Adam Schiff

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. If I can interject for just a second, we had a nonclassified briefing, so I can raise this point, before we had the August recess with Secretary Rice, Secretary Rumsfeld, Director Negroponte, and General Pace, and I asked a question that is based on your comments. It was acknowledged at that time that the sectarian violence now exceeded the violence from the insurgency. I asked them how are we changing our strategy, militarily or politically, because the strategy used in dealing with the counterinsurgency effort and the strategy you use in trying to bring a halt to a civil war are two very different animals. So I asked, how are we adjusting to these new conditions on the ground? And the long and short of it was, we are not adjusting to the conditions on the ground. We are doing the same thing, the same strategy, the one-size-fits-all, the stay-the-course. That, I think, given the history you have outlined, where this congressionally compelled report indicates things have gotten worse across almost every metric, not better, that stay the course just doesn't cut it any more. Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Scott, let's look at this, let's look at this through the prism of more of the same, or stay the course, as our majority is advocating, as opposed to what we have outlined in a new direction on each of these items. What does it mean to stay the course? Well, what it means in terms of energy independence is that we continue and increase our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, and all of the national security risk that entails for that country. That is what stay the course means on energy independence that we remain dependent on Middle Eastern oil. What does more of the same mean in Iraq? More of the same in Iraq means most costly, the continuing casualties, American troops losing their lives and becoming severely injured. But in addition to that, more of the same in Iraq means if you look at the course of Iraq, it means an increase in the civil war violence, because when you look at the curve of the Iraqi violence, it has been a steady increase in sectarian violence. So what does stay the course mean? It means stay the increasing course of civil war violence. The insurgent violence, which has been on the increase, the number of incidents over the summer reaching all-time highs. What does stay the course wartime policy mean? It means more insurgent violence. Is that the course we want to stay on? The only, and, boy, I have searched, I have searched high and low for some good news to report out of Iraq. The only positive news I have seen out of Iraq has been in terms of the political development in terms of the elections in Iraq, the unity government. But, unfortunately, that government has not been able to solidify its control over Iraq. It doesn't have the confidence of the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, if we stay that course, that doesn't offer much hope either. Homeland security, what does stay the course, more of the same mean for America under homeland security? It means more Cs, more Ds, and for more Fs for our failure to do more for airports, nuclear plants, chemical plants. More of the same on the war on terror, more of the same means more messages from Osama bin Laden, more of the same from Zarqawi, more of the same bombings in London, Madrid, Turkey, elsewhere, more sanctuary in Pakistan. That's what stay the course means in the war on terror. More of the same in the military means people on their third deployment, fourth deployment, sixth deployment. That is what more of the same means in the military. That just is not right for America.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment that once again the Members of this House appear poised to let another opportunity pass us by that would have a meaningful impact in the lives of millions of American families. Today, we are voting on a bill that has been rushed to this House floor and purports to raise the Federal minimum wage. In reality, however, the bill before us seeks to muddy the waters about whether America's lowest paid workers deserve to make a living wage. In stark contrast to the bill before us today, Mr. Miller, the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, has introduced very simple legislation that would increase the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the course of the next 2 years. This bill was introduced in May of 2005 and has yet to receive a hearing. The hastily drafted bill before us today, however, was only introduced earlier this afternoon, and the House leadership has brought it to the floor for a vote. This legislation adds unrelated and controversial provisions, that I'm sure some hope will end the debate and ensure that a meaningful increase in our minimum wage never takes place. We should instead, be voting today on a straightforward bill that simply raises the Federal minimum wage to a level that ensures that working families can emerge from the grasp of poverty. Before the House adjourns for the August recess, I believe we owe the American people a simple up-or-down vote on whether or not working Americans deserve a decent living wage. The current minimum wage of $5.15 per hour is not a living wage. It is not a wage on which single individuals, working full time, can adequately support themselves, and it is most certainly not a wage on which a single mother or single father can raise a family. Millions of hard-working Americans would directly benefit from a minimum wage increase. Some would argue that this would only benefit high school students and young adults who are being paid minimum wages on their first job at a fast food restaurant. In fact, more than 84 percent of workers who would directly benefit from a minimum wage increase are above the age of 20. In addition, nearly 60 percent of those individuals work full time, and 45 percent of them are married and/or have children. They are the victims of our inaction, Mr. Speaker. In many cases, it is our children who will suffer. I am ashamed that nearly 36 million Americans live in poverty in our country, and that nearly 13 million of those who live below the poverty line are children. With a very simple vote today--on a very simple piece of legislation--we could dramatically increase the physical, mental, and financial wellbeing of countless American children. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty, and the children of these working families must not be made to suffer for our collective lack of moral conviction. I call on my friends on the other side of the aisle, and I ask them to partner with us to pass a meaningful increase in the Federal minimum wage. We must pass legislation that does not contain controversial provisions that divide us. Instead, we should speak with one voice, as one Congress, and tell working Americans that we value their work, that we understand their sacrifices, and that they deserve to make a living wage.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of this legislation and of the growing strategic partnership between the United States, the world's oldest democracy, and India, the world's largest. The hard work by Members and the staff on the IR Committee under the leadership of the chairman and ranking member have produced a bill that better attempts to address legitimate nonproliferation concerns and respects congressional authority to approve agreements. During the markup, the committee adopted an amendment I offered to minimize the risk that our nuclear exports would assist India's nuclear weapons programs. Under this amendment, the President would be required to submit to Congress a report on the steps he is taking to ensure our exports do not contribute to India's nuclear weapons program. In addition, my amendment declared that it is U.S. policy to encourage India not to increase its production of fissile material in military facilities. Taken together with the other statements by the administration, this amendment makes clear that it is U.S. policy to promote the prompt negotiation of a fissile material production cutoff treaty; that pending entry into force of such a treaty, to press for the earliest possible achievement of a multilateral moratorium to accomplish this purpose; and to urge India to refrain from increasing its rate of production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. Mr. Chairman, the final bill must contain these provisions, and I would ask my colleague and the manager of the bill, Mr. Royce, whether he can assure me that he will work to maintain these provisions and their stated intent in the final bill as the legislative process goes forward.

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank both of you gentlemen. I intend to support the legislation.

Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue and on so many other issues here in the Congress. I want to wrap up by bringing this back to where we started, and that is the integral nexus between energy independence and national security. You can imagine what a positive to our national security policy it would be if in our dealings in the Middle East, our dealings with Russia and China and our dealings with South America, if energy was not an issue in the sense we were not dependent on other parts of the world, and particularly the Gulf States. What a transformative effect that could have in a positive way on our national security policy. Energy independence is really key. Our new direction, as outlined by real security, is energy independence by 2020. This is an achievable goal. It would require the kind of commitment that President Kennedy talked about when he talked about the Apollo project, but it can be done. I have great confidence in the American people and the American entrepreneur. We can do this. It would eliminate our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. We would increase production of alternative fuels in America. We would promote hybrid and flex-fuel vehicle technology in manufacturing, and we would enhance energy efficiency and conservation incentives. This is the direction Democrats feel we need to bring this country in order to make sure that our security is in fact very real. I want to yield to my colleague from Maryland for his closing remarks and once again thank you for not only this evening, but for all of your work on the national security plan.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, tonight Representative Van Hollen and I will be discussing one of the core issues of national security, and that is energy independence. National security is the core function of our government. For most of our history as a Nation, bipartisanship governed American national security policymaking. In the words of Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a Republican, ``Politics must end at the water's edge.'' A succession of American Presidents from Woodrow Wilson to Harry Truman to Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan guided this Nation through two world wars and the tense decades of the Cold War. Their leadership was based on asserting America's power in a way that advanced the ideals of our founders, and which made America a beacon to millions of people who were suffering under fascism and communism. Most importantly, these men knew the limits of any one Nation's ability, and they saw the wisdom of marshaling our strength with that of other freedom-loving people. They listened to the counsel of our allies and members of both parties here at home. The current administration has too often believed that it has the answers and does not need to pay attention to the ideas of others. This refusal to listen to other voices and an excessively partisan and ideological approach has resulted in an America that is more isolated than at any time in the postwar era. Around the world, among nations that should be our strong allies, we are less often seen as a force for good in the world, and this has jeopardized the cooperation we must have to win the war on terror. This has been most clearly seen in Iraq, where insistence on invading the country without the broad international coalition we assembled in the Gulf War, and then our brushing aside offers of help from the international community, have seriously undermined the war effort and increased the burden that our troops and our country must bear. But Iraq is not the only challenge facing our Nation. The ongoing crisis involving Israel, and Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, Iran's standoff with the international community over its nuclear program, and a similar faceoff with North Korea are all competing for the attention of American policymakers. In each of those crises, America's ability to marshal international support and use the full range of our power to effect a positive outcome has been undermined by the administration's ineffective stewardship of our national security. Democrats have developed a comprehensive blueprint to better protect America and to restore our Nation's position of international leadership. Our plan, Real Security, was devised with the assistance of a broad range of experts, former military officers, retired diplomats, law enforcement personnel, homeland security experts and others, who helped identify key areas where current policies have failed and where new ones were needed. In a series of six Special Orders, my colleagues and I have been sharing with the American people our vision for a more secure America. The plan has five pillars, and each of our Special Order hours have been addressing each of them in turn: Building a military for the 21st century, winning the war on terrorism, securing our homeland, a way forward in Iraq, and achieving energy independence for America, the subject of Ms. Kaptur's recent 5-minute speech. During our first Special Order we discussed the first pillar of our plan, building a military for the 21st century. To briefly summarize what we discussed 2 weeks ago, here are the elements of that pillar: Rebuild a state-of-the-art military; develop the world's best equipment and training, and maintain that equipment and training; accurate intelligence and a strategy for success; a GI bill of Rights for the 21st century; and strengthening the National Guard. We next discussed a comprehensive plan to win the war on terror, which focused on a wide-ranging series of strategies to destroy the threat posed by Islamic radicalism. This involves destroying al Qaeda and finishing the job in Afghanistan; doubling special forces and improving intelligence; eliminating terrorist breeding grounds; preventative diplomacy and new international leadership; securing loose nuclear materials by 2010; stopping nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea. The job of securing our homeland remains unfinished. In the wake of 9/11, there have been numerous commissions and investigations at the Federal, State and local level as well as a multitude of private studies. All of them, all of them, have pointed to a broad systemic and other flaws in our homeland security program. Almost 2 years ago, the independent 9/11 Commission published its report, but most of its recommendations have yet to be implemented. Our homeland security plan requires the implementation of all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It provides for the screening of all containers and cargo. It safeguards our nuclear and chemical plants. It prohibits outsourcing of ports, airports and mass transit to foreign interests. Trains and equips our first responders and invests in public health to safeguard Americans. In early June we discussed our plan for Iraq, a new course to make 2006 a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country with a responsible redeployment of U.S. forces. Democrats will insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency, promote regional diplomacy, and strongly encourage allies and other nations to play a constructive role. For the remainder of today's hour, we will discuss the fifth pillar of Real Security: Stable, reliable, affordable sources of energy are crucial to the U.S. economy and to the global economy. To ensure such a supply, I believe developing cleaner sources of energy and encouraging energy efficiency and conservation must be among the Nation's top priorities. Members of both parties in Congress and the administration must work together toward a pragmatic and comprehensive strategy to secure American prosperity in the 21st century. Democrats have long advocated increased investment in the search for alternative fuels and the development of energy-efficient technology. Today European and Asian competitors are already developing technologies that will reduce fuel consumption and lower the emission of green house gases. Rather than American entrepreneurs, it is our competitors who are prospering from these developments. By marshaling America's great strengths, our innovativeness, our technological prowess, our entrepreneurial spirit, we can better secure our Nation, save our environment, and become the world leader in this cutting-edge industry. In pursuing energy security, we must use the Nation's resources effectively. The Real Security Plan directs the national investment to areas that minimize economic risk while maximizing the potential benefits. It also aligns incentives for American consumers with the goals of our Nation. It makes transparent the true costs of energy and ensures that the easy choice for Americans is also the right choice for the Nation. Finally, it emphasizes the importance of energy as a national security issue. To achieve this vision, the Real Security Plan offers fresh policy ideas. These ideas are drawn from a broad range of stakeholders, academic experts, government administrators, energy industry executives, environmentalists, and a vibrant grass-roots community. The Real Security Plan pushes the Federal bureaucracy to overcome its business-as-usual approach and it encourages American entrepreneurs to innovate. While many of the ideas are new, some have been around for years. For example, experts have for many years recommended updating the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency or CAFE standards. This year even the majority on the Government Reform Committee stated in a report that the fuel economy standards have stagnated for years. Unfortunately, while the President has talked about the Nation's addiction to oil, he has failed to take the simple action of updating the CAFE standards. The President may believe that fuel efficiency standards are a burden on American manufacturers, or a constraint on the American consumer, but, sadly, he has underestimated American ingenuity and the willingness of Americas to sacrifice in the war on terror. In contrast, in 1961 President Kennedy announced his vision for the Apollo project to put a man on the Moon in one decade, by saying, ``I believe that this Nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out. ``But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months, because it is a very heavy burden. And there is no sense in agreeing unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today and this year. ``This decision demands,'' he said, ``a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, material and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already spread thin. ``It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline, which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated cost of materials or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries or a high turnover of key personnel.'' You might recall, in speaking of the Apollo project, President Kennedy also said, ``We do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard.'' This is the sort of leadership we need today on energy, and the level of commitment that we must be prepared to make, and we must ask of the American people. Unfortunately, this President has not asked the American people to sacrifice in the face of war or in the face of our tremendous challenges. I would now like to turn to my colleague, Representative Van Hollen of Maryland, who has been a very outspoken leader on national security, in general, on energy independence, in particular. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. SCHIFF. This sounds a little bit about the equivalent, if you are dealing with someone with a substance abuse addiction, to give them a subsidy to buy the contraband that is the subject of their addiction.

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentlewoman for all her leadership on this issue, and you alluded to the free market and the operation of market forces. That is not always as free as it might appear, particularly in the price at the pump. But there have been several obstacles to our energy independence, what has been a lack of vision in terms of where we need to go as a country in the administration and in the Defense Department, as you point out, but there have also obviously been within the oil industry efforts to stop this from happening. I have to imagine the best and quickest way to bring oil prices down is to make other sources of energy competitive. If we can incentivize the development of these biofuels and make them more readily available, the oil companies are going to drop their prices in a hurry in order to undercut this new industry, if nothing more. But what really kind of gnaws at me is when we look around the world at what China is doing with solar power and solar cities now, at what South American countries are doing at making themselves energy independent with biofuels, and what Japan is doing in terms of development of hybrid technology and how they are passing us by, that really grieves me because it hurts our national security interests. It hurts our economy. Let me do a reality check with Mr. Van Hollen's district which is 3,000 miles from mine. If I ask my constituents, would you be willing to make a sacrifice so that you could tell the oil producing Nations of the world, many of which are not our friends, we do not want your oil, we do not need your oil, you can take your oil and whatever, my constituents would leap at that. How would your constituents feel?

Mr. SCHIFF. The gentleman is exactly right. We have this choice. We have had this choice for several years. We can have more of the same, more of the same $3.50-a-gallon gas, maybe $4-a-gallon gas at the pump, more warming of the global environment, more production of greenhouse gases, more pain economically in terms of higher energy costs for businesses. Or we can have a new direction. I think we have talked about several of the ingredients of that new direction tonight. The investment of biofuels: That helps our farms and it helps our economy, it helps our energy independence, and it helps our energy independence and our national security. Investment in other alternative energy sources like solar power where the profit points are almost there, almost there for a great expansion of solar power. They just need a little incentivization before they can be broadly employed. The development of windpower, geothermal, and the whole host of renewable energy sources. This is the new direction we need to take this country in. Otherwise, every time we have a flare-up in the Middle East, as right now we are having this tragic situation, Hezbollah has attacked Israel, kidnapped soldiers and prompted this conflagration of the region, gas prices are going through the roof. Iran thumbs its nose at the international community and says we are going forward with our nuclear program, gas prices go through the roof. Hurricanes in the gulf take out refining capacity. We can't predict, as you say. We don't have a crystal ball. We don't know next year if it is going to be a hurricane, or next year it is going to be the Middle East, or the Venezuelan head of state who is anathema of the United States, but we do know it will be something. And if we don't take action to change the direction of our country to a new direction, we are going to be continuing to be funding a lot of the people that are bent on our destruction.

Mr. SCHIFF. That is one of the things that drives me crazy. One of my staff just got a Toyota Prius. She had to wait 6 months to get that Prius. There is a 6-month waiting time to get a hybrid made in Japan. We don't have a nonSUV hybrid yet that I am aware of, an American car out on the road that competes with the Prius or with the Honda Civic hybrid. Why is it that some of the foreign automakers seem to know the American market better than we know ourselves?

Mr. SCHIFF. I wanted to make one comment and I have a question for Ms. Kaptur. When we talk about sacrifice during the War on Terror, really the only people in America who have been asked to sacrifice are the men and women in uniform and their families, and they are sacrificing big time; multiple deployments to Iraq, to Afghanistan, families left behind, wondering if their loved one is going to come back at all, come back in one piece, how to make ends meet while they are gone. I met when I was in Iraq a young man serving there who was on his way back home. His wife was also in the service. She was on her way to Iraq. They were going to be like two ships passing in the night. The level of sacrifice of the men and women in uniform is nothing short of outstanding. Outside of that group, though, Americans have not been asked to sacrifice for the greater good, but we are sacrificing in an unexpected way, and that is when we go to the pump. We are paying a heavy price. The problem is that the price we are paying is not going for any productive gain. Yes, we are paying a lot more at the pump. But where is that money going? It is going in two places. It is going into the record profits that Mr. Van Hollen mentioned, which it is not just record profits for the oil industry. The oil companies have had the largest profits of any corporation in American corporate history, and these are the same companies that are enjoying the tax subsidies that we keep passing. And yes, the market is allowing them to take these profits. It is not compelling them to. It is not compelling them to charge that price at the pump, but it is giving them the opportunity to, and they are taking it. So part of the money is going there. Where else is the money going? Well, a lot of the money is going to the Middle East. A lot of it is going to countries that, either openly or covertly, are funding people who are trying to kill us. That is not a worthwhile sacrifice for Americans to make. And the terrible tragedy of this is. And I think probably the biggest missed opportunity of this administration is if we had started 5 years ago, or even after 9/11, and we said we are going to make the sacrifice now to wean ourselves off of oil, we might have had to pay a little bit more in terms of our conservation measures, but that money would be an investment in our security. Now we are paying 10 times as much, and it is going to some of the people trying to kill us. What I wanted to ask Ms. Kaptur, I know other countries in South America, for example, have gone a long way in terms of using biofuel, have made themselves energy independent, have done what we have not been able to do. If we did have the right package of incentives, if the government was a leader and worked with the agriculture industry, how much of our domestic consumption of energy could be supplied by biofuels?

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank you very much for your leadership on this, and it seems to me there is maybe no other issue that is as cost-cutting, as energy independent and has such a positive synergy, since that to the degree we could wean ourselves off of foreign oil, that helps us with our national security and our foreign policy. To the degree we can develop these new technologies, that helps us economically. There has been tremendous demand in China, India, and elsewhere that are energy-starved countries with strong GDPs. So it is an economic winner. In terms of our environment, not sending all of those ozone-depleting gases and the greenhouse effect and the global warming, it is an environmental imperative. In terms of rescuing the family farm and helping our agriculture industry, it could be a vital part of the answer. Almost every challenge we face as a Nation intersects at the intersection of energy independence. Now, some people point at other solutions, and I want to ask the gentleman about this. Probably the most prominent debate we have on energy kind of tells you where we are here is on drilling in Alaska. From my point of view, that does not make much sense, both in terms of how long it would take to extract the oil, the environmental costs, but I wanted to ask your thoughts on that.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and of our friend and ally, the State of Israel. In May of 2000, Israeli forces withdrew from southern Lebanon, ending an 18-year presence that was intended to stop guerilla attacks on civilians living in northern Israel. Last summer Israeli settlers and military personnel left Gaza and part of the West Bank and turned over administration of those areas to the Palestinian Authority. The withdrawals were conciliatory gestures to Israel's Arab neighbors, and Israel and the international community expected the Lebanese Government and the Palestinian Authority to see them as opportunities to stabilize a region that has seen too much blood and tears over the last 60 years. Instead, successive Lebanese governments, hobbled by the oppressive presence of Syrian troops and intelligence officers, never made a concerted effort to reassert control in the south, and effectively ceded this area to Hezbollah, a radical Shiite militia trained, supplied, and directed by Syria and Iran. In Gaza, a corrupt and calcified Palestinian Authority would not make the necessary efforts to dismantle the infrastructure of terror that allowed terrorists to rain down Qassam rockets on Israeli civilians. When Hamas, a radical Islamist party that has never budged from its calls for Israel's destruction, swept into power in parliamentary elections in January of this year, it made no secret of the fact it would embrace a rejectionist policy towards Israel. Nevertheless, the Government of Israel and a majority of her citizens were determined to continue efforts to withdraw from large parts of the West Bank. It was this plan that was the centerpiece of Ehud Olmert's campaign for Prime Minister and which the new Prime Minister was seeking to implement in the coming months. Instead, in what can only be seen as a coordinated effort, Hamas and Hezbollah crossed Israel's internationally recognized frontiers to murder and kidnap Israeli defense force personnel on Israeli territory. At this stage four things are clear: First, these acts were not undertaken by rogue elements of Hamas and Hezbollah, but were the result of meticulous and lengthy planning. Second, while the attacks were launched from Gaza and Lebanon, the Governments of Syria and Iran were involved in their planning and execution, especially in the case of the Lebanon attack. Third, the murder and kidnapping of Israeli military personnel on Israeli territory by armed forces operating from a neighboring state or political entity is the root cause of the present violence. And, fourth, Israel has the legitimate right to take military action necessary to defend its citizens and its territory from attack. We mourn the loss of life. Lebanese, Israeli, and Palestinian, they are all the victims of Hezbollah and Hamas. I hope that Secretary Rice and her international counterparts will be able to pressure Iran and Syria to rein in these terrorist organizations and establish a legitimate Lebanese Army force to patrol the border with Israel.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, it is a momentous event when a president vetoes a bill. It is a pronouncement that the lawmaking body of our federal government is in error and that the difficult lawmaking process has produced legislation not worthy of enactment. For the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, nothing could be further from the truth. I was proud to have voted for H.R. 810 when it first came to the House Floor for a vote in May 2005, and I am proud today to vote to override the President's veto--the first veto of his Administration. A broad spectrum of lawmakers from both parties and all regions of the country recognize the extraordinary opportunity that stem cell research presents to treat and cure tragic diseases afflicting millions of Americans. Some of these potential treatments were only dreamt about a generation ago. Alzheimer's, paralysis, Parkinson's, diabetes--the list of possible applications for stem cell research goes on and on. For some of the victims of these diseases, stem cell research provides the only present hope for a cure. To use the President's first and only veto to effectively deny these citizens of their best hope is as tragic as it is wrongheaded. H.R. 810 carefully ensures that this research is conducted in a manner consistent with the highest ethical standards. There have been numerous times in history when a chief executive has denied the progress of science. We mark these times as setbacks for humanity, and we also recognize that in many cases, progress was only delayed, not curtailed. Despite the setback of this veto, the struggle will continue--both the struggle for Americans seeking to overcome disability and disease, and the struggle to support the scientific community in its quest to find the effective cures and treatments. I am confident that the American people will not allow this veto to forever impede the progress of science.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Martin Rubin. Mr. Rubin will be greatly missed. The transportation engineering world lost a legend whose influence in the development of the Los Angeles Metro Rail and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, BART, systems, among other critical transportation projects, continues to facilitate the commutes of residents in some of our nations most expansive metropolitan areas. A native of Brooklyn, New York, Martin Rubin entered into the United States Army following his graduation from City College of New York. In 1956, he joined Parsons Brinckerhoff, a 120-year-old international engineering firm based in New York City. After moving to Southern California in 1981, he worked indefatigably to expand the prestigious representation of Parsons Brinckerhoff to the western United States, and simultaneously managed a wide array of transportation projects. Mr. Rubin's undeniably selfless dedication earned him the honor of being in charge of the Western region of Parsons Brinckerhoff in the 1980s, followed in 1990 by his selection as the president and chief operating officer of the firm's United States infrastructure arm. Always dedicated to service, he relinquished those titles to assume his duties in the development of the Los Angeles Metro Rail system where he oversaw the engineering and construction for the Blue Line, Green Line, and Red Line, as well as overseeing preliminary efforts on the Pasadena to Los Angeles Gold Line. He was subsequently honored by being named the chairman of Parsons Brinckerhoff in 1994, an honor that he held until 1997. His retirement in 2004 was a fitting end to his 48 years of distinguished service to his firm, and to the citizens of California. I ask all Members of the House of Representatives to pause to honor a great man, Martin Rubin, who touched so many people through his deeds in life. He will be missed not only by his surviving wife and his four children, but also by all of those who have benefited from the works to which he dedicated his life.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, this week I had the pleasure of meeting with Nagorno-Karabagh's Foreign Minister George Petrosian and National Assembly Speaker Ashot Ghulian. I have long supported the right of self-determination for the people of Nagorno-Karabagh and greatly admire the efforts of the people of this historically Armenian region to build democracy and a market economy in the face of hostility from Azerbaijan. It is a time of hope for a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict that has plagued the South Caucus for 15 years. The Armenian and Azeri leadership have, for several years, been negotiating to turn a ceasefire into a more durable peace. It is a process that has been long, tiring and frustrating. I applaud the persistence and commitment of the Nagorno-Karabagh authorities and the government of Armenia and I hope that all of their efforts are slowly, but surely, paying off. In the last week, the new U.S. Co-Chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza announced the framework of an agreement that Armenian and Azeri political leaders will soon discuss in an effort to settle the conflict once and for all. In a statement that was issued by the U.S. embassy in Yerevan yesterday, the Minsk Group's American, French and Russian co-chairs said the proposal envisages a self-determination referendum to be held in Karabagh after the redeployment of Armenian troops from Azerbaijani territories surrounding Karabagh. I hope that this announcement will clear the way for a brighter future for the Karabagh people and for the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is a sad consequence of the war that Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh have been subjected to a cruel and illegal blockade by Turkey and Azerbaijan, a blockade that continues to undermine the prospects for peace. Armenia and the government of Nagorno-Karabagh have persisted in looking for ways to ease regional tensions, but the Azeris have too often responded by walking away. It is also not helpful that Azerbaijan has persistently talked of a military build-up even as it ostensibly negotiates with the Karabagh and Armenia. Last December's desecration of Armenian khatchars in Azerbaij an also poisoned the atmosphere surrounding the talks. I am pleased that the Azeri hostility has not gone unnoticed by our government. Last Thursday, Deputy Assistant Secretary Bryza spoke to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. In response to a question about whether the conflict could resume, he said that it is from the Azeri side ``where you most often hear those sorts of threats.'' And in light of the oil revenues, he went on to say that ``It's really quite unhelpful make statements that imply that this increased wealth is going to lead to purchases of arms and military threats.'' In my meeting with them, I told Foreign Minister Petrosian and Speaker Ghu1ian how much I admire their commitment to peace and their leadership. Too many families have lost loved ones as a result of this conflict. It has been far too long that displaced refugees have been homeless. We seem to be at a real turning point in the history of the Caucus region and I am proud that the United States is playing a significant role in the peace process.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Republican leadership decided to pull the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization legislation from the floor. Debate on this historic civil rights statute had been scheduled for last Wednesday afternoon, and just hours before it was to start, the bill was withdrawn from consideration. As a cosponsor of this important bill, I am deeply troubled by the majority leadership's willingness to allow extreme members of their party to hijack reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, a law that has protected minority voters from intimidation and discrimination for 40 years. It was an act unbefitting a party that calls itself the ``Party of Lincoln.'' The original Voting Rights Act reinforced the Constitution's 15th amendment guarantee that race cannot be a bar to any citizen's right to vote. Although the 15th amendment was ratified in 1870, it took nearly 100 years for Congress to give it teeth with the Voting Rights Act. Until then, the rights of millions of Americans to vote was nullified by poll taxes, literacy tests, voter intimidation, and outright violence. Only in 1965, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, were African Americans finally able to exercise the right to vote. But the path to this legislation was by no means easy. On March 7, 1965, what has become known as Bloody Sunday, 600 civil rights marchers peacefully protested for the right to vote. Upon reaching the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, the marchers were attacked by State and local police, who tear-gassed them and beat them with batons. Three years ago, in commemoration of the struggle for civil rights, I joined a pilgrimage led by my colleague Congressman John Lewis through many of the sites that were part of the fight for true equality here in America. We visited the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and on the wall of my office is a picture of the delegation, black, white, Asian and Latino, standing together in celebration of the sacrifices of those who marched there. Standing there then and reflecting on the experience now, it is impossible to miss the transcendent importance of the unfettered right to vote. It was powerful enough then to garner the hatred of a mob of segregationists, and it inspires us now to continue to fight for reauthorization of the legislation and the full protections of our sacred franchise. I welcome a debate over the continuing vitality of the Voting Rights Act, but I deplore the delay which the Republican leadership's decision to pull the bill has occasioned. In the decades since President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, racial discrimination is still far too prevalent a feature of elections across the Nation from California to Florida. It is very true that significant progress has been made in the past 41 years since the VRA was first passed, and minority voters have a much greater voice in the political process today because of the Voting Rights Act. Despite that, after every election, we still hear stories of voter discrimination and intimidation, and we are reminded that this legislation remains important today, and we cannot let the provisions of the VRA expire. These expiring provisions, preclearance of election law changes for jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, Federal observers at polls, and language assistance for limited English speakers, are still needed to ensure minority voting rights. It is evident to those from my State of California just how critical, for example, language assistance is for those with limited English skills. We do not make our elections easy on voters. In a State where 135 candidates ran for Governor 3 years ago, it should be no surprise that during the 2004 general election, the California voter guidebook was nearly 200 pages. This guide included information on candidates and ballot measures that helped voters prepare for the election. Even native English speakers struggled to digest the ballot arguments in preparation for voting. For citizens with limited English proficiency, the task was all the more daunting. I believe all U.S. citizens should learn the English language. It is the key to upward mobility in our society and a powerful common bond. Yet new citizens still learning the English language have the right to vote. Thankfully, due to the VRA, our polling sites provide language assistance so that all citizens can meaningfully participate in the election process, including new citizens still struggling to master the English language. The right to vote for every American citizen is the foundation of our democracy. Unfortunately, there are still barriers to overcome, and we as a Nation must not give up on the protections that give content to that right. I am proud to support the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and will continue to do my part to ensure that the VRA remains effective and enforced. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the leadership to take immediate action to bring this legislation to the floor for a vote.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, hundreds of thousands of men and women each day put on a uniform and put their lives in danger to protect our neighborhoods. Just last year, 154 police officers were killed in the line of duty in the United States. There were 17 police officers who were killed in the line of duty in 2005 in my home State of California, alone. These are men and women who serve us bravely and with distinction, and they will not be returning home to their families. When I introduced the Law Enforcement Tribute Act in 2001, the city of Glendale had wanted to honor Officer Lazzaretto as well as three other police officers and one sheriff's deputy that had been killed in the line of duty. Chuck Lazaretto was tragically killed in a shooting in May 1997. Because of this House's support, we enabled Glendale to place a memorial honoring its fallen heroes outside its new police department headquarters. The parameters of LETA are very simple. Maximum grants are $150,000, and they must have at least a 50 percent local match. This amendment would appropriate $500,000 for fiscal year 2007. In addition to the memorial that was erected in my district, the Law Enforcement Tribute Act program provided funds in 2004 to 17 local law enforcement memorials all over this Nation, including memorials in Tacoma, Washington; Fairbanks, Alaska; Tucson, Arizona; and Memphis, Tennessee. It is a fitting tribute for the Federal Government to continue to provide a small amount of assistance to honor these fallen heroes. I ask for my colleague's support in honoring the fallen men and women of law enforcement, and restore funds for the Law Enforcement Tribute Act Program to its FY 03 funding level of $500,000.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this amendment, regrettably for my friend from New York. I also am a very strong supporter of the COPS program, like my friend from Alabama, a former prosecutor. I have always supported and continue to support the COPS program. But robbing one vital program to support another is not the answer. Representing Southern California, the home of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, I have seen the tremendous space science that has come out of our robotic exploration of Mars and out of the entire space program. This has manifest itself in health technology and telecommunications technology. It has had tremendous benefits to all of our constituents. I don't want to see that research go away. I don't want to see that space science go away. And already there are dramatic cuts and delays in some of the space sciences that we just cannot afford. We have to find a different way to fund the COPS program. Taking the money out of this vital NASA effort is not the answer, and I must oppose the amendment.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize World Refugee Day, which is the international community's day of remembrance and action on behalf of the more than 20 million refugees, who have been driven from their homes because of war, famine, and natural disaster. World Refugee Day is intended to raise awareness of the plight of these millions of people, but more importantly, it is about the recognition that we have the power to help them and that we must. To Americans who are blessed with the comforts of 21st Century living and an abundance of food, it is difficult to conceive of the intolerable and degrading existence in which nearly all refugees live. Today, as individuals and as a Nation, we must pledge to redouble our efforts to work with our allies, the United Nations and other regional organizations to help alleviate the suffering of the world's refugees and to address the causes that have created the world's refugee population. As we speak, millions of Darfurians in Sudan have been driven out of their homes by the armed Janjaweed militia. Huddled in pitiful camps and under constant threat of attack, the Darfur refugees live on inadequate food and with little or no shelter. Their crops are destroyed. Their livestock have been killed and thrown into wells, poisoning the water. Their villages have been burned to the ground. Darfurian women are systematically raped, including young girls who venture out of the refugee camps for firewood. What we are seeing in the largest country on the African continent is genocide: a calculated means of annihilating a group of people, robbing them of their chance at livelihood. International aid workers and a thin force of African Union peacekeepers are all that stands between them and death. Addressing the refugee crisis is not only a humanitarian endeavor; it also contributes to our national security. Refugee camps have long been recognized as prime breeding grounds for extremism. As we have seen throughout the last century, wars that force large numbers of people from their homes result in regional instability, threatening American interests and our security. American and international aid can do much to ensure that refugee camps do not become the birthplace of more violence and terrorism, While refugees are most often associated with war, it is important to recognize today that natural disasters also force people out of their homes. The Asian tsunami and the Pakistani earthquakes have created millions of displaced people and desertification and rising sea levels which are the result of climate change will create millions more. Mr. Speaker, it is easy to associate the word ``refugee'' with a nameless, faceless person. We must remember that refugees are mothers, fathers and children, whose lives have been destroyed by war nature's wrath. Today we acknowledge our common humanity and pledge that every day be a day of action on behalf of those who have no voice.