Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would ask that this exchange of letters between myself and Chairman Filner and Chairman Skelton regarding H. Res. 1672 be submitted.

Congress of the United States, Committee on Foreign

Affairs, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, November 15, 2010.

Hon. Ike Skelton,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.

Res. 1672, commemorating the Persian Gulf War and reaffirming

the commitment of the United States toward Persian Gulf War

veterans. This measure was referred to the Committee on

Foreign Affairs, in addition to the Committee on Armed

Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as

fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

I agree that the Committee on Armed Services has certain

valid jurisdictional claims to this resolution, and I

appreciate your decision to waive further consideration of H.

Res. 1672 in the interest of expediting consideration of this

important measure. I understand that by agreeing to waive

further consideration, the Committee on Armed Services is not

waiving its jurisdictional claims over similar measures in

the future.

During consideration of this measure on the House floor, I

will ask that this exchange of letters be included for the

record.

Sincerely,

Howard L. Berman,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Gemstone Foundation, a not-for-profit organization in my home state of California working to improve reading skills of low-performing students.

The Gemstone Foundation's work is based on the theory that many students with poor or below grade level reading skills suffer from low ``eye-brain coordination''. Their research shows that children who read below grade level often have problems with coordinating the two eyes, tracking and scanning, or re-focusing their eyes rapidly. Most students' eyes glide across a page as they read without difficulty; however, up to 50 percent of poor readers experience one of the problems Gemstone identified. This may prevent those readers from being able to finish reading a line without stopping or skipping, significantly impairing their reading and comprehension.

Through an innovative, computer- and Internet-based course, Gemstone helps people who demonstrate ocular discrepancies to train their eye muscles, improving their reading abilities. In 2009, the foundation used ARRA grant funding from the National Institutes of Health to complete a pilot project of their technique at a Los Angeles Unified School District campus. Low performing elementary school students who participated in the project, called ``The Eyes Have It!'', demonstrated an average 25 percent improvement in reading fluency in just two months.

I applaud the Gemstone Foundation for their special focus on helping people who otherwise would not have access to visual skill development programs: children in low-income or low-performing schools; juvenile offenders; and people in adult literacy programs. I commend the foundation and its board members for their work and encourage my colleagues to learn more about it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill

(S. 3847) to implement certain defense trade cooperation treaties, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise

and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, the Security Cooperation Act of 2010, has three major components. First, it includes implementing legislation for the defense trade treaties between the United States and two of our closest allies, the United Kingdom and Australia, respectively. These treaties will support the longstanding special relationship shared by the U.S., the United Kingdom, and Australia by streamlining the processes for transferring certain controlled items among our items to support combined military and counterterrorism operations, cooperative security and research, and other defense projects. The implementing legislation also provides a clear statutory basis for enforcement of the treaties, including the prosecution of those who violate their requirements.

Second, S. 3847 gives Israel the same status as our NATO allies Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea with regard to the length of the congressional review period for U.S. arms sales. The security relationship between the U.S. and Israel is vital and strong, and Israel deserves the same treatment as these other nations.

Finally, this bill authorizes the transfer by grant and sale of excess naval vessels to India, Greece, Chile, Morocco, and Taiwan to better assist them with their legitimate defense needs, and in so doing strengthens our relationship with these nations.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1326) calling on the Government of Japan to immediately address the growing problem of abduction to and retention of United States citizen minor children in Japan, to work closely with the Government of the United States to return these children to their custodial parent or to the original jurisdiction for a custody determination in the United States, to provide left-behind parents immediate access to their children, and to adopt without delay the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of this resolution. It is a bipartisan resolution, and if I might just take a second to mention that the two real leaders in the movement to this resolution and in pushing the underlying issue, a very important one, Mr. Moran of Virginia and Mr. Smith of New Jersey, are on the floor, both I believe to speak on this resolution.

What it does is it addresses the abduction of American citizen children to Japan, as you might imagine, a very, very important issue for the families involved and for the governments of both the United States and Japan.

Japan is a vital partner and a friend of the United States, but on the issue of international parental child abduction our two countries's viewpoints are substantially different and progress has been painfully slow. Once American children are abducted to Japan, the left-behind parents have little or no access to them, even though their children are dual U.S. and Japanese citizens. Currently there are 136 U.S. citizen children abducted to and held in Japan.

Japan is the only G-7 country that is not a signatory to the Hague Convention that governs international parental child abduction. We urge the Japanese government to ratify the convention as quickly as possible.

The Japanese government also needs to create a process to resolve existing cases of American children who are being held in Japan against the wishes of their parents in the United States, and in many cases in direct violation of a valid U.S. court order. Steps need to be taken immediately to help facilitate dialogue, visitation, and greater access for the left-behind parents with their children.

Our children are the most important and cherished resource, and it is a tragedy for everyone involved when they are taken away and denied access to one of their parents. These children have a right to enjoy the love of both parents and the benefits of both their Japanese and American cultures.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to subsection (c)(2)(C) of House Resolution 1493, ``Sense of the House on Deficit Reduction,'' requesting Committees of the House of Representatives to submit findings which identify changes in law that would help achieve deficit reduction by reducing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement and which promote efficiency and reform of government and control spending in programs under committee jurisdiction, I submit this report. It includes an accounting of Committee legislation that: (a) has been enacted into law; (b) has been passed by the House and/or considered by the Committee; or (c) is presently being drafted in Committee under my direction. In each case I have ensured that legislation accomplishes, or will accomplish, the objectives called for the Budget Enforcement Resolution.

Enacted Legislation

The Committee reported out the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2009 (H.R. 1886), which streamlined and developed tighter benchmarks and accountability measures for the substantial American economic and military assistance being provided to the Government of Pakistan. In conference with the Senate, this bill was passed as the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, which became Public Law 111-73.

Passed by the House

On June 4, 2009, the Committee reported H.R. 2410, authorizing appropriations for the Department of State and the Peace Corps for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, and to modernize the Foreign Service and other international affairs-related programs and agencies.

Title II, Section 211, of the legislation requires the Secretary of State to improve coordination among all the various efforts within the government to conduct public diplomacy.

Section 216 reauthorizes an Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy charged with conducting an in-depth review of public diplomacy programs, policies, and activities to assess their effectiveness.

Section 302 of the legislation directs the development of a national review of diplomacy and development every four years in order to make policies and programs more effective and efficient.

Section 303 authorizes the establishment of a Lessons Learned Center in order to provide support for best practices in our diplomacy and development efforts.

The legislation also contains such cost savings proposals as limiting compensatory time off for travel by Foreign Service Officers and providing for the suspension of Foreign Service Officers without pay.

Title VIII of the legislation, entitled ``Export Control Reform And Security Assistance,'' includes:

Section 828 which require the Secretary to present plans to make defense trade licensing self-financing.

Section 807, permits the Secretary to use registration fees for licensing functions currently supported by appropriated funds.

Section 826 grants the President the flexibility to remove satellites and related components from the munitions list, thus reducing licensing costs for these items.

Title IX, ``Actions To Enhance the Merida Initiative,'' requires the President to establish and implement a program to assess the effectiveness of assistance provided under the Merida Initiative.

Legislation Introduced

The Committee introduced the Initiating Foreign Assistance Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 2139) that requires the Administration to develop a National Strategy for Global Development which would define and streamline the roles of each department and agency engaged in development policies. It includes a provision that requires the development and implementation of a rigorous system to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of United States foreign assistance.

Legislation Being Drafted

The Committee has also begun work on two major legislative reforms:

The first is an extensive effort to rewrite the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The purpose of the overhaul is to increase the accountability, transparency and effectiveness of foreign aid programs, which are currently fragmented across 12 departments, 25 different agencies, and nearly 60 government offices. In so doing, I hope to clear away many of the inefficiencies and program duplications which have developed since the last major re-write of the legislation in 1985.

The current system of unclear mandates, fragmented authorities, overlapping responsibilities, antiquated rules and tortuous procedures hampers our ability to deliver aid to the people who need it at the lowest possible cost. One lesson of the 1990s is that reductions in force at USAID did not result in improved efficiency. Instead, a specialized and experienced federal workforce was largely replaced by a contractor bureaucracy that operates at higher cost and with less accountability. Another lesson was that elimination of the USAID office that conducted program monitoring and evaluation seriously hindered our ability to assess the performance of our aid programs and share and replicate best practices. When resource allocations are made without the benefit of quantitative program indicators and rigorous impact evaluations, there is little basis for determining which activities and approaches are most effective and where the needs are greatest. Both H.R. 2139 and the foreign aid reform bill currently being drafted contain mandatory requirements for monitoring and evaluation of all foreign assistance programs.

The second is a redraft of legislation under the Export Administration Act of 1979 to reauthorize, streamline and update the Act to ensure that it is responsive to both current security threats and the international commercial environment in which U.S. firms must compete.

The staff draft of the export administration legislation includes two provisions requiring a periodic independent evaluation of the system. One provision would require evaluations of the effectiveness of export controls in protecting U.S. national security and would require the evaluations, with recommendations for improvements, to be sent directly to the President and Congress. The second provision would require an evaluation of the effectiveness of U.S. diplomacy in engaging with the four multilateral export control organizations. These would be the first systemic evaluations of U.S. export controls and our diplomacy regarding controls. They would contribute to modernization of the current system, which is widely judged to be falling behind in its mission.

On a related point, the Committee staff is engaged in oversight of both the Export Administration Regulations (dual-use) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (munitions) to strengthen the effectiveness of regulations, licensing and enforcement. Such oversight led to enactment of a provision in the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act (P.L. 111-195) to strengthen the enforcement authority of the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security.

Separate from the preceding, the Committee staff is drafting legislation that would provide the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee with new authority over agencies' programs and budgets. The draft legislation would require coordination of the federal government's 17 export promotion programs, to more effectively deploy existing budgetary and staffing resources to increase U.S. exports. The bill also would require a reallocation of resources in the U.S. Commercial Service to overseas markets with potential for increased purchase of U.S. exports. The draft legislation is in response to Committee staff inquiries and a series of GAO reports that have identified significant overlap, gaps and inefficiencies in these programs.

Finally, in terms of the Committee's oversight of ongoing agency activities, Committee staff conduct assiduous review of agencies' advance notifications of grants and contracts under programs under the Committee's jurisdiction. The goal is to ensure that proposed expenditures are in line with applicable statutes, federal policy and program goals. Proposed expenditures that raise questions are examined and then blocked if found to be inappropriate. As an example, in August, Committee staff urged the Trade and Development Agency to reconsider a proposed contract for technical services that could be provided more cost-effectively by federal employees. The agency did so and cancelled the proposed contract.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in 4 months we are debating a resolution under the War Powers Act. I welcome congressional scrutiny of the commitment of U.S. forces abroad, and I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's effort to focus attention on one of the most sacred duties of Congress.

But once again, I have to take issue with the invocation of Section 5(c) of the War Powers Act as the basis for this debate. That section authorizes a privileged resolution, like the one before us today, to require the withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces when they are engaged in hostilities and Congress has not authorized the use of military force.

Whereas the Afghanistan war powers debate focused on whether there was an authorization for U.S. military force, here we do not even reach that question because, based on everything I know, U.S. forces are not engaged in hostilities in Pakistan.

The Wall Street Journal article distributed by my friend from Ohio refers to the U.S. military's role in training and humanitarian assistance programs in Pakistan. That's not ``engaging in hostilities.'' In fact, our Armed Forces participate in these types of programs in dozens of countries around the world.

The gentleman refers to the terrible tragedy of three U.S. forces killed by an IED. They were on a humanitarian aid mission. We have people on such missions, people involved in military training, uniformed officers, who have been killed in many different parts of the world. From that, one does not draw the conclusion that the U.S. is engaged in hostilities with enemy forces. In fact, since U.S. forces are not engaged in hostilities in Pakistan, there is no factual basis for invoking the War Powers Act.

Mr. Speaker, Pakistan is an important partner in the fight against extremism.

Last year Congress demonstrated America's long-term commitment to Pakistan by passing the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009. Any attempt to cut the military ties between our two countries would be counterproductive for our national security interest in the region.

No matter what your position on the situation in Afghanistan, whether you think we should withdraw tomorrow, shift from a counterinsurgency strategy to a counterterrorism strategy, or send in even more troops, there is no reason to automatically conclude that we should cease our efforts to help Pakistan address the dire threats to its security.

In 1990, we stopped providing military assistance and training to Pakistan for what seemed like a good reason at the time. But as a result, a whole generation of Pakistani military officers rose through the ranks without any connection or affinity with the United States, and that contributed to some of the suspicion and mistrust that we are still struggling to overcome.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Pakistan needs to step up in a number of important areas. We hope to improve cooperation on various security issues, strengthen the role of Pakistan's democratically elected government and achieve a greater parity between military and civilian assistance. The United States is aiding Pakistan because it is in our interest to ensure an economically and politically stable Pakistan does not provide sanctuary for al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

The reports in recent days that elements of the Pakistani intelligence service may have been aiding our enemies is nothing new to those of us who have been following this issue and is not a reason to abandon our many friends in Pakistan who are struggling to modernize their economy, their political system, and their military. The security forces of Pakistan are steadily taking on a Taliban-backed insurgency, taking direct action against those who threaten Pakistan's security instability, including military operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the North West Frontier Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that using the War Powers Act to call for the removal of U.S. combat forces, which do not exist, will only serve to inflame Pakistan's sensibilities and do nothing to strengthen the partnership that we need to achieve our goals in this critical region.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds in response to my friend from California's point.

The War Powers Act, I repeat again, doesn't deal with the presence of military forces without an authorization from Congress. It deals with engaging in hostilities or imminent hostilities without the authorization of Congress.

We have uniform personnel in Pakistan. They are working on the military assistance program. They are working in training Pakistani military. They are involved, as the Wall Street Journal revealed, in the delivering of humanitarian assistance in areas that are not secure enough for AID and civilian personnel to go.

The WikiLeaks documents, with all the transparency that it provided for us about what the situation is, I'm unaware of any excerpt which indicates reports of U.S. military forces engaged in hostilities in Pakistan.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to just, if I might, Mr. Speaker, respond to my friend from California who is in my neighboring district, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. He made a reference to House leadership. He couldn't understand why it was setting this for debate.

Firstly, this is a privileged resolution pursuant to the War Powers Act. That's why it is being set for debate. It is a privileged resolution. It is not up to the leadership whether or not to debate this issue unless we change the statute.

Secondly, while I disagree with my friend from Ohio about whether the requisite requirements of the War Powers Act are met--because my conclusion is we are not engaged in hostilities as that term is used in the War Powers Act--I do want to say I don't understand, when seeking oversight, when making sure that taxpayers' funds are well spent, that our troops are protected and are being well served, and that our interests are being pursued by a particular operation, why the debate of that on the House floor is evidence of not supporting the troops.

To the contrary, had we had more debate on the House floor over the past 10 years, perhaps $8 billion in military assistance to Iraq, which was lost and can't be accounted for, might not have happened.

I know one thing. Perhaps we wouldn't have given the military leader of Pakistan free rein to cut deals with Talibani groups, appeasement agreements, in various parts of Pakistan during the period prior to his removal from office. Perhaps we would

have a greater sense--and here we do have a greater sense--of knowledge of where our defense aid is going and what our military assistance is being used for than ever before, in large part, thanks to the oversight responsibilities of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. These are useful processes. They are much better than simply providing the money and then turning away until it is all over.

I commend the gentleman for using what, I think, is the wrong vehicle but the appropriate subject of having an open discussion about the wisdom of what we are doing. I think that serves our forces. I think it serves our country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues in the Congress to another successful meeting of the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue (TLD) that was held in Madrid, Spain from June 4-6, 2010. Chairwoman Shelley Berkley, yet again, showed her strong commitment to furthering the transatlantic relationship in her leadership of a bipartisan delegation, which included Vice-Chairman Jim Costa (D-CA), Vice-Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) and Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL). I wish to recognize and thank Chairwoman Berkley and the entire U.S. delegation for their contribution to a constructive dialogue with Members of the European Parliament.

The TLD is the formal response by the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress to the commitment in the New Transatlantic Agenda of 1995, which enhances legislative ties between the European Union and the United States. The TLD biannual meetings foster transatlantic discourse and encourage the exchange of views on topics of mutual interest. With the additional powers provided by the Lisbon Treaty to the European Parliament, it is more imperative now that legislators engage in this dialogue and seek joint solutions to the pressing issues that affect citizens on both sides of the Atlantic.

The most recent meeting in Madrid addressed a wide range of common challenges, including energy security and climate change, cooperation in both responding to international crises and in providing development aid, and current economic challenges within the Eurozone, the United States, and the world.

The session addressing the transatlantic response to volatile regions of the world was moderated by the Honorable Miguel Angel Moratinos, Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and current President of the EU General Affairs Council. Members discussed the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, and Cuba and stressed the need for transatlantic engagement to address these shared foreign policy interests.

There was also an extensive session on the implications of the Lisbon Treaty for Europe, the transatlantic relationship, and the TLD. The newly enhanced legislative power of the European Parliament reinforces the relevancy and importance of TLD meetings in fostering transatlantic cooperation.

In conclusion, I submit the joint statement that was agreed upon by American and European legislators at the 68th TLD meeting held in Madrid. It underscores the rich agenda of this meeting and highlights the many areas in which there was strong transatlantic agreement.

Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue 68th Meeting of Delegations

[From the European Parliament and the United States Congress, Madrid,

Spain, 3-6 June 2010, Joint Statement]

(By Shelley Berkley, Chairwoman, United States Congress Delegation; Cliff Stearns, Vice Chairman, United States Congress Delegation; Jim Costa, Vice Chairman, United States Congress Delegation; Elmar Brok, MEP, Chairman, European Parliament Delegation; Sarah Ludford, MEP, Vice

Chairwoman, European Parliament Delegation; Niki Tzavela, MEP, Vice

Chairwoman, European Parliament Delegation.)

We, the Members of the European Parliament and the United

States House of Representatives, held our 68th

Interparliamentary meeting (Transatlantic Legislators'

Dialogue) in Madrid, from 3-6 June 2010.

Building on the joint statement issued following our last

meeting in New York on 4-7 December 2009, we reasserted the

importance of regular dialogue on political, social, economic

and environmental challenges that affect all of our citizens.

We agreed to report back to our parent bodies on the content

and outcome of our discussions in Madrid, in particular in

the areas where joint efforts are likely to produce positive

outcomes.

The first experiences with the Lisbon treaty, and the

enhanced powers it gives to the European Parliament, were

evaluated and we concluded that this emphasizes the need for

continued and expanded dialogue and interaction between

legislators in the United States Congress and the European

Parliament.

In the field of civil liberties, we recognised that we

share many common values yet we also recognised that we may

have different approaches to finding optimal solutions. It

was noted that these differences in approach are being

addressed with a view toward coming to a permanent agreement

on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP). We welcomed

the intensified contacts, also on the level of the relevant

committees, to understand differences and explore common

ground. We took note of the EU-US and Member States 2010

Declaration on Counterterrorism of 3 June 2010 `Forging a

durable framework to combat terrorism within the rule of

law'.

In the same spirit we discussed issues concerning energy

and climate change. We exchanged views on adopted legislation

on the EU side, in particular the 2020 goals, and on pending

legislation on the US side. We emphasized the importance of

sustainable policies on both sides of the Atlantic which

could facilitate agreement in the larger international

context. In this respect the up-coming COP 16 in Cancun was

noted. We discussed the aim of `greening the economy',

including alternative energy sources, to provide the

opportunity of enhancing the quality of the environment and

improving the economic situation, as well as the perspective

of setting common standards for new and environmentally

friendly technologies, such as electric vehicles. The

national security implications of energy sources and

independence were also discussed.

In the presence of the Director General for External

Relations of the European Commission, Mr. Joao Vale de

Almeida, the prospects for bilateral and global cooperation

between the EU and the US were discussed and our shared

commitment for disaster relief in third world countries and

our common interest in stable and sustainable development in

all areas of the world were recognized.

In the presence of the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs

and current President of the EU General Affairs Council, Mr.

Miguel Angel Moratinos, we exchanged views on regions in the

world where tensions are high. In this respect we focused

attention on the situation in the Middle East, in Afghanistan

and Pakistan, in Iran, Somalia and Cuba.

An extensive discussion was held on the latest financial

and economic developments in Europe, the US and the world.

With regard to Europe, government interventions to stabilise

the situation in Member States and the Eurozone are needed.

We recognised the global character of the crisis and its

effects and therefore emphasised the importance of

coordinated action. In this respect the prospects for common

approaches regulating the financial sectors of the economy

were explored.

We evaluated the state of play of the Transatlantic

Economic Council (TEC) and ways to enhance EU-US economic

cooperation. The transatlantic market should be allowed to

develop its full potential in particular through reducing

non-tariff barriers and joint efforts to find common

standards. The importance of a successful outcome of the Doha

Round was reiterated. We welcomed a proposal to submit a TLD

paper to our respective administrations on ways to expand US-

EU trade and economic cooperation.

Finally, we reviewed progress in strengthening the

Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue, in particular:

--the growing interest in communication among Members of

our institutions, both in general and on specific topics,

--the strengthening of the TLD in the Congress by enhancing

its status, increasing stability of membership and involving

the Speaker of the House of Representatives,

--the opening on 29 April 2010 of the European Parliament

Liaison Office (EPLO) in Washington,

--the steps in expanding contacts among staff of our

institutions,

and discussed options for further enhancing it, such as:

--inviting EU and US officials to provide perspectives on

strategic issues related to financial recovery and economic

growth,

--expanding interaction between the US Congress and the

European Parliament in Brussels and in Washington, including

through video-conferencing,

--the possibility of joint hearings and the issuance of

joint statements.

In conclusion, we reaffirmed our commitment to

strengthening the transatlantic relationship and working in

partnership to solve common challenges. We pledged to

continue improving the effectiveness of our dialogue in order

to realise the full potential of our interparliamentary

relationship, as well as to ensure the relevance of the TLD's

work to the European Parliament and the United States

Congress.

Annex: Statement on Iran

We, the members of the Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue,

condemn the systematic violations by the Iranian regime and

its agencies of the human rights of the Iranian people. The

actions of the regime are denying the Iranian people the

basic human rights as described in the United Nations

Declaration of Human Rights. We call on our respective

Administrations to strengthen their efforts to assist the

Iranian people in achieving the rights that they are due,

through effective means to counteract the regime's

repression.

We welcome the coordinated strategy and concerted action by

the US government and the European Union to halt the threat

posed by Iran's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile

programs.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1359, calling for Hamas to unconditionally release captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. On June 25, 2006, Hamas terrorists illegally crossed into Israel from the Gaza strip, killed two Israeli soldiers, and kidnapped Corporal Gilad Shalit. Tomorrow marks the fourth year Gilad Shalit continues to be held captive by Hamas. He has been held in violation of international humanitarian law, without access to proper medical care, without access to his loved ones, and without access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, despite that organization's repeated requests to visit him.

I also rise today to strongly reaffirm America's unwavering commitment to the safety and security of the Jewish State of Israel. Israel and America's shared goal of a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved when Hamas renounces acts of terrorism such as rocket attacks against civilian populations, suicide bombings in civilian areas, and the extortionist capture and detention of Israeli soldiers.

We continue to stand with the Shalit family in this very difficult time, and are praying for the safe and timely release of their courageous son.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the

conference report on the bill (H.R. 2194) to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend the period of debate on this conference report by 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side, equally divided between the ranking member and myself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

The conference agreement for H.R. 2194 is by far the most comprehensive Iran sanctions legislation Congress has ever passed. This legislation greatly strengthens our Nation's overall sanctions regime regarding Iran, enhances the prospect that we will be able to dissuade Tehran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions in blatant defiance of the international community as reaffirmed once again this month in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929.

Like the House bill passed in December, the conference agreement imposes sanctions on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also plugs a critical gap in our sanctions regime by imposing sanctions on foreign entities that sell Iran goods or services that help it develop its energy sector.

Some believe that Iran has prepared itself for tougher energy sanctions by reducing its dependence on the import of refined petroleum. To ensure that our sanctions are as effective as possible, we added a potent new financial measure in conference that, if applied effectively by the administration, has the potential to be a game- changer. That provision sanctions foreign banks that deal with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps or other blacklisted Iranian institutions, including Iranian banks involved with WMD or terrorism. Foreign banks involved in facilitating such activities would be shut out of the U.S. financial system, and U.S. banks would not be allowed to deal with them.

The conference report also requires the executive branch to pursue all credible evidence of sanctionable activity. We have been profoundly unhappy over the years that successive administrations failed to implement the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act. Our bill will also put an end to the absurd practice of the U.S. Government awarding contracts to companies engaged in sanctionable activity. In addition, the legislation imposes penalties on Iran's human rights abusers and sanctions foreign entities that provide Iran with the means to stifle freedom of expression. This portion of the bill will absolutely not terminate until Iran unconditionally releases all political prisoners, ends unlawful detention, torture, and abuse of citizens engaged in peaceful activity, and punishes the abusers.

Finally, the conference agreement will help empower Iran's democratic opposition by exempting from our embargo the transfer of technologies that can help them overcome the regime's apparatus of oppression.

I don't know if sanctions will work in bringing Iran's leadership to its senses. But I do know this: doing nothing certainly won't work. In light of Iran's rapid progress toward achieving a nuclear weapons capability, Tehran's repeated rejection of President Obama's diplomatic overtures, the measures in this conference agreement, if implemented effectively by the administration, are our best and, I believe, only hope for a positive and peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue.

The two alternatives to strong sanctions are both horrible and horrifying--either employing the military option or, even worse, accepting the inevitability of Iran as a nuclear power.

The U.S. Congress needs to do everything it can to ensure we avoid both of these miserable results. We have taken some steps in the past, but we can do far more today by voting to pass the enhanced sanctions in H.R. 2194.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee, who has been a wonderful partner on this legislation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a key member of the conference committee on this bill, a bill that has a number of areas within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

My friend from California raises, as others have, the issue of waivers. I just want to remind the body this legislation has increased the standard for waivers, tightened the situations when waivers can be given. And, remember, we're talking about a process I hope will be rarely used, and I think we have to push that notion. We're not talking about Ahmadinejad giving the waivers, the Supreme Leader giving the waivers, the violating company giving the waivers. We're talking about a President of the United States, hopefully quite rarely, utilizing the enhanced standard waiver authority, a President who has spent more time diplomatically and in every other way trying to estop Iran from achieving this goal than any other President in the history of this country has ever done.

I'll stand with this legislation, with this authority, with this President as the toughest, most comprehensive sanctions ever on the Iran nuclear weapons program.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a key supporter of this legislation, the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Eliot Engel.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to a key member of the conference committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

Mr. Speaker, can I ask how much time there is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to a very distinguished member of the conference committee, the vice chair of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Nuclear Nonproliferation, Terrorism and International Trade, my friend from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa), a member of the committee and the conference committee and very helpful in our efforts here.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate be extended by 10 minutes, divided equally between the chair and ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the House, a tough taskmaster on this issue because of his passion for this legislation, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, would you tell me the remaining time on each side?

I am very pleased to yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to my neighbor, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Jared Polis.

(Mr. POLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to a valued member of our committee, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield, unfortunately only 1 minute to the author of the mandatory procurement sanctions in this legislation, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), the author of the country's first state of Iran disinvestment legislation.

(Mr. DEUTCH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the first Member on our side, as was mentioned earlier, to come up with a concept of sanctions on refined petroleum, the former head of the Iran Working Group.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 55 seconds to a member of our committee who has been a great supporter of this legislation, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues who played a pivotal role.

Particularly, I would like to thank my conference co-chair, Senator Chris Dodd, and his staff Colin McGinnis and Neal Orringer; my ranking member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; both Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Cantor; all of the conferees; the staff director for the minority, Yleem Poblete--she drives a hard bargain--and the wonderful staff on our side, led by Rick Kessler, and particularly the efforts of Shanna Winters, Alan Makovsky, Daniel Silverberg, David Fite, Janice Kaguyutan, Ed Rice, and Robert Marcus.

With that, I urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I provide the following Joint Statement by myself and my co-chair Senator Dodd:

The Chairs recognize the importance of the new authority

provided to the President to waive sanctions on certain

persons from countries closely cooperating with U.S. and

international efforts to constrain Iran's ability to develop

a nuclear weapon. The Chairs encourage the Administration to

use this new authority judiciously for those most deserving

of allies and other truly cooperating nations. We trust this

will be an important multilateral incentive in inducing

compliance with the recently passed Security Council

Resolution and with other regional and unilateral measures.

The closely cooperating waiver draws upon the existing

authority in Section 4(c) but extends the period of time

available for the waiver to 12 months. The chairs do not view

this authority to be a

wholly preemptive waiver. In fact, we expect a meaningful

investigation, as warranted, into the conduct of the alleged

violator to be conducted prior to exercising the waiver.

While the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Act

indicates that a determination on sanctionability must also

be made prior to exercising the 4(c)(1)(B) waiver, there are

differing and legitimate views on whether such a

determination is required. While divergent from the views in

the joint explanatory statement, we accept that this may be a

fair reading of the obligations under Section 4(c)(1)(B). In

the end, we encourage the Administration to use all of the

tools at its disposal in this Act and under existing

authorities to achieve the overriding goal of constraining

Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. But we will clearly need to

monitor the implementation of this waiver.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I was detained during rollcall vote No. 353. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Coach John Wooden. As a student of the University of California, Los Angeles during Coach Wooden's tenure, I recall with nostalgia the spirit of honor and humility that he embodied. For a man with a larger-than-life reputation and unparalleled winning record, John Wooden was surprisingly modest--a trait that many would say is particularly uncommon in Los Angeles. His playing career at the high school, college, and professional levels was marked by numerous record-breaking and award-winning performances, and his coaching career was no different. He led the UCLA Bruins to an unmatched 10 National Championships in NCAA Men's Basketball and four perfect seasons, one of which was while I was a law student at UCLA. It was an incredible time to be a Bruin. Coach Wooden was the first person to be inducted to the basketball Hall of Fame as both a player and a coach, and remains one of only a handful of people to earn the dual honors.

I can't talk about John without mentioning Nell, his wife of over 50 years. Like Coach Wooden, Nellie Wooden was until her death in 1985 an integral part of the fabric of UCLA and a fixture in the crowd at the court that now bears her and her husband's names. She always wore a smile, and a game rarely started without it.

John Wooden's spirit will continue to roam the hills of Westwood by the blue Pacific shore. My colleagues and I can all take a page out of Coach Wooden's playbook when it comes to teamwork and diligence. May his memory be a blessing and his life an example to us all.

Mr. Chairman, the Eshoo amendment cuts right to the heart of our constitutional authority: Congressional oversight of matters, in this case, within the intelligence community--basic functions, financial management, acquisitions, information technology--a fundamental prerogative of this body, a prerogative that should not be limited to the intelligence committees.

Bottom line, GAO plays a critical role in helping the committees examine day-to-day functions of government agencies within their jurisdiction, and its expertise needs to be brought to bear on the intelligence community. This is particularly true after the 2004 reforms that established the ODNI. There is no community that has undergone more bureaucratic overhaul and tumult, any agency within the Federal Government, than within the intelligence community.

The notion that committees of appropriate jurisdiction are blocked from investigating areas within their domain for oversight purposes, having nothing to do--we clearly exempt the sources and methods issues from this oversight--makes no sense. It is an insult to the prerogatives of the Congress. And to the extent that the administration argues this should be solely within their prerogative, they don't fully understand our institutional role in Congress.

I don't understand how anyone in this body who is interested in dealing with waste, with fraud, with duplication would want to limit the GAO's authority to go into appropriate areas within the intelligence community.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I am joined by my colleagues Congressmen Xavier Becerra, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez, Lucille Roybal- Allard, Adam Schiff, and Henry Waxman in paying tribute to our dear friend Dolores Huerta, who is being honored by the Feminist Majority Foundation with the Eleanor Roosevelt Award. This coveted award is given annually to a select few individuals who have contributed significantly--often against great odds and at great personal risk--to advance the rights of women and girls and to increase awareness of the challenges women face on account of their gender.

Dolores is a world renowned activist and is regarded as one of the most prominent Chicana labor leaders in the United States. At the age of 80, she is currently the President of the Dolores Huerta Foundation. The mission of her foundation is to build active communities in disadvantaged areas and to work towards fair and equal access to healthcare, housing, education, jobs, civic participation and economic resources with an emphasis on women and youth.

Several of us have known Dolores since the early 1970's when we were members of the California State Legislature and Dolores was the Vice President and Co-Founder of the United Farm Workers of America. During the last 50 years, she has worked tirelessly on many social justice and public policy issues. We know firsthand of her outstanding contributions to our community.

In 1955, when she was only 25 years old, Dolores found her calling as an organizer while serving in the leadership of the Stockton Community Service Organization (CSO), a grassroots organization that battled segregation and police brutality, led voter registration drives, pushed for improved public services, and fought to enact new legislation. Through her diligent lobbying efforts, she succeeded in removing the citizenship requirements from pension and public assistance programs. She was the leading force in the passage of legislation allowing voters the right to vote in Spanish and securing the rights of individuals to take the driver's license examination in their native language.

Dolores has been arrested 22 times for participating in non-violent civil disobedience activities and strikes to protect farmers and women, which has resulted in great benefits to both groups. Largely due to her solid support for the grape boycott, the farm workers were provided with their first health and benefit plans and those who had lived, worked, and paid taxes in the United States for many years were granted amnesty. She fought tirelessly to provide a better working environment and stop the abuse of female immigrants across the U.S.-Mexican border by convincing law enforcement agencies to address the brutal rape and the murder of these immigrants.

Dolores was given the Outstanding Labor Leader Award in 1984 by the California State Senate. In 1993, she was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame. That same year she received the American Civil Liberties

Union (ACLU) Roger Baldwin Medal of Liberty Award; the Eugene V. Debs Foundation Outstanding American Award, and the Ellis Island Medal of Freedom Award. She is also the recipient of the Consumers' Union Trumpeter's Award. In 1998, she was one of three Ms. Magazine's, ``Women of the Year,'' and the Ladies Home Journal's, ``100 Most Important Women of the 20th Century.'' In addition, she has received three honorary doctorate degrees for her extraordinary career.

Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, we ask you to join us in saluting Dolores Huerta for her impressive efforts and unyielding commitment to empowering women and improving the lives of farm workers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2194) to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran, with the Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of the ranking member's motion to instruct. The world faces no security threat greater than the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. We must make certain that the prospect never becomes a reality. A nuclear Iran would menace, intimidate, and ultimately dominate its neighbors. It would be virtually impervious to any type of pressure from the West, whether regarding its support of terrorism or its crushing of freedom and human rights at home, and it would touch off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would shred the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and almost inevitably lead to catastrophe. And worst of all, Iran might actually use its nuclear arms against those it considers its enemies.

The urgency of this issue is beyond dispute. Iran quite possibly will be capable of developing and delivering a

nuclear weapon in the next 3 to 5 years, and our task of preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability is made more complicated by the fact that we all know that our best weapon for fighting this battle--economic sanctions--takes time to work. So we need the strongest possible sanctions, and we need them fast.

That's why I support this motion to instruct. The House bill, H.R. 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, is a good, strong measure; and I and my fellow conferees will fight for it in conference. We will also work with the Senate on measures to help Iran's brave dissidents circumvent regime efforts to block their communications.

Our colleague, the gentleman from Florida, will speak about an additional provision with respect to State decisions to disinvest that we want to include in this conference report. And I want to send this bill to the President by or before the May 28 deadline proposed in the motion to instruct.

This bill, along with the Senate bill, has already done much good. In recent months, in anticipation of our sanctions becoming law, several major energy companies have ceased selling refined petroleum to Iran. Others have announced they will not make new investments in Iranian energy. They are making the sensible choice that our bill encourages, choosing the U.S. market over the Iranian market. More will make that choice when our bill becomes law.

Meanwhile, our bill is goading other nations to intensify their efforts to achieve a sanctions resolution in the U.N. Security Council, and our own executive branch is getting the message that Congress is able and willing to take the grave matter of sanctions into our own hands.

April 30 will mark 1 year since we first introduced this sanctions legislation. Since then, Iran has increased the number of its working centrifuges and has reached the one-bomb equivalent level in its stock of low-enriched uranium. It has enriched uranium to 20 percent, a big step on its way to mastering the process of producing weapons-grade uranium, and has installed advanced third-generation centrifuges. It has been caught red-handed building a secret reactor near Qom, which research suggests could only have been intended for bomb-making purposes, and it has announced plans to build 10 more reactors.

Iran is in contempt of the international community, and I had hoped that a U.N. Security Council resolution requiring tough sanctions, followed immediately thereafter by additional muscular sanctions imposed by the European Union, would have happened by now. I know the administration is doing everything possible to bring that result about. Unfortunately, we are now nearly 4 months into 2010 with Iran on the verge of nuclear weapons capability and a U.N. Security Council resolution remains an uncertain prospect. We cannot wait any longer.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, may I get the time remaining on both sides?

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) articulated his reasons for opposing this legislation. We are now, of course, voting on a motion to instruct on the legislation, but I want to just take issue with several of his points.

Firstly, the reason there has not been a diplomatic resolution of the problem is that the regime in Iran has refused to engage in any meaningful and serious way in a resolution which would require them to change their behavior to end their ambition to obtain

a nuclear weapons capability, and that is where the blame lies. It is not because diplomatic alternatives have been ignored. It is because they have been undertaken and rebuffed by the regime in Iran.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

Secondly, I disagree very much with the gentleman's contention that our effort to seek to change Iranian behavior and to reverse Iran's decision to pursue nuclear weapons through the imposition of strong, robust, meaningful economic sanctions, both through this legislation and, even more importantly, through tough international sanctions by the community of nations, is going to cause the Iranian people to turn against us on behalf of their regime.

These are people who have risked their lives, their freedom, their liberty. They have been subject to execution, murder, imprisonment, all kinds of repression, efforts to suppress their speech and their political liberties by that regime and have taken great risks, notwithstanding the way that regime has reacted. I would suggest that those people will know more than anyone that the consequences that are befalling the people of Iran are a result of the regime's behavior, not the international community and America's efforts to change Iran's behavior.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the majority leader, I yield myself 30 seconds.

One year and 3 months ago, America was pretty isolated in its goal of trying to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. We absolutely need to move quickly because Iran is moving quickly. But there can be no doubt that the result of the events of the past 15 months have changed the dynamic fundamentally where the international community now recognizes the threat Iran's nuclear weapons pose and it is Iran who is isolated, not America. That is a direct result of the fundamental change of policy.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to a great advocate of this legislation and of achieving this goal, the majority leader.

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

Mr. Speaker I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), one of the original creators of the concept of refined petroleum sanctions as a sanction.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I am pleased to yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker requesting time. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, a hemisphere which has already seen Iranian efforts to penetrate.

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