Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), an excellent committee member.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), another committee member, the ranking member on the Intelligence Policy and National Security Subcommittee.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), another member of our committee.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), our rookie member of the committee.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Ms. HARMAN. May I inquire whether the chairman is going to have speakers? I am curious how we are going to proceed here.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Dicks), the former chairman of this committee and a great expert on intelligence matters. (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers. I plan to close.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am a conferee on the Defense Authorization Act. Virtually all of the funding for intelligence is contained in this bill. This bill is far from perfect. Like a number of conferees, I am enormously concerned about developing bunker buster nuclear weapons, weakening nonproliferation programs, and an assault on collective bargaining, all of which is unfortunately part of this legislation. Nonetheless, I signed the conference report and I intend to vote for final passage. The lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, Marines and civilians are on the line in Iraq and in the global war on terrorism. Accurate and actionable intelligence is vital if we are to prevail, and I intend to do everything I can to provide our forces with the best intelligence possible. The funds in this bill meet important intelligence needs vital to our Nation's security and, in contrast to the recent $87 billion supplemental, these funds come through the regular budget process. Still, the following needs to be said: The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on a bipartisan basis has identified serious shortcomings in the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism. Sketchy and often circumstantial evidence produced estimates that likely were substantially wrong. At a minimum, I believe the Intelligence Community overstated the strength of the underlying data supporting the conclusions. The Intelligence Community has yet to acknowledge any flaws in prewar intelligence. With American lives on the line now, the shortcomings in prewar intelligence must be addressed now. A ``lessons learned'' study cannot await the conclusion of David Kay's ongoing WMD search. Regardless of what he finds, there were problems with collection, analysis and the way policy makers used the information. I strongly support this bill's requirement of an Iraq ``lessons learned'' report by the Department of Defense due March 31 of next year. As a conferee on the intelligence authorization bill, I plan to push for an interim ``lessons learned'' report from the Intelligence Community on the same date as the military's report is due, and I hope that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) will join me in this request.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague from California, Mr. Cunningham, to honor our nation's veterans with introduction of the ``Memorial to Noncitizen Patriots Act.'' George Washington once said, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.'' Honoring our veterans is a process that begins on the battlefield through ensuring that our troops have the best training, equipment and other support. It continues as we welcome them home upon returning from war, when we fly the POW-MIA flag, when we care for them and their families and, ultimately, when we lay them to rest with appropriate remembrance and tribute. Our country, while divided in its views on specific military actions, is united in its support for our service men and women who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedom. Many American military heroes, past and present, were born outside of the United States. From the thousands of noncitizens who fought for the Union Army during the Civil War, to the 36,177 noncitizen members of today's Armed Forces, these men and women have sacrificed for our country and the preservation of our precious freedom. To date, we have lost 17 noncitizen service members in Iraq. Marine Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez from Lomita, California, in my Congressional District, was born in Guatemala and lost his life this spring. Like Corporal Gutierrez, all of these men and women have fought just as bravely as their American-born counterparts and have dedicated themselves to serving the country they are proud to call their own. It is time that we appropriately recognize their bravery, valor, and patriotism. I am pleased to pay tribute to Corporal Gutierrez and other foreign- born noncitizen patriots who died in combat with the introduction of the ``Memorial to Noncitizen Patriots Act.'' This legislation would authorize construction of a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery honoring the service and sacrifice of noncitizens killed in the line of duty while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. Arlington, the nation's premier military cemetery and shrine honoring the men and women who served in the Armed Forces, is a particularly fitting place for this tribute. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. As the former representative of the Port of Los Angeles, and currently the representative of the communities neighboring the Port, I know the critical role the Coast Guard plays in protecting the nation's ports and sea-borne commerce. Indeed, even before the events of September 11, the women and men of the Coast Guard worked tirelessly to ensure safe and secure operations in and around the Port of Los Angeles and Santa Monica Bay. Since that date, the role of the Coast Guard has increased in pace and intensity. The bill before us recognizes the operational tempo of the Coast Guard and helps ensure that it has the assets and personnel to do its critical job. I also want to point out the bill's endorsement of the Marine Exchange of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Since 1923, the Marine Exchange has maintained a continuous 24-hour operation providing detailed records of all vessel arrivals and departures of the busiest habor complex in America. Jointly with Coast Guard, the Marine Exchange operates a Vessel Traffic Information Service. This program uses state of the art electronic tracking equipment and radar and radio systems to manage all commercial vessels that travel through San Pedro Bay. The Marine Exchange VTS is the first public-private VTS partnership operation in the country that is funded by industry. This bill notes that it is a national model for other ports to study, evaluate, and emulate and authorizes the Coast Guard to enter into similar cooperative agreements elsewhere in the nation. The VTS keeps the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach safe, more efficient, and environmentally protected by assisting with the movement of over 35,000 vessel transits annually and I commend its executive director, Capt. M.H.K. ``Manny'' Aschemeyer, and all those associated with the Marine Exchange for a job well done. Lastly, I want to express my gratitude to the Chairman and Ranking Member for including in the manager's amendment a proposal first suggested to me by the City Council of Torrance, California. That proposal recognizes the linkage between the critically important roles of both the Coast Guard and the nation's cities in the fight against terrorism and recommends the Coast Guard name a class of vessels in its Deepwater program in honor of specific U.S. cities. It is my hope that the Coast Guard will respond favorably to the sense of Congress language included in the bill and, in fact, name one of its new ships in honor of the city of Torrance, which has been on the forefront of honoring our Armed Forces and is strategically located on the shore of the Pacific Ocean. Madam Chairman, I urge passage of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues Mark Kirk, Curt Weldon and Howard Berman in introducing today a resolution expressing Congress's deepening concerns about Iran's nuclear program. For many years, I have been persuaded by the available evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, starting with transfers of nuclear and missile technology and expertise from Russia. Indeed, it was my resolution in the 105th Congress (House Concurrent Resolution 121) that called on the President to demand that the Government of Russia take actions to stop governmental and nongovernmental entities in the Russian Federation from providing missile technology and technical advice to Iran in violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Evidence continues to accumulate raising questions about Iran's intentions, notwithstanding that country's signing of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Recently, environmental sampling by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility revealed the presence of two types of highly enriched uranium that can be used to develop nuclear weapons. And, earlier in the year, IAEA announced that Iran was constructing a facility to enrich uranium. These developments prompted the Director General of the IAEA to express concern over the failure of the government of Iran to report material, facilities and activities at its nuclear facilities, including those that have the potential to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons. As a result, last month, the IAEA board of directors adopted a resolution calling on Iran to provide that organization, by October 31st, with a full declaration of all imported material and components relevant to the uranium enrichment program and to grant unrestricted access to IAEA inspectors. Mr. Speaker, concerns about Iran's intentions are further underscored by Iran's successful test earlier this summer of the 800-mile range Shahab-3 missile and the persuasive evidence that is it seeking to produce a 1,200 mile Shahab-4 missile. Coupled with Iran's known support for terrorist groups, it is clear to me and my colleagues that Iran poses a serious national security threat to the United States and its allies and other countries in the region. We can't idly wait for developments to unfold. The concurrent resolution we introduce today clearly expresses Congress' view that the President must use all appropriate means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It also calls on the members states of the United Nations, particularly Russia, to join together to dissuade Iran and, if necessary, to impose sanctions if Iran does not fulfill its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency by October 31. Failure to act can only encourage Iran to pursue a dangerous and destabilizing course. Iran must cease all efforts to acquire nuclear capabilities until it is able to verify that it is not continuing to engage in a nuclear weapons program.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, the $87 billion supplemental request, in its present form, is profoundly flawed, and if it is not improved by responsible amendments, among them one I have proposed, I will reluctantly oppose it. I take a backseat to no one when it comes to support of our Nation's defense and our intelligence community, but I believe there are better options to support our troops and rebuild Iraq, while respecting the American taxpayer in the process. Simply put, the plan that Congress is being asked to fund is not ready for prime time. Our troops, our veterans and America's families deserve better. Among my concerns are deficiencies in prewar intelligence that have not been acknowledged by the administration, let alone fixed. If our intelligence is flawed, our forces presently in Iraq are at risk, and our predictions about threats posed by other hot spots like Iran and North Korea will lack credibility. Second, we have only belatedly reached out to those with extensive experience in stabilization and reconstruction. Iraq is the sixth such rebuilding effort in a decade; yet lessons learned from earlier experiences have been largely ignored. Third, we are at best limping along in our quest for an international reconstruction strategy, one that restores wealth to the Iraqi people and enjoys the support of the United Nations and other countries capable of contributing to a successful result. Fourth, by sending forward a second emergency funding request, the President has again bypassed the annual budgeting process and its critical constraints. Fifth, we owe it to our veterans to fully fund their needs. My amendment would do this in the context of a balanced budget framework. Mr. Chairman, the United States has a moral obligation to finish the job in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and I support finishing the job, but we must not provide this administration or any other with a blank check. Mr. Chairman, the $87 billion supplemental request in its present form is profoundly flawed--and if it is not improved by amendment on the House floor, I intend to oppose it. I take a back seat to no one when it comes to my support of our Nation's defense and our intelligence community. But I believe there are better ways to support our troops and rebuild Iraq while respecting the American taxpayer in the process. Simply put, the plan that Congress is being asked to fund is not ready for prime time. Our troops, our veterans and America's families deserve better. Members of this body rightly have complained about the Bush administration's lack of a sustainable strategy for Iraq and the lack of a sincere attempt to explain the supplemental's details. The failure to spend funds wisely in Iraq and Afghanistan is already having a profound effect on our fighting men and women there. Earlier this week newspapers reported that ceramic inserts for soldiers' flak jackets--to be paid for with $300 million already appropriated--still have not been delivered and might not arrive until December. This is irresponsible. U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are targets of daily attacks; wearing the inserts is literally a matter of life and death should they be hit by assault rifle fire. I also have serious concerns about our policy going forward. First, deficiencies in pre-war intelligence have not been acknowledged by the Administration, let alone fixed. If our intelligence is flawed, our forces are at risk. And our predictions about threats posed by other hot spots like Iran and North Korea will lack credibility. This supplemental does nothing to fix these problems. Second, we have only belatedly reached out for those Americans with extensive experience in stabilization and reconstruction. Iraq is the sixth such rebuilding effort in a decade. Yet, lessons learned from earlier experiences have been largely ignored. Third, we are at best limping along in our quest for an international reconstruction strategy--one that restores wealth to the Iraqi people and enjoys the support of the United Nations and other countries capable of contributing to a successful result. Fourth, by sending forward a second emergency funding request and demanding that the crisis requires its immediate passage, the President has bypassed the annual budgeting process and its fiscal constraints. It is even more troubling in this case since the Administration resisted for months the call for openness and honesty about the true costs of managing post-war Iraq. Fifth, we owe it to our veterans and those soldiers returning from the war on terrorism to fully fund the benefits to which they are entitled--and to make up the $1.8 billion shortfall in health care funding in the fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD bill. Since 9/11, I have called for a wartime budget that would fully fund the war on terror as well as reconstruction and stabilization in Iraq within a balanced budget framework. Americans are prepared to make hard and responsible choices. Every previous war has been paid for by the generation that fought it, and not by saddling our children and grandchildren with mountains of debt. The United States has a moral obligation to finish the job in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere--and I support finishing that job. To this end, I would support, as I believe many other Members would, an incremental approach to the supplemental package--one that provides funding in installments and only after certain benchmarks and milestones are met. But I am not prepared to provide this Administration with another blank check.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the conference report to ban so-called partial-birth abortions. Regrettably, Congress poised to pass, and the President is prepared to sign, a bill that can only be described as unconstitutional. I urge my colleagues not to be deceived by this legislation. Partial birth is not a medical, factual, or legal term. Let's be frank--it is a political term. This is not a debate about so-called partial-birth abortion or late- term abortion. This is a debate about efforts to roll back a woman's constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. The so-called partial birth abortion ban contained in this bill is intended to erode the protections of Roe v. Wade and I believe will be found unconstitutional by the courts. Even the sense of the Senate language included in the Senate-passed bill reaffirming Roe v. Wade has been stripped out of this bill. Supporters of this bill argue that language defining the partial- birth abortion procedure has been tightened and that findings included stating that the procedure is never necessary to protect a woman's health. This is simply smoke and mirrors. The bill is unconstitutional for the same reasons the Supreme Court struck down similar laws. Women are entitled to the right to the safest abortion procedure available. To ban one particular procedure is to deny women--in consultation with their doctor--that right. Just as its authors intended, this bill would apply well before viability, banning a safe method of abortion that is often used in the second trimester. In addition, it fails to include language providing an exception to protect the health of the mother. I am distressed that more than 30 years after the Supreme Court's historic Roe decision, we are considering legislative measures that could revert us back to the time of dangerous back alley abortions. Before voting, I hope that my colleagues will remember the struggles women faced before Roe. Let us not forget the women who were injured or who died from unsafe procedures. This bill could well return us to that era again. I urge my colleagues to uphold a woman's constitutional right to choose by voting against final passage of this conference report.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, the passage of time will not fade from our memories the horror we witnessed 2 years ago today. Nor will it diminish our feelings of sadness for those who lost their lives at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in a remote field in western Pennsylvania. For California's South Bay, where LAX--the destination of three of the four hijacked planes--is located, four of my constituents were killed. We remember these individuals and comfort their families: Anna Alison of Torrance, Chandler ``Chad'' Keller of Manhattan Beach, Stanley Hall of Rancho Palos Verdes, and John Wenckus of Torrance. We also remember several other individuals who worked in the 36th district but lived elsewhere. Their coworkers remember them fondly: Ruben Ornedo, who worked at Boeing, and Peter Gay, who worked for Raytheon Electronics and commuted to El Segundo weekly from the east coast Mr. Speaker, since September 11, we have taken concerted action to defeat terrorism. Brave members of our Armed Forces and intelligence communities are working to bring the perpetrators of those terrorist attacks to justice. But we have much still to do. And however difficult that task, we are inspired by the heroism of the first responders who gave their lives that day--by the thousands who are prepared to do the same should another attack occur--and by the memories of so many people who died. As we mark this anniversary, to paraphrase Tennyson, America will ``strive . . . seek . . . find . . . and not yield'' in the face of this new threat. Indeed, America will prevail.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in honoring our friend, former colleague, and my former neighbor, Stephen Horn, by naming the United States post office in Signal Hill after him. Steve served in Congress with great distinction for 10 years. My friendship with him began in the 103rd Congress, the first Congress for both of us. Steve represented the 38th Congressional District, which included most of Long Beach and Lakewood, all of Signal Hill, Bellflower, Paramount, Downey, and a small portion of San Pedro, while I represented the neighboring 36th District. Steve, of course, was a student of Congress. As a political scientist, Steve has written books on parliamentary procedures, the Senate Appropriations Committee and campaign finance. He worked at the Brookings Institution, was a dean at American University, and then from 1970 to 1988, was president of Cal State University at Long Beach. Early in his career, he was appointed Administrative Assistant to Secretary of Labor James P. Mitchell, followed in late 1960 with a move to Capitol Hill where he served as the Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Thomas H. Kuchel (R-Calif.), one of the four leaders of the Senate. And, he was in Everett Dirksen's office helping draft the 1965 Voting Rights Act. With his election to the 103rd Congress, Steve had an opportunity to put his love of politics and governing into practice. I am particularly proud that we worked together to lead a successful bi-partisan coalition that saved the McDonnell Douglas/Boeing C-17 program. Congress approved the multi-year purchase of this cargo aircraft, which employed 9,000 workers in our respective districts and, as demonstrated in the recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, has proven to be one of the most versatile cargo aircraft in the military's inventory. When his party took control of the House in 1994, Steve became chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations--a position which he used to improve government services, overhaul federal agencies' debt collection practices, and help prepare agencies to meet the Y2K problem. Steve was also a leader of Southern California's effort to secure funding for the Alameda Corridor, a below-grade rail line linking the busy Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles with the rest of the nation. He was also known for his advocacy of higher education and as a passionate supporter of the arts and I recall Steve's strong defense of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities as co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Arts Caucus. Always the keen observer, Steve was known for the ubiquitous notebooks in which he detailed his daily activities, insights and observations while in Congress. Undoubtedly, these volumes help refresh the recollections which he now uses to teach others at Cal State Long Beach about politics, governance, and responsibility in a democratic society. Mr. Speaker, never one to falter in his congressional duties or to toe the party line, Steve Horn served in Congress with courage and independence. I am proud to have served with him and to cosponsor and urge passage of this measure honoring him with the designation of J. Stephen Horn post office in Signal Hill, California.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as a California mother of four who values early education, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, Chesterfield Smith, who died in Florida yesterday at 85, invented the modern law firm and the modern legal profession. Either of these accomplishments is more than enough for a lifetime. He was my dear friend, a mentor to me and thousands of idealistic lawyers. Improving the world was axiomatic to him: it came with legal training and a law license. Doing anything less was unacceptable. Probably his most important chapter was 1973-74, when he was president of the American Bar Association during the Nixon impeachment. He steered the organization and helped steer the country through a crisis in which our legal system was tested. It survived, and so did we. We will miss Chesterfield's skills, his heart, his compass, his courage, and his loyalty. His wife, Jacqueline, and his family, are in our hearts.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, now that we have completed debate on our intelligence authorization bill for 2004, I just wanted to thank our chairman who is graceful, collaborative and bipartisan and the members and staff on the majority side and to thank the strong team we have on the Democratic side and especially our staff. By name: Christine Healey, John Keefe, Marcel Lettre, Wyndee Parker, Beth Larson, Kirk McConnell, Bob Emmett and Ilene Romack; and also David Flanders of my personal staff for all the effort they put into yesterday's very thorough and, I thought, outstanding debate. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Goss was allowed to speak out of order.) Thanking Members and Staff

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill to end Medicare as we know it, which will hurt our sisters, mothers, and grandmothers.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Speaker, in the course of my career as a public official I have been privileged to work with some truly remarkable people--often unsung heroes who contribute every day, unselfishly and unswervingly, to the health and well-being of our communities. One such person is my friend and constituent Charlotte Lesser, and I rise today on the occasion of her retirement as Director of Health Education at the Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) to commend her for her many achievements and contributions. For 10 years, Charlotte Lesser has successfully spearheaded BCHD efforts to provide critical assistance to South Bay citizens in need. Under her leadership, BCHD has developed organizations and services that promote health education activities and fitness awareness for the residents of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach. And as is the case with so many local leaders, Ms. Lesser volunteered her time to strengthen South Bay communities through her involvement with the South Bay Family Healthcare Center, the South Bay Youth Project, the Wellness Community, and the South Bay Coalition for Alcohol and Drug-Free Youth. In addition to her work as a champion of local health care services, Charlotte Lesser chaired the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce and founded and directed the Manhattan Beach Neighborhood Watch. In recognition of her unwavering commitment to the community, in 1999, Charlotte Lesser was named Los Angeles County Woman of the Year. But Charlotte is also my trusted friend and has been a wonderful resource to my staff and me. Mr. President, I join the community in thanking Charlotte Lesser for her years of service and accomplishment, for they are evidence of her dedication and boundless energy. Although she is retiring from BCHD, her achievements will not end there. I look forward to her upcoming appointment to the Los Angeles County Commission for Women. I know she will continue to be an active leader and community advocate.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to state that I fully support the agreement that has been worked out between the chairmen of the two committees on which I serve. Since the language at issue was language that was inserted in our bill at my request, I want to make clear that we should work out these jurisdictional issues, but we also should proceed to find the right sections of the right bills to insert additional language on information sharing which is still a critical need in the homeland security and the terrorist threat areas. We also need to insert language at the right places about the protection of civil liberties. I listened to the comments by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) concerning the fact that we have no statutory language for TTIC, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, and perhaps we should decide about that in some other forum. Nonetheless, TTIC exists, and it is critically important that we make sure that it respects the civil liberties of Americans. So we will continue to search for new venues, but I thank both chairmen for finding the proper way to solve this issue.