Adam Schiff

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 63rd anniversary the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day, or in Hebrew, Yom HaShoah--Day of the Destruction. The ``destruction'' is an apt description of the horrific crime that resulted in the deaths of six million Jews and destroyed families and communities across Europe. In remembering the unspeakable horror of the Holocaust, we must recommit ourselves to ensuring that this tragedy never happens again and to fighting the precursors that led to this mass genocide--the bigotry of anti-Semitism, the discriminatory Nurenberg Laws, and the blind eye that the world turned for far too long. We honor the memory of those that suffered, and we pray for a world free from such hatred and despair. The Jewish people have a long history of persecution and redemption. This month, the Jewish people celebrated Passover--a commemoration of the Exodus when the Jews received their freedom and were redeemed after 400 years of enslavement. This cycle of persecution and redemption has continued over the thousands of years since then, and in the years following the Holocaust, the Jewish people were redeemed through the founding of the State of Israel. The nation was founded on principles of democracy and freedom, and has maintained these ideals in the face of the ongoing terrorism that continues to plague its people. However, despite these attacks on its people, this Jewish State continues to serve as haven for persecuted Jews and since World War II, has taken in entire communities from the former Soviet Union, South Africa, Ethiopia, Argentina, and throughout the world. Immediately following the liberation of the concentration camps, we pledged to ourselves, never again. Never again will the world stand idly by while individuals are being slaughtered solely for their race, religion or ethnicity. But in the years since then, we have seen atrocities committed in Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo and a genocide is still ongoing in Darfur. Today, I rise on this solemn day to remember these brutal acts of genocide and recommit myself to this pledge, never again.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, Saturday marked the 36th annual Earth Day, a day set aside for reflection, education, and action on the impact of human beings on our planet. Although it is certainly important to celebrate the rich diversity of nature with our families and communities, my greatest hope for the Earth is that my children's children will not have to observe an Earth Day. Instead, I look forward to a future when concern for the environment is part of each decision our country makes, rather than only a matter we address one day each year on a date set aside to make us consider the impact we are having on our surroundings. While the front pages of our newspapers routinely carry stories on the degradation of our natural resources, environmental issues have yet to rise to a top priority in Congress. Nonetheless, the decisions we make today will profoundly impact the way we live for years and generations to come. Indeed, our stewardship of the environment is inextricably tied to our economic security and growth. This is not news to the American people. Over the last 20 years, more Americans have said that environmental protection is a high priority for the Nation. Nearly three in five Americans are active in or sympathetic to the environmental movement, but most believe the government has a negative, or at best negligible, impact on these efforts. One area in which the Federal Government has failed to lead is global warming. A recent Gallup poll found that nearly two-thirds of Americans worry about the greenhouse effect, up from just over half in 2004. Eighty-three percent believe that global warming will become a problem for the U.S. and 57 percent feel it poses a very serious threat to the world. And, Mr. Speaker, 68 percent of our fellow citizens believe the Federal Government should be doing more to combat it. The science of climate change has become clear and alarming. NASA recently confirmed that 9 of the last 10 years have been the warmest since modern records began in 1861, with 2005 topping the list. Much of this rise can be explained by a 35 percent increase over preindustrial levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial production. Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the current levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will cause the Earth's temperature to reach its highest point since the end of the Ice Age some 9,000 years ago. Average global temperatures could rise by 3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. This would melt the polar ice caps, causing sea level to rise twenty or more feet, causing severe worldwide flooding that would put large parts of Florida and California underwater. Warmer weather will also lead to severe weather patterns that will contribute to food shortages, increase the spread and severity of disease, increase the damage and displacement from a range of natural disasters, and jeopardize billions of people around the world. In 2005, the economic costs of weather-related catastrophes have been estimated at more than $200 billion. As temperatures rise, so will this economic toll. The extinction of millions of plant and animal species presents another priceless and irreversible toll of global warming. While some temperature rise is inevitable, most scientists still believe that concerted action can prevent the most apocalyptic consequences of climate change. The global nature of this challenge creates not only an obligation for the U.S., but also an opportunity. By conserving the resources we have and developing new, cleaner sources of energy, we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, protect our wilderness, and purify our air, water, and soil. Taking the lead in improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions will improve our economic security and prosperity today and for generations to come. New scientific findings highlight the urgency of addressing global warming and related environmental challenges. Fortunately, the innovative and enterprising spirit of the American people puts us in an ideal position to seize this opportunity. Together, we can change the headlines to reflect a more optimistic outlook for our planet while improving our own quality of life. The American people have made it clear that the environment should be on our agenda every day, not just Earth Day, and I hope that Congress will heed this appeal.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Rusnak Automotive Group in celebrating 40 years as a premiere automotive dealer in Southern California. Paul Rusnak opened his first location in 1959 because he saw the beginning of a fascination with European sports cars. Over the years, his business grew to include more than 25 different automotive brands, both domestic and European. From Culver City to Pasadena, Rusnak Automotive Group has centered its market in convenient locations for our community members. A short distance from Art Center College of Design, where many automotive designers are inspired, is the intersection of Orange Grove and Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena, California. This location is where Rusnak showcases cars such as Jaguar, Porsche, Audi, Rolls-Royce, and Bentley in historic buildings that have served as automotive dealerships since the turn of the century. The famous Walter M. Murphy Motors and Murphy Co. Coachworks of Duisenberg fame was housed where Rusnak now displays Porsches. Also, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics has designated the Rolls-Royce dealership as one of the nation's historic aerospace sites--it was the first plant for Aerojet Engineering Corporation, which was the site of the invention of rocket fuel. The largest automotive mall in the world houses Rusnak/Westlake and BMW, Porsche, and Audi dealerships. Rusnak Automotive Group has received many awards over the years including the first J.D. Powers ``Customer Approved Retailer.'' But--the best awards have come from the many repeat customers who have made Rusnak the number one volume Audi dealer in the Western United States and the fastest growing Mercedes- Benz dealer in Southern California. Looking to the future, Rusnak now has a new BMW dealership on the 101 Freeway in Thousand Oaks, California. Mr. Paul Rusnak, his daughter, Liz Rusnak Arizmendi, Vice President Public Relations, and Rusnak Automotive Group are generous supporters of many local charitable organizations, including Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, Make a Wish of Greater Los Angeles, the Pasadena POPS Orchestra, the AIDS Service Center of Los Angeles, Hillsides, Methodist Hospital Foundation, the American Red Cross and the Ronald McDonald House of Pasadena. It is my distinct honor to recognize the contributions of Rusnak Automotive Group. I ask all members to join me in congratulating Paul Rusnak and his staff for celebrating 40 years of contributions to the community and automotive industry.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Just to interrupt for a second. I visited our troops in that very same hospital, as well as here in Bethesda at Walter Reed. That is exactly what they told me also. They just want to get back to their unit. These young people, and they are so young, that is the most striking thing when you meet them in the field. They are so committed, it just can't help but take your breath away.

Mr. SCHIFF. If I can add one thing, before you do, and that is one of the things that really concerns me, and here again is the failure of us in this body to do the oversight we should, to have the majority support that oversight, and that is have we moved as quickly as we can, as quickly as this great Nation can to provide the technology to defend against these improvised explosive devices that have taken so many Americans lives? I think the answer is, no, we have not done all we can. We have not moved as fast as we could. I know certainly in Congress, when these questions have come up, we haven't gotten the answers, I think, to go home to our constituents and say every rock is being turned over, every effort is being made, every resource is being expended to make sure we are protected against the IEDs. I think there is more we could be doing. And the L.A. Times had an analysis recently of a promising new technology and the frustration of those that have been working on this program about how difficult it is to get that technology actually out into the field. That is inexcusable. If there is promising technology, it needs to be fast-tracked, and it needs to be put to immediate use. The fact that we would lose a single life because of the failure of the richest Nation on Earth to provide the body armor, the up-armored vehicles, or the technology to defeat the IEDs is just inexcusable.

Mr. SCHIFF. I think this is part and parcel of the broader problem, where there is a lack of accountability, there is a lack of responsibility. The reality is that our friends in the majority have been in the majority now for years. They control this body, they control the Senate, they control the White House, they have got a pretty favorable Supreme Court, and there has been not only inaction on energy independence, but actually we have lost ground and are moving in the wrong direction. There is really only one party to blame and one party responsible for that failure. And for several years the blame was all placed on the Clinton administration. Everything that was going on years after the Clinton administration was the fault of the Clinton administration. But at some point you have to take responsibility when you are in the leadership. When you are in the majority, you have to take responsibility. Let us take the pillar that we wanted to highlight tonight, and that is the 21st century military, the part of our Real Security plan that would strengthen our military and that would rebuild a state-of-the-art military; that would ensure that we have the world's best equipment and training; that will provide accurate intelligence and a strategy for success; that would bring about a new GI Bill of Rights for the 21st century, and that will strengthen the National Guard. Let me talk briefly about a couple of those items, and then I would love to hear your thoughts as well. In poll after poll, the American people have demonstrated they have more faith in the military than in any other public institution in this country. I have been to Iraq three times, I have been to Afghanistan twice, I have met with our troops there and have spent a lot of time with military personnel here and around the world and other places, and that confidence in the troops is well placed. America does have the finest military in the world. In Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen and marines have done everything we have asked of them and more. But since 9/11, our Nation's Armed Forces have become overextended. We have had recruiting goals that have not been met, forcing the armed services to enlist less qualified men and women. Because of the poor planning by the administration, many units are on their second and third tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Army and Marine Corps personnel still don't have adequate body armor and sufficiently armored vehicles to the degree they should. We are committed to ensuring that the United States military remains second to none and, more importantly, committed to building the Armed Forces to confront the threats of the 21st century. The Real Security plan, which I went over, has these elements that will rebuild the state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary. Second, we will guarantee our troops have the protective gear, equipment, and training they need and are never sent to war without accurate intelligence and a strategy for success. Third, we will enact a GI Bill of Rights for the 21st century that guarantees our troops, active, reserve, retired, and our veterans and their families receive the pay and health care, the mental health services and other benefits they have earned and deserve. Finally, we will strengthen the National Guard in partnership with the Nation's Governors to ensure it is fully manned, equipped and, available to meet missions at home and abroad. Building this 21st-century military begins with the acknowledgment that we are in a new era with a new set of challenges and threats distinct from those we faced in the Cold War. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle delight in accusing our party of having a pre- 9/11 mindset. But their stewardship of the Nation's defenses makes it clear that it is the majority that has been living in the past. We need a military that is highly mobile, self-sustaining, and capable of operating in small units. On the one hand, our ability to use air power has extended our global reach and allows us to engage enemies without large numbers of ground troops being employed, as was the case in Kosovo and Afghanistan. On the other hand, the war on terror, ongoing operations in Iraq and the increasing need for American forces to play a stabilizing role as peacekeepers and peace enforcers demands the sustained commitment of American forces. Our friends in the majority used to deride these types of operations as nation-building. But in a post-9/11 world, we cannot allow states to fail and become havens for Islamists and other radicals to plot attacks against us. Clearly, we need to increase the size of the active-duty Army and Marine Corps. These are just some of the steps we will take. There are others I want to highlight, but I will be happy to yields to my colleague from Washington.

Mr. SCHIFF. And this is precisely the problem. When we discuss where we are in the rest of the world, what our standing is in the world, and some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will pejoratively say, well, we don't care about the court of public opinion, we are not in this to be popular. Well, it is true we are not in this to be popular. But when we alienate the rest of the world, it has a real cost to us in terms of our own security. We are dependent, like it or not, on information about al Qaeda's operations from other nations. If we can't get their cooperation, that affects our security. If we communicate to the rest of the world that we don't care about their priorities, when we go to them about ours, when we go to them about North Korea or Iran or Iraq, how can we expect a warm and ready and welcoming response? We can't. And that puts us more at risk. So this has had real consequences. When I consider where we were in the world's estimation and the kind of cooperation we could get pre-9/ 11, and I look now, when it should be that much greater given what took place on 9/11, but it is that much more problematic because these world leaders, even if they wanted to help us, and many of them do, because they recognize the threat to themselves from terrorism as well, but if our Nation is that unpopular, or our chief executive is that unpopular and politically they can't afford to do it, that is a real problem. When people are running for office in foreign capitals of our allies on a platform of who will be most opposed to the United States policy, that is a problem for our security. It is not about popularity; it is about security. And this is why we need a change. We need a change that will, as you say, bring the world together in a great cause. Because in the end, this fight we have with terrorism unites us. It is an attack on civilization. And was it Ben Franklin who said, ``We have to hang together or we shall all hang separately''?

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is based on bipartisan legislation that I introduced, along with Representatives Flake, Harman and Inglis, dealing with the NSA surveillance program. And the basic premise of this legislation is that the Government must have all the tools it needs, it must have all the authority it needs to pursue al Qaeda using every tool in the toolbox. But the premise is also that we are a Nation of laws, and that whereas the Commander in Chief has the authority to eavesdrop and surveil off American shores, when it comes to the electronic surveillance of Americans on American soil, Congress has the authority to regulate that surveillance. And, in fact, Congress has regulated that surveillance through title III and through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; and, in fact, those two laws form the exclusive authority to surveil Americans on American soil. Now, we have learned, both through a disclosure in The New York Times and through the disclosures of the present administration, that there is an NSA surveillance program that, among others things, surveils conversations between Americans or people on U.S. soil and people overseas who may be affiliated with al Qaeda. Other than a small number of us, we don't know much about the contours of this program. Recently when the Attorney General testified in the Judiciary Committee, I asked about the limiting principle of this program: Was it restricted only to these international calls? What if the Attorney General decided tomorrow or the administration decided tomorrow that it had the inherent authority as Commander in Chief to tap purely domestic calls between two Americans; did it feel it would need to go to court for that authority? And the Attorney General said he would not rule it out. He would not rule out having the pure authority, without going to court, to tap the calls between two Americans on American soil. So what is the limiting principle if this program can change from day to day without the input of Congress? The only limiting principle is the good faith of the executive, which when the executive shows it is infallible might be a sufficient limiting principle. But the executive is no more infallible than we are here in Congress, and so we have a role to play. And this motion to recommit says that that role is the following: that, first, when we pass a law, like FISA and Title III, where we say the exclusive means of domestic eavesdropping is under these provisions with court approval, we mean what we say; that, second, the authorization to use military force that we voted on in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 did not create an exception to the authority to eavesdrop on Americans on American soil; that, third, if the President believes that FISA or existing law is insufficient to the task, he should come to Congress through his representatives and ask us to amend the law. And this is what is most disturbing about what has happened so far. When the administration did come in the context of the PATRIOT bill and asked us to change FISA, we made changes to FISA. When one of the Republican Senators asked the administration, do you need us to change FISA more; is there a problem with FISA; is it not keeping pace with the terrorists or technology? The answer from the administration was, no, FISA is working just fine. The more truthful answer would have been, no, because we don't feel bound by FISA. We feel we can do what we choose to, what we feel we must, without consulting with Congress. So this bill says, importantly, that if the administration feels that existing law is not enough, it should come to us and ask for amendment. And, finally, it asks the administration to report to Congress on the extent to which Americans have been surveilled on American soil so we can do our job as a coequal branch of government. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the ranking member from California.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes, in its current form.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war is now in its 4th year, and I, like many of my colleagues and millions of my fellow citizens, are troubled about the direction the conflict is taking. I have been to Iraq three times to visit our troops there, and I have spent time with our wounded here and in Germany. They have done everything we have asked of them, and they have done it magnificently. While we have a moral obligation to do whatever we can to avoid having Iraq spiral into an all-out civil war, now is the time for the Iraqis themselves to decide if they wish to be one country. And, Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to take steps that will ensure that 2006 is a year of significant transition to full sovereignty for the people of Iraq. This is a conflict that has come to grief in many ways. In the fall of 2002, I voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq because of the threat that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and because I was concerned that he had an active nuclear weapons program. If you go back and look at the debate in the House and Senate, this was a decision taken by the Congress to prevent Iraq from acquiring or using or transferring nuclear weapons. Months later, as American forces pushed across the Kuwaiti frontier and into Iraq, we were on a hunt for weapons of mass destruction. Delivering the Iraqi people from the brutality of Saddam Hussein was a noble act, but the promotion of democracy in Iraq was not our primary reason for going to war. Similarly, we knew the Shiite majority had suffered terribly under the Ba'ath regime, and freeing them from the oppression of the Sunni minority was an added benefit of the invasion. But reordering the ethnic balance of political power in Iraq was not our primary purpose for going to war. Soon after the fall of Baghdad, it became clear that many of the pre- war assumptions that had guided the President and his advisers were wrong. There were no chemical or biological weapons, there was no nuclear program, and while many Iraqis celebrated the ouster of Saddam Hussein, they did not line the streets of Baghdad to greet our troops with flowers. In fact, within days, there emerged the beginnings of what would become an organized and deadly insurgency that would quickly put an end to General Tommy Franks' plan to pare down the 140,000 troops in April 2003 to about 30,000 by September 2003. In recent months, even as our military has become more adept at combating the insurgency, the nature of the struggle in Iraq has changed yet again. Long-simmering ethnic tensions, which had been suppressed under Saddam's totalitarian regime, have threatened to tear the country apart. While the full-scale civil war that many feared in the wake of the bombing of the Askariya mosque in Samarra has not yet come to pass, most observers believe the country is currently in the grip of a low-level civil war that could erupt into a full-scale conflict at any time. The ongoing sectarian strife has been exacerbated by the protracted struggle among and inside Iraq's political factions over the formation of a permanent government. Last week's decision by the Shiite parties that make up the largest block in parliament that was elected 4 months ago to replace Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari with Jawad al-Maliki paves the way for the formation of a broad-based government. The question is now whether this hopeful development will be enough to pull Iraq back from the precipice. There is a broad census among experts here and abroad that Iraq's future will be determined by politics and not by force. The formation of a permanent Iraqi Government, one that will have the power of legitimacy and vision to assume primary responsibility for securing and governing the country, is a necessary precondition to ending the insurgency, preventing a civil war, and allowing large-scale reconstruction to begin. Consequently, our role in Iraq must become more political and less military. For if there is one thing that Iraqis of every ethnic, religious, and political stripe can agree on, it is that they do not want foreign troops in their country indefinitely. I support a responsible redeployment of our troops during the course of 2006 so we are not drawn into sectarian conflict and so Iraqis are forced to take primary responsibility for securing and governing their country. A responsible redeployment of American coalition forces will have to be done in stages to build greater Iraqi sovereignty and control over security, not civil war. We should also publicly declare that the United States does not seek to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq, and I have cosponsored legislation to prevent the establishment of permanent bases, which can only serve as a catalyst for the insurgency and for foreign jihadis. Devising and implementing a successful end-game in Iraq will be difficult, but an open-ended commitment to remain in the country is untenable and unwise. The American people want Iraq to succeed and for a representative government there to survive and to lead to a better future for the Iraqi people. But it will ultimately be the Iraqi people who must decide whether they wish to live together in peace as one country or continue to murder each other in large numbers. We cannot decide that for them. In the fight against the malicious al Qaeda in Iraq, foreign jihadis bent on destroying a government chosen by the Iraqi people, we are in solidarity with the Iraqi people who want a better life for their children. But, Mr. Speaker, we will not stand as a shield between Iraqi sects bent on killing each other. The new prime minister and leadership have the next 30 days to form a strong unity government. We hope they will be successful in that task, and we hope that the Iraqi leaders understand that the patience of the American people is running out. Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war is now in its fourth year and I, like many of my colleagues and millions of our fellow citizens, am deeply concerned about the direction that the conflict is taking. I have been to Iraq three times to visit with our troops there and I have spent time with our wounded here and in Germany. They have done everything that we have asked of them and they have done it magnificently. Tragically, these American heroes are still being killed and wounded daily. Over 2,300 troops have been killed and thousands more have been injured. American taxpayers are paying approximately $194 million a day for the war according to the Congressional Budget Office--that's more than a billion dollars a week. A new CRS report puts the current costs of continued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at close to $10 billion a month, with most of that money going to Iraq. While we have a moral obligation to do whatever we can to avoid having Iraq spiral into all-out civil war, now is time for the Iraqis themselves to decide whether they wish to be one country. And, Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to take steps that will ensure that 2006 is a year of significant transition to full sovereignty for the people of Iraq. This is a conflict that has come to grief in so many ways. In the fall of 2002 I voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq because of the threat that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and because I was convinced that he had an active nuclear weapons program. If you go back and look at the debate in the House and Senate, this was a decision taken by the Congress to prevent Iraq from acquiring and using or transferring nuclear weapons. Months later, as American forces pushed across the Kuwaiti frontier and into Iraq, we were on a hunt for weapons of mass destruction. Delivering the Iraqi people from the brutality of Saddam Hussein was a noble act, but the promotion of democracy in Iraq was not our primary reason for going to war. Similarly, we knew that the Shiite majority had suffered terribly under the Ba'ath regime and freeing them from the oppression of the Sunni minority was an added benefit of the invasion. But reordering the ethnic balance of political power in Iraq was not our primary purpose for going to war. Soon after the fall of Baghdad, it became clear that many of the prewar assumptions that had guided the President and his advisors were wrong. There were no chemical or biological weapons; there was no nuclear program; and, while many Iraqis celebrated the ouster of Saddam Hussein, they did not line the streets of Baghdad to greet our troops with flowers. In fact, within days there emerged the beginnings of what would become an organized, deadly insurgency that would quickly put an end to General Tommy Franks' plan to pare down the 140,000 troops in Iraq in April 2003 to about 30,000 by September 2003. In recent months even as our military has become more adept at combating the insurgency, the nature of the struggle in Iraq has changed yet again. Long-simmering ethnic tensions, which had been suppressed under Saddam's totalitarian regime, have threatened to tear the country apart. While the full-scale civil war that many feared in the wake of the bombing of the Askariya mosque in Samarra has not yet come to pass, most observers believe that the country is currently in the grip of a low-level civil war that could erupt into full-scale conflict at any time. I am especially concerned by media reports that Shiite militias have been deploying to Kirkuk, Iraq's third largest city, in a bid to forestall any attempt by Kurds to assert control over this major center of Iraq's oil-rich north. The ongoing sectarian strife has been exacerbated by the protracted struggle among and inside Iraq's political factions over the formation of a permanent government. Last week's decision by the Shiite parties that make up the largest bloc in the parliament that was elected four months ago to replace Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari with Jawad al- Maliki paves the way for the formation of a broad-based government. The question now is whether this hopeful development will be enough to pull Iraq back from the precipice. There is a broad consensus among experts--here and abroad--that Iraq's future will be determined by politics and not force. The formation of a permanent Iraqi government--one that will have the power, legitimacy and vision to assume primary responsibility for securing and governing the country--is a necessary precondition to ending the insurgency, preventing a civil war and allowing large-scale reconstruction to begin. Consequently, our role in Iraq must become more political and less military; for if there is one thing that Iraqis of every ethnic, religious and political stripe can agree on, it is that they do not want foreign troops in their country indefinitely. I support a responsible redeployment of our troops during the course of 2006 so that we are not drawn into sectarian conflict and so that Iraqis are forced to take primary responsibility for securing and governing their country. While the process of training Iraqi security forces has gone more slowly than many had hoped, recent reports have indicated that we are making progress and that every week more Iraqi units are capable of taking a greater role in combating the insurgency. A responsible redeployment of American and coalition forces will have to be done in stages to build greater Iraqi sovereignty and control over security, not civil war. In the first phase of the redeployment, our forces should be gradually withdrawn from insecure urban centers and moved to smaller cities where reconstruction is supported by the local population, and to remote bases where our troops will be able to support Iraqi units if necessary. Over time, these troops will be withdrawn from Iraq altogether and redeployed outside the country, either in the region or back to the United States. We should publicly declare that the United States does not seek to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq and I have co-sponsored legislation to prevent the establishment of permanent bases, which can only serve as a catalyst for the insurgency and for foreign jihadis. Devising and implementing a successful endgame in Iraq will be difficult, but an open-ended commitment to remain in the country is untenable and unwise. The American people want Iraq to succeed, and for a representative government there to survive and lead to a better future for the Iraqi people. But it will ultimately be the Iraqi people who must decide whether they wish to live together in peace as one country or continue to murder each other in large numbers. We cannot decide that for them. In the fight against the malicious Al Qaeda in Iraq, foreign jihadists bent on destroying a government chosen by the Iraqi people, we are in solidarity with the Iraqi people who want a better life for their children. But we will not stand as a shield between different Iraqi sects bent on killing each other. The new Iraqi prime minister and leadership have the next thirty days to form a strong unity government. We hope that they will be successful in this task. But our hopes in Iraq have too often led to disappointment, and the Iraqi leaders must understand that the patience of the American people is running out.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman, and I particularly appreciate your talking about the common sense changes that have to be made to protect this country. Does it make sense, I ask our ranking member, to have a policy where you have to take off your shoes at the airport to get through the metal detector, but 50 percent of the cargo on the plane you are flying on is commercial and 98 percent of that is never checked for an explosive? You can ship a bomb the size of a piano that will never get opened in a crate under that same plane, but you have to take your shoes off. Does that make sense?

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. It gives me great pleasure to yield to Mr. Bennie Thompson, our ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, someone who has brought great intelligence, foresight, and determination to protecting America, to ensuring we have port security and airport securing, and that we plug many of the gaping holes here in the homeland. I yield to the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentlewoman from California for all her work in this area, and I know that you represent a very large constituency of servicemembers in your district, probably one of the largest in the country. Undoubtedly, you have had the opportunity to visit with a lot of the families of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and know firsthand some of the demands being placed on our active duty but also on our guard and reserve. Many of them pulled out of their jobs, earning a lot less on active duty than they were in their civilian occupations. This must be a tremendous hardship for families.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, the Preamble to our Constitution lays out the basic functions of government and notably featured is the need to provide for the common defense. National security is the single most important purpose of government; all of the other blessings of liberty flow from it. Throughout much of this country's history, Senator Arthur Vandenberg's famous maxim that ``Partisanship must end at the water's edge'' has guided the formulation and execution of America's national security policy. Unfortunately, over the past several years that bipartisan tradition has been undermined by the Republican Party which has sought to convince Americans that only one party could be entrusted to preserve our Nation's military strength and its position as the world's preeminent power. This unwillingness to listen to other voices has reached its zenith under the current administration, which took office with one overriding principle, that was to guide American national security policy. Yet when the previous administration, that of President Clinton, was for it, they were against it. The result is an America that is less safe than it should be and less safe than it needs to be. Our military has been stretched to the absolute limits in Iraq, leaving us precious little ability to respond to other contingencies around the globe. Overseas, we are less often seen as a force for good in the world, and surveys of public opinion consistently show that we as a Nation are viewed negatively, even by our friends in Europe. At home, we have frittered away the 4\1/2\ years since September 11 instead of making real strides in safeguarding the Nation from terrorist attack. In Iraq, a stubborn refusal to commit enough troops to save the lives and pacify the country in the months after the invasion has led to a protracted fight against the Baathists and Islamist insurgents that has claimed now more than 2,300 American lives. And finally, we have failed to reckon with the Achilles heel of our national security, our reliance on foreign oil to supply our energy needs. Clearly, Americans want and deserve change. Last week, Members of our party from both the House and the Senate unveiled a comprehensive blueprint to protect the American people 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. During the next several weeks, Democratic Members of the House will be doing a series of 1-hours where we will discuss the particulars of the Real Security plan. Tonight, we will give an overview of that plan, and in the following weeks we will flesh out each of the five pillars of the Democratic Real Security plan for the country. It is a tough and smart strategy to rebuild our military, equip and train our first responders and others on the front lines and here at home, provide needed benefits to our troops and veterans, fully man and equip our National Guard, promote alternative fuels and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, restore Americans' confidence in their government's ability to respond in the face of a terrorist attack or natural disaster. To protect the American people, we will immediately implement the recommendations of the independent bipartisan 9/11 Commission and finally protect our ports and airports, our borders, mass transit systems, our chemical and nuclear power plants, and our food and water supplies from terrorist attack. After September 11, all Americans trusted the President to take the steps necessary to keep our country safe. Since then, inadequate planning, sometimes incompetent policies, have failed to make Americans as safe as we should be. The tragedy of Hurricane Katrina showed that the Federal Government was still not prepared to respond. Under the administration's leadership, the war in Iraq began with intelligence that was at best wrong and at worst manipulated. 140,000 of our finest young people were sent into Iraq without an adequate plan for success. Our ports and other critical infrastructure remain vulnerable, while both soldiers in the field and first responders at home lack the basic equipment and resources they were promised. Both in the Persian Gulf and on our own gulf coast, lucrative, no-bid contracts have gone to companies like Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown&Root and others with friends in high places. Despite record high fuel prices, our country remains heavily dependent on foreign oil because of an energy policy that benefits the big oil interests. The Real Security plan rests on five pillars that my colleagues and I will introduce to you tonight. They are the creation of a 21st-century military, a smart strategy to win the war on terror, a plan to secure the homeland, a plan to move forward in Iraq, and a proposal for achieving energy independence for America by 2020. Under Real Security, a Democratic Congress will rebuild a state-of- the-art military by making needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary. We have all heard the stories of parents using their own money to purchase body armor for their own children serving in Iraq. I personally asked Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld about the shortage of body armor, about the lack of adequately armored vehicles, and the holdups in development of equipment to counter roadside bombs that have killed and maimed so many of our troops. Despite his assurances, there are still problems and young Americans are still paying the price. Under Real Security, Democrats will guarantee all of our troops have the protective gear, equipment, and training they need and are never sent to war without accurate intelligence and a strategy for success. I have been to Iraq now three times; and I visited our wounded troops here at home, there, and in Germany. I have spoken at the funerals of my constituents who have been killed in Iraq, and I have sat with their families as they have mourned. These experiences have reinforced my sense of commitment to ensuring the well-being of America's soldiers and their families and our veterans. Democrats will enact a GI bill of Rights for the 21st century that guarantees our troops, active, reserve and retired, our veterans and their families, receive the pay, health care, mental health services, and other benefits they have earned and deserve. Our active military are stretched to the breaking point, but our Guard and Reserves have also been ground down by multiple deployments and falling enlistment and reenlistment. This has, in turn, added to the stress on the active Army and Marines. As part of our Real Security plan, Democrats will strengthen the National Guard in partnership with our Nation's Governors to ensure it is fully manned, properly equipped, and available to meet missions at home and abroad. The next pillar of Real Security is a broad strategy to win the war on terror. Four and a half years after 9/11 Osama bin Laden is still at large, and al Qaeda has morphed into a worldwide amalgam of discrete cells that are more difficult to track down. When Democrats are in charge, we will make the elimination of Osama bin Laden our first priority. We will destroy al Qaeda and other terrorist networks, and we will finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban. We propose to double the size of our special forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure that our intelligence is free from political pressure. Despite their vow to drain the swamp, the administration has done little to eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive. Democrats will fight terrorism with all means at our disposal by leading international efforts to uphold and defend human rights and renew the long-standing alliances that have advanced our national security objectives. Under Real Security, we will confront the specter of nuclear terrorism by greatly accelerating the pace at which we are securing nuclear material that could be used to make a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb. Our goal is to secure loose nuclear material by 2010. We will also redouble our efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea. While Democrats understand that no option can be taken off the table, we are committed to a muscular diplomacy as the best option for curbing Pyongyang and Teheran's nuclear ambitions. The third pillar of Real Security is homeland security. 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 have pointed to the broad systemic and other flaws in our homeland security program. Almost 2 years ago, the independent bipartisan 9/11 Commission published its report, but most of its recommendations have yet to be implemented. As part of Real Security, Democrats will immediately implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including securing national borders, ports, airports, and mass transit systems. We will implement the screening of 100 percent of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin, and we will take steps to better safeguard America's nuclear and chemical plants and our food and water supplies. Democrats will prevent the outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure, such as ports, airports, and mass transit to foreign interests that could put America at risk. Under Real Security, Democrats would provide firefighters, emergency medical workers, police officers, and other workers on the front lines with the training, staffing, equipment and cutting-edge technology they need. While the immediate threats to our national security come from terrorists, we face other dangers as well. Democrats are committed to a security strategy that will protect America from biological terrorism and pandemics, including the avian flu, by investing in the public health infrastructure and training public health workers. The fourth pillar, and the one that will have the most immediate effect on our security, is to chart a new course in Iraq that will ensure that 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the 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 our allies in other nations to play a constructive role. As a part of Real Security, Democrats intend to hold the administration accountable for its manipulated prewar intelligence, poor planning, and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars. Our security will remain threatened as long as we remain dependent on Middle East oil. The fifth pillar, and the one with the most far- reaching ramifications for our country and the world, is to achieve energy independence for America by 2020. Under Real Security, Democrats will increase production of alternate fuels from America's heartland; biofuels, geothermal, clean coal, fuel cells, solar and wind, promote hybrid and flex-fuel technology and manufacturing, enhance energy efficiency and conservation incentives. All this we will do, and more, to meet the real national security needs of the country. And now, I would like to turn to some of my colleagues who have been leaders on national security issues. I would like to begin by introducing my colleague from California (Susan Davis) to hear her thoughts on one of the five pillars.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Moore, we thank you for you tremendous leadership on this issue and for joining us this evening. Now it gives me great pleasure to yield time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who I would say is a rising star in the Congress, but she was a rising star. She is now a full star in the firmament. The rise has already been complete. But we are so grateful for your leadership, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for his leadership and his eloquence and the tremendous job that he also does as we serve together on the Judiciary Committee. I am now pleased to yield to Jay Inslee from the great State of Washington, who has been a pioneer in the area of energy independence.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Scott, we are proud and grateful to have you here. You mentioned the proud history of the Democratic Party and national security under the leadership of Presidents like Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy and others. Today we saw in the press reports that the President authorized Mr. Libby, the chief of staff of the Vice President, to disclose classified information, national security information, for a political purpose. Can you imagine Roosevelt or Kennedy or Truman doing that? Can you imagine, for political reasons, any of them disclosing classified intelligence information for a political reason?

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues this evening for all their comments and their leadership. Over the next several weeks, we will be unveiling in greater detail each of the pillars of security: how we intend, as Democrats, to rebuild the 21st-century military; how we intend to take the war on terror to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda; how we intend to beef up our homeland security and repair a lot of the broken pieces of our homeland security policy that make us continue to be vulnerable; how we will make Iraq in 2006 a year of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty; and how, as Mr. Inslee points out, we can achieve energy independence, something vital to the present and this Nation's future. I want to thank my colleagues for their leadership, David Scott for all his great work, Chris Van Hollen, Jay Inslee, all of the other speakers tonight. We look forward to continuing this dialogue with the American people.

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentlewoman and I am tremendously grateful for your leadership and participation tonight. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Maryland, Chris Van Hollen, for his patience this evening. It has been a long evening already, and I have been keeping him and my other colleagues from the beginning of the recess. He has done a tremendous job in his tenure here in the Congress. He has already established himself as a superb leader on national security and other issues, education. Without any further ado I turn over my time to Mr. Van Hollen for such time as he may consume.

Mr. SCHIFF. And that last point, I think, is the key one. The President, I am sure you recall, during the first debate with Senator Kerry, was asked what is the top national security threat facing the country? And he said, nuclear terrorism. Senator Kerry agreed. I think they were both right. But if that is true, and the most likely suspect for nuclear terrorism is al Qaeda, then the most likely delivery device is not a missile but a crate. And that crate is going to come into one of our ports. And why we haven't mobilized the resources to implement that portal technology, why we are spending as much as we are on a more distant threat in terms of national missile defense, rather than the more proximate threat of a smuggled in dirty bomb or crude nuclear weapon is not in our Nation's national security interest.

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman very much for all his leadership in improving our Homeland Security. I would now like to turn to my colleague, Dennis Moore from Kansas, who does a tremendous job. He is one of the true leaders on a variety of issues, including energy self-sufficiency and energy independence. It is one of the pillars of our national security plan. Dennis Moore.

Mr. SCHIFF. I imagine that you have had the experience that I have with some of my constituents in talking to their families, those that are serving in Iraq and the concerns that they have, and in talking with the soldiers when they return about whether they had the up- armored vehicles that they needed, and finding out from them firsthand that, notwithstanding protestations to the contrary by the Pentagon, that in fact they often didn't have up-armored vehicles. I still have people coming back telling me of the inadequacy of materiel they have to work with and to keep them safe. But I thank you so much for all your leadership on this issue. You do a tremendous job on behalf of your constituents in the San Diego area and in the armed services area for all the rest of our country. Thank you. I would like to turn now, Mr. Speaker, to one of my close friends and colleagues here, David Scott of Georgia. We cofounded, along with Steve Israel, the Democratic Study Group on National Security. He has been a strong voice and a great leader on national security issues. We are very grateful for your joining us this evening. The gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3128, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006. Three years ago, the United Nations Security Council declared its grave concern at the widespread human rights violations in Darfur and expressed its determination to do everything possible to halt a humanitarian catastrophe. Since then, at least 300,000 people are estimated to have died in Darfur. Currently, more than 3.5 million Darfurians depend on international aid for survival and another 2 million have been driven from their homes. In 2004, pressure from Congress and American citizens prompted the Bush administration to become the first government to recognize the mass killing in Darfur as a genocide. Since then, the U.S. has played an important role by pressing for an international response to the crisis in Darfur at the U.N. supporting the deployment and expansion of the African Union Mission In Sudan (AMIS), and providing critical humanitarian aid. Unfortunately, the U.S. and the international community have yet to muster the will or cooperative action necessary to adequately protect civilians, end the killing, and broker lasting peace. Last week the U.N. Security Council issued a resolution reaffirming that the situation in the Sudan continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security. In Darfur large scale attacks on villages have been replaced by rampant banditry, a campaign of sexual violence, and the practical entrapment of civilians in camps. Government backed militias have not been reined in and rebel groups are contributing to violence on the ground. Civilians continue to be attacked, women and girls raped, humanitarian workers harassed, and critical aid supplies disrupted. For people of Darfur, the situation remains one of daily violence and insecurity, desperate living conditions, and the persistent threat of hunger and disease. Sixty years ago, in the wake of the Holocaust, the international community vowed, ``Never again.'' Ten years ago, confronted with the death toll of the Rwandan genocide, leaders of the same nations again declared, ``Never again.'' Today, tens of thousands of women, men, and children have been murdered and hundreds of thousands continue to suffer in Darfur. The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act reminds the administration and the international community that the genocide in Darfur demands urgent attention and action, and calls upon the President to use both economic and political leverage to elicit cooperation from the Sudanese government. Passing the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act is a small, but important demonstration of this nation's commitment to human rights. I hope that passage of this important legislation will spur more concerted national and international efforts to bring security and stability to the people of Darfur.