Adam Schiff

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. Tonight the President will deliver his State of the Union address setting out the challenges facing America in the war on terrorism and his plans for economic recovery. From my seat in this Chamber, I will be listening for one word in particular, ``sacrifice.'' The word sacrifice should be a natural for a State of the Union address given at a time when the Nation is at war, when we are confronted with the need to defend against new and varied threats to our security, everything from small pox to shoulder-launched missiles that can shoot down commercial aircraft. Our men and women in uniform are certainly sacrificing. Tens of thousands have been called up, leaving their jobs, their families, often on very short notice and at great financial and personal costs. But what about the average American who is not on active duty or in the reserves? How will we be called upon to make our own contribution to the security and prosperity to the United States? The centerpiece of the administration's new agenda, and likely his speech tonight, is a $674 billion tax cut weighted heavily towards America's wealthiest families. Can this be the sacrifice that we will be called upon to make with our most prosperous families being asked to make the largest sacrifice by suffering their taxes to be cut the most? In every conflict since the Civil War, the Commander in Chief has called for an increase in revenues to meet the national defense. Can we have more butter, more guns and no sacrifice? Apparently not. Senate appropriators just cut $8 billion for increased security at our ports, cut $362 million for border security, cut $500 million for police and fire departments who will be first on the scene of any terrorist disaster, cut $534 from job training, cut $1 billion from our schools, underfunding the President's own education initiative. The President's proposal also does nothing to alleviate the States' own budget crises and their correspondingly massive cuts in health care, education and welfare. Ending the taxation, the double taxation of dividends might be good policy in a vacuum, taking some of the vast fluctuations out of the market. Coupled with reforms that end the no-taxation of other corporate earnings, the provision could be made revenue-neutral; but the administration's proposal is not coupled with other reforms and at a cost of $364 billion is far from revenue-neutral. Because the plan would have little effect on current spending and is permanent, it would also do little to boost our sagging economy, while doing a lot to increase our long-term national debt. But most importantly, the President's proposal is not made in a vacuum. We have so much work to be done to protect the homeland, and we still suffer the lingering effects of a recession. We have lost almost 2 million jobs in the last 2 years and cannot afford tax cuts that would neither stimulate the economy nor help those most in need. Many of us that supported tax cuts when we were at peace and enjoying historic surpluses must vigorously oppose them now that we are at war and in debt. As the President's own economic advisors will be the first to admit, small business is the driving force for economic growth and the government's ability to positively impact the economy through fiscal policy is limited. Probably the most significant contribution the Federal Government made to the prosperity of the 1990s was the difficult decision to balance the budget and keep interest rates low. But now we are back to the days of deficits as far as the eye can see. White House budget director Mitch Daniels can only say that the new red ink is nothing to hyperventilate about, which raises the question, where have the fiscal conservatives gone? Americans are a proud and generous people who are more than willing to sacrifice in a worthy cause. If, instead, we are to give ourselves a gift no other war generation has given itself, we will denude our ability to defend the homeland or, at best, shift to our children responsibility to pay for our economic health and safety.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Pasadena-Altadena Chapter of Links, Inc. On Saturday, March 8, 2003, the Pasadena- Altadena Links will celebrate its 40th anniversary of service to the community. The contributions of the Pasadena-Altadena Chapter of Links, Inc. are numerous. For four decades, this remarkable organization of African- American women has been a positive influence and inspiration to not only the African-American community, but also the entire Pasadena- Altadena community. Through their successful Saturday School program, officially named ``Pasadena Links to Student Success,'' they are enriching our children's lives. The Saturday School, for elementary students and their parents in grades K-4 with low academic achievement in reading, is a year-long program. The program focuses on four areas: the Arts, National Trends and Services, International Trends and Services, and Services to Youth. Saturday School offers special programs such as career day, African story telling, cultural events, field trips, and parent education workshops. In addition, scholarship awards are given to selected area high school students. The Pasadena-Altadena Chapter of Links, Inc. also serves the community in many other endeavors. In 2002, they sponsored a successful health fair and a series of breakfasts aimed at promoting nutrition. They also participated in the National Walkathon, an annual walk promoting health in which all Links chapters across the country participate. For their contributions both locally and nationally, I ask all Members of Congress to join me in saluting the Pasadena-Altadena Chapter of Links, Inc.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I introduced the Threat Reduction Implementation Act of 2003, granting the President permanent waiver authority over Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction certification requirements to prevent dangerous delays in this critical defense program. Unnecessary restrictions and delays in funding Nunn- Lugar put Americans at risk of potential attacks using smuggled Russian chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons technology or material. The terrorist attacks of September 11 fundamentally changed the way we think of national security and protecting the homeland. Unlike adversaries of the past, our enemies today not only utilize untraditional weapons in their war of terror, but also are seeking access to new and even more destructive weapons, such as chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Twelve years ago, the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program was born out of the necessity to ensure that the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union would not fall into the wrong hands as the Soviet empire was coming apart. While much has been done to dismantle these weapons, continuing economic and social weaknesses in Russia, coupled with an eroding early warning system, poorly secured Russian weapons materials, and poorly paid Russian weapons scientists and security personnel, increase the threat of mass destruction on an unprecedented scale. Unfortunately, every year opponents of the CTR program wage a campaign to slow down or even block funds for the continuation of U.S. efforts in Russia to monitor and reduce weapons-usable nuclear material and other weapons of mass destruction. While accountability and oversight are necessary to make sure that Nunn-Lugar funds are serving their intended purpose, recurrent delays owing to outdated certification requirements have proven detrimental to our ability to protect the homeland. During the fiscal year 2003 Defense authorization and appropriation debates, the administration requested permanent waiver authority over many certification requirements in order to permit elements of the program to go forward. After a drawn out debate, conferees ended up granting a 3-year waiver on the Nunn-Lugar certification requirements and a 1-year waiver for the construction of a chemical weapons construction facility in Shchuchye, Russia. Avoiding lengthy and unnecessary delays in the Nunn-Lugar program and specifically with the chemical weapons elimination project in Russia, it is in the strong national interest of the United States and justifies granting the President permanent waiver authority. With the weapons at Shchuchye reportedly able to kill the world's population some 20 times over, the continued, insecure existence of these highly dangerous and portable weapons is a direct threat to the American people. Securing Russia's arsenal is a massive challenge, but not an impossible one. While the cost of a terrorist attack on the United States involving Russian expertise or smuggled Russian nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon materials are potentially staggering, funding for the simple measures that can prevent these attacks is both sensible and urgent. Robust, uninterrupted funding of this very critical program would accelerate the progress of reducing these attacks on the United States and help the Russian Federation secure its weapons stockpile. Although the President has broad authority to use force in the war on terrorism, ironically he is significantly constrained in using cooperative means to destroy these weapons of mass destruction. Granting the President permanent waiver authority over Nunn-Lugar certification requirements will avoid dangerous delays in this critical defense program and prevent Russia's weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong hands. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who joined me today as original cosponsors of this bill. I would like to also thank Senator Richard Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn for their foresight and leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with my colleagues during this Congress on this very important homeland security issue.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Robert Wagner, a resident of California's 27th Congressional District. Mr. Wagner has recently been honored by his alma mater, Georgetown University, with the renaming of the University's Alumni House, the Robert M. Wagner Alumni House. Robert Wagner was born in Perth Amboy, N.J. but raised in both Iowa and California during the Great Depression. In 1940, at age 16, Mr. Wagner was called to serve in World War II and during boot camp found enough time to earn his GED. Upon completion of his service, he was accepted as a student at Georgetown University on the GI Bill. It was at Georgetown, Mr. Wagner says, that he learned the skills that have made him a success. His professors, course work and classmates, all played a role in both his professional success in the years after his graduation, and his dedication to the school which helped him to achieve some of his life's greatest successes. His dedication to Georgetown is legendary. Over the past 33 years, he was volunteered to interview Georgetown applicants, founded the Georgetown University Alumni Association of Southern California, and has endowed five scholarships to benefit financially needy students. In addition to scholarships, Mr. Wagner has made unrestricted gifts to the Georgetown Annual Fund and endowed the Carroll Quigley Lecture Series, which brings experts in international affairs to the University. Most recently, Mr. Wagner endowed both a charitable remainder unitrust and a charitable lead trust. Both trusts will support the reconstruction, renovation and maintenance of the newly designated Robert M. Wagner Alumni House. Such dedication to the educational institution which served him so well is admirable and it is with great pleasure that I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Mr. Robert Wagner upon his being bestowed this great honor by Georgetown University.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sophie C. Wong. Dr. Sophie C. Wong was the first Asian American to serve on the Alhambra School Board. Elected in 1990, Dr. Wong has held to her commitment to preserve and advance the quality of education for all students. Among her many achievements as a Board Member, Dr. Wong was the founder of the Alhambra School District Educational Foundation, co- founder of the Human Relations Advisory Committee, and founder of the Asian American Association of the Alhambra School District. Immigrating to the United States in 1956, Dr. Wong has been a resident and homeowner in Monterey Park since 1961. Dr. Wong is married to Mr. Norman J. Wong and is the mother of two daughters, Cheryl and Debbi. Dr. Wong also has one granddaughter, Blythe. Since 1996, Dr. Wong has been the President and Chief Executive Officer of Chinese for Christ Calvin Chao Theological Seminary in Alhambra, California. The seminary is a professional graduate school for Christian leaders, pastors and missionaries. On August 7, 1985, the Seminary received authorization from the State of California to grant M.A., M.Div., D.Min., and Ph.D. degrees, making it the first Chinese seminary to be authorized by the State to grant a Ph.D. degree. In addition to being an active and important member of her community, Dr. Wong is a successful entrepreneur. She is the president of Sophie C. Wong & Associates, a business development, management, real estate, marketing and public relations firm, which matches people with business opportunities, She is also the co-founder, director, chief financial officer and past chairman of Golden Security Bank since 1982. Dr. Wong was named one of ``ten Important Power Brokers and Emerging Leaders in the San Gabriel Valley of Southern California'' in the December 1997 issue of the Los Angeles Business Journal. In 1986 and again in 1996, Dr. Wong was elected to the White House Conference on Small Businesses. It is with pleasure that I ask all Members to join with me in congratulating the Honorable Sophie C. Wong for her accomplishments on behalf of the students and staff of the Alhambra School District as well as her leadership in numerous activities in the community.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and that he be able to control and yield that time to others.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson).

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner). (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and that he be able to control and yield that time to others.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 2002, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by a voice vote H.R. 5385, The Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act. H.R. 5385 included provisions of H.R. 5002, which amends the United States-Israeli Free Trade Area Implementation Act of 1985 to allow for the designation of Israeli- Turkish qualifying industrial zones. Designation of Turkish qualifying industrial zones will dramatically expand Turkish access to U.S. markets through duty-free exports to the United States. As someone who believes that free and fair trade provides great opportunities and benefits to the American people, I have supported a number of free trade agreements during the past two years. We live in an increasingly global economy and our future progress depends on our ability to take advantage of that fact. However, we must also make sure our trading partners adhere to the rules of fair play. Unfortunately, this legislation would reward Turkey, despite its nine-year illegal blockade of Armenia, which, according to World Bank estimates, has cost Armenia between $500 and $720 million annually. These figures, which represent one quarter to one third of Armenia's entire economic output, are staggering. Turkey's blockade has also taken a human toll on Armenia's three million population. As a result of the blockade, hundreds of thousands of Armenians have been forced to leave their country and many of those that have remained have been forced into poverty. Instead of rewarding one ally to the detriment of another, we should continue to press Turkey to end its blockade and establish formal diplomatic and trade relations with its neighbor to the east. We should also seriously consider a meaningful bilateral trade agreement with Armenia. Such a mutually-beneficial trade agreement would not only help strengthen Armenia's economy, but will increase the demand for American products. U.S. companies and joint ventures working in Armenia are primary sources of demand for U.S. goods and services in Armenia. In order to make sure that free trade is also fair trade, one trading partner should not be allowed to impede the economic well being of another trading partner. We cannot and should not adopt a trade policy that simply undermines our commitment to an ally, such as Armenia, which during the past decade has adopted a free market economy and has implemented critical reforms in trade and monetary policy. banking and property rights. We can take full advantage of trade opportunities without placing our nation and others in a race towards the lowest common denominators. H.R. 5385 falls far short of our resolve to help allies such as Armenia and the other former Soviet republics become full partners in the global economy.

Mr. SCHIFF

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

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond briefly to a couple of the comments made by my colleague from North Carolina. Although we agree on many of the same underlying facts, we have disagreed on the conclusion to be drawn from those facts. But there was one point in particular on which I wanted to note my agreement, and that is the point that I think it would be very important for the administration to show more of the evidence it possesses of Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction. The President in his speech last night quoted, quite appropriately, from President Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. But probably the most vivid image that most Americans have of that period was the demonstration of the aerial photographs of missile silos in Cuba, the very direct, very unequivocal proof of that threat 90 miles from our shore. So, too, I think it would be important for this administration to be more forthcoming with the evidence it possesses, to demonstrate unequivocally to the American people, for whom many still have questions that Saddam Hussein does in fact possess chemical and biological weapons, because he does possess them; is in fact working to acquire nuclear weapons, because in fact he is working in that direction. Now, I realize that that chore is made more difficult in some respects, but easier in others. More difficult in the fact that some of the technology we are talking about is dual-use technology, and from aero-satellite it may not be possible to determine whether the rebuilding of chemical and biological weapon facilities which is currently ongoing can be argued to be done in the interests of some civilian application. But while there are those challenges, and, of course the challenge that once we disclose our knowledge of the whereabouts of chemical or biological weapons, those weapons will be moved, thwarting later inspections, while those challenges are, nonetheless, real and great, we also have a commensurate increase in our technological ability. Our ability to gather intelligence is much greater than it was in the early 1960s. And, notwithstanding the cost of sharing some of that evidence, the benefit that would accrue to the administration in making its case to the American people would be substantial. Iraq, Saddam Hussein, his foreign minister, his spokesman, all unequivocally deny the presence of chemical and biological weapons. Showing the proof of that lie, I believe, is very important for the administration to do and very much within its capability. The second point I wish to emphasize tonight which I think the administration will be well served to emphasize and which was lacking, perhaps, in the President's speech, and that is the importance of talking more deliberately and more thoroughly about the Iraq that America would like to see in the future, an Iraq with free institutions, an Iraq that is once again prosperous. Our long-term commitment for that is what it will have to be, a prosperous and free Iraq. This is not only important I think in terms of the American people understanding that this is not about oil, that this is about the long- term peace and security of that region and our own long-term peace and security, but it is also important for the rest of the world to understand. And I think it may be even most important for the Iraqi people to understand, the possibilities that the future holds for the people of Iraq once the regime in Baghdad changes. So I would urge the administration, notwithstanding the support that I think will come from this body and from the Senate for the resolution, to be more demonstrative in the proof that it does possess of the evidence of weapons of mass destruction now and also to be more thoughtful and more articulate in describing the type of Iraq the administration is committed to seeing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in this House, and indeed, in homes across America, we are debating whether to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein if he fails to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations, if he fails to submit to unfettered inspections, and even if we must go it alone. The President has come before the Nation to make the case for strong intervention and to attempt to answer many of the difficult questions being posed by the American people: Why is Iraq unique when other nations possess weapons of mass destruction? Why now, when Iraq has been ignoring the U.N. resolutions for 11 years? What effect will this have on the broader war on terrorism? Will an invasion of Iraq in the end make us safer or more at risk? All of these questions are legitimate. None admits of a simple answer; and none can be answered completely, depending, as they do, upon the unknowable caprice of a despot. But there are certain facts which I believe are indisputable. First, Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons, and is developing a nuclear weapons capacity. Second, an inspection regime in which hundreds of acres of so-called palace grounds are off limits is no inspection regime at all. In fact, it is worse than no inspections, giving, as it does, a false sense of security and effectiveness. Third, Saddam Hussein will never submit to a real inspection regime without the credible threat of force. Fourth, we cannot continue to allow Saddam Hussein to fire on American pilots who seek to enforce United Nations resolutions. Finally, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons program will only grow over time; and in time, he will have the atomic bomb. Of all the dilemmas facing our Nation in light of these facts, the central issue is this: How imminent is the threat to this country from Iraq? The threats we face after September 11 are different in kind than those we have faced in the past. We will never likely see enemy troops massing on our borders, threatening to dominate Europe, or attacking our bases with large fleets of ships or planes. The predominant threat we must now address comes from terrorists and the states that sponsor them, terrorists who cannot be contained and cannot be deterred, and terrorists that can act with great suddenness and ferocity, causing dramatic loss of life. It is fair to ask ourselves whether, on September 10, prior to the devastating attacks on this country, we would have adjudged al Qaeda an imminent enough threat to justify the strenuous use of force to rout out the terrorists in Afghanistan. Apparently, we did not. Just as plainly, we cannot wait until 3,000 more Americans lie in their graves to warrant our intervention when other threats materialize. The narrow question before Congress right now is whether the threat from Iraq is imminent enough to support a resolution authorizing the use of force to compel this armament if persuasion fails. On the basis of information I have received, both classified and unclassified, from meetings with the President, National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, regional experts, defectors and others, I believe it is; and I am concerned that the failure of such a resolution at a time when our Commander-in-Chief is before the United Nations would be deleterious to our efforts to engage that world body. The original resolution drafted by the President was too broad, and I did not support it. Through negotiation with the Democratic leadership, the resolution was considerably narrowed to require the President to exhaust all efforts through diplomatic and other peaceful means before any resort to force could be made, to limit the scope of his authority to Iraq, rather than the entire region, to require compliance with the War Powers Act and to compel frequent consultation with Congress. In the House Committee on International Relations on which I serve, I supported amendments to narrow the President's authority further still, including the Biden-Lugar amendment, which contained even stronger language compelling the use of force to compel disarmament. These amendments were unsuccessful, and I supported the bipartisan compromise resolution on final passage out of the committee, and I will support it here on the floor. My vote in favor of this resolution and my desire to support the administration's efforts that the United Nations should not, however, be taken as an unequivocal endorsement of the administration's handling of Iraq over the last year. It is not. The administration must not go about this alone or unilaterally but redouble its effort to enlist the support of our allies until it is successful, as I believe it can be. The administration must change the nature of its rhetoric, rhetoric which on a host of issue has shown too great a willingness, at times an eagerness, to go it alone on a whole range of issues, a policy and a tone which has made the process of gathering international support much more difficult than it should have been. I share the concerns expressed by hundreds of my constituents that this country not rush to establish a precedent that every country is justified in unilateral military action against all perceived threats and that the best way to distinguish our conduct from other nations considering their own preemptive actions in the future is to persevere in our determination to build international support for international action. I hope that military force is not necessary. As the President said in his speech last night, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' But if force is required to disarm Iraq, I have great faith in the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces. They will do their job bravely and effectively, and we will be successful. We will win the war. Let us resolve also to take the longer and no less complex task of winning the peace. We must not risk the lives of American soldiers to replace one Baath party dictator with another, to allow Iraq to disintegrate or degenerate into tribal warfare. We must be committed to the long-term prosperity of the Iraqi people, to the establishment of the democratic institutions, and to the rights of speech and association and the free exercise of religion. We must embrace a broad vision, one that works to democratize the Middle East, to secure its rebirth and the elevation of its civilization, and a vision comparable to the Marshall Plan at the end of World War II. This will be no minor undertaking and will represent a significant departure from past policies, which have too often favored oil and friendly autocracy over principle and popular democracy. It will also require an investment in the very future of the very nations which now threaten us. But as post World War II Europe has illustrated, with every effort we make and every dollar we contribute, our own peace, security and prosperity will be rewarded. On September 10, the danger from terrorists was imminent, and we took no action. On September 11, we were devastated. Now it will forever be September 12, the day we realized that our military might alone, stationary and defensive, could not deter, could not prevent, could not contain the threats against us. And so we must gather the freedom- loving nations of the world and act to disarm Iraq peacefully if at all possible, but to disarm. And in time also to rebuild so that what was once a cradle of civilization can again be a light to the world. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Louise Wilson Lewis, whose commitment to Glendale Memorial Hospital over the last forty years has exemplified the spirit of selfless volunteerism that has been so integral to our community. Born and raised in Los Angeles, Mrs. Lewis's first involvement with Glendale Memorial Hospital came at the age of sixteen, when she volunteered as a candy striper for the hospital. A self-described “professional volunteer,” she served in almost every volunteer position in the hospital since beginning there four decades ago. Mrs. Lewis currently serves on the Glendale Memorial Health Foundation Board of Directors, where she is helping to raise $25 million for an expansion of the Hospital. She is also an active member of St. Francis Episcopal Church and works with Las Candelas, an organization which assists emotionally disturbed children. In June of 2001, Louise Lewis was diagnosed with cancer, and began to receive treatment from the hospital she served for so long. For over a year, she battled the disease, which, thanks to cutting-edge treatments and Mrs. Lewis's fighting spirit, has now gone into remission. Mrs. Lewis's outlook on her disease is a statement of her courage: “Cancer is so limited, and there is so much it cannot do to a being. It cannot undermine integrity, or invade the soul, or conquer the spirit.” And it has not. She has continued her volunteer efforts with Glendale Memorial Hospital and in March, she and her husband Tim will celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary. Mrs. Lewis's commitment to Glendale Memorial Hospital and the various charitable causes she supports makes her worthy of recognition, but her sheer determination to win her battle with cancer makes her an inspiration to us all. I ask all Members of Congress to join me in saluting Louise Wilson Lewis, whose strength of will and selfless devotion to her community exemplify the best in all of us.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Mr. Timothy Gregory in preserving a vital part of Southern California's architectural heritage. Over the last few years, Mr. Gregory has been instrumental in bringing to light the architectural significance of the Janes Village area. Mr. Gregory is locally known as ``The Building Biographer,'' and his knowledge has aided countless citizens in the community in appreciation of the architectural treasures that surround them every day. Through innumerable hours devoted to researching and informing the community about Janes Village and the vision of Elisha P. Janes, the noted local builder for whom the area is named, Mr. Gregory has almost single- handedly been responsible for the rediscovery of Mr. Janes' Altadena building projects and their spectacular architecture. The three hundred homes built between 1924 and 1926 are part of Mr. Janes' vision to build a thousand homes in Altadena. Although he never met that mark, the hundreds of homes he did build still stand as a testament to the early years of development in the Los Angeles area. Originally billed as ``Homes of Distinction in Scenic Altadena,'' these homes are as unique and special today as the day they were built. These homes stand as an enduring architectural monument--three hundred homes built on nine streets, of which two thirds can be directly attributed to the work of Mr. Janes. Their distinctive English Revival style marks some of the most remarkable architecture of the time. Thanks to the efforts of Mr. Gregory, Janes Village has now established itself not only as a Heritage Area, but as a neighborhood and community with a rich historical past. I ask all Members of Congress to join me in applauding the work of Timothy Gregory in celebrating and preserving a piece of our incredible architectural history.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on August 11, 2002, the men and women of Nagorno-Karabakh exercised their right to vote--a right which we have cherished for more than two centuries and a right that we hope will spread across the world. Democracy, Mr. Speaker, is at the core of our existence as a nation, and democracy and democratic values are what we fought for in Europe during two World Wars and are continuing to fight for in the war on terrorism. As freedom loving people who stood up against tyranny, we have a duty to applaud and support others who aspire to the principles that resulted in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Mr. Speaker, on August 11, 2002, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh re- elected President Arkady Ghoukassian by a majority vote in what the independent election observers from the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, Italy and Armenia called a free and transparent election. The independent international observers, who monitored the election and the subsequent vote count, included a number of acting and former parliamentarians, former diplomats, foreign policy experts, and representatives of non-governmental human rights organizations. In addition, journalists from the United States, Russia, France, Spain, Great Britain and Armenia covered the course of the election. The democratic presidential election of Nagorno-Karabakh, with an impressive 76 percent turnout, is evidence of the people's adherence to Western values and its determination to form a civil society and organize its affairs through a representative body based on the rule of law. Observers from the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, which had observed 85 elections within the jurisdiction of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe, stated that the election in Nagorno-Karabakh had surpassed many elections internationally recognized and approved by the OSCE and the Council of Europe, in particular, the elections in Bosnia and Kosovo. The five independent observers from the United States, which included former high-ranking foreign service officers and foreign policy experts, were extremely impressed with the election process and the people's resolute determination to live in freedom. One observer described it as ``an impressive exercise in democracy.'' Mr. Speaker, last summer I visited Nagorno-Karabakh and saw first- hand the harsh yet dramatic terrain of Nagorno-Karabakh and the rugged individualism of its people and leadership. Their compassion and conviction to forge ahead despite the difficult challenges was reminiscent of our founding fathers, who when faced with the choice of liberty or tyranny fought to live in freedom. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh continue to live with the daily reminders of the war--landmines, collapsed buildings, and the noticeable absence of fathers, brothers and sons. Yet, they have chosen to rebuild their lives and their towns so their children will live in freedom. Congratulations President Ghoukassian and congratulations to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh for your spirit and your commitment to freedom and democracy.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, as a co-sponsor of this resolution, I am pleased to see it being considered by the House today and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. In 2003, communities throughout the United States will celebrate the 100th anniversary of Korean immigration to the United States. Many Korean immigrants came to the United States in the early 1950's, fleeing from war, poverty and the threat of communism. As the hope to return to a united and democratic Korea diminished, Korean immigrants were left to build new communities and opportunities for themselves in the United States. It was through sheer determination and hard work that many Korean Americans have been able to thrive in America, invigorating businesses, churches and academic communities throughout the United States. According to the United States Census, Korean Americans own and operate 135,571 businesses across the nation that have gross sales of $46,000,000,000 annually and employ 333,649 individuals. Korean Americans have also left an indelible mark in our communities and government. Korean American community activists such as Angela Oh and Bong Hwan Kim worked tirelessly to bridge the racial tensions during the Los Angeles riots of 1992. The Korean-American population of the U.S. has greatly added to the rich fabric of our Nation. I want to take this opportunity to commend Korean Americans for their historical and cultural contributions to this Nation, and again urge a YES vote on this resolution.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I applaud the bipartisan leadership for their tireless work in bringing this bill to the floor today. In particular, I am very appreciative that one of my bills, the Law Enforcement Tribute Act, has been included in the reauthorization conference report. The Law Enforcement Tribute Act authorizes funding for grants to States and localities to aid in honoring those men and women of the United States who were killed or disabled while serving as law enforcement or public safety officers. To ensure this funding would allow for the development of many tributes around the country, there is a limit that no award may be greater than $150,000; and the bill further requires a match by the State or locality requesting the funding. The bill authorizes $3 million a year for 5 years to be administered through the Department of Justice and would provide enough funding for 20 projects each year. Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain briefly why this bill is so important. In one of the communities I represent alone, Glendale, California, four police officers and one sheriff's deputy have been killed in the line of duty. Many others have suffered injuries and illnesses that have contributed to early deaths. The ultimate sacrifice they have made deserves this recognition. One of those fallen heroes was Charles Lazzaretto, a Glendale police officer killed in the line of duty only 4 years ago. Another involves Janice Starnes of Martinsville, Indiana, whose husband, Dan, was killed in the line of duty in July of 2001, just months after they celebrated their 25th anniversary. Earlier this year, Janice wrote a check for $100 to start a memorial for her husband and two other officers also killed in the line of duty. In a letter that we received from her, she writes: ``He was the best friend to our sons. Dan paid the ultimate sacrifice. He has always been my hero, and now others can be honored by this memorial. I want to live long enough to see this memorial completed.'' Well, so do all of us in the Congress of the United States. I want to thank the original cosponsor, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis); our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith); and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their work; and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the committee; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee, for all of their assistance. To the many organizations of law enforcement who have supported it, I thank them; and I urge the support of my colleagues.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor the Armenian Evangelical Church of Hollywood. On November 23, 2002, the church will celebrate its 20th Anniversary and we would like to offer our congratulations and good wishes on this most noteworthy occasion. The Armenian Evangelical Church of Hollywood, founded in May of 1982, began as a ministry created by the Rev. Abraham Jizmejian and the Rev. Abraham Chaparian. The Hollywood Pastoral Ministry, as it was designated in the early days of the church, offered church services, fellowship groups, Bible study and a variety of other pastoral services. In June of 1982, after the current day church had been formed, the church was officially accepted by the Armenian Evangelical Union of North America and from that time, the church has devoutly served its community. Today, the congregation numbers over 250 and is served by a number of church ministries, including Sunday school, men's and women's fellowship, Bible study and youth ministry. Over the years, the church has always made a special commitment to the youth of its congregation and community. It was from this commitment that the church, nine years ago, founded New Direction For Armenian Youth, to serve at risk youth in church and surrounding areas. The program has helped countless young people and their families in coping with many of the harmful influences that pervade many of our communities. We ask all Members of Congress to join us in honoring the Armenian Evangelical Church of Hollywood on the church's 20th Anniversary and wish the church many fulfilling days to come.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act and, in particular, language in the bill on Russian Federation Debt for Nonproliferation. I want to applaud the conferees for including this very important language on ways to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the final conference report. The demise of the Soviet empire ushered in a new post-Cold War period and a very real sense of urgency with regard to the former Soviet Union's weapons stockpile. It has become tragically clear that new threats have emerged and terrorists and the States that sponsor them are actively in search of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons technology and materials. During the last 11 years, the Nunn-Lugar program, which was launched to reduce threats from the former Soviet Union, has done much to dismantle these stockpiles. However, continuing economic and social weaknesses in Russia, coupled with an eroding early warning system, poorly secured Russian weapons materials, and poorly paid Russian weapons scientists and security personnel increase the threat of mass destruction on an unprecedented scale if such materials fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations. Now, more than ever, we must make a fundamental shift in the way we think about the spread of weapons of mass destruction and our own national security. Using Russia's debt to the United States as a funding mechanism for programs addressing the inadequate security of the Russian weapons stockpile is an innovative approach we must explore. The Russian Federation Debt Reduction for Nonproliferation Act, which I coauthored with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), will provide a means to forgive the loans and credits owed to the United States by Russia in exchange for cooperation with U.S. efforts to monitor and reduce weapons-usable nuclear material, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and the facilities where they may be built. Securing Russia's arsenal is a massive challenge, but not an impossible one. While the cost of a terrorist attack on the United States involving Russian expertise or smuggled Russian nuclear chemical or biological materials is staggering, funding for these simple measures that can prevent these attacks is sensible and urgent, and I urge Members' support.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jacqueline Autry, who will receive the Honorary Congressional Horizon Award on September 27, 2002 at the Autry Museum of Western Heritage. The Honorary Congressional Horizon Award is presented annually to individuals who have personally contributed to expanding the opportunities for all Americans, and who have set an exceptional example for young people through their successes in life. Success has always followed Jackie Autry. As a young woman in 1959, she started her career at Security First National Bank, working first as a switchboard operator, then as an Assistant Manager of Operations, and then Manager. At the young age of thirty-two, she was appointed to the position of Vice President, where she remained until July 17, 1981, when she married the American cowboy legend, Gene Autry. Mrs. Autry has clearly demonstrated her selfless devotion to the community of Los Angeles. Her invaluable contributions to the community include serving as President of the Palm Springs chapter of the American Red Cross and serving as Treasurer and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Eisenhower Medical Center and Hospital. She has also served as President of Community Blood Bank of the Desert and currently serves as Director and President of the Autry Foundation. Mrs. Autry also has the venerable distinction of being the only woman ever to serve on the Major League Baseball Executive Council and Board of Directors. She continues to serve the sporting community while acting as Honorary President of the American League of Major League Baseball. Over the years, Mrs. Autry's remarkable breadth of involvement with the community has been a benefit and an inspiration to many. I am proud to honor the contributions of Mrs. Autry. It is through her accomplishments that we are inspired to believe in the power of each American to make a difference in our nation. In acknowledgement of her service, I ask all Members of Congress to join me in recognizing the achievements and contributions of Jacqueline Autry.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of millions of seniors across our nation who are forced to choose between buying their food, paying their rent, or purchasing their medicine. For too many seniors, this is truly a life or death situation that none of them should have to face. Unfortunately, this Congress is just weeks away from adjourning for the session and we are still no closer to enacting a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Over two months ago, we had an opportunity to debate and vote on a bill that would provide a meaningful prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program. The ``Medicare Rx Drug Benefit and Discount Act (H.R. 5019) would add a new ``Part D'' to the Medicare program with voluntary prescription drug coverage for any senior that chooses to enroll. Participating seniors would pay a set $25 per month premium and a $100 a year deductible. In return, Medicare would cover 80% of all drug costs up to $2,000 a year. Once a senior reached the $2,000 out- of-pocket limit, Medicare would then pay for all drug costs beyond that point. The House leadership refused to allow this bill on the floor. Instead, in the dead of night, while our nation's seniors were fast asleep, a majority in the House passed a bill that might as well have been written by the pharmaceutical industry. No substitute was allowed and no amendments could be offered. There was nothing even remotely bipartisan about that evening. The bill that passed at 2:30 a.m. on June 28 does not establish a prescription drug plan under Medicare. Instead, it relies on private insurers who are free to design their own plans, charge their own prices, decide which drugs to cover, and tell our seniors what pharmacies they may use. It does nothing to bring down rising drug costs nor does it address the issue of reimportation. Most importantly, the House leadership knows this bill has no chance of passing the Senate. It was a political gesture, not a policy priority. Where does this leave our nations seniors? They are still being forced to choose between food, shelter, and their medicine. They are still paying exorbitant prices for the same medications that are available in Canada and overseas for a fraction of the cost. They are still waiting for this House to act in a responsible manner. My House colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we still have time-- it is not too late. Let's work together in a bipartisan manner to meet our parties' respective promises to the American people and provide meaningful prescription drug benefits. Together we can bring hope and relief to our nation's seniors and pass a real Medicare prescription drug plan before this Congress adjourns.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve, we desire no conquests, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. These were the words of President Woodrow Wilson in his war message to Congress April 2, 1917. This week, from Los Angeles to New York, from Fairbanks to Fort Lauderdale, and in 200 million households in between, a Nation struggles to come to grips with the most vicious attack on unarmed civilians in the Nation's history. We once again appreciate, with the force that sometimes only tragedy brings home, that we are one country. Differences of geography, language, income and ethnicity have faded away. There are no national divides, no partisan debates, no hometown rivalries, no baseball strikes, not on this day. For all too brief a time, we are simply Americans. And we are taking stock. Much has taken place since September 11, a date that may surpass the end of the last millennium as a turning point for the country. Some of that change has been extraordinarily positive for our own security and for the peace and prosperity of the world. The promise of mutually assured destruction that for decades we exchanged with the Soviets has been replaced with an unprecedented partnership with Russia. This is no detente, but a completely new realignment of interests, which has transformed the world landscape and dramatically reduced the possibility of nuclear catastrophe. For all that has changed in the last year and all that has transformed since the end of the Cold War, we are still at risk. Our most immediate and tangible threat comes not from interlocking engagements with a Europe that cannot overcome its historic feuding, not from nation states that are amassing colossal military forces with an eye towards territorial aggrandizement or world domination. The threat is primarily asymmetrical now, from stateless terrorist organizations and the nations that support them; from murderous psychopaths that are bent on igniting a holy war and have a blood lust for the United States. Such depravity has always existed, but with the advent of weapons of mass destruction and their terrible availability, it no longer takes a national miscalculation to inflict misery on the world. And as the lone superpower in the world, America has a target on her back. The threat may come from new quarters, but we have one powerful bond with Americans from the beginning of the last century: This conflict is still about making the world safe for democracy. On September 11 we were not attacked because we sought to conquer or subjugate another people. We were not attacked over a territorial dispute or a clash of national ideologies. And, notwithstanding post- attack propaganda from the terrorists, we were not attacked over our policy in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda never showed an interest in the Palestinian cause except in a post-attack effort to point their homicidal rage as a defense to the West's supposed hostility to Islam. We were attacked simply because we existed, simply because we represented and continue to represent the triumph of free institutions, a respect for the free exercise of religion, association, and expression. We were attacked because we are a democracy in a world very unsafe for democracies. And winning this war, and the long twilight struggle it has become, will require nothing less than a sustained, unswerving commitment to the propagation of freedoms around the world. We must root out al Qaeda and terrorist organizations wherever they exist. We must take the fight to the enemy, as the President declares, and not wait defensively at home for the next attack. At the same time, we must open a completely new front in the war on terrorism: the battle for democracy. We must attack tyranny, despotism, and the trampling of human rights around the world. We must use every instrument of our national policy to support the growth and cultivation of free institutions, a respect for the free exercise of religion, the right to associate with whom one pleases, and the right to speak one's mind. We must encourage the growth of democracies in every corner of the globe and not simply in Europe or the Americas. Democracy must come to the Arab nations, to China, and to every corner of Africa, and not simply to our adversaries. Democracy, too, must come to our allies, to the Saudis, to the Egyptians, and to the Jordanians. Democracy, not oil, will be the ultimate guarantor of our security. This lofty ambition is not fanciful, not quaintly sympathetic, but practical. Democracies do not make needless war, democracies do not seek to terrorize or conquer, democracies do not serve as the breeding grounds for genocidal rage or terrorist madness. Democracies are better capable of eliminating the common scourges of mankind: poverty, disease, famine, and conflict. If we are to be partisans, let us be partisans of democracy. We may never ferret out every last terrorist; the germ of madness is difficult to eradicate completely. But our peace and prosperity lie as much in changing the soil. Peace, again, must be ``planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty,'' and a cardinal part of winning this war, as in the war to end all wars, will be our fortitude as one of the ``champions of the rights of mankind.''

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of Pasadena's finest community organizations, The Sycamores. On September 29, 2002, The Sycamores will celebrate its 100th anniversary as one of the nation's premier mental health agencies serving California's children and families. In 1902, Fannie Rowland, wife of John Rowland, the first President of the Tournament of Roses, called a meeting of thirty prominent Pasadena community leaders. She wanted to discuss the ``advisability of establishing a home for the care of needy children.'' From that meeting, the Pasadena Children's Training Society was founded. Initially, the Society's two-story yellow building served as a home for ``door-step'' babies--infants left on the facility's front steps. It was from the front steps that this agency grew. By the mid-1960s the Society had outgrown its home and moved to the neighboring community of Altadena. With the new home came a new name--The Sycamores--a moniker selected in honor of the many trees surrounding the new campus. As the physical location and name of the Society changed, so did its focus. What began as a small orphanage, bloomed into a residential treatment center by the 1960s. Since then, The Sycamores has increased its capacity to help. Its board of directors purchased additional properties, developed a state- certified school, offering family and adoptive services, a neighborhood family resource center and expanded mental health and transitional living programs. Over the years, The Sycamores, as one of the area's most acclaimed and capable facilities, has cared for some of the most troubled and needy children in California. The extraordinary staff uses innovative and effective methods to help children and families learn to live productive, but more importantly, happy lives. It is their dedication that makes The Sycamores a vibrant and valuable asset to the community. I ask all Members to join me in congratulating The Sycamores for 100 years of service and thank them for all that they do for the children of our community.