Adam Schiff

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill submitted by Representatives Slaughter, Shays, Dicks, and Leach, to increase funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. As a member of the Congressional Arts Caucus, 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 $3.5 million increase in funds for the National Endowment for the Humanities. One of the initiatives under the NEA, American Masterpieces, produces new collaborations of classic American operas, plays, ballets, musicals, and choral works. These joint ventures allow local companies to offer new productions of the highest quality at affordable costs. This is just one of the many great initiatives provided by the NEA. Additionally, I support an increase of $5 million for We the People, an important initiative to strengthen understanding of our national heritage. This innovative program benefits students, teachers, and Americans of all ages. Arts is not only about appreciation and enjoyment, it is 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 32,000 jobs in visual arts, design, performing arts, film and television, and educational arts. I am proud to host an annual Congressional Arts event in my district that allows high school students to showcase their artistic talents 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 has the ability to act as a partner with state and local efforts to bolster the quality of life as well as economic and educational opportunities in our communities.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 232, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Michael Davis for 35 years of dedicated service to the Burbank Fire Department. Mike Davis joined the Burbank Fire Department as a probationary firefighter in 1969. He promoted through the ranks of the Fire Department and has served as Fire Chief for the past 14 years. He has held positions including Fire Engineer, Fire Captain, Fire Battalion Chief and finally Fire Chief. He has worked in all divisions of the department including Fire Suppression, Fire Prevention, Fire Training, Emergency Medical Services, Disaster Preparedness and Fire Administration. His education includes an A.A. Degree in Fire Science from Los Angeles Valley College, and a B.S. Degree in Fire Protection Administration and Technology from California State University Los Angeles. His background also includes seven years of experience as a football player while at L.A.V.C. and Utah State University. He played professionally with the Toronto ``Rifles'' of the now-defunct Continental Football League as well as the New York ``Jets'' organization of the American Football League. Chief Davis is a proud member of the International Association of Fire Chiefs where he serves on the Elections Committee. He is a member of the Western Fire Chiefs' Association and has faithfully served on the board of directors for the California Fire Chiefs' Association for 11 years. In addition, he maintains a membership in the Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs' Association where he serves on several subcommittees, the Foothill Fire Chiefs' Association, and the Burbank Chapter of Rotary International. Michael Davis is one of Burbank's shining role models and outstanding citizens. He has brought prestige to the Burbank Fire Department's past, present, and future. I ask all Members of Congress to join me today in congratulating Michael Davis for an exemplary professional and public service career, and for his immense commitment to the City of Burbank and its residents.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Michael Palmer for over 14 years of dedicated service as a member of the Temple City Unified School District Board of Education. Mike Palmer is a dedicated supporter of public education. He is recognized and respected by the community for his unique educational vision. From November 28, 1989 through April 22, 2004, he faithfully served as a member of the Temple City Unified School District Board of Education. Mike Palmer is an admired and integral member of the Temple City community. He is strongly committed to providing a superior educational experience for students in the district. He has been elected by the residents of TCUSD to serve four terms on the Board of Education. His outstanding leadership on the board has helped guide and influence his fellow board members to make the best decisions for students and faculty in the District. I ask all Members of Congress to join me today in congratulating Michael Palmer for a truly exemplary public service career, and for his immense commitment to the Temple City Unified School District.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, almost three years ago, our nation was shocked by the sickening reality of global terrorism infiltrating our borders. Since September 11, 2001, the global war on terror has resulted in the deployment of our troops to Afghanistan and other perilous locations. At the same time, more than 130,000 young Americans are serving in Iraq. During a time when the struggles of our troops abroad are broadcast every day, our observance of Memorial Day calls for sober reflection. We must remember that Memorial Day, at its core, is our nation's somber tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Seven hundred eighty-nine servicemen and servicewomen have lost their lives since the beginning of our combat operations in Iraq, and 85 have fallen in our military campaign in Afghanistan. Among these brave men and women is a constituent from my district, United States Army Specialist Rel Allen Ravago, IV, who was killed in Mosul, Iraq, on November 23, 2003. My heart goes out to Mr. Ravago's friends and loved ones, as it does to the innumerable Americans who have known troops whose lives were cut short during our nation's wars. It is with a sense of gratitude and humility that I will mark my observance of Memorial Day. In the past few weeks, much attention has been focused on the conduct of our troops stationed in Iraq. Whether the grotesque abuses that have shocked us all are the result of the depraved actions of a few individuals or derelictions of duty rising up the chain of command is an issue that must be determined through Congressional investigation. Whatever the case may be, I am confident that Americans recognize that the overwhelming majority of our troops are honorable, deeply principled citizens. We are grateful to those who have left their families, jobs, and the comforts of home to fight threats to freedom and security. We often find ourselves divided on the home front in terms of our views on both foreign and domestic issues. Pundits chatter on about red states and blue states in an attempt to highlight the supposedly irreconcilable political cleavages within our society. It is with this in mind that I reflect on the original observance of Memorial Day--then called Decoration Day--on May 30, 1868. On the inaugural celebration of what has become a national holiday, five thousand people journeyed to Arlington National Cemetery to decorate the graves of the more than 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers buried there. Americans had heeded Abraham Lincoln's admonition to act ``with malice toward none, with charity for all'' and united to commemorate the fallen troops on both sides. If our nation was then able to transcend a brutal conflict that pitted brother against brother, surely we can close ranks and join together now in mourning the men and women who have most recently died in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in other past battles. Memorializing our fallen troops is not a partisan or political issue; it is a basic debt of gratitude that all Americans owe to those who safeguard our freedom. I hope all Americans will join us this Memorial Day in reflecting on those who safeguard our freedom, democracy, and prosperity.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, in January 2001, a well-respected and bipartisan task force looked at the threats facing the United States and recommended increasing nonproliferation funding under the Department of Energy to $3 billion per year for the next 10 years. As they stated in their report, the most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable materiel in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation-states and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home. This year, now, 3 years after that report, the Department of Energy and Department of Defense nonproliferation budgets only contained $1.8 billion combined for nuclear nonproliferation. This is simply not enough. I offered an amendment that would increase the amount of funding for nonproliferation by a combined $200 million, bringing the total for nonproliferation to $2 billion this year. Regrettably, this amendment was not made in order. On the Defense Department side, our amendment would have added $50 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, or Nunn-Lugar. The goal of Nunn-Lugar is to lessen the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, to deactivate and destroy these weapons and to help scientists, formerly engaged in the production of such weapons, start working for peace. To date, Nunn-Lugar has reportedly helped destroy over 6,000 warheads. The Defense Department authorization bill contained a $41.6 million decrease in funds for Nunn-Lugar from last year's level. In fact, it is a $34 million decrease below the pre-September 11 level. Last year, Congress expanded the scope of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program to countries outside of the former Soviet Union. They authorized $50 million for this purpose. The amendment would have provided this $50 million. The elimination of Libya and Iraq as states of concern have presented us with new opportunities for progress on nonproliferation, as has our improved relationship with the former Soviet Union states whose need for assistance in securing nuclear materials has never been greater. In the Department of Energy, there are countless programs sorely in need of additional funding. Our amendment would have provided $40 million more for global cleanout, a program to secure and dispose of highly enriched uranium at research reactors around the globe. There are over 345 operating or shut-down research reactors in 58 countries fueled with highly enriched uranium. The State Department has identified 24 other facilities for highly enriched uranium cleanout operations because they have enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon. Many of these facilities are guarded by little more than a night watchman and a chain link fence. The Department of Defense authorization bill we just passed only contains $9.8 million for this program, which is only enough to clean out one site. A recent report by the Project of Managing the Atom at Harvard University suggests Congress appropriate $40 million annually to fund global cleanout efforts. Our amendment would have met or exceeded this goal. And I have also introduced stand-alone legislation to establish a structure to prioritize the effort to clean out highly enriched uranium around the world. It would have provided funding to downblend highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium so that it could not be used directly to make nuclear weapons, but would be suitable for nuclear power plant fuel. Russia currently has over a thousand tons of highly enriched uranium, enough for 20,000 simple nuclear weapons. Under a 1993 U.S.-Russian agreement, Russia will convert 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium by 2013, but this program was zeroed out in the Department of Energy's budget. We would have changed that. According to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, only a quarter of Russia's nuclear sites are properly secured. We would have added funding for global nuclear security. We would have added funding for security upgrades at nine Russian weapons complexes. The irony of removing this funding, of not sensing this urgency, after going to war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction stockpiles we have not found, when we know there are massive stockpiles in the former Soviet Union for which we have cooperative arrangements to secure and destroy, could not be more apparent. The urgency could not be greater. We would have paid for these programs, we would have provided for the national defense, and this must be an urgency. 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 weapon were found in a deserted al Qaeda headquarters in Afghanistan. My amendment would not have gotten us all the way to the $3 billion recommended by the Baker-Cutler Commission, but it was an important first step. We must continue that process now in the conference committee, and I would urge the conferees to take up the cause of nonproliferation with the urgency it deserves. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, as Senator Nunn put it so well, the most effective, least expensive way to prevent nuclear terrorism is to lock down and secure weapons and fissile materials in every country, in every facility that has them.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, throughout the last year there have been numerous reports, some issued by government agencies, others emanating from news organizations, that have detailed critical shortages of equipment needed to protect our young men and women serving in Iraq. I visited Iraq last year and spoke with our troops serving there about the shortages of armored Humvees and body armor. I know that many of my colleagues who have visited Iraq have raised similar concerns. I have pressed this issue during consideration of the Iraq supplemental and on numerous other occasions. Many of our troops who have been killed in Iraq in the past months were riding in unarmored Humvees that were hit by small arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades, or improvised explosive devices. Doubtless, some were lost because they were not protected. I was deeply disappointed by the length of time that it has taken to provide our soldiers with this life-saving equipment, and I am pleased that Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton wisely increased funding for these programs by several orders of magnitude. Because of these increases, I will add my voice of support for the bill. I am also pleased that the Committee has increased the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps over the next three years. Our active duty forces, our Reserves, and our Guard have been overstretched by operations in the War on Terrorism and the war in Iraq. I have been strongly supportive of increasing the size of the military, and by authorizing additional forces, we will enable our troops to get the training and time for rest and re-fit that they need and deserve. I am less pleased by the provisions relating to the rush to deploy a National Missile Defense system that I believe is not ready for deployment. I support additional research and testing of ballistic missile defense systems, but the imminent deployment of the first interceptors is premature and diverts taxpayer money that is more immediately needed to provide basic security for our troops. I am most concerned by the ill-conceived decision to authorize more than $36 million for research into the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, as well as a new generation of advanced nuclear weapons. At a time when we are asking other nations to forswear the development of nuclear weapons, when we invaded Iraq because we thought that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons, when Osama bin-Laden has exhorted his followers to use nuclear weapons against the United States, and when our own State Department has compiled a Top Secret list of sites around the world that contain unsecured fissile material, we should be focusing on non-proliferation, counter-proliferation, and cleanout activities. Funding for a new generation of nuclear weapons enhances neither our security, nor our credibility.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, rising global temperatures. Dangerously polluted air. A hamstrung foreign policy. Our dependence on fossil fuels contributes to countless problems, and California is on the frontline of many of them. The first step out of this morass may be hybrid cars. With double the gas mileage of standard cars and far lower tailpipe emissions, they could dramatically reduce our unsustainable levels of energy consumption. I believe we should do everything possible to encourage hybrid use, which is why I support recent efforts to let hybrid drivers use the carpool lane regardless of the number of passengers in the car. A pending bill in the California legislature institutes a pilot program along these lines: 70,000 permits for hybrid users to access the lane, with a review of the program once 50,000 permits have been distributed. Federal law currently prohibits such a program, but the transportation bill working its way through Congress removes this ban and allows local jurisdictions to decide the issue for themselves. I support this change as a sensible and flexible way to encourage hybrid use. In fact, the House version of the bill originally required that hybrids be charged a toll to use the lane, a provision I considered unnecessary and heavy-handed. I proposed an amendment to remove this requirement, and guided this amendment to House passage. The strongest criticism of this proposed change is that it will lead to overcrowded carpool lanes. We should take this concern seriously, since the carpool lane was created as much to relieve traffic congestion as to improve air quality. But there are a number of reasons to think this problem will not materialize or will be manageable if it does. First, hybrids account for less than one half of one percent of new cars sold today. While it is true that car makers will soon be expanding their hybrid product lines considerably, it is estimated that hybrid cars will still amount to less than five percent of new car sales by 2013. Many of these cars will be hybrid sport utility vehicles that will not meet the Federal transportation bill's strict fuel efficiency standard for access to the carpool lane. For that matter, Caltrans has estimated that carpool lanes around the state are at two-thirds of their maximum capacity. There is room for adding hybrid cars. Of course, the goal is to encourage widespread adoption of hybrid technology. In some sense, we should hope that the lane will become more crowded, because it will be a sign that the incentive is working. That is why a flexible solution is essential. Local jurisdictions should monitor their own carpool lanes and impose restrictions as needed. The California bill perfectly embodies this approach: rather than diving in head first, the proposed program tests the waters with a limited number of permits. Some have argued that once the lane is open to hybrid drivers they will not submit to new restrictions, even if a crowded carpool lane makes such restrictions necessary. This naturally assumes that access to a clogged carpool lane is worth fighting for. More important, it suggests an approach to governing that would limit us from trying new ideas; we must not avoid taking action for fear of our own success. Allowing hybrids in the carpool lane is a bipartisan, problem-solving move toward cleaner air, and it will cost taxpayers little or nothing to implement. We should proceed forward in a cautious way, understanding that other goals are at stake but that freeing ourselves from the straightjacket of fossil fuels is worth the effort.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, even as jubilant Berliners chipped away at the Berlin Wall 15 years ago, many Americans saw the end of the Cold War as an opportunity for the United States to cut its military forces, reduce the number of American troops deployed overseas and divert the monies saved, the so-called peace dividend, to address priorities here at home. In the wake of the heady days of November 1989, few American policymakers were concerned about the civil war that was raging in Afghanistan, which the Soviet Army had quit 9 months earlier. As the Soviet armor rumbled north across the Afghan border, we closed the book on our deep involvement in the landlocked South Asian state. Humanitarian and demining aid still flowed to Kabul, but the United States effectively left the heavily armed warring factions to battle each other, setting the stage for the rise of the Taliban. Eleven years later, on September 11, we paid dearly for our reluctance to get involved in helping to bring peace to Afghanistan and to stabilize and disarm the warring factors in the aftermath of the Soviet departure from the country. Much of this failure can be attributed to an aversion to the kind of post-conflict nation-building operation that might have created a different Afghanistan in the 1990s. These operations are expensive, they are dangerous, they require an extended commitment of our national resources and our attention, and they impose a heavy burden on the military. Throughout the 1990s, the United States took on other post-conflict reconstruction and stability operations in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans, Northern Iraq, and East Timor. More recently and most significantly, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have compelled the United States to shoulder much of the burden for two enormously complex post-conflict operations. Despite our experiences in the 1990s and the crucial importance of the effort to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, these most recent efforts have been improvised affairs, led by the Department of Defense, which has pieced together personnel and expertise across the U.S. Government. Our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and indeed that of the 1990s and the past 15 years, has made clear that this Nation needs a centralized civilian capability to plan for and to respond to post- conflict situations and other complex contingencies. Last fall, Senators Richard Lugar and Joseph Biden assembled an extraordinary bipartisan group of experts from inside and outside the government to study how best to reorganize the foreign affairs agencies to improve our ability to meet the challenges of the post-conflict operations. Drawing on the discussions with these experts and administration officials, Senators Lugar and Biden introduced the Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act of 2004. In introducing the bill, Senator Lugar said that it was his intention ``not to critique past practices, but rather to improve our stabilization and reconstruction capability for the future.'' In that spirit, my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and I recently introduced H.R. 3996, which is the House companion to the Lugar-Biden legislation. This bill will establish a Stabilization and Reconstruction Coordinating Committee, chaired by the National Security Advisor. It will authorize the creation of an office within the State Department to coordinate the civilian component of stabilization and reconstruction missions. It will authorize the Secretary of State to create a Response Readiness Corps, with both an active duty and reserve component that can be called upon to respond to emerging international crises. It will have the Foreign Service Institute, the National Defense University, and the Army War College establish an education and training curriculum to meet the challenges of post-conflict and reconstruction operations. This bill is an important first step in reconfiguring the U.S. Government to strengthen our ability to deal with complex emergencies overseas. It will institutionalize the expertise we have acquired in the past 15 years at great cost in blood and treasure, so that we do not have to learn and re-learn how to do these operations each time we are forced to undertake them. Finally, and most important, it will shift much of the burden for the planning and execution of these missions from the military to the civilian side of our government.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate May 2004 as National Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. I am proud to represent the 29th Congressional District of California, a diverse and thriving area of our country where hundreds of thousands have come to raise their children and devote their talents to the community at large. Some of these families have been in the United States for many generations; others are newly arrived. But all of these Americans enrich the fabric of our society with unyielding patriotism and selfless devotion to their neighbors. The 29th District is home to one of the largest Asian American and Pacific Islander populations in Southern California; almost one-fourth of my constituents are of Asian Pacific heritage. Notable among them are Assemblywoman Judy Chu, Assemblywoman Carol Liu, Asian Youth Center Executive Director May To and Alhambra Chamber of Commerce Board Member Gary Yamauchi; countless Southern Californians enjoy a better quality of life from the leadership provided by these public servants. It is certainly timely and appropriate to honor Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the same month as the dedication of the National World War II Memorial in Washington. The foundation of that memorial was enshrined by the courage and gallantry of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team--Japanese American soldiers who formed the most decorated unit in U.S. military history. I cannot help but think that the fountains and reflecting pool of this new Memorial symbolically contain not only the tears of joy of millions freed from the chains of racism and imperialism, but also the tears of sadness of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans wrongly interned during the war. The deprivation of their liberty while their children were fighting for freedom in Europe is a story of injustice that should be long told to all American children. But the military service of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to the United States actually began long ago. In fact, many soldiers of Asian descent fought bravely in the Civil War, only later to be denied the opportunity for citizenship by the draconian Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. When the United States was at its most divided and imperiled, these noble individuals took to battlefields far from their home of birth to protect the promise of the American dream for future generations. I am proud to be a sponsor of H.J. Res. 45, which would posthumously proclaim these soldiers as honorary citizens of the United States. The various ethnicities, cultures and nationalities that compose the Asian American and Pacific Islander communities are bright stars in the wonderous evening sky that is our country. I thank and congratulate the many Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for allowing us to share in their rich heritage.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, it is with a mix of anger, sadness, and frustration that I rise in support of the resolution that the House passed earlier today. Our words can do little to mitigate the damage that has been inflicted upon our Nation, our Armed Forces, and our hopes for better relations with the Islamic world. Nevertheless, we must offer these words to the Iraqi victims and to the world. All of us have seen the photographs of smiling American military personnel mocking hooded, naked Iraqi prisoners. These images of those degraded are vile. The smiles of those who would degrade are grotesque. The soldiers in the photos must not become the face of the American- lead occupation in Iraq or of the American GI. Sixty years ago at the end of World War II, the American soldier was seen as a smiling supplier of chocolate bars. Our men and women in uniform must not become known around the world for degrading and humiliating unarmed, naked detainees. I am deeply proud of our military. The vast majority of our men and women in uniform serve with bravery, compassion and honor. Sadly, the barbaric conduct at the Abu Ghraib prison reflects upon all our troops and it is up to all of us, the Congress, the executive branch, the justice system and the military itself to address this blight upon our record. I am glad that several of our senior commanders in Iraq have publicly apologized to the Iraqi people. I also believe that it was important for President Bush to express his personal regret to the Iraqi people and his commitment to a full investigation as he did during two interviews with Arabic language television yesterday. I have been to Iraq and met with our young men and women who are serving there. The most disturbing aspect of this reprehensible conduct at the prison is that it undermines and endangers the lives of American soldiers who are diligently working every day in the most difficult conditions. All of the countless acts of good will performed by our soldiers, the rebuilding of hospitals, the opening of schools, the reuniting of families, the building of civic institutions and the foundation of representative government, all of these are undercut by these acts. Our campaign against terror has also been weakened. The war on terror and the war in Iraq are ultimately wars of ideas. The idea of a civil society under the rule of law, respective of human rights and individual liberties is at war with the idea of a closed society devoid of the right to speak as one chooses, without the free exercise of religion and propagated by indiscriminate and murderous violence against innocent men, women and children. The recent events at Abu Ghraib prison, a place identified with the barbarity of the Saddam Hussein regime, are a major setback in the war of ideas. A key element of this war has been our attempt to convince the Islamic world that America and the West are not out to humiliate and destroy Muslims. The damage to that effort is incalculable and the soldiers who committed these acts have betrayed the bravery, dignity and the sacrifice of their fellow troops. This resolution is our statement to the world and particularly to Iraq and the Islamic world that the people of the United States are united in their condemnation of the stomach-turning acts of abuse that were perpetrated in our name. But this is only the beginning. We need a thorough investigation to find out both where the breakdown in the chain of command occurred and why Congress was left out of the loop, even though the military has been investigating these incidents for months and the investigation by Major General Antonio Taguba was completed in late February, 2\1/2\ months ago. We also need to determine whether the conduct at Abu Ghraib was an isolated set of incidents or whether, as some have suggested, similar acts were committed at other detention facilities in Iraq. Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis de Toqueville is reputed to have said, ``America is great because America is good; if America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.'' That was true then. It is still true today. Our greatness has been built upon countless acts of goodness and not even an episode like this can undo that proud history, but it should serve as a reminder that our Nation has succeeded because Americans are strivers. We are always looking to better ourselves, our communities, our country and the community of nations. We now face a great challenge to that perception of goodness and we must all rise to meet that challenge.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 135, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 56th anniversary of Israel's independence. The dream of a Jewish state stretches back two millennia to the destruction of the ancient Jewish kingdom of Israel. At the end of the Nineteenth Century, after the two thousand years of diaspora, persecution, and pogroms, Theodor Herzl and his fellow Zionists began the drive to revive the Jewish homeland. The unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust cemented the necessity of a Jewish state, and Israel was finally established as a sovereign and independent nation on May 14, 1948. In the 56 years since its establishment, Israel has served as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. In the face of war, terrorism, and frequent diplomatic isolation, Israeli society has flourished because of the pluralism, freedom, and human rights guaranteed by Israel's democracy. These democratic values have sustained a strong alliance between Israel and the United States, an alliance of friendship, principles, strategy, and a commitment to defeat terror. Perhaps more than any other nation, Israel understands the dilemmas faced by a democratic society confronted with terror. Terrorism threatens the institutions that nurture Israel's prosperity--both through the bloodshed it engenders and through the sacrifices of civil liberties necessary to achieve security. Israel has admirably maintained an open, democratic society in spite of relentless threats to its citizens. We in America must salute this accomplishment and try to learn from the Israeli experience how to balance homeland security and a free society. Much as its existence has been constantly challenged over its turbulent history, Israel currently faces critical threats to its well- being. The cycle of terrorist violence and reprisals shows no signs of ceasing, and the virulent specter of anti-Semitism remains a staple in the Middle East and is resurgent in Western Europe. However, we must embrace the cautious optimism embodied in Israel's national anthem, Hatikvah, which means ``the hope.'' We hope that Israel will continue to serve as the ``light unto the nations'' that Herzl envisioned more than a century ago and that Israel's 57th year will be a time of peace throughout the region.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the one and a half million Armenians who perished in the Armenian genocide that began 89 years ago on April 24, 1915. I consider this a sacred obligation, to ensure that future generations of Americans remember the first genocide of the 20th century and to ensure that the men, women and children who perished at the hands of the Ottoman Empire are not lost to history. We have always recognized the transience of memory. It is why we set aside holidays and build monuments to honor our heroes and the events that have shaped our societies. The stone and concrete of a memorial serve to freeze history and to preserve it for those who will follow. The written word cannot be burned when it is etched into rock. Time is the ally of those who would deny or change history. Such has it been with the government of Turkey and the Armenian genocide. Although the genocide was perpetrated by modern Turkey's predecessor, generations of Turkish leaders have steadfastly denied that the genocide ever took place, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Time is on their side. The generation of Armenians with direct memory of the genocide is gone. Their children are aging. Much of the rest of the world has moved on, reluctant to dredge up unpleasant memories and risk the ire of modern Turkey. For those of us who care deeply about the issue, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that our Nation, which has championed liberty and human rights throughout its history, is not complicit in Ankara's effort to obfuscate what happened between 1915 and 1923. Worse still, by tacitly siding with those who would deny the Armenian genocide, we have rendered hollow our commitment to never again let genocide occur. Among historians there is no dispute that what happened to the Armenian people 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. Prominent citizens of the day, including America's ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, and Britain's Lord Bryce reported on the massacres in great detail. Morgenthau was appalled at what he would later call the sadistic orgies of rape, torture, and murder. Lord Bryce, a former British ambassador to the United States, worked to raise awareness of and money for the victims of what he called the most colossal crime in the history of the world. In October 1915, the Rockefeller Foundation contributed $30,000, a sum worth more than half a million dollars today, to a relief fund for Armenia. Others, too, reacted in horror to what Ambassador Morgenthau called, for lack of a specific term, race murder. In the early 1930s, 10 years after the genocide, a young Polish attorney named Raphael Lemkin, who had read of the genocide as a child, tried to get European statesmen to criminalize the destruction of ethnic and religious groups. He was dismissed as an alarmist. A few years later, when Hitler invaded Poland, Lemkin lost 49 members of his family in the Holocaust. Lemkin escaped, first to Sweden, where he documented the horrors going on in Nazi-occupied Europe and then to the United States, where he worked for the Allied war effort. He resolved to create a word to convey the mass atrocities being committed by the Germans. In 1944, while working for the U.S. War Department, he coined the term ``genocide,'' citing the slaughter of Armenians three decades earlier. 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 the intent to destroy a national, 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's signing of the Genocide Convention Implementation Act. Just over a year ago, I introduced H.R. 193 with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), and other Members of this House. This resolution reaffirms the support of the Congress for the genocide convention and commemorates the anniversary of our becoming a party to this landmark legislation. On May 21 of last year, we achieved a huge victory when we passed the genocide resolution by a very strong bipartisan vote. This should be an easy resolution for all of us now to support on the House floor. Genocide is the most abhorrent crime known to humankind; and unfortunately, it still exists. Exactly 10 years ago, before the cameras of the world, Rwanda's majority Hutus exterminated over 500,000 Tutsi in just over 3 months' time, mostly with machetes and homemade axes. The reason that we have not yet succeeded in passing this resolution on the House floor is simple. The government of Turkey refuses to acknowledge the genocide and the strongest Nation on Earth fears their reaction if we do. All over the globe--from South Africa, to Argentina, to the former Yugoslavia, governments have set up truth commissions and other bodies to investigate atrocities. Nowhere has this process been more extensive than in Germany, which has engaged in decades of soul-searching and good works that have not only restored the nation's standing, but also its moral authority. I call upon the government of Turkey and our own government to do the same. When the burden of the past is lifted, then the future is brighter. As long as Ankara engages in prevarication, equivocation and evasion, Turkey will exist under a cloud--not because of its past, but because of its refusal to address that past. And as long as we fail to do our duty in this country, in this Congress, we do not live up to our great name and our great heritage. I also call upon the distinguished Speaker of the House to allow us to vote on the Genocide Resolution. One hundred ten of my colleagues have cosponsored this resolution and I expect that it would pass overwhelmingly if given the chance, but we must do it soon, for with each year the events of 1915-1923 recede a bit more into the dark of history. Time, Mr. Speaker, is not on our side. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, today, along with 35 of my House colleagues, I introduce bipartisan legislation to authorize the Congressional Science Competition. This legislation will allow Members the opportunity to conduct academic competitions in the sciences among high school students in their Congressional Districts. Pre-college science and mathematics education is one of the most important factors affecting the nation's scientific literacy and awareness, as well as the future supply of America's scientific and technological personnel. Unfortunately, indicators of the performance of United States students in pre-college science and math education indicate a need for improvement, including the need to increase student interest in science. In 2000, the National Center for Education Statistics, NCES, released its most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, on the Sciences. As a division of the United States Department of Education, the NCES has, since 1969, issued National Assessments on subjects such as reading, mathematics, history and civics. Unfortunately, the 2000 Science Assessment found that from 1996, the first year a Science Assessment was completed, to 2000, proficiency in the sciences by America's 12th graders declined. Using a scale of 0- 300, America's 12th graders scored 147, with 47 percent of students testing below a basic knowledge in the sciences. Only 34 percent of students showed a basic knowledge and even more discouraging, only 16 percent of students tested at or above a proficient knowledge in the sciences. Coupled with these declining scores and declining interest in the sciences from pre-college students, enrollment in graduate science and engineering programs over the last decade has not kept pace with foreign student enrollment in these same programs. According to a report released by the National Science Foundation, enrollment in graduate science and engineering programs by United States citizens and permanent residents from 1993 to 2001 declined by over 10 percent from just over 330,000 students to 296,000 students. However, at the same time, enrollment in these same programs by foreign students living in the United States with temporary visas rose by over 26 percent from just over 105,000 in 1993 to approximately 133,000 in 2001. Global competition and rapid advances in science and technology increasingly require a national workforce that is more scientifically and technically proficient and Congress must take action to support the need to develop national expertise in the areas of science and engineering. Americans have been responsible for some of the most fantastic scientific discoveries. From Thomas Edison's work with electricity, Dr. Jonas Salk's discovery of the Polio vaccine, to the development of the personal computer and the Internet, Americans and their discoveries have changed the world in remarkable and unmistakable ways. Even today, America's space program is coordinating our most sophisticated space exploration effort ever. The Mars Rover program is a tremendous scientific success developed by NASA's best and brightest scientists. Yet if academic indicators are correct, America will face a vast drain of scientific knowledge and ambition in the near future and we must begin to ask ourselves where we will find America's next Dr. Salk or the talent to develop America's future missions in space. Congress has a clear interest in ensuring that America's great scientific past and present continues into the future. The Congressional Science Competition is an effective way for Congress to demonstrate leadership in promoting scientific education as a national priority, to show support for the process of scientific inquiry, and to foster enthusiasm for science. I urge all of my Colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation and in doing so, indicate their support for making science education and interest a national priority.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today on behalf of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) would make a few minor changes with respect to the judicial review provisions currently within the bill. The amendment would briefly extend the amount of time for an action to be filed in court with regard to the Speaker's announcement of a vacancy. It would further provide for the appeal of that court's decision and for participation in this process by all citizens. Mr. Chairman, the matter we are discussing today on the floor, the reconstitution of this House in response to a devastating attack, is certainly a contingency that none of us would like to imagine. It is a scenario that, frankly, seems unthinkable. However, because of the continuing threat of terrorism that we face, we must contemplate even the unthinkable. The House of Representatives is indeed a unique body. As a purely representative body, there is only one way to get here: by direct election of the people of this great Nation. I cherish that heritage, and I know my colleagues do as well; but the love of that tradition cannot take precedence over the need to ensure continuity of our representative government in the face of unprecedented disaster, the annihilation of a large number of our Members. The base bill contemplates that we would operate without a government for 45 days. This, my colleagues, is a dereliction of duty. It is a dereliction of our duty to ensure that the governance of our Nation goes on in the face of such a tragedy. I, therefore, oppose the base bill. During the 45 days that followed the events of September 11, Congress worked vigorously to respond to the attacks on our Nation. No doubt the devastation of our Congress and the equally accompanying trauma of such a devastation would require the most prompt response likewise. The principle that all the people should be equally represented is essential to our democratic character, and mass vacancies for 45 days will be a departure from the representative rule of that body. Without a quorum in the House, the inability to conduct business may, in turn, force a President to act extraconstitutionally in any immediate response to an attack. By protecting one tradition, we would instead be scuttling others; and in the process we will only deny the American people the assurance that our swift and decisive response was a legitimate one. Mr. Chairman, the survival of our very Nation must take precedence over our fond and philosophical adherence to the principal of direct election to the House under all circumstances. The temporary appointment of Members to fill vacancies where 100 or more of our Members are killed or incapacitated is the narrowest of exceptions. In the unlikely event we should ever face such a terrible contingency, our country's future will depend more, far more, on the swift response of a fully reconstituted Congress than on a blind adherence to the principle of direct elections for 45 excruciating days. I, therefore, oppose the base bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee) has an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule that I will be offering on her behalf as her designee.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and all the work that he has done on the committee. He expresses a concern about the timeliness of the process contemplated by this amendment, and I share the concern about the timeliness of the process contemplated in the base bill. And, in fact, this is one of the reasons I have such concerns about the base bill. Whether it is 45 days or 47 days or 50 days, this is far too long in the wake of catastrophe to be reconstituting the Congress. I also share the chairman's desire that we rise above considerations of partisanship and think that this bill should go back to committee and come forth with a bipartisan measure that comes forth for all of us. This is a bipartisan bill. It should have a bipartisan work product. Mr. Chairman, I yield 60 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, the 34th annual Earth Day is a time to reflect on our stewardship of the environment: where we have been, and where we are going. We should use this opportunity to rethink our current direction. America's status-quo energy policy is untenable. Our dependence on fossil fuels is polluting our air and water, overheating our planet, and tying up our foreign policy. Yet a sustainable, energy-efficient future lies before us--if we are willing to reach for its. The consequences of fossil fuel use are everywhere. The Environmental Protection Agency determined that almost 500 counties across the country suffer from unhealthy levels of smog that must be reduced. Gas prices have hit record highs, which bites into the cost of living for ordinary Americans and threatens economic growth. Our dependence on oil limits our foreign policy and makes us rely on other nations for survival. And behind it all looms global warming. The biggest lost opportunity of the current Administration has been the failure to set a goal for this country of halving our dependence on fossil fuels in the next decade. I believe in the American entrepreneur and our ability to develop technologies that will dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Many of those technologies already exist. Many are on our roads. But they must be nurtured if they are to develop further. The first step is to encourage the use of hybrid gas-electric cars. These cars have double the gas mileage of standard cars and dramatically lower emissions. Moreover, unlike other clean car technologies, they are also available now in meaningful numbers. With a small encouragement, we can bring about the widespread adoption of this exciting new technology. Hybrids are only the first step. We should draw on our technological prowess to solve our energy challenges with renewable sources of energy that reduce pollution, such as solar, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, and fusion. I have great confidence in America's technological know-how in solving these challenges; our national public policy should aim to create research and development incentives for the public sector to partner with the private sector in bringing promising technologies to market. As a nation, we must reduce pollution and help leave a sustainable energy future for our children. Together, we can turn our country away from its current unhealthy practices and toward a cleaner, more sustainable tomorrow. It will not be easy, but it must be done.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate LeeAnn O'Toole for 34 years of dedicated service to the Burbank Unified School District. LeeAnn began her employment with BUSD on June 1, 1970, in the Division of Special Services as Secretary to the Senior Psychologist and Supervisor of Individual Guidance. At that time, this office was a combination of what we now know as the Special Education and Pupil Services departments. After a few months, she was transferred to Instructional Services, and served as Secretary to the Curriculum Coordinators and the Supervisor of Music. She worked there until April 1973, when she took maternity leave. Subsequently, she decided to resign her position to become a full-time stay at home mother. LeeAnn returned to the District part-time in May 1979 at McKinley Elementary School as a health assistant. In September 1980, she transferred to Jordan (Junior High School then) as a full time Counseling assistant. In April of 1982, she transferred to the Division of Instruction as a full-time Secretary to the Elementary Curriculum Coordinator. In May of 1984, LeeAnn moved to the Superintendent's Office as a Secretary. She left briefly in 1989 to take a position as Secretary to the Superintendent in the La Canada Unified School District where she was quickly promoted to Director of Administrative Services. The following year, she decided personnel work was not her true calling. Upon the retirement of the Secretary to the Superintendent in Burbank in 1991, she was rehired to fill that position where she has served ever since. Over the years, the job title has changed. She is now known as the Assistant to the Superintendent. LeeAnn is a shining role model and irreplaceable BUSD employee. I ask all Members of Congress to join me today in congratulating LeeAnn O'Toole for a truly exemplary professional and public service career, and for her immense commitment to the city of Burbank and its residents.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the amendment is acceptable, and in conference there will be additional language added to further clarify that the States may charge a toll if they so choose, but are not required. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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