Adam Schiff

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce, with my colleague Representative Goodlatte, the ``Fortifying America's Intellectual Property Rights (FAIR) Act''--legislation that we have worked on for some time now, to make a number of important reforms to strengthen our fight against the scourge of global piracy. International markets are vital to U.S. intellectual property industries, providing a strong export base that sustains American jobs. However, this important sector of the U.S. economy is under attack due to widespread patent and trademark infringement, and the unauthorized reproduction, distribution and sale of U.S.-made movies, music, software, and other creative works. The United States is the world's largest creator, producer and exporter of copyrighted materials, accounting for over 5 percent of the U.S. GDP and adding $531 billion to the U.S. economy. The motion picture industry estimates losses due to global piracy amount to $3.5 billion annually, not including illegal downloading. In Russia, for example, 9 out of 10 DVDs sold are counterfeit copies. Globally, 2 in 5 music recordings are pirate copies, with annual world-wide pirate sales of music estimated at $4-$5 billion. The software industry estimates losses of over $13 billion due to worldwide piracy in 2002. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has been charged with identifying countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights. The negotiation of bilateral free trade agreements has proven to be an excellent mechanism for achieving legally binding bilateral obligations to address rampant international copyright piracy. These efforts have been undertaken with only very limited resources available, and could be more effective if additional tools and resources are provided. The legislation I am introducing today with Representative Goodlatte will make a number of reforms in the Office of the United States Trade Representative. Specifically, our legislation will establish a new USTR office dedicated exclusively to intellectual property matters, increase the resources dedicated to securing high standards of intellectual property rights protection in trade agreements and enforcing these provisions vigorously, and establish this as the lead office in the Administration for all international trade-related intellectual property matters. The protection of our intellectual property rights abroad is vital to promoting America's competitive advantages in world commerce. As our trade deficit continues to soar, Congress must step in now to ensure that we aggressively protect our intellectual property rights at home and abroad.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate John Hedlund for his outstanding leadership and service to the Glendale community. John Hedlund has been a major source of positive influence for the Greater Glendale area for many years. He has served as President of the Glendale News-Press and the Burbank Daily Review, as well as President and Chief Executive Officer of California Offset Printers. He is a past President of the Glendale Community College Board of Education, the Glendale Unified School District, and Chairman of the ABC Committee to prioritize the spending of $184 million for GUSD. Mr. Hedlund has served as a member and Elder of Glendale Presbyterian Church. He was also Chairman and Board Member of the Glendale Salvation Army Advisory Board, the President of the Glendale Rotary Club, and member of the Downtown Strategic Plan Committee since its inception. Mr. Hedlund was also Chairman of the Town Center Committee, President of the Glendale Development Council and of Glendale Partners, President and Board Member of the Alex Theater, President of the Glendale Symphony Orchestra Association, Board Member of the YMCA, and Board Member of both the Verdugo Club and Oakmont Country Club. John is the recipient of countless honors. He was named ``Man of the Year'' by the Glendale Chamber of Commerce as well as the Glendale Board of Realtors. He also received the Glendale Bar Association Liberty Bell award and the Congressional Award for Community Service. John is a nationally recognized leader in the Graphic Arts Industry, serving in key leadership roles in several graphic arts organizations and receiving many of the top regional and national honors in the field. I ask all Members of Congress to join me today in congratulating Mr. John Hedlund for his lifetime of exemplary public service, and for his immense commitment to the City of Glendale and its residents.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, for more than half a century, the relationship between the United States and Israel has been a cornerstone of American national security and our commitment to freedom and democracy. During the cold war, Israel provided intelligence and support to our efforts to confront the tyranny of Soviet communism. The experience gained by Israeli soldiers, who fought three major wars against armies equipped with the latest Soviet military equipment, was invaluable to our efforts to devise equipment and tactics to maintain military superiority over the Soviet Union. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Israel has continued to act as a valuable partner in our efforts to bring stability and freedom to an increasingly volatile and unstable part of the world. In 1991, Israel absorbed numerous Iraqi SCUD missile attacks without retaliating, so as not to fracture the global coalition that was working to oust Saddam Hussein's troops from Kuwait. Throughout its history, but especially in the 1990s and into this decade, Israeli civilians have been killed in enormous numbers in an ongoing campaign of suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism by those who will never countenance the existence of the Jewish State. Even as they mourned their dead, Israelis worked for peace with their Arab neighbors and the Palestinian people. Most remarkably, despite these existential challenges, Israel has remained a democracy. Surrounded by autocracies, dictatorships and monarchies who have made its destruction a centerpiece of their national identity, Israel has continued to hold regular elections and its politics are some of the most spirited and free-wheeling in the world. Truly, Israel has remained ``a light unto the nations.'' Time and again, Israel has sacrificed its security for its values--most recently this summer when the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the government to reroute part of the security fence. For many in Congress, AIPAC has been an invaluable asset in helping us to understand the many dimensions of the American-Israeli partnership. AIPAC is effective because it has a long track record of providing policymakers and Members with accurate, comprehensive information about the Middle East. It is not surprising that AIPAC's annual meeting and dinner is an important event for Democrats and Republicans, Members of Congress and administration officials, presidents, governors and mayors. Our attendance is a testament to the esteem in which we hold AIPAC and the partnership between Israel and the United States that it seeks to advance. I have worked with AIPAC throughout my tenure in Congress and I have found AIPAC members to be dedicated, patriotic Americans who deeply believe that the security of the United States and the security of Israel are mutually dependent. And I look forward to many more years of working with AIPAC and its members to address common threats to our security and to freedom-loving nations around the globe.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, last month, Iran successfully tested the latest version of its Shahab-3 intermediate-range ballistic missile. According to Iran's Defense Ministry, the flight was the culmination of Tehran's efforts to improve the range and accuracy of the Shahab-3, which Western experts believe can strike targets anywhere within Israel and also threatens U.S. forces arrayed in neighboring Iraq and around the Persian Gulf. Tehran's ballistic missile program is worrisome in its own right, but coupled with the increasingly alarming details of Iran's nuclear program, the danger is magnified. For the past year, the United States and our European allies have been working through the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, to prevent Iran from continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The IAEA is considering a draft resolution authored by Britain, France, and Germany that will give Tehran until November to reveal in detail its nuclear program. Our Government has advocated a tougher approach by pressing the IAEA to set specific benchmarks for Iran and by asking the agency to refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council which has the power to take punitive action, including the imposition of sanctions. Until Tehran sees that its continued nuclear activities have economic and diplomatic costs, they are unlikely to begin serious negotiations that might lead to the shutdown of their nuclear program. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be sufficient support in the IAEA for a tougher line with Iran. Over the past 2 years, IAEA inspectors have discovered a number of undeclared nuclear activities in Iran that clearly point to a nuclear weapons development program, despite assertions by Iranian officials that one of the world's leading oil exporters was building nuclear reactors to produce energy. Inspectors have found evidence of unreported uranium imports from China, in 1991, as well as uranium enrichment programs using both centrifuges and lasers. The IAEA also uncovered Iranian efforts to reprocess plutonium and evidence of efforts to produce polonium 210, an isotope that can trigger a nuclear explosion. In November of last year, the European Union secured an Iranian declaration that it would suspend all enrichment and reprocessing activities. Tehran also agreed to sign an additional protocol that would allow inspectors to provide more tough and unannounced inspections. But Iran reneged, and when challenged for its failures, it bridled, warning that it was likely to resume enrichment in the future. In addition, there is evidence of continued centrifuge-related activities by private workshops, calling further into question its pledges to the EU. Finally, Iran recently announced that it was prepared to convert approximately 40 tons of yellowcake into uranium hexaflouride gas, which is the raw material for centrifuge equipment. This is a sufficient quantity to produce nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, along with the ongoing standoff with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program, constitute the gravest threat to American national security today. How we deal with this threat will shape our global security environment for decades. When coupled with the desire by terrorists to acquire and use these weapons against the U.S., the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran and North Korea is petrifying. In his new book, Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, Graham Allison, founding dean of Harvard's JFK School of Government, states that if a terrorist were to acquire a nuclear weapon, its delivery to an American target may be almost impossible to stop. Since coming to the Congress, I have advocated strengthening the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program that seems to secure enormous amounts of fissile material in the former Soviet Union and to expand that effort worldwide. While securing this material is one element of preventing the production of nuclear weapons, we also have to make structural changes in the global regime that controls the manufacture, transfer and use of fissile material for peaceful use by governments. Chief among these structures is the ``grand bargain'' of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the NPT, first articulated by President Eisenhower's ``Atoms for Peace'' proposal. In exchange for the commitment to forgo the acquisition of nuclear weapons and to agree to IAEA safeguards and inspections, the NPT guarantees non-nuclear weapons states who are parties to the Treaty assistance in developing nuclear energy. The problem with this bargain is that it allows nations like Iran and North Korea to access fissile material and technological know-how that are necessary precursers to a nuclear program. When the state feels confident it is ready to proceed with a weapons program, it simply opts out of the NPT. Unfortunately, the path of least resistance, the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, may run right through the NPT, not around it. In February, the President gave a speech in which he proposed a series of tough steps. He asked, among other things, for the 40-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group not to sell uranium enrichment equipment and reprocessing equipment to countries that are not already in possession of those technologies. Months have passed. We have done little as a Nation in this area, and time, Mr. Speaker, is running out.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago the United States military announced that 1,000 military personnel have been killed in Iraq. For every American this is a time to contemplate the totality of the sacrifice of these brave Americans. I recently returned from my second visit to our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was awed by the courage, determination, and dedication of our troops who are fighting a brutal enemy thousands of miles from home. Our soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen, and coast guard are doing their job magnificently; but as we continue to battle a stubborn and pernicious insurgency in Iraq, Congress must take stock of the needs of our troops in battle and the challenges they will face when they come home. We owe it to the more than 1,000 Americans who have died in Iraq and to their comrades serving there still to ensure that we put Iraq on the road to democracy and that we assist the Iraqi Government in building the security forces, army and police, that it needs to defend itself. Since I was first in Iraq, the political transition has made important strides, but the security situation has worsened considerably; and our troops are shouldering an incredible load for the rest of us. A year ago, the insurgency appeared confined to a few hundred Baathists, Saddam Fedeyeen, a small contingent of foreign fighters, and criminals released by Hussein before the war. Regrettably, the insurgency has spread, fueled by a much more substantial influx of foreign fighters and made more complex by Shiite uprisings in what had been more tranquil parts of the country. The insurgents have embraced the tactics of foreign fighters. Suicide bombings and kidnappings have become much more sophisticated. Improvised explosive devices, IEDs, which take a daily toll on our troops, used to be easily visible to American personnel as they drove through the country. Now, they are buried, with only a slender wire of an antenna protruding above the ground and detonated remotely. Clearly our forces face a determined foe. There is no question that the burden of this war has fallen exclusively on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform. While the military may always bear a disproportionate share of the burden in wartime, it is especially acute now. Even as our Guard and Reserve are constantly being called up and our active duty forces are stretched thin, the general population has been asked to make no sacrifice for a war effort that we are financing through debt. Our troops are paying doubly for this war, first on the battlefield and then in the form of crushing deficits that have fundamentally weakened our economy. Some only barely out of their teens, our troops will be paying for this war for the rest of their lives, even if they return home uninjured. They will pay for it in the form of higher mortgages on their first home, on credit card debt, and in taxes to repay the national debt. Even as we speak, the families of our troops are struggling, losing jobs, businesses and piling up debt. I met a young Marine from my district in Pasadena who had been serving in Iraq since February and was due to return in the fall, return home. He had just learned that his wife had been called up and that she will be deployed to Iraq in the fall. Their planes may literally pass each other in the night. We must not forget the nearly 7,000 Americans who have been wounded, more than 1,000 in the last month alone. Many of these wounds are grievous and many others might have been prevented had our troops been better equipped from the start of the war. Our troops now have the body armor they need and are driving armored Humvees, but they should never have gone into battle without these life-saving protections. In an American military hospital in Baghdad, I spoke with several Marines hit with IEDs. Two Marines, who lay side by side in adjoining hospital beds, were riding in the same armored Humvee when they were struck. While these two Marines had shrapnel embedded in their legs and faces, a third Marine in the same Humvee was lucky and walked away unharmed. A fourth Marine they told me had not been so lucky. He died on the operating table the night before. These young men and women and nearly 7,000 other wounded are returning to a Congress that seems to have forgotten Abraham Lincoln's admonition ``to care for him who has borne the battle.'' We provide insufficient medical care for our veterans, and VA centers around the country are closing their doors, even as they are needed more than ever. In our towns, cities and counties, thousands of individual Americans have pitched in to help our returning soldiers, but our Federal Government has lagged far behind. Until recently, our wounded were charged for the food they ate while recovering at Walter Reed Army Hospital. I realize that time is short in this Congress, but I hope when we consider the VA-HUD appropriations bill later this month and in our work on defense and veterans issues in the 109th Congress that we consider the extraordinary price that we as a Nation have asked of the men and women of our Armed Forces and that we match our words with deeds.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Magnolia Park United Methodist Church for 75 years of ministry in the City of Burbank. Magnolia Park United Methodist Church is located in the middle of Burbank's film and television studios as well as its famed Media District. Since 1929, it has been serving the community on the corner of Magnolia and Catalina. It is a welcoming, diverse, and inclusive congregation. The church actively sponsors youth groups such as the Boy and Girl Scouts, Brownies, and Cub Scouts. It strongly supports the Burbank Temporary Aid Center with financial services and food items. The church is also a proud member of the Burbank Chamber of Commerce, and gives several essential community agencies like Kedren Headstart, and Kids of Rock Theater a home. Magnolia Park United Methodist Church encourages meaningful service in the local community as well as the international community through world missions. The church is not only locally supportive of the Walter Hoving Home, it also partners in missionary work in Nigeria. The church reinforces the importance of unity, charity, dedication, and family. I ask all Members of Congress to join me today in celebrating Magnolia Park United Methodist Church's 75 years of exemplary service and ministry, and for its immense commitment to its parishioners in and beyond the City of Burbank.

Mr. SCHIFF

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

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, when he presented the 2003 State Department human rights report, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared, ``We join in solidarity with courageous men and women all over the world who strive to advance human rights and democratic values within their own countries and throughout the international community.'' Today, joined by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I am introducing legislation that will build upon the foundation of the State Department's annual human rights report and the annual report on religious freedom. The Liberty List Act will reinforce the special significance of the central pillars of American foreign policy: freedom, democracy, and human rights. The Liberty List will be an independent annual report issued by the State Department. It will highlight the work of individuals and organizations, including the media, that promote the development of liberty, democracy, and respect for human rights. In addition to honoring these individuals and organizations for their important contributions to society, the Liberty List will draw attention to the conditions against which these honorees struggle and will offer some protection for honorees by identifying them to the national community. A few individuals and groups, such as Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy, are known around the world for their struggle. Yet for every individual who is known to the international community, there are many other heroes who deserve recognition and support as they risk their lives for the improvement of others. How many of us in this body have heard of Shirin Ebedi before she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 for her work on behalf of Iran's women and children? There are Aung San Suu Kyis and Shirin Ebedis working in countless places around the world. Their struggle is our struggle; and they deserve our attention, our admiration, and support. The Liberty List is fundamentally different from the existing State Department report on international religious freedom and the annual country reports on human rights practices. Current reports focus on the human rights records of national governments. They deal with the imposition of State power. The Liberty List in contrast will spotlight individuals and organizations who are working against that power to build freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights. For example, a group of courageous women called Women of Zimbabwe Arise have been struggling against the cruelty of the dictatorship of Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe. Despite facing arrest, rape and force, these brave women have continued a peaceful struggle for a better life for all Zimbabaweans. In Uzbekistan, Ruslan Sharipov, an independent human rights activist and journalist, was sentenced to 5\1/2\ years in prison last summer. Sharipov has been a fearless critic of police corruption and human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, a nation whose human rights record has been so dismal, the United States cut off aid earlier this month. These leaders and others like them who struggle for freedom and democracy around the world deserve recognition for their sacrifices and their struggles. It is too easy to forget that the advancement of human rights, democracy, and religious liberty is the product of individuals and small groups of people who fight to improve the lives of their family, friends, and neighbors. The Liberty List Act will allow the United States to honor these men and women as they strive to make the world a better, safer place for themselves, their children, and ultimately for all of us. I urge my colleagues to join as cosponsors of the Liberty List Act.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, in presenting the 2003 State Department Human Rights Report Secretary of State Colin Powell declared, ``We join in solidarity with courageous men and women all over the world who strive to advance human rights and democratic values within their own countries and throughout the international community.'' Today, I introduce the Liberty List Act that will highlight those courageous men and women and reinforce the special significance of freedom, democracy, and human rights in American foreign policy. The Liberty List will be an independent annual report issued by the State Department to highlight the work of individuals and organizations, including the media, who promote the development of liberty, democracy, and respect for human rights. In addition to honoring these individuals and organizations for their important contributions to their societies, the Liberty List will draw attention to the conditions against which the honorees struggle and will offer some protection for honorees by identifying them to the international community. A few individuals and groups, such as Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy NLD, are known around the world for their struggle. Yet, for every individual who is known to the international community, there are many other heroes who deserve recognition and support as they risk their own lives for the improvement of others'. The Liberty List is fundamentally different from the existing State Department Report on International Religious Freedom and the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Current reports focus on the human rights records of national governments; they deal with the imposition of state power. The Liberty List, in contrast, will spotlight individuals and organizations who are working against that power to build freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights. Leaders in the struggle for freedom and democracy around the world deserve recognition for the sacrifices and their struggles. It is through the work individuals, who struggle at the local and national levels to improve the lives of their families, friends, and neighbors, that democracy, freedom, and human rights will prevail. The Liberty List Act will establish a means by which the United States can honor these men and women as they strive to make the world a better, safer place. I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, 57 years ago, nations stunned by the Nazi systematic acts of genocide declared, ``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. Today, again, people are being targeted and killed because of their ethnic identity only 1,000 miles north of Rwanda in Darfur, Sudan. Mr. Speaker, 800,000 innocent people lost their lives in Rwanda. We hesitated, and nearly a million people died for our hesitation. On the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide this April, world leaders again expressed their determination to prevent future humanitarian catastrophes. Tragically, only a few short months later, we find ourselves standing by again, unwilling to take the necessary steps to end the crisis in Darfur. Ten years ago, we failed the people of Rwanda. We must not fail again. I join my colleagues in calling upon the administration to apply sustained pressure on the government in Khartoum. I call upon the President to speak out against the atrocities in Darfur, to use both economic and political leverage. Every day we delay, every day we think, every day we consider the best course of action and the most appropriate definition for the crisis is another day innocent people are being killed, tortured, and watching their families lose their lives. International cooperation and support of the United Nations is essential, but the most direct path to limiting the threat is increased pressure from the United States. Experience has shown that we must not delay in classifying the loss of life in Darfur as genocide. Otherwise, by the time we have prepared our definitions, it will be too late. The facts on the ground and in the ground will have removed all doubt, and we will be left to murmur, without confidence or conviction, ``Never again.'' Mr. Speaker, 57 years ago, nations stunned by the Nazi's systematic acts of genocide declared ``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. Today, again, people are being targeted and killed because of their ethnic identity, only 1,000 miles north of Rwanda in Darfur, Sudan. Eight hundred thousand innocent people were murdered in Rwanda. We hesitated and nearly 1 million people died for our hesitation. On the 10-year anniversary of the Rwandan genocide this April, world leaders expressed their determination to prevent future humanitarian catastrophes. Tragically, only a few short months later, we find ourselves standing by again, unwilling to take the necessary steps to end the crisis in Darfur. Ten years ago, we failed the people of Rwanda. We must not fail again. Ten years ago we were preoccupied with our mission in Bosnia, Somalia was fresh in our minds, and we were wary of getting involved in Rwanda. Today we are preoccupied with the aftermath of the conflict in Iraq and, again, we are wary of committing American resources to end the bloodshed in Sudan. As we have hesitated, some 30,000 people have already been murdered in Darfur and another million have been displaced from their villages and farms. Hundreds of thousands of individuals are caged in concentration camps where women are systematically raped and men are killed for scavenging food. Government-sponsored Arab militias continue to systematically terrorize the African Muslim inhabitants of the region--destroying villages, raping and murdering civilians, and poisoning precious wells with the bodies of the dead. Although the administration has taken some important first steps to confront the crimes being committed in Darfur, much remains to be done. The administration has rightly called for humanitarian access to the region and for the deployment of international cease-fire monitors. The administration has denounced the atrocities in Darfur. Still, a catastrophe of these proportions requires a deeper commitment to action; we must treat the problems at the root of this crisis. The thousands of people who have been displaced from their homes and land must be given safe and voluntary passage to return. More cease-fire monitors must be deployed to the region. The government in Khartoum must be persuaded to stop blocking international humanitarian assistance to the 2.2 million people of Darfur in desperate need of food and medicine. President Al-Bashir must be required to control the Janjaweed militiamen who, even now, continue their campaign of terror against the innocent people of Darfur. It is intolerable that these militias have not yet been disarmed and demobilized. I join my colleagues in calling upon the administration to apply sustained pressure on the government in Khartoum. I call upon the President to speak out against the atrocities in Darfur and to use both economic and political leverage to elicit cooperation from the Sudanese government. Every day that we delay, every day that we think, every day that we consider the best course of action and the appropriate definition for the crisis in Darfur is another day that innocent people are being killed, are being tortured, and are watching their families being killed and tortured before their very eyes. International cooperation and support from the United Nations will be essential to the long-term resolution of the Sudanese situation. Yet the most direct path to eliminating the threat to African Muslims in Darfur is increased pressure from the United States. Experience has shown us that we must not delay in classifying the loss of life in Darfur as genocide--otherwise, by the time we have prepared our definitions, it will be too late--the facts on the ground, and in the ground, will have removed all doubt. And we will be left to murmur without confidence or conviction--never again.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr Speaker, I join you this morning in welcoming today's distinguished guest chaplain: Reverend Jean Burch of Pasadena, a resident of my Congressional district in California. Reverend Burch represents the best of what we hope all citizens should be--always striving to improve the lives of others and always enthusiastic about our prospects for tomorrow. After a long career in the legal profession, she followed her heart into the faith community, becoming Senior Pastor at Community Baptist Church. In addition to her pastoral duties, she works tirelessly with other religious leaders to lift the scourge of violence in our schools. Each day she inspires those among her to better themselves and help people in need. I am pleased that all in the House of Representatives today have been able to benefit from her inspirational wisdom. I hope that many here today will get a chance to meet this remarkable woman.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for their outstanding work on the bill. I think they both have done a great job in advancing America's foreign policy priorities at an especially difficult time in our history. I was particularly please to see the committee wisely provides $65 million in economic aid for Armenia, $3 million more than the administration's request, and that the committee wisely restored the parity in security assistance between Armenia and Azerbaijan by funding military aid and education assistance to both Armenia and Azerbaijan at $6 million. Today, I offer a simple amendment that will honor the 1\1/2\ million Armenians who perished in the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923. I consider this a sacred obligation, to ensure that the men, women and children who perished at the hands of the Ottoman Empire are not lost to history and that this Congress not fund shameful efforts to deny that the genocide occurred. Time is the ally of those who would deny or change history. Such has it been, regrettably, by those who would continue to deny the undeniable facts of the murder of 1\1/2\ million people, the first genocide of last century. My amendment tonight seeks only to prohibit the use of funds to lobby against H. Res. 193, the resolution which includes a reference to the Armenian Genocide and reaffirms the support of Congress for the genocide convention and commemorates the anniversary of our becoming a party to this landmark legislation. It will not deprive countries of funding that they need for legitimate purposes, but no appropriations under this bill or any other bill should be used by other governments to lobby this Congress against legislation, and particularly legislation that reaffirms our commitment to the convention on genocide and the recognition of the victims of the Armenian Genocide as well as the victims of many other genocides in the history of mankind. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Among historians there is no dispute about what happened to the Armenian people. There is no dispute that it was genocide. Thousands of pages of documents sit in our National Archives, newspapers of the day were replete with stories about the murder of Armenians: ``Appeal To Turkey To Stop Massacres,'' headlined the New York Times on April 28, 1915, just as the killing began. On October 7 of that year, the Times reported that 800,000 Armenians had been slain in cold blood in Asia Minor. In mid-December of 1915, the Times spoke of a million Armenians killed or in exile. In 1948, in the shadow of the Holocaust, the international community responded to Nazi Germany's methodically orchestrated acts of genocide by approving the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It confirms that genocide is a crime under international law and defines genocide as actions committed with intent to destroy a nation, ethnic, racial or religious group. The United States under President Truman was the first nation to sign the convention. Last year marked the 15th anniversary of President Reagan signing the Genocide Convention Implementation Act. Just over a year ago, I introduced H. Res. 193 with my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), and other Members of this House. This should have been an easy resolution for all of us now to support on the House floor. Genocide is the most abhorrent crime known to human kind; and, unfortunately, it is happening in the Sudan as we speak. The reason we have not yet succeeded in passing this resolution is simple. The government of Turkey refuses to acknowledge the genocide, and the strongest nation on Earth fears their reaction if we do. 110 of my colleagues have co-sponsored this resolution, and I expect it would pass overwhelmingly if given the chance. At the very least we should not fund efforts to silence our voices. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, in the early days of World War II, the government commissioned director Frank Capra to make a series of films that would explain the nature of the war to a hastily mobilized Nation. Over the course of the next 3 years, Capra produced a remarkable series of films collectively known as ``Why We Fight.'' These films were instrumental in elevating the war from a fight for land and resources to a struggle between the ``free world'' of the Allies and the ``slave world'' of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. As a Nation rooted in an ideology rather than ethnic or geographical identity, the United States has always looked at its wars as ideological conflicts between freedom and tyranny. Our national reluctance to go to war has shaped the prerequisite that when we fight, we do so for a high moral purpose that honors our principles and values. When he addressed the Congress, the Nation and the world in the wake of the September 11 attacks, President Bush laid out the challenge posed by terrorism. Al Qaeda and radical Islamists, the President declared, attacked us because ``they hate our freedoms, our freedom of religion, freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.'' The moral clarity the President expressed nearly 3 years ago has been clouded by the administration's ambiguity over whether the rule of law applied to the prosecution of the war on terrorism or in Iraq. The abuse at Abu Ghraib and the unreviewable and potentially unlimited detention of Americans and others as enemy combatants are incompatible with a Nation born in a struggle against tyranny and caprice. Last week, three courts in three countries reminded us of what is at stake in the war on terrorism and in our efforts to rebuild Iraq. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein and the surviving leaders of his government were arraigned for their crimes against the Iraqi people and for crimes against humanity. The sight of the former dictator and his henchmen in a court of law was a glimmer of hope that chaos and bloodshed will one day give way to a better life for Iraq's people. Here in the United States, the Supreme Court circumscribed the President's power over its own citizens and others when it ordered that Americans and foreigners held as enemy combatants had a right to contest their detention before a neutral arbiter. Expressing confidence that courts would be able to balance individual rights and national security, Justice O'Connor wrote ``that a state of war is not a blank check for the President.'' Perhaps the most extraordinary assertion of principle was made in Jerusalem by the Israeli Supreme Court, which ordered the government to reroute part of the security fence it is building to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from infiltrating into Israel. In reaching their decision, the Israeli justices conceded that from a military point of view, the alteration might not make protection against terrorism easier. ``This is the destiny of a democracy,'' the court said. ``She does not see all means acceptable, and the ways of her enemies are not always open before her.'' The ways of our enemies are not open to us. We do not behead our adversaries on camera for their families to witness in all its gruesome barbarity. Nonetheless, facing greater foes than we face now, we have prevailed and we will prevail again. At root, the rule of law is the source of our strength in war as it is in peace, and the assertion of the rule of law by courts in Iraq, Israel and here at home is a moving reminder of why we fight and also how we must fight to win the America we cherish.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great American jurist. He not only served with great distinction on the bench, but went on to improve the quality and caseloads of other judges as well. Today I rise to acknowledge the tremendous service of Judge Roger Kent Warren, the outgoing President of the National Center for State Courts. Judge Warren received his bachelor of arts degree from William College in 1963, and served on a Fulbright Fellowship to Iran in 1964. He was appointed as a judge to the California Municipal Court in 1976, and was elevated to the superior court in 1982. He held this post until 1993, when he became the first-ever presiding judge of the consolidated superior and municipal courts. Judge Warren was repeatedly recognized for his excellent conduct on the bench, winning the Sacramento Judge of the Year award in 1987, 1993 and 1994; he was awarded the California Jurist of the Year award in 1995 and won the American Judges Association Award of Merit in 1996. In March 1996, he was appointed President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Center for State Courts, a non-profit organization designed to provide courts with up-to-date information and hands-on assistance that helps our judges better serve the public. He promptly went about providing invaluable educational and consulting services to the judiciary. He formed the Assembly of Court Associations to encourage collaboration among national judicial organizations, developed initiatives such as Communities of Practice to examine the best practices for dealing with family violence, jury reform, and court performance. On the occasion of his retirement as President and CEO of the NCSC, I rise to honor Judge Warren. The people of the United States have been fortunate to have been served by a person of his stature, and we wish him and his family the very best in the years to come.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. I certainly want to congratulate my colleagues from California and Massachusetts for bringing this matter to our attention. I certainly agree with their intent and their assessment of the problem we face. It is one reason why I am happy that in the bill that was crafted by the subcommittee, there is a shift of $177.5 million for priority targets for nonproliferation. Among others, that includes Russia's strategic rocket forces. It includes megaports. It includes the second-line-of- defense efforts in the Baltics and efforts outside the former Soviet Union. As the chairman had indicated earlier, the Secretary made the announcement of this program in Vienna. He has not had discussion or shared specifics of the program with the subcommittee or committee. There has been no transmission of the specifics to Congress on the program or its implementation. So while, again, the intent is excellent, against the lack of specifics and given the prioritization within the bill, I would reluctantly express my opposition to the amendment, but would suggest that the chairman and I will work with both gentlemen as we proceed to conference relative to DOE's plan.

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Meehan-Schiff amendment to accelerate the funding of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. The most significant threat to the national security of the United States is the risk that terrorists will acquire the material, the expertise, and the technology to create a nuclear weapon. Of these three components, the material, the expertise, and the technology, it is the material, highly enriched uranium or plutonium, that has posed the greatest bar to the acquisition of the bomb by terrorists. And that material is far too easy to obtain. Beginning in the 1950s, the U.S. and Russia exported research reactors with highly enriched uranium to many nations around the world. Today, as my colleague pointed out, 345 operating or shutdown reactors in 58 countries possess highly enriched uranium. The State Department has identified 24 of the highest priority facilities for clean-out operations, because they contain enough highly enriched uranium to make a bomb. Many of these facilities are terrifyingly insecure. The energy and water bill contains only $9.8 million for global clean-out of these reactors, enough to clean out only one site per year. At this pace it will take more than 2 decades to merely clean out the top 24. We cannot wait that long. Osama bin Laden has declared that the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction is a religious duty. After the Taliban was defeated, blueprints of a crude nuclear program were found in the deserted al Qaeda headquarters in Afghanistan. Does anyone doubt that if al Qaeda could assemble a nuclear weapon, they would use it? They would use it. Last month, the Secretary of Energy announced what may be one of the most important national security initiatives of our time, a $450 million effort to clean out highly enriched uranium around the world. We cannot wait to implement this initiative. Al Qaeda is not waiting, and we must act now. The Secretary's initiative will take almost a decade to implement, and there is no guarantee that nuclear material will not be stolen in the interim. Far from it. We must accelerate the time line for this initiative. Tragically today, we find ourselves in a new nuclear arms race. It is very simply a race as to whether we can secure nuclear material before the terrorists can buy or steal it. The Meehan-Schiff amendment provides $30 million in additional funding for this initiative to get this program underway immediately. We have spent countless billions of dollars on the war in Iraq, a war that was waged to remove stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction from the reach of terrorists. The terrible irony of our present situation is that, while we have not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we know where there are large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, large stockpiles of nuclear material, and we have a cooperative means of securing them and placing them beyond the reach of terrorists. To scrimp on this effort is worse than negligent. It is a betrayal of the public trust. In this race, as Senator Nunn so aptly describes it, we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe. We must not flag or fail in this race. Vote ``yes'' on the Schiff-Meehan amendment to jump-start the global threat reduction initiative.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, the NBC Nightly News broadcast a segment in which the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah was quoted as telling Saudi television that ``Zionists'' were behind May 1 attack on contractors at the Saudi oil facility in Yanbu. That attack killed five westerners, including two Americans. The Crown Prince's remarks were echoed by Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef, who said that, ``al Qaeda is backed by Israel and Zionism.'' Prince Abdullah's comments were scurrilous and inflammatory; unfortunately, they are part of a persistent pattern by the Saudi government of saying one thing to the United States and the west and another thing altogether to its own citizens, 15 of whom participated in the September 11 attacks against our Nation. Indeed, the fact that three-quarters of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudis and that their leader, Osama bin Laden, was a member of a family that long enjoyed close ties to the Saudi royal family, should have spurred the Saudi government to immediate action. Instead, Saudi officials engaged in a protracted effort to deny that any of their citizens had been involved in the 9-11 attacks and instead blamed Israel for terrorism. Saudi double-talk has had the effect of undermining the efforts that Kingdom has belatedly made in combating terrorism. In the wake of the May 2003 bombing of the housing compounds in Riyadh, the Saudi government began to take steps to cut off sources of terrorism funding, but much more needs to be done. A new report from the Council on Foreign Relations notes that while Riyadh has enacted new laws, regulations, and institutions dealing with money laundering, charitable donations, and financial operations, those new measures have not been fully implemented and there have been no arrests of prominent Saudis who have supported al Qaeda financially. While we must work with the Saudis to ensure they are continuing to move forward in their efforts in counterterrorism, the war against Islamic terrorism requires the United States to engage Saudi Arabia on a broad range of issues. As the Council on Foreign Relations noted, our relationship with Saudi Arabia over the past 7 decades was built on a bargain in which the Kingdom would ensure stability in the world's oil markets and would play a constructive role in regional security. In exchange, the United States would guarantee Saudi security and would not interfere or raise questions about Saudi domestic issues. The events of September 11 compel us to challenge the Saudis to change the conditions in the Kingdom that have made it a breeding ground for extremism. We must do this for our own security, but also to help ensure the stability of Saudi Arabia and of the entire Arab world. A stable, moderate and reforming Saudi government is in America's national interest, and we must push for reform in Saudi Arabia without destabilizing the country further and throwing it into chaos. Saudi Arabia's problems did not arise overnight. They are the product of decades of tension between the Saudi royal family and the Wahhabi clerics, whose ultra-conservative brand of Islam predominates in the Kingdom. When the House of Saud came to power, it sought to bring electricity, modern communications, and infrastructure to a traditional nomadic desert society. In November 1979, these contradictions exploded when a group of Islamic militants invaded Mecca's Grand Mosque and took hundreds of pilgrims hostage. Government forces retook the Mosque and executed dozens of Islamic extremists. Instead of working to root out extremism throughout the country, the government sought accommodation with the extremists and handed over control of many aspects of Saudi life, including education, the Judiciary, and cultural affairs to the clerics. As a Saudi businessman tellingly told Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria recently, ``Having killed the extremists, the regime implemented their entire agenda.'' Thus, at the height of the Saudi oil boom of the 1970s and 1980s, Saudi Arabia took a sharp conservative turn. Even as thousands of young Saudis were being educated in the west, the majority of their countrymen were being fed a diet of religious and cultural bigotry. The rights of women, already almost nonexistent, were even more circumscribed. By September 2001, the Saudi economy had faltered, its cities were filled with large numbers of undereducated, underemployed, and unmotivated young people who had both tasted modernity and were steeped in an ideology that preached hatred toward the west. While the Saudis have begun to address the terrorist financing issue, Riyadh has yet to begin the more difficult task of recapturing the country from the extremists. This battle will be long, it will be difficult, and it will be bloody, but we must keep the pressure on the government of Saudi Arabia to do this. Our security and their future depends upon it.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), our distinguished chairman; and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), subcommittee Chair, for moving this legislation through the Committee on the Judiciary and onto the House floor. I joined the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) in introducing this legislation in response to the plague of identity theft that has beset the country. Identity theft has now topped the list of consumer complaints filed with the FTC for the last 4 years in a row, impacting millions of Americans and costing consumers and businesses billions of dollars. My home State of California ranks number three in the number of victims of identity theft per capita with over 37,000 complaints reported by consumers, costing over $40 million just last year alone. Nationally, California cities crowd the top ten list of metropolitan areas with the highest per capita rates of identity theft reported. The Los Angeles-Long Beach metropolitan area, which includes my district, is particularly prone to such crimes and ranks number two nationally with over 13,000 victims. A victim of identity theft usually spends a year and a half working to restore his or her identity and good name. Many of my constituents have contacted me. Many of my colleagues have heard similar urging that Congress act quickly and effectively to crack down on this growing epidemic. For this reason, I joined the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) in introducing the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, legislation that will make it easier for prosecutors to target those identity thieves who steal an identity for the purpose of committing other serious crimes. The bill will stiffen penalties to deter such offenses and strengthen the ability of law enforcement to go after identity thieves and prove their case. Our legislation also makes changes to close a number of gaps identified in current Federal law. Identical legislation was introduced by Senators Feinstein and Kyl, passing by unanimous consent in the Senate in January of last year. H.R. 1731 has also been endorsed by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission. I am very mindful of the reservations that my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has expressed about mandatory minimums in general, and I share those concerns about the practice of mandatory minimums. I think my difference with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) comes in where there are appropriate exceptions. In this case, I believe there is an appropriate exception, and I believe the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) believes this is not an appropriate case for an exception. But let me outline why I believe that this is an appropriate exceptional case. First, we have the epidemic nature of the crime, which rather than abate has merely grown and proliferated over the last several years. Second, because the enhanced penalties are reserved for aggravated identity theft, they must be committed in connection with other serious felony offenses. But since the underlying offense and the identity theft are generally merged for sentencing purposes, prosecutors have little incentive to charge identity theft. This current sentencing structure and practice is flawed because it does not reflect the impact on the victim, in addition to the impact and loss to the financial institution. I was pleased to work with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) as well as sponsors from the other body in order to make some additional improvements to the bill in committee. These improvements respond to specific concerns that were raised by the Social Security Administration. In addition, we respond to the ever-growing problem of insider theft. A peer review study will be coming out later this year that will show perhaps as much as 70 percent of identity theft cases are facilitated through the workplace. Homeland security concerns have certainly highlighted the need to protect against identity theft, given the potential ease with which a terrorist can assimilate to or move about in our society with stolen identity documents. In order total protect the good credit of hard-working Americans and their reputations and to protect the homeland, the time to strengthen the law is now. I also support the effort of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) to increase the resources for the enforcement of these laws. Merely increasing the deterrent value is not enough if the resources lag behind. I want to thank my colleague for all his efforts along those lines, and again want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, for acting on this piece of legislation, and urge their support.

Mr. SCHIFF

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

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I wanted to address a few of the points that have been made, including the last point that was just made, that if you cannot get in, you cannot enjoy the resources, and I think this is really quite true. But this goes to the air quality issue. When we talk about the degrading of the air quality at Yellowstone, we are talking about an access issue. When there are health advisories, when the Park Service says that if you have a respiratory condition, you cannot enjoy the park today, this is an access issue. This is not discretionary. We are saying that this park is simply unavailable for those who cannot breath polluted air. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to cite statistics, that Yellowstone has never violated Clean Air Act standards, but these standards are meant for the entire country. Yellowstone is intended to be a Class 1 airshed, the cleanest, most pristine air in the country. Visitors from across the country do not come to Yellowstone to breath the same air they get at home. I can certainly attest to that, being from Los Angeles. If we want dirty air, we stay home. We have plenty of it in L.A., we do not need to go to Yellowstone to find smog. Instead, we go to a place like Yellowstone because we enjoy the pristine air, the pristine environment, and for those who have respiratory conditions, it is not a question of merely enjoyment, it is a question of access to these precious sites. It should also be noted that emissions from snowmobiles actually threaten the health of some of the visitors, as well as the park employees. We have seen before the pictures of rangers forced to wear gas masks because of the smoke at entrance gates. These are not the images that we associate with Yellowstone or want to associate with Yellowstone. Doctors and scientists have also warned that people with upper respiratory conditions like asthma, that park pollution in the winter may be a serious threat to their health. A second issue I wanted to address in addition to the air quality is that of the economy. We have also heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle concerned with the economic impact of this amendment. But in fact, many business owners say that protecting Yellowstone's health is the cornerstone of a sound economic strategy for the region. The Rush amendment, the Rush-Holt amendment would protect Yellowstone's health and help diversify the area's winter economy. Even the Bush administration's own 2-year study concluded that the phasing out of snowmobiles in Yellowstone in favor of snowcoaches would have a short-term impact of less than 1 percent on the economy of the 5 counties surrounding Yellowstone. And certainly, the economic impact of the continuing uncertainty over litigation and reregulation that has occurred over the last several years has a far more significant impact than the certainty that would be provided by this amendment, by the clarity it would provide in the quality of the air, and in the business environment, the continuing attraction of Yellowstone for people around the country and around the world. I have seen very few people cogently argue that degrading the quality of some of our most pristine areas will attract more visitors to the region. It simply will not.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As I was mentioning, even the present administration's estimate, which I think generally errs far on the side of saying that any environmental protection would be injurious to business, even this administration's expectation is that it would have less than 1 percent impact. So I am saying that even for this very strongly, unfortunately, anti- environmental administration, even they do not see an impact.