Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, strong intelligence is our first line of defense in the war on terrorism. And make no mistake, we are at war. The gruesome beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and yesterday's murder of 33-year-old Kim Sun Il of South Korea are stark reminders of the nature of our enemy. Our brave men and women in the intelligence community are on the front lines fighting that enemy. They risk their lives for our freedom and they deserve our unflinching support. Yet, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this legislation deprives them of full support. This bill provides less than one-third of the key funding that the intelligence community has told us they need to fight the war on terrorism. Less than one-third. I want to use my time to engage the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) in a brief dialogue on this important issue. I would like to ask my colleague directly, on my time, Mr. Chairman, does this bill provide all of the counterterrorism funding that the intelligence agencies have told our committee they need for the coming year? Yes or no. I yield to the gentleman.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my fellow Blue Dog, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), that votes on the debt ceiling should not be part of the rule and will oppose it; but the underlying legislation, the fiscal year 2005 Defense Department appropriations bill, is worthy of support. Given Congress' constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense, this is perhaps the most important appropriations legislation we consider each year. We could not ask for two more capable colleagues to have as managers of the bill. As in previous years, the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Ranking Member Murtha) have risen above partisan politics and brought a Defense bill to the House floor that reflects America's defense priorities. Specifically, I applaud the committee's work in funding the Future Imageries Architecture program, the Arrow Weapon System, and in fully funding the F-15C radar upgrade. I also appreciate the committee's robust support for missile procurement. I am concerned that the bill reduces funding for some important classified satellite programs, but remain hopeful that any issues can be resolved prior to conference with the Senate. The centerpiece of the Defense appropriations bill is, of course, $25 billion for the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the administration only requested funds to get us through the first quarter of fiscal year 2005. They say additional funds will be requested after the November election. Nonetheless, the Committee on Appropriations is working on a bipartisan basis to make sure that our soldiers are well-trained and - equipped. In contrast, the Intelligence authorization bill, which we will consider later this week, significantly underfunds critical counterterrorism programs. We need an authorization bill that fully funds the intelligence community's requirements. The bill voted out of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on a party-line vote last week funds less than one-third of the American counterterrorism needs. Mr. Speaker, this continuing practice of funding the intelligence community in bits and pieces has been roundly criticized by Members on both sides of the aisle. The intelligence agencies tell us this practice makes it impossible to plan, forcing them to rob Peter to pay Paul until additional funding is available. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge support for the Defense authorization bill and hope that later this week we will do better to build a bipartisan Intelligence authorization bill that fully funds our counterterrorism needs.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to explain my ``no'' vote on the amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro. I support the principle embodied in the amendment: to deny the benefit of large government contracts to U.S. companies that purposefully locate offshore to avoid U.S. taxes. But in this case, Accenture did not do this. Accenture is a combination of foreign and U.S. companies and claims it chose Bermuda, in 2001, as a neutral location. The USVISIT contract is with the U.S. subsidiaries of Accenture, and with many other U.S.-located companies, all of whom employ Americans and pay U.S. taxes. We should not interfere with it and disrupt this important program.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, although I have reservations about some of the priorities reflected in this Homeland Security funding bill, it is important legislation and I intend to support it. But, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the appropriations process is about priorities. That being the case, I'd like to talk about some of the priorities that, in my view, have been overlooked in this legislation. Like every parent, the first thought that raced through my mind on 9/ 11 was of my children. Where were they? Were they safe? How could I reach them, or they me? Given the likelihood that an emergency could occur while our kids are at school and parents are at work, teaching age-appropriate skills about how to respond is critical. Growing up during the Cold War, I remember the drills, and sharing what I learned with my parents and younger brother. Such training is needed today. And there is a program in California, Mr. Chairman, known as FLASH, which is specifically designed as a public school curriculum to teach students, parents and teachers how to prepare and respond in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster. I am very disappointed that the bill does not include modest funding for implementation of a Federal version of FLASH. Surely, a program of such obvious importance should be able to find a home in the Federal Government. I hope that before the end of this Congress, my colleagues will adjust their priorities and fund a Federal pilot-program that mirrors California's FLASH program, along the lines of H.R.----. Another priority of America's hometowns is providing our local police, fire and emergency personnel with the tools they need to protect us. One of the most important of those tools is interoperable communications--ensuring the ability of our first responders to communicate with one another. 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. Thousands of lives are potentially at stake. We have all heard the tragic stories of firefighters who died in the World Trade Center on 9/11 because NYPD helicopters circling overhead could not radio them that the towers were glowing and beginning to collapse. This bill falls short of meeting America's interoperability needs, providing just $21 million for programs that help facilitate communications for first responders. I urge my colleagues to at least double funding for first responders in conference, and I hope we will soon be bold enough to overcome opposition to make needed emergency spectrum available by 2006, the date it was promised. Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is imperative to complete the national threat and vulnerability assessment, required by law and central to creating one integrated strategy for homeland defense. With a real understanding of our security needs and vulnerabilities, based upon a comprehensive assessment, funds would naturally flow to those regions and priorities that provide maximum security to the American people. This bill is necessary, but it could be better. In light of the serious threats we face, we must do better.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in offering a tribute to former President Ronald Reagan. He is rightly remembered as a larger-than-life figure--a man who conquered first Hollywood, then California, and then Washington, DC, and whose message of freedom and democracy spread around the world. Though I did not know him well, I did know his daughter Maureen very well, and she is also missed. President Reagan was naturally possessed of the qualities that make a great leader. As Governor of California and later as President, he used a blend of humor, kindness and boldness to communicate with the American people, to challenge and defeat the Soviet adversary, and to promote his uniquely American vision of how things should be. While I disagreed with a number of his policies, I always admired his ability to convey his ideas and his power to persuade. The enormous outpouring of emotion and love for this man comes as no surprise. When we think of Ronald Wilson Reagan, we will remember his infectious optimism and grace, and his belief that there is always a better day ahead for America.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, Arnold Plank was my wonderful friend. He was blessed with smarts, passion, vision and athletic prowess. Arnold was among a handful of my constituents who captured my attention early in my political career. He made a huge difference to my life and my ability to serve the people of the 36th Congressional District. For him, education was an adventure and an opportunity. His special gift was his ability to share that passion with others. He's left us much too early, and leaves a huge void. Somehow, running a 1OK will be less fun and much harder without him. Just having him at my side seemed to make my feet feel a little lighter. My thoughts and thanks are with Arnold's wife Janice, his daughters Rhonda and Lisa, and their four grandchildren. My thoughts are also with the school kids, parents and administrators who benefited from knowing Arnold, and with those who, sadly, will miss an extraordinary opportunity to learn from him.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Cunningham for his leadership on this issue, and rise in strong support of the Cunningham-Harman amendment. Let me tell you a story about four exceptional people who shared several things in common. What are the things that Jose Gutierrez, Jesus del Suarez, Francisco Martinez-Flores, and Jose Garibay had in common? They all loved this country, they all served in the U.S. Marine Corps, and they all died fighting for this country in Iraq. Something else they shared, Mr. Chairman--none of them were U.S. citizens. The amendment we are now considering appropriately recognizes these four young men and the thousands of other noncitizens whose service and ultimate sacrifice often goes overlooked. Based on legislation that Representative Cunningham and I introduced last fall, this amendment authorizes construction of a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery honoring the noncitizens killed in the line of duty while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. Many of our military heroes, past and present--from the American Revolution to Operation Iraqi Freedom and beyond--were, like Jose, Jesus, Francisco and Jose--born outside of the United States. In fact, an estimated 20 percent of Medal of Honor recipients--the Nation's highest military honor--are immigrants. Among the hundreds of U.S. service men and women we have lost in Iraq, at least 24 are foreign-born. A quote etched at Arlington's Memorial Amphitheater translates from Latin to read, ``It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country.'' Those words hold just as true for our foreign-born patriots who have served and made the ultimate sacrifice for their adopted country. Our amendment honors the memory of these young men and all of our noncitizen heroes. It is the least we should do for them, their families and in acknowledgement of their sacrifice.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, after careful consideration I have decided to support a 2-year delay in the BRAC process. Let me be clear that I remain a supporter of BRAC and my vote against this amendment is not a vote against base closures. BRAC plays a vital role in ensuring that we have a modern military that is prepared to fight the next war, not re-fight the last war. It is critically important that the tooth-to-tail ratio of the armed services be reduced, with unnecessary facilities eliminated and resources directed to where they will be most effective in fighting the war on terror. However, I believe there are several reasons why a stay in the process would be the most sensible course at this time. First, our military forces are currently stretched to the limit as they fight the war on terror on more than one front. We have asked our forces to fight a global war and they have risen to the occasion and performed admirably. But as they fight the global war on terrorism, they are encountering uncertain circumstances and unforeseen obstacles. The real-time lessons that we are learning in the war on terror will help the BRAC determine what our military priorities should be in the future. The BRAC law was adopted before September 11, 2001. The terrorists attacks on this country significantly altered U.S. national security priorities. Our armed forces are responding to these new demands, but I am afraid that if BRAC moves forward with the next round of base closures as planned, it will be during a period when the U.S. military is undergoing critical changes in tactics and organization. As a result, any reduction will be done without knowing what kind of base structure will be needed in the future. Second, I am extremely concerned by the way this Administration is funding the war in Iraq and the global war on terror. This President has funded the entire Iraq war by supplemental and, by all accounts, he plans to continue funding in this manner in the future. The funding-by- supplemental-only process prevents Congress from determining the exact costs of the war. It also makes it impossible for Congress to determine, by proper oversight, whether the President's priorities are the right priorities for our military to win the war on terror. If Congress has difficulty determining what our armed forces' needs and requirements are, the next round of BRAC commissioners will find it even more difficult to decide which facilities are vital to winning the war on terror. I am also concerned that the current BRAC guidelines do not accurately reflect the military's priorities for fighting the next war. For instance, the BRAC guidelines should include recognition of the value of intellectual capital and the synergy between the skilled civilian workers in various communities. Especially the critically important roles and missions the civilian workers support at our military bases. In the post-9/11 environment, I would like to see the BRAC guidelines broaden the concept of joint operations to include base functions and installations currently or potentially critical to the Department of Homeland Security. BRAC should also consider the costs of base closures as they relate to finding new sources for supplies and professional expertise at military bases. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the disproportionate contribution California has already made to the streamlining of the military's base infrastructure. Obviously, no state wants to have bases closed. Bases mean jobs and increased income for states and local municipalities. In the past BRAC rounds, California has experienced 29 base closures, including the closure of Ft. Ord--the largest closure in history. This is a factor that should be considered in the next round of closures. For all of these reasons, I believe it would be prudent for Congress to postpone the next round of BRAC to allow for a study of the needs of our post-9/11 military and the guidelines that best reflect those priorities.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the defense authorization bill, but strong opposition to this rule. Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that the rule we are considering leaves out many important amendments which many on our side had hoped to offer. I had one which would have postponed additional expenditures for a ground-based missile system in Alaska which has not met operational testing requirements, and would have put those funds into port security. My amendment reflects the views of 49 Admirals and Generals whose letter to the President is dated March 26. In my view, as ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the potential damage from a radiological device coming in through our ports is a much greater risk than the risk of a missile attack from North Korea. There are, however, some good amendments put in order, one of which I strongly support. The Davis-Sanchez-Harman amendment, which we have offered every year for the last decade, would treat military servicewomen as women in America are treated, by allowing them their constitutional right to the full range of legal reproductive health care in foreign military hospitals, provided they pay for it. Current law prohibits this and requires servicewomen who put their lives on the line on austere fronts in the war on terror to seek approval from their commanding officer in order to travel elsewhere in order to obtain an abortion, as medical facilities may be inadequate or unavailable. I view current law as unconstitutional. I think it is ridiculous at a time when military women are performing incredible service around the world that they still are treated differently from women in America. So I urge strong support of the Davis-Sanchez-Harman amendment. Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record the March 26, 2004 letter to President Bush from 49 Admirals and Generals: 49 Generals and Admirals Call for Missile Defense Postponement March 26, 2004. President George W. Bush, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: In December 2002, you ordered the deployment of a ground-based strategic mid-course ballistic missile defense (GMD) capability, now scheduled to become operational before the end of September 2004. You explained that its purpose is to defend our nation against rogue states that may attack us with a single or a limited number of ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction. To meet this deployment deadline, the Pentagon has waived the operational testing requirements that are essential to determining whether or not this highly complex system of systems is effective and suitable. The Defense Department's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated on March 11, 2004, that operational testing is not in the plan ``for the foreseeable future.'' Moreover, the General Accounting Office pointed out in a recent report that only two of 10 critical technologies of the GMD system components have been verified as workable by adequate developmental testing. Another important consideration is balancing the high costs of missile defense with funding allocated to other national security programs. Since President Reagan's strategic defense initiative speech in March 1983, a conservative estimate of about $130 billion, not adjusted upward for inflation, has been spent on missile defense, much of it on GMD. Your Fiscal Year 2005 budget for missile defense is $10.2 billion, with $3.7 billion allocated to GMD. Some $53 billion is programmed for missile defense over the next five years, with much more to follow. Deploying a highly complex weapons system prior to testing it adequately can increase costs significantly. U.S. technology, already deployed, can pinpoint the source of a ballistic missile launch. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that any state would dare to attack the U.S. or allow a terrorist to do so from its territory with a missile armed with a weapon of mass destruction, thereby risking annihilation from a devastating U.S. retaliatory strike. As you have said, Mr. President, our highest priority is to prevent terrorists from acquiring and employing weapons of mass destruction. We agree. We therefore recommend, as the militarily responsible course of action, that you postpone operational deployment of the expensive and untested GMD system and transfer the associated funding to accelerated programs to secure the multitude of facilities containing nuclear weapons and materials and to protect our ports and borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States. Signed: Admiral William J. Crowe (USN, ret.), General Alfred G. Hansen (USAF, ret.), General Joseph P. Hoar (USMC, ret.). Lt. General Henry E. Emerson (USA, ret.), Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, ret.), Vice Admiral Carl T. Hanson (USN, ret.), Lt. General James F. Hollinsworth (USA, ret.), Lt. General Arlen D. Jameson (USAF, ret.), Lt. General Robert E. Kelley, (USAF, ret.), Lt. General John A. Kjellstrom (USA, ret.), Lt. General Dennis P. McAuliffe (USA, ret.), Lt. General Charles P. Otstott (USA, ret.), Lt. General Thomas M. Rienze (USA, ret.), Vice Admiral John J. Shanahan (USN, ret.), Lt. General Dewitt C. Smith, Jr. (USA, ret.), Lt. General Horace G. Taylor (USA, ret.), Lt. General James M. Thompson (USA, ret.), Lt. General Alexander M. Weyand (USA, ret.). Major General Robert H. Appleby (AUS, ret.), Major General James G. Boatner (USA, ret.), Major General Jack O. Bradshaw (USA, ret.), Major General Morris J. Brady (USA, ret.), Major General William F. Burns (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral William D. Center (USN, ret.), Major General Albert B. Crawford (USA, ret.), Major General Maurice O. Edmonds (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral Robert C. Elliott, (USN, ret.), Major General John C. Faith (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral Robert H. Gormley (USN, ret.), Major General Richard B. Griffitts (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral Charles D. Grojean (USN, ret.), Major General Raymond E. Haddock (USA, ret.), Major General Jack R. Holbein, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Major General Stanley H. Hyman (USA, ret.), Major General Wayne P. Jackson (USA, ret.), Major General Frederick H. Lawson (AUS, ret.), Major General Vincent P. Luchsinger, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Major General James J. LeCleir (AUS, ret.), Major General William F. Willoughby (USAF, ret.). Brig. General George C. Cannon, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Brig. General John J. Costa (USA, ret.), Brig. General Alvan E. Cowan (USA, ret.), Brig. General Lee Denson (USAF, ret.), Brig. General Evelyn P. Foote (USA, ret.), Brig. General Leslie R. Forney, Jr. (USA, ret.), Brig. General John H. Grubbs (USA, ret.), Brig. General James E. Hastings (USA, ret.), Brig. General John H. Johns (USA, ret.), Brig. General Maurice D. Roush (USA, ret.).

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced a Concurrent Resolution that calls on Congress to clarify our national security spending priorities and regain a sense of fiscal responsibility. Specifically, my resolution recommends that Congress not provide funds for fiscal year 2005 for the deployment of ground-based, strategic, mid-course, ballistic missile defense system components that have not met operational testing requirements and, instead, provide needed funding for programs designed to keep America's ports secure from terrorist attacks. The Defense Authorization bill as reported by the House Armed Services Committee authorizes increased funding for ballistic missile defense and the deployment of ground-based interceptors without additional testing. I think this is a mistake from both a budgeting and a national security standpoint. Let me be clear that I am a strong supporter of missile defense. As a member of the Armed Services Committee from 1992-98, I urged increases in BMD R&D accounts. I support the Patriot Missile Defense System. I am a principal supporter of the Arrow Anti-Missile system, the first Member of Congress to have seen it deployed at Palmerchim AFB in Israel, and a strong proponent of the Third Arrow battery. However, I do not support rushing to deploy a new U.S. system that has neither received adequate testing, nor been proven effective. In August of 2003, the General Accounting Office issued a report stating that only two out of the ten critical technologies needed for the successful implementation of a ground-based missile defense system, or GMD, have been proven reliable. That report also indicated the administration's intent to deploy ground-based interceptors before all the critical technology has matured. Before we deploy such a system, we should be absolutely sure that it is effective and sustainable. The expected five-year cost of the ballistic missile defense system is $53 billion. In this budget environment, the last thing we need is a $53 billion weapons program that plays no substantial role in our protection. The resolution I introduced yesterday would authorize funding for ballistic missile defense programs for fiscal year 2005 at fiscal year 2004 levels, and require the administration to determine that all technologies are operational before moving to deploy ground-based interceptors. My resolution also calls on Congress to bolster homeland security by agreeing that we should authorize at least $500,000,000 for port security programs for fiscal year 2005. From a national security standpoint, we have higher priorities than deploying an untested missile defense system. America's seaports remain vulnerable to terrorist attack and infiltration. Cargo containers are susceptible to being used to smuggle terrorists or dangerous materials into the United States, or as a delivery vehicle for a weapon of mass destruction. The Intelligence Community has warned that the United States is more likely to be attacked with a weapon of mass destruction delivered by ship, truck, or airplane than by a ballistic missile. I am not alone in my assessment of the GMD program and the importance of port security. In March of this year, 49 retired generals and admirals--including Ret. Adm. William J. Crowe--sent a letter to President Bush asking that he postpone operational deployment of an untested GMD system, and transfer the associated funds to securing our nation's ports and borders from terrorist attack. I support strong, sensible and effective homeland security. Any strong national security strategy must include both effective ballistic missile defense and strong port security measures. I am also an advocate of fiscal responsibility. This resolution calls on Congress to take a step toward fiscal responsibility while providing much-needed funding for port security programs, and still allowing for the development of an effective ground-based missile defense system. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 428, and ask unanimous consent to attach the letter I referred to to my remarks. Waging Peace.org, March 26, 2004. President George W. Bush, The White House, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC. 49 Generals and Admirals Call for Missile Defense Postponement Dear Mr. President: In December 2002, you ordered the deployment of a ground-based strategic mid-course ballistic missile defense (GMD) capability, now scheduled to become operational before the end of September 2004. You explained that its purpose is to defend our nation against rogue states that may attack us with a single or a limited number of ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction. To meet this deployment deadline, the Pentagon has waived the operational testing requirements that are essential to determining whether or not this highly complex system of systems is effective and suitable. The Defense Department's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated on March 11, 2004, that operational testing is not in the plan ``for the foreseeable future.'' Moreover, the General Accounting Office pointed out in a recent report that only two of 10 critical technologies of the GMD system components have been verified as workable by adequate developmental testing. Another important consideration is balancing the high costs of missile defense with funding allocated to other national security programs. Since President Reagan's strategic defense initiative speech in March 1983, a conservative estimate of about $130 billion, not adjusted upward for inflation, has been spent on missile defense, much of it on GMD. Your Fiscal Year 2005 budget for missile defense is $10.2 billion, with $3.7 billion allocated to GMD. Some $53 billion is programmed for missile defense over the next five years, with much more to follow. Deploying a highly complex weapons system prior to testing it adequately can increase costs significantly. U.S. technology, already deployed, can pinpoint the source of a ballistic missile launch. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that any state would dare to attack the U.S. or allow a terrorist to do so from its territory with a missile armed with a weapon of mass destruction, thereby risking annihilation from a devastating U.S. retaliatory strike. As you have said, Mr. President, our highest priority is to prevent terrorists from acquiring and employing weapons of mass destruction. We agree. We therefore recommend, as the militarily responsible course of action, that you postpone operational deployment of the expensive and untested GMD system and transfer the associated funding to accelerated programs to secure the multitude of facilities containing nuclear weapons and materials and to protect our ports and borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States. Signed: Admiral William J. Crowe (USN, ret.), General Alfred G. Hansen (USAF, ret.), General Joseph P. Hoar (USMC, ret.). Lt. General Henry E. Emerson (USA, ret.), Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, ret.). Vice Admiral Carl T. Hanson (USN, ret.), Lt. General James F. Hollingsworth (USA, ret.), Lt. General Arlen D. Jameson (USAF, ret.), Lt. General Robert E. Kelley, (USAF, ret.), Lt. General John A. Kjellstrom (USA, ret.), Lt. General Dennis P. McAuliffe (USA, ret.), Lt. General Charles P. Otstott (USA, ret.), Lt. General Thomas M. Rienzi (USA, ret.), Vice Admiral John J. Shanahan (USN, ret.), Lt. General Dewitt C. Smith, Jr. (USA, ret.), Lt. General Horace G. Taylor (USA, ret.), Lt. General James M. Thompson (USA, ret.), Lt. General Alexander M. Weyand (USA, ret.). Major General Robert H. Appleby (AUS, ret.), Major General James G. Boatner (USA, ret.), Major General Jack O. Bradshaw (USA, ret.), Major General Morris J. Brady (USA, ret.), Major General Williams F. Burns (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral William D. Center (USN, ret.), Major General Albert B. Crawford (USA, ret.), Major General Maurice O. Edmonds (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral Robert C. Elliott, (USN, ret.), Major General John C. Faith (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral Robert H. Gormley (USN, ret.), Major General Richard B. Griffitts (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral Charles D. Grojean (USN, ret.), Major General Raymond E. Haddock (USA, ret.), Major General Jack R. Holbein, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Major General Stanley H. Hyman (USA, ret.), Major General Wayne P. Jackson (USA, ret.), Major General Frederick H. Lawson (AUS, ret.), Major General Vincent P. Luchsinger, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Major General James J. LeCleir (AUS, ret.), Major General William F. Willoughby (USAF, ret.). Brig. General George C. Cannon, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Brig. General John J. Costa (USA, ret.), Brig. General Alvin E. Cowan (USA, ret.), Brig. General Lee Denson (USAF, ret.), Brig. General Evelyn P. Foote (USA, ret.), Brig. General Leslie R. Forney, Jr. (USA, ret.), Brig. General John H. Grubbs (USA, ret.), Brig. General James E. Hastings (USA, ret.), Brig. General John H. Johns (USA, ret.), Brig. General Maurice D. Roush (USA, ret.).

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act--or MICRA. With it, California charted a bold and creative course toward responsible medical malpractice reform. In my view, the entire country would do well to follow California's lead, and it makes sense to have Federal legislation on the subject. But this particular bill includes the very same flaws contained in legislation I opposed last year--and I cannot support it. H.R. 4280 is overly broad, and the cap on punitive and noneconomic awards is not indexed and does not reflect its current value. While H.R. 4280 adopts the structure of MICRA, it is weighed down by restrictions on certain causes of action against HMOs, nursing homes, and insurance companies--areas in which California has enacted significant protections for patients. And the $250,000 cap on punitive and noneconomic awards must be adjusted upward. In the past, I voted for other medical liability legislation. I did so with the hope and expectation that improvements would be made in conference with the Senate to narrow its egregious provisions or that, in re-introducing the bill, these changes would be made. Mr. Speaker, once again the closed process by which we are considering medical malpractice reform belies any desire by the majority to make the improvements I and many others believe are necessary. As the daughter and sister of medical doctors, I understand the chilling affect unlimited medical liability awards have on the practice of medicine. But I cannot support H.R. 4280 in its present form, and I urge the leadership to postpone a vote on this legislation to open up what has thus far been a closed process and incorporate the ideas of members like myself who support common-sense medical liability reform. Medical professionals should be able to practice in a climate of certainty, and patients should be charged reasonable rates for quality care. This is what I support for every community in the country. This is not what H.R. 4280, in its present form, delivers.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTH) paid, in full, the balance of the federal loan that financed construction of improved access for cargo container traffic from the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach. I congratulate the Authority for retiring this debt 28 years ahead of schedule. Approved by Congress as part of the 1997 Transportation Appropriations Act, the loan provided crucial support for the $2.4 billion construction project. Together, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach comprise the largest port complex in the United States, handling more than 40 percent of the Nation's imports. Last year, for example, the Port of Los Angeles, which I represent in part, handled more than 7.1 million cargo containers a 17\1/2\-percent increase over the previous year. Moving these containers safely and efficiently from both ports to points east is a Herculean task. The Alameda Corridor, which opened in April 2002 on time and within budget, comprises railroad and highway improvements and, in particular, a 20-mile grade-separated rail line that relieves congestion and mitigates the impact of cargo container movement on neighboring communities. Financing of the Alameda Corridor would not have succeeded if it were not for the persuasive bipartisan efforts of the entire Los Angeles congressional delegation. On many occasions, I joined then- Representative Steve Horn, who represented the Port of Long Beach, Representatives Jerry Lewis and Lucille Roybal-Allard and the late- Representative Julian Dixon, key members of the appropriations committee, and my colleagues Juanita Millender-McDonald and David Dreier, in pressing for enactment of the federal loan at key points in the legislative process. I also want to praise Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta for his leadership as Secretary and as both the chairman and ranking member of the House Public and Transportation Committee during his tenure in the House. His unfailing support of this project has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated. Mr. Speaker, with cargo volume forecasted to dramatically increase as a result of the worldwide economic recovery, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are poised to take advantage of increased trade from the Pacific Rim. The Alameda Corridor project demonstrated the constructive roles both the federal and local governments can play in meeting the needs of expensive, complex but nonetheless important projects for moving containers to markets overseas and elsewhere. Indeed, plans are already underway to extend the Corridor eastward--a plan I strongly support and which will further enhance the economy of southern California and the Nation. My congratulations to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, and to all the individuals and local officials who supported this project, for a job well done.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and commend him for his leadership, along with that of the Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, a committee on which I was privileged to serve for 6 years. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, though I wish it had called for a thorough investigation by Congress of the acts described in it. Our Nation is strong, not only because of our military might, but because of our values. In peacetime, those values may seem easy to uphold, but in wartime, they are inevitably going to be tested. To keep us strong, we must reaffirm to the American people and the world that those values permeate everything we do as a Nation, at home and all over the world. We are not naive. We know that the fog of war is thick, and we understand, certainly those of us on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence understand, that interrogation is an integral part of gathering intelligence about the enemy. Good intelligence hopefully prevents and disrupts attacks. That saves lives. Many of us on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence care deeply that we get it right. I have traveled to Guantanamo three times to assess the effectiveness of our interrogations and to assure that detainees are being treated properly. While I strongly disagree with the lack of legal status for Guantanamo's detainees, I have been increasingly impressed by the tangible improvements in prisoner treatment and by the yield from interrogations. I have been to Baghdad twice, again focused on intelligence issues. There was no hint in my second visit to Baghdad in February of this year, a month after the devastating photos were delivered to the Pentagon, that anything was amiss with respect to interrogations in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I were doing our job to make sure things were done right, but the failure to alert us to the circumstances that led to the request of General Taguba to prepare his report was a failure by the intelligence community to keep our Committee informed. It was a failure by the executive branch to keep Congress informed. After everything this country has been through over the past 3 years, the horrors at Abu Ghraib made crystal clear the need for major intelligence reform. It is not acceptable for people to retreat into ``chain of command'' stovepipes. It is not credible that a few bad apples carried out what the Taguba report calls ``numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuse'' without any explicit or implicit tolerance from those who supervised them. Tom Friedman writes today, ``We are in danger of losing something much more important than just the war in Iraq. We are in danger of losing America as an instrument of moral authority and inspiration in the world.''

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, today my colleagues and I on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are initiating a call to action. The problems plaguing American intelligence are too grave, and the potential damage to U.S. national security, force protection in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, too important to justify delay. These problems require urgent attention from the President--who has the power to fix some identified problems with our intelligence now-- and from Congress, which built our Intelligence Community five decades ago to fight an enemy that no longer exists. But those of us in Congress must also do our part. That is why we are introducing a major legislative proposal--the Intelligence Transformation Act of 2004 (H.R. 4104)--a set of critical and urgent reforms for the Intelligence Community. The highlight of this proposal is the creation of a Director of National Intelligence (a ``DNI''), who has budgetary and statutory authority over the entire Intelligence Community. This is not a new idea. And it is not a Democratic idea. It was one of reforms recommended by the bipartisan, bicameral 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry. But our legislation does more. We are also proposing ``jointness'' in collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence. We believe that one of the major deficiencies in our Intelligence Community is the fact that there are fifteen intelligence agencies--operating with different rules, cultures, and databases--that do not work as one, integrated Intelligence Community. We also believe that our Intelligence Community must leverage the power of information technology to help our intelligence professionals share data in real-time. The United States has the best IT capabilities in the world, but we have scarcely touched that potential to help the IC do its job. Finally, the Act would create a new WMD Proliferation Threat Integration Center (PROTIC) to provide integrated tasking of collection and analysis on the WMD proliferation threat. At a time when much of Washington is fingerpointing, we hope this legislation today will add some light to the heat surrounding the subject of intelligence failures. We had hoped to produce a bipartisan bill--and we believe that it will ultimately be a bipartisan bill because it is good policy and because of its bipartisan parentage. We shared our legislative ideas with the majority on our Committee, but we did not want the legislative year to pass while awaiting their response. The terrorists and the enemies of the United States will not wait until after November to plot their attacks--nor will they check our party registration before they launch those attacks against us. We cannot afford to wait. This task is urgent. We must act now.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as Greece celebrates its 183rd anniversary of freedom and the successful struggle for independence, I join my colleagues in congratulating the people of Greece and in extending heartfelt congratulations to those of Greek descent everywhere. Greek Independence Day--like America's Fourth of July--is a celebration of a love of freedom and self-government. As the world's first democracy, ancient Greece was a model and a source of inspiration to our Founding Fathers. In addition to shaping our early beginnings, modern Greece has been a strong friend and ally to the United States. Millions of Greeks have immigrated to the US and the contributions these families and individuals have made to our nation and communities have been immeasurable. As a member of NATO, Greece has helped ensure the security of Europe's southern flank. But, in addition to a strong relationship that is steeped in common culture and philosophy, the US and Greece are also connected by recent history. On September 11, Greece lost twenty-one citizens at the World Trade Center. We share in their grief and note that, since then, Greece has stepped up its efforts to combat terrorism at home and abroad. And, on the eve of the Olympics, Greek officials are working hard to ensure the safety of the thousands of visitors who will be in Athens celebrating these historic and exciting games. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues who are also committed to strengthening US-Greek ties and to working on issues of mutual interest. There are many international as well as regional challenges we can only solve through cooperation and mutual respect.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this time and commend him for his service in this Congress and particularly his excellent service on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to consider a resolution on the eve of the Iraq war anniversary. I agree that the world has much to be glad about with the fall of Saddam Hussein and the end of his despotic regime. And I certainly hope that the Iraqi people will create a transparent, democratic form of government for the first time in their history, a chance that they have now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. I for one, and I believe this entire Congress, will stand by them and must stand by them and support them as they make this transition. We must stay the course. But there is more to this subject on the first anniversary of the Iraq war than H. Res. 557 acknowledges. Much more. On the anniversary of our military action in Iraq, we need to be talking about more. That is why many of us wanted an open rule and certainly an open process so that we could contribute to the language contained in this resolution. As ranking member of one of the key committees with jurisdiction over this subject, that is, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I would have welcomed the opportunity to share some of my ideas to fashion a great resolution which I believe would have passed this body unanimously. I consider myself a passionate bipartisan on questions of defense, national security, and intelligence; and I think that my ideas, if I had had a chance to communicate them, would have been accepted. For example, I am one of many Members here who has visited Walter Reed to see the wounded from Iraq. These are very courageous kids. Thousands have been wounded. I would have liked us to acknowledge them and their courage. I visited the families in my district who have lost family members in Iraq. I would have liked to acknowledge those losses and those families. I have visited Iraq twice. Some have been there more. In addition to acknowledging our troops, I would have liked to acknowledge the intelligence community personnel who take such risks on our behalf and the civilians working selflessly there. I worked in 1999 and 2000 as a member of the National Commission on Terrorism chaired by Jerry Bremer, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer. I might have liked to acknowledge him and his selfless service in Iraq. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me, and I will address this along with other Intelligence Committee members later in the debate, that I would have liked to acknowledge the important role that intelligence products play in force protection now in Iraq and why those products need to be better. In my view, Mr. Speaker, and I think many would share this, good intelligence is a force protection issue. And so it seems to me on the first anniversary of our action in Iraq that we should acknowledge the need for better intelligence products and the need for this administration to fix right now, not next year but right now, the way we source and analyze intelligence. That is a suggestion I also would have made on a bipartisan basis if I had been permitted to participate. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that as we commemorate the first anniversary of the action in Iraq, we need actions and not just words.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on Human Intelligence. (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), my classmate and colleague.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my extreme pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the last speaker that I think this resolution should include words of praise for the members of the intelligence community who take risks on our behalf in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)