Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and rise to applaud the fact that this amendment will clearly be accepted as no one is speaking against it. This amendment has already passed the House on the 2005 supplemental appropriations bill by a vote of 420 to 2, and a modified version of it was signed by the President. This amendment states a policy we can all endorse. It does not expand existing law. Existing federal law makes it illegal and it is also a violation of international law to torture people. And existing law also bans cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees. I want to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) that, as the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, I have followed his work on this closely. I am pleased that he has raised this subject, that the entire House has heard him and agrees with him. Let me go further, however, because this amendment does not expand existing law. I think in light of clear issues around detentions and interrogations, some of which are being investigated very responsibly on a bipartisan basis by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight, in light of many questions and what I might call a fog of law on these issues, I think we need additional legislation. It is going to be hard to put together the right bill, the right bill that states what we believe in with respect to detentions. My own personal view is no one should be detained without a status and without the ability to challenge that status, but the right bill, should also state what we believe in with respect to interrogations policy. I firmly believe that we need interrogations consistent with our values so that we learn the plans and intentions of the bad guys before they attack us. But precisely how to set limits is the hard part. So I hope to work on a bipartisan basis to craft a legal framework for the detentions and interrogations. I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for this useful effort to remind us all that on a bipartisan basis we condemn the use of torture.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the sponsor of the amendment for yielding me this time, and I also appreciate the comments of the chairman in the debate that just preceded this. Mr. Chairman, in past years, I have opposed the Sanders amendment on two grounds. First, I felt the appropriate time to revise the PATRIOT Act was this year, because key provisions are sunsetting this year. Second, as ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I know, as the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) also knows, that terrorists use Internet sites to communicate, and believe law enforcement needs to access terrorist traffic on these sites. This year, the amendment's sponsors have eliminated reference to library Internet sites, and their amendment arises as Congress undertakes a serious review of the PATRIOT Act. Because the amendment has been altered and the timing is right, I am pleased to support it. Law enforcement must have the ability to prevent and disrupt terrorist plots on our soil, but this is a sensible amendment for the following reasons: first, section 215, as currently written, is unnecessarily broad. It permits the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' as long as it is ``sought for'' a terrorist investigation. This is a sweeping power which even the Justice Department agrees can be cut back. I believe Congress should modify section 215 to require that the government show that the items sought belong to or would lead the government to an agent of a foreign power, the traditional FISA standard. Second, I see no evidence that seizing someone's documentary library or bookstore records is needed to combat terrorism. The Justice Department has never sought a 215 order to obtain library records. In the rare case that a law enforcement official believes access to these records is necessary, other remedies exist. The PATRIOT Act eliminated, and I supported, the so-called ``wall'' between criminal and intelligence investigations, thus allowing criminal subpoenas or warrants to be secured more easily. And third, as mentioned, this amendment, wisely, would not preclude law enforcement from obtaining library Internet records. Mr. Chairman, Congress has an opportunity, indeed, an obligation to modify some of the authorities of the PATRIOT Act that went too far in eroding our civil liberties. This amendment signals our intention to do so, and I urge its adoption.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the only good thing to come out of Congressman Max Sandlin's defeat in the November election was that it brought his long-time staffer Karen Brooke to the Intelligence Committee as Minority Executive Assistant--where her good humor, good will and remarkable institutional knowledge were instant assets. Much to our dismay, Karen has decided to retire after 30 years of loyal and dedicated service to the U.S. government, the House, and most recently, to the Committee. Except for a year at the State Department, Karen's entire career has been spent in the Legislative Branch working for four different Members from four different parts of the country until joining the Committee staff. She is a pleasure to be around, and everyone has benefitted from her professionalism, efficiency, her meticulous approach to every task, and her ability to make it all look so easy. Through it all, Karen Brooke has somehow found the time to dote on her wonderful husband John, and together they have raised two great children--daughter Adrienne and son Anthony. On behalf of the Members and staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I extend our congratulations and wish her and her family the very best as they begin this new, exciting chapter of life.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time and other colleagues from California for letting me speak early in this debate. Mr. Chairman, I was a member of the Committee on Armed Services for 6 years and, during that time, every single year, played a role in sponsoring this worthy amendment. I urge its adoption again this year. Mr. Chairman, I just returned from the Middle East and the World Economic Forum where the First Lady spoke. Her speech, which emphasized the importance of women's equality in the region, was extremely well received. Mrs. Bush serves as a wonderful ambassador to the world, but she is just one woman. There are over 200,000 women serving in the U.S. military and 19,000 women currently in Iraq and Afghanistan. These women are flying helicopters and fighter aircraft. They are saving lives as nurses and doctors. They are driving support vehicles, patrolling bomb-ridden highways, and standing duty at checkpoints, shouldering weapons. They serve as an example and an inspiration to the women they come into contact with, and they break down stereotypes held by many men. With this in mind, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which would lift the current ban on privately funded abortions in military overseas hospitals. The amendment does not force military doctors to perform abortions, and it does not place an undue focus on the procedure in such facilities, because abortions in the case of incest, rape, or life endangerment are already performed there. What this amendment does is to give servicewomen and female military dependents stationed abroad the same constitutional rights as women living here. Separate from this amendment, but also enormously important, is the issue of career opportunities for women in the military. I applaud the Committee on Armed Services for coming back from the precipice and removing language barring women from serving in forward support companies. I am confident that following the Pentagon's review of its personnel policies, assessing what positions should be open to servicewomen, we will be here on the floor to heap praise on our GI Janes, rather than barring them from opportunities to serve our country. Vote for the Davis-Harman-Sanchez amendment.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, the promise for curing a whole host of debilitating diseases is brighter than it's ever been. Today, Congress has the opportunity to capitalize on breakthrough scientific research to help millions across our country. Representatives Castle and DeGette have crafted this bill meticulously, which would allow the use of surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization treatments and require donor consent. It does not allow stem cells to be sold for profit. This legislation takes an ethical and moral approach to a challenging subject, and throughout is respectful of the value of life. Real political courage and leadership--on both sides of the aisle, in the House and Senate--was required to bring us to this point. People from every point along the political spectrum--from Nancy Reagan to the late Christopher Reeve--have embraced the promise and potential of stem cell research. Parkinson's, cancer, Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries--cures for these and other serious ailments may lie in stem cell research. We owe it to generations of suffering Americans and their families to help find treatments that could lead to full recovery. Many in this body like to talk about ``values.'' Today, I say to them: using discarded embryos to find scientific cures for fatal diseases is our moral obligation. Saving life is precisely what we all care about. Mr. Speaker, a vote for H.R. 810 is a vote to save lives. I urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan, bicameral legislation.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and commend him for his leadership on our new permanent committee. It is a great thing that we finally have a committee in the House to focus on what I believe is the most urgent business confronting us. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation and I want to underscore that it is about money, but it is not primarily about money. It is really primarily about strategy. The purpose in forming a Homeland Security Department was not to rearrange the deck chairs, but was to create one deck, one national, integrated strategy for homeland security. And by passing this legislation, which I am sure we will do later today, we now will have a strategy based on risk for distributing needed funds to our very impressive first responders. We should not use the squeaky wheel theory for homeland security funding; we should have a strategic view of homeland security funding. And once we pass this legislation and once we urge our colleagues in the other body to move their bill on the floor and then to reach a fair compromise in conference and enact this bill into law, we will have taken a major step forward. This legislation, of course, does not solve all the problems. An issue on which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and I have focused for years is a strategy for interoperable communications for emergency responders. This requires some of the things we have in our authorization bill, but it will also require dedicated spectrum, something that I hope the Congress addresses this year and something that is the subject of legislation we have introduced on a bipartisan basis called the Hero Act. But to conclude, Mr. Chairman, this is a very good start. It is very good work by our ranking member and by our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox); and it helps resolve a major roadblock to securing our homeland in our own districts and all parts of America.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, commanding the Space and Missiles System Center at the Los Angeles Air Force Base, the Nation's leading supplier of military space technology, is an accomplishment in itself. Leading the base to an unprecedented 41 consecutive successful launches is nothing short of historic. Lt. Gen. Brian A. Arnold, a 34-year veteran of the United States Air Force, has achieved this record over the past 4 years. As Base Commander, the three star General has managed the entire spectrum of the Air Force's missile and satellite systems--from research and design to the command, control and launch of these systems. General Arnold's record of success is more than a statistical anomaly. His organization is responsible for providing cutting edge space technology to the warfighter by creating transformational technologies like the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle; the Space- Based Infrared System; military communication satellites; the Navstar Global Positioning System; intercontinental ballistic missile programs; the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program; and many other emerging systems critically important to the warfighter. Leading more than 6,500 employees nationwide, with an annual budget of $10 billion and an active program portfolio of $60 billion, General Arnold has established SMC as the Nation's leading center of excellence for military space acquisition. Under his stewardship, the El Segundo base has built a record of excellence translating directly to a more cost-effective military and a safer America. Before becoming a guiding force in space procurement, General Arnold spent the majority of his career as a pilot in FB-111 and B-52 aircraft, serving with distinction as a squadron commander, wing commander and sub-unified commander. Fortunately, General Arnold's retirement from the Los Angeles Air Force Base does not mean that he is leaving the South Bay, as he and his delightful wife Tina will be residing in San Pedro, a part of my Congressional District. I join the airmen and airwomen at the Los Angeles Air Force Base, as well as countless space program team members, in thanking General Arnold for his outstanding leadership as Base Commander and distinguished service in the war against terrorism.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, there are those who make their mark on the community with great fanfare, a need for recognition, or in service of a particular agenda. And there are those who serve the community quietly, with grace and humility--like Reverend Arthur R. Bartlett, a man whose life has been marked by love for his country and remarkable concern for others. Most in the sea-side community of San Pedro, in the southern part of my Congressional district, know him as ``Father Art,'' a testament to the Reverend's lifelong dedication to a community that is a gateway to the Pacific, home to generations of seafarers, and has twice been the hub of a world-wide war effort. As a young man, Father Art built ships, worked the docks, supplied countless Navy sailors and taught U.S. Army soldiers to fly B-17 bombers. But Father Art is best known for the aid and support he has given to merchant seafarers of all nations, creeds and faiths. As Program Director for the Seamen's Center in San Pedro for the past 47 years, he has provided the stabilizing influences of church, home and community to many who passed through San Pedro Harbor. Through training programs, counseling and hospital visits, he has provided hope to those who had none or nowhere else to turn. Father Art has also touched the lives of many who settled in San Pedro and fell victim to the ravages of alcoholism. He is the founder of Beacon House, the only recovery facility for male alcoholics in San Pedro and a true ray of hope for the entire community. The respect and admiration that he earned from local residents and the concern that he demonstrated for San Pedro Harbor led Mayor Tom Bradley to appoint Father Art to the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners in 1981. Mr. Speaker, it is with enormous pride and gratitude that I recognize The Reverend Arthur R. Bartlett's life achievements and commend him on receiving the Seamen's Church Institute's 2005 Guiding Angel Award.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I commend her for her leadership on this issue and many important issues. Mr. Speaker, what we are really talking about today is the need to prevent teen pregnancy. Let us understand that. We can disagree about this issue. But I strongly feel, as a mother of four children, two daughters and two sons, that by providing them information I am the one who can assure that they behave responsibly. I do not need to criminalize the behavior of others in trying to do my best job as a mother. So I oppose this bill. I also oppose the rule because it did not make in order something I thought was totally obvious, and that is an amendment that I offered with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) to prevent teen pregnancy by funding programs which accomplish that. The Committee on Rules chose not to make our amendment in order. All it would have done was provide a series of criteria by which to judge teen pregnancy programs. Those that were effective in preventing teen pregnancy would get precious Federal dollars, and those that were not would not. I would call that, given my background on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, a slam-dunk amendment, but it was not to the Committee on Rules. So I oppose this rule because it shut out our opportunity to offer our amendment. We will be introducing it as a stand-alone bill and it is also part of a comprehensive bill that the gentlewoman from New York has introduced. But I would hope that this body later this year would do the right thing, and that is to put our money where our mouth is. And where our mouth is, is to reduce unwanted teen pregnancy. That is a much better answer than the thrust of this legislation we are considering here today.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, together with my good friend Curt Weldon and a bipartisan group of our colleagues, we are introducing Homeland Emergency Response Operations or HERO Act. The HERO Act would take much-needed broadcast spectrum available for use by America's first responders by no later than January 1, 2007. Many public safety and state and local governmental associations, as well as first responders and other emergency personnel from across the country, support this legislation. Interoperability is more than a public safety issue. It's a national security issue, and to our first responders it can be an issue of life or death. In 1997, Congress made a promise to the American people to allocate dedicated radio spectrum to first responders. Yet 8 years later, we still have not made good on our commitment. Why have we broken our promise? Because a handful of broadcasters refuse to compromise on this issue. Thousands of lives are potentially at stake. We have all heard the tragic stories of firefighters who died in the WorId Trade Center on 9/ 11 because NYPD helicopters circling overhead could not radio them that the towers were glowing and beginning to collapse. At the Pentagon on that same dark day, first responders from surrounding counties who converged on the scene were forced to use runners to convey messages, as their communications equipment was not compatible. The tragedies of September 11 taught some painful lessons about the need for improved communications among and between first responder groups. In particular, the events of that and subsequent days have underscored the need for more public safety radio spectrum with which first responders can perform their live-saving functions. The lack of frequency among emergency response agencies and jurisdictions is an everyday problem. Police officers, fire fighters, emergency medical personnel and others are forced to depend on radio systems that operate on incompatible radio frequency bands and lack sufficient capacity. We must as a nation remedy this situation as effective and interoperable public safety communications are more important than ever in the war against terrorism. Key elements for first responders to begin using this spectrum are in place. The spectrum is allocated, states have already received licenses to use the 700 MHz band and local jurisdictions are engaged in regional planning needed to get a license. However, the investment to use the spectrum by public safety agencies cannot commence unless there is a tangible date when that spectrum can be used. Essentially, the first responders are waiting on Congress to keep our promise, and I think they have waited long enough. I urge my colleagues to join us in this important effort to safeguard the lives of our public safety workers--and of the communities they serve--by co-sponsoring the HERO Act.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, never before in my years in this House have I taken the floor with such sadness. It is the sadness that penetrates to my very core, for I have lost a dear friend and Congress has lost one of its most distinguished Members. Everyone was stunned by the news that our former colleague, Tillie Fowler, suffered a massive brain hemorrhage on Sunday. Now that she has died, we mourn her passing with the heaviest of hearts. Tillie and I were Members of the class of 1992 and for some time the only women serving on the House Committee on Armed Services. She was a source of inspiration, a sister, a soul mate. We can take some comfort in knowing that she did not suffer and that her beloved husband, Buck, and her daughters were by her side. But nothing can bring her back, and she cannot be replaced. Never partisan and always principled, the Congress and the country are better places because of her service, and she leaves a legacy we all learn from. I will miss Tillie, my wonderful friend and staunch ally. We looked at the world the same way, through the same kind of eyes, and for me, for a while, the path ahead will be less clear without her.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, many on this side of the aisle also support strong border protection. I certainly do, and I support the fence. This is not an argument, however, about whether to build a fence. It is about what process should be used, and this process is dead wrong. Rather than reaching out to the governor of California, a leader in the party on the other side of the aisle, to reach compromise on this issue, the author of this bill has crafted language that will usurp all of Governor Schwarzenneger's power regarding the border fence. To take the radical steps of eliminating all State and local powers, let alone Federal, and rolling back all judicial review is the height of irresponsible legislating. Mr. Chairman, this bill sets the dangerous precedent of policing a single Federal official, elected by no one, above all laws, and shields him from accountability, and the reach is beyond the San Diego border. According to the language in this legislation, it is all areas along and in the vicinity of our international borders with both Mexico and Canada. This is the wrong way to do it. We need to do the right thing. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who ably serves on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the Committee on Rules, for the time. Mr. Speaker, as the lead conferee on the intelligence reform bill, I oppose the rule on H.R. 418 and the underlying bill because they will not make us safer. What H.R. 418 will do is undermine several key provisions of the Bipartisan Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which Congress passed and the President signed into law just 2 months ago. Those who claim that the so-called REAL ID Act will enhance national security are flat wrong. Remember, all of the September 11 hijackers entered this country with legal immigration documents. Legislation prohibiting illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses would not have stopped a single 9/11 hijacker. We dealt with this issue responsibly in the intelligence reform legislation. The law establishes tough minimum Federal standards for driver's licenses so that all driver's licenses have certain key security features. The law also requires the Transportation Security Administration to set newer standards within 6 months for identification documents which may be used to board commercial airplanes. These provisions are much stronger than what is being proposed by H.R. 418, yet H.R. 418 would repeal these critical new security upgrades. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree that if we want to cut down on illegal immigration, we must improve border security. Just 2 weeks ago, an astute crane operator at the Port of Los Angeles discovered 32 Chinese stowaways in a container that had just been unloaded from a Panamanian freighter. The State of California already prohibits illegal immigrants from getting a driver's license, but that did not discourage these stowaways from trying to sneak into California and the United States. The people at our ports and our borders are our first line of defense. That is why the Intelligence Reform bill included authorization for 10,000 new border guards, 40,000 new detention beds to hold people awaiting deportation, and 4,000 new immigration inspectors. Yet the President's 2006 budget does not include funding for any of these new security improvements. If we are going to serious about border security, we need more resources and more people at the border. I urge my colleagues to retain the REAL ID provisions in the Intelligence Reform bill and reject this imposter. We already have the tools for securing driver's licenses, and our borders that will truly make our country safer.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, a tragedy occurred Monday at the Port of Los Angeles when longshoreman Matt Petrasich--a 40-year veteran of the docks--was killed as he supervised workers unloading cargo from a ship. The entire port community is stunned by this unexpected loss. Mr. Petrasich was something of a Pied Piper at the port, a hatch boss beloved by younger workers who vied to work on his shifts and respected by his peers for his years of hard work, sparkling sense of humor and big heart. Just ask Danny Miranda, president of ILWU Local 94, who said, ``Everybody on this waterfront is grieving. He was loved by a lot of people. . . . He was the life of the party. Just a wonderful person.'' Work on the waterfront is often fraught with danger. The men and women who toil on the docks know the risks better than anyone else. But their around-the-clock contribution keeps Americans in work, business inventories full and our seaports more secure. As best we understand the fatal accident, Mr. Petrasich was crushed by a container about 9:30 in the morning as he worked aboard the Panamanian-flagged Ever Deluxe ship. It was a crane operator who first spotted his body and notified port authorities. It was also a crane operator, John Rivera of ILWU Local 13, who 3 weeks ago, on a Saturday night, noticed something strange. While moving cargo off a ship, he spotted from his perch high above the docks three people crawling out of a hole in the side of a container. Port inspectors opened the container and found inside 28 men and 4 male teenagers from China--illegal stowaways who had hidden themselves 10 days earlier at the Chinese port city of Shekou. The container manifest listed the contents simply as ``clothing.'' Mr. Speaker, in an era of terrorism and WMD proliferation, the threats against America emanate from the shadows, from underground black markets, from sleeper cells, and even from cargo containers in the Port of Los Angeles innocently labeled ``clothing.'' If not for Mr. Rivera, that container would almost certainly have made its way past port inspectors and into Greater Los Angeles. That cargo could have been a 32-man terrorist cell--13 more than the 19 terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. As ILWU Local 13 president Dave Arian rightly notes, ``We are the eyes and ears of the port.'' So as we mourn the sudden and shocking loss of Matt Petrasich, we should also celebrate the vigilance and dedication of the men and women who work day and night at the port--the supervisors, the crane operators, the shift workers and, of course, hatch bosses like Matt. I offer my deepest condolences to Cathe Bjazevich Petrasich, his wife of 24 years, and to his family, his friends and co-workers. The Port of Los Angeles has lost a special man.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, as we vote today to recognize the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, it is worth noting that the number of Holocaust survivors who bore witness to the atrocities at the German camps is dwindling. One, respected lawyer, Samuel Pisar, wrote an impressive op-ed piece several days ago in the Washington Post. It is hard to imagine witnessing--let alone surviving--the horror. Mr. Pisar movingly describes the last time he saw his mother and sister. Some, like my father, were more fortunate. A graduate of medical school in Germany, he was able to immigrate to New York in 1935. But he taught our family well: never to forget. I also want to take this moment to celebrate the life and achievement of the only survivor who serves in Congress--our esteemed colleague from California, Mr. Lantos, who brought this Resolution to the House floor today. I thank him and ask unanimous consent that Samuel Pisar's article be printed in the Congressional Record. [From the Washington Post, Jan. 23, 2005] Will We `Never Forget'? (By Samuel Pisar) Sixty years ago the Russians liberated Auschwitz, as the Americans approached Dachau. The Allied advance revealed to a stunned world the horrors of the greatest catastrophe ever to befall our civilization. To a survivor of both death factories, where Hitler's gruesome reality eclipsed Dante's imaginary inferno, being alive and well so many years later feels unreal. We the survivors are now disappearing one by one. Soon history will speak of Auschwitz at best with the impersonal voice of researchers and novelists, at worst with the malevolence of demagogues and falsifiers. This week the last of us, with a multitude of heads of state and other dignitaries, are gathering at that cursed site to remind the world that past can be prologue, that the mountains of human ashes dispersed there are a warning to humanity of what may still lie ahead. The genocides in Armenia, Cambodia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Rwanda and the recent massacres of innocents in the United States, Spain, Israel, Indonesia and so many other countries have demonstrated our inability to learn from the blood-soaked past. Auschwitz, the symbol of absolute evil, is not only about that past, it is about the present and the future of our newly enflamed world, where a coupling of murderous ideologues and means of mass destruction can trigger new catastrophes. When the ghetto liquidation in Bialystok, Poland, began, only three members of our family were still alive: my mother, my little sister and I, age 13. Father had already been executed by the Gestapo. Mother told me to put on long pants, hoping I would look more like a man, capable of slave labor. ``And you and Frieda?'' I asked. She didn't answer. She knew that their fate was sealed. As they were chased, with the other women, the children, the old and the sick, toward the waiting cattle cars, I could not take my eyes off them. Little Freida held my mother with one hand, and with the other, her favorite doll. They looked at me too, before disappearing from my life forever. Their train went directly to Auschwitz-Birkenau, mine to the extermination camp of Majdanek. Months later, I also landed in Auschwitz, still hoping naively to find their trace. When the SS guards, with their dogs and whips, unsealed my cattle car, many of my comrades were already dead from hunger, thirst and lack of air. At the central ramp, surrounded by electrically charged barbed wire, we were ordered to strip naked and file past the infamous Dr. Josef Mengele. The ``angel of death'' performed on us his ritual ``selection''--those who were to die immediately to the right, those destined to live a little longer and undergo other atrocious medical experiments, to the left. In the background there was music. At the main gate, with its sinister slogan ``Work Brings Freedom,'' sat, dressed in striped prison rags like mine, one of the most remarkable orchestras ever assembled. It was made up of virtuosos from Warsaw and Paris, Kiev and Amsterdam, Rome and Budapest. To accompany these selections, hangings and shootings while the gas chambers and crematoria belched smoke and fire, these gentle musicians were forced to play Bach, Schubert and Mozart, interspersed with marches to the glory of the Fuhrer. In the summer of 1944, the Third Reich was on the verge of collapse, yet Berlin's most urgent priority was to accelerate the ``final solution.'' The death toll in the gas chambers on D-Day, as on any other day, far surpassed the enormous Allied losses suffered on the beaches of Normandy. My labor commando was assigned to remove garbage from a ramp near the crematoria. From there I observed the peak of human extermination and heard the blood-curdling cries of innocents as they were herded into the gas chambers. Once the doors were locked, they had only three minutes to live, yet they found enough strength to dig their fingernails into the walls and scratch in the words ``Never Forget.'' Have we already forgotten? I also witnessed an extraordinary act of heroism. The Sonderkommando--inmates coerced to dispose of bodies-- attacked the SS guards, threw them into the furnaces, set fire to buildings and excaped. They were rapidly captured and executed, but their courage boosted our morale. As the Russians advanced, those of us still able to work were evacuated deep into Germany. My misery continued at Dachau. During a final death march, while our column was being strafed by Allied plans that mistook us for Wehrmacht troops, I escaped with a few others. An armored battalion of GIs brought me life and freedom. I had just turned 16--a skeletal ``subhuman'' with shaved head and sunken eyes who had been trying so long to hold on to a flicker of hope. ``God bless America,'' I shouted uncontrollably. In the autumn of their lives, the survivors of Auschwitz feel a visceral need to transmit what we have endured, to warn younger generations that today's intolerance, fanaticism and hatred can destroy their world as they once destroyed ours, that powerful alert systems must be built not only against the fury of nature--a tsunami or storm or eruption-- but above all against the folly of man. Because we know from bitter experience that the human animal is capable of the worst, as well as the best--of madness as of genius--and that the unthinkable remains possible. In the wake of so many recent tragedies, a wave of compassion and solidarity for the victims, a fragile yearning for peace, democracy and liberty, seem to be spreading around the plant. It is far too early to evaluate their potential. Mankind, divided and confused, still hesitates, vacillates like a sleepwalker on the edge of an abyss. But the irrevocable has not yet happened; our chances are still intact. Pray that we learn how to seize them.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to a gentleman and a gentle man, Bob Matsui. I will sorely miss my good friend and colleague Bob Matsui. California and America have lost a champion for justice, Social Security, fair trade and opportunity for all. Bob's courage was remarkable. Imprisoned in an internment camp as a young child, he worked to give freedom and dignity to others. Serving more than 25 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, most recently as a Senior Member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, and Ranking Member of its Social Security Subcommittee, as well as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Bob was an unfailing gentleman and a loyal friend. I met him early in his House career. Long before I thought of running for Congress I consulted him, and he offered his support. Shortly thereafter, my key advisor and law firm colleague Vic Raiser died in a plane crash. Bob knew our relationship and called me. He said, ``I cannot take Vic's place, but I'll sure try.'' He made my race his top priority and personally contacted his donor base on my behalf. His efforts were critical to my victory and I referred to him thereafter as my ``mother.'' At this time of sadness, my thoughts and prayers are with Bob's extraordinary wife, Doris, son Brian and beautiful granddaughter, Anna. Bob leaves a huge void in this nation and a big hole in my heart.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the rules package includes a provision that will make the Homeland Security Committee a permanent committee. More importantly, we will be giving the committee real oversight and legislative jurisdiction. But I am disappointed that the majority has only given shared jurisdiction to the Homeland Security Committee in some areas. This creates the potential for ongoing turf battles that the 9/11 Commission warned against. I am also discouraged that the majority has decided to add a third day of suspension bills to the legislative calendar each week. An increasing amount of legislation is being passed by the House under a suspension of the Rules. This is unnecessary and keeps us from doing the real business of the House--budgeting, appropriations and oversight. A perfect example of this is the massive omnibus appropriations bill passed for fiscal year 2005 just a few weeks ago. This bill was rushed to the floor, ignoring the House rule requiring a 3-day review period before voting on conference reports. Only after the House voted on the bill, careful scrutiny of the language uncovered a provision allowing certain Members and staff access to any American's tax return. Not only was this an embarrassing episode for the House leadership, it continued a troubling trend. In 4 out of the last 5 years, the majority has made a massive omnibus bill the only option to fund the government. This take-it-or-leave-it approach is not acceptable and is fiscally irresponsible. Congress has also been asleep at the switch when it comes to funding for Iraq and the war on terrorism. This administration continues to fund the war on terrorism by supplemental appropriations. This is not a temporary war. Congress needs to stand up to this White House, stand up for honest budgeting, and require that funding for Iraq and the war on terrorism be made on-budget, and through the regular appropriations process. By appropriating through omnibus bills and budgeting by supplemental, Congress is surrendering its constitutional duties. The results of this practice are ballooning deficits--the CBO confirmed that the 2004 deficit is the largest in history, $413 billion--a lack of follow- through to determine how appropriated funds are being spent. Without proper oversight as a backstop, problems in the executive branch can spin out of control. Members are learning about problems for the first time through the newspapers, not as a result of tough oversight hearings. This kind of lax or nonexistent oversight contributes to situations like we saw in Abu Ghraib prison. Now we have learned about secret, permanent detention facilities in the United States where possible terrorists are held indefinitely, without any legal status. Mr. Speaker, we need to take a hard look at our priorities and get back to doing the business of the House. We should be moving forward with a tough, focused oversight agenda, and a schedule that devotes more time to priority, must-pass legislation and less time to suspension bills. Instead, it appears that we are adopting a rules package today that will bring us more of the same.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my classmate, a member of our committee and the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy and National Security.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, obviously we do not all agree on the best direction in which to go. It is clear from this debate that Members on our side and Members on the other side of the aisle have some strong feelings against the carefully crafted compromise. But carefully crafted it was. I can assure Members that 10 weeks and thousands of hours by Members and staff went into the language of this conference report. There were fights about almost every issue. We worked it out as best we could. We worked it out on a bipartisan basis, and as I said at the beginning of this debate, I cannot thank enough Senators Collins and Lieberman and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for their collaboration, talent, dedication and true grit. This would not have happened without them. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of conversation about the House bill and what was left out of the conference report. I would point out to colleagues that the vote in the House was an extremely close vote. To remind, there was an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). The vote on that amendment in the nature of a substitute was 203-213; 194 Democrats, 8 Republicans, and 1 Independent supported the Menendez substitute, which was essentially the Senate version of the bill. That means that 96 Members of the other body, all but 2 who voted, and 203 Members of this body, 300 Members, supported essentially the Senate version of the bill. We could look at that as an overwhelming vote for the Senate language. I certainly look at it that way, and the 9/11 Commission said and the White House said in many respects that the Senate language was much closer to what they intended. My point in bringing this up is in reaching the compromise that we are voting on now, we need to understand how much was given up on both sides. Clearly the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and those who support his position think a lot was given up on his side. Some of the language that passed in H.R. 10, very controversial language, was given up, to be sure. But a lot of the language in the Senate version of the bill was also given up: such as the declassified top line; such as a number of the powers that have been talked about for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board; such as full control over reprogramming of personnel and budget. A lot of those issues were given up in the effort to reach a carefully balanced, bipartisan, bicameral compromise. That is what we are voting on today. I would just tell all Members that I believe it is not only the best we could do, but it is very good. Just to remind, we do address immigration, we do increase border protection, we do include Federal standards for State-issued drivers' licenses, and we do do something which has not been mentioned, which is direct TSA to develop within 6 months new standards for ID documents for boarding airplanes. TSA is directed in this bill to handle what we all agree is a problem. We do not want terrorists to use fraudulent documents or documents based on expired visas to board airplanes, and we correct that problem in this bill. We also address the chain of command, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has pointed out. We did not address the border fence issue, but I am hopeful that without waiving environmental protections, those of us who care about it in California will figure out a right and fair solution. Finally, let me point out, as many Members have, that this bill is supported by the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the 9/11 Commission, most of the 9/11 families, most of the conferees, and overwhelming majorities on a bipartisan basis in each House. I urge its adoption. It is the right thing to do. It honors the 9/11 families, and it makes a point about the 63rd anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attacks. We know how to fix these problems. We will do it tonight. I urge adoption of the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and an extremely conscientious Member of this House. (Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who heads our Democratic Caucus, a wonderful and valued colleague on this issue, and a third of our Democratic conferees. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, although I do not presently intend to object, I ask the gentleman to explain his unanimous consent request.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would point out to the gentleman and to this body that I signed the conference report, but that I think it would be worthwhile to make several points, although the time is late, including the fact that it gives the director of CIA flexible authority to pay employees under non-Federal cover, which is more and more important in targeting the post-9/11 security threats of terrorism and the spread of WMD. It establishes a chief information technology manager to oversee enterprise, architecture, procurement and research and development. It requires the DCI to submit an assessment on countries or regions that are terrorist sanctuaries. It contains a number of good language provisions. But it does not contain something that many of us feel is absolutely critical and that we hope will be forwarded by this administration for the 2006 budget, and that is full funding of counterterrorism in the base budget. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.