the Middle East. Unfortunately, we ought to do our job. The War Powers Act allows the President to act for 60 or 90 days. After that, if Congress refuses to act, the President either has to violate the Constitution or summon Congress back and hope that we do our job. We ought to pass a resolution authorizing air operations for a significant period of time while not expanding the President's limited rights to deploy ground forces. We ask our pilots to do their job. We in Congress should do ours. Let's consider a War Powers Act resolution. Let's take the tough vote.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Given that, how can it be said that it is a good use of Congress' time to pass some formal resolution attacking the President for not applying to this situation a code section so infirm? I think that what we are doing today is dodging the real responsibility of Congress. We are engaged now in bombing ISIS. The Constitution says that Congress should play a role in making that decision. Many of our colleagues would prefer to dodge the issue. It is safer to attack the President for what he did in the past than to participate in the decisions of the future. We should be dealing with an authorization to utilize military force against ISIS. We should be debating the term that that applies. We should be debating whether it applies to airpower alone or whether, under some circumstances, we should have boots on the ground. But, no, we are not dealing with that. That is too tough a vote. That is a vote on which members of both parties might disagree. Instead, we are playing around with this resolution.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are here to consider a technical violation of section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act. A fair reading of that section would indicate that it is drafted and focused on gratuitous prisoner releases, the many occasions prior to the adoption of that section when the prior administration or this administration chose to release a prisoner. When applied to the situation for which it was drafted, it is a practical and fully constitutional provision. It is practical because it involves a 30-day delay in release of a prisoner where there is no particular hurry to release the prisoner. We release the prisoner 30 days after the notice; we make the decision to release the prisoner; the prisoner is released; and it gives Congress 30 days to perhaps pass a law prohibiting such release. I believe it is constitutional because it doesn't interfere with the Commander in Chief's ability to safeguard and protect the soldiers under his command. Now there is an attempt to criticize the President for not following this statute when it is applied to a situation for which it was not drafted and when it is applied in such a way where it becomes incredibly impractical, perhaps impossible, and constitutionally questionable. We have had prisoner exchanges in every war we have fought, and they have been implemented by the executive branch. Even in World War II, we had prisoner exchanges before the end of the war. Now, as a practical matter, if you have a 30-day delay in effectuating a prisoner exchange, it is not just the U.S. Government that has 30 days to think about whether to go through with the decision. You also give the enemy 30 days to think about it. And the hard-liners within the enemy's council can eliminate the deal. So it is impractical, especially if it was a good deal. Now, this may not have been a good deal, but there may come a time when we have negotiated a very good, favorable-to-America prisoner exchange. And this provision would say it is prevented not by decisions of the Congress or the President, but by decisions made by our enemy in their council. But, second, a prisoner exchange returns to the United States a soldier under the command and protection of the Commander in Chief. He has a constitutional duty to protect and hopefully return home safely our soldiers. When you create a circumstance that makes it practically impossible to have a prisoner exchange because in order to have one you have to give the hard-liners within the enemy's council an ability to upset it, then you have, I believe, unconstitutionally interfered with the role of the Commander in Chief. We tell our Commander in Chief to bring as many as possible of our men and women home safely. We cannot at the same time, in effect, prohibit any prisoner exchange with which the enemy hard-liners may disagree. Now, I am not here to praise the Bergdahl decision. I think I disagree with it; I know I disagree with it. But I am here to say that this was a code section not designed to apply to the situation, cannot practically be applied to this situation, and is constitutionally questionable as applied to this situation.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. So many have spoken on this floor in favor of states' rights. A majority of Americans live in States in which medical marijuana is legal, and yet we have this bizarre circumstance where these have to be all cash businesses. The result, as the gentleman from Colorado points out, is tax evasion--or potentiality for tax evasion-- and also an invitation to crime--violent street crime--as people figure out how they can invade with guns a store that is licensed by my State or his State and try to steal huge quantities of cash. It is absolutely absurd to tell people that they cannot use medical marijuana when they are in physical pain and they live in a State where that is allowed, and it is even more absurd to have to keep millions of dollars of cash there for the possible criminal taking because we have businesses that are actually operating that are outside the banking system.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SHERMAN. So much of what we do on this floor is so partisan, going over the same old issues. I bring to you an amendment that I cowrote with the Chamber of Commerce which deals with an issue that has not yet been discussed on this floor. The Financial Accounting Standards Board is funded by the SEC through a convoluted process designed to claim that they are not a government agency, but they are funded by a mandatory tax, and if you don't follow their prescriptions, you can, indeed, face criminal, as well as civil, penalties. If it is not broke, don't fix it. For 100 years, we had good rules on how to account for leases. The tenant pays rent, the owner of the building owns the building, and the financial statements disclose in the footnotes all the details any financial analyst would want to see. Since it is not broke, the folks at the Financial Accounting Standards Board have decided to fix it. They want to list on every balance sheet in America the future amount that will be paid in all lease payments as a liability. The effect of that is to increase the liabilities shown on the balance sheets of American business by $2 trillion. That is right, this is a $2 trillion issue that has not yet been discussed on this floor. The Financial Accounting Standards Board has done some outreach and taken some testimony. By the standards of the accounting world, they have listened. But by the standards of democracy that we are familiar with, trust me, far more is done before you permit a single three-story apartment building. Mr. Chairman, almost 70 Members of Congress have urged the Financial Accounting Standards Board to stop. They keep going. They want to act in concert with the European International Accounting Standards Board, and that board is beholden to the European Parliament in Brussels. That is right. Those who, in effect, enact American law are not listening to Congress; they are listening to the only Parliament in the world held in lower esteem than Congress. What will be the effect on our economy? Well, this will add $2 trillion to the balance sheet liabilities of American businesses. It will put a tremendous disincentive on businesses to sign long-term leases. If your tenant won't sign a long-term lease, you can't fund a new building project, a new shopping center, or a new industrial park. So that is why an economic study funded by the American Association of Realtors, the Economic Roundtable, the Business Owners and Management Association, and others says that the best-case scenario is that this will destroy 190,000 American jobs and reduce our GDP by almost $28 billion a year. The worst-case scenario is over 3 million jobs and nearly half a trillion dollars decline in our GDP. It is time for us to tell the Financial Accounting Standards Board not to go down this road in an effort to fix something that isn't broken. It is time, also, to focus on an additional disadvantage of this accounting proposal, and that is it will cause tens of thousands-- hundreds of thousands--of businesses in this country to be in violation of their loan covenants, which means that they will have to immediately pay off their liabilities or renegotiate with their bankers, who will insist upon higher personal guaranties and higher interest rates, et cetera. Thousands and thousands of long-term bonds that have been sold in the public market will be held to be in violation of their loan covenants and will become immediately due--not because the businesses were wrong, but because the accounting standards changed. Now, I have often thought that accounting principles ought to be written by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and not by Congress. I am clinging to that belief. As I see this disaster unfold in the preliminary--in the discussions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, it is harder and harder to cling to that belief. But I still retain hope that the accounting standards board will change direction and will not adopt this new policy, which solves no problem and which will add $2 trillion to the liabilities of American business and cost us hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Mr. Chairman, because I am hopeful that they will change course, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 40th anniversary of the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus and to call for the end to Turkey's continued and illegal occupation. The Greek Cypriot community continues to struggle and face the denial of its fundamental human rights. Turkish troops and colonists from mainland Turkey based in the occupied area prevent thousands of Greek Cypriots from returning to their homes, and those who chose to stay in the occupied region face daily threats and discrimination. Their properties are often confiscated or sold without their consent. They face daily religious persecution, as Turkish troops restrict access to and destroy religious sites, and constrain freedom of worship. Turkey continues to obstruct attempts to discover the fate of military and civilian personnel who have been unaccounted for since the invasion 40 years ago Turkey has prevented the exhumation of mass graves in its restricted military areas, even under the offer of U.N. supervision. Fortunately, Cyprus's government continues in its commitment to a U.N.-sponsored process to reach a lasting solution that would create a bizonal, bicommunal federation respectful of the human rights of all Cypriots, Greek or Turkish. Last year, President Anastasiades proposed several measures which would significantly contribute to the negotiating process, and recently, the leaders of both Cypriot communities issued a Joint Statement which lays a strong foundation for future talks. The United States has welcomed both of these developments as crucial steps toward a lasting solution. Regrettably, the Turkish government has not only rejected all of these proposals, but also exercises ``gunboat diplomacy'' to interfere with legal oil and gas explorations in the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Forty years is too long for a people to be denied their basic rights. It is too long to be separated from one's family and one's home. It is time to make Cyprus an example of reconciliation, peace, and stability for the eastern Mediterranean, and for the international community at- large.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I regrettably missed votes on Tuesday July 8, 2014. I was in Los Angeles tending to my mother recovering from surgery. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 369 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 370, the Social Media Working Group Act of 2014 and the Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Act.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished service of His Excellency Tatoul Markarian, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Armenia to the United States of America. His Excellency Dr. Markarian is completing his term as Ambassador to the United States after nine years of service. Dr. Markarian has been a crucial figure in fostering relations between Armenia and the United States. As Armenian Ambassador to the United States, Dr. Markarian has been credited with creating closer ties with the United States by coordinating visits between the two countries' government officials and diplomats. He has been instrumental in securing increased humanitarian assistance from the U.S. to both Armenia and Artsakh, two struggling economies that are in great need of economic support. This has been highlighted by Armenia becoming a competitive potential candidate for Millennium Challenge Corporation funding, which aims to reduce widespread poverty and strengthen infrastructure. Ambassador Markarian has also been largely responsible for coordinating improved bilateral talks between both countries, through the U.S.-Armenia Economic Task Force and Strategic Dialogue. Dr. Markarian has had a long career in public service. He served in the Republic of Armenia's legislative and executive branches at a crucial time, during the Republic's early years, first as assistant to the Vice Chairman of the newly created Armenian parliament, then as an advisor to the Vice President of Armenia and Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister. During his tenure as Ambassador to the United States he concurrently serves as the Ambassador to Mexico. I commend his Excellency Dr. Markarian on his service and accomplishments. His service has strengthened the relationship between Armenia and America. I wish the best for him, his wife, and three sons in their future endeavors.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to address issues in the Middle East. The President has been criticized for the fact that we do not have a large residual force in Iraq and that we do not have a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi Government. Let us take note that it was President George Bush who installed Prime Minister Maliki in May of 2006. President George Bush's decision to allow Maliki to take power and to allow him to keep power is directly responsible for most of the woes facing Iraq today. Maliki was so malevolent that, throughout 2006, 2007, and 2008, he refused to enter into a long-term status of forces agreement with the United States and with President Bush. He insisted that any troops that remained in Iraq after 2011 would be subject to Iraqi kangaroo courts and could be executed on trumped-up charges. Obviously, we couldn't leave our troops in Iraq under those circumstances. It is Maliki that is the source of the problem, and it is President Bush that is the source of Maliki. To say that President Obama should be able to negotiate a long-term agreement with Maliki when President Bush was unable to do so is utterly absurd. As to Sergeant Bergdahl, it is important for us to note that, while we have just released five prisoners from Guantanamo, President Bush released over 500 from Guantanamo, and virtually all of them were dangerous. Over 100 of them are on the battlefield--and we know where on the battlefield they are--waging war against the United States and its allies. Most of the other 500 are also waging war against us; it is just that our intelligence isn't good enough to say exactly where on the battlefield they are located. What did President Bush get for the release, not of five, but 500 dangerous prisoners from Guantanamo? Nothing, except a thank you from their native governments. Now, on legal issues, we are told that section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act required President Obama not to release the five prisoners until 30 days after he notified Congress. Even if he had followed those exact words, instead of releasing the five a few hours after Sergeant Bergdahl was in our hands, we would have released them a few weeks after Sergeant Bergdahl was back in our hands, hardly of great significance. More importantly, the President has the constitutional right, as Commander in Chief, to engage in prisoner exchanges. In fact, the last Republican Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey, said that very thing just recently. The President was on firm legal ground in deciding he had the authority to take this action without a 30-day notification of Congress. That being said, it would have been preferable if President Obama had, in fact, discussed the matter with key congressional leaders. America is strongest when the President views Congress as a source of counsel, a source of advice, rather than a group of enemies to be notified only when such notification is explicitly compelled by congressionally valid statutes. Whether this deal is a good deal, time will tell. It was a judgment call, but the President could have benefited from the counsel of Congress. It is particularly insulting for some to say that Congress is not a source of counsel, but just a source of leaks. Keep in mind that 16 congressional leaders knew that we had ascertained the hiding place of Osama bin Laden, and that information did not leak from Congress. I hope, in the future, President Obama and future Presidents consult key Members of Congress when making a difficult decision. We are told that we don't negotiate with terrorists. Nothing could be further from the truth. President Bush negotiated with each and every terrorist regime, each and every identified state sponsor of terrorism--Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria, North Korea. The Bush administration paid a ransom to an al Qaeda affiliate for the release of Martin and Gracia Burnham. Secretary Colin Powell designated the Afghan Taliban as an organization authorized for legal negotiations. Now, it is also said that a prisoner exchange alerts our enemies to the fact that we value our prisoners, that we will not want to leave anyone on the battlefield, as if this is news disclosed to the world in June of 2014. The fact is we have always valued those detained by the enemy, and the enemy has always known that.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, with regard to my votes on the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act: I voted for and helped pass the Grayson amendment, confident that as the bill proceeds, a sophisticated, nuanced, and balanced reporter shield provision will be inserted in lieu of the current text of the amendment. The rules and traditions of the House require that amendments to appropriations bills offered on the floor conform to strict rules that preclude balanced and detailed formulation. The Conference Committee will have the latitude needed to insert a balanced reporter shield provision and I will urge such an approach. Additionally, I voted for final passage with the assumption that certain problematic provisions would be removed in Conference Committee. I am pleased that we can move forward with the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and expect that upon passage in the Senate, the Conference Committee will improve the bill.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 132, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, 26 years ago today was the first day in a three-day pogrom perpetrated against the Armenian residents of Sumgait in then-Soviet Azerbaijan. Although official figures reported 30 deaths, it is believed that hundreds were murdered and injured as a result of the pogrom. Just a week before the violence erupted, the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh voted to unify region with Armenia--the beginning of the Karabakh movement. In the days immediately after this vote Azeri civilians and local officials in the city of Sumgait held rallies calling for ``death to Armenians''. On the night of February 27, 1988, Armenian residents in Sumgait were targeted and indiscriminately raped, mutilated and murdered. Calls for help from Armenians were ignored by local police and city officials. Journalists were shut out from the area. The violence raged on for three days before Soviet troops were able to put an end to the pogrom. Witnesses of the horrific massacres later testified that the attacks were planned, as civilians had gathered weapons and the exits of the cities were blocked in advance to prevent Armenians from escaping. The homes of Armenians were marked so that the Azeri mobs could easily target them. Unfortunately, the perpetrators of the pogrom succeeded in their ultimate goal--driving out Armenians. Fearing more violence, Armenians fled Sumgait. Later that year, another anti-Armenian pogrom occurred in Kirovabad, Azerbaijan from November 21st to 27th, which also forced hundreds of Armenians to flee the region. In January of 1990 violent mobs targeted the Armenian community of Azerbaijan's capital, Baku. I would like to honor the memory of Armenians killed in the pogroms of Sumgait, Kirovabad, and Baku. If we hope to stop future massacres, we must acknowledge these horrific events and ensure they do not happen again. This month also marked the 10th anniversary of the heinous murder of Armenian Army Lieutenant Gurgen Margaryan at a NATO training camp in Budapest, by Ramil Safarov, a Lieutenant of the Azerbaijani Army. Safarov used an axe to hack Margaryan to death while he was sleeping. After being convicted of murder by Hungarian courts, he was transferred to Azerbaijan where he was immediately pardoned and given a hero's welcome. Several Azerbaijan government officials have hailed Safarov's actions as patriotism. This is unacceptable, and the international community should hold Azerbaijan accountable for this. Recognizing the ethnic-cleansing of the Armenians from Azerbaijan is an important step. However, we need to do more--we need to demonstrate to Azerbaijan that the United States is committed to peace and to the protection of Artsakh from coercion. We must call for an end to all threats and acts of coercion by Azerbaijan's government against the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh. Congress should strengthen Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act by removing the President's ability to waive U.S. law prohibiting aid to Azerbaijan because of its continuing blockade against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. In 1992, Congress prohibited aid to Azerbaijan because of its continuing blockade against Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. However, in 2001, Congress approved a waiver to this provision and administrations have used the waiver since then to provide aid to Baku. Azerbaijan should not be provided aid from the United States as long as they continue a policy of threats and blockades against Artsakh. I urge the Administration to remove all barriers to broad-based U.S.- Nagorno-Karabakh governmental and civil society communication, travel and cooperation.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am here with the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee. She and I represent a city built in the desert suffering from a drought. We interrupted our rain prayer meeting to come here and to talk about how flood insurance is critical to the national interest. We should not burden our economy with a situation in which people can't buy their home, sell a home, live in their home. It is time for us to defeat the previous question motion and take up on the floor of this House a bill that had overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, that has 182 cosponsors here in the House. It is time to stop partisan wrangling and deal with bipartisan legislation critical to homeowners from one coast to the other, and yes, a few in Los Angeles as well.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The political pundits are all focused on was this a good deal, was this a bad deal. But we're not here in Congress to give a grade to the administration. We are here in Congress to decide what legislation should be passed. Congress is a policymaking body, although so often those in the administration think that we are, at most, advisers or critics; but let us take a look at this deal, and we'll see that what we get out of this is at least overstated by its proponents. Because we are told that this halts their enrichment of uranium. It is true that it limits their 20 percent uranium; and Iran will not be making progress during the 6-month period of this deal toward its first bomb, but they will be making very substantial progress toward their eighth, ninth, and 10th bomb. And Iran is not a nuclear power until they have some to hide, one or two to test. It is not their objective to have but one, because throughout this agreement it is very clear the centrifuges keep spinning, the amount of low enriched uranium keeps growing; but we're told that Iran will not be increasing its stockpile. If you read the agreement, yes, they will, but they have to convert to uranium oxide metal, that which they produced during the term of this agreement. There are some proponents of the agreement that say, Well, that means that they are neutralizing all that they produce under the agreement. That is hardly true. I have been the chair or ranking member of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee since it was created in the early part of this century, and I have worked with the nonproliferation experts. The fact is that this uranium oxide, this huge new additional stockpile to be created over the next 6 months can be converted back to gaseous form and then enriched further. And converting it back to gaseous form will take only a couple of weeks. So this agreement provides that Iran makes substantial progress toward more low-enriched uranium, building its stockpile toward a real collection of nuclear bombs. We are also told that we have given up very little in this agreement. We have given up far more than you can find in the text because the most important thing about our sanctions is momentum. And we passed additional sanctions in 2010, 2011, 2012; and, if hadn't been for this agreement, the Senate would have passed the bill that we worked on in the summer, and we would have passed additional sanctions in 2013. The content of those sanctions is important, but even more important is the momentum. If you are a multinational corporation, you can find a law firm that will find loopholes in our existing sanctions, but you will decide not to invest a lot into that business plan because you know Congress is going to pass more sanctions. Well, now you know we are not passing any sanctions in 2013; and the question before us, as legislators, is whether we will be passing sanctions in 2014. Why is momentum so important not just to those international businesses trying to decide whether to invest in exploiting the loopholes? Most of economics is psychology. It is currency values. It is consumer confidence. It is business confidence. It is investment. And we saw the celebrations in Tehran as the business community celebrated this agreement because it ends the continuing momentum toward additional sanctions. But we are not here, again, to grade the administration. That is for pollsters and pundits. We are here to decide whether to pass legislation. It is very clear we are not going to pass legislation that becomes effective in 2013. The question before us is whether we will pass legislation which, by its terms, becomes effective June 1, 2014. And the reason the administration sent some of its top officials to brief us in a classified briefing today is because they want to convince us not to take any action in the first 5 or 6 months of 2014. Well, what does that mean? That means, in effect, we are not going to take action in 2014. Why is that? Most people think that this deal expires in late May, 6 months after it was adopted on November 24, 2013. That is not the case. The start date is some day to be determined sometime probably in late January. So if we, as a Congress, are convinced not to take any action, not to pass any legislation, not to go through the committee process and the markup until after this agreement has terminated, we are talking about late July. Well, at the end of July, we go on break. We come back for, what, 2 or 3 weeks between then and the November elections. So if the administration can convince us to not do anything until 6 months after the trigger date, which is a date to be determined sometime in January, they can assure the Iranians that no new sanctions will be adopted in 2014. And that will be apparent to those doing business in Iran and those doing business with Iran. The administration complimented us more than once, saying these sanctions are what brought Iran to the table, but let us remember that the administration opposed the adoption of these sanctions every single time. The reason we did not adopt any sanctions against Iran in 2009 was because of opposition from the administration and the tremendous intellectual clout and credibility that the State Department and administration bring. But it is not just this administration. We didn't pass any sanctions during the entire 8 years of the prior administration. Oh, we passed some through the House, but they stopped them in the Senate, and with considerable effort. Not one bill became law. So we have seen two administrations do their best to delay, dilute, prevent, and defeat sanctions legislation. So now they say, Isn't it great we have this legislation, but don't pass any new legislation. Let us remember, we were against the legislation they now say is so great. The best example of this is the Kirk-Menendez amendment in 2011. That was the bill that prevented Iran's central bank from clearing their petroleum dollar-denominated transactions through the American banking system. Well, what did the administration say in the form of a letter from Secretary Geithner? He wrote on December 1, 2011: ``I am writing to express the administration's strong opposition to this amendment because, in its current form, it threatens to undermine the effective'' sanctions. ``In addition, the amendment would potentially yield a net economic benefit to the Iranian regime.'' There is only one reason Iran is at the table today. It is because of the sanctions we have adopted the last 3 years. And the most important of those was the Menendez-Kirk sanctions that the administration fought against. What we ought to do is adopt legislation providing additional sanctions. And we have already written them. We passed the bill in June, with 400 votes on this floor. We should have those sanctions--and I would think others--go into effect on June 1, unless Congress, in an expedited proceeding, passes a resolution saying, Hold off. We've seen enough progress. These sanctions don't need to go into force. Instead, and the other choice, we can do nothing on the theory that we will do the right thing in the last few days of July, as if Congress turns on a dime, as if the State Department has been unsuccessful in delaying, defeating, and diluting sanctions in the past. That, I think, would be a mistake. With that, I would point out that this deal calls for a rollback of sanctions that violates American law in a number of respects. It will not be the first time that an administration has refused to enforce the sanctions bills passed by Congress. I will say that from 2010 through 2013 this administration has done a much better job of enforcing such legislation than either of the prior two administrations. But as a technical matter, the administration has agreed to waive that which the law does not allow it to waive, particularly section 504. And I will go into the details in some other forum.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Work Group Act of 2013, I note that Sec 2 (b) implicitly calls for reductions in direct spending programs, but does not authorize the working group to consider additional revenue.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend Joyce Black, who passed away on Friday, October 4, 2013. I wish I could be at the funeral today to be with her husband Stanley and the rest of her family, but my congressional responsibilities keep me in Washington. Joyce lived a truly remarkable life. She was involved with numerous charitable and civic organizations, including the American Diabetes Association, City of Hope, Stop Cancer, Vista Del Mar, Israel Bonds, the Jewish Federation, the L.A. Jewish Home, the L.A. Opera, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, and the Temple of the Arts. In fact, earlier this month, Joyce and Stanley made a special donation to Children's Hospital Los Angeles that will fund research and clinical care programs at the hospital. Joyce was devoted to providing the best medical care to our children. I extend my sincerest condolences to Stanley, her son Jack, and daughters Jill and Janis. Married for 57 years, Stanley and Joyce's partnership was truly inspirational. Joyce leaves behind a remarkable legacy of kindness and generosity that will impact not only those who were lucky enough to meet her, but future generations to come.