Adam Schiff

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 358, had I been present, I would have voted `'aye.''

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 2000, President Clinton convened a summit at Camp David with then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat to seek a breakthrough in the peace process that had been moving forward in fits and starts since the signing of the Oslo Accords 7 years earlier. As we all know, those talks ultimately broke down, despite the parties' being tantalizingly close to resolving many of the thorniest issues precluding a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Rather than build on the considerable progress that had been made at Camp David, Arafat unleashed a second intifada against Israel, a wave of terror that has lasted for nearly 5 years and cost thousands of lives. Now, in just over a month, the Israeli government will begin the dismantlement and withdrawal of all 21 of its settlements in Gaza and four other settlements in the northern West Bank in a bold move designed to increase the prospects for bringing peace to both Israelis and Palestinians. The decision to evacuate Gaza and part of the West Bank is the result of many months of agonizing debate within Israel. On the one hand, there are those who see any pullback by Israel without security guarantees or other tangible steps by the Palestinian Authority as a sign of weakness. The upcoming withdrawal, these Israelis say, will be cast by Hamas and other hardline Palestinian factions as a victory in much the same way that Israel's decision to withdraw its forces from Lebanon in May of 2000 allowed Hezbollah to proclaim itself the champion of the Arab fight against Israel. Other Israelis, led by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was the architect of Israel's settlement policy after the 1967 Six Day War, have successfully argued that the disengagement will bolster Israel's security, that it represents Israel's seizing the initiative to alter the status quo with the Palestinians, and that it allows Israel to get its own lines of defense and that it will preempt toxic diplomatic initiatives by Arab and European states. Ehud Olmert, the Likud mayor of Jerusalem, has also repeatedly discussed the importance of Israel's demographic security. The Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza is a fast-growing population that will soon be larger than that of Israel proper. For Israel to maintain a permanent presence in the territories would require the sacrifice of either Israel's status as a Jewish state or as a democracy. For those of us who care deeply about Israel, Sharon and Olmert have laid out convincing reasons to support the disengagement plan while the opponents' arguments compel us to work with both Israel and the Palestinians to ensure that the evacuation is peaceful and that Hamas and other rejectionist elements are not in a position to take advantage of Israel's courage in seeking to change the dynamics on the ground. I believe that the United States must be prepared to take a number of steps to make sure that this withdrawal enhances the chances for a lasting peace and puts the parties squarely back on the path towards realizing the President's roadmap for peace. As a threshold matter, we must be prepared to help Israel absorb the economic costs associated with the dismantlement of the settlements and the resettlement of the approximately 8,000 Jewish settlers within Israel proper. Earlier this week, the Israeli government made an initial request for $2.2 billion in assistance from the administration. I understand that the administration is studying the request, but we must be prepared to consider any eventual request quickly at the appropriate time. We also have to work with other nations, members of the Quartet as well as others, to assist the Palestinian people and the government of Mahmoud Abbas to improve the lives of ordinary Palestinians in the wake of the withdrawal. Offering an alternative to destitution and death is one of the most effective tools we have to break the cycle of violence. The U.S. has already pledged $350 million in aid to the Palestinians, including $200 million that was passed earlier this spring. I was pleased to see that our G-8 partners have pledged additional funds, totaling $3 billion, at last week's Gleneagles summit. We must insist upon accountability to ensure these are properly spent alleviating poverty, providing employment, and developing institutions that respect the rule of law. The U.S. must also redouble its efforts to choke off the flow of assistance to Hamas, the popular front for the Liberation of Palestine- General Command, Palestinian Islamic jihad, and other factions that oppose peace with Israel. Syria is a major focus of support for these groups and for Hezbollah, which is in Lebanon. Damascus must be made to understand that there is a price for its support of terrorism and that that price will only increase if it refuses to end that support. Finally, we must also work to build peace between Israel and the Arab states of the Middle East. While Israel has peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan, relations are not especially warm, and most of the rest of the Arab world remains in a technical state of war with Israel. We need to press our Arab friends to work towards a comprehensive peace with the Jewish state. Mr. Speaker, we are at a remarkable moment in the search for peace in the Middle East, but the chance to build on Israel's decision to leave Gaza and the stirrings of democracy in the Arab world must not be allowed to slip away.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. SCHIFF

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

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago this April, the breakaway British colony of Rhodesia emerged from years of guerilla conflict as the new nation of Zimbabwe. The United States and many other Western nations were hopeful that Zimbabwe's new President, Robert Mugabe, who came to prominence as a guerrilla leader in the 1970s, would moderate his Marxist views and build a better future for all Zimbabwe citizens. Zimbabwe's people also had high hopes. The country had considerable natural wealth and, despite years of bitter warfare, many in the business community opted to remain, providing crucial economic stability. Zimbabwe's people were determined not to share in the fate of so many of their neighbors, who had also emerged from colonialism amid fanfare and high expectations. Now, after a quarter century of tyrannical and frequently bizarre misrule by Mr. Mugabe, Zimbabwe is shattered. Its inflation rate is the highest in the world, unemployment estimates range up to 80 percent, with seven in 10 Zimbabweans living below the poverty line. Zimbabwe has one of Africa's highest HIV/AIDS infection rates, with more than a quarter of the adult population infected. While the Mugabe regime has frequently resorted to Draconian internal security laws and plain old thuggery to suppress and divide the Zimbabwe opposition, Harare's intimidation tactics have taken an especially nasty turn in the last 3 months since the country held parliamentary elections at the end of March. Those elections, which were won by Mugabe's ruling party, were fraudulent and widened the schism between Zimbabwe's urban masses, who tend to support the opposition, and rural voters, who make up the bulk of the ruling party supporters. To punish his opponents, Mr. Mugabe's government has waged a 6-week campaign, revealingly called ``Operation Drive Out Trash,'' against opposition strongholds in Zimbabwe's cities. Tens of thousands of bewildered families have been forced into the open of the cold winter after police torched and bulldozed their shanty town homes on the flimsiest of pretexts. Street markets were also targeted and left smoldering in ruins. Last week, the government, in a nation facing severe food shortages, moved on to vegetable gardens planted by the poor in vacant lots around Harare. Authorities claimed the gardens threatened the environment. International human rights groups say at least 300,000 people have lost their homes by conservative estimates. The United Nations puts the figure as high as 1.5 million. Mr. Chairman, I know that many of our colleagues share my anger and my sorrow at a state of affairs that is beginning to look eerily like Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge came to power in 1975. I have no desire to cut U.S. aid that goes to help the people of Zimbabwe and their struggles against HIV/AIDS and one-party rule, but I feel that we cannot stand by and watch Zimbabwe become a failed State. I am especially frustrated by the failure of the African Union and SADC, the Southern African Development Community, to confront the horrors going on in Zimbabwe. I hope that the AU will, at the weekend summit in Sirte, Libya, take a firm stand against the Mugabe regime's excesses, and I urge President Bush to make it clear at next week's G-8 meeting that South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki, who has refused to confront Mr. Mugabe and we hope Mr. Mbeki will take a strong and unequivocal stand against the Zimbabwe regime. Will the chairman work with me and the chairman of the full Committee on International Relations and other interested Members in developing policies that continue to assist the Zimbabwe people while putting additional pressure on the Mugabe regime?

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the chairman and the ranking member again. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the promotion of democracy has been one of the cornerstones of American foreign policy throughout the history of this Nation, but especially during the last century. In his second inaugural address in January, President Bush committed this Nation ``to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture.'' In enunciating this goal, the President reiterated a long-standing core principle of American national security policy. Promotion of democracy is not just aspirational; political liberty and transparent government increase the chance that a nation will be economically successful and politically stable, a responsible member of the international community. I have been concerned for several months now at proposed reductions in funding for a whole range of our democracy promotion programs, many of which were deeply cut in the President's budget request. In March of this year, several of my colleagues joined me in asking the Congress to more fully fund these efforts. I understand the difficult circumstances that confront us on this bill. This is a tough environment for appropriators, and I know that we have prioritized efforts to expand the circle of democracy in the Islamic world as part of the war on terror. Unfortunately, though, other important democracy programs have suffered greatly. For example, the National Endowment for Democracy for which the President recommended an increase of $20 million over fiscal year 2005 levels was actually cut in the State Department bill that we passed this month. This and other similar cuts have made the job of promoting democracy more difficult for American policymakers and diplomats. I believe these cuts also endanger our national security by pulling needed resources out of countries and regions that are at critical stages in their political development. Other programs funded through the foreign operations bill have also been cut dramatically. The Support for the East European Democracy Act, SEED, has been an important act in the ongoing transition to democracy of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. In the current fiscal year, SEED received an appropriation of $396 million. For fiscal year 2006, President Bush requested $382 million, but the bill funds SEED at only $357 million. Similarly, the Freedom Support Act has been central to our efforts to transform the states of the former Soviet Union. In the current fiscal year, FSA appropriations totaled $555 million. The President requested $482 million. But the bill provides for only $477 million. One of our most flexible tools, the State Department's Human Rights and Democracy Fund, promotes democracy, human rights and civil society in countries and regions of strategic importance to the United States. HRDF funds are important tools by which the Department of State maintains pressure for universal human rights, democratic processes, and civil liberties in all countries. These challenges will be addressed by funding programs that promote democratic reform and result in greater political pluralism and respect for fundamental freedoms in countries with significant Muslim populations, and that promote the protection and enforcement of legal rights and an independent judiciary, increase popular participation in government, and develop civil society in China. HRDF funds also support programs around the world that include political party building, promoting independent media and labor and worker rights, and supporting civil society and democratic institutions. In the current fiscal year, HRDF is being funded at $36 million; but the bill pares that back to just $27 million, a 25 percent reduction. My amendment is simple: it would increase the recommended funding level back to $36 million. It is a modest, but important, signal to the world that America's commitment to democracy in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Africa, and Asia remains a central pillar of American diplomacy and national security strategy. When he asked Congress to declare war on Germany in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson told the Nation that ``the world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty.'' In that war and in the other wars that this Nation has fought to preserve those ideals, we have paid a dear price. Our efforts to promote democracy hold forth the promise of widening the circle of freedom, while also reducing the prospect of failed states, terrorism and the horrific human rights abuses that so often require the intervention of American military force. Shortchanging these programs is shortsighted and dangerous. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their interest and support in this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, today the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous 9-0 decision, held that peer-to-peer file-swapping companies can be held liable if they promote the use of their sites to infringe copyright. The Grokster decision is a victory for all law-abiding Americans, especially the hardworking and talented individuals that make up our creative industries. I am pleased that the Supreme Court struck the right balance between the protection of intellectual property and the desire to provide consumers with easy and lawful access to movies, music, and other content. Impressive advances in technology in recent years have produced a host of new and exciting avenues for consumers to access music and other content online. These new technologies, however, have also bred a culture of rampant pirating on the Internet. Grokster and other peer-to-peer networks have become bastions of illegal activity, providing safe havens for pirates to swap copied versions of copyrighted material without paying a cent. Every day, millions of copyrighted protected movies, songs, computer games, and other pieces of intellectual property are stolen over peer-to-peer networks. The statistics speak for themselves. Over 90 percent of the file- sharing activity on Grokster is illegal copyright infringement. Of the music files available online, 99 percent are unauthorized, leading to a substantial drop in shipments of music to retailers. In the last year alone, the number of feature films posted on file- sharing sites more than doubled to 44 million. Some estimates show that as many as 400,000 movies have been downloaded in one day alone. Last month, it took just a few hours after the latest Star Wars movie opened in theaters for a copy to show up online on a file-sharing site. While so many Americans flocked to movie theaters across the country with their children and families to see the latest episode of this great Hollywood franchise, millions had access to an unauthorized copy of the film online, free for theft and the taking. Our Nation's economy and creative industries that employ over 5 million Americans suffer a huge blow from the billions of dollars lost annually through illegal downloading. These networks that actively promote illegal activity continue to pose a serious threat to the livelihood of copyright creators and artists, many of whom live in my district. One of our country's greatest exports, indeed the only area where we have a positive balance of trade with every Nation on earth, is in the area of creative content and our intellectual property, which is derived from the hard work of song writers, technicians, artists, programmers, musicians, independent filmmakers and scores of others who make their living from the lawful sale of these items. The Supreme Court decision today strikes the right balance by protecting copyright holders from such illegal activity and promoting legal avenues for downloading movies, music, and other works by consumers. Very simply, the Court decision today codifies an age-old principle: that one man should not profit from the fruit of another man's labor. As the Court noted, their decision leaves breathing room for innovation, and a vigorous commerce and does nothing to compromise the legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful purpose. Today's ruling upholds the principle that technology must and should advance, but not without respecting copyright law. Just moments after today's decision, a new legal peer-to-peer model was unveiled that will incorporate many user benefits common to the peer-to-peer file-sharing experience, and a number of sites have already been launched that offer Internet music downloads at affordable prices without infringing on copyright laws. These positive efforts provide a victory for both consumers and artists. Today's decision will further encourage and spur even more technological innovation. As a result, consumers will be the ultimate winners as they will have more access to high-quality music, film, and other content on the Internet and elsewhere.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my time out of order.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and its contributions to our shared American experience. On November 7, 1967, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, creating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and bringing about the genesis of one of our Nation's most cherished educational and cultural institutions. Before signing the bill, President Johnson presented his vision for this new public communications enterprise, stating that the ``time had come to enlist the computer and the satellite, as well as the television and the radio, and to enlist them in the cause of education.'' Since Congress created this not-for-profit entity, it has become one of the most relied-upon sources of news and educational programming for all Americans, especially for our children. Mr. Speaker, as the father of two small children, I can speak directly to the love that our kids have for educational programming, such as Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, Arthur, Clifford the Big Red Dog. They have captured the imaginations and challenged the minds of our children for decades. In fact, these programs are also a hit with parents, and often present the only alternative to inappropriate daytime programming that is available on network and for- profit television stations. The mission of the Public Broadcasting Act was realized when the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CPB, created the nonprofit Public Broadcasting Service in 1969 and the National Public Radio in 1970. American families now had television and radio stations they could call their own. Much like the Chamber in which we stand, the people's House, these airwaves and programming supported by the CPB also belong to the individuals we have the privilege to represent in Congress, and I have heard from hundreds of my constituents who have shared personal stories of the impact of PBS and NPR on their lives and the lives of their children. KPCC, for example, in my district is just one of the many superb affiliates of NPR around the Nation. My constituents rely on KPCC, as they do on public broadcasting generally for news, informational programming, and educational programming for their kids; and I applaud the significant contributions they have made and others and the individual public broadcasting stations. The legislation brought before the House today would have effectively gutted this fine institution of critical funding necessary to accomplish the vision laid out by President Johnson. The base bill would have cut a staggering $100 million, stripping the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of one-quarter of its funding. Critics maintain that the CPB has strayed from its mandate of independence and impartiality. In fact, polls show a large majority of Americans think that the news and information programming is more trustworthy, more independent than that of network and cable programming. A majority of viewers also think PBS is a valuable educational and cultural resource. A poll commissioned by the board of directors confirmed that 48 percent of those surveyed believe that funding for public broadcasting should be increased, not decreased. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am concerned about the independence of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; and today, I reluctantly join with many of my colleagues in calling on the President to ask for the resignation of chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Kenneth Tomlinson. Mr. Tomlinson has actively sought to undermine, underfund, and ultimately dismantle the very organization he has been appointed to lead. As the leader of CPB, Mr. Tomlinson should be advocating for the continued vitality of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Instead, he seems bent on politicizing its content, undermining the objectivity of its news analysis, and turning it into yet another partisan organ. Mr. Tomlinson has withheld publicly funded polls that show strong support for public broadcasting, and more recently, expressed his desire to nominate Patricia Harrison as the new president. The nomination of Ms. Harrison, a former cochair of the Republican National Committee, further calls into question the impartiality of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and flies in the face of the mandate of President Johnson that the corporation was to be carefully guarded from government and party control. Mr. Tomlinson, regrettably, has not proved to be a good steward of the immense public trust placed in his charge. Mr. Speaker, on that day in 1967, President Johnson had high hopes for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and said, ``Today we rededicate a part of the airwaves, which belong to all the people, and we dedicate them for the enlightenment of all the people.'' Today, I am proud we have beaten back this assault on public broadcasting and taken an important step to renew our commitment to public broadcasting and restore the funding and independence necessary to ensure that our children and their children will continue to enjoy quality, independent public broadcasting.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Guantanamo Detainees Procedures Act of 2005. As the war on terrorism continues and more suspected terrorists are likely to be arrested, Congress must ensure that justice is delivered swiftly and responsibly in order to punish terrorists, prevent future attacks, and ensure swift and just processing of those detained. Over 500 detainees are currently being held in Guantanamo Bay, most of them captured in Afghanistan after the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. Some detainees have been there for more than three years without being charged. These individuals should be tried or released. Congress must provide for the swift and deliberate processing and prosecution of detainees in a manner that appropriately balances the country's national security needs with the country's due process interests. The Guantanamo Detainees Procedures Act of 2005 is drafted with this goal in mind. Specifically, the legislation does the following: Provides that the executive branch has the authority to detain foreign nationals as unlawful combatants; provides a timely hearing before an independent military officer to challenge their designation as an unlawful combatant; requires release/repatriation or initiation of formal charges within two years; provides a limited extension if the Secretary of State certifies that the individual remains a national security threat and is likely to undertake terrorist acts against the U.S. and that repatriation of the detainee or the commencement of formal charges will compromise the national security of the U.S. by curtailing intelligence gathering, jeopardize intelligence sources necessary to prosecute the detainee, or other extraordinary circumstances justify the delay; requires the establishment of tribunals with clear standards and procedures designed to ensure a full and fair hearing for the detainee when formal charges are initiated; requires annual reports to Congress on the status of all detainees. Mr. Speaker, in sum, the Guantanamo Detainees Procedures Act of 2005 will provide an expeditious procedure for processing and prosecuting terrorists and will also ensure that the hallmark of our democracy-- justice for all--is not compromised.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, from a distance, the United Nations headquarters gleams, its signature glass tower dominating the East River skyline of Midtown Manhattan. But a closer look reveals evidence of decades of neglect. Sandbags and tar paper dot the roof to plug leaks. The Under Secretary-General for Management's office shows signs of water damage. Asbestos hangs from ceilings. The buildings furniture and fixtures clearly date from the early 1960s. The crumbling infrastructure of the headquarters is a metaphor for the state of the United Nations itself. Conceived in the waning days of World War II, the U.N. is a mid-20th century institution in a 21st- century world. While the U.N. was designed to prevent war between nations, it has been called upon with increasing frequency to stop intrastate conflict and solve the challenges of failed states and terrorism. In this new undertaking, the U.N.'s performance has been unremarkable. In early March, I visited the United Nations and met with members of the U.S. mission and high-level officials of the Secretariat to discuss the ongoing reform of the world body and to assess the state of the relationship between the U.S. and the U.N. I came away impressed with the urgent need for reforms that I hope will lead to a more effective United Nations. We need to strengthen the U.N.'s capacity to quickly and effectively deploy peacekeepers to halt and prevent genocides and other forms of intrastate and ethnic violence that have become prevalent in the post- Cold War period. We need to end the obscene irony of having Libya and Sudan sit in judgment of human rights practices of others. We need to stop member states of the U.N. from dominating the agenda with innumerable attacks on our democratic ally Israel as a means of deflecting attention from the appalling lack of economic opportunity and political freedom in many parts of the world. As by far the largest contributor in the U.N., this country has a huge stake in the success of these reform efforts. But even as we work to correct the U.N.'s problems, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the U.N. serves so many of our national security interests. U.N. peacekeepers instead of American troops are stationed in numerous hot spots around the globe from Haiti to the Middle East to the Congo. The U.N. helped structure and manage the recent Iraqi elections that were an important milestone. The U.N. has coordinated the global response for Asian tsunami relief for nearly 6 months. It played a vital role in Afghanistan's transformation from a medieval theocracy to a nascent democracy. And the U.N. has also been a key player in the creation of the nation of East Timor. U.N. experts have been instrumental in coordinating international efforts to fight diseases that in this age of jet travel move across borders and between continents easily and often with devastating results. These are significant contributions to America's national security, and we cannot discount their importance. We must push the U.N. to change, but I have deep misgivings about the legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). And as an aside, Mr. Chairman, we use the word ``distinguished'' here very readily, perfunctorily. It is an honorific. It is occasionally a soporific. But in the case of our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), I mean the word in all its sincerity. I think there is no chairman and indeed no ranking member held in higher regard by the members of the committee than our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). Mr. Chairman, I feel honored to serve in the same Congress with the chairman. I believe the bill that we are considering today is too focused on unilaterally punishing the U.N. rather than using our prestige and diplomatic leverage to achieve reforms. If the idea is to use reform as a way to strengthen the U.N., I do not believe this is the right approach. My misgivings are shared by the administration and by a bipartisan group of former U.S. ambassadors to the U.N. including Richard Holbrooke, Tom Pickering, and Jeane Kirkpatrick. Yesterday, Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said the bill would undermine the credibility of the U.S. at the U.N. I will be supporting the substitute, Mr. Chairman, authored by our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). In conclusion, I believe the substitute is a sensible and tough approach that will help us push a reform agenda and give us the flexibility to choose not to use punitive measures if our Secretary deems it is in the national interest.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this appropriations bill increases funding for the United States Marshals Service to enhance judicial protection. We have all heard of the deadly shootings that have claimed the lives of a judge, a judge's family members, a court reporter, a sheriff's deputy, and others inside and outside courthouses and even at private residences. This increase in funding is a good step, but I hope this Congress will continue to address this important issue so that we can ensure the safety in our courtrooms and the safety of our distinguished jurists. Mr. Chairman, in addition to the physical attacks we have witnessed, the judiciary has also been the subject of many verbal assaults as well. The independence of the judiciary, a matter so fundamental to our separation of powers, has recently come under attack and has even become a matter of contention for some, even those at the highest levels of leadership in Congress who have made no effort to disguise a growing hostility towards the courts. In bill after bill, many of our colleagues have been calling to strip the courts of jurisdiction over issues where they believe the courts have erred, or might err, and arguing we have no need of them. The proposed sanction for judges who tread on this prohibited ground, and a word spoken in the Halls of Congress with less and less restraint: impeachment. Perhaps the single greatest example of the magnitude of the challenge to the independence of the courts, though, came with the Congress's extraordinary intervention in the case of Terry Schiavo. This heartrending private tragedy became the focus of efforts to overturn the Florida courts' interpretation of Florida law. When the Federal courts rejected this private bill and its effort to provide jurisdiction to courts that could not properly exercise it, the reaction among many in Congress was one of wrath. The same congressional leaders who had spent the last several months trying to strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction were now trying to extend it where it did not belong. Some have decided that the independence of the judiciary is an inconvenient impediment to a results-at-all-costs philosophy. As a Member of Congress with a strong interest in improving the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches, I have formed, with the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a bipartisan congressional caucus dedicated to improving comity between the branches of government. Our Congressional Caucus on the Judicial Branch currently consists of some 35 Members from both sides of the aisle, and I encourage my colleagues who share our goal to join our efforts to restore the historical comity between our two branches. For the last 2 years, Chief Justice Rehnquist has cited the deterioration in relations between the Congress and the Federal judiciary, using his year-end reports to urge a restoration of comity between the branches. He has quoted Chief Justice Hughes' admonition to the Congress of his day that ``in the great enterprise of making American democracy workable for all partners, one member of our body politic cannot say to another 'I have no need of thee.''' So today I offer on the House floor a simple sense of Congress amendment to demonstrate to our colleagues in the judicial branch and to the American people that we are committed to working together with the other branches and to upholding the fundamental separation of powers that the Founders envisioned, even if we do not always agree with each other. It reads: ``It is the sense of Congress that all necessary steps should be taken to provide adequate security for the judiciary and to protect and uphold the independence of the judicial branch.'' Mr. Chairman, efforts by Congress to force the courts to look at our transient wishes, rather than the Constitution, will damage the courts and undermine our own integrity. In the end, we cannot expect to belittle the courts without belittling ourselves. I urge support for this amendment. I know the chairman has a point of order on this. I would like to, on a separate topic, just thank the chairman; and I would also like to thank not only the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) but the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), ranking member, for their work on the NASA budget in particular as it impacted JPL. I really appreciate the chairman's diligence. He was very kind to meet and discuss this with me several times, to reach out to me after our discussions. I want to thank the chairman again for all his diligence on that issue.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman, and I do appreciate the increases in courthouse security. I would ask my colleagues to join in supporting not only the physical security measures, but also the independence of the institution of the judiciary.

Mr. SCHIFF. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak again on the substance of this amendment. This is merely a sense of Congress respecting the integrity and the independence of the judiciary. I know the honorable chairman offered a sense of Congress amendment on Darfur last year to the appropriation bill. This is similarly merely a sense of Congress amendment asking that we not only observe the independence of the judiciary, but make sure we provide for the safety of the bench. We just saw another shooting today outside of a courthouse, and I would ask the chairman to consider this sense of Congress much as the one that was offered last session.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as a former Federal prosecutor, I understand how the use of DNA profiles has become a powerful tool in solving crimes. States have taken the lead by expanding the use of DNA in crime-solving efforts. The distinguished chairman's home in Virginia was the first to pass a DNA data bank law in 1989, requiring all convicted sex offenders to provide a DNA sample. Since then, Virginia has continued to be a leader in this area, expanding their law in 1990 to include all convicted felons, and further expanding it since. As a result of these laws, Virginia has obtained a staggering 2,747 hits by searching their database, solving countless crimes. Because of the amazing crime-solving successes in Virginia, I introduced legislation in 2002 seeking to mandate an expansion of State collection regimes and an expansion of the Federal database by permitting States like Virginia to upload the increasing number and types of profiles they were obtaining. At the time only 23 States had enacted legislation requiring DNA from convicted felons. Twenty-seven States, including my own State of California, were 12 years behind what Virginia had accomplished. Since then, I am pleased to report that 42 States have passed laws to require DNA from all convicted felons. It is now time for those last remaining eight States to come on board. The U.S. Congress is putting a significant amount of money into DNA programs, over $177 million this year alone, with the goal of not just reducing backlogs, but also solving and preventing crimes. The eight States that do not currently collect from all convicted felons are not obtaining the hits that they should and are therefore making the entire system inefficient since cross-State matches are not being made. These States must modernize their collection. Since these violent offenders know no State boundaries, the failure to upload these samples puts all citizens at risk, and the Federal Government has a compelling interest in making it so. Statistics show that as many as half of the criminals that commit violent crimes have nonviolent criminal histories. Therefore, offenders who are required to submit DNA when convicted of nonviolent felonies will be identified as they leave DNA behind later at rape and murder scenes. States originally thought there would be no law enforcement value to collecting samples from convicted felons when the crime was not sexual in nature or not particularly violent. They were wrong. Virginia's offender hits, primarily from previous nonviolent and nonsexual convictions, have aided over 2,700 investigations, including 15 rapes, 255 murders and 521 sex crimes. Mr. Chairman, I will cite only one of the countless examples we have seen of the tragic consequences of inadequate DNA collection schemes. Some years ago, four Springfield, Massachusetts, women fell victim to a serial rapist and murderer. The man who later turned out to be the rapist and murderer had prior nonviolent felony convictions for breaking and entering and for larceny. He was sentenced to community supervision. If Massachusetts at the time had required him to give a DNA sample after either of his 1996 convictions, a DNA match could have been obtained after the first rape and murder, thereby preventing the subsequent three tragedies. Massachusetts has since modernized their law to obtain samples from all convicted felons. Mr. Chairman, the results speak for themselves. DNA databanks are most effective with the inclusion of at least all convicted felons and applied to all forms of cases. While I will withdraw this amendment, as I know the chairman has a point of order, I intend to introduce legislation to make these important changes and would very much like to work with the chairman on it. Mr. Chairman, I do have a second amendment which I will not speak on now because the chairman was kind enough to let me speak on it earlier, but I would like to take the opportunity immediately after consideration of this amendment to make the formal offer of that amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for all of his work with the page program. I want to thank all of the pages for their service and take a moment to brag a little because Stella is from my district. I know how great Stella is, and I know you know how great she is. We were so delighted to have her join us. She has added a great deal to the page class, including directing the play ``The Black Rose.'' Stella's folks are here today and are going on a tour. So please say hello to them. We are proud of the work you did and the work all of you did. Mr. Speaker, I had a chance during college to intern here on Capitol Hill twice. It was a different experience than the page experience, but I hope many of you will come back as interns, as staff, and ultimately come back as Members of the House. And if you are lucky, you can become lords in the Senate and then we will have to show even greater respect to all of you. Mr. Speaker, I thank all the pages very much for their work. It is tremendously appreciated. I want to wish you, Stella, and wish the entire class all the best of luck.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, last month dozens of world leaders, including President Bush, gathered in Moscow to celebrate the 60th anniversary of V-E day. It was fitting and proper for the President and other heads of state to pay homage to the millions who died defeating Nazism and fascism and to commemorate the end of the Second World War. The year 1945 also marked the beginning of the nuclear age, and even those who had become inured to the destruction that years of fighting had wrought were stunned by the devastation caused by the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Nuclear weapons have been the dominant feature of the international security landscape ever since, and preventing their proliferation has been a central goal of American Presidents from Harry Truman to George W. Bush. That is why I cannot understand the failure of the administration to take a leading role at the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty review conference that was held at the United Nations from May 2-27. There is near unanimity among policymakers and our Nation's political leadership that nuclear terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons are the greatest threats to our national security. The President has said so himself. But the United States did not dispatch any senior officials to New York and downplayed the importance of the conference. This was shortsighted and dangerous, and the failure to achieve any concrete results at the NPT conference was a major national security setback for the United States as well as for the rest of the world. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which took effect in 1970, has for the most part been successful in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons beyond the original five members of the nuclear club, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, China and the United States. In 1960, John Kennedy wrote that he expected 20 nations would have nuclear weapons by the end of the 1960s. He considered this the gravest threat to world peace and set in motion the events and discussions that culminated in the NPT. During the 35 years that the treaty has been in effect, only three nations are known to have developed nuclear weapons, India, Pakistan and Israel, and they are not parties to the NPT. North Korea is believed to have a handful of nuclear weapons, and Iran is engaged in a diplomatic game of chicken with the West in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, after three and a half decades, the NPT is showing its age, and the review conference was held at a critical time for the international community's efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. In December of last year, a panel of experts convened by the U.N. issued a stark warning that we are approaching the point at which the erosion of the nonproliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation. One of the members of that panel was Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush. The twin nuclear crises with North Korea and Iran have exposed flaws in the NPT's ``grand bargain,'' which was first articulated in President Eisenhower's ``Atoms for Peace'' proposal. In exchange for the commitment to forgo the acquisition of nuclear weapons and to agree to international safeguards and inspections, the NPT guarantees non- nuclear weapon states who are parties to the treaty the peaceful development and use of nuclear energy. The problem with this bargain is that it allows nations like Iran or North Korea access to fissile material and technological know-how that is the necessary precursor for a nuclear weapons program. When the state feels confident it is ready to proceed with a weapons program, it simply opts out of the NPT. Had it chosen to do to so, the administration could have used the review conference in New York to make it more difficult for states to access nuclear material and technology under the NPT and then walk away from the treaty by providing tough penalties for those who would try. One proposal by a group of experts at Princeton and Stanford would bar parties withdrawing from the NPT to use fissile materials or production facilities acquired while they were parties to the treaty to make nuclear weapons. The German government also proposed preventing a party from withdrawing from the treaty if that state was in violation of that treaty. But reinvigorating the NPT requires more than cracking down on Iran and North Korea. It also demands leadership from the declared nuclear weapons states which as part of the NPT committed themselves to reduce their own stockpiles significantly in exchange for non-nuclear states renouncing nuclear ambitions. Unfortunately, the five nuclear weapons states have not done enough, and General Scowcroft and his colleagues chided them in their report for their lackluster efforts. Matters have not been helped by a State Department brochure handed out at the conference which listed arms control breakthroughs since the 1980s and touted reductions in the U.S. arsenal. But the time line made no mention of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a pact negotiated by the Clinton administration and ratified by 121 nations but rejected by this President. The brochure also ignored the 2000 NPT review conference at which the U.S. and other nuclear weapons states committed to practical steps to achieve nuclear safety, including entering into the test ban treaty and negotiation of a fissile material cutoff treaty to ban manufacture and production of additional bomb material. Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of World War II, the United States constructed a diverse set of international institutions to guarantee peace and better ensure a future for America and the rest of the world. By going to Moscow, President Bush honored the sacrifice of millions of Americans and other allied personnel to secure our present. But it was the road not taken, the one to New York, that would have helped to secure the future.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 228, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, along with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I am pleased to introduce the Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2005. There are 361 seaports in the United States that serve essential national interests by facilitating the flow of trade and the movement of cruise passengers, as well as supporting the effective and safe deployment of U.S. Armed Forces. These seaport facilities and other marine areas cover some 3.5 million square miles of ocean area and 95,000 miles of coastline. Millions of shipping containers pass through our ports every month. A single container has room for as much as 60,000 pounds of explosives, 10 to 15 times the amount in the Ryder truck used to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. When you consider that a single ship can carry as many as 8,000 containers at one time, the vulnerability of our seaports is alarming. Each year, more than 141 million ferry and cruise ship passengers, more than 2 billion tons of domestic and international freight and 3 billion tons of oil move through U.S. seaports. Millions of truck-size cargo containers are off-loaded onto U.S. docks. Many seaports are still protected by little more than a chain link fence and, in far too many instances, have no adequate safeguards to ensure that only authorized personnel can access sensitive areas of the port. If we allow this system to continue unchecked, it is only a matter of time until terrorists attempt to deliver a weapon of mass destruction to our doorstep via ship, truck or cargo container. New reports by the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, fault both the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism and the Container Security Initiative. C-TPAT allows international shippers to get quicker clearance through Customs in exchange for voluntary security measures. But the GAO said that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's vetting process was not thorough enough. It found that only 10 percent of the certified members had been validated through an actual physical inspection by the Agency. The rest had been certified by paperwork applications. As part of the recently passed Homeland Security authorization bill, the House took some important steps to improve the screening of cargo by expanding the Container Security Initiative and refocusing it, based on risk. But the truth is that not every container can be inspected, and we need to use other tools at our disposal to deter those who would use our seaports as a point of attack until we can inspect or somehow verify each container. Strengthening criminal penalties, as Chairman Coble and I are proposing with this bill, is one way we make our Nation's ports less vulnerable. The Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2005 will fill a gaping hole in our defense against terrorism and make American ports, passengers and cargo safer. Our bill is substantially similar to bipartisan Senate legislation introduced earlier this year by Senators Biden and Specter and supported by other key members of the Judiciary Committee, including Senators Dianne Feinstein and Orrin Hatch. The Senate version of this legislation has been reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee and is awaiting action by the full Senate. Our bill makes common-sense changes to our criminal laws and will help to close security gaps confronting our ports. The amendment will make it a crime to use a vessel to smuggle terrorists or dangerous materials, including nuclear material, into the U.S., impose stiff criminal penalties for providing false information to a Federal law enforcement officer at a port or on a vessel, and double the sentence of anyone who fraudulently gains access to a seaport. Our bill would also directly access several immediate threats by increasing penalties for smugglers who misrepresent illicit cargo. It would also bridge specific gaps in current Federal law by making it a crime for a vessel operator to fail to stop when ordered to do so by a Federal law enforcement officer. Mr. Speaker, America's ports remain vulnerable and this Nation needs a multifaceted strategy to secure them and to deter those who would harm this country. The Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2005 is part of that strategy. I urge my colleagues to join Chairman Coble and me by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill submitted by Representatives Slaughter, Shays, Dicks, Leach, and Price to increase funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. As a member of the Congressional Arts and Humanities Caucuses, and former chair of the California Legislature's Joint Committee on the Arts, I have had the opportunity to see first hand the tremendous role that the arts play in the education and development of our children. Several academic studies have demonstrated the connection between music, dance, visual arts, and the development of the human brain. It is a fact that arts education cultivates critical thinking skills that are so important in this information-age economy. Children who learn to read music or to play an instrument show improved proficiency in mathematics and sciences. Today, I am proud to support an increase of $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and a $5 million increase in funds for the National Endowment for the Humanities. One of the initiatives under the NEA, Challenge America, expands the National Endowment for the Arts reach to connect families and communities to local arts programs and educational components. Meanwhile, funds to support the National Endowment for the Humanities will continue to assist ``We the People'' to strengthen the teaching, study, and understanding of American History and culture. The arts are not only about appreciation and enjoyment, they are also a strong component of our economy. A recent study from Americans for the Arts found that the nonprofit art industry alone generated $134 billion in economic activity, including full time jobs, household income and tax revenues. More than $80 billion of this is spent by audiences who enthusiastically attend events in their local communities. In my own district, there are more than 2,700 arts-related businesses and more than 37,000 jobs including those in visual arts, design, and the performing arts. In addition, the film, television, and radio industry generates more than 26,000 jobs in the district I represent. I am proud to host an annual Congressional Arts Competition in my district that allows high school students to showcase their artistic talents in painting, drawing, and photography to the community. I have constantly been impressed with the artistic vision and creativity of our young people. This vision and creativity should be fostered, not discouraged. By supporting the arts and humanities, the federal government can partner with state and local efforts to bolster the quality of life as well as economic and educational opportunities in our communities.