Adam Schiff

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my strong support for National Night Out. This year, over 30 million people in 9,700 communities in all 50 states will celebrate National Night Out. Each year, National Night Out is our nation's night to say no to crime and help take back and preserve the safety of our neighborhoods. In 1984, the Executive Director of The National Association of Town Watch, Matt A. Peskin, introduced National Night Out. Searching for a way to heighten the awareness and strengthen participation in local anti-crime efforts, Mr. Peskin believed that a high profile, high- impact crime prevention event was needed. In the first year of the event, over 2.5 million Americans in 400 communities across 32 states participated by turning on their porch lights. Today, while the front porch vigil remains a custom, National Night Out now includes block parties, cookouts, parades, festivals, neighborhood walks, safety fairs, rallies and safety meetings. This year's event will prove to be a bigger success than ever and I am pleased to announce that many of the communities of California's 27th Congressional District will be proud participants. The communities of my district will call on their residents to participate in this national show of solidarity. Whether it is through large gatherings, community walks, small neighborhood vigils or a lighted porch light, the residents of the 27th District have always made a commitment to safe neighborhoods and streets. Such an evening proves an opportune time to celebrate and thank our local police and fire departments. The men and women of these departments spend each day helping to ensure our safety and it is only with their help that we will be able to ensure the long-term safety of our children and our neighborhoods. On this night in particular, they deserve our respect and our praise for their dedication to serving all of us. It is with all this in mind, that I ask all Members to join me in their strong support of National Night Out--America's night to support safe neighborhoods and safe communities.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to honor the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, located in California's 27th Congressional District, and pay tribute to for the enormous success of the Voyager Mission. On September 7, 2002, JPL will celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the Voyager Mission--one of America's most successful space exploration endeavors. In the summer of 1977, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory launched twin spacecrafts, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 on a mission to conduct close-up studies of Jupiter and Saturn, Saturn's rings and the larger moons of the two planets. In order to accomplish this mission, the spacecraft were built to last five years, but as the mission went on, and with the successful achievement of all of its objectives, the additional studies of the two outermost giant planets, Uranus and Neptune, proved possible. Thus, their two planet mission became four and their five year lifetime expectancy has stretched to 25 years and more. At the final completion of their mission, Voyager I and 2 will have explored all the giant outer planets of our solar system, 48 of their moons, and the unique systems of rings and magnetic fields those planets possess. Currently, the two Voyagers are headed towards the outer boundary of the solar system at a speed that would move them from New York to Los Angeles in less than four minutes. They are in search of the heliopause--the region where the Sun's influence gives way to interstellar space. The hetiopause has never been reached by any spacecraft; the Voyagers may be the first to pass through this region, which is thought to exist somewhere from 5 to 14 billion miles from the Sun. The accomplishments of the Voyager Mission are a testament to 25 years of excellence by the staff at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. From the scientists that worked on the mission in 1977 to today's mission specialists, JPL staff has shepherded Voyager to the farthest reaches of our solar system and in the process Voyager has unlocked mysteries that have revolutionized the science of planetary astronomy. I ask all Members to please join me in congratulating the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on the 25th Anniversary of the Voyager Mission. It stands as a shining example of American ingenuity and our commitment to exploring and understanding the far reaches of our solar system.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Children with Diabetes and the Children with Diabetes Foundation. On July 18, 2002 the foundation will welcome hundreds of families, doctors and experts from around the nation and world to the 3rd Annual ``Friend for Life'' National Children with Diabetes Conference in Pasadena, California. Children with Diabetes, an online community for children, families, doctors and researchers, was founded by Mr. Jeff Hitchcock shortly after he learned that his young daughter had contracted Type I diabetes, often known as juvenile diabetes. At the time, Mr. Hitchcock, knowing little about diabetes, was ill prepared to help his daughter cope with its affects and demands. In order to help prevent this feeling of helplessness for himself and for other parents like him, Mr. Hitchcock launched the Children with Diabetes website. Since 1995 the Children with Diabetes website has become a clearinghouse of information for juvenile diabetes. Children and their parents have access to information from physicians, dietary suggestions, treatment suggestions and a myriad of other services that have proved helpful to those living with the daily affects of diabetes. The site has also become a useful tool for physicians and researchers who now have the ability to share information about new treatments and cutting edge research from across the globe. While Children with Diabetes continues to act as an informational resource for juvenile diabetes, the Children with Diabetes Foundation acts to assist people financially living with diabetes and supports physicians and researchers around the world who are working towards a cure. Each year, the Children with Diabetes Foundation raises and awards thousands of dollars in scholarships and grants to researchers who are moving closer to a cure each day and to families working hard to live with this disease. That is why this week's national conference is so important. It will bring together people from around the world who are working, in their own way, to eradicate this disease. The conference will include speeches by Dr. Francine Kaufman, President of the American Diabetes Association, small group workshops, community forums, and appearances by Olympian Gary Hall and Miss America 1999 Nicole Johnson. The conference will culminate in the display of a quilt assembled by children suffering from diabetes. I ask all Members to rise and join me in congratulating and thanking Children with Diabetes and the Children with Diabetes Foundation for all that they do to fight against the negative affects of diabetes, especially juvenile diabetes, throughout the world. I am sure that through their efforts, we will one day find a cure for this disease.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Knights of Columbus, St. Cabrini Council #3472 on the occasion of their 50th Anniversary. On Saturday, June 29, the Knights of Columbus will celebrate this auspicious occasion with an anniversary dinner. In 1882 Father Michael J. McGivney founded the Knights of Columbus on the four principles of charity, unity, fraternity and patriotism and I am happy to say, that the St. Cabrini Council #3472 has embodied these virtues for 50 years. Formed on November 14, 1951, by 45 charter members, the St. Cabrini Council #3472 has grown steadily and now boasts a membership of over 160 Catholic men. This fraternity has dedicated itself to selfless service not only to the Catholic Church, but to service groups throughout the community in which they live. As many of the groups' members worship at Catholic parishes throughout Burbank and Sun Valley, many of the Knights of Columbus's efforts are focused on making these parishes more friendly and inviting places in which Catholics from throughout Burbank and the San Fernando Valley can come to worship. By involving themselves in parish events such as festivals, dinners, spiritual groups and carnivals, the organization continues to commit itself to creating a stronger and more vibrant Catholic community. The Knights of Columbus have also adopted a number of community groups which they have supported throughout the years. Each year, the group is responsible for raising between $6,000 to $8,000 for charitable groups throughout Los Angeles County. Most notably, the Knights have been recognized for their funding of organizations that assist the mentally handicapped and for their efforts on behalf of Rancho San Antonio Boys Town of the West, a residential facility run by the Holy Cross Brothers and open to boys up to 18 years old who find themselves in conflict with the law. Additionally, the Knights of Columbus have been active in offering scholarship opportunities to students in Catholic grade schools and high schools to assist these students in their pursuit of education. Their efforts have also extended to local Boy Scouts of America Troops in the way of sponsorship and financial contributions. I ask all Members of the United States House of Representatives to rise today and honor the Knights of Columbus, St. Cabrini Council #3472 on the occasion of their 50th Anniversary and for all that they do for our community.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Oberstar amendment. We must not delay. We must accept no excuse for any delay in the immediate improvement of the security at our airports. Congress should speak unambiguously, find a way to get the job done now. Can it be done by the end of the year? Yes. The Secretary, the administration and the agency charged with this responsibility all say it can be done. Will it be difficult? Yes. Is the challenge any greater than the technological challenges we faced immediately after Pearl Harbor in gearing up our industrial capacity, of course not. This task is infinitely simpler. Will it cause some delays in some airports in flights, yes, in all likelihood. Will it cause the adoption and deployment of technologies that will need to be replaced in the future, it just might. After all, technologies, all technologies, eventually become obsolete. But what is the cost of delaying our efforts to secure our airports and our airplanes, the cost is potentially catastrophic. Imagine the devastation to the families if a plane is blown out of the air, imagine the devastation to our economy and the loss of confidence in our Nation's ability to defend itself in the very department that we establish today. On September 11, terrorists turned our planes into jet-fuel-powered bombs. That was the last attack. Some would argue since we are now better prepared against that eventuality, we can delay our preparedness against other attacks. Mr. Chairman, we must be prepared to fight terrorists in whatever form. Terrorists do not need to hijack planes to devastate this country. Placing a bomb in the cargo hold of a plane is all that it would take. We must defend against this massive vulnerability, and we must do it now. We cannot delay. I urge support of this amendment to make this country safe today.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Today, our Nation faces a new threat and a new enemy. And while the terrorists we fight have new ways of attack, we have much greater new abilities to defend this great Nation. America has always been the arsenal of democracy, and we remain so. And the new tools we possess are the technologies that spring from the ingenuity of the American mind. We have seen those technologies deployed in the Gulf War, in Afghanistan, and now those new technologies help protect us here at home. In order to encourage the private sector to use its ingenuity to develop these defensive capabilities, they must have the ability to protect themselves from excessive exposure and liability. There is a mechanism in existing law that provides indemnity on a case-by-case basis for those under contract with the Department of Defense. And as demonstrated by the extraordinary work of the Department of Defense, this targeted immunity works. The Turner amendment, based on a bipartisan agreement attested to by those who have contracted with the Department of Defense, restores this targeted indemnity. The opposition says that what has worked for the Department of Defense is not enough. They want blanket indemnity. They want an indemnity so broad it threatens to remove some of the vital and powerful incentives for technology makers to make sure they get it right. This goes too far. We want to incentivize the development of new technologies that work, that meet their promise, that live up to their expectation, that protect this country and all who serve it. The Turner amendment will do this. Nothing more and nothing less.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of a piece of legislation that will provide an e-govemment solution to the complicated process of signing kids up for health insurance, the SCHIP Web-Based Enrollment Act of 2002. This bill provides a simple, targeted method for expanding access to children's health care by giving states the flexibility they need to implement web-based enrollment programs for SCHIP. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 established the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a program that allows states to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are above Medicaid eligibility levels. Like Medicaid, SCHIP is a federal-state matching program, but spending has fallen well below allotment levels for a variety of reasons. One of the most striking reasons is that states have had difficulty enrolling enough children to meet the allotment standards. Enrollment in SCHIP has involved lots of red- tape, and the complexity of the application has discouraged families from signing up. To address this problem, states are beginning to utilize new technology and the Internet to streamline enrollment in SCHIP and Medicaid. This new technology has enabled states to reduce program enrollment time, improve accuracy, increase access for applicants, and centralize social service applications in state government. States that have launched or are planning to launch web-based enrollment in SCHIP include: California, Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. While web-based enrollment is promising, many states are challenged by high start-up costs. This bill would provide states with more flexibility to use their federal SCHIP funds for this kind of activity, and would create a grant program to help States promote web-based enrollment. The SCHIP Web-Based Enrollment Act of 2002 meets these objectives in the following ways: First, it would allow states to use unused, ``retained'' (redistributed from the federal government back to the state) SCHIP money for this effort. Under current law, a state may use up to 10 percent of retained 1998 allotments for outreach activities approved by the Secretary. The bill adds an additional provision under that section that allows states to use ANY AMOUNT of their retained funds for web-based enrollment outreach. Second, the bill establishes a separate grant program, allowing states to apply for additional funds (separate from SCHIP money) for this purpose. The grant program would make $50 million available over 5 years, and grants would be subject to a match rate. The match rate would be tied to their SCHIP match rate, but states would be eligible for up to 20 percent more than their rate, not to exceed 90 percent. Finally, this legislation provides assistance to states from HHS for development and implementation of the web-based enrollment system by providing information and technical assistance. There are nine million uninsured children in the United States. In fact, a child is born without health insurance every minute in this country. We must do everything we can to make it easier for families to enroll children in the health insurance programs available to them. I believe that this bill will provide the necessary means to help states expand enrollment in SCHIP. I urge my Colleagues to support this important legislation. Thank you.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3969, the Freedom Promotion Act of 2002. I would like to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos of the House International Relations Committee for their leadership on this very important issue. Mr. Speaker, American leadership and generosity have made the United States the leading international donor. Each year, the United States provides billions of dollars in foreign aid. Unfortunately, despite our efforts to improve the daily lives of people around the world, anti- American sentiment exists and is--quite alarmingly--on the rise. Often, the recipients of our aid do not know that it comes from the United States. I was pleased to offer an amendment to H.R. 3969 during the International Relations Committee markup ensuring that the positive work and support the United States provides to troubled regions around the world be properly identified. U.S. assistance funded by the American taxpayer should be clearly identified, and the extent of American generosity for purposes of poverty reduction and development should be well known. Foreign aid is a potentially powerful tool in our public diplomacy campaign. Broadcasting this fact abroad can help in building support for U.S. foreign policy and generate good will. Directing the Secretary of State to take advantage of this untapped resource, and requiring him to report to Congress on his efforts to do so, ensures that U.S. foreign assistance becomes an integral component of public diplomacy. My amendment to H.R. 3969 was only the first step in the effort to effectively promote U.S. assistance abroad. Now more than ever, this bill is vital to shaping an effective foreign policy that ensures America's security interests in the aftermath of September 11, and advances America's enduring principles of justice, democracy and human rights. Thank you and I urge an `aye' vote.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today for this modest bipartisan amendment offered by Representatives Slaughter, Dicks, Horn, Johnson and Morella 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, I value the tremendous role arts funding and arts education programs play in the lives of our citizens. Several academic studies demonstrate the connection between music, dance, visual arts, and the development of the human brain. It is well known among researchers that arts education cultivates critical thinking skills so important in our information age economy. Let me tell you about some of the programs in my community that received NEA and NEH funds this past year. Artist-in-residence programs in elementary schools to encourage student and teacher involvement. A program in my district that incorporates traditional music and dance from diverse cultures to improve student relations, coordination and memory. An amateur chamber orchestra. A fellowship program at a library and museum for art instructors who will, in turn, teach our artists of tomorrow. But this debate is not simply about the arts alone. Children who learn to read music or play an instrument show improved proficiency in math. This increase of $15 million under the Interior Appropriations for the NEA and NEH will go to fund so many rich programs offered and so many opportunities for us all. Last month, an economic study, Americans for the Arts, found that America's nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion in annual economic activity. This number includes full time jobs, household income and local, state and federal tax revenue. This study includes more than $80 billion in event-related spending by audiences. This is additional clear evidence that opportunities funded through NEA and NEH continue to bring us to new levels in our economy, culture, language, music, art and life. By supporting the arts and the humanities, the Federal Government has the ability to partner with state and local efforts to bolster the arts and educational opportunities in our communities.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding citizen of California's 27th Congressional District, Dr. Les Adelson. Dr. Adelson has served as Superintendent of the South Pasadena Unified School District for nine years and has been a positive force in my Congressional District and in the field of education for much longer. Dr. Adelson's career in education has spanned over thirty years. He began his service with the South Pasadena Unified School District over thirteen years ago as Director of Instructional Services, and in 1992 he was made Assistant Superintendent and a year later was appointed as Superintendent. During his tenure as Superintendent, he has made a positive impact on the policies of the school district, and has also received such honors as Superintendent of the Year in Los Angeles County, as well as local, State, and Parent-Teacher Association service awards. Dr. Adelson has been a faculty member of the Special Education Department at California State University, Northridge for eighteen years, and a faculty member in the School Management Program at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Adelson has also contributed much to his community through his volunteer work with the Rotary Club of South Pasadena and the City of Hope. Les is now leaving the South Pasadena School District to take the position of Superintendent of the Moreland School District in San Jose County. Dr. Adelson will be greatly missed in the South Pasadena community for all that he has done as an educator, an administrator, and as a man dedicated to public service. At this time, I ask all Members to join me in extending congratulations to Dr. Adelson for all that he has given to the community of South Pasadena and wish him continued success in his new endeavors.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, today I will be introducing the Military Tribunals Act of 2002 to provide congressional authorization for tribunals to try unlawful combatants against the United States in the war on terrorism. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution provides that it is the Congress that has the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court to define and punish offenses against the law of nations. Up until now, there has been no congressional authorization for military tribunals. The formation of these tribunals, thus far, has been performed solely by executive order of the President with clarifying regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Defense. Some would argue, not implausibly, that despite the clear language of article I, section 8, congressional authorization is not necessary; that as President and commander in chief, he has the authority, all the authority he needs, to regulate the affairs of the military, and this power extends to the adjudication of unlawful combatants. Ultimately, if the Congress fails to act, any adjudications of the military tribunals will be challenged in court on the basis that the tribunals, having been improperly constituted, the sentences cannot stand. Through this bill, we can remove any legal cloud that would overhang these prosecutions. For one thing the Supreme Court has made abundantly clear is that the power of the executive when it acts in concert with the Congress is at its greatest ebb. But there is another reason, an even more compelling reason, for Congress to act, and that is the separation of powers. No single branch should have the authority on its own to establish jurisdiction for a tribunal, to determine the charges, to determine indeed what defendants should be brought before that tribunal, to determine process, and to serve as judge, jury and potential executioner. As a former prosecutor, I would not have wanted such unbridled authority, nor do I believe it is appropriate here. The Military Tribunals Act of 2002 establishes the jurisdiction of these new courts over noncitizens, non-U.S. residents, unlawful combatants, al-Qaeda members, and those working in concert with them to attack the United States. It preserves the right of habeus corpus, and appeal, and the basic rights of due process. It also protects the confidentiality of sources of information and classified information. And it also protects ordinary citizens from being exposed to the dangers of trying these suspects. Perhaps most important, in the context of a war without clear end, against an enemy without uniform or nation, the bill requires the President to report to Congress on who is detained for how long and on what basis. Mr. Speaker, in sum, the Military Tribunal Act of 2002 gives the Commander in Chief the power to try unlawful combatants, provides the confidence these judgments will be upheld, establishes clear rules of due process, maintains our check and balances, and permits Congress to effectively oversee the war powers as the Constitution and the preservation of liberty requires. Separation of powers: Our great nation was founded on the basic principles of liberty and justice for all. And one of the founding principles of our government is a separation of powers, and a system of checks and balances. We set up our government this way for a reason. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention faced a difficult challenge--to create a strong, cohesive central government, while also ensuring that no individual or small group in the government would become too powerful. They formed a government with three separate branches, each with its own distinct powers. Without this separation of powers, any one branch of government could have the power to establish a tribunal, decide what charges would be covered and what due process would be afforded, and also serve as judge and jury. The intent of the framers was to avoid these kinds of imbalances of power--to provide checks and balances. That is why Congress must have a role in setting up military tribunals. The role of military tribunals: As the United States and its allies continue to engage in armed conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban, military tribunals provide an appropriate forum to adjudicate the international law of armed conflict. While it may sound incongruous to have a justice system to deal with crimes of war, this process ensures adherence to certain international standards of wartime conduct. In order to garner the support of the community of nations, military trials must provide basic procedural guarantees of fairness, consistent with the international law of armed conflict and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Constitutional justification: Congressional authorization is necessary for the establishment of extraordinary tribunals to adjudicate and punish offenses arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks, or future al Qaeda terrorist attacks against the United States, and to provide a clear and unambiguous legal foundation for such trials. This power is granted by the U.S. Constitution, which gives congress the authority to constitute tribunals, define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations, and make rules concerning captures. While Congress has authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons that he determines to have planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks or harbored such organizations or persons, Congress has yet to expressly authorize the use of military tribunals. Crafting the bill: In November, 2001, the President issued a military order which said non-U.S. citizens arrested at home or abroad could be tried by military tribunals. In March, 2002, the Department of Defense announced rules for military trials for accused terrorists. Believing that Congress should play a critical role in authorizing military tribunals, I began discussing this issue with legal organizations, military law experts, and legal scholars. The result of these discussions is the Military Tribunals Act of 2002, which I am introducing today. Who is covered: My bill will give the President the authority to carry out military tribunals to try individuals who are members of al Qaeda or members of other terrorist organizations knowingly cooperating with or aiding or abetting persons who attack the United States. Unlawful combatants: The Geneva Conventions limit the ways regular soldiers who surrender or are captured may be treated, but there is a very clear distinction made between lawful enemy combatants (a member of a standing/recognized army), who would not be subject to a tribunal, and unlawful enemy combatants (civilians who take up arms) who would. Currently, there are more than 500 persons who are being detained at Guantanamo Bay. They have been classified by the Department of Defense as unlawful enemy combatants, and each one could potentially be subject to a military tribunal. But without legislative backing, any military tribunal adjudication of guilt may later be challenged on the basis that the tribunals were not authorized by Congress. Congressional action would make it abundantly clear that military tribunals are an appropriate venue for trying unlawful enemy combatants. Spelling out the requirements for a military tribunal would ensure that sentences, when they are handed down, could be defended from judicial invalidation. Due process: My bill would ensure that the basic tenets of due process are adhered to by a military tribunal. The tribunal would be independent and impartial. The accused would be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and would only be found guilty if there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused would be promptly notified of alleged offenses. The proceedings would be made available to relevant parties in other languages as necessary. The accused would have the opportunity to be present at trial. The accused have the opportunity to confront, cross-examine, and offer witnesses. The proceedings would be expeditious. The accused would be afforded all necessary means of defense. A conviction would be based on proof that the individual was responsible for the offense. A conviction could not be upheld on an act that was not an unlawful offense when it was committed. The penalty for an offense would not be greater than it was when the offense was committed. The accused would not be compelled to confess guilt or testify against himself. A convicted person would be informed of remedies and appeals processes. A preliminary proceeding would be held within 30 days of detention to determine whether a trial may be appropriate. The tribunal would be comprised of a military judge and not less than five members. The death penalty would be applied only by unanimous decision. The accused would have access to evidence supporting each alleged offense, except where disclosure of the evidence would cause identifiable harm to the prosecution of military objectives, and would have the opportunity to both obtain and present exculpatory evidence, and to respond to such evidence. Habeas corpus: Finally, the writ of habeas corpus would not be infringed, as it is a critical tenet of our justice system. Every person should be entitled to a court determination of whether he is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. This basic tenet dates back to 1215 when it stood in the Magna Carta as a critical individual right against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Courts have referred to habeas corpus as ``the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.'' Without judicial review, the police can arrest people without warrants and jail people without trials. U.S. Senator Arlen Specter has noted, ``Simply declaring that applying traditional principles of law or rules of evidence is not practical is hardly sufficient. The usual test is whether our national security interests outweigh our due process rights, and the administration has not made the case.'' A careful reading of the President's military order reveals that ``military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction, and the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain any proceeding, directly or indirectly . . . in any court of the United States, or any state thereof, any court of any foreign nation, or any international tribunal.'' Appeals process: Another critical protection we must retain in these trials is that of an appeals process. My bill calls for the Secretary of Defense to promptly review convictions by such tribunals to ensure that the procedural requirements of a full and fair hearing have been met. It also calls for the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces established under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to review the proceedings, convictions, and sentences of such tribunals. Finally, the Supreme Court would review the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. This is the most appropriate system of judicial review, especially since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces would not have to appoint special masters or magistrates to do the necessary fact finding. Public proceedings: We gain the confidence of our citizenry by ensuring that trial proceedings are open to the public. My bill would require trial and appeal proceedings to be accessible to the public, while securing the safety of observers, witnesses, tribunal judges, counsel, and others. Evidence available from an agency of the Federal Government, however, may be kept secret from the public if such evidence would harm the prosecution of military objectives or intelligence sources or methods. Detention: The bill allows for the Secretary of Defense to detain a person who is subject to a tribunal consistent with the international law of armed conflict. However these detentions would only be authorized while a state of armed conflict continues, or which a prosecution or a post-trial proceeding is ongoing. Under the Military Tribunals Act of 2002, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia would have exclusive jurisdiction to ensure that the requirements for detaining an accused are satisfied. And while an accused is held, the detainee shall be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction based on race, color, religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria. Adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical treatment shall be provided. Finally, a detainee's right to the free exercise of religion would not be infringed. Reports to congress: Without protection and reporting requirements in place, persons detained for an indefinite amount of time would have no recourse. Currently in America, the total number of persons detained by both the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense is unknown. In many cases, there is little information, if any, available about who has been detained and why. My bill requires the President to report annually to Congress on the use of the military tribunal authority. Each such report would include information regarding each person subject to, or detained pursuant to, a military tribunal, and each person detained pursuant to any actual or planned act of terrorism, who has not been referred for trail in connection with that act of terrorism to a criminal court or to a military tribunal. With this provision, we can significantly reduce the danger that due process might be evaded by simply failing to bring detainees before a tribunal for trial. Conclusion: There is some debate about the necessity of Congressional input in the establishment of military tribunals. But there is no doubt that legislative branch input can provide indispensable safeguards, such as an appeal to an independent entity, that the executive branch simply cannot provide on its own. By exercising Congress' role in the process, we will ensure that our justice system remains a beacon for the rest of the world, where due process is protected, and the accused are afforded basic protections. We are living in an extraordinary time, a difficult time. But we are defined as a nation by how we handle these difficult times. Our government's words and deeds are important, not only for the legal precedents we set, but also for the message we send to our global neighbors. During this, the most significant international crisis of our day, we have an opportunity to show the world the true meaning of justice, liberty, and the freedoms upon which America was founded.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker:

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, and I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the subcommittee, for their work on this issue. In the Ashcroft decision, the Supreme Court struck down the existing child pornography laws on the basis that they, in addition to prohibiting child pornography that was made by using, by molesting real children, that it also prohibited the use of adults who looked youthful looking, looked like children, and also prohibited virtual pornography, virtual child pornography produced using computers and computer graphics. But effectively, by striking down this law and by stating that only real child pornography could be prosecuted, the court struck the heart out of efforts to prosecute the real thing. Computer technology has advanced to the point now where it is simply not possible for the government to meet a burden of demonstrating whether images were created using computer technology or the images are real. So the committee and the subcommittee worked together to try to address the concerns that the court raised and, at the same time, restore the ability of prosecutors to bring these cases against those who would victimize and molest children to produce child pornography. In the Ashcroft decision, it recognized this dilemma, this problem, the need to go after these cases and yet the need to draft the law narrowly, and the court specifically said, we leave open, we leave open the question of whether there could be an affirmative defense; in other words, whether the burden could be shifted on this particular element to the defense to demonstrate that they only used adult actors who looked like children or they only used computer technology. That question was left open. That is a difficult constitutional question, but if we are to restore the prosecution's ability to prosecute child pornography using real children, we must embrace this affirmative defense as the method to do so. And the law is very narrowly crafted. It prohibits the use, the sales, the pandering of child pornography that is virtually indistinguishable from real, that is generated by computers, but virtually indistinguishable from real, and then it allows the defense to affirmatively defend by saying, no, this was solely developed using computers, or, no, this was developed only by using youthful-looking adults, facts which are much more likely to be in the sole possession of the defense than in the possession of the prosecution. So what we have is a bill that restores the prosecution's ability to bring these cases, that frames it as narrowly as possible to survive constitutional scrutiny, that indeed makes use of the vehicle the Supreme Court itself identified, that of an affirmative defense. Will this statute survive against scrutiny by the Supreme Court? I believe it will. It will be a tough decision, but the fact of the matter is, in the absence of this legislative action, we will simply be incapable of prosecuting child pornography. I urge Members to support the bill.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. James Howard Lare, an outstanding citizen and resident of California's 27th Congressional District, which I am proud to represent. Dr. Lare, who lives in Pasadena, California, is retiring from the faculty of Occidental College in Los Angeles after 51 years of service. Dr. Lare began at the college as a student, and this year, the school celebrates the entirety of his 51 years of services as an undergraduate, alumnus, and distinguished member of the faculty. Dr. Lare has been an active faculty member, serving numerous committees, as well as establishing and directing Occidental's Master of Arts in Urban Studies Program. He chaired the Political Science Department, as well as the College Task Force on Relations with the Adjacent Neighborhoods, each for five years. His expertise includes American National Government, European Comparative Politics, Public Administration, Urban Politics, and Public Policy. As a professor, he sent his students to City Hall, Sacramento, and Washington, D.C. to participate in and absorb the processes of government. His legions of internship students set a standard for community-based learning at Occidental College. Dr. Lare has been an exemplary citizen by serving as a Colonel in the Civil Affairs Branch of the U.S. Army Reserve from 1957-1989, and as an Administrative and Technical Assistant in the U.S. Civil Service Commission from 1955-1956. He has also been a committed civic leader participating in a myriad of community-based organizations such as the Pasadena Men's Committee for the Arts, the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, the Sierra Club, the Northeast Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Town Hall of California, as well as other organizations dealing with urban planning, education, the environment, and the arts. Dr. Lare has also written, co-authored, and edited numerous books and articles including, ``The Essential Lippmann,'' ``The New Democrat: Reassessment of the Democratic Ideal in American Political Thought,'' ``The Five Public Philosophies of Walter Lippmann,'' ``The Civic Awareness of Five and Six Year Olds,'' and ``The Child's Political World: A Longitudinal Perspective.'' Dr. Lare's hard work and dedication to his community and our country is to be commended, as is his teaching students the value of political action and involvement, thereby helping to nurture hundreds of aware and active citizens. I would like all the Members of the United States House of Representatives to join me in commending Dr. James Howard Lare for his outstanding leadership as a faculty member of Occidental College and as a community leader.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Claudette A. Moody, a Glendale, California resident who will be leaving as Director of Government Relations at the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority at the end of June 2002 after an exemplary 17- year career. Moody joined the former Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) in 1985 as the first full-time employee devoted to outreach with the Federal government, and she later assumed responsibility for State issues as well. She provided key support for the former Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD) in securing the initial funding for the Metro Rail subway, including working on the joint appropriations document with the LACTC, RTD, Southern California Association of Governments, and the Greater Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. Claudette has furthered the transportation interests of Los Angeles County by writing and advocating positions on countless pieces of reform legislation aimed at improving transportation throughout Los Angeles County, and was the key staff member to work on Assembly Bill 152, creating the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), including conceiving and writing provisions that won the support of smaller cities. In addition to recommending MTA Board positions on thousands of bills, Claudette served as the key staff person in efforts leading to the successful passage of Proposition C, Propositions 111 and 108, and Proposition 42 relating to transportation. Indeed, Claudette has served as a crucial member of a team that has brought billions of dollars to Los Angeles County for transportation purposes. Claudette was the co-founder and first Chairperson of the African- American Employees Association, and initiated the agency's activities for Juneteenth Day and Black History Month. She also was co-founder and first Chairperson of the MTA Employee Association, was instrumental in developing the child-care center for the MTA and sat on the initial contract review task force. Claudette was a key staff member to liaison with Governor Gray Davis' office in developing projects to be funded through the Governor's Transportation Congestion Relief Program. Claudette has served with distinction at the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and I ask all Members of Congress to join me in recognizing her for her years of service to the LACTC, MTA, and to the citizens, residents, and users of transportation services in Los Angeles County, and further wish her success and the best of luck in all her future endeavors.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my district on Tuesday, June 4, 2002, and I would like the record to indicate how I would have voted on rollcall votes No. 207 and 208. For rollcall vote No. 207, a bill to permanently exclude from taxable income any restitution payments from governments of former Nazi- controlled countries, I would have voted, ``aye.'' For rollcall vote number 208, a bill to permanently raise the adoption tax credit, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and for his sustained leadership in dealing with the country's fiscal situation. Mr. Speaker, it was not so long ago, in fact it was just last year, that the administration was warning Congress of the dangers of paying down the debt too fast. We were entertaining scenarios where the Nation would have no debt, and what would the consequences of that be. These were the discussions that were going on in this very Capitol just a year ago. Well, would that these dire prophesies had come true and that we were today faced with that dangerous prospect of a Nation without debt. In fact, we are very far from being a Nation without debt. Our debt has only increased since last year. Our deficits have only spiraled since then, because not long after those warnings of those dire predictions of a debt-free America, war and recession intervened, and now we are in a situation where this Nation faces deficits as far as the eye can see. Some are proposing, in fact, to aggravate the deficits we have now. Some are proposing that we pass tax cuts not that are effective today or tomorrow, but that will not take effect for 10 years. We had a vote last week on one such proposal. We had a vote the week before on yet another. And at the same time we are proposing further tax cuts that will not take effect until more than a decade from now, the leadership is proposing that we increase the national debt by three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Now, these votes do not take place on the same day. It would be very difficult, I think, to schedule a vote to cut taxes 10 years from now on the one hand and to raise the national debt on the other and have the votes back to back. That would be very difficult to justify. But, in fact, that is exactly what is taking place on the House floor. We recently had a vote on the wartime supplemental appropriations bill. That is a measure that every Member of Congress supports. It provides necessary supplemental funding for the war effort. But buried in that bill of a couple weeks ago was a provision to allow the national debt to increase $750 billion. Now, why was that buried in that bill? It was buried there because Members did not want to have to justify or explain how it is we could be voting to extend tax cuts beyond 10 years from now when at the same time we are raising our national debt. We are, in fact, borrowing the money to provide some of these cuts. That is not any way to run a Nation. That is not how we run our budgets at home; that is not how we ought to run our budgets here. What we have to do is recognize that the prosperity that we enjoyed in the last 10 years was contributed to by the fact that we had our budget in balance; that, in fact, we were running a surplus for the first time in many, many years, and keeping our budget in balance had the effect of keeping interest rates low, making the dream of home ownership possible for so many American families. Have we forgotten already the benefits of having a budget that is in balance, of paying down the national debt, the confidence that that inspires in American markets, the impact it has on the lower interest rates we pay on our mortgages or on our credit card debt? That is a real tax on the American people. You are taxed every time you pay your mortgage. You are paying for the cost of borrowing money. And we are making that more expensive for you because, in effect, the Federal Government is competing with you to borrow money whenever we run a deficit, whenever we are in debt. So the action we take in raising the national debt by $750 billion means that your mortgages are going to be more expensive, that you are going to be paying more in interest rates, that your children are going to pay more, that a prescription drug benefit may be placed out of reach because we simply do not have the resources to pay a billion dollars a day in interest and try to provide prescription drug benefits for seniors that cannot afford to pay for their medicine and pay their rent and buy their groceries at the same time. So what do we do? The administration says we need to raise the debt limit; that we need to borrow, or we are going to default. Are we in the Blue Dogs advocating that we go into default? Of course not. No one in the House is advocating that we default on our fiscal obligations. But what we are advocating, what we are asking of the leadership of this House is to work with us on a more modest increase in the national debt and, at the same time, work with us on a plan to get this country back to a balanced budget. They have to go hand in hand. American taxpayers would not want to increase the debt limit on a credit card without any plan for how they were going to pay off their credit card debt. That would not be a smart investment. The same is true for the Nation. Before we extend the limit of what this country can borrow, we ought to require of this Congress and this administration that we come up with a plan to balance the budget over the intermediate term and the long term, recognizing that in the face of the war on terrorism, in the face of our efforts to pull ourselves up from this economic downturn, that we may have to endure deficits in the short term. Still, in the midterm and in the long term, we must get back to putting our fiscal house in order. And all of this begs a question, Mr. Speaker: Where have all the budget hawks gone? Where have all the advocates of a balanced budget gone? There used to be some great voices in this Chamber for balancing the budget, for paying down the debt. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle won their seats in the House 15 years ago and 20 years ago by campaigning against the spiraling national debt. Where have they gone? Why have we forgotten so readily the value of the importance to our future of having a balanced budget? So today we urge our colleagues to work with us. Let us have a modest increase in the debt in light of the present difficulties, in light of the demand for resources for the war on terrorism. Let us have a modest increase in the debt. But let us accompany that increase with a plan that gets us to a balanced budget once again. Let us not dramatically expand our national debt with no plan whatsoever. That simply is not being a good trustee for the American people. And that is the challenge ahead of us today, to work together, with this House, Democrats and Republicans, with our colleagues in the Senate, with the administration. We can do this. We can do this. We have done this before. It is not easy. There are many things that we would like to do that are competing for the same resources, but we have to recognize that if we do work together and we do take down this national debt, pay it off, reduce our deficits, that means that the billion dollars a day that we are spending in interest we can spend one day's worth of that interest on building new schools in your neighborhoods. We can spend another day of that interest providing prescription drug benefits to seniors. We can spend another day of that interest on fixing potholes in the roads. We can spend another day of that interest in making sure that we expand health care access to children. We can give another day of that interest back to the taxpayer and help them pay their personal debts and their personal obligations. And this is just with a week's worth of interest, $7 billion that can be provided in the form of additional tax cuts or that can be provided in the form of additional services for the American people if we do not saddle ourselves with nonproductive debt, and that is the challenge. And I want to applaud my colleagues who have worked so hard and for many years to bring about a sense of fiscal discipline in this body, to restore the commitment that we have made, both parties, to provide valuable services to the people we represent, to not encumber the future of this country and our children's future in a debt they cannot climb out from under. This is our time, this is our challenge, and I think we are up to it.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Stanley Zimmerman on the occasion of his 70th birthday and the Preview of the Automobile Driving Museum. For over 30 years, Stanley Zimmerman has been collecting, restoring, and showing classic automobiles, amassing nearly 40 cars. This life long passion will culminate with the opening of the Automobile Driving Museum in the fall of 2002. Stanley's passion for automotive restoration began in the 1970s when he purchased a 1936 Packard Convertible Sedan which he painstakingly restored over the ensuing 28 years to award-winning, 100 point perfection. Since that time, his collection has expanded to include: Packards, Studebakers, Lincolns, Fords, Cadillacs, Chryslers, and a Stutz. Due to its uniqueness of variety and perfection, Stanley's collection has been shown around the country, winning awards and inspiring fellow collectors. Over the last 30 years, Stanley Zimmerman's passion has contributed to the preservation of the history of automobile production in America as well as the histories of the famous Americans who drove them. His collection contains such historically significant automobiles as a 1955 Packard Caribbean, a car first purchased by Howard Hughes for his wife, Jean Peters, and a 1936 seven-passenger Packard Phantom, purportedly a gift from President Roosevelt to Joseph Stalin. As a member of the Classic Car Club, The Packard Automobile Classics Club, the Antique Studebaker Club, the Lincoln Owners Club, the Walter P. Chrysler Club and the Earl C. Anthony Packard Club, Stanley has gained priceless knowledge about each of the cars he has restored and has thus been able to pass on this knowledge to countless other classic car owners and members of our national community. With his years of experience as his guide, Stanley will open the Automobile Driving Museum, the only car museum in the United States which allows visitors to ride in the classic cars on display. I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Stanley Zimmerman for his devotion to the history and restoration of classic automobiles and in wishing him good fortune upon the opening of the Automobile Driving Museum.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Robert W. ``Bob'' Sassaman, District Director for Caltrans District 7, who will celebrate his retirement from public service after an exemplary 40-year career at Caltrans. Sassaman, an outstanding engineer and able administrator, was appointed as District Director on October 19, 1999, responsible for overseeing a vast and immensely complex transportation system in District 7, including 27 freeways and state highways spanning Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Sassaman, who had served as Chief Deputy for four years prior, had served as interim District Director since March of 1999 after Governor Gray Davis tapped then-District Director Tony Harris to serve as Caltrans Chief Deputy Director in Sacramento. Prior to his tenure as Chief Deputy, Sassaman was Deputy District Director for Project Management at Caltrans District 8 in San Bernardino, a post he held since 1988. In that capacity, he was responsible for directing a professional engineering staff in the development, design and delivery of highway projects totaling in excess of $100 million a year. Sassaman was a member of a team that helped develop the project management concept at Caltrans, and later helped implement the system in District 8. The district was the first one in the state to use ``single hat'' project managers to streamline the process of delivering transportation improvements. He also was a facilitator at the project management academies that taught the system to Caltrans supervisors. Among Sassaman's other career highlights are supervising the design of the complex Simi Valley/San Diego Freeway interchange--now named the Ronald Reagan Freeway 118/405--in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles. Sassaman was born in Neptune, NJ, but grew up in Phillipsburg, on the Pennsylvania border. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Lafayette College in Easton, PA, and a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Southern California. He also completed course work at California State University, Long Beach, and Mount San Antonio College in Walnut, CA, in business management. He holds a certificate in real estate from Mount San Antonio College. Sassaman was hired at Caltrans District 7 as a junior civil engineer in July 1962; and held a variety of positions within the district over the next 26 years. They included Design Project Engineer of the 118/405 Freeway interchange; Resource Management Section Chief, Project Management Section Chief, Hydraulics Section Chief, Management Services Branch Chief; and Deputy District Director for Administration. Sassaman is registered as a Professional Engineer in California (Civil), and is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Project Management Institute. There are few tasks as monumental in southern California as overseeing our regional freeway system with a commitment to responding to local needs and concerns, and for his dedication to better serving the commuting public of southern California as well as Caltrans employees, I ask all Members of Congress to join me in congratulating Bob Sassaman upon his retirement.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4664, the ``Investing in America's Future Act.'' This bill reauthorizes the National Science Foundation (NSF) for three years, increasing its funding by 15% each year. Today we are taking an important step forward by enhancing our commitment to our nation's science enterprise and setting a long-term goal of doubling the budget of NSF. The National Science Foundation is the only Federal agency devoted to supporting basic research in science, math, and engineering across all fields and science and math education at all levels. In fact, NSF funds 25% of the basic research conducted in U.S. universities, and a considerably higher percentage in selected fields. NSF grants and fellowships help train over 24,000 graduate students each year, many of whom go on to make major contributions in academia and industry. My district is home to one of our nation's premier scientific research institutions, the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), and one of the most prominent beneficiaries of NSF grant funding. In fiscal year 2001, Caltech received 31% of its total federal agency research support from NSF, totaling near $44 million. And Caltech is not alone. In fiscal year 1999, NSF provided 16% of the total federal research and development funds provided to ALL California universities, an impressive sum of $367 million. By increasing NSF funding, we will enable this fine institution to expand core science programs, fund highly ranked grant proposals that would otherwise go unfunded, and pursue new initiatives such as nanotechnology and biocomplexity. We must continue to support the backbone of our new economy--fundamental scientific research and education--by supporting the National Science Foundation and its many groundbreaking endeavors. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4664 and to remain steadfast in our commitment to our nation's science enterprise. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor First Lutheran Church in Pasadena, CA. On Sunday, June 2, First Lutheran will celebrate its 110th anniversary with a day of prayer and celebration marking the extraordinary history of the church and its congregation. First Lutheran was convened in 1892 at the Grand Hotel in Pasadena. Originally, due to the German congregation, all church business and services were conducted in German. The church's constitution was even written in German. It wasn't until 1914 that all services were conducted in English and it wasn't until the early 1920s that the church's constitution was translated into English. Between the 1940s and 1960s, 800 to 1000 parishioners attended weekly Sunday services. The church had grown so large and so popular at one point that the services were broadcast for a time on Glendale radio station KIEV. First Lutheran's popularity was a direct result of the inviting atmosphere of the church's services and congregation. Parishioners from as far away as St. Louis, Missouri chose to attend First Lutheran as they settled in southern California and all of them remark that their decision was based on the feeling of ``being home,'' that First Lutheran gave to them. The feeling of ``being home'' extended to, as the First Lutheran Mission Statement reads, ``all people.'' While many churches around the nation fought against integration, First Lutheran embraced the call to treat all people as equals and it was in the 1940s and 1950s that the congregation began to integrate. Today, First Lutheran looks like America. It has acted and will continue to act as a refuge for all who come to worship together regardless of differences. I am proud to be able to recognize First Lutheran for its 110 years of offering a place of solemn and joyous worship to the people of the San Gabriel Valley and I ask all Members to join me in congratulating the congregation for the years of remarkable achievement.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the war effort. We all rise today in support of the war effort. In fact, as the debate I think has made clear over the last several hours, this issue today is not really about the war effort. The very simple, very clear question that is presented today is whether it is appropriate under the guise of a very necessary, a very important war measure, the supplemental appropriations bill, we should append to that imperative measure another part that would raise the national debt by $750 billion, whether we should append that issue to this moving train, whether that is appropriate for this House. Today, the House takes a very significant step in raising the Nation's debt by $750 billion. This is no minor matter. This is no trivial resolution without impact. This is our retirement funds. This is our Social Security. This is our future. One might expect that given the gravity of that issue that we would have a full debate and a vote up or down on the decision to raise the debt by three-quarters of a trillion dollars. But that is not what we have here today. What we have is, under the popular cover of a supplemental war effort, a measure hidden in this bill to plunge this country further into debt. This begs one question: Where have all the fiscal conservatives gone? Where have the budget hawks gone that were dedicated to a balanced budget? I hear from my colleagues in the majority party, they say, Well, our party was the one that balanced the budget to begin with. The argument seems to be, So we will be the party that unbalances the budget. Can it be the policy of the majority party that a balanced budget and eliminating the national debt is really very, very important under one President but not so important under the next? Surely it cannot be the policy of the majority party that under one President, debt is all right and under one President debt is not all right. We should not give this administration, we should not give any administration, a $750 billion blank check to increase the national debt. We hear from the majority party, Well, it is necessary when you are in the majority to lead. I ask, is this leadership? To take a war supplemental and hide within its contents raising the debt by three- quarters of a trillion, is that leadership? I would think leading the House would mean placing issues squarely before the House, having a full and frank debate on that, and having the courage of the conviction to vote it up or down. This does not happen because there is a concern about whether a majority would vote to raise the debt. I recognize that concern. And, in fact, we cannot let this country go into default. But there is an alternative. We do not have to raise the debt by three-quarters of a trillion dollars. We could raise the debt in a small amount and require the administration to work with this body to come up with a balanced budget plan, not tomorrow but for the intermediate future, instead of where we are today, which is that we have no balanced budget next year or the year after or the year after that. We have no balanced budget for the next 10 years, and that is simply unacceptable. But no. Instead, we are going to get cute. We are going to append this debt increase to a very popular measure. And why is this cute? Well, because it puts the minority party in the position of having to vote against the war effort. It is a two-fer. For the majority party, they can say, We didn't vote to raise the debt. And they can say, The minority party doesn't support the war effort. This country deserves better than cute. It deserves an up-or-down vote and debate on whether this country should be plunged further into debt. Who is going to take the responsibility for raising this debt? Is it this Congress? Are you prepared to take that responsibility? Where were you on the night we mortgaged our children's future? So let us not shift civil service funds into noninterest-bearing accounts. Let us not hide this issue in a wartime supplemental. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to work with us. It does not have to be this way. If we put a war supplemental on the floor today, which we could do, it would pass unanimously. This House would vote unanimously. And so let us do that. Let us pass this supplemental unanimously. It would be good for this country. Let us raise the debt by a small increment. Let us demand a balanced budget from our administration, and let us work with them to accomplish this. We recognize that you control the House and we do not. We recognize that you can railroad this thing through the House and we cannot stop it. But that is not why you came here to serve. That is not befitting of your fiscal policy, nor ours. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together and balance this budget.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act conference report. It has been nearly 8 months since the deadly anthrax attacks, and authorities still have not determined who is responsible. However, it appears very likely that the highly concentrated form of anthrax did not originate from overseas, but rather may have come from an American laboratory. In addition to unsecured anthrax, we have other challenges involving national, State and local health care workers and first responders, to make sure they are equipped with the tools they need to fight bioterrorism threats, and we also have food security issues to consider, as well as a potentially vulnerable water supply. Today we are taking a major step forward in addressing some of these issues. In particular I am pleased that the bill contains provisions similar to those included in legislation that I introduced last fall with Senator Feinstein. Our bill, the Deadly Biological Control Act, will require that the Department of Health and Human Services maintain and regularly update a list of deadly biological agents, viruses and bacteria that poses severe threat to public health and safety. It requires every laboratory that possesses any of these select agents to be government-certified after proving that they will be used strictly for legitimate research purposes and that sufficient measures are in place to safely handle and dispose of those agents while ensuring protection against unlawful access. Finally, lab employees would have to register with the Department of Health and Human Services and pass through a criminal background check. These provisions are critical because under current law, laboratories that acquired anthrax and other deadly agents prior to 1997 were not required to register with the government unless they were shipping the agent to another lab, as a result of the thousands of laboratories nationwide which stock deadly biological agents, viruses, and bacteria without uniform security standards or proper Federal oversight. Under these lax security conditions, a rogue employee or outside terrorist group could easily gain access to some of the most dangerous pathogens on Earth. I applaud the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) as they work with the Senate conferees to bring this bill to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to support this important conference report.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of emergency security assistance to our democratic ally Israel. The $200 million in supplemental assistance to Israel contained in the FY 2002 Supplemental Emergency Appropriations bill provides vital emergency resources to a key U.S. ally and a frontline state in the war against terror. Mr. Chairman, it became painfully evident after September 11 that Israel and the United States are engaged in a common struggle against terrorism. Neither country asked for this struggle; both have constantly chosen a path of peace when given the choice. Israelis must know that the U.S. stands with them in this difficult hour, as they have repeatedly stood with this country throughout the years. The United States has never been more resolved to eliminate the threat of terrorism against innocent civilians and free society. The democratic State of Israel stands shoulder to shoulder with the United States in this effort. Terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli civilians are taking place on a constant basis. In the face of terror, Israel is attempting to rout out the forces that threaten the daily lives of its citizens. But Israel continues to suffer a systematic and deliberate campaign of terror aimed at inflicting as many casualties as possible. Mr. Chairman, as the world's leading democracy, we have a responsibility to stand by a democratic friend and ally threatened by a wave of terrorist aggression. At this volatile stage of developments in the Middle East, Israel needs to know that it can count on U.S. security assistance.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3994, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act, and the Lantos amendment addressing the immediate security concerns in Afghanistan. Last March I had the opportunity to accompany a delegation led by the gentleman from California (Chairman Rohrabacher) to Afghanistan and assess some of the desperate needs of that country. The challenges there were immediate and were very apparent. The day after our arrival, 300 people were arrested for attempting to overthrow the Karzai government. Three days after that, there was an effort to blow up the defense minister. Two weeks after that, a bumper opium crop was ready for harvest. As we drove through the country, rocks were painted red and painted white, one side that had been demined, another side that had not. The challenges before that country are immense, but none was pointed out I think more graphically than the reports we received while we were there that al Qaeda and Taliban were circulating pamphlets in some of the small villages that said, ``The Americans will leave. They will be here a few years and then they will leave. We are Muslims; we do not leave. If we find you working with the Americans, talking with the Americans, we will kill you and we will kill your family. We do not leave.'' This, indeed, is the challenge for this country. The challenge for us is to support to rebuild the economy in Afghanistan, the infrastructure in Afghanistan, the educational system in Afghanistan, to make sure that this country never again becomes a haven for terrorists like al Qaeda and the Taliban. The rap on any democracy and the rap on the United States is that we have no staying power, and we must prove this wrong. We must demonstrate that we have the commitment; that we have seen history and we are determined not to repeat it. This act goes a long way to providing the building blocks to restore that nation to its people and to protect our country from any future September 11.