Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to our late colleague, Gerald Solomon. Jerry was a very special individual, Representative and friend. Others have described his reputation as ``the pit bull of the House.'' I want to describe how encouraging and war, he was under that rough exterior. As chairman of the Rules Committee, Jerry had enormous influence as gatekeeper of the kinds and number of amendments that could be entertained on the House floor. Many a time, I testified before him and the Committee--pleading the merits of the amendment I wanted to offer to some bill. I particularly remember the repeated appearances that Bill Brewster, Mike Crapo and I made to the Committee to pitch the importance of our ``deficit reduction lock box'' amendment. Our amendment would designate and ``lock'' all savings from amendments cutting spending to deficit reduction. On every appropriation bill, we asked that our amendment be made in order. In all cases, Jerry was attentive--even after I starting sporting a ``where's the money'' button on my lapel and when it was clear from the outset that our amendment would not be made in order. Each time we testified, Jerry was encouraging of our efforts and supportive of the goal of our amendment--even as he and his Committee denied the waivers necessary for us to offer it. He loved my moniker--``mother of the lockbox.'' We chuckled that it had many fathers, but only one mother. In fact, Jerry understood the importance of the fiscal discipline we were proposing and I think he winked many times as a way to encourage us--even though the act of denying us the opportunity to offer the amendment embarrassed him and other fiscal watchdogs in his party. In time, of course, and with behind-the-scences help, the deficit reduction lockbox amendment was indeed made in order to one appropriation bill. And the House also considered the lockbox as a separate bill. The author of that bill was Jerry Solomon himself. Even after he left Congress, Jerry continued to great the ``mother of the lockbox'' with a hearty laugh, a twinkle in his eye, and words of encouragement. We will miss you Jerry.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit. The tragic events of September 11 completely changed the priorities and policies on which this House approved the budget for fiscal 2002. Yet, the House is poised to act again in a piecemeal fashion as if nothing had happened--nothing has changed. Mr. Speaker, in light of September 11th's events, we need a new budget--we need to start over. We need to reassess what we need to fight the war on terrorism. And fighting this war is our first priority. Instead, the House is being asked to vote for a package of ineffective tax cuts disguised as an economic ``stimulus'' and inevitably spending the Social Security surplus and putting our nation deeper into debt. This bill is an example of misplaced priorities. Another misplaced priority is the facility for the Centers for Disease Control. Earlier this week, I joined several of my Intelligence Committee colleagues on a tour of the CDC in Atlanta. I could not believe the deplorable conditions in which dedicated scientists identify and contain infectious diseases, including some which terrorists might use against the American people. Security is less than adequate and some work areas are closed because ceilings have collapsed as a result of water damage. Connected to an antiquated electrical network, a 15-hour power failure put the Center out of commission at the height of last week's anthrax investigation. Yet, notwithstanding the urgency of CDC's work, neither Congress nor the Administration has provided the funds necessary to repair or improve these labs. Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a new budget that reflects the new post-September 11 reality, we don't know what other priorities are being ignored. Mr. Speaker, let's start over and reconsider every element of the budget passed this year. Let's fashion a new budget that ensures that we have resources necessary to win the war on terrorism and protect public safety.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2454, which would name the United States Postal Service located at 5472 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles in honor of our colleague and friend, Julian C. Dixon. As many have already said, Julian was a wonderful person. His strength flowed from his quiet, yet determined, manner. His success derived from his friendliness and good humor and his ability to fill the shoes of other individuals, even adversaries. As chairman of the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee, in particular, he demonstrated that influence is often more powerful when not exercised and that the ability of Congress to legislate outcomes is often counter-productive when actually used. He had a deep respect for the citizens of the District, as he did for his own constituents. The respect this chamber had for Julian is evident by the difficult assignments he was asked to undertake, including chairing the House Committee on Standards for two successive Congresses. Just prior to his death, he was the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, on which I also served and where I had the opportunity to witness both his love for our nation and his deep concerned about its security. Julian was the consummate legislator. He believed in the innate goodness of people and it was that belief which invariably helped him win the day. As future generations pass by the Postal Service at 5472 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles, I hope they too will appreciate the values, the service and dedication which characterized the life of Julian C. Dixon. I was proud to serve with him and proud to have him as a friend.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, a long-scheduled appointment for minor surgery that was planned on the basis of the House leadership's announced calendar requires that I miss the vote on final passage of H.R. 2975. I support many--though not all--of the counter-terrorism changes recommended by Attorney General Ashcroft. Indeed, I was part of the bipartisan group of members of Congress who met with him shortly after the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11. Whether the bill implements those recommendations is difficult to tell. The time stamp on the text is 3:43 am this morning. Do we know what changes were made between it and the bill reported unanimously from the Judiciary Committee? Mr. Chairman, the process by which we are considering this measure plays fast and loose with our Constitution. It may well be that a number of its provisions will be stricken by the Courts. We should have had an opportunity to more carefully consider its provisions. Law enforcement needs 21st century rules to combat 21st century enemies. A cursory review of this bill suggests that we are providing many of them. But some may go too far, some may not go far enough. With some reluctance I support this bill. Not because I believe changes are not warranted, but because the rushed process by which the House is considering this bill is inappropriate given the severity of the challenge before this nation.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation (H.R. 3067) that directs the Secretary of Transportation to develop regulations giving priority in government and private contractor hiring for aviation-related security positions to qualified workers who were laid-off as a result of the September 11 attacks. The terrorist attacks have had a devastating impact on the men and women who work in aviation and aviation-related industries. I participated in a video teleconference earlier this week with union leaders in my district, which includes Los Angeles International Airport, the nation's third-largest airport. Representatives from the Flight Attendants Association, the International Association of Machinists, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, SEIU, National Treasury Employees Union and the Transportation Workers Union testified about how the attacks have affected their members. Some, like SEIU, NTEU and the Flight Attendants, lost members in the attacks. All have seen tremendous job losses. 6,000 flight attendants. 140,000 in the transportation sector as a whole. 110,000 in the hospitality sector. We can not let this continue. We must help these men and women. My bill does that. It has been nearly three weeks--three weeks!--since this body acted to provide airlines with a $15 billion bail-out package. I struggled with that vote. The airlines are at the core of the aviation-economy; we could not let them go bankrupt. At the same time, I and other members of this body were deeply concerned that the bill did not do enough for those workers. The time to help them is now. One way to do that is by giving those who lost jobs preference when new jobs are created. My bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that the first priority in hiring aviation security personnel is given to the men and women who were working in aviation and at airports before September 11 and were laid off as a result of the attacks. I urge Members to help these men and women and support this legislation.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak against the Istook amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the offsets to this amendment will hurt our counterterrorism effort, something most of us, all of us, feel passionately about. It is also unfortunate that an issue on which everyone agrees, the need to prevent teen pregnancy, is presented in this amendment in an ideological form that splits us and hurts achieving the goal. As a mother of two daughters and two sons, I know that abstinence- only education does not work. What does work? One, basic accurate information on the risks of teen pregnancy; two, education on types of and proper use of contraception; and, three, the message that abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way to prevent teen pregnancy. Preventing teen pregnancy still matters, even in the post-September 11 world, but this amendment is the wrong solution. Vote ``no.''

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time and for her graciousness, and also thank the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security for their bipartisanship and professionalism at all times on this committee. Mr. Chairman, intelligence is a field in which I have worked for many years and in several different capacities. I was privileged to serve on this committee during my prior tenure in Congress and welcomed my reappointment. I represent a district where the Nation's sophisticated intelligence satellites are built, and served on the congressionally mandated National Commission on Terrorism, which made important recommendations in June of last year. I have long been critical of the ad hoc ways in which our intelligence community has operated; how a community built with Cold War priorities was ill prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century. On September 11, everything and everyone changed. But let me be clear: the men and women in our intelligence agencies are as devastated as the rest of America by the horrific attacks against our homeland. These are good and talented people who work in an organizational structure and under a Cold War-era culture that needs to change. Today, we take the fundamental steps necessary to change both the structure and the culture. As my committee colleagues have said, the bill directly addresses shortfalls in the intelligence community's counterterrorism efforts, intelligence collection and analysis, and threat reporting. It revamps and reinvigorates our intelligence agencies. The bill provides new tools and resources for preventing terrorism and supporting our Armed Forces in future conflicts. This bill authorizes aggressive recruitment of human assets, makes significant investments in foreign language capabilities, and unravels the knots that have impeded the sharing and integration of intelligence information and analysis across all levels of government. We have removed many of the stovepipes that have characterized the organizational structures of our intelligence community and worked to substitute a more seamless integration of responsibilities and missions. Mr. Chairman, once this bill passes, we still have more to do. The Working Group on Terrorism and Homeland Security, of which, as you heard, I am ranking member, has an aggressive agenda of public hearings, classified briefings/hearings, visits, and possibly legislative action. I believe we must pass the legislation that six committee Members introduced yesterday to give Cabinet-level status and budgetary authority to Pennsylvania Governor Ridge, who assumes his new job as Director of the Office of Homeland Security on Monday. Mr. Chairman, the events of September 11 will be an ever-present reminder of the threats we now face. Reform starts today. I urge support of this legislation.

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment; but I also want to express my great affection for and agreement with much of what the last speaker said. The only thing I do not agree with is his conclusion. Let me state how I get to my conclusion. First, I had misgivings about the language in the underlying bill, and I believed that the structural piece of the commission was overbroad. That misgiving has been addressed by both the Goss amendment and the Pelosi amendment. We need to be clear, neither amendment will permit subpoena power and hearings, and some of the things that were in the underlying bill. That is gone. Whichever version of this we approve, we are not approving that, so I am very comfortable about that change. Secondly, I would like to say that in offering her amendment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who was the author of the language in the underlying bill, went a long way to address the concerns many of us have expressed. I think we have to respect that. She has made a great accommodation to the rest of us, and that has a lot to do with my support of her amendment. The language in the two amendments is quite close. The mandates are somewhat different, but the language is close. The difference is that, at least as many perceive it, the Pelosi version would permit a more independent look at what I believe are the structural changes we need to make in our intelligence-gathering. I just spoke a minute ago in favor of the authorization bill and said that it is not about the people, and it is not the blame game; it is about the way we have structured our intelligence agencies. They are an ad hoc group of agencies that have grown up since World War II that now need to be reorganized and integrated. That is what we need to do. That is what our bill does. My bottom line is, we may not need another commission. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) may be right about that. But if we are having another commission, let us be sure that it is independent and it has appropriate powers. I give the edge on that to the Pelosi amendment. I urge us to come together in the bipartisan, unified way we have on this committee always and support one concept.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Tom Ridge's last day as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On Monday, former Governor Ridge takes on a huge assignment as Director of the Office of Homeland Security--a job critically important in fashioning our government's response to terrorism. To be effective, he needs tools that Congress must provide. Today, my colleague from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons, and I introduced legislation that does just that. The bill, the Office of Homeland Security Act of 2001, creates a Cabinet-level position subject to Senate confirmation. The Director of Homeland Security is given authority to review, certify, or reject the terrorism-related budgets of the more than 40 federal departments and agencies. This power is essential to assure coordination and integration of the many programs needed to prevent, prepare for, and respond to terrorist attacks. The people working today to protect our nation are spread among federal, state and local agencies. They are involved in collecting and analyzing intelligence, patrolling our borders, protecting critical infrastructure, and identifying and treating health effects of various attacks on our population. The Gibbon-Harman-LaHood-Roemer-Castle-Boehlert bill assigns the Director for Homeland Security the responsibility for: Directing the creation of a national strategy for homeland security and developing a national budget to carry out this strategy; Certifying or rejecting agencies' budget requests; Coordinating all federal homeland security activities, and certifying or rejecting federal agencies' budgets for the activities; Directing the development of a comprehensive national threat assessment; Overseeing information sharing among Federal, State, and local agencies involved in intelligence collection and law enforcement; and Conducting a review of the legal authorities still needed to prevent and respond to terrorist threats. Every day that Governor Ridge does not have these powers, his ability to do his job will decrease. I urge my colleagues to join us in securing passage of this bill as quickly as possible.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, as I said earlier, this is an amendment on which I have spent considerable time. Let us understand what we are talking about. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) just said personnel in military hospitals do not want to perform this service. They do not have to under this legislation. He said let us support our military while deployed abroad. That is my point too. Our military includes American women who have a constitutional right to reproductive health care. So let us give them access. Let us support them while they are deployed aboard. If there were easy answers, easy ways for them to return to the United States to have these procedures, that might be fine, but that is not the case. If they are in Pakistan or other far-off places where access to quality health care may be difficult, they will not be able to return to the United States and their constitutional rights will be abridged. The point I made earlier, consistent with the thrust of this amendment, is that we need to respect women and men in our military. We need to pass the Sanchez amendment.

Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), for her leadership and co-leadership on this very important issue. Madam Chairman, as we mount our multilayered global efforts to fight terrorism, we need America's best talent. All of it. That includes the majority of Americans: women. And those women serving in our military overseas need access to health care. As we have heard, this amendment is about health care, which may be denied these women, especially serving in austere countries, as travel back to the United States may become impossible. We are not asking that the Federal Government pay for abortions for women overseas. Women who want this procedure will have to pay for it themselves. We are not asking that health professionals who do not wish to perform abortions be required to do so. Only willing doctors would provide this service. As women deploy abroad, it is time to send the right message: as they protect our constitutional rights to life and liberty, we need to protect theirs.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. My generation lost its innocence when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. With yesterday's events, our children and our grandchildren lost their innocence. My 16-year-old daughter asked me last night how we could live in a country where planes crash into buildings. My response, until yesterday, we didn't. Now we do. How we respond to yesterday will measure us, Mr. Speaker. I want to applaud our colleague who urged us yesterday to pray for the wisdom to make the right decisions. It matters what we do and how we do it. Let us start with how. We must be bipartisan, balanced, and calm. Panic and partisanship are our enemies. And as one colleague said this morning, the Constitution of the United States must not be our next casualty. What. We must take bold steps, including, first, restructuring our defense and intelligence budgets to meet the real threats of the 21st century, not the outdated threats of the 20th. Second, give first priority to counterterrorism, prevention being the most important goal. Our arsenal to prevent terrorism includes diplomacy, human intelligence and state-of-the-art technology. Third, strengthen efforts to train and equip responders at the local, State and Federal level. New York City did a magnificent job. So did the Capitol Police. And, fourth, respect the civil liberties and intelligence of Americans. We are a generous, courageous and resilient Nation. Given information, resources and leadership, the American people will rise to any challenge and fight down any assault to take from us our way of life. We will defeat terrorism. We will honor the memories of my constituents, Raytheon executives Peter Gay and Stanley Hall, and Boeing employees Chandler Keller and Rubin Ornedo, all passengers on American Flight 77.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, I am joined by many of my California colleagues in introducing legislation directing FERC to order refunds to consumers in the Western States of California, Oregon and Washington who have been charged excessive electric energy rates. This bill is necessary because we were blocked yesterday from offering it as an amendment to H.R. 4, the energy bill. As our colleagues know, on several occasions, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has found electricity rates charged in the Western States to be ``unjust and unreasonable.'' Under the Federal Power Act, such a finding should result in refunds to consumers but, as of today, not a penny has been paid. To be sure, there is a difference of view on how much should be refunded. While the State claims $8.9 billion, even the Administrative Law Judge tasked by FERC several weeks ago to investigate concluded that upwards of a billion dollars was owed. Now is the time to finally resolve this issue. The bill my colleagues and I are sponsoring will require FERC to accelerate the process of refunding electricity overcharges. It is consistent with the Federal Power Act, although many of us would have liked the bill to do more. In particular, if FERC had acted promptly when the first evidence of gouging surfaced, FERC could have ordered refunds for the period May to October 2000, when electricity rates rose dramatically and evidence of overcharges first surfaced. The Federal Power Act and concern about ``takings'' prevents FERC and us from including that period, although we hope there may be an equitable way to do so. Many of us also believe that all sellers of electricity engaged in price gouging should be ordered to make refunds. Last week, for example, FERC exerted jurisdiction over municipal power entities, although many legal experts are dubious about the authority to do so. Again, without amending the Federal Power Act, we are unable to include them, though if we could, there would be an ex post facto concern about recouping for a past period. Lastly, the process FERC announced last week will still not result in refunds for many months. FERC is again engaged in a process of investigate-and-delay. Consumers need relief now. We strongly believe FERC should act promptly, using one of two methodologies in the bill that are fair and likely to result in a quick determination. In fact, one of the methodologies was advocated by Republicans on the Commerce Committee. Consumers in California, Washington and Oregon deserve a prompt resolution of this issue. Billions of dollars have been siphoned from home and business budgets. Those dollars should be returned and returned promptly. This bill does that and we urge our colleagues in supporting its passage.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by many of my colleagues in introducing legislation today to improve children's access to immunization. Our bill will correct a technicality that now denies children enrolled in some State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP) free vaccines through the Vaccines for Children Program. Today is a fitting day to introduce this bill because it is the first day of ``National Immunization Awareness Month.'' Immunization is the first stage in a lifetime of good health. Diseases such as polio, measles, and whooping cough have been virtually eradicated in the United States through widespread immunization. But access to needed vaccines can be severely constrained by the cost of $600 per child for the recommended schedule of immunizations. Federal programs such as Vaccines for Children were created to help ease the financial burden of vaccinations on poor families--we need to make sure that these vaccines continue to go to those who need them most. The Vaccines for Children and the SCHIP were both designed to improve the health of children--we must now guarantee that they work well together. Because of a ruling by the Department of Health and Human Services in 1998, in states that chose to offer children insurance through non-Medicaid programs, children enrolled in SCHIP lost their eligibility for free vaccines. In California, this affected almost 580,000 children, and it costs the state $18 million a year to fill the gap left by the lack of coordination between these two programs. Children in 32 other states are similarly affected. Our legislation would add children enrolled in State Children's Health Insurance Programs to the list of children eligible for Vaccines for Children, regardless of the way SCHIP is delivered in their state. These children received free vaccines when they were uninsured, and would receive vaccines were they enrolled in a Medicaid SCHIP program in another state. We must now fill the promise of better health care that came with the passage of SCHIP in 1997, and include these children in Vaccines for Children as well.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for a bill that risks raiding our Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and fails to provide critical relief to electricity ratepayers in Washington, Oregon, and my State of California. The amendment my Commerce Committee colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), and I had planned to offer would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to stop delaying the refunds owed electricity consumers in the western States. These consumers have been grossly overcharged. Not even FERC disputes this fact. It has found on several occasions that ratepayers were charged unjust and unreasonable rates. Yet FERC has adopted an investigate-and- delay approach that has blocked even the first penny in refunds. Our amendment would have forced FERC to act finally in 30 days based on two alternative options for calculating refunds. Mr. Speaker, electricity consumers deserve refunds promptly. This House deserves the opportunity to debate this issue and FERC's unwillingness and inability to act expeditiously. This rule blocks that debate. I urge rejection of the rule.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not fundamentally about cars, tail pipes, or engine technology, it is about health and what policy gets our country to better air quality standards in the most cost-effective way. To be sure, CAFE standards are an imperfect tool. A fleet average has little bearing on what consumers are purchasing. Even though CAFE forces Detroit or Japan to manufacture a cleaner and more efficient vehicle, we see a proliferation of gas-guzzling SUVs, minivans, and trucks. They are what the consumer wants. If we are to increase fuel efficiency across the fleet of vehicles, we also need to change consumer behavior. In the Committee on Ways and Means title of this bill we begin to tackle the consumer side of the equation through tax incentives and credits for the purchase of electric, fuel cell, hybrid, alternative fuel, and advanced burn vehicles. Striking the right balance is hard. I opposed an earlier version of the Markey amendment in committee because I thought it imposed unreasonable burdens and unachievable goals. This amendment strikes a better balance. I believe industry can do this. I know that hybrid SUVs are close to production, and this amendment will push new technology solutions that are critical to increased fuel economy. I side with Markey-Boehlert, because it sets the direction in which we need to go. This debate is not about cars, tailpipes or engine technology. It's about health and what policy gets our country to better air quality standards in the most cost effective way. This most fundamental and basic element of the discussion is lost entirely when it hits Washington. We think of fuel efficiency as a technology issue, or a financial issue, or a complex policy issue. But Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) and other clean air act rules are fundamentally about protecting public health. Our children's health will be decided by the decisions we make today. We need nothing less than a massive shift of the tectonic plates of automobile tailpipe emissions policy and the standards used to promote efficiency and air quality improvement. Clearly the automakers have the resources to support further exploration of improved emissions reduction, but some of the onus must be placed on the consumer to buy the product and on the government to help consumers choose clean technology. Mandates should include a means of developing a consumer market for cleaner technology. That's why, in my view, the notion of average duel efficiency over a fleet of cars--the concept underlying CAFE standards--has not worked particularly well. A fleet average has little bearing on what consumers are purchasing. Even though CAFE forces Detroit to manufacture a cleaner and more fuel- efficient vehicle, we see a proliferation of gas-guzzling SUVs, mini- vans, and trucks. They are what the consumer wants and needs. As much as I love Toyota's Prius, it isn't a practical alternative for many families or workers in our society. If we are to increase fuel efficiencies across the fleet of vehicles, we also need to influence changes in consumer behavior. We need to work hand-in-glove to develop policies that make energy-efficient vehicles attractive purchasing options. Fortunately, in the Ways and Means title of this bill, we begin to tackle the consumer side of the equation through some tax incentives and credits for the purchase of electric, fuel-cell, hybrid, alternative fuel and advanced lean burn vehicles. Striking the right balance is hard. Both consumers and industry must be challenged. I opposed an earlier version of the Markey amendment in committee because I thought it imposed unreasonable burdens and unachievable goals. This amendment, co-authored by Messers. Markey and Boehlert, strikes a better balance. By moving SUVs and light trucks to the existing CAFE standards for cars--over five years--it closes the SUV loophole and challenges industry to clean up its most popular models. I believe industry can do this. The timetable for achieving the target miles-per-gallon may be aggressive given the kinds of investments that must be made in retooling a new car line. But I know that hybrid SUVs are close to production, and this amendment will push new technology solutions that are critical to increased fuel efficiency. This is a hard choice. But because we are in the business of making choices, I side with Markey-Boehlert as pointing in the direction we want to go. Combined with emerging technologies and tax incentives influencing consumer behavior, I think the goals are attainable. Support Markey-Boehlert.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the dedication taking place today in my district of more than 60 miles of the infamous Pacific Coast Highway as the Los Angeles Country Vietnam Veterans Memorial Highway. I regret that the House schedule prevents me from joining in the dedication ceremony, but wanted to share the remarks I had planned to make. As this long stretch of road is dedicated to our Vietnam Veterans, the analogy of this road to a ribbon seems appropriate. Roads sometimes divide, but this ribbon of road is designed to unite. It stretches seamlessly and ties the diverse communities that comprise the South Bay into one. This ribbon of road is intended to heal, despite the divisiveness of the war itself. Just as this road embraces people from every walk of life, so too do we continue to embrace our soldiers, sailors and airmen. This ribbon is intended to honor. Like the yellow ribbon used to signal our eternal hope of homecoming, this ribbon of road is dedicated not just to those who served and returned from Vietnam, but also to those who remain missing or unaccounted for. But, while this ribbon of road is well-traveled and familiar, for those of us of the Vietnam generation, the war has started to recede-- perhaps too quickly. What is our memory is now history to a sizable portion of our citizenry. Not only do they fail to understand the historic context of that war, they also fail to appreciate those who served. Designating this highway will provide a constant and continuing reminder of the valor and sacrifice of the men and women who served in Vietnam. It will be a tribute--a memorial--a symbol to a not-so-distant period in our Nation's history. Like a ribbon, it will bind our community in a collective expression of appreciation--of love--of gratitude--of remembrance. Today's dedication ceremony is the result of the hard work of the members of the Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 53, who first suggested to California State Assemblyman George Nakano the designation of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Highway. Assemblyman Nakano was able to secure the passage of the appropriate state legislation to authorize this designation, while VVA Chapter 53 helped raise the private funding necessary to post signage along the way. I commend the Joint efforts of Assemblyman Nakano and VVA Chapter 5 3 and welcome the inauguration of the Los Angeles County Vietnam Veterans Memorial Highway.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. ILSA is an important part of our commitment to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology to Iran and Libya. I wish I could stand here today and say that sanctions on Iran were no longer necessary. I wish I could say that Iran has responded to diplomatic overtures, halted its weapons programs, or stopped threatening Israel and our other allies in the Middle East. But the reasons why we passed this law five years ago are even more pressing today. While moderate leaders may be gaining power in Iran, reform has yet to reach their foreign policy. In fact, Iran and Libya are both seeking to enhance their capabilities for producing and using weapons of mass destruction. Tehran is intent on bolstering her already significant chemical weapons arsenal and developing nuclear and biological weaponry, while Libya is again openly seeking expertise and technology needed for chemical weapons. In the case of Iran at least, this has led the CIA to conclude that it ``remains one of the most active countries seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction,'' and the State Department to find that it ``remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000.'' Sanctions work best when part of a comprehensive plan to combat proliferation. They require the support of our partners abroad. Sanctions under ILSA are therefore an important tool not simply to increase pressure on Iran but also to encourage Europe and Russia to cooperate with us on nonproliferation and counter-terrorism. While ILSA is often a sore spot in our relations with Europe, the threat of sanctions is getting the job done. When President Clinton waived sanctions against a foreign investment consortium, including Total SA of France and Gazprom of Russia, the EU and Russia promised greater cooperation on counter-terrorism and limiting the transfer of technology to Iran. On a recent delegation to Russia led by Dick Gephardt, I met with members of the Russian Space Agency and found that our programs to counter the proliferation of missile technology are paying off We have invested much time and money in working with the Russian Space Agency on the International Space Station, and the result is that they have also improved cooperation on preventing the sale of missile technology to Iran. We need to expand these joint efforts with the Russians, so that we may begin to make progress in areas where they have not been as cooperative--such as the transfer of nuclear technology. We cannot ease our commitment to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to Iran--we must step up our efforts with passage of ILSA. I await the day when reform in Iran means that they will no longer threaten the United States and Israel. Until then, we must maintain effective, targeted sanctions.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Tim Grimmond, who will be retiring at the end of this month as chief of the El Segundo Police Department. For those of us who have been privileged to call him a friend, Tim's retirement is bittersweet. It's well-deserved, for sure, but for those of us left to fight another day, Tim's departure from the ranks means that we will no longer have the benefit of his perseverance, his insight and expertise, and his leadership in the war against crime. Tim dedicated his life and immense talents to the South Bay. His law enforcement career began at an early age, when he became a cadet in the Hermosa Beach Police Department in 1964. Transferring to the El Segundo Department in 1967, Tim advanced through the ranks, ultimately becoming Chief of Police in 1992--just as I was elected to Congress. How quickly time goes by. In my view, what truly made Tim's tenure as chief unique was his vision in seeing how technology could be used to combat crime--how could be used to give law enforcement and citizens the upper hand in protecting lives, property, the peace and our values. To achieve this goal, Tim understood the importance of developing partnerships between local, state and federal governments. In fact, a success that he and I are particularly proud of is the siting in El Segundo of the Department of Justice's Western Regional Law Enforcement and Technology Center. One of five federal centers nationwide, the Law and Tech Center's role is to research, review, develop, and implement innovative technologies for both regional and national law enforcement and corrections services. With an More recently, I worked with Tim on the issue of radio interoperability. Given the multiplicity of broadcast frequencies and varying radio equipment, it's sometimes seems easier for one police agency to yell out the window to another than to find a common broadcast frequency or compatible equipment. In a region the size and population of Los Angeles County, and with our history of natural disasters, this shouldn't be the case and, under Tim's leadership, we are beginning the process of solving this communications problem. Knowing him as we do, it's easy to believe that Tim is a mentor to many. He is generous in the amount of time and energy he devotes to his profession, to his fellow officers, to civic groups, and to young people. I am honored that he devoted time to me--inviting me to join him and the other South Bay chiefs in learning about the challenges that face law enforcement. Armed with the guidance and advice that Tim and others have given, I am proud to have translated their needs into federal policies supportive of their hard work. Of course, any list of accomplishments doesn't begin to summarize one's life--particularly one as active as Tim's. Indeed, I was surprised recently to learn that Tim is a talented artist. He enjoys the arts of woodworking and painting and one of his watercolors hangs in my Redondo Beach district office. What other hidden talents does he have besides frequenting ``Blackie's House of Beef'' when he's in Washington, DC? I will miss having Tim as one of the police chiefs in the 36th district, but he will forever remain a friend and an inspiration on the true meaning of public service.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge strong support in Congress and the administration for a vital field of medical research. Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research should not be caught up in the abortion debate. As many antichoice proponents have courageously noted, stem cell research is pro-life. It will save lives, not take them. Let me review what we know about stem cell research. First, research using embryonic stem cells is helping us understand and treat not just Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and Alzheimer's, but possibly heart disease, arthritis and cancer. Second, stem cell research is going on today and should be subject to Federal guidelines. Research of the type described in the lead story in today's Washington Post is not permitted under NIH's ethical standards. Third, adult stem cells are not able to develop into as many kinds of tissue as embryonic cells. Fourth, the embryos used in stem cell research would otherwise be destroyed by fertility clinics. Mr. Speaker, if the embryos used in this research are simply discarded, we discard with them the hope of patients across the country and the promise of a new generation of medical cures.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I have been joined by a bipartisan group of, my colleagues in introducing legislation to preserve direct air service between Washington's Reagan-National Airport (DCA) and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). This legislation is necessary because the Department of Transportation (DOT) decided to eliminate this critical service last Friday. Instead of permitting American Airlines, which purchased TWA, to have the TWA slots to continue to fly this route, the Department awarded them to Alaska Airlines, which will use them to start nonstop service between Washington and Seattle. The Department's decision disappointed tens of thousands of Californians and other passengers who have come to rely on this route and its connections to Bakersfield, Fresno, Monterey, Oakland, Palm Springs, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and elsewhere in the state. Without this route, Los Angeles will be the largest U.S. city without non-stop air service to Washington's Reagan-National. In fact, California, the most populous state in the Union, will have no direct connection to DCA. Earlier this year, 57 Members of Congress--including House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt and most Members of the California congressional delegation--wrote the DOT in support of American Airline's efforts to preserve this critical service. The legislation introduced today allows American Airlines to use two existing slot exemptions for service between Washington's Reagan- National and Los Angeles. As such, it does not increase the total number of flights at Washington's Reagan National and permits Alaska Airlines to fly direct to Seattle Mr. Speaker, Californians rely upon nonstop air service between Los Angeles International Airport and Washington's Reagan-National Airport. Without congressional action, this convenient nonstop air service will end in September. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend, Janice Hahn, who will be sworn in this weekend as Councilwoman representing the 15th District of the City of Los Angeles. There are few public servants as well suited as Janice to represent this diverse and unique district, much of which just happens to overlap with my own 36th District congressional seat. A life-long resident of Los Angeles, Janice grew up in a family that honored and respected the notion of public service. Her father, the late Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, brought new meaning to the office of County Supervisor. He worked tirelessly for his constituents, and bestowed this ethic to his daughter, who will now represent many of the same constituents as a member of the Los Angeles City Council. The same ethic was imbued in her brother as well. LA City Attorney Jim Hahn, the incoming mayor of the city of Los Angeles, will also be sworn in this weekend and I also congratulate him. Janice ran a race that emphasized her responsiveness to community concerns and her professional experiences tell why. Janice worked as Director of Community Outreach for Western Waste Industries, Vice President for Prudential Securities in Public Finance, and Public Affairs region manager at Southern California Edison. She also served as an elected member of the Los Angeles City Charter Commission and was the Democratic nominee for Congress in 1998, when she waged a hard- fought and honorable campaign to succeed me in the 36th District. Janice will serve in the outstanding tradition of her father and will continue to make contributions on behalf of her constituents and the city of Los Angeles. I am honored to join her family and friends in wishing her well in her new elective office.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Tarquina Alvarez- Dillard, a constituent who received the 2001 Outstanding Clinician Award from the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. Tarquina has worked for over 25 years at the Women's Health Care Clinic in Torrance, California. This Clinic serves over 14,000 women annually and would not succeed without the commitment of individuals like Tarquina. Following knee surgery in 1996, for example, she returned to the Clinic wearing a cast in order not to fall behind in her work. When a fellow practitioner injured her hand, Tarquina took over that person's breast exams in addition to her own caseload. Her efforts set the standard for dedication. In 1996, Tarquina was the recipient of the ``Unsung Hero Award'' from Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. She was also voted Employee of the Year for 1998 and 1999. Providing women safe and affordable access to health care is among my highest priorities in Congress. While there are actions I can--and do-- take in Congress, their implementation depends on dedicated workers like Tarquina. I am proud to join Tarquina's colleagues and friends in congratulating her on the receipt of this prestigious national award and invite my colleagues to join me in commending her exemplary public service.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the reconciliation conference report. For close to a decade, I have made every hard vote to balance the budget, eliminate the deficit, and reduce our $5 trillion nation debt. I made these votes because they were responsible, and because the alternative for my constituents and future generations was continued economic hardship, high unemployment, high interest rates, high mortgage rates, and a decline in the standard of living that my generation has enjoyed. This is another of those brutally hard choices. I support tax cuts and have recently voted for marriage penalty relief and eventual elimination of the estate tax. I expect to vote for needed tax cuts in the future, including true relief from the AMT, a package of relief for small business, and a permanent research and development tax credit. But none of these important tax cuts is included in today's package. It includes some good features, such as improved pension portability, expanded IRA contributions and marriage penalty relief, but it is riddled with gimmicks and it is backloaded. Taxpayers in my district will be enormously disappointed when they see how little relief they actually get, and learn that, despite promises to the contrary, Social Security and Medicare trust funds are included in budget projections. My family and I would personally benefit from a reduction in the top tax rate. But to their credit, they agree with me that the right vote is not about our personal interest, but about our country's interest. John Kennedy was right. The question is what can I do for my country? And the answer is I can stand for principle and say ``no'' to the easier vote. I hope the Congressional Budget Office re-estimate of our surplus in July is positive. But given current indicators, it is likely to be negative. Should this be the case, the vote we take today will plunge us back into multi-billion dollar annual deficits. I cannot do this. I have risked my political career fighting for fiscal responsibility. The right vote on this package--which emerged after an all-nighter of the 107th Congress--is ``no''. We can write a better tax cut bill and we should.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Lee Amendment, a provision in this bill included by my friend and colleague from California, Barbara Lee. I would like to begin by reminding my colleagues that since 1973, no U.S. dollars have been used to pay for the performance of an abortion as a method of family planning or for involuntary sterilizations overseas--None! The Lee provision does not alter that restriction, but instead restores U.S. support for international family planning organizations. In my view the best way to reduce the number of abortions worldwide, a goal we all share, is to ensure access to family planning. Yet, supporters of the so-called Mexico City policy claim that we must limit all funds to prevent United States dollars from being used in clinics that only inform their patients on the option of abortion--including clinics in countries where abortion is legal. Turning this into a vote about abortion does a disservice to the millions of women throughout the world who do not have access to the health care and reproductive services, education and treatment that women in this country take for granted. Mr. Chairman, I support a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a child. I also recognize that for some women, that choice is about whether or not to give birth to a healthy child. More than 600,000 infants become infected with HIV each year worldwide. That is appalling. How can we possibly claim to be working to prevent the spread of HIV if we do not offer counsel and education in family planning? It seems to me that it is an oxymoron to be both anti- abortion and anti-family planning. Only through family planning efforts can we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies--a result always preferable to abortion. The Lee provision will prevent international family planning groups from being denied lifesaving funds to carry out their work--both in preventing unintended pregnancies and the spread of the deadly HIV/AIDS disease. We have the chance to really make a difference for millions of women worldwide. Let's give women the opportunity to make informed and educated decisions about their reproductive health. Vote for to keep the Lee provision.