Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. The threat from Iraq is very real and increasingly dangerous. Saddam Hussein's belligerent intentions and his possession and ongoing development of weapons of mass destruction to fulfill those intentions make him a clear and present danger to the United States and the world. Particularly worrisome is the evidence of Iraq's UAV capability. Iraq's ability to use unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver biological and chemical weapons far outside its national borders represents a qualitative increase in the danger it poses. History demonstrates Saddam Hussein's willingness to use such weapons against unarmed civilians, including his own people. And it demonstrates his unhesitating instincts to invade his neighbors--Iran and Kuwait--and to attack Israel. That he appears, to quote Director Tenet's recent letter, to be ``drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks'' does not persuade me that he won't. He is impulsive, irrational, vicious, and cruel. Unchecked, he will only grow stronger as he develops capability to match his disdain for America and his Middle East neighbors. History shows that had Israel not destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981, Saddam Hussein would now have nuclear capability. But he did not cease his nuclear ambitions. Had coalition military forces not swept through Iraq in 1991, he would have possessed nuclear weapons by 1993. The CIA now reports that Iraq is one year away from a functional nuclear device once it acquires missile material. Waiting one hour, one day, one month in such an environment, as some suggest, is too risky. We have to act now because the U.N. resolutions following the gulf war have not contained the Iraqi threat. With the passage of time, international resolve to enforce United Nations resolutions has weakened. This resolution will demonstrate to the U.N. American resolve to act if necessary, but preferably in a peaceful and multilateral way. The strong and forceful language in this resolution will help Secretary Powell persuade his counterparts at the U.N. and around the globe to join us. The resolution we are considering is greatly improved from the draft the Administration proposed and I commend Leader Gephardt for negotiating these improvements. This resolution narrows the scope of action to the threats to national security posed by Iraq and enforcing compliance with U.N. Resolutions. This resolution stresses a strong preference for peaceful and diplomatic action, authorizing the use of force only if all peaceful options have failed. This resolution requires the President to comply with the War Powers Act and report regularly to Congress should military action become necessary, as well as after the use of force is completed. This resolution addresses post-disarmament Iraq and the role of the United States and international community in rebuilding. And of crucial importance, this resolution requires the President to certify to Congress that action in Iraq will not dilute our ability to wage the war on terrorism. Removing WMD from Iraq is an important priority, but it cannot replace our counterterrorism efforts at home and abroad. We must ensure that we do not divert attention from protecting our homeland--beginning with the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. We must also strengthen and expand programs and policies aimed at stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their components. The ready availability of matieral for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and the know-how to make them, has allowed Iraq to rebuild rapidly since 1991 and the expulsion of inspectors in 1998. But nonproliferation programs have been underfunded at a time when they need to be expanded. If we don't stop the flow of scientists and materials for weapons of mass destruction, we will soon be faced with another Iraq. The axis of evil will grow to include more states. We will encounter the nightmare scenario of nuclear-armed terrorist groups, capable of blackmailing or attacking our cities and citizens from within, with little hope of deterrence or diplomacy to stop them. Sentiment in my district is high--both in favor and opposition to this resolution. I thank my constituents for sharing their views with me. I have listened carefully, learned as much as I could, and now it is time to lead. Like all my colleagues, I fervently hope that the U.S. will not need to use force. But the best chance to avoid military action is to show the U.N. and Iraq that we will not flinch from it. Giving diplomatic efforts every chance is the right policy and this resolution gives diplomacy its maximum chance to succeed.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by clarifying a point of debate. Nothing in existing law requires hospitals, clinics, or any health care provider to perform an abortion against their religious or moral beliefs. This is true at the Federal level, and this is true in California, where additional legislation protects individual doctors and nurses from retaliation if they do not wish to participate in an abortion. The pending legislation claims to solve a problem that does not exist, and it does so by restricting women's access to information about abortion. Clinics and hospitals are not required to offer abortion services, but in certain circumstances, are required to refer women to a doctor who will perform an abortion. The legislation we are debating today would allow a facility to accept federal funds for family planning, but not provide a woman information on what all of her options are. It would allow them to care for a Medicaid patient who has been raped, but not inform her that Medicaid would pay for an abortion, even if she asks for this information. Mr. Speaker, we cannot have the right to choose without full information about our choices. I would never advocate forcing an individual or organization to act against their conscience. And nothing in current law does so. But providing information is not the same thing as providing services. Women, particularly women who have been the victim of an attack, deserve information about all their choices, no matter where they get their health care. I strongly oppose this legislation, and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished career of a constituent and friend--Redondo Beach City Councilman Kevin Sullivan, who resigned from the city council earlier this year. As a dedicated council member, Kevin served the city of Redondo Beach for more than five years. He was a representative from the Second District of the city, which includes not only my district office but also both a power plant and a beautiful harbor. Kevin knew how to balance the needs of these two potentially competing interests. In general, Kevin's career was focused on the best interests of the community, from his seat on a local committee against LAX expansion to holding local town meetings for the public. He was a person who could be counted on to take care of the community's needs while making the time to return his constituents' phone calls. Kevin has always been there for the community. As a union leader for many years, he was thought of as a great negotiator. His skills served the people in his union while gaining him respect from others who watched him fight for causes he thought worthy. He never ducked the tough fights. I loved Kevin's Boston accent--which fit in particularly well at the Redondo Lobster Festival. He knows everyone, and I have been fortunate over many years to have his strong support and help. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that Kevin has decided to leave public service, but I expect he will return one day. Meanwhile, I am certain I will miss his smile, pleasant humor and good deeds. He has added a great deal. Well done, my friend!

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, award winning news cameraman, Larry Greene is the latest victim in America's ongoing fight against terrorism. Larry was working on a special assignment in the Persian Gulf for Los Angeles based KCBS news. On Friday, September 6th, he boarded a U.S. Navy helicopter to capture on film U.S. military personnel as they boarded a Syrian freighter suspected of carrying smuggled Iraqi oil. Minutes later, the helicopter crashed into the ocean, killing Larry and injuring four American sailors. In his more than 25 years as an investigative journalist, Larry Greene won more than 40 prestigious journalist awards. Among them dozens of Emmys, Golden Mikes, Press Photographer Association awards, and the prestigious Alfred 1. Dupont-Columbia University Award. Just last year, Larry was named ``photo journalist of the year'' by the Southern California Media Association. In addition to his service in the Persian Gulf, Larry exhibited great bravery by taking on other extremely dangerous assignments such as the El Salvador and Armenian earthquakes, the civil unrest in Haiti, and the events in Saudi Arabia immediately following the September 11th attacks. I had the privilege of working with Larry when he came to Washington during the Anthrax attacks last October to interview Congressional Members and policy leaders. My constituents and I will miss the work of this intensely talented newsman who was dedicated to bringing the news from far away home to all of us. Our prayers are with his wife Diana, and their two sons, Clayton and Connor, as well as his colleagues and friends at KCBS.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the distinguished career of a friend, Bob Brigham. I met Bob during my first campaign for Congress and we have been friends ever since. Over the years, I have known Bob to be a savvy and affable man, who greatly cares about educating our children. In addition to his community work, Bob's most enduring accomplishment has been his 35 years as a teacher, coach, administrator, and mentor with the Manhattan Beach Unified School District. Although Bob's most storied athletic accomplishments lies in being a star football player at Redondo Union High School and Fresno State, I know him best as someone who can keep up with me during Manhattan Beach's annual 10-k run. In addition to his commitment to his students and to jogging, Bob has always found time to play an active role in his hometown of Manhattan Beach. He has participated in the Manhattan Beach Historical Society, the Centinela-Bay Human Relations Committee, PFLAG, the Beach Cities Symphony Association, and his congregation, the Manhattan Beach Community Church, where he has been a member since 1939. On a personal note, from Day One, Bob has also been an invaluable member of Team Harman, volunteering in each of my campaigns. After stuffing envelopes and walking precincts together, I have come to trust Bob as another set of eyes and ears in the district, helping to keep me informed about the latest concerns of South Bay residents. Mr. Speaker, Bob Brigham has been an asset to the South Bay for more than 60 years. And because of his devotion to Manhattan Beach and the South Bay, his retirement from the Manhattan Beach School District will not mean retiring from community involvement. And I know he will also find the time to stay fit, so he can keep up with me during our next race to the finish line. Thank you, Bob, for your contributions and your friendship.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the commemorative resolution honoring those who died last September 11, those who came to the rescue, and those who served, and continue to serve, in the fight against terrorism. Our minds are still seared with the images of last year's tragedy. Members knew some of the individuals who died in the attacks. In California's 36th district, where LAX--the destination of three of the four hijacked planes--is located, four of my constituents were killed. They are: Anna Alison of Torrance, Chandler ``Chad'' Keller of Manhattan Beach, Stanley Hall of Rancho Palos Verdes, and John Wenckus of Torrance. Today, we remember these individuals and join with their families in commemorating their lives and their contribution to our community and nation. We also remember several other individuals who worked in the 36th district but lived elsewhere. Their coworkers remember them fondly: Ruben Ornedo, who worked at Boeing, and Peter Gay, who worked for Raytheon Electronics and commuted to El Segundo weekly from the east coast. Mr. Speaker, our hearts are still broken and we continue to grieve. The remembrance ceremonies I attended--last week at Ground Zero and this morning at the Pentagon--were incredibly moving and heartfelt. But as we work together to rebuild the lives shattered by the events of September 11, we also look to identify the actions we need to take at all levels of government to ensure maximum preparedness and protection against this threat--beginning with a reorganization of our government's resources. We have learned from this horrific experience. Sadder, but wiser and stronger, we are aided in our efforts this past year by the testimonies of those who walked through hell and by those who are prepared to do the same. I am reminded of the words of Tennyson-- Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho' We are not now that strength which in old days Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are-- One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. New Yorkers, the workers at the Pentagon and the passengers and crew aboard American flight 77 did not yield. Nor will America.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank him for his leadership on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues that I thank them for their leadership and their participation in this important effort to secure the homeland. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the context in which we consider this amendment. Coming late to this debate, my colleague, the gentleman from California, may not know the issue's history. His amendment is similar to a bill that I and a bipartisan group introduced last October at a time when we believed the administration would not support a large Department of Homeland Security. We felt, and still do, that there needs to be one integrating strategy across the Federal Government. One person needs to be accountable for budget and coordination. One person needs to be a Cabinet-level official confirmed by the Senate. The difference between now and last October is that, under H.R. 5005, that person is the Secretary of Homeland Security, who presides over the critical homeland security functions and a large workforce. Under H.R. 5005, a statutory Homeland Security Council in the White House will coordinate government functions not contained in the new department, just as the National Security Council coordinates defense, foreign policy, and other national security functions. If the sponsor of this amendment believes that the National Security Advisor lacks the authority to coordinate national security, I am unaware of it. Mr. Chairman, a long history got us to this concept. As I mentioned, last October I introduced the Office of Homeland Security Act with the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and 34 bipartisan cosponsors. The sponsor of this pending amendment was not one of them. The organizing principle of that bill was included in legislation introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and 117 members of the Democratic Caucus. The language was modified to accommodate concerns of our colleagues on the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Armed Services. The sponsor of this pending amendment did not participate in these negotiations and did not cosponsor the task force bill. Further, his amendment, the one we are considering today, disregards the careful budget process that our colleagues, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) helped construct. When a bipartisan, bicameral group developed and introduced H.R. 4660, which combined the White House coordination and Department of Homeland Security functions, and which is the precursor of the bill we are considering today, the principal sponsor of this amendment did not participate. On May 21, the minority leader supported this bill, our bill, H.R. 4660, at a press conference, where we were joined by the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). This issue has been my principal focus for this term in Congress. My position has adapted as the context has changed, and I believe that careful consideration will show that the gentleman's amendment would hurt rather than help coordination. Finally, I urge our colleagues to note that this amendment would cut OMB completely out of the budget process for homeland security. The Director of Homeland Security in this amendment is given the power to reject unilaterally homeland security budgets from any department, tying even the hands of the President. Mr. Chairman, there is a better concept than this amendment, and it is in the base bill. The bipartisan process that developed that language should be respected. I urge our colleagues to consider the context in which this amendment arises and to reject it.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his lovely and generous comments, and would inquire of the Chair as to how much time remains.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is the kind of bipartisan debate that this bill, H.R. 5005, deserves. I am pleased that on a bipartisan basis, every single speaker has been for this good idea. I hope our first responders are listening because they are about to get some very important new tools, the critical one of which is the ability to get accurate, credible threat information in time to know what to do. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who has shown extraordinary leadership on this issue and the related issues in this bill we are considering today as head of the House Democratic Caucus on Homeland Security.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, today we have had a few votes that were more partisan than I believe they needed to be. This amendment is not one of those, and I would hope that the managers of this bill might accept it. I certainly would hope that the House, if we vote on it, would vote on it by the margin it received last time, the small margin of 422 to 2. As I stand here today, I know that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and others, on a bipartisan basis, also plan to speak for this amendment. We have all worked together on this amendment. It is improved because of some language that they suggested, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for his action in his committee to include it in the draft of this bill as it was reported by his committee. As my partner, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), has said, this amendment is nearly identical to H.R. 4598, which, as I said, passed overwhelmingly. The reason for offering this amendment today as part of this bill is to get in place as soon as possible procedures to share terrorist threat information across the Federal Government, which certainly includes the CIA, the FBI, and other intelligence agencies, and on down to first responders. As our Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security Report found last week, information-sharing is the most critical need in our intelligence community and the best way to arm our first responders and average Americans to stop terrorist attacks. What we hear in the field, and all of us go home each weekend, from police, fire, emergency responders, and average people is they are receiving all this general information, but they do not know what to do about it. The sooner we can get more specific threat warning information, stripped of sources and methods so that those without security clearances can get it, the sooner we can reduce panic, empower Americans, and make certain that, to the maximum extent, we prevent attacks, shore up our infrastructure, and respond effectively should they come our way. So this amendment, I think, is our first tool in the homeland security arsenal we are considering today. It received the overwhelming support of this body, and it is supported by the White House and by the office of Governor Ridge. It is vital for our hometowns. And as Governor Ridge often says, we cannot have homeland security without hometown security. I urge support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, on which I serve, and the Democratic whip.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, some days are harder than others. The last 24 hours was excruciating. The votes on establishing a Department of Homeland Security were difficult, but its urgency is underscored by the continuing threat from terrorism. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is another hard issue. I represent a trade-dependent district and am well aware that LAX and the Port of Los Angeles are huge trade multipliers. The Port of Los Angeles and neighboring Port of Long Beach moved $175 billion worth of cargo last year and accounted for 500,000 trade-related jobs in the region. The Los Angeles Customs District is the Nation's second largest, based on value of two-way trade. In 2001, this totaled $212.5 billion, compared with $214.1 billion of the first place New York. In the South Bay, trade clearly generates high skill, high wage jobs. But not everyone benefits, and so the conversation about trade should properly address those who are hurt. The challenge is to retrain affected workers not freeze them and their outdated skills in an uncompetitive workplace. The policy answer is to provide what has traditionally been called trade adjustment assistance (TAA)--training, wage assistance, and healthcare--to those who are hurt. I voted against TPA last December because the Administration refused to include TAA in the legislation. The conference report we vote on tonight does not make the same mistake. The TAA package is three times as big as any ever proposed, and includes most of the improvements proposed by the Eshoo-Bentsen bill (H.R. 3670) which I cosponsored and strongly support. This TPA enables displaced workers to purchase group healthcare with an advanceable and refundable tax credit and expands coverage to include workers whose jobs as suppliers to other manufacturers are affected by trade. It provides wage insurance for older workers who lose their jobs to trade and fills part of the gap between their old and new earnings, and it doubles the funding for job training to $220 million per year. For the first time, this legislation requires labor and environmental issues be given the same consideration as other negotiating objectives. It provides the U.S. with remedies against countries that degrade their labor and environmental laws and requires increased consultations with Congress through a Congressional advisory board. Trade plus trade adjustment assistance is good for American workers. Trade plus greater respect for labor and environment is good for the world's workers. This agreement is not perfect, but it is better than prior trade negotiating authority and includes the most comprehensive TAA package ever. I will support it.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I commend him for his excellent service on the Select Committee. Mr. Speaker, today we address a critical piece of the strategy to protect our homeland. Paraphrasing Dwight Eisenhower, ``The right organization does not guarantee success, but the wrong organization guarantees failure.'' I would add that no organization, no organizing principle, guarantees chaos, a waste of scarce resources, and, ultimately, continued vulnerability. The strategy is to prevent another 9-11, to shore up vulnerable infrastructure, and make certain we can respond, if necessary, with maximum effectiveness. We do this by giving the dedicated, capable people in the field the tools and structure to do the job. A note on the history of this proposal. Last October, shortly after 9-11, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and I, with numerous bipartisan cosponsors, introduced legislation to create a statutory office in the White House to coordinate and oversee homeland security. We felt the executive order establishing Governor Ridge's office was inadequate to coordinate more than 120 agencies and departments with some jurisdiction over homeland security. Events have proved us right. Our colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) took a different approach, recommending the creation of a homeland security department of the sort recommended by the Hart-Rudman Commission in March 2001. This May, the four of us and a bipartisan group from the other body melded our approaches. We proposed a Department of Homeland Security smaller than the one envisioned in H.R. 5005, and a strong White House counterterrorism coordinating office. Then, in June, the President unveiled his approach, that, in the version reported by the Select Committee, places all or part of 22 Federal agencies in a new Department of Homeland Security. The bill also creates a Homeland Security Council in the White House, modeled after the National Security Council, to coordinate homeland security efforts across the Federal Government. The administration's proposal is a variation of our earlier bill, and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor. Looking forward, rather than just describing more of what is in the bill, I would note several improvements in the base bill and in the manager's amendment and several amendments to be adopted and supported by the manager. First, the establishment of a statutory Homeland Security Council in the White House. Second, the creation of a point of entry for thousands of companies with cutting-edge homeland security technologies, which must be deployed if our homeland is to be safe. Third, an amendment that passed the House 422 to 2 that requires the sharing of critical and reliable threat information across the Federal Government and down to State and local first responders. And, fourth, a sense of Congress underscoring the priority to fund trauma care and burn care with already appropriated bioterrorism money. Mr. Speaker, as a mother of four, I know that perfection is not an option. The bill is not perfect. But it is very good, and I urge support of this fair rule and adoption of H.R. 5005.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I may be in a minority of one on this floor on this subject. I was not a fan of the broad commission proposal. I am a fan of the narrower version that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is offering. I believe I am the only person on this floor and I may be the only person in the House to have served on an independent, bipartisan, external national commission on terrorism. I was appointed by the minority leader in 1999 to serve on a 10- member commission, sounds a lot like this one, that was to investigate the terrorist threat. It was ably chaired by Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, called the Bremer Commission, and I became one of the 10 commissioners. We reported in 2000 that we believed there could be a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the near future. We recommended suspending the guidelines on recruiting human assets, that have been discussed earlier, that we thought hampered their recruitment. We recommended strengthening legal authorities for FBI investigations. We recommended better monitoring of students in the U.S. Guess what, Mr. Chairman. These were good recommendations. We testified to them in the Senate. They were printed up all over and praised on the editorial pages, and they were ignored. So I would say to the survivors of the horrific September 11 attacks that setting up a new commission may be a good idea, but it may also raise expectations that will ultimately be dashed. That is why I like the narrow version of the commission because what the narrow version says is this commission, if it is enacted, will focus on whether the recommendations of prior commissions and the joint inquiry and the Chambliss subcommittee will be implemented. That, it seems to me, is a function we ought to be undertaking. It also will talk about additional ways to make certain that the counterterrorism mission is central to all our intelligence agencies. And then it will do the thing that our chairman has just said needs doing, which is tackle the tough organizational questions of our intelligence community, which too often get ignored because they are long range and they are too hard for anyone to deal with. So I would say to this body that in its narrower form, this commission makes a very good contribution to our work. It is not duplicative. It will not disappoint people. And I think that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has been very flexible here in revising it so that, at least in the view of this Member, it performs a more useful function than his earlier drafts. And so I am going to support the Roemer amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding commend him for his leadership on the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, and commend our colleagues for their strong bipartisan contributions to this committee. I rise in strong support of the Intelligence Authorization Act and join others in expressing my pride in the bipartisan way in which this committee works. For those who question whether this House can tackle the tough ones, tonight proves it. Our actions over the past three hours in the Traficant matter were a somber and clear example of bipartisanship and facing up to our responsibilities. This bill is another such example. Members of this committee have traveled all over the world and have met U.S. intelligence personnel working in many shabby and often dangerous conditions. They do this despite their family's understandable fears that they are in harm's way. This bill is designed to give good people better tools, to fill gaps in performance. It is not about gaps in the dedication, commitment and patriotism of thousands of Americans who work in the intelligence agencies, both here and abroad. Many issues addressed in this bill, Mr. Chairman, were identified in a report that our Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security released last week. Our full intelligence committee wants no time to elapse before implementing that report's recommendations, and this bill recommends action, action that the families of those who died on 9/11 deserve. Our report said, for example, that inadequate penetration of the al Qaeda target stemmed in large part from too few resources devoted to counterterrorism and an overreliance on assistance from allies to collect information. We fix that in this report; we insist that we invest more resources in human intelligence (humint), and we spell out how that should happen. Penetration of the al Qaeda target, our report says, requires multiyear investment and cutting edge technologies. This bill directs that mission-critical technology is available and improved. Our report said that watch lists were inadequate. This bill calls on the intelligence community to provide global coverage and common access to information, which should help fix the watch list problem. Our report said that we were concerned about the HUMINT career structure. Too often, individuals get promoted based on their broad and general knowledge in wide-ranging areas. Those who stay focused in one area or even one country, where an understanding of local political conditions is key to our fight against terrorism, are not being given the credit or rewards deserved. This bill recommends that those rewards be given. Regrettably, there is a huge language problem. This bill addresses that problem. As in past years, this bill also expresses continuing concern about the organizational framework in place to produce intelligence capabilities that can meet future national security demands. This bill addresses that problem. Mr. Chairman, our language is terse, our calls for reform are urgent, but we also state that ``the successes of the intelligence community normally go unnoticed for obvious and correct reasons . . . The problem is not with the individuals, but with the tools and the organization with which they work.'' This is a good bill. I urge its support, and I urge support later this week for a bipartisan homeland security bill.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a coauthor of this amendment, which passed the House by a vote of 422 to 2 several weeks ago. I believe that every member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was an original cosponsor of the amendment. It has been a pleasure to work on it with the gentleman from Georgia, the gentleman from Connecticut and many others, and to see it become such an important legislative action of this season. By attaching it to this bill, we ensure that it becomes law sooner. We are looking at every vehicle we can find to make certain that it will pass the Senate and be agreed upon in conference, and we do know that we have support from the administration. I would just add that at 2 o'clock in the morning, Mr. Chairman, somewhere in America there is a terrorist cell that intends to do us harm. By having this mechanism that will share information with first responders and help them know what to look for, we are protecting the citizens of that part of America who are under threat. So I am very pleased to stand here tonight in support of this amendment. I urge its adoption quickly.

Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we consider H.R. 4965, the Late Term Abortion Ban Act, I would like to clarify what this debate is really about. We are not debating so-called ``partial-birth'' abortion. We are not debating late-term abortion. We are debating a broad and unconstitutional attack on a woman's fundamental right to protect her life and health, our right to make our own decisions--our right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled not simply that women have the right to an abortion, but that we have the right to the safest abortion procedure available. States and Congress cannot place an undue burden on a women's right to choose, and cannot endanger the life or health of a woman seeking an abortion. This bill fails on both counts. Its overbroad definition of ``late term'' abortion could include some of the most commonly used medical procedures for abortion in the second trimester--making it difficult for a woman to get an abortion. Its denial of an exception to preserve the health of a woman is dangerous. Ample evidence exists that the procedures described by my colleagues may be the safest for women with certain health conditions. If the sponsors of this bill wanted to ban one medical procedure, why didn't they use medical terms to describe it? If they wanted to ban post-viability abortions, why didn't they include a time limit in their bill? I can only conclude that this bill is intended--just as the Nebraska law struck down by the Supreme Court was--to ban some of the most common abortion procedures used, even before a fetus is viable. This bill is unconstitutional and it is harmful to women's health. Let's keep medical decisions where they belong--in the doctor's office, not the House floor. Vote no on H.R. 4965.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill to increase funding for the Endowment of the Arts and the National Endowment of the Humanities. Increased funding for NEA and NEH is essential to the Government's role in ensuring the beauty and diversity of the arts are accessible to all our citizens. The arts help children to develop fundamental skills and provide the opportunity for students to excel in academic and social areas. More specifically, the effects of early arts exposure can help to increase a child's motivation to learn about all subjects. In Venice, CA, which I represent, the Los Angeles Theatre Works stands as an example of what NEA funding can accomplish. The LA Theatre Works not only produces plays but also takes an active role in the Venice community to bring the arts to children in need. Their ``Arts and Children'' program provides hands-on workshops to at-risk youth, encouraging them to develop their talents and channel their energies into the arts. It is through the funding from NEA and NEH that organizations such as the Los Angeles Theatre Works are able to reach out into communities and touch the lives of children and, in turn, the lives of the rest of us. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment to ensure that the NEA and NEH continue to provide enrichment to citizens across the country.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are engaged in a partisan debate on what should be a bipartisan issue. Reforming Medicare to ensure access to prescription drugs is one of the most important things we could do this year. Seniors have been promised this benefit by both parties during the past two Congresses. Rather than engage in constructive debate, the Republican leadership has introduced a bill that does not get the job done under a rule for debate designed to prevent the consideration of any alternatives. I intend to vote against the Republican bill because it fails to provide genuine, reliable drug coverage for seniors. The Republican bill is confusing and unworkable. It requires seniors pay different amount in co-payments depending on how much they spend on prescription drugs overall. In fact, its benefits are likely so meager that only the sickest seniors would want to enroll--a recipe for bankruptcy of the system. The Republican bill does not ensure discounts on all the drugs seniors need. Not only does it offer no guarantee that private plans will cover all the prescriptions seniors need, but because of high cost-sharing and premiums, it will cover only 20 percent of the average senior's drug costs in a year. The Republican bill has a large gap in coverage. It offers seniors no assistance on drug costs between $2,000 and $3,700. That means that nearly half of all seniors will receive no coverage of their prescriptions for part of the year, even though they continue to pay premiums. A Medicare prescription drug benefit must be affordable for both senior citizens and the federal government. A plan with high premiums and deductibles--or large gaps in coverage--won't help the seniors who need it most. I believe that a Medicare drug benefit should achieve the following goals, and I am eager to work with my colleagues to achieve them: (1) Help those who need it most first. We need to provide genuine and immediate assistance to low-income seniors and seniors who do not currently have drug coverage. (2) Provide relief from the high and escalating cost of prescription drugs. Prescription drugs cost more in the United States than in any other nation in the world. Medicare should have the ability to negotiate lower prices for senior citizens as part of a drug benefit. (3) Encourage new disease management techniques and innovation in the delivery of care. Medicare needs to catch up with the private sector in focusing on preventive care and the treatment of chronic conditions. Improving Medicare's coverage on these fronts will improve seniors' lives--and reduce their health care costs as well. I hope we will be able to work in a bipartisan manner in the coming months to keep our promises to seniors and enact a fiscally responsible, meaningful law to include prescription drugs under Medicare.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of seniors in my district, particularly women, and in particular veterans, I express my strong opposition to this bill.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself. Mr. Chairman, the perspective just offered is very helpful to us as we consider this legislation. This is an effort to empower local officials on whose real estate future terrorist acts will occur. Without useful information, they and the citizens who live in those places will not know what to do, and if they do not know what to do, they will panic. That is exactly what the terrorists want, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think whistleblowers are important and that the Rowley memo is a very important fact that has emerged since 9-11. Secondly, in our legislation as reported, we do state that whether, how, and to what extent information may be shared with appropriate State and local personnel is up to the President. So it is not precluded here that, in an appropriate way with appropriate safeguards and privacy protections, whistleblower information, if it were deemed important to share with local responders could, in fact, be shared. I thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think this has been a very useful debate and would just like to underscore several points. First of all, as my coauthor, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), has said, the House Committee on the Judiciary has made a substantial contribution to this bill. We have heard from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) about a number of issues that they have had concerns about, and a number of changes they have made to this legislation when it went through their committee. I just want to salute them for a very constructive contribution to making this legislation better. Second, I would like to underscore the importance of bipartisanship. This is a constant refrain of mine. I represent a very bipartisan district. I have often pointed out that I do not believe the terrorists will check our party registration before they try to blow us up. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that we face the problems of homeland security as American problems, not as partisan problems. This legislation certainly does this. It was introduced virtually unanimously by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and that was a very good beginning. I believe that the best legislation we produce here is bipartisan, and this is an example of it. I also want to salute again the really very special leadership of the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). His style is enormously productive on that committee, and I think his experience is enormously helpful to us as well. He sets an environment in which people like the gentleman from Georgia and I can be our most productive in this Congress. The third point is that homeland security is a bottom-up problem, not a top-down problem. As we continue to consider the department of homeland security concept, which I support as an original cosponsor of the bill introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), we need to remember that the point is not the best arrangement of the deck chairs, the point is how to empower our first responders and all Americans to have the critical information they need to know what to do. This bill is all about that. It is about making sure that the beginning of the process is empowered. I think it is one of the most important contributions we can make and very consistent with what our subcommittee heard at the first hearing after 9-11 in New York City. Many are saying that we do not really need a department of homeland security because it does not fix the real problem, which is the lack of collaboration between the CIA and the FBI, which are not formally moved over to that new department. I do not think they should be moved, but I do agree there is a real problem and that problem is about information sharing. This bill addresses that problem. Finally, let me say that if we think about what the major problems are in our effort to develop an effective strategy for homeland security, information sharing is certainly one. The other big one we do not address here, but it is a big one that we will address I hope shortly, is interoperability. Our first responders need information, but then they need to be able to talk to each other, to communicate in real-time with all of those who are with them trying to deal with whatever the threat is, hopefully to prevent it or disrupt it, but if not, to respond to it. So I hope that soon we will also take up that important issue. On that point, Mr. Chairman, I would mention to our colleagues that Governor Ridge was here yesterday testifying before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on which I serve. We talked about that issue. He does support the notion of bridging technologies, and there are existing technologies to deal with that point. So for all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think we have good legislation here. It was made better by the Committee on the Judiciary; it was made better by bipartisanship. It really emphasizes a bottom-up process. It helps deal with the problems between the FBI and the CIA, and it is one of the major problems that we have to address. I would like to salute my colleague and partner, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), and thank him for his efforts on this bill. I urge the strong and, I hope, unanimous support of this body for this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.