Adam Schiff

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the centennial of Gene Autry's birth. Gene Autry was a great American patriot and hero, whose vision and spirit was characteristic of the American West that he came to represent. Today also marks another momentous occasion, the Autry National Center's 20th Annual Gala. Twenty years ago, the Autry National Center held its first gala prior to the opening of the Gene Autry Museum of Western Heritage. Gene Autry was born 100 years ago in Tioga, TX. He arrived in California and became famous as the ``singing cowboy.'' Gene, known for his innovation, revolutionized American cinema, pioneering the western musical. He is the only entertainer to date to have been awarded all five stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Gene Autry was also the first movie star to use television as a way of reaching his audience. It was through his music and his warm and winning smile that he connected with people. He conveyed a deep sense of patriotism, encouraging his audience, young and old, to be kind to one another and live by the high minded standards of conduct, ``The Cowboy Code,'' to which he held himself. Gene Autry and his beloved horse Champion were always at the ready and eager to serve their country. Gene joined up with the Army Air Corps in 1942, earning the title of sergeant, flying fuel, ammunition, and arms over the Himalayas. After the war, Mr. Autry toured with a USO troupe in the South Pacific, bringing the familiar melody of home to the distantly stationed troops. In 1988, Gene Autry, along with his wife Jackie Autry, founded the Gene Autry Museum of Western Heritage. In his lifetime Gene Autry was able to fulfill his dream of building a ``museum which would exhibit and interpret the heritage of the West and show how it influenced America and the world.'' In 2003, the Autry National Center was established, commemorating the American West through its three institutions, the Southwest Museum of the American Indian, the Museum of the American West, and the Institute for the Study of the American West. In keeping with the spirit of Gene Autry, the Autry National Center provides insight into the diverse tapestry of cultures and peoples that make up the American West. The success of the Autry National Center is largely due to Jackie Autry's unsurpassed dedication and devotion to the vision of her-late husband. It is my pleasure to honor the centennial of Gene Autry's birth as well as the Autry National Center on its 20 years of service to the southern California community. I ask all members to join me in commending the Autry National Center.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I just want to address very quickly the comments by my friend, and then reserve the balance of our time. I don't have any remaining speakers. I think that, if anything, there's a more compelling case here in Congress than there is in my friend's home State of Texas to enact a prohibition like the one contemplated in this bill. Texas may be in session only 180 days of the year. My guess is that the Texas members of the legislature are paid probably substantially less than we're paid in Congress, and the financial burden on those members of the legislature is probably, therefore, greater than the financial burden that we face. Whether they have to have a full-time campaign office or not probably depends on what kind of a district they're running in. If it's a very competitive district, then they probably pretty much have to be in campaign mode all the time. So if Texas can do it, where their members are paid less, where the financial pressures are probably greater, we should be able to do it here. It's not often, I have to say, that I point to Texas as the example to follow, but when Texas gets it right, I'm more than happy to acknowledge it. There is also, I think, a certain irony with my friend's argument that the Democratic majority promised an open government, and then here we're offering this bill, and we're moving quickly on this bill, and his stating opposition to a bill that is designed to bring transparency to the process. I don't know how you can argue in favor of open government and be opposed to a bill that offers greater transparency. Part of the reason the present system is inadequate is people do pay family members, but there's no way for the public to know that they're family members because they may not have the same last name, or they may pay a business that is controlled by the family member. And so there's no transparency, and the public doesn't know that that money is really going to the family; that when the candidate is out there, or the officeholder, asking for contributions for their campaign, that a certain percentage, whether it's explicitly on a commission, or it's just by virtue of a paycheck, that a certain part of that money is going into either the candidate's own pocket or the officeholder's own pocket because it's going to their spouse, or it's going to their son- in-law who doesn't bear the same name, and people aren't aware that it's going to the candidate's son-in-law and daughter. So this does bring about greater transparency. I think it's needed. There are Members that have been very open also. And this is why we've gone to a prohibition vis-a-vis spouses. There are Members who have been very open about the fact that they pay their spouse on a commission for every dollar they bring into the campaign, and they make the same argument my friend makes, which is it's very out in the open. Everybody knows about it. People that contribute to my campaign know that a certain percentage of that is going to go to my spouse, and they make the same argument; it must be fine since people are aware of it. But part of the problem is that people making the contributions are aware of it, and so they know that by giving an officeholder a contribution, they're also giving that officeholder a personal contribution through their spouse. And maybe that interest that wants to curry favor with that Member thinks, what better way than giving a contribution where I know actually a part of that's going to go directly into the pocket of the officeholder. So that's part of the reason why we're here. And I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I'll close very briefly. I appreciate the points that my colleague is making. There is a need for the transparency, even in the case of a spouse, particularly a spouse that may not carry the same last name as the officeholder. But more particularly, if a spouse even has the same name, or a son with the same name sets up a company, the company doesn't bear the officeholder's name, there's no way for the public to know that that money is actually going to the family. But more than that, you know, I think sometimes we get in the habit of thinking about how does this affect us; how does this affect our family; does this seem right to us, rather than how does the rest of the country view this. What does the rest of the country think about this? What does someone out in California or Texas or any of our 50 States think about this? And I don't think they view it the same way we're discussing here today. I think they look at this and they say, gosh, when I send a contribution to this Presidential candidate or this Senate candidate or this congressional candidate, I expect that to go to the campaign. I don't expect that to go to their family. That's not right. And I don't think they would be moved by saying, well, you know, those officeholders, they often have a difficult financial situation themselves, and certainly many do. But I think that the public has the right to expect that when they support a campaign, when they support a candidate, that the funds go to the campaign, they don't go the candidate or their family. Or if they're going to go to the family, outside of the spouse, that there's very broad disclosure so that the public can make an informed decision about how they want to use their resources. That's the purpose of the bill. I urge my colleagues to support it. Again, I want to thank my colleagues Mr. Castle and Mr. Platts on the other side of the aisle. I want to thank our chairman and our majority leader and our Rules Committee Chair for their support, as well as the Speaker.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time. I'm not surprised that I can't get a yes or no answer. I'm not surprised that the gentlewoman is not willing to stand up and say, yes, I support cutting this because I have other priorities. Home heating oil, that's not one of them. Large oil industry profits, that's one of my priorities. Halliburton, that's one of my priorities. But cutting heating oil, that's not a priority, or cutting special ed. Let me ask you another question; do you think that cuts in college education funding, higher education funding, can be done without cutting the number of kids who have access to college? Do you think we can cut funding from this bill for higher education funding without reducing the number of kids that can go to college? And you say, it's just half a percent we're cutting from higher ed, or the increase in higher ed, or however you want to phrase it. But the cut is real that you're proposing. So what does that mean? 25,000 more kids can't go to college? Is that a fair number? Well, maybe that is too much. Should we say 10,000 more American kids can't go to college because of your cut? Is that a fair number? Would you support that? Would you support your amendment if you knew that? Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaiming my time, I will be happy to yield if you will answer the question. The question is, do you support cutting home heating oil assistance? It's a yes or no question, it's not complicated. Do you support cutting heating home assistance for poor people? Yes, I support it?

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to take a moment to address the nature of the proposed amendment, and the amendment before it, and perhaps the amendment after it, the whole nature of the across-the-board amendments. Because I think the beauty of across-the-board amendments, in the eyes of the authors of those amendments, is that they're anonymous in their cuts; they're anonymous in the pain they distribute. They can go home to their district and say, oh, I'm not in favor of cutting education, I'm in favor of across-the-board cuts. Or I'm not in favor of cutting home heating oil for people, no, that would lack compassion, but I am for across-the-board cuts. What's a 1 percent cut? What's a half of 1 percent cut? Well, what it is is hundreds of millions of dollars taken out of education or out of home heating oil or out of health care or out of cancer research or out of special education. So let's not take ourselves off the hook here. And I would be willing to yield to my colleague from Colorado. Do you support cuts in home heating oil assistance? Are you ready to stand up here and say to your constituents, yes, I am for cutting home heating assistance? Do you support cuts in special education? Are you willing to say here today to your constituents that I support cuts in special education? I support cuts in abstinence programs. I support cuts in cancer research. Would you tell us if you support cuts in home heating assistance?

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment but I thank the gentleman for offering it, because it reminds us of what this debate is really about. We are debating about whether we will invest in America's future. We are debating what kind of a Nation we expect to be. My chairman, fellow committee members of both parties, and the vast majority of people around the country believe in America's future. We believe that America's best days are ahead of us. We believe that the American people can compete and succeed in the global economy, and that the most talented, industrious, and ingenious people on Earth are the American people. And we believe that, to ensure our bright future, we must invest in the American people today. The America we see ahead of us is one where every child has the opportunity to go to college regardless of whether their parents did and regardless of whether they are rich or poor. They receive the best job training, develop the strongest skills, are empowered to create by laws that reward innovation, and have a government that is working for them, not against them, in foreign markets. In the America we see, every child and their parents has access to decent health care, and no one working full time, playing by the rules and contributing to the prosperity of the country, has to become impoverished because of the catastrophic illness in the family. No parent should have to mourn the loss of a child it could not provide health care for, and no child should grow up in a home without one of its parents for lack of the same access to care. For our parents' generation, this vision of America's future resembles their own fondest hopes. Our parents and their parents struggled so that we could enjoy a higher quality of living, better schools, better hospitals, and a safer world than what they knew. And, by and large, this greatest generation was successful. America is a better, more prosperous Nation because of their struggle. But the generations that went before us did more than struggle; they also invested. They built schools, they built hospitals, they built our Armed Forces, and they invested in America's future. If America is to enjoy the same bright future we have in mind, that investment must go on. Fortunately, this vision of an America where our best days are still ahead of us is a bipartisan vision. It crosses every economic, political, and generational line. We all want and believe that we can bring about a more secure and more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe we can do so, must do so, in a fiscally responsible way by paying as we go. Sure, there are some who do not share these values or who believe that we can achieve this bright tomorrow without any investment, without any contribution or sacrifice on our part. They are the ``get something for nothing'' crowd, the ``I got mine, you get yours'' crowd. They do not believe America needs our investment. And the future? Well, the future can take care of itself. Some of these naysayers you will hear from today, some you have heard from already. Masquerading under a banner of fiscal prudence they will say, ``We cannot afford the investment.'' It is a masquerade. These are the same people, of course, who drove our national debt to the highest in history through a half decade of borrowing. And theirs was the worst form of borrowing; borrowing that led to no investment and, therefore, to no improvement in the Nation's foundation. Our parents' generation had them, too, these masqueraders, the ``something for nothing'' crowd. But just kind of imagine what kind of an America we would live in today if our predecessors had followed their irresponsible siren song. We would still be traveling along dirt roads instead of highways, with crops rotting in the fields, long-term economic stagnation, a bleak presence, and an even bleaker future. We would, in sum, have become that Nation that Franklin Roosevelt so presciently warned against, a Nation with a substantial portion of its people ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure. It is indeed fortuitous that these voices are few now and were few then, that the overwhelming bipartisan majority of committee members and Americans recognize that we have a responsibility to our Nation's future, and that responsibility requires sound investment. In 10 years, 2.7 million more kids will be in K-12 schools, and America will be ready for them because we insist on it. In 10 years, 2.2 million more students will be in college, and our universities will be ready for them with a state-of-the-art education because we insist on it. In 10 years, the global economy will be even more extensive and American workers will be competing and winning because we will have invested in them. And, yes, it is because we are insisting on it now. We believe in America's future. We believe our best days are ahead of us. And we share the belief that our parents had before us that we are responsible for that bright future, and that future requires investment.

Mr. SCHIFF. I think I may have the gentleman's answer to where was the fringe when the giveaways to the oil companies and the Halliburtons were taking place; why wasn't there an effort to cut those giveaways by 1 percent. Those who wanted to cut those profits and those giveaways were not part of the fringe. The fringe we are talking about here today is the fringe that says we want those obscene oil company profits. We want those obscene profits for Halliburton. But we want to cut over $1 billion out of education, out of health care. That is the fringe we are talking about. The overwhelming bipartisan majority of us want to balance the budget. We are working hard to do that. But we don't want to balance the budget on the backs of our kids and on the backs of those who need health care and on the backs of our workers who need training. And that, I think, is the fringe that we are talking about here today.

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to address some of the arguments. I wanted to say about my friends on the other side of the aisle because, in fact, my friends on the other side of the aisle in committee, the Republican Members, uniformly supported this bill and support this bill. So I have to say that I address these remarks to a minority of the minority, the self-applied fringe that we've been describing or talking to today. The beginning of their argument was, well, we want across-the-board cuts, we don't really want to have to identify exactly what we're cutting. That's a little hard to sell back home, so we're going to do across-the-board cuts. That's a little more palatable. We said, well, let's look at where we're cutting, and then the argument was, okay, they're not cuts. They're reductions in the increase. So then we point out, well, actually you're giving the impression that everything's being increased. Everything is not being increased. Many things are being kept flat. So aren't we really cutting those things that are flat in the budget? And my friends in the minority of the minority said, yes, I guess that's right. I guess we are really making real cuts with these across-the-board proposals, but let's not really look at what we're cutting. That's not very attractive. And my friend says, okay, so if we're making real cuts, is it really the end of the world if we're making real cuts? Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. One of the things we're making a real cut to is the bone marrow program. Is that the end of the world for us here in Congress to make a real cut, in real dollar terms, to the bone marrow program? Well, it may not be to any of us at this moment, but for some child out there, it just may be the end of the world. For some parent of that child, some parent has to watch their child suffer with cancer, the inability to get a bone marrow transplant and the failure of research into bone marrow transplants, it just might be the end of the world for that parent as well as that child. What are the things that my friend would make real cuts to? He would make real cuts to scholarships for disadvantaged students. He would make real cuts for nurse education. Does my friend think we have more nurses than we need? He would make real cuts for emergency medical services for children. Again, is that the end of the world? Well, for one child it just might be. He would make real cuts for organ transplantation, real cuts for the National Cord Blood Inventory. Is that the end of the world? Well, for some child, maybe not our children, it just might be. We would make real cuts, under the gentleman's amendment, to children's mental health. Is that the end of the world? Well, for a child who ends up taking their own life, it just might be the end of the world. It sounds a lot more palatable when we say, well, it's a 1 percent cut or it's a half a percent cut. Is that the end of the world? Well, for one child it just may be.

Mr. SCHIFF. Through the Chair, in my remaining time, I would ask the gentlewoman from Colorado whether she is willing to support her cuts if she knows that it will mean fewer children in Colorado can go to college. I would be happy to yield for an answer to this question. Through the Chair, to my colleague from Colorado, if her cuts mean that fewer of her constituents in Colorado can go to college, is she still willing to propose those cuts?

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, when the President announced in January that he intended to escalate the number of American troops in Iraq, he sought to betray the increase in American combat forces as a necessary precondition for Iraq's government to make the political compromises necessary to prevent Iraq's civil war from spiraling completely out of control. In that speech, the President pledged to hold the Iraqi leadership accountable and to demand progress in two main areas: political reconciliation and security. Now, more than 6 months later, it's unfortunate but also undeniable that little sustainable progress has been made on either front. Even as we speak, the administration is downplaying the significance of an interim report on the effect of the surge in Iraq. On the security front, the heroism and sacrifices of American forces has caused a drop in sectarian killings, leading to an overall drop in the number of Iraqi deaths, but the reduction of Iraqi casualties has come with a horrific increase in the loss of our own troops. More than 600 Americans have been killed since January. Moreover, as American troops leave cities that are quieted with their own blood, there is every indication that Iraqi troops will not be able to sustain the calm. If the past is any indicator, insurgents and militias are merely waiting for us to exhaust ourselves and move on before returning, and Iraqi security forces will be powerless to stop them. When President Bush announced in January that he intended to escalate the number of American troops in Iraq, he sought to portray the increase in American combat forces as a necessary precondition for Iraq's government to make the political compromises necessary to prevent Iraq's civil war from spiraling completely out of control. In that speech, the President pledged to hold the Iraqi leadership accountable and to demand progress in two main areas: political reconciliation and security. Now more than six months later it is unfortunate, but also undeniable that little sustainable progress has been made on either front. Even as we speak, the Administration is downplaying the significance of an interim report on the effect of the ``surge'' in Iraq. On reconciliation, the Iraqi Government has failed to meet any of the political benchmarks endorsed by the President in January and which this Congress mandated earlier this spring. These political goals are the best indicator of the prospects for reconciliation in Iraq and, tragically, all signs indicate that political reconciliation has been non-existent. The Iraqi Parliament has yet to begin consideration of the oil law or an associated revenue-sharing law. Given the disparate geographical distribution of Iraq's oil reserves, these laws are essential if Iraq is to have any hope of remaining a united country. More alarming, is the lack of progress in healing the Sunni-Shiite rift. Of greatest importance, is the need to reverse some of the more draconian edicts of the postwar de-Baathification orders promulgated by former Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul Bremer. These decrees removed any incentive for Sunnis to participate in creating a better future for Iraq. Other laws--to disarm militias and to grant amnesty-- are still being formulated, and most observers believe that the prospect of disarming militias is so remote that it will not be possible in the foreseeable future. On the security front, the heroism and sacrifice of American force have caused a decline in sectarian killings and suicide bombings, leading to an overall drop in the number of Iraqi civilian deaths. But the reduction of Iraqi casualties has come with a horrific increase in the loss of our own troops--more than 600 Americans have been killed since January. Moreover, as American troops leave cities they have quieted with their own blood, there is every indication that Iraqi troops will not be able to sustain the calm. If the past is any indicator, insurgents and militias are merely waiting for us to exhaust ourselves and move on before returning--and Iraqi security forces will be powerless to stop them. There has been one very positive development--in al Anbar province, Sunni tribal leaders have decided that al Qaeda's indiscriminate killing makes them a bigger problem than we are, and they have taken up arms against our common foe. This alliance of American forces and former insurgents is desirable and should be encouraged elsewhere. But, like most marriages of convenience, it is not sustainable and cannot form the bedrock of a secure Iraq or reconciliation among Iraqi sects. For almost two years, I have been calling for a change in our mission in Iraq--from policing a civil war to training, containment and counter-terrorism. This necessitates a responsible redeployment of our combat forces from Iraq, and I believe that this bill does an excellent job of providing a framework for that redeployment, while still giving our armed forces the flexibility that they need to respond to contingencies. Iraq's future must be decided by the Iraqi people and that solution must come from political reconciliation. Every day that we maintain our forces in the crossfire between warring sects is another opportunity for hatreds to harden and radicals to consolidate their grip on Iraq's ethnic and sectarian communities. We should change our mission now, and begin the withdrawal of our combat forces. In planning for the inevitable withdrawal, we must recognize that a poorly executed departure could result in an escalation of civil war violence as Iraqi sects compete for power. As we draw down our forces, we must make every effort to prevent a magnification of this catastrophic violence. In particular, we must not compound the error of the lack of pre-invasion planning, with an equally tragic failure to adequately anticipate the post-occupation environment. Mr. Speaker, it is long past time to begin to end the war in Iraq. I support this bill and urge its passage by the House today.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Pasadena- Foothills Association of Realtors, (PFAR), which will be celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. For the past century, the Pasadena- Foothills Association of Realtors has remained committed to its members and to its community. Founded in 1907 as the Pasadena Realty Board dedicated to ``promoting good fellowship and fair dealing within the industry,'' the association has grown in size from 26 members in 1908 to approximately 2400 members in 2007. In recent years, the Pasadena-Foothills Association of Realtors has not only met their original objectives but has surpassed them, taking on projects both inside and outside the world of real estate and demonstrating through generosity and service what a tremendous asset it is to the community. The Pasadena-Foothills Association of Realtors is comprised of many remarkable individuals who have served admirably in their communities including Warren Dorn and Jo Heckman. In 1955, at age 36, Mr. Dorn became the youngest mayor in Pasadena history and in 1956 was elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. The first female President of the Association in 1960 and the first woman elected to the Board of Directors in 1975, Ms. Heckman moved seamlessly to the realm of public service by becoming Pasadena's first female Mayor in 1980. In keeping with their public minded traditions, PFAR made a large charitable contribution of $2,100 to the Pasadena-Altadena Community Chest in 1957. Since then, the association and its members have been active participants in many organizations throughout the greater Pasadena area. In the 1980s, programs such as ``Thanksgiving Food to Needy Families,'' ``Christmas Tournament of Toys,'' and ``Adopt-A- School'' were implemented. In 1999, in response to requests made by local teachers, PFAR founded the program ``REALTORS for Music,'' donating boxes of sheet music and numerous instruments to public schools in the area. In 2002, the association sponsored a blood drive and also started the ``REALTORS for Reading'' program, which collected 2,000 books for area school libraries in its first year alone. In addition, PFAR raised $86,000 in 2004, over $100,000 in 2005 and $116,000 in 2006 for local charities from popular events such as the Taste of Pasadena Festival and the Wreath Auction. It is my pleasure to honor the Pasadena-Foothills Association of Realtors on its 100th anniversary of dedicated service to the community. I ask all members to join me in commending their efforts.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Christopher Westhoff, Assistant City Attorney--Public Works General Counsel with the City of Los Angeles, California, who will become President of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA). Christopher Westhoff is an environmental champion for the City of Los Angeles, the State of California, and the Nation. He is an exceptional leader and public steward, dedicated to the improvement of Los Angeles' water quality and public health. A former prosecutor with the Los Angeles City Attorney's office, Christopher has spent over 15 years serving as the General Counsel to the Board of Public Works. He has been the Public Works Department's legal counsel on environmental regulatory issues including wastewater treatment, air quality, and storm water management. He played a leadership role in guaranteeing clean and safe water for future generations of Californians by helping ensure the upgrade of the Hyperion Treatment Plant to full secondary treatment of its wastewater. Christopher helped to develop and defend policies that have helped clean up the Santa Monica Bay, and achieve 100 percent beneficial reuse of the city's biosolids. His negotiations in a landmark settlement agreement for Los Angeles' collection systems led to a reduction in sewer spills of more than 70 percent. Christopher also participated in the development and implementation of Proposition ``O'', which provided for $500 million in bonds for stormwater management improvements and green technologies. In 1999, Mr. Westhoff was elected to NACWA's Board of Directors. He currently acts as the Association's Vice President and Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee. Later this month; Christopher will become NACWA's President. As the President of NACWA, he will build on its reputation as the leading advocate for responsible national policies that advance clean water and a healthy environment. For his tireless commitment to ensuring that Los Angeles becomes an environmentally smart city, I ask all Members of Congress to join me in congratulating Christopher Westhoff on becoming President of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. I want to begin by commending Chairwoman Lowey for her extraordinary work on this bill and the really exemplary way that she has chaired this committee. I also want to commend our ranking member, Mr. Wolf. Our Chair and ranking member have crafted a bill that I think reflects the bipartisan approach to America's engagement in the world that we should have. It supports a view that I share that a healthier, better educated and more secure developing world means a safer world for America. After several years where diplomacy was marginalized and the men and women of the State Department were relegated to junior-partner status in the national security policymaking apparatus, this committee is moving our policy towards a new primacy for diplomacy. This bill is important to our efforts to fight terrorism, foster peaceful diplomacy, and improve the quality of life for millions of the world's most vulnerable citizens. The bill recognizes the inextricable ties between development and security. It is mindful of the fact that we are ultimately locked in a struggle for hearts and minds and that an excessive reliance on military force as the primary lever of American policy can be counterproductive, and that terrorists often seek to draw an American military response and may be strengthened by it. I also want to point to two provisions that I think have broad implications for the global environment and the quest to stem the proliferation of small arms and light weapons. The bill supports innovative new approaches to fostering renewable energy that Steve Israel and I have advocated by including a provision to encourage the Export-Import Bank to seek out investments in renewable energy and other environmentally beneficial products. This initiative could result in an estimated $1 billion in additional green exports in 2008 and will encourage the use of renewable energy worldwide while helping the U.S. producers of renewable energy and green products. This is a step forward in our competitiveness and a step forward for the environment. The bill also includes language that supports the Small Arms/Light Weapons destruction program, a State Department initiative to destroy grenades, guns and man-portable air defense systems that might otherwise fall into hostile hands. By funding this important program, we have increased our commitment to countering the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, weapons that could end up in the hands of terrorists, criminals and human rights-abusing governments around the world. I thank the chair and ranking member for their extraordinary efforts.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make, essentially, two points. First, my friends in the minority lack credibility on the issue they have raised last night and today; and, second, this bill is far too important to be stalled, delayed, put off by blatantly partisan tactics. On the first point, why does the minority party lack credibility on this issue? Well, one of the two parties during the last 6 years took the largest surpluses, I think we have had in history, and managed to turn those surpluses into deficits, a multitrillion dollar turnaround that was accomplished in a record short time. That party was the party of my friends in the GOP. That's the same party today that is arguing for fiscal responsibility. One of the two parties presided over the greatest growth and expansion and acceleration and abuse of the earmarking process in history, brought that process to a point where it accounted for more earmarks and more dollars than ever before. That party was also the GOP. One of the parties in this House presided over a period that resulted in more indictments of Members, more investigations of Members, more appearance of impropriety than any time since ABSCAM or Watergate. That party was the Republican Party. That same party that abused the earmark process, that had no earmark transparency is now objecting to what? It is now objecting to an earmark process that is better, that is more transparent than it has ever been. That party is objecting to the work of the majority which eliminated all earmarks in last year's bill. So here you have a party that has demonstrated over the last 5 or 6 years utter fiscal irresponsibility, a lack of willingness to reform the earmark process, now complaining that, okay, the Democrats are reforming the process, they are making it more transparent, but we are complaining because we think they should take it much farther. Well, I think the last 6 years demonstrated a lack of credibility, a serious lack of credibility among my friends in the minority party. Why is this bill so important? Why is this bill essential to move forward, and why are these partisan stalling tactics so questionable? This is the bill that provides the resources to defend our country. I am just going to focus on one because there are numerable areas of this bill that are so vital. But if you go back 5 or 6 years ago when President Bush and Senator Kerry had their debate, they were asked what is the number one security threat facing this country. Their answer surprisingly was the same, nuclear terrorism, the idea that al Qaeda could get nuclear material and bring it into this country. Well, there are only so many things that prevent al Qaeda from doing that. It's not their lack of motivation or will. Osama bin Laden has already talked about wanting an American Hiroshima. The obstacles are getting the materiel, fashioning the bomb, and getting it into the country. Getting the materiel, unfortunately, is not very difficult, given the plentiful amounts of highly enriched uranium in the former Soviet Union. Building a bomb is not that difficult because the technology is now decades old. Getting into the country, unfortunately, is not very difficult. That's something this bill seeks to address by deploying radiation-detector portal technologies; and more than just deploying them, as essential as that is, doing the analysis to find out which of the portal technologies will be most effective in keeping a nuclear or radiological weapon out of the country. These are the kinds of investments that are being delayed, stalled, run down by a party that has run our Nation's finances into the ground in the last 6 years, that is complaining about an earmark process better than anything they proposed. We need to move this bill forward. My friends in the minority don't have the credibility on this issue. They may have had it at some point, but they lost it in the last 6 years. This is not the way to retrieve it. We need to move this bill forward. Now is the time to do it. We need to implement these reforms to improve our safeguards against nuclear material getting into this country. We need to ensure that our cargo is protected. We need to ensure that any number of investments that are made in interoperable communications equipment and our firefighters and our police officers are made, and they are made now. I urge this bill move forward. I urge the delay come to an end.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Temple Beth David, which will be celebrating its 60th anniversary this year. In the past 60 years, the temple has grown into a vibrant community dedicated to the values of Judaism including spiritual discovery, educational richness, and the love and kindness of community and personal responsibility. Founded by 10 families in 1947, Temple Beth David was the first reform synagogue in the San Gabriel Valley. The original founder, Flora Kahn, is still a member of the congregation. Since its inception, the temple has seen its membership grow to 195 families, spanning the generations. The community welcomes all Jews as well as interfaith couples and encourages non-Jewish spouses to participate in temple life. Rabbi Alan Lachtman has been with the temple in his current position since 1976. A retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Army Reserves, Rabbi Lachtman has a degree in Marriage Family Therapy and received the Doctorate of Divinity from Hebrew Union College in 1999. He currently teaches at the University of Judaism, and works closely with the American Jewish Committee and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. A dynamic and active temple, Temple Beth David encourages congregant participation and offers a wide variety of programs from interfaith programs and social action projects to religious and Hebrew schools. Demonstrating a commitment to all members of the community, Temple Beth David offers not only youth scholarships but also an array of adult education programs for those who seek a greater understanding of Judaism. Committed participants not only in temple life but in the larger world as well, the members of Temple Beth David have recently joined the interfaith chorus calling for U.S. Government intervention in Darfur. Along with Rabbi Lachtman, the 195 families of the temple, mindful of their own community's history, are activists for the civilians in Darfur. It is my privilege to honor Temple Beth David on its anniversary of 60 years of active community and fulfillment in Judaism. I ask all members to join me in wishing the Temple Beth David and its congregants continued success.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Boys and Girls Clubs of Pasadena, which will be celebrating its 70th anniversary this year. For the past 70 years, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Pasadena have remained committed to their motto of ``Caring for our future, one child at a time.'' Incorporated in 1937, the Boys Club of Pasadena, a member of the national organization, Boys Clubs of America, began by serving a Christmas dinner for 200 underprivileged boys in a rented space in Pasadena. By 1953, the Boys Club membership had reached 4659, a drastic increase from 560 only ten years earlier. In the early 1960s, several milestones were achieved; the Boys Club acquired its own property, joined United Way of Los Angeles and received the National Program Award for Excellence for its Science Series Program. Continuing to expand its services, the 1970s saw the Boys Club of Pasadena acquiring the Slavic Branch in Pasadena, becoming Pasadena's sponsor of the Summer Hot Lunch Program for Children, which served over 400 meals daily to club members, and the Boys Club Scholarship Program was formally established to aid young people with vocational, educational or fine arts pursuits. The Boys Club of Pasadena opened the first childcare facility operated for pre-school children by any Boys Club. The Mackenzie/Scott Child Development Center opened in 1989 and was licensed by State of California for 88 preschool children. In 1990, the Center was accepted into the State of California Food Program and was formerly recognized by the City of Pasadena for excellence in child care. In 1990, after the Boys Clubs of America changed its name to Boys and Girls Clubs of America, the Boys Club of Pasadena changed its name to the Boys and Girls Clubs of Pasadena. Hilary Crahan became Executive Director of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Pasadena in 2004 and under her leadership the club has continued to emphasize both formal and informal education. Currently, over 7200 children participate at the five sites: Slavik Branch, the Mackenzie- Scott Branch, the Scott Child Care Center, the Performing Arts Center, and the Orange Grove Learning Center. The more than fifty academically enriching programs include music and arts education, sports, technology training, leadership classes, and tutoring in math, English, and science. It is my pleasure to honor the Boys and Girls Clubs of Pasadena on their anniversary of 70 years of dedicated service to the youth in the 29th Congressional District. I ask all members to join me in commending their efforts.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Flintridge Foundation, which will receive the 2007 Community Award presented by the Gamma Zeta Boule Foundation at their Annual Scholarship Luncheon in Pasadena, California on June 10, 2007. Each year, this award is given to an individual or organization that demonstrates extraordinary commitment and dedication to education and the community. The Flintridge Foundation was created in 1985 and strongly upholds the values of individuality, diversity, and creativity on which it was founded. Francis and Louisa Moseley believed that the private sector was well qualified to understand and quickly respond to the changing needs of individuals and society as a whole, and out of that vision the Flintridge Foundation was born. Since its beginning, the Flintridge Foundation has provided $23,531,290 in grants and has developed a conservation program that has helped to conserve biological heritage and ensure the sustainability of natural resources by supporting the preservation and restoration of native ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest. For their success and commitment to promoting education, the environment, and many other important priorities, I ask all Members of Congress to join me in congratulating the Flintridge Foundation upon receiving the 2007 Community Award.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mike Garrett, who will receive the 2007 Leadership Award presented by the Sigma Pi Phi Gamma Zeta Boule Foundation at their Annual Scholarship Luncheon in Pasadena, California on June 10, 2007. Each year, this award is given to a community leader who demonstrates extraordinary commitment and dedication to education and the community. Raised in Los Angeles, California, Mike Garrett attended the University of Southern California, where he excelled as a football player and set numerous records. As an exemplary student athlete, Garrett was named an All-American twice, awarded the prestigious Heisman Trophy in 1965, and was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 1985. Garrett went on to become a star in the American Football League playing for the Kansas City Chiefs and the San Diego Chargers. He was a two time AFL All-Star, and led the Chiefs to a Super Bowl Victory in 1969. Throughout his entire professional career, Garrett gained a total of 8,049 yards and scored 49 touchdowns. After his professional football career, Garrett attended the College of Law at Western State University, where he earned his Juris Doctor in 1986. Garrett also held numerous professional positions, which included Director of Business Development at the Great Western Forum, working at the District Attorney's Office in San Diego, and doing color commentary for USC football telecasts. In January of 1993, Garrett returned to USC as the Athletic Director where he has helped the football program regain its status as a dominant football power. For his success and commitment to promoting education and athletics, I ask all Members of Congress to join me in congratulating Mike Garrett upon receiving the Sigma Pi Phi Gamma Zeta Boule's 2007 Leadership Award.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Faye Cowart. Mrs. Cowart has served the community for 38 years as a leader in the area of public education. As an outstanding educator in the Los Angeles Unified School District since 1969, Mrs. Cowart has been dedicated to the promotion of student success and educational achievement. Mrs. Cowart has been a long time resident of Altadena, CA, and began her career in education as a teacher in the Los Angeles School District. After teaching for several years, she served as a Title I Coordinator, Assistant Principal, and Compliance Coordinator in the Specially Funded Programs Branch. In each of these endeavors, she distinguished herself as a tireless advocate for improving the quality of education for all of our students. I ask all Members to join with me in congratulating Mrs. Faye Cowart for her dedicated service and commitment to the promotion of quality education. I am sure that each person positively affected by Mrs. Cowart's service will also join me in wishing her much joy in the years to come and great thanks for her time, her energy, and her efforts.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Representative Xavier Becerra be removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 417. Mr. Becerra was listed as a cosponsor due to a clerical error.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Chair, today I offer an amendment with my Republican colleague Jeff Flake from Arizona that would respond to the President's unilateral assertion of power with regard to the electronic surveillance of Americans on U.S. soil and reassert that our existing statutes govern the operation of such surveillance. Madam Chair, the Federal Government has a duty to pursue al Qaeda and other enemies of the United States with all available tools, including the use of electronic surveillance, to thwart future attacks on the United States and to destroy the enemy. While the President possesses the inherent authority to engage in electronic surveillance of the enemy outside the country, Congress possesses the authority to regulate such surveillance within the United States. When Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it intended for this statute to provide the sole authority for surveillance of Americans on American soil for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information. Our amendment reiterates this important principle. The President has argued that the authorization for the use of military force provided him with the authority to engage in warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans. It is hard to believe that any of us contemplated, when we voted to authorize the use of force to root out the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, that we were also voting to nullify FISA. Our amendment makes clear that in the absence of explicit statutory authority, FISA is the exclusive authority for the conduct of domestic electronic surveillance of Americans. While the administration appears to have finally agreed that electronic surveillance occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP, should cease to operate without the approval of the FISA court, the administration has not conceded that it cannot conduct such electronic surveillance of Americans unilaterally outside of FISA with no judicial oversight either now or in the future. While we have been told that surveillance in this program was limited to phone calls where one of the parties is outside of the United States, there appears to be no limiting principle to the Executive's claim of authority provided by the military force resolution. In fact, when we questioned the Attorney General on this point in the last session, he would not rule out the proposition that the Executive has the authority to wiretap purely domestic calls between two Americans without seeking a warrant. No one in Congress would deny the need to tap certain calls under court order, but if the government can tap purely domestic phone calls between Americans without court approval, there is no limit to executive power. Congress cannot be silent in the face of this assertion of authority. In working to meet the real national security needs of the country, we must also ensure that Congress does not abdicate its responsibility to ensure that fundamental liberties are not compromised. Absent congressional action, law-abiding U.S. citizens may continue to have reasonable fear of being the subject of extra-judicial surveillance. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.