Jane Harman

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote Nos. 60 and 61 on H.R. 5, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on both.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to a hero--a young man from my district who should serve as an inspiration to us all. As you know, southern California has been reeling from the ``storm of the century,'' a storm that cascaded more than 8 inches of rain on area neighborhoods during the course of one afternoon. The storm produced extensive flooding, not just through the storm drains and along watercourses, but through neighborhoods and canyons. In the community of San Pedro, a mother and her 5-year-old daughter were caught up in a flood current and swept beneath a car. A young man named Steve Maisner rushed to the scene and retrieved the little girl, quickly administering back blows and chest thrust to restore her breathing. Then, with assistance from the neighbors, Steve pulled the mother, Edith, from under the car. She was not breathing and had no pulse. He would not give up, however, beginning CPR immediately and continuing until the paramedics arrived. I am happy to say that both mother and daughter are home today, thanks to Steve's knowledge and skill. I went to Steve Maisner's home several weeks ago--to thank him on behalf of the community. He was modest about what he had done, and said he hopes to make a career as a paramedic in the fire department. He has certainly proved his skill and courage, and I am proud to commend him for his heroism.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I come to the issues involved in a balanced budget amendment cautiously, mindful that many who support strong deficit reduction, as I do, still oppose amending the Constitution. Like so many other issues we deal with, the considerations are not black or white but, in the words of Bill Joel, ``shades of gray.'' On balance, I vote yes because I believe the tough choices to reduce our $5 trillion debt will not be made without the constitutional requirement to balance receipts and outlays. So I will support the Stenholm-Schaefer amendment as I did in the last Congress. But I will also support for the first time the Barton-Tauzin-Geren amendment to raise the threshold for raising taxes to a supermajority of 60 percent. Constitutional amendments are different from laws or House rules for reasons carefully cited in this debate. But having watched Congress' frequent inability to rein in spending and to face tough choices, I feel that to be effective the amendment must put maximum pressure on us to reduce spending first and that is what raising the tax threshold will do. A related and critical issue is the treatment of Social Security in any budget balancing process. Valid issues about fairness and viability of our Social Security system need to be addressed at a future time, but the Social Security trust fund which is funded by a 15-percent annual flat tax on America's workers must be protected. I support the Wise amendment because it takes Social Security off-budget and support House Concurrent Resolution 17. Let me add two final thoughts. First, by taking clear action today the House is standing up to its responsibility to start the debate. No doubt what we finally do will be further amplified in the Senate, in conference, and in our statehouses. Everyone must participate in the national debate on the best form of the balanced budget amendment, and the blueprint to achieve a balanced budget. Second, deficit reduction cannot wait on ratification of a balanced budget amendment. I will continue to support responsible bipartisan measures to cut spending now--in the interest of my constituents, our children, and our future.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, Representative Lynn Schenk and I were both elected to the 103d Congress from districts hard hit by defense downsizing and the effects of a lingering recession. During her 2 years in this body, Representative Schenk fought time and time again for California's workers and on behalf of California's tourism industry. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue Congresswoman Schenk's efforts to help California's tourism businesses by reintroducing her cruise ship legislation to close a loophole in Federal law through which California loses an estimated $82 million annually. This issue is one of great concern to businesses in Representative Schenk's San Diego district and to those that I represent in San Pedro and on Catalina Island. According to Catalina's Chamber of Commerce, the city of Avalon itself loses $1.5 million annually in canceled port visits because of the existing loophole. Currently under the Federal Johnson Act, a cruise ship that makes an intrastate stop is subject to State law even if that ship travels in international waters and is destined for another State or foreign country. In order to prevent the spread of gambling on the mainland, California currently prohibits gambling on cruise ships which make multiple stops in the State. The legislation which I reintroduce today would allow gambling to continue on internationally bound cruises, and would not cause mainland gambling to uncontrollably expand. My bill would amend the Johnson Act to allow Federal control over voyages that begin and end in the same State as long as those stops are part of a voyage to another State or foreign country which is reached within 3 days of the start of the voyage. The legislation reflects a hard-fought compromise reached last year with Senator Daniel Inouye by explicitly excluding the State of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, the legislation which I offer today will provide a much needed shot-in-the-arm to tourism in California. This issue is by no means partisan. Gov. Pete Wilson enthusiastically supported this legislation last year. On behalf of Representative Schenk, I urge the House to act swiftly in approving this measure.

Ms. HARMAN

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 8 on H.R. 6, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and urge its passage. This measure requires that Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimates in committee reports compare total estimated funding for a program with current spending, so we known what the real increases are. But let's be clear, this is only a change in the numbers that must be used in committee report language. It is not a change in the existing CBO baseline--nor alone will this change actually cut spending. I hope in the coming weeks that the new congressional leadership will bring legislation to the Floor to require the use of an actual year spending baseline. Such a change--which was proposed in the last Congress and received my strong support--could significantly alter our budgeting process and reduce spending by tens-of-billions of dollars. In addition, I hope the new leadership will expedite consideration of other budget process reforms like the Deficit Reduction Lockbox, which can significantly reduce our budget deficit. There may be a change in the partisan numbers in the Congress, but the budget deficit math has not changed. Working together in bipartisan fashion to sustain the recent significant downward reduction of the deficit will be major test of the credibility of this new Congress. That work begins today.